rAjagopAlaH

…

Manu uses the the same sense: +“Prasasitaram sarvesham: the ruler over all”. Here, too, after declaring by the word ‘One’ that Brahman is the material cause of the world, the idea that He alone is the ruler of the world is brought out by the word Advitiya “without a second", which denies the existence of any other ruler. So. what was said (by Svetaketu’s father) means: Did you ask about the One who rules the Universe and who is also its material cause? It is by hearing of Him, by thinking of Him, by knowing Him, (all other things) that have not been heard of, thought of, or known, become heard of, thought of and known". The idea in the mind (of the father)

• Manu: Smriti 12-1-22.
  47
  is this:- “Have you learnt (from your teachers about Brahman who is the ultimate cause of such things as the origin, the welfare and the dissolution of the whole world, who is also omniscient, who has always all objects of desire and who is the ocean of infinite and noble attributes ?”
  NOTE

-Adesa: Sankara looks upon this word as synonymous with Upadesa, ’teaching and that which is taught. It means according to him, Brahman, the subject matter of instruction and not Brahman who is the ruler. If the latter interpretation were accepted, it would imply that Brahmin has attributes, So, he rejects it.
The cause itself is called the effect when it assumes varied and peculiar configurations (samsthana). Therefore, since Brahman is the cause of all, by knowing Brahman, the cause, which has, for its body, sentient and non-sentient things in their subtle state, the whole world, which is the effect, becomes known. Having this (truth) in mind, the father said to his son, “Did you ask about That by hearing of which everything is heard of, by thinking of which everything is thought of and by knowing which everything is known?”.
The son does not understand what is in the father’s mind, namely, that all these things have the same one cause. He thinks that when two things are different from each other, it is not possible to know one of them by knowing the other. So he asks,
“Of what nature, revered sir, is that Adesa?.’
The father being urged in this way proceeds to explain the idea iu his mind. This idea may be stated as follows:- The Supreme Brahman who is characterised by consciousness, bliss and freedom from all imperfections, whose magnificence is infinite, who is possessed of infinite, unsurpassed
and innumerable collections of attributes including omnipotence (satyasamkalpatva) and who is ever the same without change or modification (avikari) has, for His body, sentient and non-sentient things and, by His leela or sportful activity and by His will, assumes, in a part or portion (amsa) of Himself, the configuration of the world with its countless and varied forms consisting of things that move and things that do not move. Hence, by knowing Him (Brahman), all the rest is known. He explains, with the help of an example, what is seen in the world of everyday life, viz., that the effect is none other than the cause.
Nors:-According to Visistadvaita, the world is the body of Brahman. It may be asked what is meant here by the body. The body should not be defined as the seat of movement and of the senses. That substance which is invariably supported and controlled by another and which exists to serve the purposes of that other is the body of that other substance. In this sense the world of inanimate matter and the souls of sentient beings are the body of the Supreme Lord. In Himself there is no change or modification (vikara); changes and modifications occur only in His body as a result of His will.
“In the same way as, by knowing a single lump of mud, my dear, all things made of mud would become known; in order to become fit for the interchange of thoughts in words, modifications and names are attained by mud. The truth is that they are all mud”. (The meaning of the Śruti is as follows): The
The same substance, mud, attains modifications which are of the nature of varied configurations or states, such as pots and dishes, and acquires also varied names, but since all these states are only particular configurations of mud, it is only the substance, mud, that exists in these forms and not any other substance. “In the same way as by knowing a lump of mud, its modifications like
49
dishes which are only particular configurations thereof become known”. This is the meaning.
Thereafter, the son, who does not know how Brahman is the sole cause of the whole world, says, “Revered Sir, kindly explain this to me “. In order to show that Brahman, who is omniscient and omnipotent, is alone the cause of all,】 he (the father) says, “This * was, at first, my dear, only Sat, only One without a second”.
In this passage, “this” refers to the world. “At first” means “before creation”. By (the words) only Sat, (the truth) that the world existed in the form of Sat (its cause) is brought out; even during creation, it is likewise in the from of Sat; but, before creation, the world existing as sat could not be distinguished by names or forms. From this explanation itself, it is clear that sat is the material cause (upadana karana). The word alvitiya (without a second) explains how Brahman alone is the instrumental or operative cause (nimitta karana) and denies the existence of any nimitta karana other than Brahman.
NOTE :-In the case of the pot, mud is called the material cause and the
potter the instrumental cause.
The thought in his mind that the one who governs (or controls) is also the material cause (upadana karana), as implied in the question put at the very beginning, viz., “Did you ask about that Adesa by hearing of which everything else that is unheard of becomes heard of this thought he now explains very clearly; Sat which is itself the material cause and the instrumental cause willed (as follows):-

• Ch. Up. 6-1, 4,
  50
  “I will become the many; I will be born (as the many)”. Chandogya Upanishad: 6-2-3
  The Supreme Brahman Himself, who is referred to in the word Sa’, who is cmniscient and omnipotent and whose purpose is ever realised, willed to become the world with all its diverse and countless beings, sentient and non-sentient, (saying), “I will become the many and, for that purpose. be born as the many”. Though He has all the objects that may be desired, (He willed so) for (His) sport. (Having so determined), He created from a fragment of a part of His, (namely, His body which is an attribute of His), the elements beginning with ether (Akasa). Again the same Supreme Deity denoted by the word Sat willed (as follows):- “Lo! I will enter into these three deities with my body, viz., the individual self and endow them with names and forms”. The Sruti explains, by the “individual self which is my body”, that the individual self has Brahman as its soul; it further shows that all non-sentient things (achit) become entitics only owing to the entrance into them of the individual self which has Brahman as its soul and that only all things that are of this description (achit) acquire names and forms.
  NOTE:-These three deities; - Ether, air and fire, the three elements are called deities here. Water and earth are also referred to by implication.
  NoTK :- Even non-sentient things have, according to Visishatadvaita,
  an element of chit or consciousness, though it is extremely small.
  NOTE-A fragment of a part of His: Before creation, Brahman éxisted with sentient and non-sentient things (chit and achit) in their subtle state, when they could not be distinguished by names or forms. In creation, the substantive part or (visishya) amsa or svarupa of Brahman creates, by its will, from out of the
  ↑ Ch. Up. 6-8,-2.
  51
  attributive part (viseshana amsa), namely, His body consisting of subtle chit and achit, the grosser forms of animate and inanimate things which we now see in the world. What changes or undergoes modifications is the body or the attributive part of Brahman and not its svarupa or substantive part which is unchanging (nirvihara).
  What has been said (so far) means this:- The individual self (Jivatma), being the body of Brahman, is an attribute or mode (prakara) of His and has Brahman as its soul, as is (declared) in another sruti: “He whose body is the self (Jiratma);” things which have the configurations of gods, men and the like, being the bodies of the individual self, are its modes (or attributes) and for that reason, all these have Brahman as their soul. Therefore, all words in familiar use in the world as denoting (things) which are formed by the combination of the root (prakriti) and the termination-(all words) such as god, man, Yakshas, Rakshasa, cow, deer, bird, tree, creeper, wood, stone, grass, pot, cloth. etc., denote, through the things which have the respective configurations implied as their signification, both the individual self presiding over it and the Supreme Self which is the soul (of the individual self).
  NOTE :-According to Ramanuja, when we say Devadatta, we mean not only the bodily configurarion of Devadatta, but also the self or soul of Devadatta and, likewise also, the Supreme Self who is the soul of Devadatta’s soul (which is its body).
  Thus, the world which consists of all the sentient and non-sentient things has Sat as its material cause and Sat as its instrumental cause. Likewise, it has Sat as its support (adhara), and is governed by Sat and exists to subserve the purposes of Sat. All this and the like are explained at length in Śrutis like “These beings (prajas) arise, my
  dear, from Sat their origin, have their being in
  獭
• Chandogya Upanishad: 6-8-6.
  ·
  52
  Sat and are (ultimately) absorbed into Sat.” Having established this, by such means as the relationship between cause and effect, the Sruti: “All this has this (Brahman) as its soul and that alone is real (satyam)” points out that Brahman, being the soul of the whole world. is alone true. Having declared that He alone is the soul of the whole world and that the whole world is His body, the Sruti concludes with the application of the general truth established before that all things have Brahman as their soul to the case of a particular individual self (namely, Svetaketu) by saying “That Thou art”. Therefore, this mode or individual self signified by the word ‘Thou’ is also Brahman”. What has been said means this:- When it is said “All this has this as its soul”, by (the phrase) ‘all this,’ the world consisting of sentient and non-sentient things is referred to and it is declared (by the Sruti) that of this world, this (viz., Brahman) is the soul. In relation to the world, Brahman is explained to be the soul”. This is the meaning.
  We should consider what (exactly) is meant by Brahmatmakatvam or having Brahman as its atma or soul. “Is it because of the relationship that exists between soul and body or is it identity of nature? If (it is said that it is due to) identity (of the world and Brahman) that the qualities of Brahman implied at the beginning, such as everrealised purpose or will, in the text, “It willed that It would become the many and be born” would become * contradicted (or sublated). That the world has Brahman as its soul owing to the relationship (between the two) of body and soul is understood specifically from another sruti, viz., Having
  NOTE:- contradicted because neither non-sentient things nor sentient
  things in the world have such qualities.
  53
  entered within as the ruler, He is the soul of all persons”. From this, it is specifically understood that Brahman is the soul or self of all, that He is the soul of all persons and that everything is His body. (Further), there is another sruti which says: “He *
  who stands in the soul (of the Jiva) and is within the soul, of whom the soul is not aware, to whom the soul is the body and who controls the soul, He is thy soul, the Inner Ruler, who is immortal.”
  Here (in the present context) also, by the phrase “by means of the individual self who is my body”, the same is meant as has already been stated. Therefore, since all sentient and non-sentient things are the body of Brahman, Brahman who has everything for His body and everything as His attribute (prakara) is also signified by all words. “That (art) Thou” by this co-ordination, only Brahman which has the individual self as its body and, likewise, the individual self as its attribute is signified. When it is stated in this manner, this is understood to be the purport: He (i. e, the individual self) who is at first understood from the word “Thou
  as the presiding spirit in the body is himself the body of the Supreme Self and the attribute of the Supreme Self; he is sustained by the. Supreme Self and is unable to exist and act apart (from the Supreme Self). Hence, the word ‘Thou’ signifies the Inner Ruler who has ’thee’ as His attribute. In the Sruti “I will enter through the individual self who is my body and endow (all things) with names and forms”, the individual self, who has a body of his own, acquires his name only by being the body of Brahman.
  In the co-ordination or grammatical apposition (Samanadhikaranya) between “That”
  between “That” and ‘Thou
• Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. Antaryami Brahmanan.
  754
  (in “That art Thou”), the two words refer only to Brahman. Of the two, the word ‘That’ signifies Brahman, the ultimate cause of the world, the treasure-bouse of all auspicious qualities, free from all imperfections and changeless. The word ‘Thou’ refers to the same Brahman who has the individual self, which is His body, as His attribute by being the Inner Ruler of the Individual self. Thus, the two words ‘That’ and ‘Thou’ refer to the same Brahman by the difference in their meanings. Brahman’s being free from imperfection and from all change (or modification), His being the treasure-house of all auspicious qualities and His being the cause of the world are not contradicted (or affected in any way).
  NOTE: Co-ordination or samanadhikaranyana.
  Sankara holds that
  the co-ordination in That art Thou’ means only identity or oneness of the Jiva and Brahman. Ramanuja contends that there is co-ordination or grammatical apposition only when two words having different meanings apply to the same thing and not when they signify their identity.
  Those persons who have not studied Vedanta do not realise that all non-sentient things and all individual selves have Brahman as their soul. They think that the signification of all words is confined only to the respective objects which are (only) a portion of what is expressible by them. Those who have studied Vedanta are, on the other hand, aware, as a result of their study of Vedantic texts, that, since all things are created out of Brahman and have Brahman as their Inner Ruler, they have Brahman as their soul and that all words signify Brahman who has all things as His (modes or attributes) (prakara).
  (It may be asked), “Well, if so, the significance of words like ‘cow’ as denoting the respective object (commonly understood in ordinary life) will be
  55
  affected adversely.” It is not so. When it is stated, “I will endow them with names and forms”, it means that all words are expressive of (signify) Brahman who has for His attributes chit and achit. Since the Supreme Being, who is the primary part of the signification of a word, is not capable of being understood by such means as perception (pratyaksha), laymen who use the word think that its signification becomes complete in what is only a part (and that a secondary part) of the signification. By the study of Vedanta, the knowledge of the signification becomes complete. Thus all words employed in the Veda point to their respective meanings ending with the Supreme Being.
  Being. All words are only Vedio. After creating all things as before (as in previous creations, the Supreme Brahman took the words. again and again from the Veda and employed them as names to denote those things, as also their ultimate (soul) viz., the Supreme Being.
  So says Manu:-
  “He (the Supreme Being) created the names of all things, their varied activities and also their specific forms (samstha) from the words in the Veda”.
  The word samstha (in the sloka) means ‘forms’ or configurations. Likewise Bhagavan Parasara says:- “He, the Supreme Being, established, at the beginning, the names and forms of all beings such as gods and all activities only from the words in the Vedas.”
  So also the Sruti :- “The
  Supreme Being
  created the sun and the moon as before “.

• Manu Smriti: 1, 20..
  § Vishnu Puranam: 1,5, 63.
  Taittiriya 1 (Anuvaka).
  The
  56
  meaning is “Having created the sun and the like as before, he gave them also names as before”.
  In this way is explained the statement that the world is none other than Brahman. From this, it is clearly understood how by knowing the One, all things become known. Since all things are the effects (or modifications) arising out of Brahman, they are real, only in so far as they have Brahman as their soul and in no other way. That is why it was said, “That is truth (Reality)” in the same way as in the illustrative example, all modifications arising out of mud are true only in so far as they are mud.
  •
  NOTE:-Among the passages in the Upanishads that refer to Brahman, some are called “causation texts’ (Karana Vakya). One such is the passage which begins with Sat alone, my dear, existed at the beginning. It willed to become many’. Other passages explain the nature of Brahman, who is the cause of the world. These are called ’ clarifying texts’ (sodhaka vakya). An instance of this is the text in the Taittiriya Upanishad which describes Brahman as Reality, Consciousness and Infiniteness.
  Hitherto, Ramanuja has been discussing the real significance of the ‘causation texts. He now proceeds to examine, in the same way, the real import of the clarifying texts.
  The clarifying texts also make the nature of the Supreme Brahman clear (by describing Him) as free from faults (or imperfections) and as the treasurehouse of all good qualities.
  Even if the words (truth, consciousness and infiniteness) are understood as signifying the opposite of all (those) qualities, since difference, attribute, or particularity cannot be avoided in deciding the oppositeness to the respective quality, a thing which has no difference or particularity (bheda) cannot be proved as existing.
  57
  NOTE:-From now on, Ramanuja seeks to show that Brahman which is stated by Advaitins to be without any attribute, difference or particularity (bheda) cannot be proved to exist as such.
  Notes:-
  •
  The words Ramanuja has in mind and does not state are those in the clarifying passage, “Brahman is Truth (satyam) (Reality), consciousness (jnana) and infiniteness (anantam) in the Taittiriya Upanishad. What do these words mean? Advaitins who deny difference, particularity or any positive attribute in Brahman explain the words thus. Brahman is said to be Truth or Reality, It means that Brahman is other than the untrue or unreal. Brahman is the non-existence of unreality. When Brahman is said to be Jnana, the meaning is that it is other than the unconscious. Infiniteness means the opposite of finiteness or non-existence of finiteness. These three words do not, according to them, mean three different qualities or even three different aspects of Brahman. They refer only to the nonexistence of three things and therefore signify only the same unity. The absence of a pot, the absence of a cloth, the absence of a dish and so on, do not signify three or more positive entities but only a single unity. Ramanuja presumes that the reader knows the Sruti and the meaning given to the passage by Advaitins and proceeds to criticise their interpretation.
  Advaitins say that these three words, “Truth, consciousness and infiniteness” should not be interpreted as three different qualities relating to Brahman. Their reason is that if there are three different adjectives or attributes to a substantive, they would mean three different objects possessing these respective qualities. They cite, as an example, the phrase “the cow with broken horns, without horns and with horns intact”. These three attributes would imply three different cows and not a single cow. So also, if truth, consciousness and infiniteness are taken as three positive attributes of Brahman, the unity of Brahman would be impossible. Ramanuja’s answer to this objection is as follows: It is only if the three attributes are opposed to one another, as in the example cited by the Advaitins, that the substantive will have to be three entities. But, if there is no mutual incompatibility among the attributes, the unity would not be affected. For example, if it is said “The young, dark-complexioned, redeyed Devadatta”, the single Devadatta may have all the three attributes, as they do not contradict one another,
  The Advaitins might raise the following objection:- Well, when it is declared that Brahman is
  58
  mere knowledge (or consciousness), the conclusion is inevitable that it has no attributes or particularities like knowledge. (It cannot therefore be stated that Brahman who is knowledge possesses knowledge as a quality. How can knowledge, which is Brahman, be said to possess knowledge as an attribute?).

(This objection does not hold good). Words denoting attributes and which distinguish an object signify also the object through the attributes (as is seen in words like ‘cow’. So, the author of the Sutras says: “Since it possesses that quality as its essence (viz. knowledge), it (the Atman) is called by that name as in the case of the Prajna.” Since Brahman who is referred to as ‘Prajna.’ (the wise one), Brahman, the wise, He who knows all and sees all, the one who knows all is alone called “Truth, knowledge and infiniteness”, because He has knowledge as His essential quality. The Sutrakara says also, “This is not improper as (the quality in question) lasts as long as the self exists”, By the attribute ‘knowledge’, Brahman’s nature is also indicated. Brahman is mere knowledge of knowing). If it is asked, the answer is that it is learnt from hundreds of Vedic texts like the following:- “He who knows all and sees whatever is in all” and such others as indicato Brahman as the knower, “His might is declared to be supreme and varied and His knowledge, strength and action are natural to him;” “By 3 what means
It does not mean that (without the attribute “How is this learnt?’
2
1
can one know the knower?”. Since knowledge is

• Brahma Sutras: 2-3-29,

• Brahma Sutras: 2-3-30.
  1 Mundaka Upanishad: 1-1-9.
  2 Svetasvatara Upanishad: 6-8.
  $
  Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: 4-4-14.
  59
  only an attribute, it cannot be proved to be also a thing. Therefore the words truth, knowledge and infiniteness denote only Brahman who is qualified by attributes like knowledge signified by these words.
  Note:-Prajna (or Brahman) is called ananda or bliss because bliss is an
  essential attribute of His,
  The meaning of Samanadhikaranyam or co-ordination as in Tat Tvam Asi (That Thou Art.)
  Nota-So far Ramanuja has been arguing that the Srutis give plenty of evidence for a Brahman with attributes, a Brahman that knows and not a Brahman without any attributes, a Brahman that is mere consciousness which is conscious of nothing. He now points out that grammatical co-ordination or apposition (samanadhikaranya) as understood by grammarians agrees only with his interpretation of Tat Tvam Asi “That Thou Art as given on page 54 and that the Advaitic interpretation is unwarranted).
  "
  If it is said that, in “That Thou art”, the two words, That and “Thou’ lose their primary meaning and declare only the pure object (without any adjuncts or attributes), there will also be the fault of ignoring the primary (or direct) meanings. The Advaitin might say, “Since the aim of the sentences is only to show that the two are one, the indirect interpretation or (figurative interpretation) of the word (lakshana) is no fault. For example, in the statement “This is that Devadatta”, the word “that” denotes Devadatta related to a particular place and a particular time and the word ’this’ Devadatta related to a place close by and the present time; the unity or oneness of Devadatta is thereby indicated. Here, it is impossible that the same (person) should simultaneously appear to be related to places
  80
  and times opposed to one another. Therefore the two words establish only the mere object “Devadatta” and its oneness. But this argument of the Advaitin cannot be accepted. Even in the statement, “This is that Davadatta”, there is no trace of indirect signification (lakshana), as there is no objection to the (primary and) direct meaning being taken. There is no inconsistency in the same object (or person) being related to two actions, one in the past and another in the present. In the decalaration that the object which is related to a past action and to a present is only one, there is no absurdity (or objection), as the object’s existence in another place was in the past and its existence in the immediate neighbourhood is in the present. The opposition betwen the past and the present is removed by the difference in the time. Even if indirect signification is admitted to exist, the opposition is removed by the indirect signification being taken of one only (of the two words). But, we maintain that there is no indirect signification at all (in it), since what was connected with one place in the past may, without any contradiction, be connected with a different place at present. In the same manner, here also, it has been pointed out that there is no contradiction (or inconsistency) in the Supreme Brahman, who is the cause of the world, being also the soul of the Jiva or the individual self as his inner ruler. By grammatical co-ordination is understood only the identity of two things with their respective attributes as they are, and not bare identity which is arrived at by ignoring them (viz. the attributes). Those who know the meaning of grammatical co-ordination declare that it exists, when words expressive of different meanings apply to the same object. It is this kind of identity that is proved by us.
  61
  Note:-When we say “the Emperor Asoka”, there is grammatical coordination or apposition between the words ‘Emperor’ and * Asoka”. The two words have different meanings,
  “the one who was an Emperor” and the one whose name was Asoka. These two attributes meet in the same individual, when there is grammatical co-ordination (samanadhikaranya).
  Further, it is not proper to determine the purport of the sentence occurring at the end (of the context) in a manner different from (or opposed to) what is said at the beginning. For, at the beginning by (the text), “It willed to become many”, and other texts, Brahman’s will being ever realised and (His) being the sole cause of the world are declared. And opposed to this is (the doctrine) that Brahman is the seat of Avidya (or nescience or ignorance).
  Note:-Advaitios hold the view that Brahman is pure consciousness without any difference or particularity or attribute and that it sees the manifold world appearing illusorily over itself owing to its contact with avidya.
  Moreover, sabda, verbal testimony
  testimony (Sruti), obtains its validity as the result of words signifying different meanings and of sentences signifying the relation between these meanings. Therefore Sabda or (Sruti) is incapable of signifying objects without differences (or particularities) and cannot be the authority for the existence of an object without particularities (nirvisesha vastu).

… 8
62
Nōtë;-Among the sources of valid knowledge (pramana), the following are important;-Sense perception (pratyaksha), inference (anumana), and sabda (verbal testimony) (i. e.) the words of one whose reliability is unquestioned. Advaitins who speak of Brahman as something without particularities or attributes rely on the authority of sabda or Sruti which they consider superior to sense perception in its validity. This explains the relevancy of Ramanuja’s argument given above.
It might be (said by the Advaitins). “We do not say that sabda, verbal testimony or Scripture, is the authority for the existence of a self-luminous thing which has no particularities. A thing whose existence is self-established (svatas siddha) does not require any (proof or) authority. By all the texts (in the Srutis), all attributes or particularities that appear illusorily on Brahman, such as being a knower, are denied. When all particularities disappear, the thing in itself (Brahman) unrelated (to any attribute) and self-luminous stands by itself”.
But this cannot be. By what word is this thing (Brahman) indicated when its (attributes) or particularities are denied?. If it is said ‘By the word Jnapti or knowledge’, it cannot stand (to reason). That (word), too, relates to a thing with particularities or attributes as particularities are denoted by the base and the termination (prakriti and pratyaya). (The root) Jna means “to know”. It implies an object (that is known) and a subject or agent (that knows) and denotes also a special kind of action (kriya) which has the particularity of distinguishing it (or marking it off) from other actions. By the termination, the gender, the number (singular, dual or plural) and the like are indicated. If these particularities given above are ignored, the self-luminous nature of Brahman cannot be proved, for it is by its power of illuminating other things that the selfluminosity of Jnapti (Brahman) is established.
63
Note:-We infer that a thing is self-luminous from the fact of its being the cause of illuminating other things by its relation to them. ‘Illuminating’ means making them fit to be talked about.
Furthermore, if the whole of Brahman shines for ever, and by itself, no false super-imposition of illusory attributes would be possible in it. While the nature of the rope shines (as such), no illusory attributes can be superimposed on it. That is just the reason why you postulate an avidya (ignorance or nescience) which conceals or obscures (Brahman); hence, that phase (amsa) of Brahman which has been obscured is the scope (or aim) of the corrective or rectifying knowledge found in the scripture. Otherwise, there would be no manifestation of corrective power in it.
The (illusion) of ‘serpentness’ disappears when the ‘ropeness’ which is other than the rope (and is in the rope), shines. If a single attribute or particularity (visesha) viz., its being capable of being obscured or concealed is expressed in sabda or verbal testimony (Sruti), then it would become possible for Brahman to be qualified by all the attributes assigned to it in all the texts of the Veda. So, to those who feel bound by the authority of the pramanas (valid sources of knowledge), there is no proof of any kind for the existence of the thing without particularities or attributes.
Note:-Adhyasa or superimposition occurs when, on seeing a rope lying on the ground, the illusion that it is a serpent occurs owing to some resemblances between the rope and the serpent.
·
serpentness is said to be falsely imposed on the
The serpent or
rope.
Note:—Advaitins hold that Brahman is the only reality and that the world of sentient and not-sentient things is an illusion or (adhyasa) super-imposed on Brahman owing to the obscuration brought › about by avidya. If this avidya or ignorance is removed or dispelled by the corrective knowledge afforded by the Sastras, avidya and its obscuration do not exist and Brahman shines Dalone. Ramanuja asks,” Is it your view that the whole of Brahman, which is self-luminous. is concealed by auldys or only64
a part of it? If you say
’the whole of it it would then mean that Brahman ceases to exist. If yon hold that a part of it is obscured and the rest shines, then Brahman must be considered to have parts (or avayava) and this would mean Brahman with particularities like parts (savisesha). If Brahman shines always, then there would be no possibility of illusory appearan. ces. When the rope is seen as such, no one would mistake it for a serpent.
Note:- Advaitins maintain that there are three orders or degrees of reality. When a rope is mistaken for a serpent, the mind or (antakkarana) projects for the time being an external serpent which is later sublated. This they call pratibhasika satya. The world is itself a similar projection but it will last until the end of the cosmic process. This they cali vyavaharika satya. In mukti, the world disappears and only Brahman shines alone and without a second; the reality of Brahman is paramarthika satya.
Even in indeterminate perception (nirvikalpaka pratyaksha), the object (always) appears as possessed of attributes. Otherwise, in the determinate perception (savikalpaka pratyaksha) (that follows), an object would not appear to be that which was seen before (as when we say) “This is that.” ‘Cowness’ (or the distinctive nature of the cow) has the character of a specific or special configuration of the object. Therefore, even at the time of indeterminate perception, the object possessing that configuration appears to us as “of this form.’ In the second and other later appearances of the object, the same configuration appears to exist also in many other objects. What is peculiar to the second and later perceptions is that the feature which is characterised by the configuration is seen to persist in more objects than one and 80 is an attribute of more objects than one. Therefore, the second and other perceptions are called determinate perceptions.
Note: So far Ramanuja stated that verbal testimony or scripture does not support the existence of an object without attributes. He now states that the existence of such an object is not evidenced by perception (pratyaksha).
65
For the same reason (viz) that, even in indeterminate perception, the object is perceived only with its attributes. the Bhedabheda view (held by Bhaskara and Yadavaprakasa) that the same object has a two-fold nature, being both different and non-different (from others) stands refuted. The configuration (samsthana) is an attribute (prakara) of the object possessing the configuration (or outline) and is therefore different entity from the prakarin or object which has the attribute. But, since it is an essential or inseparable attribute, it cannot stand apart from the object and is also incapable of being perceived separately, From these two causes, the object should not be considered as being twofold in nature (bhinnabhinna).
a
NOTE:-All along the author has been criticising the doctrines of Advaitins. In this paragraph, he points out that his refutation of the doctrine of indeterminate perception held by Advaitins is enough also to disprove the main doctrine of the Bhadabheda thinkers,
NOTE;-Advaiting hold that, in the first or indeterminate perception, the attributes of an object are not perceived. The perception is only of the nature of an ‘is’ without any distinguishing feature or attribute. They maintain that the perception is only of asti or existenee and that the particularity such as pot, cloth, etc.. is illusory.
NOTE :-Bhaskara and Yadavaprakasa reason as follows:-Experience shows that all objects are perceived both as different and as nondifferent. The cow appears different from the horse, but in as much as both are beasts, they are also non-different. Therefore both cows and horses are different and not different. Again between the material cause and the effect (what is made out of it), there is both difference and non-difference. The pot appears different from the mud, but we also say that the pot is mud. The two are equated and this would be possible only if there were no difference.
Õ་
NOTE: They argue further —It is not possible to perceive the individua).
without, at the same time, perceiving the genus (jati) to which it belongs. The two are always seen together. So, there is
66
both difference and non-difference between an individual object (vyakti) and the genus (jati) to which it belongs. Further, the same word denotes both the individual (vyakti) and the genus (jati). When we say “the cow”, it refers to the cow with horas, the cow without horns, and the cow with broken horns, while it denotes also the genus ‘cow’. So, the individual and the genus are both different and non-different.
Ramanuja’s answer is that because the same word expresses both the individual and the geous, it does not follow that there is no difference between them. It only shows that the genus or configuration (samsihana) is an attribute inseparable from the individual (vyakti) and not that the attribute is the same as the object possessing the attribute.
Resumption of the arguments against Advaita.
Again, he who maintaines the existence of an object without attributes (Brahman) and says that all illusory appearances which conceal the self-luminous object (Brahman) are rejected (as false) by all the texts of the Veda, should state what these texts are that
that reject them. They might quote the Sruti *“Modification and name like ‘pot’ and ‘dish’ are only for the purpose of speech, the mud alone is real”, and say that, since modification and name are only in speech, the mere substance that is seen there as the material cause-that alone is true (real) and the rest are untrue (unreal). If it is said that this is what the Vedic text says, it cannot be considered as convincing. When it is declared that when One is known, all become known,” Svetaketu does not think it possible that, by knowing one thing, another thing could be known. (It is to explain to him how this is possible that the guru answers). If the same substance exists in varied but real (and true) states, owing to specific modifications and the like, when one thing is known, though
Chand. Up, 6-1-4………….
*
name when it
67
it has acquired configurations different from it. it remains the same substance and may therefore be stated to be known as well. It is to explain this that the example (of the mud) is employed. In this passage, there is no word at all denying any attribute. * Vacharambhanam:- vacha - by speech or for a purpose, arabhyate is arambhanam. Mud which exists in the form of a lump has a certain and a certain usefulness. The same mud, exists in the state of pot, dish and the like, has different names and different uses. In spite of this. the substance, mud, is the same in all. By different configurations and different names, mud is touched for different purposes (or uses). Therefore, this alone is the true (meaning). By this illustration), the possibility of knowing one thing by knowing another is brought out. No attribute or (particularity) of any kind has been rejected or (denied) here. This has already been explained at length.
Besides, if, by passages like, “By hearing of which, what is unheard of becomes heard”, it is declared that everything except Brahman is illusory, then the illustrative example like “just as, my dear, by one lump of mud” will be of no use. because the illusoriness of modifications, pot, dish and the like, is not, like the illusion of the serpent in the rope, previously known to Svetaketu, the disciple, either by reason or by any other valid source of knowledge. If it is said (by the Advaitins) that even the illusoriness of pot, dish and the like is sought to be proved thereby, the introduction (of them) as examples by the use of the word “just as” would be improper (for it would be proper only on the assumption that Svetaketu was already aware of it).
Chand. Up, 6-1-4.
69
(kinds of) power is not inconceivable. So. the phrase “without a second” denies the existence of any other instrumental cause or agent. It is only because Brahman is omnipotent that some Vedio passages first declare Him to be the
to be the material cause and then state that He is also the instrumental cause or agent as this Sruti does. Other Vedic passages, having first admitted Brahman’s being the instrumental cause, ask how he could (at the same time) be the material cause and the like. They answer (the question) by saying that, owing to his possession of all forms of power, Brahman can be the material cause and also other accessory aids (required for the production of the effect). (Consider) this text “O Sages., with what trees did He build up the sky and the earth? Where was the forest from which the trees were brought? Does it not support the world and remain as its controller? Is it this question that you ask? Brahman is the forest. Brahman is the tree (timber) for the construction of the sky and the earth. I tell you, in reply, that He supports the world and controls it.” Here having raised a possible cbjection from what is commonly seen, the objection is removed on the ground of Brahman’s being different from all else. So also in the passage, “This, my dear, existed only as sat,” many attributes or particular features (Viseshas) like ‘at first’ are indicated. There is not a single word expressive of denial of attributes, which Advaitins favour. On the other hand, to explain the causal relation between Brahman and the world, the Srutis indicate thousands of attributes (or particular features), unknown before, like the existense of a particular time, as in the
*Ashtaka II, Prasna VIII, Anuvaka VII, Pan. VIII.
9
70
words ‘at first,’ a specific kind of action as in the word “was”, Brahman’s being both the material cause and the instrumental cause and so also, by the answer to the objection that the instrumental cause is (usually) different from the material cause, Brahman’s possession of omnipotence.
It is because this (passage) aims at explaining the truth or (reality) of the causal relationship existing between Brahman and the world, that the view that the effect arises without a cause (asat karya vada) is refuted in the passage beginning with “This, at first, was non’-existent.” The question follows, “How could this be ‘so, my dear?” The meaning is “The origin of a thing from that which did not exist before is impossible, as there would be no basis or sub-strate.” The same is
explained again in “How could a thing that really exists arise from something that has no real existence?”. What arises from a thing that does not really exist must also be unreal, in the same way as a thing that is made of mud has the qualities of mud. This is the meaning. The words, ‘origin from sať, mean the association (of sat) with a special state or condition which renders it fit for certain specific purposes (vyavahara).
What has been said (so far) comes to thisThe same substance which, at first, was the cause, and later became associated with a different state or condition-the same substance is said to be the effect. The truth that is sought to be explained (in the context of sadvidya is that, by knowing one (thing), all (things) become known. This would be impossible on the view that the effect did not exist before (in the cause) asat karaya vada and for the following reason:-
1 Chand-Up. 6—2—1. * Chand-Up. 6-—2—2.
71
The asat karya vadins (the Vaiseshikas) state that there are three kinds of causes: the instrumental cause (Nimitta karana), the material cause (samavayi karana) and (asamavayi karana) the action which produces the effect or result. From these three, they say that a new substance dravya with the name of a composite or a whole consisting of parts (avayaram) is produced as effect. It would follow (on this view) that the effect is different from the cause. If so, by a knowledge of the cause, a knowledge of the effect could not result. (The Vaiseshikas) might ask, “How can you deny that the effect which is a composite or whole consisting of parts is a new substance?”. The answer is (as follows):- “That the effect is a new substance is denied on two grounds.
What you
call a new substance is the same substance which has acquired a new state or condition. The same substance, having acquired a new state or condition, is called by a new name and serves a different purpose. There is no need to postulate a new substance, as we do not see a new substance. Therefore, it has been stated that the cause itself is called an effect, when it has acquired a new state or condition.”
NOTE:-The Vaiseshikas argue as follows ;- When a pot has to be
produced as an effect, three kinds of causes or antecedents are necessary; - (1) the potter, his wheel, stick, etc. These are called nimitta karana or instrumental cause, (2) mud, the material cause or ( samavayi karana) and (3) the action (asamavayi karana) by which the potsherds unite to become the pot. They hold that the final result or karya is different as substance from the mud as well as the potsherds.
•
NOTE: The relevancy of Ramanuja’s argument in the paragraph given above may not be clear at first sight. He maintains that the Vedic text, “This, my dear, had, at first, no existence” states the view of the Vaiseshikas that the effect, namely, the world, had no previous existence and that, in the process of creation, Iswara created it anew. Ramanuja states that the refutation of
72
this view which follows in the Sruti shows that the whole context is a statement of the doctrine of asatkrya vada held by the Vaiseshikas and a refutation of it by the Sruti itself.
NOTE:-Sankara, on the other hand, is of opinion that the passage in question is a statement of the doctrine of the Madhyamika school of Buddhists. They maintain that whatever exists is only momentary (kshanika) and do not accept the view of the Advaitins that sat is the Reality which is eternal and that all momentary or other illusory appearances cannot occur unless there is a permanent and real substrate. Advaitins think that, without a real and permanent substrate like rope, no illusion such as of serpent can take place. So, Sankara and his followers consider that the Sruti is here refuting not the Vaiseshikas, (as Ramanuja thinks), but the Madhyamikas, who deny the existence of any permanent or eternal reality such as Brahman, All this knowledge is presumed as known for the discussion which follows in the text of Vedarthasangraha.
The Advaitin might here object and say:- The Sruti here refutes asatkaryavada or the doctrine that the effect did not exist before in the cause (or as the cause), in order to show that no illusion can take place without a substrate or basis. For, so it is. The single Reality (Brahman), which is consciousness, when shadowed by avidya (ignorance or nescience), is illusorily seen as the world. This avidya requires, for its association or shadowing, some thing that is real as the ultimate cause. This view must be accepted and (it would follow therefrom) that the passage in question refutes the view that there is no such ultimate and real cause as Brahman. This objection of the Advaitins is not valid. The proposition that, by the knowledge of one, all things become known and the illustrative example of mud show that the aim (of this context, sad vidya) is to prove satkaryavada (i. e.) that the effect existed before as the cause and does not arise as a new substance. Further, it is not possible, on the view of Advaitins, to refute the Madhyamika doctrine that no permanent
73
substrate or basis is necessary for the occurrence of an illusion. He who holds that the defect in a conscious being is real and that this defect is associated with some thing that is also real-for him, illusory appearances like the city of the Gandarvas, mirage etc, are easy to explain. But, he who considers that the defect (in perception) is unreal and that the mind which has this defect is also unreal, may well admit that, even when the substrate or basis is unreal, illusions might take place. Therefore, in the Advaitic system, it is impossible to disprove the occurrence of illusions without a (real or permanent) substrate. In the clarificatory passages also, like “Brahman is the true, the conscious, the infinite” and *“Brahman is bliss (ananda),” it has already been pointed out that only a Brahman with all manner of attributes is referred to, since the purport of grainmatical apposition (samanadhikaranya) is not opposed to the indication of a single object qualified by more attributes than one.
(The Advaitin) might say:- In the text “Then (comes) the instruction not so, not so. †(neti neti),” there is a repeated denial (of the world). (We ask): What is denied here must be stated. The Advaitin might reply:- “Brahman has two forms, tangible and intangible” “The world of two kinds-that with (a visible material form (like earth and water) and that with an (invisible) intangible form like air, ether, etc.) is all denied here as existing”. (We answer), “Having explained what was previously not known as His form viz., that the world is the form of Brahman, it would be improper (for the Sruti, immediately afterwards, to deny it (as existing). “Better not to touch mire
Taittiriya Br. 6. + Br-Up 4-3-6. Br-Up 4-3-6.
74
at all than to wash it off after getting smeared with it” says the proverb. What. then, it might be asked, is the meaning of the negative sentence? The author of the Brahma Sutras has himself stated the meaning (in 3-2-21). “The denial is only of the possibility of limiting Brahman’s nature to the two forms stated before in the context. Therefore, the Sruti, after this denial of limitation in two forms, proceeds again to state (a number of Brahman’s qualities). Immediately after the sentence neti neti, the Sruti says, ““His name is the True of the True, the individual souls are true and He (Brahman) is the True, more true than they”. Since, in this way a number of attributes are declared of Brahman, it is only the limiting of Brahman to what has been already stated that is objected to (and not attributes). This is the meaning of the Sutra.
The Advaitin might say (neha nanasti kinchana). “There is no such thing as plurality (or the manifold) here. In this and other Vedic sentences, the denial of plurality alone is seen.” If it is stated so, we answer:- “Here also, immediately afterwards, the Sruti says, “He has all under His power, He rules over all.” This brings out Brahman’s irresistible will and lordship over all. The passage in question therefore means, “Iswara has all things, sentient and non-sentient as his body and is seen in all modes (or prakaras). He is the Lord of all.” What is denied here is the existence of anything other than those that have Brahman as their soul and not the plurality that Advaitins have in mind. This is the real meaning
Br. Up. 4-8-6. Br. Up. 6-4-19. Br. Up. 6-4-22,75
of all such Srutis. Therefore, nowhere do we find any Sruti which denies Brahman’s being qualified with attributes.
Here ends the argument that the doctrine of Brahman’s association with ignorance is against the spirit of the Srutis.
The argument
that Brahman’s association with ignorance is also against reason.
Further, the contention of the Advaitins that Brahman is pure consciousness without any attributes (or particularising features) and that, its real nature being concealed by avidya (ignorance or nescience), Brahman sees plurality imposed on it (illusorily), this contention is untenable. Concealment means obstruction to luminosity. You do not admit that Brahman, which is consciousness (light or luminosity,) has any attribute called luminosity other than itself. If (you say) that there is obstruction or concealment of luminosity which is (Brahman), it would mean that Brahman itself ceases to exist. To say that consciousness (Brahman), which is a synonym for luminosity, is eternal and, at the same time, to say that this luminosity is concealed by avidya is childish, (because it would be making contradictory statements.). When it is said that luminosity is concealed by avidya, it should mean (one of two things)-obstruction to the origination (utpatti) of luminosity or (obscuration or) destruction of already existing luminosity. Since (it is held) that luminosity is not a thing which has been newly created, it would follow that luminosity already existing perishes. (How then could it be said to be
76
eternal?). If, on the other hand, it is maintained that luminosity is eternal and unchanging, nothing could be said to be concealed in Brahman by avidya, even though the latter exists. To say that, owing to avidya, Brahman suffers obscuration and sees plurality is inconsistent. This position of the Advaitin is indeed inexpressible, anirvachaniya, (not worth putting forward) in the presence of thinking men.
Nors-Advaitins say that avidya is neither an existent like Brahman nor a non-existent like the flower in the sky, but a thing that has an inexplicable or inexpressible (anirvachaniya) existence, Ramanuja uses the word here in a different sense, meaning that their position is indeed indefensible.
But, sir, the Advaitin might say, “You have also to postulate a self whose nature is knowledge or consciousness and state that this consciousness is self-luminous. When this self imagines that it is a god and the like, it will have to be admitted (by you alsɔ) that this self-luminosity undergoes obscuration, for if there is self-luminosity, it would be impossible to imagine the super-imposition on itself of any other form (like that of god, man and the like). Therefore, the untenability that you have pointed out in our doctrine is common to you also. Furthermore, the untenability pointed out by you against us is only in relation to a single self (viz., Brahman), whereas, since you postulate an infinity of souls (the jivatmas or individual souls), this untenability will, in your case, have to be disproved in all of them”.
To this we reply, “There is nothing difficult for us to prove since we believe that the aim of Vedanta is a knowledge of God or Brahman, that Brahman is, by nature, free from all imperfections, that He is solely of the nature of knowledge and bliss, that He is the abode, by nature, of bound-
77
less, unsurpassed, and innumerable noble qualities; that Brahman has two regions of magnificence (vibhuti), that of these two, one (nitya vibhuti) is infinite and untouched by the modifications or changes due to time which is the accessory (nimitta) cause of all modifications like the origin, continuance and perishing of all material things, (Prakrita)-time which is subject to modifications like nimesha, kashta, kala, muhurtha and other measures extending up to parardha, that the other region of magnificence (lila vibhuti) consists of infinite sentient beings, bound and free (baddha and mukta), who are parts of Himself and, likewise, of all nonsentient things which are subject to infinite, wonderful and varied changes and which form the objects of enjoyment for the sentient beings, that Brahman has all these as accessories for His sportful activity (Lila); and that by being the inner ruler or controller within them, He has all things as His body and as His modes or attributes. We believe also that the sources of our knowledge are the Vedas, Rik, Yajus, Saman, and Atharvan, which are true and consist of endless branches (sakha) and have come down to us in a continuous oral tradition without beginning and without end and that these Vedas find their elucidation and elaboration (Upabrahmanam) in the Puranas and Dharmasastras, which are themselves based on the Vedas with their three parts, injunctions (vidhi), explanations (arthavada) and hymns (mantra) and which were composed by many sages capable of realising Brahman-sages like Bhagavan Dvaipayana (Vyasa), Parasara, Valmiki, Manu, Yagnavalkya, Goutama, and Apastamba. For instance, it has been said by Bhagavan Dvaipayana in the Mahabharata, “He who knows that I have no birth, that I am always free from birth and that I am the Supreme Ruler of the world (he will be made pure of
10
78
all sins)”. Bhagavad Gita Chapter 10, sloka 3. “In this world there are two kinds of purushas or Jivas - kshara and akshara. Kshara is the class of Jivas bound to Samsara. Akshara is the class of released souls (freed from bondage), “There is a third kind of purusha, who is different (from these two) and who is called Paramatma (the Supreme Self) (in the Srutis). He has entered into the three lokas and supports them as their eternal Ruler”. Bhagavad Gita Chapter 15, Slokas 16, & 17.
NOTE
LokasThe word here does not mean worlds’. but those that are known by the pramanas as existing (i. e.) matter (the non-sentient) and sentient beings who are either bound to samsara or released from it,
“Time (which changes all things here) is itself worn out there (in nitya vibhuti) (or the transcendental world of Brahman) and has no control at all there”. Mahabharata: Santiparva 196-9.
“Compared to that (transcendental world of Brahman), these things (that we see) here are hells.” Santiparva 198-6. “All this of the name of kshara from avyakta to visesha, which are subject to change is for the sport of Hari.” Santiparva 206-58.
“Krishna is indeed the origin of the worlds and, likewise, of their dissolution. This universe with all moving and non-moving things exists for Krishna.” The phrase “for Krishna” means that everything is for (the fulfilment of) His purposes.
And Bhagavan Parasara says:-
“The word ‘Bhagavan’ denotes, O Maitreya, the Supreme Brahman, who is ever pure, for whom exist the two (great) vibhutis and who is the (final) cause of all causes.” Vishnu Puranam
6, 5, 72.
79
Jnana (wisdom), power, strength, lordship, prowess, splendour - these are, without any exception, expressed by the word “Bhagavan” without any imperfections whatsoever.” Vishnupuranam 6-5-79
O Maitreya, this great word “Bhagavan” refers only to Vasudeva, who is the Supreme Brahman”. Vishnupuranam 6-1-76.
“To Him, this word is applicable both in its etymological sense (yoga) and in its conventional acceptance (roodi) and not for mere courtesy. To others (it is applicable only) for courtesy’s sake”. Vishnu Purana - (6–5–77). “That supreme goal (parama padam) which goes by the name of Vishnu has these attributes (of released souls)and is ever the antithesis of all that is impure; it is eternal, all pervasive, imperishable and free from all inperfections”. Vishnu Puranam: 1, 22, 53.
“Time which has such modifications as kala and muhurtham is not the cause of any modifi. cation in His transcendental world nitya vibhuti”. Vishnu Puranam 4, 6, 84.
“Behold his activitles which are like those of a child that plays” (ever spontaneous). Vishnu Purana: 1, 2, 18.
Manu also says:- “He (Brahman) controls.
all and is more subtle than the subtlest”.
Note–
(12-122).
The six qualities or gunas of Bhagavan:- (1) jnana (Knowledge). (2) Aisvarya (Lordship) unimpeded activity, activity based on independence (3) Sakti (ability)-potency to become the material cause of the world; also the power of bring. ing about what appears impossible of being brought about (4) bala (strength)- absence of fatigue, sustaining power (5) Virya (virility)-changelessness in spite of being the material cause of the world (6) tejas (splendour)’ might, the power to overcome others.
80
And Yagnavalkya says “The purification which results from a knowledge of God (Iswara) is considered the greatest of all purifications”.
So also Apastamba: “All breathing things are the city (body) of Him who takes His repose in the cave”. The breathing things are the bodily structure, constituted of the (five) elements, which has the Jiva or the individual self as its soul.
“Well”, the Advaitin perhaps says, “Wherefore all this verbose declamation? The objection (pointed out by me) has not been shown to be false”. Here is the answer (to him):- To us who hold this view and who maintain that the self (or atman) which is of the nature of knowledge or consciousness has by nature an attribute which is also knowledge (dharmabhutajnana) and which, as the result of (past) karma undergoes expansion (vikasa) or contraction (samkocha)- to us, this objection is easily disproved. According to you (the Advaitin), luminosity is the nature (of Brahman), and is not His attribute nor do you believe in its expansion or contraction. In our system, karma and the like which are the factors that cause obscuration prevent only the rise of the spread of luminosity. The avidya (ignorance or nescience) which you postulate is the cause of concealment or obscuration. If so, it has already been pointed out that the very being or nature (svarupa) of Brahman would perish; whereas, for us, by (avidya), which is really (past) karma, it is only the luminosity of the attributive knowledge of the eternal self that undergoes contraction (and not the very being or nature of the self which is knowledge).
By this avidya or karma. arises the identification of the self with (the body of) god, man and the like. Here lies the difference between our two positions.
81
Consider the following passage in VishnuPuranam:- 6—7—81,62
“There is a third form of power called avidya or past krama by which the power or sakti called the individual self (or kshetragna) which is capable of pervading all bodies is overpowered. (Being thus overpowered by karma), the individual self, O king, becomes subject to all the continuous ills of samsara (births and deaths). The power of the individual self being thus obscured, the attributive knowledge (dharmabhutagnan) is seen, O king, in different degrees in different beings.” The sloka thus shows how the attributive knowledge of the individual self undergoes contraction and expansion as a consequence of avidya which is called karma.
Note:-Ramanuja brings forward, in his later work
Sri Bhashya,
seven objections to the theory of the Advaitins that Brahman is obscured by avidya. This argument that, in their view, Brahman, which is luminosity, would cease to exist if it were concealed or obscured is one of them. They do not believe that Brahman possesses any altribute which could be the object of obscuration, without in any way affecting the substance or substrate possessing the a:tribute, This is usually called • the untenability of concealment or (tirodhana anupapatti).

1. Untenability of any form of description concerning avidya (svarupanupapatti).
   Again, on the explicit authority of the Srutis and by inference also from the teaching of unity (between That and Thou, for example), you (the Advaitin) postulate a concealing entity called avidya (acchadika avidya) as a defect or fault which causes the obscuration of the being of Brahman. Since, according to you, this avidya (or ignorance
   82
   the
   an
   or nescience) is itself illusory like world, its appearance would also require explanatory cause in the form of a defect or fault (in the same way as you postulate the fault called avidya to explain the illusion of the world). (This defect of avidya, by itself, cannot explain its own illusory appearance). So, you will have to postulate another defect to explain the illusory avidya. If this defect were real, there would be two entities, Brahman and the defect and the central doctrine of unity (advaita) would go to pieces. If, on the other hand, you say that this defect is unreal (aparamartha), it would require, for its own illusory appearance, another defect (dosha) and so on. Thus, there would be infinite regress in the argument (anarastha dosha). To avoid these two undesirable results, you may have to maintain that Brahman itself is the cause of the illusory appearance of the (original) avidya.
   NOTE: The argument here is as follows:-When Brahman sees the world or prapancha which is illusory, it must be due to some fault or dosha (for whenever we see an illusory appearance, it is due to some fault in us (defective vision, sic). So, the Advaitins postulate a dosha or factor causing the illusion of the world and call it avidya; but, since their doctrine declares that there is only one Real, namely, Brahman, this avidya too. has to be stated by them to be illusory. Ramanuja asks ‘‘What is the dosha or fault owing to which this avidya or illusion exists?’’. If” you explain it by saying that there is some other dosha, it, too, must be illusory so that Brahman might be the only Real and that other dosha will have to be explained by stating its cause. Thus, there would be an endless series of doshas. This is the infinite regress referred to (amavastha.) To avoid this, one of the two explanations should be adopted by the Advaitins: that Brahman itself is the cause of the illusory appearance (and not avidya). This would, on the very face of it, be absurd. The alternative explanation would be :-Tbe cause of the illusory appearance of the world is avidya which is also illusory: but. since avidya is beginningless or anadi, its cause should not be
   asked for. In the
   83
   Visishtadvaitic system, karma is said to be anadi and its cause is therefore not sought.-So also in regard to advaitic avidya.
   Even though (you maintain that) avidya is beginningless and therefore requires no explanatory defect as cause, the very circumstance of its being illusory would imply that Brahman sees the illusion as beginningless. As you do not admit any real defect (paramartha dosha) for Brahman’s seeing this illusory avidya, it would follow that Brahman would itself be the cause of the (illusion). As Brahman is eternal, the avidya would also be eternally there and there would, on this view, be no such thing as release from the bondage of avidya.
   Refutation of the theory that there is only a Singla Jiva. (Eka jiva vada)
   The same argument is enough to disprove another doctrine of the Advaitins, namely: “One only of all the bodies (that are seen) has a self within it; the other bodies have no souls like the bodies or beings that are seen in dreams. In dreams, only the body of the person that dreams has a self within it; the other bodies seen by him in his dream are just bodies created (by his imagination) and have no souls, being illusory bodies”, (This doctrine is called the doctrine of a single individual self eka jiva vada). Since, according to Advaita, the individual self as apart from Brahman as well as all bodies are just false or imaginary creations of Brahman, it would follow that the existence of a self Jiva even in one body is illusory in the same way as all the bodies are illusory; there is no special reason to hold that one body alone is peculiar and has a self
   ·
   $
   84
   in it (while all others have none.) According to our system, on the other hand, the person that dreams finds that his body aud the existence of the self in it are not contradicted on waking, while the other bodies (seen in his dream) and the souls imagined in them during the dream are contradicted (as they do not persist). So, they are all illusory; his own body and the existence of the self in it are real (paramartha). This
   This is the difference between the view of the Advaitins and ours.
2. Untenability of the cessation of avidya (Nivritti Anupapatti)
   Further, how indeed is the cessation of avidya caused and what is the nature of this cessation? This has to be examined. The knowledge of unity (that all is Brahman) and (that the Jiva and Brahman are one (Tat Tvam Asi) is said to cause the cessation. You might say that the cessation of avidya has the form opposed to that called inexpressible or indescribable (anirvachaniya), since avidya itself is neither sat (real, like Brahman) nor asat (unreal, like the flower in the sky) nor both sat and asat and is therefore inexpressible. If you say so, what is opposed to that which is inexpressible or indescribable must be expressible (or capable of description) nirvachaniya. If it is expressible, is it sat (real) or unreal (asat) or both real and unreal? There could not be any other alternative. If you hold that this cessation of avidya (nivritti) is something other than Brahman, there would be two entities that are real viz. Brahman and cessation of avidya. This would be, against the doctrine of unity and would be possible.85
   only as caused by avidya, (which) therefore would not have ceased to exist. If, on the other hand, you hold that the cessation of avidya is itself Brahman, since Brahman already existed, the cessation of avidya must have occurred even before the knowledge acquired from Vedanta (that all is Brahman). Your doctrine that the knowledge of unity (that Brahman alone really exists) causes cessation (of avidya) and that samsara or bondage is due to the absence of that knowledge would then find its contradiction.
3. Untenability of the knowledge of unity obtained from Vedanta causing the cessation of avidya (nivartaka anupapatti).
   Furthermore, since even the knowledge which causes the cessation of avidya is (illusory and) of the nature of avidya, the Advaitin has to explain by what means that knowledge, too, would cease to exist. He might state in reply, “This knowledge which causes the cessation of avidya removes all differences other than itself and then perishes of itself, since all knowledge is momentary. As illustrative examples, the Advaitins might cite the forestfire and the poison which destroys the effects of poison”. But this cannot be (a proper reply). Since this knowledge which causes cessation of avidya is other than Brahman, its being, origin and destruction are illusory (according to Advaitio doctrine). If its destruction is illusory, the avidya which causes the cessation of the previous avidya still stands and a remedy for this illusion of destruction which is the same as an existing avidya will have to be thought of. In the case
   In the case of the 11
   86
   forest-fire and the like, their destruction must necessarily mean a succession of new states different from those that respectively precede them.
   Note:-Advaitins hold that Brahman is itself knowledge (salyam, inanam, anantam). But this knowledge, which is Brahman, could not be maintained as capable of remɔving avidya. For since Brahman always exists, the cessation of avidya would be eternal and there could be no avidya at all and consequently no appearance of the world. So they have to state that the knowledge obtained from the sources of knowledge like Vedanta could alone lead to the cessation of avidya. But since this knowledge is other than Brahman, it is illusory and caused by avidya. The knowledge which is Brahman, Advaitins say, is of a different kind from the knowledge obtained by perception, inference, verbal testimouy and the like.
   Note:-The
   forest-fire and the poison which destroys poison :- Advaitins illustrate the point thus ;
   The forest-fire consumes every inflammable thing in the forest and when there is nothing more to burn, perishes of itself. So also this knowledge of unity removes all illusory appearances and then perishes of itself. The poison administered by the physician to counteract the effects of poison in the body destroys the poison and then ceases of itself and does not affect the body,
4. Untenability of assigning to any knower this knowledge of unity which causes the cessation of avidya: Jnatranupapatti.
   Besides this knowledge which denies the reality of all things other than Brahman, which is pure consciousness (chinmatra), it has to be stated by the Advaitin who the knower is. If it is said that the knower is the Jiva or individual self falsely super-imposed on Brahman, it would be illogical; for this illusory superimposition (adhyasa) *(of the individual self) is the thing to be removed or denied and is therefore the object (karma) of the action to be effected by the knowledge of unity.
   87
   Since it is the object, it cannot, at the same time, be the subject who owns that knowledge (i. e.) it cannot be the knower. If, on the other hand, Brahman itself is stated to be the knower, what is the nature of this ‘knowership’ in Brahman? Is it real in Brahman’s nature? Or is it an illusory super-imposition? If the latter, then this illusory superimposition and the avidya which causes it will stand unaffected by the knowledge of unity which removes the original avidya, because they are not within the scope of that knowledge. If you admit another knowledge which could dispel this (second), avidya there would be a further difficulty. This knowledge, too, would require the three essentials (triputi) of all knowledge, viz., a knower, a thing to be known, and the action of knowing. The question wonld then arise “Who is its knower?” and thus you will be landed in infinite regress (anavastha.) Without these three essentials (knower, knowing and what is known), there could be no such thing as knowledge at all. For knowledge is that which illumines something to a knower. If you hold that this knowledge of unity which dispels avidya has none of these three essentials, it would be like the knowledge, which is Brahman (for that is mere consciousness without the triputi and like that knolwedge, it would be incapable of dispelling avidya. If, on the other hand, you accept the former position, viz., that Brahman itself is really the knower, then you will have come to accept our position, namely, that Brahman is not mere consciousness or knowledge, but is also the knower who has knowledge as an attribute of His.
   If you should state that the knowership of the knowledge of unity which dispels avidya is also
   88
   among the targets to be dispelled, it would be funny. For when it is stated that everything except the ground was cut down by Devadatta, it would be ridiculous to include in the action of being out down, the action of cutting, the person who cuts, and that which is cut down.
   NOTE:-Advaitins hold that Brahman is mere
   chit or consciousness.
   They do not admit any attribute in Brahman such as knowledge or being a knower, Visishtadvaitins, on the other hand, hold that Brahman is of the nature of consciousness or jnana and is, at the same time, the possessor of the attribute of knowing (i. e.) He is also the knower (jnala).
   NOTE:-Though
   Advaitins state that Brahman is knowledge or consciousness, they maintain that this knowledge which is Brahman (svarupa) cannot dispel avidya, Avidya can be dispelled, according to them, only by the kind of knowledge which is derived from auy one of the sources of knowledge (Pramana janya jnana) sense,-perception, inference, or verbal testimony (Sastra),
5. Untenability due to the lack of efficient means for dispelling illusory appearance. (Samagri Anupapatti)
   Moreover, by what means is produced this knowledge of unity which, you say, enables one to realise that Brahman alone is real and that all differences that we perceive in the world are illusory? This has to be carefully considered. If it is said “By the Sruti itself”, it cannot be (a proper answer). (According to your system), everything except Brahman is the creation of avidya. Therefore, it would follow that the Śrutis, which are different from Brahman, cannot dispel the illusory appearance of the world, being themselves the products of avidya (ignorance). For example, the illusion that the rope is a serpent which is caused by some defect or fault (in
   89
   perception, cannot be dispelled by the knowledge “This is a rope and not a serpent”, when this knowledge comes from a defective or unsound source. When the fear due to the illusion of the serpent in the rope persists, if a person of unsound mind were to cry out aloud, “This is a rope and not a serpent”, his words would not dispel the illusion, so long as
   as his mental unsoundness is known and the fear arising from the illusion, too, will not
   too, will not vanish. The man who knows that everything except Brahmau is illusory, even when he hears the words of the Sruti (that Brahman alone is real) knows that the Sruti, being different from Brahman, is the product of illusion. Therefore, the knowledge imparted by the Sruti that Brahman alone is real cannot dispel his avidya or ignorance.
   If you say “The knowledge of unity which dispels avidya, Sastra. or Scripture which provides that knowledge, and, so also, the person who has that knowledge are all illusory and false, since they are different from Brahman”, then,
   then, indeed, the illusory nature of the world and the disappearance of the world in mukti would become false. This would only come to mean that the world is real. Suppose a person dreams that some one in the dream tells him that his father is dead and he afterwards comes to know that it was all a dream, he would then realise that the knowledge imparted to him in the dream about his father’s death is false and that his father is realy alive. Texts in the Śruti like “That Thou art” cannot contradict the reality of the world, because these words are caused by illusion, just like the words contradicting the reality of the serpent in the rope when used by a man of unsound mind.
   90
   “But”, the Advaitin might say, “when some fear persists in a dream, if a knowledge arises, even during the dream, that it is a dream, the previous fear is seen disappearing. In the same way, here also (the knowledge imparted by the illusory Sruti may dispel the erroneous notion due to avidya)”. It is not so. During the dream itself, if it is known that this, too, is a dream, the fear is seen to recur again. So, there is no difference of any kind between the dream which contradicts and the dream which is contradicted. It has been already stated that even while we listen to the Sruti, we are aware (according to the Advaitin) that the Sruti is as illusory as dreams.
   It is sometimes stated by Advaitins that though the scripture (sastra) is false or illusory, being the product of delusion (or error), it declares that Brahman exists and is without a second and without any
   attribute and that the existence of Brahman and its being without any attribute are true because they are not contradicted afterwards. This statement, too, cannot hold good. For the existence or reality of Brahman is contradicted by (a school of Buddhists), who declare that reality is non-existent (soonya). If the Advaitin says that this contention of the Buddhists is due to error or delusion, it may be replied. “You have yourself stated that the words in the sruti, “Brahman is real and without a second” are due to illusion (or avidya)”. The contention that there is nothing really existing (not even Brahman) has the superiority of having no later contradiction. Both the Buddhist who does not believe in the reality of anything and the Advaitin who contends that everything except Brahman is unreal are equally unfit, in the opinion
   91
   of the wise, to be controversialists, since neither of them accepts the truth of any authority (or pramana) which could prove their contention to be right, It has been said:- Disputation is at all possible only with those who accept the truth of the sources of knowledge (pramana). It is no use arguing with one who does not believe in the reality of anything.
   Note;-LATER CONTRADICTION.—It is only if we know beforehand what is meant by the term “tree that we can say afterwards “This is not a tree”. So. the knowledge of an object precedes its denial. The denial which is experienced later supersedes the knowledge of the existence of the object. When one text in the Sruti says “The world exists”, the Advaitin, on the authority of another sruli, says “It does not exist, only Brahman exists’, and contends that the denial of the world, being later, supersedes the sruti which speaks of the world as existing and real. On the same line of reasoning, Ramanuja says, it would follow that the statement of the Advaitin that Brahman is real finds its supersession in the sunyavidin’s statement that “there is nothing at all that is real’. This proposition would have to be considered as true, because there could be no later contradiction of it at all.
   Furthermore, on what authority (pramana) do you establish the unreality of the world given in sense perception (pratyalsha) The Advaitin may say, “Perception arises from a defect or fault (dosha). So, what sense perception brings before us can be explained away otherwise (as due to faults or imperfections), whereas Scripture or Sastra, which is faultless and which could not be explained away otherwise, should be considered as superseding perception”, If he says so, (we ask), “By what fault (doshr) does perception reveal to us (the world so full of) endless differences? If you say in reply, perception is tainted by the false notion of differences which has persisted from beginningless time”, we reply, “The same fault is seen also in scripture (which, too,
   92
   How,
   recognises differences).
   then, do you establish the superiority of Scripture over perception (as a source of knowledge) and state that it is contradicted by the teaching of Scripture? As a matter of fact, perception and Scripture have different provinces and cannot therefore conflict with each other. Perception is concerned with apprehending elements like akasa’ (ether) and air (vayu) and things having varied configurations like those of men endowed with senses such as those of hearing and touch.
   Scripture or sastra, on the other hand, treats of what cannot be apprehended by perception, viz., the nature of Brahman, His being the innermost soul of all, His being the Reality and His being endowed with countless attributes, the ways of worshipping and meditating on Brahman, and the various benefits accruing from His grace, such as attaining Him, and likewise also, the punishments that will be incurred by doing things displeasing to Him.
   Him. (As they concern themselves with entirely different matters, there connot be any conflict between sense perception and Sastra). You too, admit that Scripture which is a superior authority has no beginning and no end and has the merit of a continuous tradition (regarding the text). You should necessarily admit also the reality of what is given to us by sense perception (pratyaksha).
   Enough of this refutation of flimsy fleecelike arguments brought forward by perverse minds. which are thrown and swept away by the strong gale of hundreds of passages in the Srutis.
   93
   Refutation of Bhaskara’s system of Bhedabheda.
   Note: The school of Bhaskara holds that there is no difference in reality
   (or by nature) (svabhavena) between the Supreme Self (Brahman) and the individual self (Jivatma), bnt that, owing to the limitations imposed by Upadhis (conditioning or limiting adjuncts) like the body and the senses, Brahman assumes the forms of Jivas. When the Upadhi vanishes, the Jiva becomes Brahman, So Brahman and Jiva are both different and nondifferent from each other. In their doctrine, the Upadhi is not unreal and this (among other things) distinguishes them from the Advaitins).
   According to the second view (or school of thought), there is nothing other than Brahman and the Upadhis. Since the Upadhis are said, in this system, to be associated only with Brahman, all the imperfections due to the Upadhis such as the body and the senses) would affect Brahman also. The texts in the Srutis saying that Brahman is free from all faults and imperfections and the like would then be contradicted. The Bhaskarites might defend their position by saying “Ether (akasa) is all - pervasive, but the ether confined to a pot and the like is looked upon as different from the allpervasive ether elsewhere and as possessing different attributes; neither the good qualities nor the bad qualities in the ether within the pot become associated with the extensive ether elsewhere. In the same way, the faults and imperfections of the individual self (Jiva) who is marked off from the rest (of Brahman) by the differences due to the Upadhis may not affect Brahman”. If it is so
   so stated, it cannot be considered convincing. Ether akasa is not a composite with parts (avayari) and cannot, therefore, be out off or marked off into two or more parts. So, the pots and other things are connected only with
   with the allpervasive ether.
   12
   94
   Likewise, Brahman is incapable of being divided (into parts) and the Upadhis must be connected with Brahman itself. (and not any part of it.) The Bhaskarite might say, “The region of ether which is connected with the pot is different from the other region of it (not so connected)”. We reply: “Ether is a single (non-composite) thing and becomes connected with the pot and the like by means of a part or region in it. So, when the pot is moved (from one place to another), it is some other region (that becomes connected), and thus there is no fixity of region. Similarly, there is no fixity in the region of Brahman (which becomes connected with Upadhis. When the Upadhi moves, the part of Brahman (newly) connected with the Upadhi becomes differentiated from the part or region not (now) connected with it. So, you (the Bhaskarite) would be forced to admit that, at one moment, when connected with Upadhis, Brahman is bound in samsara and that, at another moment, when the Upadhi has moved away, it has attained release (or moksha). An admission of this kind would be ridiculous in the eyes of impartial thinkers.
   The Bhaskarite might argue as follows:- “Although ether (akasa) is non-composite and therefore without parts, ether is considered as the sense (organ of hearing) and it is usual to distinguish between that region which is called the sense of hearing and the rest of ether which is not the organ of hearing. In the same manner, it may be possible to distinguish between Brahman with Upadhi and Brahman without Upadhi.” But this argument is fallacious. It is only the region of the ether which is connected with the cavity of the ear modified by a special kind of air that is95
   called the sense of hearing. Though there is no distinguishing feature between this region of ether and the rest of ether, it may be proper to distinguish it as the sense of hearing. When the bodies (of beings) move, all regions of ether contact them without any fixed rule or restriction (niyama). So also Upadhis (while moving) contact all regions of Brahman without any restriction or reservation. We have explained the distinction between the region of ether called the sense of hearing and the rest, assuming (for the moment) that ether, as such, is the sense of hearing. As a matter of fact, however, ether does not form the sense of hearing at all. Vedic scholars hold that the eleven senses arise from the principle or ‘real’ (tattva) called Vaikarika Ahankara. For instance, Bhagavan Parasara says:-
   “It is (sometimes) said that the senses arise from Taijasa Ahankara. But the ten senses (devah) with the mind as the eleventh are truly vaikarikas”.
   This is the meaning of the sloka:- Ahankara (one of the 25 reals) is of three kinds: Vaikarika, Taijasa and Bhutadi which are respectively called also Sattvika. Rajasa and Tamasa. The sage (Parasara) states that, from the Tamasa Ahankara or Bhutadi, the five elements like ether are produced. He then cites the opinion of others that the eleven senses are produced from Taijasa Ahankara and indicates his own opinion that the senses arise from sattvika ahankara and that the senses are therefore vaikarikas. The word devah in the sloka means the senses. Similarly, in the Mahabharata, it is stated that the senses are nourished (or strengthened) by the elements. Even if it is held that the senses are modifications of the five elements, the Bhaskarite
   96
   contention does not gain anything. The senses are distinguished from the elements as being their modifications, in the same way as the body is distinguished from the five elements out of which it is built up. This cannot be said to be true of the Jira, who is not a modification or evolute of Brahman (parinama), because the Sruti says that Brahman is without any modification or change (nirvikara). Therefore, since Brahman is indivisible, without parts and without changes or modifications, it would (on the view of the school of Bhaskara) be impossible to disprove the presence of innumerable imperfections due to contact with the upadhis. Those who are well-versed in the Sastras have therefore scant regard for this Bhedabheda system, which could be accepted only by those who are guided by mere faith.
   Further, you (Bhaskarites) hold that Brahman’s essential nature (svarupa) evolves into non-sentient things (achetana). This is opposed to the sruti which declares that Brahman is without any changes or modifications (nirvikara.) If you maintain, (in order to avoid this difficulty) that it is not Brahman which evolves into non-sentient things but that His sakti or power undergoes the evolution, we ask, “What is this salti? Is it a modification (or evolute) of Brahman?; or is it something not different from Brahman? In either case, it would follow, on your view, that Brahman itself undergoes change (which is against the sruti).
   Noter-According to the Sankhya system, there are 25 reals or
   (tattvas) beginning with prakrili or matter in its un-evolved state and ending with purusha or the individual self. Prakriti evolves into mahat, the next to evolve is akankara, which is one of the evolutes from primordial matter. It is this ahankara that is referred to above. The word akankara also means egeism or
   97
   arrogance, but this has nothing to do with the ahankara referred to in the text above. The Vedantins adopt such of the conventions of the Sankhyas as are not in conflict with their system.
   Note:- The eleven senses; five Jnarendriyas or senses affording
   knowledge, viz sight, hearing, touch, karmendriyas or senses used in action,
   smell and taste; live
   viz, speech, hand, foot,
   arms, thh organ of reproduction; the cleventh sense is the
   mind.
   Refutation of Yadavaprakasa’s Bhedabheda.
   Note;-In Yadavaprakasi’s system as in Bhaskara’s, the world is real, the Scripture is not illusory error. The Bhaskarites hold that the Jiva becomes Brahman in moksha (when freed from Upadhi) and that the difference between them (during sumsara) is due to upadhi. By nature or in reality, they are not different from each other. The difference is merely due to Upadhi. In regard to achit or nonsentient things and Brahman, both difference and non-difference are natural svabhavika. Yadavaprakasa, on the other hand, holds that a portion (or sakti) of Brahman changes or evolves into the individual self and that, even in moksha, the individual self remains different from Brahman. So, both difference and non-difference between chit and Brahman are natural as between achit and Brahman.
   In the third view (that of Yadavaprakasa) it is maintained that the individual self and Brahman are both really different and non-different. It is also held that Brahman becomes the individual self. If so, the individual self is different from Brahman only to the extent that Saubhari’s many bodies taken by him at the same time were different from one another (i. e) having only one soul among them), and in the same way as the several avatars of Iswara (Vishnu) were different from one another (all of them having, however, the quality of being Iswara). From this, it would follow that that the imperfections of the individual self would be only of Iswara.
   of Iswara. This is what it comes to saying:- The school of Yadavaprakasa maintains that Iswara, by His own substance
   98
   (svarupa), assumes different forms like those of gods, men, animals and plants and is their soul. If this position is taken up, just as all actions such as the holding of water which pertain to pots, dishes and the like made of a single lump of mud belong to mud itself, even so, all the pleasures and pains of all the Jivas would pertain to Iswara himself. (The followers of Yadavaprakasa) might argue:- “That part of the mud which has been left over after the making of pots, dishes and the like is not associated with any action (like the holding of water). In the same way, that part of Iswara which is not used up in the evolution of such individual souls as gods, beasts and men is the abode of omniscience, omnipotence and other such auspicious qualities”. True, but this would imply that one part (amsa) of Iswara has an abundance of auspicions qualities, while another part is full of imperfections, since both have the quality of being Iswara. If they reply, “The two parts are distinguished or differentiated from each other”, we ask, “What do you gain thereby?. It does not behove Iswara to be eternally subject to ills in one part, though, in another part, there is happiness. It is like Devadatta having one arm smeared with sandal paste and adorned with bracelet, armlet and ring, while the other arm of the same (Devadatta) is beaten with a wooden mortar and put into the flames of an all-consuming fire. That would be the condition of Iswara. This variety of Bhedabheda is even more blasphemous than the Advaitic view that Brahman is associated with ajnana or ignorance, for, according to Bhadabheda, this unbounded suffering is real (and not illusory as in advaita) and insurmountable as individual souls are innumerable (and not single as in advaita) If the Yadavaprakasa school say, “Therefore we hold
   99
   that this part (amsa), namely, the individual self, is different in nature from Brahman”, they will have come to our way (of thinking). The objection pointed out (so far) will arise only, if it is held that the substance (starupa) of Iswara himself changes into the Jiva and is identical with the Jira. If, like ourselves, they say that the relationship between Iswara and the individual soul is that between the soul and the body, there cannot be any such objection. Far from there being any objection, a number of great qualities like the control of all individual souls will have become explained in Iswara. The grammatical apposition or co-ordination samanadhikaranya in “That Thou Art” will be direct and not indirect or figurative (lakshana).
   Further, it has already been stated that the same thing cannot be both different and nondifferent (from another) as they would be contradictory to each other. If the pot is different from the cloth, the pot cannot exist in the cloth. If the pot is not different from the cloth, the pot is in the cloth. The existence and the non-existence of the same object at the same time and in the same place are contradictory of each other, The Bhedabheda schools might say, “As genus (Jati), the cow with broken horns may exist in the COW without horns; cowness may exist but as an individual (vyakti) it may not exist in it”. We reply:- “If the genus is stated to be not different from the individual, it would follow that in the cow with broken horns. the cow without horns would be present (for both are the genus ‘cow’). This would be against reason. If the genus is held as both different end non-different (bhinnabṛinna) from the individual, owing to non-difference, the genus Jati (cowness) should be present in the cow with broken
   100
   horns and owing to difference, it would not be present (in the cow with broken horns), in the same way as buffaloness is not present in the horse.
   Note:-JATI AND VYAKTI:
   or
   In the Bhedabheda system, Brahman is different from the Jiva and, at the same time not different from the Jiva. If you ask, “How can a thing be both different and non-different from another?”, the followers of that system reply:
   “There is nothing inconceivable in this. Take the following example :-
   A cow with horns, a cow without horns and a cow wita broken horns. All of them belong to the genus or Jati “cow”. That is. all the three of them bave cowness in common, though, as individuals (vyakti), they are different from one another. There is no difference between the cow with horns and the cow without horns, if you consider them from the point their jati or genus, for they have all cowness “> time as individuals vyakti, they are different from So, there is both difference and non-difference among them (bheda and abheda).
   of view of At the same
   each other.
   In refuting this argument. Ramanuja asks;- **(1) Do you mean to say that the genus, Jati and the individual, vyikli are not different from each other? It so, the cow with broken horns inust be present in the cow with horns, for, they have both the genus or Jati cowness ‘’; (2) Or do you mean to say that Jati and Vyakti are both different and non-different from each other? If you hold this second view, certain absurdities will result. lf they are different, the cow with broken horns cannot be in the cow with horos; if they are not different, the one must be present in the other. This is as absurd as saying that the buffalo is present in the horse. How can two contraries be the same ?
   The genus (or Jati) is really a mode (prakara) or attribute of the thing, being the common configuration of the object. The mode or attrribute is different from the object possessing the mode attribute. It has already been stated that the mode or attribute (prakara) is inseparable from the object possessing the (prakara) or mode and incapable of being apprehended apart from it and that the configuration (samsthana) is
   101
   present as a mode or attribute in more objects than one. The idea “This is the person seen before as that” arises from the mode being common to both as in the perception: “This man, too, has a stick”. It is this mode, which is genus and the like, that is called bheda or differentiating feature. The association with this differentiating feature is the cause of the object being considered as different (from others). In the same way as knowing an object (samvedana) is the cause of the object about and is also
   being designated and talked the cause of the knowledge itself being designated and talked about, the genus is the cause of the object (vyakti) being talked about and also of itself (genus) being designated and talked about. By this same argument, the contention that sense perception apprehends mere existence (sat) and not differentiating features (bheda) stands refuted. For perception apprehends the object only as possessing the genus or configuration. It is this genus or configuration that reveals the object having the genus or configuration and is also the cause of differences being designated. The objection to the view that the substance (svarupa) of Brahman is modified into non-sentient beings (achit) has already been dealt with.
   Here ends the refutation of rival systems of philosophy.
   13

A detailed exposition of Visishtadvaità

“He who stands on the earth and is within the earth, whom the earth is not aware of, to whom the earth is the body and who controls the earth from within-He is your atma (soul), the inner Ruler, who is immortal”. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (Kanva recension). “He who stands on the atman (soul) and who is within the atman, whom the atman is not aware of, to whom the atman (soul) is the body and who controls the atman from within-He is your atma (soul), the Inner Ruler, who is immortal”. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: (Madhyandina recension).
“He who moves about within the earth, to whom the earth is the body and whom the earth is not aware of” and the like (Suhalopanishad) “He who moves about within the akshara (atman or soul) to whom the akshara is the body and whom the akshara is not aware of.” (Subalopanishad). “He who moves about within Death, to whom Death is the body and whom Death is not aware of.” (Subalopanishad). “He is the inner soul of all beings and is untouched by (their) imperfections. He is the supreme Deity, Narayana. who is without a second”. (Subalopanishad )
“Two birds with similar qualities and mutually attached to each other rest on the same tree. One of them (the Jiva) eats the ripe fruit, while the other (the Supreme Self) shines without eating it”. (Mundaka Upanishad).
Note:-The ’tree’ is the body; the fruit is the result of karma.
“He has entered within all persons and controls them (from within). He is the soul of all.
103
(Aranyaka 3-20-4.) “He created it; having created it, He entered into it (the Jira); having entered into it, He became Sat, the individual self which remains ever the same without any change and also tyat, the non-sentient, which is subject to change. Though He became the chit and the achit, He never changed but was always satyam, the unchanging truth”. (Taittiriya Upanisha:1.)
“I will enter with the Jiva as his atma or soul and will create the various forms and give them their names”. (Chandogya Upanishad 6-3-2). “The Jiva or individual self realises that the Supreme Self directs him (in the wheel of samsara) and that he is the object of direction different from the Supreme Self that directs. By winning the grace of the Supreme Self thereby, he attains immortality.” (Svetasvatara Upanishad-1-1-2). “Having realised the one who experiences (pleasures and pains), that which is the object of experience and Him who directs all, I have described to thee the three-fold nature of things”. (Svetasvatara Upanishad -1-25). “The Eternal of Eternals, the Soul of all souls, He who fulfils the desires of many, being Himself single”. (Kata Upanishad (2-5-13). “He is the Lord of matter and souls and the possessor of qualities”. “He whose knowledge has no limits and he whose knowledge is limited, the Ruler and the Ruled”. Svetasvetara Upanishad 6-33 & 1-17). From hundreds of such texts in the srutis and so also, by their elucidations and explanations such as (the following):-
“The whole world is Thy body; the stability of the earth is dependent on Thee”. (The Ramayana)- 6-(20-24).
104
“Whatever is created by whomsoever it may be, Hari is the cause of it all and every one (of these creations) is His body”. (Vishnu Puranam 1-22-35).
“I am, O Arjuna, the soul of all beings and abide within their hearts. I am seated in the heart of every one. From me arise memory, perception and their loss as well.” (Bhagavad Gita-1020); -from these and other such utterances of Valmiki, Parasara, and Vyasa who stand in the front rank of those who know the real meaning of the Vedas, we learn that the Supreme Brahman is the soul of all and that everything, sentient and non-sentient, (chit and achit), is His body. The body being the inseparable attribute of the soul which owns the body is therefore its prakara or mode. Therefore, the word denoting the body denotes also the soul whose prakara or mode the body is. Though the body and the soul have different attributes, the two do not get mixed up with each other. Since Brahman has everything as its body, all grammatical appositions or co-ordinations (samanadhikaranya) (like “That Thou Art” and “All this is Brahman”) which reveal the magnificence of Brahman, refer to Brahman who has all sentient and non-sentient things as his prakara (mode) directly without any lakshana.
*Note:-THOUGH THE BODY AND THE SOUL HAVE DIFFERENT
ATTRIBUTES :-
We see, in the world, things with different qualities getting mixed up.
A log of wood exposed in a salt pan gets coated with salt in a short time. But no such mixing up takes place in the case of Brahman and the world of sentient and non-sentient things, because of the unique greatness or splendour of Brahman,
Grammatical co-ordination (samanadhikaranya) is said to be present, when two words refer to the same object in two different ways and this co-105
ordination is direct (or without lakshana) and literal in our interpretation. Thus it is; in the co-ordination or apposition “That Thou Art”, “That’ refers to Brahman the (material) cause of the world, the abode of all auspicious qualities, (the one) who is free from all imperfections. The word “Thou” that enters into the co-ordination refers to the Inner Ruler within the Jiva who has the Jira as His body, who is the soul of His body which is the Jiva, and who has that body as His mode or inseparable attribute. In the interpretations of other systems, there is no such (direct) apposition and Brahman becomes involved also in faults or imperfections.
This is what it comes to mean:- (In the Srutis and the Smritis) Brahman is declared to be of a particular nature. This particular nature of Brahman persists in all states or conditions. So, in all these states, this manifold and varied world consisting of sentient and non-sentient things exists either in the gross or in the subtle form. Only then can the text “I will become the many” have any real meaning. Therefore, it follows that all sentient and nonsentient things chit and achit exist as configurations or inseparable attributes of Brahman who is in the different configurations as cause and as effect.
Note :-GROSS AND SUBTLE: Before creation or srishti, the world in in a subtle state. After srishti it assumes a gross manifestation.
At this an objection might be raised that only the genus and the qualities (of a thing) and not a substance (dravya) are usually seen as attributes. These attributes are always connected with that thing as its configuration or mode and answer to the words “of this kind”. A substance (dravya) which
106
can stand by itself (independent of others) cannot rightly be considered as an attribute or mode of Iswara answering to the words (of this kind) so that there may be grammatical co-ordination between them. Well, the reply is as follows:- Even substances like the stick and the ear-ring are often seen attributes of another substance (say, a man) (as when we speak of a man with a stick or with an ear-ring).
Note:-The objection stated by thinkers of other schools is to
this effect; The Jiva is a substance and Iswara is also a substance. How can one substance (dravya) be an atribute of another substance (dravya) so that the two may be put in grammatical co-ordination (samanadhikaranya) with each other in
“That Thou Art”.?
Note:-GENUS – QUALITY: ‘cow’
refers to an individual, ‘cowness’ is the genus (jati) which is in all cows. “White or Whiteness” is a quality in chalk, which is a substance having the quality. Here genus and quality are easily seen as attributes to substances; but how can a substance be an attribute of another substance ? This is the objection raised.
But this answer might be said to be unsatisfactory and the objector might say, “When one substance, such as stick and ear-ring, which can have an independent existence, is an attribute of another substance, we (invariably) speak of that other substance possessing the substance and do not speak of them as being in apposition with each other. For example, we speak of Devadatta possessing a a stick and not Devadatta as being a stick, “Devadatta has a stick”. Therefore, it will not be proper to consider substances dravya like sentient and nonsentient beings as being similar to genus like ‘cowness’ and speak of them as modes or attributes of Iswara put in grammatical co-ordination with each other. The reply to this objection is as follows:- This kind of co-ordination is quite common in (ordinary intercourse) and in the Vedas.
The words
་
107
‘cow’, ‘horse’, ‘man’, ‘god’ and the like denote the respective bodies which are substances built up of non-sentient matter. And yet it is often said, “Devadatta was born as a
a man owing to certain meritorious actions (in his past life)”. “Yagnadatta was born as a cow owing to sinfnl actions”. “Another sentient being was born as a god owing to meritorious deeds of a superior character”. In all these instances, the bodies of these, man, god and the like are put in grammatical co-ordination (samanadhikaranya) with sentient beings as their modes or (prakaras) or attributes. Thus, substances(namely, the five elements which build up the body) are spoken of as prakaras or attributes of other substances in grammatical apposition(i.e.) Devadatta is a man’, Yagnadatta is a cow, and the like. The truth is as follows:- It does not matter whether it is a genus (Jati) a quality (guna) or a subtance (dravya). When any of them exists as an attribute of a particular substance, provided it is an inseparable attribute, it may be put in grammatical apposition with that substance. But if a substance which can stand independently by itself is considered at any time and in any place as an attribute or (prakara) of another substance, then they cannot be put in grammatical co-ordination and usage will require “being with” or ‘possessing’ as in “Davadatta is with a stick and not Devadatta is a stick”. In the same way, all objects, either moving or non-moving, (sthavara or jangama) being the body of Iswara, can exist only as inseparable attributes of His. Therefore, Iswara who has them as His attributes is referred to also by the respective words denoting them and can be spoken of
be
in grammatical co-ordination with them. All this has been explained at length in connection with the Vedic text on the creation of names and forms.
108
Note:-‘Tree’ means ant only the object usually signified by the word, but also Iswara who is within the tree and to whom the tree is a prakara mode or attribute. The word Devadatta means not only the body of Devadatta but the soul of Devadatta of which the body is an attribute. Further, the word refers also to Iswara who is within the soul of Devadatta and who has that soul as His prakara (or sarira). On this view, the samanadhikaranya in That Thou Art is direct and not indirect (lakshana) for “Thou” here is Svetaketu. The word also signifies Brahman who is within Svetaketu’s soul as its inner Ruler (antaryami). • That’ is Brahmin, the ultimate cause of the world, The meaning of the co-ordination is ‘Brahman, the ultimate cause of the world is Brahmin who is within the soul of Svetakelu as its inner Ruler’.
Therefore the self or soul, matter (prakriti), mahat, ahankara the five tanmatras, the five elements (earth, water. fire, air and ether) the eleven senses - these are the 25 tattvas or ‘reals’. Out of these twenty-five reals are built up the fourteen worlds which constitute the universe (Brahmanda) Within this universe (or Brahmanda) are to be found gods, animals, men, and nonmoving things like plants. All these are inseparable attributes of Iswara. These are all effects (karya) and are Brahman. Hence, when Brahman, their ultimate (material) cause is known, everything becomes known; “by the knowledge of one, all become known”, says the Sruti. So it has been declared (by the Śruti) that Brahman is the soul of all sentient and non-sentient things which are His attributes, because He is the (material) cause (karana) and they are the effects
Nete:-CAUSE AND EFFECT .-
(karya).
•
When it is said that the world is Brahman or All this is Brahman’, it has to be understood only in this sense:-Brahman being the soul and the world being His body, the two may be looked upon as the same, but the substance of Brahmin in itself. (svarupa) is not the same as the substance of the world. Brahmin being the material cause (upadana karana) may be spoken of as being the same as the effect (karya) vis., the world, The
109
effect is only a prakava or mode of the cause and is therefore an attribute. So when the relation of cause and effect is understood, we understand that the effect is an attribute of the cause. Those who maintain that Brahman itself evolves into prakriti or matter and the Jiavs or individual souls might here raise the following difficulty or objection:- “(You) rule out the possibility. of the substance of Brahman (svirupa) evolving (in the form of the world) on the ground that it would be against the Vedic texts which declare that Brahman is not subject to any chauge and that it is free from imperfections. But Brahmasutra 1, 4, 23 states that Brahman should be considerd as also the material cause (upadana karana), so that the proposition and the illustrative example (mud and pot) may not conflict (with each other). this sutra, the Supreme Self is explained to be the material cause of the world (prakriti or upadana karana). The proposition sought to be proved is that by the knowledge of the one. all other things become known. The illustrative example is that of mud (the material cause) and its effects (karya) (like pots and dishes). (This illustrative example would be appropriate only if Brahman were the material cause (upadina karana). Whatever is the material cause must be subject to change. is this inconsistency explained (by you)?”
In
How
The answer to this is as follows:- The (Śruti) says that Brahman is the (material) cause of the world including the Jivas or individual selves without any exception. (When this is so), if it should be maintained that Iswara evolves into the form of the Jiva it would be in conflict with the Brahmasutra (2, 3, 18) which says:-
“Nor is the Atma (created) because (it is denied) by the sruti. From those srutis. the atma (is understood) to be eternal (nitya).
100789

• Brahma Sutra: 2-3-16 14
  110
  Further, the Supreme Self is declared to be free from unfairness (vaishamaya) and cruelty (nairghrnya) (in its dealings with the different (Jivas) in Brahmasutra (2, 1, 34) in these words:-
  “(There is) no unfairness nor hard-heartedness, for (creation is) in strict accordance (with past karma). It is by accepting the beginningless nature of the Jivas that karma is indicated as the reason (for the inequalities seen among different Jivas and the cruel suffering which some are subjected to.) The Sutrakara raises a possible objection to this and answers it in sutra (2, 1, 35.) thus:— “If it is objected to by saying that it cannot be karma, because before srishti or creation, there is no division (of Brahman into Jivas), the answer is “because the Jiva has no beginning (i. e.) (is eternal). This would be in accordance with reason and is also declared in the Srutis”. The reason implied is that if the Jiva or individual self is not eternal and has a beginning, he should have to be considered as enjoying the
  enjoying the fruit of what was not done (by him) and being cut off from the enjoyment of the fruit of what was done (by him). (So the Jiva has to be accepted as eternal). In the same way (as the individual self is said to be without any beginning), matter (prakriti) also is declared by the Srutis to be without a beginning.
  That matter (prakriti) and the iudividual self (purusha) were not created (and had no beginning) is also brought out in the following Vedic text:-
  “A certain thing (matter) which has no beginning produces many things of the same nature
  111
  (namely, things constituted of the five elements) and is red, white and black (i. e. it has the colours, respectively, of the elements, fire, water and earth). Another thing which has no beginning (the individual self) imagines (in ignorance) that it is the same as the other (viz., matter) and follows its ways. Another being who is without beginning (the person who is wise) enjoys it (i. e.) matter or prakriti for a short time) and then abandons it (in disgust). (Svetasvatara Upanishad 4–5).
  It is also shown that only prakriti (matter) is subject to change in its nature. The one who controls Prakriti (Mayi) creates the world out of prakriti; another (the jiva) is bound by prakriti (maya)”. “It should be known that prakriti (with its three qualities, sattvam, rajas and tamas) is maya and that
  that He
  He who controls prakriti is Maheswara”. Svetasvatara Upanishad 4-10).
  Note: This passage explains what is meant by the word Maya. Prakriti is called Maya because it is the cause of the varied and wonderful creation (srishti).
  Smriti also states: “Prakriti (the cow), which has neither beginning nor end, produces (fire, water and earth) and creates also the world”
  Mantrika Upanishad. 1
  Note:-First comes the evolution into the aggregate ¦ (samashti) and
  then the individual objects (vyashti).
  The following slokas from the Bhagavad Gita also declare that only prakriti evolves into the world:-

1. “Know that Prakriti (matter) and Purusha (the individual self) (which are associated with each other) are both of them, without beginning. (18–19)
   112
2. “Earth, water, fire, air, ether (akasa), the mind (manas), buddhi (mahat) and ahankara these eight forms of prakriti are mine”. (7-4).
   “Know also that there is another prakriti (splendour) of mine different from the preceding. It is of the nature of the Jiva (the individual self) and is more important. By it (the Jiva), the world of matter (prakriti) is supported”. (7-5).
3. “Having made my prakriti (matter) evolve (into eight forms), I create the world again and again”. (9-8).
4. “Under my control, prakriti gives birth to the world consisting of moving and non-moving things”. (9-10). These and others.
   and
   Thus, prakriti is the body of Iswara therefore the word prakriti denotes (also) Iswara, who is its soul and who has it as His mode or inseparable attribute; so also the word purusha denotes Iswara who is its soul and who has purusha as His mode. Hence, Iswara is the soul of the world constituted of purusha and prakriti.
   So, the Vishnu Purana says:- (1-2-28).
   “Vishnu is both the causal reality (avyaktam) and the reality which is called the effect (vyaktam), He is Purusha (the individual self) and also Time (kala). He is the Prime Mover (kshobhaka) and, likewise, the thing that is moved (kshobhya) and is the Supreme Ruler.”
   Hence, it is only prakriti (or matter) that is the mode or attribute of the Supreme Self who has it as His attribute-it is only this part or aspect prakara that undergoes change. He who has prakriti as His
   113
   prakara or mode-the (Prakarin) does not undergo any change. In the same way, in the Supreme Self who has the individual self as His prakara or mode, it is only the Jiva, the attributive part, that is subject to the ills of samsara (apurushartha), the Prakarin (amsa) is the controller, spotless and full of all auspicious. qualities and His will is omnipotent.
   (If it is accepted that Iswara who has prakriti and Jiva as His modes is the cause of the world and that Iswara who has them as His attributes stands as the world), then it would follow that Iswara with chit and achit as His attributes is the cause and that He is, at the same time, the effect (namely the world) which has the former as the material cause. (The Sutra which declares) that the effect is none other than the cause could then become easily understood and all the Vedic texts would find reconciliation. Thus, Brahman in the causal state has prakriti and purusha as His body and they are then in such a subtle (sukshma) conditon that they cannot be distinguished by names and forms. Brahman is also in the state of the effect (karya) with chit and achit in their gross (sthula) condition as His body, when they have become distinguished by names and forms (i. e. after creation or srishti). The attainment of this gross condition by Brahman is called the creation of the world. So Bhagavan Parasara says:- * “Matter (pradhana or prakriti) and purusha (individual self) are both beginningless. They are the cause of the effect which consists of pradhana and purusha”. Therefore, since all existing things are modes or attributes of Iswara, the words which denote
   denote prakriti and purusha in whatever state they may be, denote, directly, the Supreme self who is endowed with these attributes

• Vishnu purana (1-6-87).
  114
  (prakaras), just like the words, god, man and the like which denote the individual self. Words like ‘god’ and ‘man’ denoting the bodies of individual selves which are specific modifications of matter denote, directly, the individual souls, since these bodies are only the modes or attributes (prakara) of the Prakarin. In the same way, all things, chit and achit (the sentient and the non-sentient) are the bodies of the Supreme Self and are therefore His modes or attributes and, for that reason, the words which denote chit and achit denote (also) the Supreme Self directly (without lakshana). This is just the relationship existing between the body and the soul. The one (the soul) is the support (adhara) and the other (the body) is that which is supported and which is incapable of existing independently of the other (viz., the soul); the one (the soul) is the principle or substance which controls and directs and the other (the body) is directed and controlled; the one (the soul) has its purposes fulfilled by the other and is called (seshi) and the other (the body) exists solely for fulfilling the purposes of the other and is called (sesha). The word atma means etymologically “that which obtains”. It is so called because it obtains the body and acts as its support and as its directing agent, for the fulfilment of its own purposes. The body is an akara, being an inseparable attribute or mode (of the soul), as it is supported and controlled by the other and exists for the satisfaction of its purposes. It is this kind of relationship that exists between the individual self and its body. Similarly, the Supreme Self has all things as His body and is therefore denoted by all words.
  Note:-Sesha and Seshi. Both chit and achit exist not for their own sake,
  but for the fulfilment of the purposes of Iswara. So, Iswara is Seshi and chit and achit stand in the relation of sesha to Him,115
  Many Vedio texts declare this truth :-
  “All the Vedas point to Brahman as that which is to be attained; all the Vedas are at one in Him”. (Kata Upanishad 2 - 15)
  The meaning is: Since, Brahman is the only thing which is expressed, they become one as expressive of the same thing”.
  “The one celestial thing is in varied forms (like gods, men and the like), being their inmost self (antaryami)”. Aranyaka: 3, 11.
  “The senses (devah) of these beings are not aware of Him though He exists with them”. The word devah in the sruti quoted above means the senses (indriyah). The sruti means that He exists within gods, men and the like as their inmost soul and is therefore (always) with them and (yet) the senses of these beings are not aware of Him.
  There are passages in the Puranas which state the same thing:
  “We bow to That wherein
  their final and
  all words find eternal resting place”. The resting place of a word is of course that which is expressed by it. “That which is the first cause of all effects is the primary and chief significance of all words”. Jitanta Stotram: (7-4).
  “By all the Vedas, it is I that have to be known” Bhagavad Gita: (15-15).
  These and other passages refer to the Inner Self (antaryami) that has, as His attributes, individual souls with their bodies; for, does not the sruti declare: “So, I will enter into these three deities (devatah)- fire, water, earth, along with my body, namely
  T
  116
  the individual self and create names and forms (such as gods, men, animals, plants and the like)?.”
  The words of Manu are also to this effect:-
  “He who rules over all, who is the subtlest of all subtle things know that He is the Supreme Person (Purusha) with the splendour of the sun and capable of being realised by intelligence similar to that in a dream”.
  The meaning is as follows:- “He who rules over all” means “He who directs and controls all, having entered into them as their Inner Self”. Souls are said to be subtle because they pervade all non-sentient things. Iswara is said to be more subtle than the souls because He pervades even souls that are subtle. The word rukmabha in the sloka means “having the
  “having the colour of the sun”. Svapnadheegamya means “capable of being realised only by constant meditation which has attained the clearness of sense perception”.
• “Some call Him Agni, others call Him Maruts, and others still call Him Prajapati, some others call Him Indra, while others call Him Prana. He is called also by others the Eternal Brahman”.
  Manu: (12-123)
  “Some” means some Vedas. On the line of reasoning stated before, since the Supreme Brahman has entered into all things as their Inner Self for controlling and directing them, words like Agni denote Him just like the words “Eternal Brahman”.
  So also another Smriti says:-
  “Those who perform yajnas to the spirits of their forefathers, to the gods and to Brahmins as well as
  117
  to Agni perform these yajnas only to Vishnu who is the Inner Self of all”.
  Words like “the spirits of forefathers”, ‘gods’, ‘Brahmins,’ and ‘Agni’ denote only Vishnu who is their Inner Self”. This is what it comes to mean.
  In regard to this matter, this is the essence of all the Sastras: “The individual souls (jiratmas) have pure knowledge as their attribute; this knowledge is, in its (essential) nature, without any contraction or limits (that is, it can reach any place and function at any time). (But) owing to avidya which is of the nature of karma, it has undergone contraction in accordance with their respective karma. (As a consequence), they enter into the bodies of created beings from Brahma downwards to the (smallest) grass and obtain an extent of knowledge which is in accordance with their respective bodies. They identify themselves with their respective bodies and perform actions suited to them and, in virtue of these actions, are caught up in the stream of samsara, which consists in the experience of pleasures and pains adapted to their nature. Their release from samsara is impossible except by devout self-surrender (prapatti) to the Lord. For this purpose, the Sastrus teach that all souls (atmanah) are of the nature merely of knowledge (jnana) and are therefore exactly alike, and that since their substance or essential nature (svarupa) exists solely to subserve the purposes of the Lord, they have the Lord as their soul. They teach, further, that the essential nature (svarupa) of the Lord is different from all else, being absolutely opposed to all that is imperfect and being of the nature of bliss, that He is the abode of boundless, wonderful and innumerable auspicious qualities and that He is the soul of all,
  15
  118
  directing all things, sentient, and non-sentient, by His will. They teach (finally) that the means of attaining Him is devotion (bhakti) to Him with due supplementary rites (anga).
  As stated in the following sloka :—
  “The soul or self is of the nature of bliss (ananda); it is of the nature of knowledge (jnana); it is spotless (pure). Suffering (dukkha), ignorance and impurities are the qualities of prakriti (or matter) and not of the soul.
  This means that since the qualities (like suffering, ignorance and impurities) are due to karma, which arises from the soul’s association with prakriti, they do not pertain to the substance or essential nature (svarupa) of the soul. By association with prakriti, suffering and the like result; by dissociation from prakriti, they cease to exist. Hence, by this discernment, they may be seen to belong to prakriti.
  The Bhagavad Gita says:-
• “In one endowed with learning and character, in one who is a Brahmin only in name, in a cow, in an elephant, so also in a dog and in the man who eats dog’s flesh, the wise see the souls to be of the same nature (though in association with bodies that are diverse)”. Chap. 5, 18.
  “The wise” are those who have the wisdom to differentiate, the soul (or atma) from matter
  The first two words in the sloka are interpreted by Sri Ramunuja in his Gita Bhashya as referring to two individuals. At first sight, it might appear that they mean “in a Brahmin endowed with learning and character”.

119
a
(prakriti) which has taken the shapes of gods, animals, men and plants. Those who have knowledge of the true nature of the soul when it is dissociated from the specific form of matter see (all) souls to be of the same nature, though existing in widely different forms and are therefore “seers of sameness” (samadarsanah).
The Gita declares as follows:-
“Those whose mind is aware of the sameness (of souls when freed from matter) by them has release from bondage (moksha) been secured even here (((i. e.) though they have not yet obtained moksha, they are, for all practical purposes, like released souls). The soul dissociated from matter is without faults (differences) and may be called Brahman; they are therefore in Brahman (Hence, they may be called released souls.)
“without
‘Without faults’ (nirdosham) means the faults arising from association with specific forms of matter like the bodies of gods and the rest”. The soul of every one, in its essential nature or substance (svarupa), (apart from matter or prakriti) has only the nature of bliss or knowledge and is therefore alike (in all). It has already been stated that the srutis, smritis, and itihasas teach that these words denoting the respective bodies and the grammatical coordination (samanadhikaranya) mean that. the soul which has been described so far exists only to subserve the purposes of the Lord (seshatva), is controlled and directed by Him (niyamyatva) and is supported by Him (adheyatva).
The Bhagavad Gita says:-
“This prakriti or matter which is of the nature of sattyam, rajas and tamas was constituted by me, it is.
120
hard to overcome; only those who have sought my protection can pass beyond prakriti”. (7, 14).
This comes to saying that the release of the Jiva from samsara, which is characterised by association with prakriti possessed of varied qualities resulting from karma, is impossible without self-surrender to the Lord (prapatti).
The Srutis also state that there is no other way to attain Brahman.
The Gita further says:-
“This world is all pervaded by me without revealing my form; all beings rest in me (their inner self), (but) I do not depend on them;
nor do they rest in me (by actual physical contact but by my will). Behold my unique sovereignty (9, 1, 5,). Thus, the varied nature of His divine Lordship is stated to arise from the possession of all powers. The same
same idea is proclaimed again (in the following sloka):-
“I hold the whole world under my control with a fragment of my might”.
It means: “I enter into this wonderful and varied universe as its soul and hold it under my control by my will. Thus, I am the possessor of the boundless splendour of this universe. I am the abode of immeasurable noble qualities and stand as an object of unsurpassed wonder”.
So has it been said:-
“The Lord is manifold while (remaining) one; while He is manifold, He remains single. His
121
form is beyond thought; who is there capable of understanding it?”.
As ruler and controller, He remains one, enters into the varied forms of chit and achit as their inner self and thus appears in varied modes (prakarah), directs them to perform varied deeds, and thus assumes many forms. Having entered into the world consisting of varied and wonderful forms with an extremely small fragment of His might, as their inner controlling self, He is seen as manifold. At the same time, Narayana, who is the Supreme Brahman and Purushottama, remains One, the Lord of all Lords, possessed of boundless. wonderful and innumerable auspicious qualities. He is of unsurpassed splendour and has a complexion similar to that of a black cloud. His eyes are clear and long like the petals of a lotus; He has a form resembling a thousand suns (radiating countless beams). As the Srutis declare, “He is * in the cave in the Supreme Ether (nitya vibhuti), in the § heavenly world yonder” (and remains One). Nowhere else than in the Lord is it possible that a thing possessing a certain nature and certain powers capable of performing only one kind of action and having only a single form could have other forms, other characteristics and other powers. The Supreme Brahman described above is different from all other things and has the characteristics of all and possesses all kinds of power. Though He is single, He is of manifold forms, countless and varied. Since He has wonderful resources which are innumerable, He is also one that has neither an equal nor a superior. In Him manifoldness and singleness are not opposed to each other. On the ground that
Taittiriya Aranyaka (1-1). § Taittiriya (6-1).
122
He is also an object (like others), it is not proper to say that there is opposition or incongruity between the two (namely, oneness and manifoldness).
Note: This world with all its wonderful variety is called Bhagavan’s Lila vibhuti, the splendid scene created for His play or Lila. Bhaga van also transcends this world and exists in the heavenly world, which is eternal and unchanging and which is called nitya vibhuti.
So has it been said :-
“The (unique) powers of all things (like fire, water and the rest) are such as cannot be explained by reason or thought. (What one substance possesses as its unique quality or power is not found in others). For the same reason (unique) powers such as that of creation and the like belong to Brahman (which is different from all else). O best of those that have performed austere penances, this is like the heat possessed by fire which is not to be found, for example, in water.” Vishnupuranam (1-3-2)
This is what it comes to mean:-It would be unreasonable to expect that a certain power found in any one of such substances as fire, water and the like will be seen in others different from that substance. Just as heat and other like qualities not. found in water are found in fire which is different in kind (from water), even so, in Brahman which is different from all other things, it is unreasonable to infer likeness with other things (on the ground that Brahman is also a substance).
So says (Akrura to Sri Krishna):-

• “That great Being whose wonderful form this world is with that wonderful being, namely, yourself, I have now come in contact”.
  Vishnupurana (5-19-7).
  r
  123
  All these (truths) have been arrived at by a careful study of hosts of Vedio passages with diverse significance and of their commentaries as accepted by the wise. For instance, in regard to creation and dissolution, (srishti and pralaya), which are due to the infinite modifications of many ‘reals’ (tattvas) and in which there is no definite order of occurrence, the Srutis and no other source of knowledge can give us any knowledge and, likewise, in regard to Brahman, But the Srutis describe them in different ways. Some Vedic texts describe Brahman as being without any attributes (nirguna) and as being of the nature of knowledge:- “It is pure, free from stain; it is knowledge and bliss; it suffers no change; it has no parts; it never acts; it is peace; it has no attributes.” Thus these srutis say that Brahman is knowledge without any attributes. Again, it is
  said in some Srutis:- “In Brahman there are no differentiating features (nana) of any kind. He who sees difference (or differentiating features) in Brahman - he goes from samsara to samsara (bondage to bondage)” Kata Upanishad 4-10. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 6 - 4 – 14). “When one has realised that all is Brahman, how is it possible to say that one sees and that another is seen, that one knows and that another is known”. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4-4-14). There are these and other Vedic texts of this kind which deny plurality (i. e.) that there are other things besides Brahman). There are other Vedic passages which say, “He who knows all and who knows the characteristics of all, He whose actions (in creating the world) are of the nature merely of His will which is knowledge-(He is Brahman)” Mundaka Upanishad 1-1-10); “He who discriminates all forms (rupa) He in his wisdom gives them their names and calls them by these
  J
  names”. Taittiriya Purusha Sukta). “All moments (in time) arose from the Supreme Being (Vidyut Purusha)” (Narayanopanishad). “He is free from all sin; old
  age does not afflict him nor Death; He is free from sorrow; He has neither hunger nor thirst; all desirable objects are ever with Him and His will is ever accomplished” (Chandogya Upanishad) (8-1-5). These texts deny the presence of such qualities as are considered imperfections in the world and affirm the existence in Him of countless auspicious qualities, of omniscience and of all forms of power or might. They affirm also that He gave forms and names to all things and that He is the support (adhara) of everything. Other Vedic passages state as follows:- “Everything is, indeed, Brahman, for everything arises from Brahman, is absorbed in Him, and has its being in Him (Chandogya Upanishad 3-14-1). “All this has Brahman as its soul (Chandogya Upanishad 6-8-7). These texts declare that the world created by Brahman is manifold and that everything is Brahman”. There are also a number of Vedic passages which say, “He who realises that the individual self is different from Iswara who he alone becomes worthy of (Svetasvatara Upanishad 11). “He who threethe experiencing self, the object of experience and the ruler who directs” (Svetasvatara Upanishad 1). Prajapati desired as follows:- “I will create these beings”. “The Lord of the world, the Great Ruler who is Supreme, the Supreme Deity of all deities” Svetasvatara Upanishad 6), “He who has everything under His control and rules over everything” Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 6, 4, 22). These and other Srutis declare that Brahman is different from everything else, that everything (else) is subject to His rule, that He is the ruler of all, that everything
  directs him - His grace”. knows these125
  (else) exists to subserve His purposes (sesha) and that Iswara is the Lord (of all). Other passagos again say: “The Ruler who has entered into all beings and who is the soul of all” (Yajur Aranyaka 8, 20). “This self is the Inner Ruler who is immortal” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (5-7); “He whose body is the earth, He of whom water is the body, He to whom fire is the body. He to whom primordial matter before it undergoes transformation (avyaktam) is the body, He to whom akshara (chit) is the body, He to whom Death is the body, He to whom the soul of the Jiva is the body” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 5-7). These srutis show that the relationship between every object other than Brahman and Brahman is that between the body and the soul.
  This being the case, these passages which are diverse in their meaning should be interpreted in such a way that they do not conflict with one another and that the primary and direct meaning (mukhyartha) is not given up and they have been so interpreted (by us). The Vedic texts which deny change or modification in Brahman have their direct meaning, because we state that the essential nature of Brahman (svarupa) is not subject to modification (and that these modifications are only in His body consisting of chit and achit). The passages in the sruti which say that Brahman is nirguna (without attributes or qualities) are interpreted (by us) as meaning that Brahman is without those (objectionable qualities) or imperfections that are found in the world associated with matter. The texts which deny plurality (nanatva) are, in no way, disregarded, because we hold that all things other than Brahman, both chit and achit, are His bodies or modes (prakara) and that He is the inner self of
  16
  ་་
  126
  all, who has them as His modes. In this sense (we hold) that there is only one thing, viz., Brahman. The passages which say that Brahman is different from all else, that He is the Lord and Ruler, that He is the abode of all auspicious qualities, that the objects of desire are ever with Him and that His will is supreme - these passages are accepted by us (just as they are) and stand unshaken. The texts which declare that Brahman is mere knowledge or bliss are interpreted by us as follows:- The Supreme Brahman, who is other than everything else, who is the abode of all auspicious qualities, who is the Ruler over all, for whose purposes everything else exists, who is the support of all things, who is the cause of the origin, continuance, and dissolution of everything else, who is free from all imperfections, who is not subject to any change or modification (vikara), who is the soul, of all (this Supreme Brahman) possesses (in our doctrine) knowledge which is of the nature of bliss as His essential attribute (the attribute which defines His svarupa) and which is opposed to all impurity and that His essential nature (svarupa) is also knowledge, because He is selfevident or self-luminous. The declarations of unity (between the Jiva and Brahman found in the srutis like “That Thou Art”) bring out the relationship of the body and the soul that exists between them and that accounts for the grammatical co-ordination. In this sense we accept the authority of these passages also.
  By this interpretation, it may be asked, which of the doctrines (siddhanta) is proved as true according to the Vedas, the doctrine of non-difference (abheda) (otherwise called advaita) or the doctrine of bhedabheda, difference as well as non-difference or the doctrine of plurality or bheda. The answer is
  187
  as follows: Since every one of them is taught in the Vedas, every one of them is accepted as trus (in a sense). Since Brahman has everything else as His body and as His prakara or mode, He is the only existing thing. Thus, abheda or advaita is proved as true (in this sense). The one Brahman, we maintain, has sentient aud non-sentient things, which are many and varied, as His prakaras or modes and stands manifold. Therefore, bhedabheda is proved also to be true (in a sense). We hold that chit and achit are different both in their essential nature (svarupa) and in their attributes (svabhava) from Iswara and should not be confounded with one another. Therefore, the bheda doctrine is also accepted as true.
  The Advaitin might here object and say, “But the sruti states: “That Thou art” and “There is delay for him (who knows the unity of the Jiva and Iswara) only until he becomes free from the body.” These passages imply that only the knowledge of unity between the Jiva and Iswara is the means of attaining release from bondage, which is the supreme goal or end of life.”
  The passage in
  We answer:- “It is not so. Svetasvatara Upanishad I says, “Only by knowing that the Inner Self within, directing the Jiva, is different from the Jiva-(only thus does the latter attain immortality (amritatvam), having been admitted into His favour by Him”. “Thus” means “by reason of the knowledge of separateness”. “By Him” means “by the Supreme Self”. The words “becomes immortal, having been admitted into His favour” make it clear that the direct means of attaining immortality is the knowledge of the difference between the individual self and the Inner Ruler who
  128
  controls and directs. The Advaitin might say, “This text in Svetasvatara Upanishad should be considered as referring to the attainment of Saguna Brahman, (i. e.) Brahman with attributes, who is unreal. We ask:-“Why should not the reverse be true, namely, that the knowledge of difference is the means of attaining immortality, since the Svetasvatara text explicitly states it to be so, whereas the Chandogya passage has no such explicit statement (to the contrary)? That is, when there is (apparent) conflict between two (texts) of equal validity, their real import should be carefully studied without ignoring (either of them). “How could there be no conflict?” it may be asked. The meaning of the Chandogya text is, “Since the individual self is the body of the Supreme Self, who is within the former as his inner ruler and director, the word “thou” means “Brahman who has thee (the individual self) as His prakara or mode”. It should be understood in this way”. The meaning of the Svetasvatara text is that the difference between the Jiva who is the body or prakara and the Supreme Self who abides in him as his soul, who is free from all defects and imperfections, and who is the abode of wonderful and innumerable auspicious qualities should be borne in mind. This has been repeatedly explained.
  of
  (In the Svetasvatara Upanishad I) it is said, “The experiencing subject (the individual self), the object of experience (achit) and the Ruler who directs all etc.” A thing which is the object experience is of this nature:- it is non-sentient: it exists always for others; it is subject to changes or modifications and so on. The individual self, who is the experiencing subject, is of the following nature. It is essentially of the nature of infinite and pure knowledge and bliss; but owing to avidya,
  129
  which is of the nature of beginningless karma, its knowledge is subject to contraction and expansion and it becomes connected with non-sentient matter, which is the object of experience or enjoyment and it is capable of obtaining release from bondage by devout adoration of the Supreme Being and has such other qualities. Brahman exists in the individual self as its Inner Ruler and also in non-sentient things as their Inner Ruler. (Apart from these two) He exists also, in His essential nature, as the abode of countless attributes. Thus, the meaning of the Svetasvatara text is that Brahman exists in three forms.
  (Moreover) the sentence, “That Thou Art,” has been commented upon by wise acharyas of ancient times as teaching that the Brahman who is to be adored in sad-vidya is possessed of attributes (saguna) and that the fruit of this adoration is the attainment of Saguna-Brahman (Brahman with attributes). For instance, the Vakyakara says, “It is in accordance with reason that the goal is the attainment of Saguna-Brahman (since the adoration) according to sadvidya is of Saguna Brahman.” This has been commented upon as follows by Dramidacharya, while pointing out the optional nature of the vidyas ( (i. e.) between Dahara Vidya and Sad Vidya):- “He who has ‘sat in his mind does not meditate on the multitudinous qualities as apart from the deity, (as in the dahara vidya). Nevertheless, he worships only the deity that has qualities. Therefore, even by the meditation according to sad vidya, the fruit that results is the attainment of Saguna Brahman. “He who has sat in his mind” means “he who meditates in accordance with sad vidya,” The rest of the sentence means:- even though he does not
  F
  130
  meditate on the multitudinous auspicious qualities like freedom from blemish or sin as apart from the deity, like the one who practises the dahara vidya, he worships only the deity who has these qualities; since all these multitudinous and auspicious qualties are always associated with the essential nature (svarupa) of the deity. Though the deity is meditated on as possessed only of its peculiar and unique qualities, such as being the cause of the world and the like, yet the worship of the deity is only as qualified by all the auspicious qualities which, as a matter of fact, are connected with its essential nature. Therefore, even in sad-vidya the goal is only the attainment of Saguna Brahman. Hence sad-vidya and dahara vidya are optional ( (i. e) either of them may be chosen, the result being the same).
  Neto:-Sad-vidya, dahara vidya:- The Upanishads ordain some thirtytwo forms of meditation or adoration of the Supreme Being. In sad-vidya the meditation is on the Supren e Self as being the cause of the world. In dahara vidya the meditation is on the qualities or attributes of the Supreme Being. These vidyas or forms of meditation are not all of them prescribed as necessary for everyone, Any one of them will do for attaining the desired goal. So they are alternatives and it is within the option of each man to choose the form of vidya suited to his own nature.
  Here, another objection might be raised:- “It has been stated (by you) that the Supreme Self is the Inner Ruler who directs all creatures and that everything is subject to His direction and control. If so, there is no person qualified to follow (adhikari) the injunctions (vidhi) and prohibitions (nishedha) ordained in the scripture (such as “Do this” and “This should not be done”). He only is competent to follow injunctions and prohibitions such as “Do this” and “This should not be done” who is capable of action or refraining from action in accord-
  ance
  with his
  131
  own reason. There is no
  the
  such person (since, according to you, every one is directed and controlled by Supreme Self). In all actions, if the Supreme Being is considered (by you) as the inspirer and director, His power of control over all is admitted to be true. It is also said in the sruti as follows:- “He whom this Supreme Being desires to raise to a higher position-him the Supreme Being directs to do good deeds. He whom the Supreme Being desires to cast down-him the Supreme Being directs to do evil deeds”. (Kaushitaki Upanishad 3-9,). Further in making them do good and evil deeds, it would appear as if the Supreme Being is heartless (and partial).
  The answer to this question or objection is as follows:-
  The Lord endows all sentient beings, in common, with the power of intelligence, the power of initiating action (pravritti), and all other such things as are necessary for the performance of actions and for abstention from actions and becomes their support to enable them to carry out their purposes. He also enters into them and controls them by giving His assent. In all this, the Lord remains the Seshu for whom the Jiva exists. The Jiva or individual self, being thus endowed with these powers, acts or refrains from action in accordance with his own will (independently of the Lord). In these situations, the Supreme Being witnesses the Jiva doing these things and remains indifferent (or neutral). Therefore, everything is just. Directing some to do good deeds and some to do evil deeds is not without discrimination of any kind and not in common to all. If a person has already begun, of his own accord, to do things which are extremely pleasing to the Lord,
  132
  the Lord becomes pleased with his love and endows him further with wisdom and inspires him to further deeds of merit. If, on the other hand, a person has already begun to do extremely evil deeds, the Lord strengthens him in his evil nature and makes him do, of his own accord, only cruel deeds thereafter. The Bhagavan says:-
  “To those who (in this way) worship me with loving devotion and who eagerly long for union with me at all times-I graciously vouchsafe unto them the mental power of realising me by which they become capable of attaining me.” Gita (10-10).
  “To enable them to attain my grace, I reveal my attributes within their minds and with the shining lamp of wisdom concerning me. I destroy all karma resulting from ignorance.” Gita. (10-11).
  “Those, who, owing to their cruel nature, show hatred to me-these wicked sinners I cast into the cycle of births and deaths and that too only in wicked forms of life (asuri) that are inimical to me.” (16-19).
  The means of attainment of Brahman (upaya)
  of
  This Purushottama, who is the Supreme Brahman, can be attained only by means devotion (bhakti) which is of the nature of meditation (anudhyana), which seeks no other reward, which is constant and continuous, which is characterised by boundless love (to the Lord) and which, by its vividness, has become the same as sense perception. (And by whom can this be attained?). By one whose multitudinous sins heaped up during all previous births have been
  138
  ย
  destroyed by supremely meritorious deeds, who has won the Lord’s grace by seeking refuge at thè lotus-like feet of the
  feet of the Supreme Person, whose knowledge of the truths and their real significance as obtained from the Scriptures has been rendered clear by the elucidation and explanation of good Acharyas and who, thereafter, comes to possess qualities of the spirit (atmaguna) in ever increasing measure from day to day-qualities such as control of the mind, control of the senses, the practice of austerities and penances, purity of body, patience, straight-forwardness or integrity, the distinctive knowledge of what is to be feared (namely, offence to the Lord and His devotees and the like) and fearlessness (due to the conviction that the Lord is his Saviour), compassion (towards those that are afflicted with suffering,) abstention from injury (to living beings) (ahimsa) and the like-(by one) who never ceases to perform the rites and duties prescribed to each varna (caste) and to each asrama, which have been prescribed as compulsory (nitya) and for special occasions (naimittika), as forms of worship of the Supreme Person and who desists from those actions that are forbidden-(by one) who has surrendered, at the lotus feet of the Supreme Being, both himself and whatever belongs to him, who, on account of his devotion, is ever engaged in the praise of the Lord, in remembrance of Him, in adoration of Him, in obeisance to Him, in efforts (to render service to Him), in reciting His holy names, in listening to His qualities, in explaining His qualities to others, in meditation of Him, in performing pooja and in prostration before Him-who by these acts has pleased the Lord and has won the favour of the Supreme Person possessed of infinite mercy and whose mental darkness has been dispelled by His grace.
  17
  134
  So has it been said by Bhagavan Yamunacharya, the great spiritual teacher, “He can be attained (only) by him whose mind has been purified by the two (viz., karma yoga and jnana yoga) and whose devotion is absolute and is exclusively directed towards the Lord.
  Note:-Karma Yoga and jnana Yoga: Karma Yoga consiste
  in
  the performance of duties and rites prescribed for each caste and each asrama (stage of life), without caring for their fruits and with the idea that these acts are of the nature of the worship of the Lord. Jnana Yoga is realisation of one’s self by the practice of Karma Yoga and of the disciplines prescribed in Yoga. These lead in their turn to Bhakti Yoga, which alone is directly capable of enabling a person to attain the Lord.
  The Eruti also says:- “He who knows both vidya and avidya overcomes his sins by avidya and attains immortality by vidya.” (Isavasya Upanishad11). Here, the word avidya means
  avidya means that which is other than vidya, namely, karma or the performance of rites and duties ordained for each varna (caste) and each asrama (stage of life). The word vidya means meditation which has reached the form of devotion or bhakti.
  (That the word avidya is used in the sense of karmas like sacrifices (Yajna) may be seen from the following sloku):-
  “He, too, performed many sacrifices (Yajna) in order to cross (overcome) his sins by avidya (i. e.) karma, in order to possess the knowledge which comes of wise discrimination.” (Vishnupurana:
  6-6-2).
  “He who meditates on Him in this attains immortality.
  manner
  There is no other way of
  salvation (moksha)”. (Purusha Sukta). Tam evam
  vidvan amrita iha bhavati.135
  ‘Those who meditate on Him become immortal” (Taittiriya Upanishad). ya enam viduh amritas to
  bhavanti.
  “The person who meditates on Brahman attains the Supreme”. Brahmavid apnoti param.
  “He who meditates on Brahman becomes Brahman (i. e.) (comes to resemble Brahman) (Taittriya Aranyaka). Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati.
  In all these sentences, the word vedana (vid=to know) really means ‘meditation’, because it should have the same meaning as nididhyasitavyah “should be meditated upon”.
  Note:-Advaitins hold that only Jnana or knowledge of unity between the Jiva and Brahman can bring about release from samsara. So they consider that the word vedana in the passages cited above means knowledge and not ‘meditation”. The Visishtadvaitin holds that karma and jnana lead to bhakti and that bhakti alone leads directly to meksha.
  The following sruti describes the nature of this meditation :-
  “This (Supreme) Being cannot be attained by mere reflection (manana) nor by mere meditation (medha) nor by listening to the manifold (Scriptures), Only he whom the Supreme Being chooses-only by him can it be attained. To him alone the Supreme Being reveals His form (svarupa)”-Mundaka♦ upanishad 3 - 2 - 9. *
  Not by mere vedana or meditation but by constant and continuous meditation which has come to attain the nature of devotion (or bhakti). Mere meditation cannot do it (na medhaya).
• Note ;—This is the meaning of the first part of this sruti as interpreted by Sri Sudarsana Suri, the great commentator of Vedartha Sangraha and of Sri Bhashya. At first sight, one would be inclined to render the sṛuti thus 1– “The Supreme
  Being cannot
  136
  be attained by the exposition of doctrine, nor by great menta power, nor by listening to the manifold Scriptures”.
  This is what all this comes to mean:- Only when the man desirous of release from bondage who is qualified by meditation (or vedana) and the like as ordained in Vedanta has come to perform this meditation in a spirit of boundless love (to the Lord) (only then) does he become capable of attaining the Lord.
  The Bhagavan has also stated the same:-
  “The Supreme Person can be attained only by exclusive devotion (bhakti)” (“exclusive” in the sense that the devotion is only to Him and to no other deity.) Bhagavad Gita 8-22,
  “Only by exclusive devotion, O Arjuna, can I, whose nature is such, be known, realised and enjoyed.” Ibid – 11, 54.
  “By devotion (bhakti) he comes to understand mewho I am and what my great attributes are. Having thus understood me, he then enjoys me,” Ibid-18, 55,
  The meaning is this:- After that, he enjoys me owing to that devotion itself.
  Bhakti or devotion is only a special form of knowledge which is characterised by unsurpassed love, in which there is no
  expectation and which
  of any reward other than itself generates a dislike for all other things. The Śruti (cited above) means that only he who has this kind of devotion is capable of being chosen by the Lord (for His Grace) and of attaining the Lord.
  137
  This kind of supreme devotion (para bhakti) which is a special form of knowledge arises only from bhakti yoga which, in its turn, results from karma yoga, the performance of rites and duties in absolute detachment in the spirit of service to the Lord, preceded by knowledge (Jnana) of the essential nature of the soul that increases day to day.
  So says Bhagavan Parasara:-
  “The Supreme Person is worshipped by the man who performs the duties and rites of his varna and his asrama. There is no other way of pleasing Him”. Vishnupurana: 3-8-6.
  Purushottama, who is the Supreme Person that incarnated in this world for the redemption of the whole world, has stated this Himself:-
  “Listen to me. I will tell you how the man who is earnestly engaged in the performance of his duties attains salvation (siddhi). Having worshipped me, who is the cause of all action and by whom all this (world) is pervaded, by the (proper) performance of his duties and rites, man attains salvation (siddhi).” Bhagavad Gita (18-46).
  This means: He can be attained only by devotion which has gradually developed in strength, in accordance with what has been said before.
  This is the path indicated in all the srutis whose meaning has been made clear by ancient commentaries on the Veda and the Vedanta and approved, without exception, by holy persons such as Bhagavan Bodhayama, Tanka, Dramida, Guhadeva, Kapardi and Bharuchi.
  V. The validity of sources of knowledge (Pramana) and the arguments to prove that Narayana is the ultimate cause.
  By this (exposition of right doctrine), Charvakas, Buddhists, the followers of Kanada and Goutama, Jains, and the followers of Kapila and Patanjali, who are all unbelievers in the Veda, have been refuted, along with those who hold heterodox views, while believing in the authority of the Veda. Even among those who believe in the authority of the Veda, those whose vision is blind to a knowledge of the true nature of things are considered by Manu as on the same footing as those who do not acknowledge the authority of the Veda.
  “Those smritis which do not acknowledge the authority of the Veda and those again that are heterodox in their vision (kudrishti)-all these are of no avail after death; for they are associated with tamas”. Manu: Smriti 12–65).
  This is the meaning:- Only those whose essential nature is true sattvam untainted by any trace of rajas and tamas - only they interpret the right spirit of the Veda and have an understanding of the real significance of the Veda.
  So also has it been said in the Matsya Purana:-
  “Some kalpas (cosmic periods equal to a day of Brahma) are mixed, some are sattvika, some again are rajasa, while others are tamasa.
  Having pointed out the differences among the kalpas by saying that some among Brahma’s kalpas are mixed, some are sattvic, some are rajasic, while others are tamasic, the greatness of (deities
  139
  (tattva) characterised by sattvam, rajas, and tamas is extolled in the puranas belonging to the respective kalpa by Brahma whose nature is coloured by qualities like sattvam.
  “Whatever purana was diotated long ago in a particular kalpa by Brahma - in
  in that kalpa it is only the greatness of the deity having, in full, the quality (pertaining to that kalpa) that is described in accordance with the nature of that kalpa.” Matsyapuranam.
  Specifically, too, it has been said (as follows).-
  “The greatness of Agni and Siva is extolled in puranas which are tamasic; the greatness of Brahma is highly described in puranas which are rajasic and in puranas which are sattvic, the greatness of Hari is seen prominently. Only those men who follow the yoga prescribed in these sattvika puranas reach the Supreme Goal. In puranas which are mixed (samkirna), the greatness of Saraswati and of the Pitris is described” and so on.
  This is what it means:- Since Brahma is the first among created beings. in him too, on certain days (of his), sattvam is predominant, in others rajas and in others still, tamas.
  So has it been said by Bhagavan:-
  Neither among the beings on the earth, nor again among the gods in svarga is there any created being free from these three qualities of matter (viz., sattvam, rajas and tamas). (Bhagavad Gita: 18-40).
  The Sruti says :-
  “He who first created Brahma and He who conveyed the Vedas to him-(He is Bhagavan)”. (Svetasvatara Upanishad 6 - 35).
  140
  From this, it may be inferred that Brahma is a created being and that he too is subject to the authority of the Sastra. So, he, too, is a kshetrajna (individual self). If there is a conflict (of statements) between the puranas dictated by him on the days which were sattvic and those which were dictated by him on other days, only that purana which was dictated on the sattvic days is authoritative; those which conflict with it are not. The superior validity of a particular purana has to be determined after considering whether or not it was dictated by Brahma on his sattvic days.
  The effects (karya) of sattvam and the other qualities are stated as follows by Bhagavan Himself:-
  “From the development of sattvam arises jnana or perceptual knowledge of the real nature of the soul; from the development of rajas arises desire (for the pleasures of this life and of svarga) and from tamas arises engagement in evil deeds due to negligence and false knowledge, which again lead to the deepening of tamas and consequently of ignorance or want of knowledge”. Bhagavad Gita: (14-1).
  “That intelligence (buddhi) which discriminates between action (that leads to the pleasures of this world-pravritti) and abstention from such action (that leads to moksha)—(nivritti), between what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, between what is to be feared (violation of the teaching of the scripture) and what is not to be feared (following the path indicated in them) and between bondage (samsara) and release (moksha) that intelligence, O Arjuna, is sattvic.
  “That intelligence, O! Arjuna, is rajasic which does not understand properly what is meant by
  141
  dharma and adharma, and what ought to be done and what ought not to be done”.
  “That intelligence which considers adharma to be dharma owing to its being clouded by tamas (ignorance) and which understands all things perversely is, O Arjuna, tamasic”: Bhagavad Gita (14 - 17 and 18 – 30, 31 & 32).
  The authors of the puranas learnt what is said in the respective puranas only from Brahma and then composed the
  puranas. This may be seen (from the following sloka):-
  “I will tell you how, being asked by the great rishis like Daksha, Bhagavan Brahma born in the lotus, related to them long before (what is said in the puranas): Vishnu-puranam: 1,2 & 8.
  If it be asked how the decision should be arrived at in cases where there is mutual conflict (of statement) among the passages in the Vedas which are not of human authorship, we have already said that the conflict may be resolved by a careful consideration of what goes before and what comes after and then determining the purport.
  Here are some passages in the srutis which appear to be conflicting:-
  (1) “Having withdrawn all the senses with the mind (from external objects) and fixed them on the Supreme Being, one should meditate on Isana.” Atharva Sikha.
  (2) “Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra and Indra are all created beings. What is to be meditated on is the
  18
  142
  (ultimate) cause. Only Sambhu, who is possessed of all supreme powers and who is the Lord of all, is fit to be meditated upon in the midst of the sky”: Atharva Sikha.
  (3) “He, to whom there is none superior nor inferior, He, than whom there is nothing smaller or greater, He who stands alone and unshaken like a tree in the heavens - by him is all this (universe) filled. Svetasvatara Upanishad (Chap III).
  “What is above Him is formless and faultless, and those who meditate on it become immortal; others are afflicted with sorrow. That (Being) has its faces everywhere, its heads everywhere, its necks everywhere. It lives in the cave of the heart of all creatures. It pervades all things. It is Bhagavan who is called Siva.” Svetasvatara Upanishad (Chap III).
  (4) “When there was darkness (tamas) every - where, there was no such (division) as day and as night; there was no sat (existence) and no asat (non-existence). Only ‘Siva existed’. That is the reality existing within the sphere of the sun which is worthy of adoration. It is from it that during creation, the jnana of beings attains expansion. Svetasvatara Upanishad.
  It has been already pointed out that Narayana is the Supreme Brahman. How, then, could it be said that this does not conflict with the passages cited above, where Siva is stated to be the Supreme Being? (it may be asked). This is a small matter. The Vedas with their angas (supplementary treatises like Siksha and Vyakarana), as elucidated and elaborated by the principles of interpretation enunciated in the
  in the words
  words of Vedic scholars
  143
  (Mimamsakas) declare that Hari is the cause of the world’s origin and the like. The (Sutrakara) says:- “From whom (are) the origin and the like of this (world) - (that is Brahman)” - 1, 1, 2, “That from which all these beings are born, that by which those that are born continue to live, that into which all these are merged - that is Brahman” Taittriya Bhriguvalli: 1
  Note:- Badarayana, the author of the Brahma Sutras.
  From these it is evident that Brahman is the cause etc., of the world. This has to be understood only from the sections dealing with the creation of the world. “This * (world) existed, my dear, as Sat at the beginning, single and without a second.” From this text, it is learnt that the material cause and the instrumental cause of the world and that which is the Inner Ruler-that these form the (one) final cause and that this final cause is what is denoted by the word Sat. In another sakha or (branch of the Veda), the same meaning is conveyed in: “This existed at the beginning as Brahman, alone.” Here, the final cause is referred to by the word ‘Brahman’. So it is seen that what is referred to by the word Sat is only Brahman. In another sakha the same meaning is conveyed in:- “This + existed fn the beginning as atma alone”, where (the final cause) is referred to by the word atma. In another sakha the same meaning is conveyed in:- “Only Narayana existed (then), neither Brahma nor Isana (Siva), nor the sky nor the earth nor the stars”. (The final cause) is here referred to by the word ‘Narayana’. From this it may be determined that, by the words expressive
• Briharanyaka Upanishad: 3-4 -10. + Aiteraya Up. 2 – 4.
  § Mahopanishad,
  144
  of the final cause like Sat, Brahman and the like, only Narayana is referred to.
  Note: The principle of interpretation enunciated by the Mimamsa Sastra here referred to is this ;- When, in a certain context, a number of words of which the earlier are generic and the latter specific are employed to denote a thing, the generic words refer only to the thing denoted by the words which are more specific. Here Sat (existent) is an extremely comprehensive word referring to all that exists, both small and great, sentient and non-sentient, Next comes Brahman which excludes small things and applies only to the great (brihat). More specific is the word atma (soul) which excludes non-sentient things and applies only to the conscious self. The word “Narayana” is the most specific of all beings, more specific than atma (the conscious self which includes the individual self as well). Therefore, Sat, Brahman and atma refer only to Narayana.
  In Narayanopanishad, (6-2) the passage beginning with *“Him whom seers describe as being in the ocean” and ending with “No one has taken hold of Him (i. e.) known Him either above or across or in the middle. No one rules over Him. He, indeed, is greatly famous (as the creator and protector of the world). His form is incapable of being seen, and no one can see Him with his eye. He can be realised only by the mind endowed with devotion and resoluteness. Those who meditate on Him become immortal”—this passage brings out His
  His being beyond all else, denies the existence of anything superior to Him and then states that this passage should be taken as being one with the + eight hymns (riks) beginning with “Hiranyagarbha arose from the waters.” That these riks treat of the Supreme Person and are in praise of Narayana is indicated by the sentence, “Hrih (i. e.) Bhumi) and Lakshmi are His consorts.”
  • ‘Lying on the ocean’ and ‘being the Spouse of Lakshmi’ are marks from which it may be inferred that the deity referred to is Narayana.

• See Appendix for the meaning of these eight hymns.145
  The same idea is explicitly
  idea is explicitly stated in the Narayana Anuvaka:- “He is the God with a thousand heads; He sees all things; He looks after the welfare of the Universe; The Universe is Narayana (because He is its soul). The Purusha is the Universe because it depends on Him for its existence. Narayana is the Supreme Brahman, Narayana is the Supreme Reality or Truth, Narayana is the Supreme Light, Narayana is the Supreme Self. He is the infinite, changeless Seer who has his residence in the ocean. He confers benefits on the world; Beginning with these
  Beginning with these sentences and ending with “He is Brahma, He is Siva, He is Indra, He is the freed soul (akshara); He is the Supreme Ruler with absolute sway (svarat)”, (the Anuvaka) employs words which, in all the branches of the Vedas, denote the Supreme Reality (Tattva)- words like ’the freed soul’, ‘Siva’, ‘Sambhu’, “The Supreme Brahman”, “The Supreme Light’, “The Supreme Truth or Reality”, “The Supreme Goal’, and the ‘Supreme Being’ to denote only Narayana as endowed with the respective qualities. (The Anuvaka) further points out that all other things are dependent on Him, are pervaded by Him, supported by Him, are controlled by Him, exist for Him to serve His purposes and have Him as their soul. It shows how Brahma and Siva are of the same category as Indra and others and are therefore among His glories (vibhuti). This passage in the Anuvaka is solely intended to determine the nature of the Supreme Reality (or tattva). Apart from this, nothing else is prescribed here. The adoration of Brahman, who is declared in this passage as being above all else, is ordained in other passages (elsewhere), such as “He who meditates on Brahman attains the Supreme”. The passage marked (1) (Page 141) above means “One
  are
  146
  It
  should meditate on the Supreme Being who is the cause of everything by withdrawing the senses and the vital breaths and fixing them on
  them on Him”. prescribes therefore only the meditation on Narayana, who is the Supreme Brahman. Thn word ‘Isana’ applies to him (and not to Siva) because the Srutis say He is the Lord of the Universe and “There is no ruler over Him’.
  Note:-The word ‘Isana’ has, for its conventional meaning (roodi), Siva. But here, it has its etymological meaning (yoga) viz., one who rules.
  The passage marked (2) (Page 141) also prescribes the meditation on Narayana who is the ultimate cause and who can be called ‘Sambhu’. “On whom should one meditate?”. The passage beginning with this (question) and ending with “The cause should be meditatated on” lays down first that the effect or what has been produced should not be meditated on and that only the cause is fit to be meditated on. Narayana’s being the ultimate cause and, likewise, His being denoted by the word ‘Sambhu’ are declared in the Narayana Anuvaka, which deals solely with the question of determining what the ultimate cause is. Therefore to give any other interpretation is against reason in regard to this passage which ordains that the cause should be meditated upon.
  In passage (3) (Page 142) it has been stated that the words “What is above
  “What is above Him” refer to the Supreme Reality being other than the Purusha. This, too, has been refuted by what has been said. For the meaning of the passage is as follows:- “There is nothing else superior to
  to Him and nothing can therefore be above Him” or, in
  147
  other words, it means, “Nothing that is
  that is other than the Purusha can, in any way, be superior”. The word aniyastvam (smallness) means subtleness. ‘jyayastvam’ (greatness) means “Lordship over all”. So, the meaning is “Since He pervades all and is the Lord of all, no one other than He can have the (same) subtlenes or the (same) greatness of lordship; “than whom there is nothing more subtle nor greater” denies the superiority of any one other than the Purusha. So the supremacy of any other deity is against
  reason.
  Note:-Aniyastuam (smallness, which means here, ‘subtleness’. That which is subtle can pass through things that are gross. Light, for instance, can pervade or pass through glass, being more subtle than glass. Xrays are more subtle than ordinary light, since they can pass through or pervade even things like, wood, flesh, etc., through which ordinary light cannot pass. Brahman is the subtlest of all. for it can pervade all other substances without exception,
  If it is asked what this passage means, the answer is as follows:- At the beginning of this section (Upakrama), it is said, “Only by meditating on Him does a person attain immortality. There exists no other way”. Thisshows that the meditation on the Person is the cause of immortality and that the meditation of any one other than He is no way at all. Then follows the sentence, “There is nothing else that is superior to Him”, This declares that the Person is above every one else. Since the Real called Purusha (Purusha tattvam) alone is superior to all else, it is formless and faultless. “Those who meditate on it become immortal. Others have only sorrow?” By these sentences the meditation on the Purusha being the cause of immortality and that of others not being the proper way, which were stated before as propo-
  •.
  148
  sitions, are now concluded with reasons. (If it is interpreted) otherwise, the conclusion would be in conflict with the two statements or propositions (pratijna) stated at the beginning. Since this Real called Purusha is free from all taint of impurity, He has the quality of purity and is fit to be called Siva and is known also from the words “the eternal, the pure” (Sasvatam, Sivam, Achyutam). It is only the Purusha that is referred to by the word (Siva), as may be seen from what follows:-
  “He
  is the great Purusha, the Lord (of all) (who can give us the object of all our efforts, viz., moksha, the one who inspires (us) with goodness sattvam)”.
  By the same argument (as is followed above) in the passage marked (4) (Page 142) “There was no sat nor asat. Only Siva existed”, everything should be interpreted (as before) (i. e.) Siva refers to Narayana.
  Further, in the Anuvaka (section) which begins with (Ambhasyapare) “In the boundless water (i. e.) (the ocean) the Purusha is described as One who is without an equal or a superior in “No one rules over Him”. The same Purusha is described in the Anuvaka or section beginning with “He is subtler than the atom” and is called “Maheswara” who is signified by the syllable a (3) which is the origin (prakriti) of pranava (the syllable aum (3), which, in turn, is the origin of the Veda, being both the beginning and the end thereof. The Anuvaka then prescribes the meditation of the Purusha as existing within the ether (akasa) of the lotus-like heart. This is the meaning:- Of all the Vedas, the syllable aum (pranava) is called the origin. Of pranava, too, the origin is the syllable a (). The Veda which is an evolute
  from pranava has (namely, pranava). syllable a () is Maheswara.
  149
  obtained the form of its origin He who is expressed by the which is the origin of pranava He who is denoted by the syllable a which is the origin of all words that are expressive and who is also the origin of all things denoted by words-He is Narayana.
  The Bhagavan has said the same following):-
  (in the
  “I am the origin of all the world and, likewise, of its dissolution. Dhananjaya, there is nothing else that is above me”. Bhagavad Gita 7-6 & 7).
  “Of all syllables, I am the syllable a”, Ibid (10-33).
  Narayana is that which is denoted by the syllable a, for the Sruti says “A is Brahman”. All words have the syllable a as their origin, for it is said “All speech is the syllable a”. That all things expressed or denoted by words have Brahman as their origin is evident. So since the syllable a denotes Narayana, it follows that Narayana is the Maheswara (referred to in this Anuvaku and not Siva). And this has been explicitly declared in the Narayana Anuvaka whose purpose is solely to determine the Supreme Reality.
  The same Supreme Reality (Paratattva) which is determined in this Anuvaka that has no other purpose is denoted by other words in all passages which treat of other subjects (like the cause of the world). And this truth is brought out by the Sutrakara in Brahmasutra (I1-81) which says: “This instruction (is based) on insight into the Sastras, as by Vamadeva”. On
  19
  4
  L
  shakavu p
  150
  the ground that the Supreme Brahman is signified by the words Brahma, Siva and the like, it would not follow that Brahma and Siva are Supreme Realities, for, in this Anuvaka which has no other purpose than treating of the Supreme Being, Brahma and Siva are placed among the glories (vibhutis) of the Supreme Being, on the same footing as Indra and others. From the fact that words like Prana are (sometimes) employed in the Srutis to denote the Supreme Brahman, it would not be right to say that Prana (the vital breath) and akasa (ether) and the like are the Supreme Reality.
  Note:-Sulra 1 - 1 - 31. In what is called Pratardama Vidya in Koushitaki Upanishad, Indra says, “Worship me, Indra, the slayer of Vritra’, The Sutrakara discusses the meaning of this passage and comes to the conclusion that the object of meditation or worship is not Indra but the Inner Self of Indra (namely) Brahman. So, Indra’s teaching is that the Inner Self within himselt should be meditated on. In this he had in mind the Sastra which says that Brahman is the Inner Self of all, Vamadeva. the seer, taught in the same way. So here too, Brahma and Siva mean the Inner Self of Brahma and Siva, namely, Narayana,
  Now for another objection:-In Chandogya Upanishad (I-8) occurs the following passage :- “In this city of Brahman (viz., the body of the worshipper) there is a small abode like the lotus (viz., the heart); inside (that abode) there is an infinitely small akasa (ether). What is within that akasa or ether should be sought. That is to be known”. “The word akasa here denotes (Brahman), the material cause of the world, and what we are asked to do is to seek (and know) something that is within that akasa (for purposes of meditation). This akasa is said to be the dispenser of names and forms. As in the Purusha Sukta, the Purusha
  151
  is called the the object of the Akasa or is within the Purusha.
  dispenser of search and
  naides and forms, meditation is (not Purusha) but something else that Akasa which is synonymous with
  Note:-This view is that of Vjomasita Vadis (i. c.) those who hold that beyond vyoman or Akasa viz., Narayana, there is 2 higher principle, a higher Real or fativa which is prescribed as the object of meditation or worship.
  This objection can be raised only by those who have not studied the Veda (properly) and who have not seen the writings of those that have studied the scriptures. For the Sruti itself gives the answer to this objection. So also the Vakyakara. The Sruti raises the question, “What is there within that small akasa that should be sought and that should be known?” and answers thus “This akasa, which is within the heart, is as immense as the physical or material akasa, thereby indicating that Brahman, the Supreme Person, who is denoted by the word akasa, is of boundless splendour and is the cause and the support of the world. Then the Sruti proceeds to state: “In this, all auspicious qualities (kamas which are objects of desire) are established eternally. This self (atma) is untainted by evil,, has no old age, nor death, no sorrow, no hunger, nor thirst: it has all objects of desire and its will is irresistible. Thus, the eight qualities beginning with freedom from evil and ending with irresistible will are placed in it (namely, the akasa or Brahman). So, by saying that, in the same way as the Supreme Person is meditated on, the eight qualities of the Supreme Person, too, are to be separately known (and meditated on), the sruti itself has refuted this objection.
  15%
  This is what it comes to:- “What is there within it that is to be sought? To this question the answer is: “In Him (viz., the akasa) are qualities like being the creator and supporter of the world, the quality of being its controller, the quality of being one for whom the world exists, freedom from evil and the like. This is the refutation of the view held by the Vyomatitavadins. The Vakyakara, too, says: By “What is within it” the kamas are referred to. Kamas
  are those which are desired (i. e.) attributes like freedom from evil. The real purport is the following:- That Brahman, which is referred to by the word Dahara Akasa (the small ether) and which, as a form of play, creates. maintains and dissolves the whole world and so also, the supremely wonderful eight qualities like freedom from evil which are within it, both these are to be sought and known. The Sruti says again, “Those who depart (from this world) after knowing this atmin (Brahman) and also its qualities-to them there is freedom to go about as they please in all the worlds.”
  But it may be asked:- “How is it that, in a sentence which lays down (the injunction) that only the (Ultimate) Cause is to be meditated upon, Vishnu, who is described as the Supreme Reality in passages which are devoted to no other purpose than the determination (of the Supreme Reality) is placed among created beings?” (The answer to this question is as follows:-) “We have to understand that Vishnu who is placed here alongside Brahma and Rudra wanted to complete the number of the Reals (tattvas) who were His own creations and, by way of sport and by His own will, incarnated as Vishnu (to make the number three). This is just like
  153
  of
  the Supreme Being incarnating as Upendra, by way of sport, to complete the number of the gods (devas), and also like the Supreme Brahman incarnating, by His
  by His own will, as the son Dasaratha to complete the number of kings born of the solar race, and like Bhagavan incarnating in the house of Vasudeva by His own will to relieve the burden on the goddess of the earth, while completing the number of the kings of the lunar race.
  It has already been said that, in dealing with creation (srishti) and (pralaya), Narayana alone is stated to ultimate cause.
  all contexts dissolution be the
  Note:-An avatara is not a creation by somebody else. It is a form taken by the Supreme Being, by His own will, for a definite purpose. So an avatara is not a karya (effect) and may be the karana or cause,
  It may be objected again that, in the Atharva Siras, Siva describes himself as possessed of supreme lordship. The Sruti itself replies to this objection by saying: “He has entered into all and into all the quarters.” (The word ‘He’ in this sentence refers to the Supreme Being and not to Siva). Therefore, it was said so by Siva on the ground that the Supreme Being had entered into Him. The Sutrakara himself has explained the meaning of this and other such passages by saying, “This instruction (is based) on insight into the Sastras, as by Vamadeva” (I-1-81). So also has it been stated by Prahlada:-
  “Since Ananta (Narayana) pervades everywhere, I am He; from me (arises) all; I am all; everything is in me who am eternal.” Vishnu puranam: 1-19-85.
  154
  “Since Ananta pervades everywhere” gives the reason (for the statement made by Prahlada), The Supreme Being pervades all, because He is the soul of everything, sentient and non-sentient, which forms His body. Therefore, it has been said that all words (like Siva and the rest) denote only the Supreme Being. Hence the word ‘I’ (aham) in Prahlada’s speech refers only to the Supreme Being who has for His modes (prakara) the soul of himself. The Vakyakara, therefore says, “It is said in such statements as Brahman should be meditated on as the soul (of all), since it is the cause of all.” It is only the Supreme Self that stands as the effect (karya) and as the cause and has for His body, sentient and non-sentient things. both in their gross and in their subtle state, So. the Vakyakara says ‘It is the cause of all.’ The Sutrakara also says:- “Brahman should be meditated on) as the soul; (it is) in this way that (previous worshippers) have meditated, (The Sastras) too give the same instruction (IV - 1 - 3).
  In the Mahabharata also, in the dialogue between Brahma and Rudra, Brahma says Rudra:-
  to
  “”* (He) is the inner self of you, of myself, and of all who are called embodied beings” (i. e.) Narayana, who is the Supreme Ruler (Parameswara) is the Inner Self of Rudra, Brahma, and other embodied beings, (dehi).
  In the same (treatise) occurs (the following):- “Vishnu is the soul of Bhagavan Siva (Bhava) who is possessed of immeasurable splendour”)..

• Mahabharata: mo: 179-4

Do
Do: 196-16 ··155
In the same (again occurs) the following):-
“* These two (Brahma and Rudra), greatest of gods who are stated to have been produced from the graciousness (prasada) and wrath (respectively) of Vishnu, act as the agents of creation and destruction following the path pointed out by Him (Narayana)”.
The meaning is:- Brahma and Rudra carry out the work of creation and destruction, having been shown the way by Narayana who resides within them as their Inner Self.
Here ends the section proving that Narayana is the ultimate cause.
The argument to prove
that Brahman is the Instrumental Cause (nimitta karana) as well as the Material Cause (upadana karana).
Instrumental
Those who maintain that the Cause (nimitta karana) of the world should be different from the material cause (upadana karana) should be looked upon as outside the pale of the Vedas (for their view is against that of the Vedas). This view is also aginst that of the Sutras composed by that (great) authority on the Vedas, (Badarayana), such as, “(That) from which arise the origin etc., of this (world) (is Brahman)” (I. 1-2) and “Brahman is also the material cause (prakriti) since this is not in conflict with the proposition and the illustrations”. (1—4—23).
It is also against a large number of srutis (e. g.) (1) “This, my dear, existed at the beginning sat and without a second” (2) “It resolved Mahabharata: ka. Par: 35-50
156
that it should become the manifold”, (8) “Brahman is the forest and Brahman is the tree from which they made the world”, (3) “Brahman presided supporting the worlds”, (4) “All the moments (of time) took their origin from the Purusha, whose splendour is like that of lightning”, (5) “No one rules over Him. Great fame is His”, (6) There is nothing here of plurality (nana), (7) “He has everything under His control and is the ruler over all”, (8) The Purusha alone is all this, both the past and the present and He is the ruler of all, (9) “There is no other way of attaining Him”. Likewise in the Ithihasas and Puranas, while describing creation and dissolution, this (alone), Brahman or Narayana), is indicated to be the highest reality (paratattva):-
In the Mahabharata occur the following (slokas):-
“By whom was all this created, O Brahma (literally grand father,) both the moving and the non-moving? Whom do they go to at the time of dissolution (pralaya)? Tell me this;
“Narayana has the (whole) world as His body; He is the inner self (atma) of all;
He is eternal”.
“The rishis, the pitris, the gods, the great elements, the tissues of the body (dhatu) – this world consisting of moving and non-moving thingsall had their origin from Narayana”.
Note:-(1) shows that Brahman is both the material and the instrumental cause, (2) shows His being the instrumental cause, (3) shows His being the material cause, (4) shows His being the instrumental cause, (5) shows His being the material cause, (6) shows His being the instrumental cause. (7) shows both.
The Vishnu Purana which is accepted unanimously by all learned men (sishtas) in the east,
157
north, south, and west as
as being adequate, by itself, to determine the nature of all dharma (duty) and of all reality (tattva) raises the question, “The cause of the origin and the like of the world is understood to be Brahman; What is that cause?” and answers it by saying “(All this) arose from Vishnu”. From such passages as this, it is agreed on all hands that this purana exsits solely for the purpose of pointing out the specific form of Brahman (viz., Vishnu).
So also in the concluding section of this treatise it is said:-
“(The nature of) Prakriti, both in its manifested state (vyakta) in creation and in its unmanifested state (avyakta) during pralaya, has been explained by me and so also, (the nature of) Puruha (the individual self). Both of them merge in the Supreme Self”. (This means that the Supreme Self is the ultimate cause of the world ).
“The Supreme Self is the support of all and is the Supreme Ruler (Parameswara). In the Vedas and the Vedantas (the Upanishad), it is celebrated in song by the name of Vishnu”.
The meaning is “He alone is celebrated in song in all the Vedas and Vedanta by all words as the ultimate cause. Just as the Narayana Anuvaka” among all the srutis, interests itself solely in determining the specific form of the Supreme Brahman, so also this Vishnu Purana says:-
“From you, O, knower of dharma, I desire to learn whence this world arose, how it arose, whence it will arise again and how it will arise; illustrious sir, tell me by whom it is pervaded
20
158
and in whom this world of moving and non-moving things lay merged before and in which it will become absorbed again”. Having begun, in this way, to ask, “What is this Supreme Brahman?”, it proceeds to describe the specific nature of this Supreme Brahman:-
“From Vishnu possessed of the will (to create), this world took its origin; in Him alone it stands; He maintains it and controls the world; He is the world.
“He is greater than the great; He pervades everywhere; He is self supported; He is without the specifications of genus, quality and the like. He is not subject to decay and death, to modification, to growth and to birth. He is capable of being spoken of only as existing always.
“He is everywhere and everything has its abode (vasati) in Him. Therefore, the learned speak of Him as Vasudeva.
“He is the Supreme Brahman-eternal, because He is unborn, unchanging, and withont end. He is always of the same nature; He is pure, because there is no blemish or imperfection in Him, as He is free from karma.”
“AH this universe which is of the nature of the manifest and the unmanifest, and which also stands in the form of purusha (the individual self) and of kala (time) is only He.”
“He is beyond prakriti (matter) which is the cause of all the elements (bhuta), beyond its evolutes or modifications (like mahat and ahankara)
159
and beyond blemishes like the gunas (of prakriti viz., sattvam, rajas and tamas.) He is beyond all obscuration (avarana). He is the soul of all, O Sage, because all parts of the world are pervaded by Him.”
“The essential nature of His divine self has the quality of all auspiciousness. He supports all sorts and kinds of beings with but) a small fraction of His might. At His own will and pleasure, He assumes wonderful forms pleasing to Him; and (this He does) to promote the wellbeing of the whole world.”
“He is the unique abode of qualities like splendour, strength, wisdom, valour and might. He is the greatest of the great; in Him there are no such things as pain, because He is the ruler of the great and the small.
“He is Iswara; He is of the nature of Jivas in their individual state
state (vyashti) and in their collective, causal state (samashti); so also He is of the nature of the manifested and the unmanifested state (of matter). He rules over all; He knows the nature of everything and of every mode of everything”.
“That knowledge by which this (Brahman) that is free from the taint (dosha) (peouliar to prakriti), that is pure (without the karma which binds the Jiva), that is incapable of being ever tainted (by karma like the released souls), that is supreme and always the same-that knowledge alone is knowledge; the rest is called ajnana (ignorance)”.
Iu this way the Vishnu Purana is interested only in determining the specific form of the Supreme
160
Brahman. Therefore, other puranas are to be so interpreted as not to conflict with it. That they are interested in other subjects (than Brahman) may be seen even in * the manner in which they begin. That in them which is entirely opposed (to what is in the Vishnu Purana) should be disregarded as due to tamas.
Note;—in the manner in which they begin : The Laingapuranam begins by asking for a description of the greatness of the Linga in special, whereas Vishnupuranam seeks to know the Supreme Being and its characteristics and declares that Vishnu is that Supreme Being; so the praise of Vishnu in it is impartial.
But it might be said, even in this (purana), the equality of the trinity (Brahma, Vishnu and Siva) is apparent as in the following:-
“Bhagavan Janardana alone takes the names of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, while engaged in the (respective) work of creating, maintaining and destroying”. Vishnu Purana: 1-2-66.
We answer: “It is not so. “Janardana alone” means that Janardana is stated in this context to be identical with Brahma, Vishnu, Siva and the rest of the world. What was stated succinctly before in “He is the world” is here elaborated.
“He is the creator and He also creates Himself; Vishnu is the object of protection and is, at the same time, the protector: He is destroyed at the end (in pralaya) and He is himself the destroyer, being the Lord (of all).” Vishnu Purana: 1-2-6.
Here by indicating Brahma in his capacity as creator and the object of creation, and likewise the destroyer and the destroyed at the same time, the purana teaches the identity between Vishnu
161
and everything else. In so far as the creator and the destroyer are among the glories (vibhutis) of Janardana just like the created and the destroyed, there is nothing peculiar to the former. Since the words, Janardana and Vishnu, are synonymous, the purana states that, for His own Lila (or play) and at His own pleasure, the possessor of these glories becomes himself one of the glories. This idea is set forth immediately afterwards:-
and
“Earth, water, and likewise, fire, air ether, all the senses, the mind and the purusha (viz., the Jiva) these that constitute the world are only He. Though He is unchanging (avyaya) yet, He is the soul of all beings and has the universe as His body. Therefore, creation and the like which are found in all beings is only to serve His purposes. Vishnu Purana: 1-2-68.
“He alone is the created and He alone is the creator; He protects and destroys and is. at the same time, the protected; Vishnu who has everything without exception as His form owing to states of existence such as Brahma-Vishnu grants us the objects that we desire; He is the object of worship; He is the highest of all.” ibid: 1–2–68.
Here, the purana raises the question whether it is proper to affirm the identity between the world with blemishes and imperfections mingled (with good qualities) and Brahman who possesses all auspicious qualities and who is not subject to any blemish or change identity, such as is implied in the grammatical co-ordination or apposition (samanadhikaranya) such as “The world is He” and then itself answers it in the words: “Though unchanging, He alone is the soul of all beings and
162
has the universe as His body”. This Vishnu alone, who is the Ruler of all rulers and who is the Supreme Brahman, is stated to be the whole world and the reason is given in: “Though unchanging. He is the soul of all beings and has the universe as His body.” Again, it is said, “All that is the body (tanuh) of Vishnu” To explain:- Though He is unchanging, since Vishnu, the Supreme Brahman, has the universe as His body, this identification of Him with the world is not against reason, The nature of the soul and the nature of the body are, of course, different. This Vishnu. who is the Ruler over all, it has already been stated, incarnates, at His own pleasure, as Vishnu, one among the gods, among animals and among men that are in the ranks of those under His control in the world, in order that they may seek refuge under Him. In the sixth chapter of the Vishnu Purana, while speaking of Subhasraya (a sacred object for meditation), it is clearly stated that Brahma and others are under the sway of karma and that Bhagavan Vasudeva, who is the Supreme Brahman, takes an incarnation of His own accord and in His essential nature, for the good of the whole world. In the Mahabharata it is explained that even in these incarnations as gods and the rest, His body is not constituted of matter (aprakrita). “The body of this Supreme Being is not built up of the five elements (earth, water, etc., which are evolutes of matter (prakriti).” The Sruti also says “Though unborn, He is born in many forms”.
The foremost among the wise are aware of His birth”. To Brahma and others who are subject to the sway of karma, birth, which is of the nature of entrance into the bodies of gods, (men) and the like that are special configurations (samsthana) of the elements (earth,. water, fire, air and akasa) that are themselves
163
evolutes or modifications of matter is inescapable, though they may not desire it and these bodies are adapted to the respective karma. On the other hand, this Bhagavan. who is the Ruler of all and whose will is omnipotent (satyasankalpa), though He never performs any karma which is other than pure, is born manifold, of His own accord and in His own wonderfully auspicious form among gods and the like for the well-being of the world. The word ‘His’ (tasya) (in the Sruti text) means ‘Of Him who does not perform any karma that is other than pure; bahudha yonim (manifold birth) means many kinds of birth in accordance with His innumerable auspicious qualities, dhirah (the wise) means ’the foremost among the wise.” Jananti means ‘know’.
ajayamano bahudha vijayate; tasya dhirah parijananti yonim.
Note:-The question asked was: Does not the placing of Vishnu alongside Brahma and Siva in the sloka quoted from Vishnu Purana show that He is not above them and that there is another tattua above Him? Sri Ramanuja’s answer is “No. Brahma and Siva are created beings and therefore Jivas, whereas Vishnu, though placed alongside with them in that context, is not a created being but an incarnation of Janardana or Vasudeva or the Supreme Brahman. An incarnation is not the same thing as a created being.
The Sutrakara (Badarayana) himself has refuted the idea of there being a higher principle (tattva) than this Supreme Person who has been explained as the material and instrumental cause of the world in the following sutras:- “From which the origin and the like (of this world) proceed (That is Brahman)” I, 1, 2 and “(Brahman is) also the material cause as it is not opposed to the proposition (sought to be proved) and the illustrations” I-4-,28
M
164
and other such (sutras). For in III 2, 30 he raises the purvapaksha or prima facie view. (“There must be) another (reality) higher than this (Supreme Person) on account of such indications as ‘bridge’, ‘measurability’, ‘connexion’ and difference”. Then, he refutes the purvapaksha in the following Sutras:-
Br. Eutra III. 2, 31. “but on
resemblance.”
on account of
Note:-The Sruti text which is the subject of discussion here means;~ This Atma (the Supreme Self) is the setu which protects the worlds against getting mixed up with one another (Chandogya Upanishad VIII 4. I).
The Purva Pakshin says that the word setu in the text should mean ‘bridge’ and that, as a bridge always leads to something beyond itself, the atma or Brahman described so far must lead to a higher tattva beyond itself. The Sutrakara’s answer is as follows:- On account of resemblance to a selu, Brahman is called here a setu. Setu here means not a bridge, but a dam which prevents what is on one side of it from getting mixed up with what is on the other side. But for Brahman, the properties and limits of things like earth, water, fire and air would get mixed up. So, Brahman is not a bridge leading to something else beyond it, but a dam or controlling authority which keeps all things in the proper places assigned to them.
“It is) for the purpose statement about the
Br. Sutra III. 2 -32. of contemplation as in the feet.”
Note:-The Sruti texts which are the subject of discussion
are such passages as “Brahman has four feet” Chandogya Upanishad (V. 18-2) Brahman has sixteen kalah or parts Prasna Upanishad (VI. 1), “His foot is all the beings” Purusha Sukta. These passages would imply measurability or limitedness. It might follow from them that the Brahman described so far was finite and that there was a higher tativa that was infinite. This contention of the Purva Pakshin is refuted in III - 2-32 as follows :– Brahman is certainly infinite, but for purposes of meditation, we are taught to think of Him as having feet, parts and the like.
Br. Sutra III. 2-33. (Though infinite, it may be meditated on as finite) owing to particular places as in light and the like.185
Note:-Light and ether, (akasa), though pervading everywhere, are spoken of as finite and limited, owing to their connection respectively with such places as windows as in ’the light in the window’ and with such objects as pots. So too, though Brahman is infinite and all - pervasive, it may be meditated on as finite owing to its connection with particular places.
Br. Sut. III. 2-34. possibility (in the same the same end and the means).
there
As there is no im-
thing being both
the
Note: The text discussed here is “He is the selu leading to immortality”. The Purvapakshin contends that, as there is a connecting intermediary between the goal and the means of reaching the goal, the goal should be different from the means of reaching it. The Sutrakara’s answer is this: Brahman may well be both. There is nothing that is improper in this, for the Sruti says “He whom this Atma (the Supreme Self) chooses-by him alone can He be attained; to him alone He reveals his form”. Katopanishad.
Br. Sutra: III. 2-35. “So also owing to (the existence of) others being denied, (there is nothing higher than Brahman).
Note:-The texts discussed in this Suira are such passages as “That which
is higher than it:” Svalasvatara Upanishad (3-10) explained before (on page 146), “He reaches the Person beyond the highest (Mundaka Upanishad III 2-8.) “He is beyond the highest which is higher than the Akshara”.
On the strength of these passages, the Purvapakshin saysi
“There should be a higher tativa than Brahman. The Sutrakara replies “No. There is nothing higher, for the Sruti itself says (in Svetasvatara Upanishad 3-9) that there is nothing else higher than Brahman.”
Br. Sutr. III. 2-36. (We learn) that everything is pervaded by this (Brahman), from words signifying extent and others.”
Note:–The Sutrakara bere says that there are Vedic texts like “By Him is all this (world) filled”. Svetasvatara Upanishad (3-9), “Whatever is seen or heard of in the world, all that Narayana pervades, both within and without” Purusha Suktam. “The wise see (Brahman) who is eternal, omnipresent, pervading everything, owing to His 21
166
subtleness and who is the cause of all living beings”. ·Mundaka Upanishad I 1-6. (In these Sutras, the author refutes the view that there is anything higher than Brahman such as Brahma.)
In Manu’s Dharma Sastra also, we find (1) “Then appeared He who controls tamas”, (2) “Desirous of creating all kinds of beings”, (3) “First He created water and placed His energy in it”, (4) ‘‘From the egg of Brahma (Brahmanda) arose Brahma”. In these passages, since we hear of Brahma’s birth, it is evident that Brahma is a Jiva (Kshetrajna).
Note:-The ‘He’ in (1) refers to Aniruddha, an incarnation of Vasudeva, the Supreme Being, who is said to preside over tamas before the creation of the world and of Brahma. (*) *Desirous’ is here said of Brahman not Brahma (3) the ‘He’ refers to Brahman,
The names are given also of the Supreme Person who is the creator and of Brahma who was created by Him in the following:-
“The waters were His abode of old. Therefore, He is called Narayana. The person created by Him is celebrated in the world as Brahma.”
Note-Narayana etymologically means “He of whom the waters (narah)
are the abode (ayana).
That Brahman and others are Jivas may be determined also from the Vishnu Purana, where it is explained that they cannot be sacred objects of meditation (Subhasraya) owing to their association with the three kinds of mental effort (bhavana).
Note:-(1) The mental effort for performing karma capable of securing
objects of pleasure is called karma bhavana. (2) The mental effort to perform the adoration of the Supreme is called Brahma bhavana and (3) the mental effort to perform both the above is called ubhaya bhavana.
Brahma has bhavana of the third kind. In creation he has karma bhavana. At other times, he has Brahma bhavana. Some have only karma bhavana, like most of us mortals. Great seers like Sanaka and Sanandana have only Brahma bhavana.
Here ends the section proving that Narayans is both the instru» mental and the material cause of the world.

Refutation of the view of the Mimamsakas of the Prabhakara School that we understand the meanings of words only when finding them employed in denoting some action or other:

Mimamsakas Note

Primacy of karma

(The Mimamsakas, who have laid down valuable principles of interpretation in regard to the Vedas, attach great importance to the earlier parts of the Veda, the Karma kanda, which prescribes rituals and sacrifices (yajnas) for the attainment of certain worldly objects and of svarga after death.
To them, the Upanishads which form the jnana kanda are of little or no importance, as they do not prescribe the performance of rituals and sacrifices and describe only the nature of Brahman, of the individual self, of matter and of their relations to one another.
The rituals and sacrifices described in the Karma kanda, if properly performed, would, of themselves according to them, lead to the attainment of the good things of this world or of apavarga as the case may be.

Superfluousness of devas

It might appear from the Vedic texts that these rituals and sacrifices are intended to please this god or that.
But such words have no validity in regard to the knowledge that they impart.
It is doubtful, they say,
whether gods really exist;
even supposing they exist,
they are not necessary at all for man’s attaining his desires.
The performance of karma by itself will give him,
either in this life itself or after death,
whatever he desires.

apUrva

It may be objected that as karma, the performance of a rite or a sacrifice,
lasts only for a short time
and as no trace of it persists after the performance is over,
it cannot yield such benefits as svarga
which can only come after death,
since there is no connecting link between the karma which has perished
and the end that is desired.
To meet this objection,
the Mimamsakas postulate an entity called apurva
which arises in the atma as a result of the perfomance of the respective karma
and immediately after its performance is duly completed.
This apurva or karya (as it is also called), they maintain,
persists through life and even after death
and secures the attainment of the desired object either in this world or in svarga.
There is no need, according to them,
to assume that the gods mentioned in the Vedic texts confer these benefits.

Non-vidhi is not true knowledge

The Vedas consist of three parts,
vidhi, mantra, and arthavada.

Vidhi is those texts which lay down certain actions, rites or yajnas as fit to be performed
and certain prohibitions as to what we should not do.
It is only these texts that, according to Mimamsakas, are valid sources of knowledge.

Mantras consist of hymns in verse in praise of the gods
describing their attributes
and asking for their favour.
They [[168]] may be in praise also of the karma
prescribed in the vidhi-vakyas or texts prescribing rites or karma.
The Mimamsakas do not regard these mantras
as giving any valid knowledge.
What may be inferred from them about gods or their attributes
is absolutely of no value as true knowledge.

Arthavadas are invariably in prose
and extol the karma laid down in the vidhivakya or the god or gods
whose praise is sung in the mantras.
These, too, have, according to Mimamsa doctrine,
no value as sources of true knowledge.

Schools

There are two schools of thought among Mimamsakas,
namely, the school of Prabhakara or Prabhakaras (the followers of Prahbakara)
and the school of Kumarila Bhatta or Bhattas, as they are called.

vyutpatti - kAryArthavAda

How do we learn at first the meaning (vyutpatti) of words?
To this question different philosophers have given different answers.
The Prabhakaras affirm that the meanings of words are understood
only when they are employed in connection with some action to be performed (karyarthavada).

When A says ‘Bring the cow’
and B brings it after hearing the words of A,
C who has listened to A’s words and observed B’s action in bringing the cow,
infers that the word ‘cow’ used by A must mean the animal brought by B.
The Prabhakaras are not content with stating that this is one of the ways in which the meanings of words are learnt,
but assert that this is the only way in which the meanings of words could be learnt.
According to them, sentences or words which do not denote any action to be performed
cannot convey any valid knowledge.

Now in the Upanishads,
there are many sentences which speak,
for instance, of Brahman as being eternal,
as being consciousness and as being infinite (satyam, jnanam, anantam.)
Do these texts convey any meaning that may be considered as a contribution to valid knowledge in our minds?
The Mimamsakas say “No, they do not”.
These passages do not prescribe any action for performance
and are of the nature of arthavadas.
Hence, no valid meaning can be derived from them.
This contention is called ‘vyutpatti abhava vada’.
If this view were’ accepted, it would follow that the study of the Upanishads is absolutely of no use.

Refutation of prAbhAkaras

Overview

In this section, Sri Ramanuja refutes the contention of the Prabhakaras
that the meanings of words come to be learned at first
only from sentences prescribing action.

He shows also that the Upanishads, too, contain vidhivakyas
prescribing what ought to be done
and that, on this account also,
what is said in them has validity.

Then, he takes the warfare into the enemy’s camp
and proves by various arguments
that there is no justification for the Mimamsaka’s assumption of the existence of [[169]] an apurva or karya which confers the benefits,
though the karma or ritual has perished.

Though the karma is over,
it has served its purpose, Sri Ramanuja says,
in pleasing Iswara who,
at the appropriate time,
rewards the man with the objects of his desire).

Invalidity of kAryArtha-vAda

pUrvapaxa

There are some (thinkers) (Prabhakaras)
who hold that words (in the Vedas)
which consist of vidhi, arthavada, and mantra
can be said to convey a meaning
only when they denote a thing to be done (karya),
because we do not find words conveying any meaning
when they are used in connection with anything other than an action (to be performed).
All speech, action or (vyavahara) is based on the idea of the action to be performed.
Therefore, the sigificance of the Vedas is,
in their opinion,
concerned only with things to be done
and they are not valid sources of knowledge
in regard to permanent or established entities (parinishpanna vastu) (like Brahman).

Relationship with entities

Against this view (of the Prabhakaras),
it may be said as follows:-
Is it a king’s command
that the determination of the power of words to signify what they mean
is arrived at only by speech stimulating activity (of some form or other)?
(There is none such).
It is easy to make one understand the signifying power of a word
even in regard to established entities.
For example, one (A) is sent by another (B) with instructions given by gestures and the like to say to Devadatta,
“The stick is in the room.”
A, proceeding to execute the orders goes to Devadatta and uses the words,
“The stick is in the room.”
A fourth person С who stood by and understood the gesture employed by B like a dumb man
may not at first know the meaning of the words employed.
[[170]] Notwith- standing this,
he observes these words employed by A to signify to Devadatta
that the stick is in the room and
learns that these words convey this meaning.
Where is the impossibility here?
(In “the stick is in the room”,
there is no activity enjoined).

Pointing and identifying

So also, deliberately,
it may be learnt by the teaching of others.
For example, the child is told again and again by parents and others with words accompanied by fingers pointing to the respective objects,
“This is father”,
“This is mother’,
“This is uncle”,
“This is a man,”
“This is a beast”,
“This is the moon”,
“This is a serpent”.
Being taught in this way,
the child finds a knowledge of their meanings arising within himself
from those very words.
He concludes gradually
that the use of these words
accompanied with the gesture of the finger
is the cause of this knowledge of their signification,
since there is no other association (sambandha)
and since there is no knowledge of any person
who has established any convention
(regarding the words and their meanings).

Later the child is told by elders,
“This word means such and such a thing”
and learns the meanings of all words
and himself also employs collections of words (sentences).

In the same way, he learns the signification of all words and,
in specific groups of words,
the signification of the true connection existing among the different words.

Therefore, the insistence that the knowledge of the meaning of words arises only in connection with things to be done is without reason.
Hence, since it is clear that the signification of words can be known
also in the case of established entities (both in ordinary speech and in the Vedas),
it follows that all the Vedic passages do give (us) a knowledge of Brahman
who is the cause of all the world,
who is the abode of all auspicious qualities
and who has (other) such attributes.

vidhis in vedAnta

Further, (let [[171]] us admit for the moment)
that the knowledge of the meaning of words arises only
in regard to a thing that is to be done (karya);
even then,
the texts in Vedanta also may (be shown to) give knowledge
in as much as they too prescribe a thing to be done.
They prescribe meditation (upasana) (of Brahman).

In connection with that action to be done,
they may very well give (us) knowledge of the person (who meditates)
and of the fruit of the action which is an attribute of his,
in the same way as the Mimamsakas admit that arthavadas give valid knowledge of certain things
even when the vidhivakya does not mention them.
For instance, (1) the vidhivakya says,
“The person desirous of svarga
should perform the Jyotishtoma sacrifice”.

It does not tell us what svarga is like
or the attributes of svarga.
An arthavada says
“Where there is no heat, no cold, no grief”.
It is admitted by the Mimansakas that
this attribute of svarga is valid knowledge
(though it does not occur in the vidhivakya).+++(5)+++

Again (2) there is a vidhivakya which enjoins:

“The night satras (sacrifices due to be performed at night) should be done”.

It is not stated in the vidhivakya what the reward (or phala) would be.
But an arthavada following it says,

“Those who perform these night sacrifices become well-established in life”.

The Mimamsakas admit that this passage, though only an arthavada,
gives us valid knowledge about the fruit resulting from the performance.

Furthermore, (3) there is a prohibitary injunction (nishedha) to the following effect:

“Therefore one shall not threaten a Brahmin with assault”.

It does not state any penalty. Only an arthavada says:

“He who threatens shall be fined a hundred gold coins”.

This arthavada is admitted by Mimamsakas as affording true knowledge.
As in these (three) cases, viz.,
the attributes of svarga that [[172]] it is a place where there is no trace of grief,
the information about the fruit resulting from night sacrifices
and the punishment for threatening,
arthavada passages in Vedanta do give true knowledge of Brahman,
the attainment of which is the fruit of the meditation enjoined in the vidhivakya
(“Brahman should be meditated upon”) of the attributes of Brahman,
of the person who medidates
and other such things and all this is being related to the vidhivakya.

विस्तारः (द्रष्टुं नोद्यम्)

Note:-The original is too condensed
and presumes too deep a knowledge of Mimamsa
on the part of the reader to be easily understood.
So the translation had to be made explanatory.

For instance, the text,

“The man who knows (meditates upon) Brahman
attains the Supreme”

really enjoins that the man who wants to attain the Supreme should meditate on Brahman.
So the attainment of Brahman
which is an attribute (viseshana) of the person who is concerned with the meditation of Brahman
is here declared to be the fruit of the meditation.
In this, the essential nature of Brhman (svarupa)
which appears as the object of attainment
and all its attributes
are established only as being related to the thing to bo done.
And comprised within it,
such things as Brahman’s creatorship of the world,
Brahman’s being the cause of its destruction and
Brahman’s being the support and the inner soul of the world -all these (both what has been said and what has not been said) are established.
There is nothing in this that is against reason.

Since this is so, whatever is said in all the mantras and arthavadas
becomes established as being related to the thing to be done (namely, the meditation),
provided it is not opposed (aviruddha) [[173]] to other sources of valid knowledge (pramana)
and provided it cannot be established (by other sources of valid knowledge) (aprapti).
So has it been said in the Dramida Bhashya :-

“Beginning with the Sruti text *(on avadana),
the Bhashya proceeds to say,
“Though this text is in praise of avadana,
the praise cannot be true,
if it tells us of what does not exist”.

Note : (Avadana is from the root do (दो) to cut (with the preposition ava.)

To explain:-

“It is well-known that all arthavada passages
inspire (one) with a knowledge of the excellence of the enjoined karma by praising, in a thousand ways,
the qualities of the sacrifice and the like,
which are of the nature of the worship of (certain) deities
with their supplementary rites (anga)
and, likewise, of the unseen qualities of the deities worshipped.

If these qualities do not exist in reality,
there will be no knowledge of the excellence of the karma (sacrifice).+++(5)+++
Therefore to produce this knowledge of its excellence,
the arthavada passages must afford a knowledge
of only such qualities as really exist.
On the same line of reasoning,
it would follow that what is said in the mantras, too, should be considered as true.
The Sruti referred to in the Dramida Bhashya means,
man is born with three debts (Rina),
that to his ancestors, that to the gods and that to the Rishis.
If a sacrificer cuts a slice from the heart of the animal slain for the sacrifice
and makes of it an offering in the fire,
all his three debts will be cut off (i. e.) discharged;
that is why avadanas are called by that name (i. e.) those that cut.

Contra-apUrva

Note:–
Sri Ramanuja first refuted the theory that the meanings of words
are first understood only when they are employed to denote an action or a thing to be done.
Later, he said that,
even on the assumption that this theory is true,
the Vedantic texts must be considered as affording valid knowlege
in as much as, in Vedanta,
actions or things to be done are prescribed. [[174]]

Now, be proceeds to show that
what the Mimamsakas mean by the thing to be done (karya) namely, apurva
(a potential created in the soul
by the activity connected with rites and sacrifices,
which, later on, results in certain fruits)
cannot be properly defined
and has no foundation in fact, being only an unnecessary and dogmatic assumption.

Sri Ramanuja points out that the definitions
which might be given by Mimamsakas of apurva or karya
would apply either to the rite or the fruit of the rite
and not merely to this karya or apurva.

Not that which is aimed by volition

Further, those who hold this theory
regarding the meanings of words as being related only to a thing to be done,
they should define what they mean by karya or ’the thing to be done’
(when they say it is identical with apurva.)
If they say karya or apurva is what is produced by the volition (kriti or mental effort) and is, at the same time, aimed at by the volition,
we ask, what is meant by
“that which is aimed at by the volition?”.

• (1) If the reply is
  “that with which the volition concerns itself is
  that which is aimed at by the volition”,
  volition which is an activity of a person
  cannot have any concerns (adhikara) or aims (for only persons have aims and concern themselves with activities like sacrifices).
  How can volition have ‘concerns’ (adhikara)?
• (2) If the definition is altered or amended in this way:
  “That desirous of securing which
  a person produces the mental effort (or volition)
  is what is aimed at by the volition”,
  it would become too wide as a definition (ativayapti)
  for, then, that which is desired
  would become that which is aimed at by the volition.
  (It would apply to svarga or any worldly enjoyment
  that the sacrificer desires as well as to the apurva).

The Mimamsaka might reply,

“There are two aspects of desire, one is existence as the object of the desire
and the other is the power of stimulating the person [[175]] to act.
It is this stimulating or inspiring aspect
that forms the definition of “that which is aimed at by the volition.”

This effort (to amend the definition)
which is due to an obstinate insistence on one’s theory
is all in vain.
The power of stimulating or inspiring
is nothing but the absolute dependence
of what appears to be the object of desire
on one’s own effort for its realization
(i. e.) that the object desired cannot be attained
except by one’s own effort;
for only then (i. e.)
after realising that it cannot be secured without one’s effort,
does one proceed to enter on the activity.
When the desire for a thing (svarga and the like) has arisen,
and when the person realises that the desired object cannot be secured
without beginning his effort,
the desire to act arises
and then the person acts.
This is the order of sequence
as understood by those who know the truth of these things.
Therefore, there is no such thing as
that which is aimed at by the volition (apurva)
apart from the desired object -
object being dependent for its attainment
on one’s volition.

The Mimamasaka might now say,

“The reason for a thing being desired
is its being agreeable (anukula) to a person. (3)
So, that which is agreeable to a person
is that which is aimed at by volition”.

But this cannot be.
That which is agreeable (anukula) to a person
(is synonymous with pleasure and)
means nothing other than pleasure,
in the same way as that which is disagreeable to a person is synonymous with pain (dukkha).
There is nothing other than pleasure
which can be said to be agreeable to a person
(and apurva is certainly not pleasure).

The Mimamsaka might reply,

“The relief from pain which is other than pleasure (sukha) is seen to be agreeable to a
a person”.

[[176]]

We refute this statement as follows:

“Whatever is agreeable to one’s self is pleasure (sukha)
and whatever is disagreeable to one’s self is pain (dukkha).
This is the differentiation between pleasure and pain.
Between them,
pleasure which is agreeable to one’s self
becomes an object of desire
and pain which is disagreeable to one’s self
becomes undesirable.
Since contact with pain is unbearable,
relief from it, too,
becomes an object of desire.
Since it becomes an object of desire
in the same way as pleasure,
relief from pain is confounded with pleasure
(though it is not the same as pleasure).

To a man who is still in the stream of births anddeaths (samsara)
owing to contact with prakriti,
there are three possible states:-
contact with what is agreeable,
contact with what is disagreeable
and being in his own essential nature with neither pleasure nor pain.
Absence of contact with pleasure
and absence of contact with pain
are both the same
(because that is the third state described above with neither pleasure nor pain).
Therefore when the contact with
what is disagreeable exists,
relief from it, which is this third state of being in a neutral condition, becomes desirable.

Since, there is a similarity between pleasure and this relief from pain
in both of them being desirable,
relief from pain is illusorily mistaken (bhrama) for pleasure.
Therefore, those who judge matters by valid evidence
laugh at the man who says that Niyoga
(commandment as also
that which is acquired by the commandment or vidhi
namely, apurva), is agreeable
because whatever is agreeable is of the nature of pleasure (sukha).
[[177]]
It is because Niyoga (apurva) can bring about the accomplishment of the desired object
that it is assumed to be the object of a commandment, an enduring thing (lasting for a long time)
and also as a new and super-sensuous entity (resulting from the activity connected with sacrifices and the like).
In the words “Svarga kamo yajeta”
(He who is desirous of svarga shall perform the sacrifice),
the contention of the Mimamsakas
that the thing to be done signified by the word yajeta
is something other than the activity connected with the performance of the sacrifice, namely, apurva-
this contention would be possible
only because of its being read in association with the words, “He who is desirous of svarga”
and consequently of its being considered as the means of attaining savrga.
The *Mimamsakas cannot say that the use of the word yajeta
first suggests niyoga or apurva independently of the other words in the sentence
and that its being read in association with the words “He who is desirous of svarga”,
later brings into prominence the person (commanded to perform the sacrifice)
who is necessary for the production of this apurva. They cannot say so, for the verb yajeta suggests only “what can be accomplished by man’s effort”. It is only by its being read in association with “He who is desirous of svarga”, that the Mimamsakas could infer what is not conveyed by the verb yajeta and what is other than that denoted by the verb, namely “the thing to be done”, its enduring quality, and its being a new super-sensuous entity (apurva). Its being different from the activity which alone is suggested by the verb is inferred from its appearing as the means of bringing into effect. The terminations of the potential (ling) and imperative moods affixed to verbs only indicate that the activity is the means of attaining svarga,
Note:-*The Sanskrit verb yajeta means “should perform a sacrifice”. But the Mimamsahas say that it means “create or acquire apurva (by performing the sacrifice)”’
svarga
178
can
which is consistent with the meaning of other words read in connection with the verb, namely, “He who is desirous of svarga”, This is the usual designation accepted in ordinary intercourse and the Mimamsakas have to ignore it in their assumption of apurva. What has been said means this:- When a number of words are employed in a sentence, the meaning of a particular word be taken to be only that which would be coherent or congruous with the meanings of other words uttered along with it and this meaning of the word in question can be determined only after hearing the full sentence consisting of a number of words which express a meaning in connection with one another (and not independently) and before reading and hearing the whole sentence, as the Mimamsakas claim of the apurva in the word yajeta. That meaning in the sentence in question is only ’the means of
means of attaining svarga. Therefore, in the same way as the activity in performing the sacrifice is given up by the Mimamsakas as being incongruous with the meanings of the other words, the meaning of the word yajeta as being none other than apurva will have to be given up (even though they say it is suggested by the word at first and indenpendently); because it is also incongruous with the meanings of the other words. (“He who is desirous of svarga should attain apurva” does not make any sense). For example, in sentences like “On the Ganga is the village of the herdsmen,” the word ‘Ganga’ is construed as referring to a place capable of being dwelt in, with reference to the village of the herdsmen, At first, it is true ‘Ganga’ suggests the flood of the river; on that account (that only the meaning which the word, at first and independently of others, suggests should be
179
accepted), it does not
not become coherent and congruous with the meanings of the other words in the sentence. Therefore, we give up the meaning “the flood of the Ganga” as there cannot be a village on the water and take the word to mean “on the bank of the Ganga.” Similarly here also, granting, as you say, that the word yajeta suggests, at first, only the karya viz., apurva and nothing else, its denoting nothing else cannot be maintained when the sequence of the words in the sentences is thought of for the sake of the meaning. (So, this meaning of the word yajeta insisted on by the Mimamsakas will have to be given up). But, this assumption that the word yajeta, at first and independently of other words, suggests ‘the thing to be done’ (i-e.) karya or apurva at the time when it is heard, is itself not true. When A says ‘Bring the cow’ and B brings it, C who understands the meaning of the words ‘bring the cow’, while observing B bringing it, knows that the activity of B in bringing the cow is painful in itself and is looked upon as the thing to be done (karya) only as it is a means of attaining some specific pleasure (afterwards) and not as itself being a pleasure.
pleasure. Therefore, to say that niyoga or apurva (or the commandment to produce it) is agreeable to a person is opposed to all ordinary experience. It is also against the experience of the person who maintains that niyoga is of the nature of pleasure, because it is agreeable to
men.
In cases like. “He who is desirous of rain shall sacrifice with bamboo shoots (kariri),” as soon as the sacrifice is over, the niyoga or apurva should have been generated, but it is not experienced as agreeable in itself as apart from the rain, though
180
it is the cause of the rain. The Mimamsaka might reply, “It is not experienced as agreeable in this life, for the effect, namely, rain may occur either in this life or in a later life.” From the uncertainty regarding the time when it will rain (as the result of the sacrifice), the Mimamsakas have necessarily to assume that the niyoga or apurva has already been generated in this life. But, this niyoga is not now experienced as being agreeable or, in other words, as a pleasure. Thus from these arguments, it must have become evident that there is no such thing as “that which is aimed at by the volition or mental effort” other than the desired object (viz., rain or svarga as the case may be) which can be attained by the effort.

…

The Mimamsaka might reply, “How can a man who is qualified by the desire for the attainment of scarga be the agent or doer when he does not know that the activity, namely, the performance of the sacrifice is a means to attain svarga.?” We ask the Mimamsaka in return, “How can one qualified by the desire for the attainment of starga understand in his mind that he is a niyojya (i. e.) one who should acquire apurva?” It is because of this difficulty that the Mimamsaka says he arrives at the conclusion that the niyoga or (apurva) is the means of attaining svarga. We
183
may also reply in the same way, “We arrive at the conclusion that the activity in the performance of a sacrifice is the means of attaining svarga (without any such niyoga or apurva). Our view has at least the merit of having the sanction of the science of grammar, (whereas the Mimamsaka view has not). When a statement is made such as “He who desires to eat should go to the house of Devadatta,” since we hear of the activity of going to Devadatta’s house on the part of one desiring to eat, we conclude or infer, though it was unknown before, that going to Devadatta’s house is a means of attaining the desired end (eating food). So also in the instance “He who is desirous of svarga shall perform the sacrifice Jyotishtoma.” It is not proper on the part of the Mimamsaka to attribute, to a person described as a doer of one action, the doership of an entirely different action. The word yajeta (should perform the sacrifice) describes the person as the (prospective) doer of the sacrifice. In Mimamsa interpretation, he is called the doer of another action viz., of the action of understanding in his mind that he is a niyojya enjoined to acquire apurva or niyoga. For the niyojya has been defined by Mimamsakas as one who understands in his mind that the karya or apurva should be his.” If they should state (at this stage) that this understanding is favourable to the activity in performing the saorifice, the objection is not thereby removed. For when it is said “Devadatta should cook (food)” he is stated to be the (prospective) doer of the cooking, and it is not proper to say that he is stated in the sentence to be the doer of the act of going (to the kitchen, for example), because this going is favourable to the act of cooking.
184
Note :-All this long discussion is for the purpose of proving that the assumption of an entity called apurva by the Mimamsakas is uncalled for. since this aburi a ne serva cannot be defined a anything o
Ma t.. desi for he iru.t of he sacrvice: ad the like or the activity connected with the sacrifice. This assumption (of a niyoga or apurva) is opposed to the ordinary interpretation of words in life and also that of grammarians.
prett
Note:-The Mimamsakas maintain that, when we hear the vidkivakya,
“He who is desirous of svarga shall perform a certain kind of sacrifice”, first arises a desire (Iccha) for svarga, then the volition, will, or mental effort (krifi) to attain that end, then the understanding that the apurva should be acquired, then follows the activity connected with the sacrifice (kriya or karma) and, as a result of the kriya, karya or apurva in the soul which, later, either after this life or after some future life, secures the object desired namely, svarga. Sri Ramanuja would describe the chain as follows:- First the desire for svarga, then the will or volition, then the activity of the sacrifice, then the consequence of this activity which consists in having pleased Iswara by the sacrifice and this pleasure in the mind of Iswara or His grace finally brings svarga. The Mimamsaka assumed the generation of an apurva on the ground that the activity of the sacrifice which perishes when it is over, no longer persists and cannot therefore secure the desired object. Sri Ramanuja explains that this assumption of an apurva is unnecessary, since Iswara’s pleasure or grace which has been secured by the activity of the sacrifice pessists and can bring about the accomplishment of the desire.
assume
or
Further, we ask, “Why do you postulate the existence of an enduring entity (that lasts long) called apurva?”. If the reply is, “Otherwise the utterance of the words ‘He who is desirous of svarga in conjunction with ‘shall perform the sacrifice,’ would be incongruous and against reason, we ask, “Where is the incongruity or unreasonableness?. “He who is desirous of svarga’ means “He to whom svarga is the accomplishment of a desire”. If it is said by the Mimamsaka that, for the svarga which is to be attained at some future time, activity such as the performance of the sacrifice, which perishes immediately after it is over, cannot be the means, we reply that this charge of un-
“185
reasonableness or incongruity can be made only by those who do not at all understand the true teaching of the Vedas. Those who understand the Vedas declare that Bhagavan Narayana, the Supreme Ruler, who has been propitiated by all sorts of karma or activities, vouchsafes the desired fruit (of such activities). For example, Sri Dramidacharya, who is in the forefront of those that have understood the Vedas, says “It is certainly by the desire to attain the fruit, that men seek to propitiate the Supreme Self (atma). The teaching of the Sastras is that when He is pleased by the actions, He is capable of granting the desired end”. The meaning of this is as follows:- “In order to attain the desired object or end, (men) want
(men) want to propitiate Bhagavan Vasudeva, the Supreme Self, who is expressed by words like Indra and others and who is within Indra and others as their inner self, by karmas or activities such as sacrifices, charitable gifts, offerings made in the fire and the like to deities like Indra. The Sruti also says:- (The Supreme Being) who is the hub (nabhi) of the Universe receives all actions such as sacrifices and good deeds like digging tanks, both those that were done in the past and those that are being done in whatever way they may be performed. ‘Sacrifices’ and ‘good deeds’ refer to all kinds of karma prescribed in the srutis and the smritis. “Receives all” means “Whatever actions are performed as for all deities such as Indra, Agni, and Varunathey are all accepted as His own by the Supreme Person who is their inner self. “The hub of the Universe” means “He who supports the world filled with all varnas or castes such as the Brahmin and the Kshatriya. He is called the hub because He supports the world by granting their respective desires to those who have won His grace by their karmas or activities. That He is the person referred
186
to by such words as Agni and Vayu on account of His being their Inner Self is declared in “That is Agni, That is Vayu, That is Surya, That is Chandra (the moon)”. Bhagavan, too, says :-
“Whatever be the body (tanu) that the devotee wishes to propitiate with earnestness and sincerity, I endow him with unshaken sincerity in that form of worship.” Gita (VII-21).
“Endowed with that sincere faith, he performs the worship (of that form or body (of mine). Thence does he obtain his desires, whatever they may be, and these are really granted by me”. Gita (VII -22.)
“Whatever be the body” this means that “Particular deities such as Indra and others are, in fact, the bodies of Bhagavan who is within them as their Inner Self. And again in IX - 24, Bhagavan says:-
“I am the deity propitiated in all the sacrifices and, likewise, it is I that grant all the desires”.
So also in the Vishnu Purana, we find the following:-
“O Achyuta, that art of the form of all the gods, Thou art worshipped always in (all) sacrifices”.
“O Lord, those by whom Thou art worshipped in the performance of their respective duties (dharma) -they transcend all this Maya in order to obtain release from bondage”.
Thus, in all the Itihasas and Puranas as well as in all the Vedas, it is said here and there that all rites (karma) are of the nature of worship of the Lord of all and that Purushothama, being
187
worshipped by these rites, grants the respective objects desired. So also in texts like the following, all the Srutis declare that Bhagavan, who is worshipped by means of sacrifices, charitable gifts and offerings made in the fire, receives them, being the Inner Self of Indra and the other gods and is also the giver of all objects desired.
"”
“Sacrifices become related to the gods through Him”. “Through Him means “Through the Supreme Being who is within the gods as their inner self”. “Sacrifices become related to the gods” means “Sacrifices become associated with the gods”. It really means “Sacrifices become associated with gods like Indra, because they stand in the relation of bodies to the Supreme Being, who is their inner Ruler.
In the Bhagavad Gita (V-29) we are told that He is the recipient of all sacrifices and austerities and that He is the Supreme Ruler of all the worlds”. It follows therefore that all rites (karma) are of the nature of the worship of the Supreme Person, who is the Inner self of Indra and the other gods, and that He alone is the giver of those objects that are desired. Where, then, is the advantage of postulating an apurva which is far from being the ordinary interpretation (of words) as being expressed by them or as being required to be postulated? If it is asked, “If so, what is the meaning accepted for the potential mood (ling) and others”, we answer as follows:- “The root yaj means “to worship a deity” and refers to sacrifices and the like which are of the nature of worship of a deity; the potential mood and such things as the terminations express what ordinary interpretation requires, namely, that this worship is capable of
of
188
being carried out by the activities of the doer”. What is there unreasonable in this? According to the science grammar, the terminations denoting the agent or doer bring out the manner of relationship between the meaning of the root and the activity of the agent. Other tenses and moods than the ling indicate the past. the present and the like; such tenses and moods as the ling indicate that the thing denoted by the root is capable of being accomplished by the activity of the agent or doer.
Further, the vidhivakyas themselves, after prescribing the respective karma or rite to the man who desires a particular object, state
state that the karma is a form of worship of a deity and will bring out the desired end through that deity. For example, the text laying down the vidhi or command says, “The man who desires
who desires to have prosperity will offer, as a sacrifice, a white goat (pasu) to Vayu.” Then occurs the following sentence which is an arthavada. “Vayu is a deity who grants the desired end soonest. So,
soonest. So, he who approaches Vayu with a suitable offering will be rewarded by Vayu with worldly prosperity.” Here, since there is nothing unreasonable in the statement that the desired end is attained (through a god), it does not stand to reason to maintain that the means of accomplishing the desired end is inferred by the pramana called Upadana.
Note ;-Upadana is a pramana like inference (anumana). It is almost the same as arthapatti, When it is stated that Devadatta is fat and yet does not eat in the daytime” we infer that he must be eating at night time. The inference here is by arthapatti and upadana is similar to arthapatti. From the purport underlying the vidhi (vidhyakshapa), we apprehend the spurua, according to the Mimamsakas.
Even though the agency by which the desired end is brought about viz, Vayu is not stated
189
in the vidhivakya, yet, this is understood from the sentences which follow it, especially as it is necessary for the vidhivakya. This is the meaning. In the rule of prohibition: “Therefore, one shall not threaten a Brahman with assault,” though the vidhivakya does not state what would happen to one who so threatens, still We understand that the action of doing the prohibited thing will bring into effect a fine of a hundred gold coins, from the sentence which follows the text enjoining the prohibition.
We take it that
the
the prohibited action will lead to the fine, as it is necessary for the passage which enjoins the prohibition. While this is so, why, in this case (namely the sacrifice to Vayu), should we disregard or ignore what is plainly understood from the sentences closely following the (vidhivakya) that the sacrifice will bring prosperity through the agency of Vayu and resort to the help of an inference or apprehension (upadana) for stating that sacrifice will yield the desired end? There is a saying to this effect; “Who will bury a treasure of gold in a room in his own house and go to beg of a miser in his desire for wealth?” saying holds good in your case (Mimamsaka’s). Besides, the fine of a hundred gold coins is the result not of any (intermediary) apurva or adrishta. To the man who obeys the commands laid down (in the Sastras), to the man who does not follow them, and to the man who does what is censured as objectionable to all of them, all the pleasure (sukha), or the pain (dukha) results from the favour or the frown of the Supreme Person.
.
This
To prove this, there are various Śrutis, such as these that follow:- “It is indeed He who confers bliss.” “Taittiriya Upanishad; “When a man
34
is in constant and uninterrupted meditation of the Supreme Being), he has no fears. (When there is interruption in the meditation), then does he become subject to fear,” “For fear of Him does the wind blow; for fear of Him does the sun rise, for fear of Him, do Agni and Indra (perform their respective duties) and the god of death who is the fifth among them runs (on His errands) for fear of Him. (Taittiriya Upanishad). “It is by the orders of this imperishable (Supreme Being), O Gargi,” that the sun and the moon stand supported. It is by the orders of the Supreme Being that men, who have received gifts praise the giver, being obliged to him, that the gods praise those that perform saorifioes and the pitris those who perform (the sraddhas),”

• Brihadaranyaka Upanished: 8-9 So the Dramidabhashya says:-
  “By His orders, the wind sweeps along and the rivers flow; within the bounds prescribed by Him, the oceans leap about like rams that have become excited”.
  “These worlds remain without dropping down or breaking to pieces, being subject to His will. He knows those who perform His bidding and rewards them in His compassion, because He knows everything and is proficient in all the rites. This means, “To the man who understands the real truth concerning the nature of the Supreme Person and then performs the rites and duties prescribed for him, as also His, meditation accom panied by jnana, all pleasures extending even to the attainment of Him result by His grace and so also freedom from fear, each according to His endeavour. To the man who does not meditate
  191
  on Him with true knowledge of His nature and who does not perform the duties prescribed for Him and performs those that have been condemned as evil, immeasurable sufferings including the nonattainment of Him result from His frown and so also fear.”
  Bhagavan himself says:-
  “Perform the duties prescribed for you; for, the performance of karma is superior to jnana (without karma )” ɑita III - 8. Having here laid down that all karma should be performed with knowledge, He says again:-
  “Surrender all karma unto me.” (Gita III-30) by which He declares that all karma is of the nature of His worship and that all souls subject to His control.
  He then proceeds to say:-
  }
  are
  “Those who perform this bidding of mine without failure, those who have faith in thal. teaching of the Sastras and those who do not speak with contempt of them-all these obtain release from karma.”
  .
  “Those who do not do my bidding out of oon. tempt, those who have no faith in it-these will become deluded in regard to all knowledge. Know that they are devoid of all sense”. Gita III-32–83.
  (In these two slokas) Bhagavan praises those who perform His commands and censures those who act contrary to His bidding and states again that those who do not aot according to His command are of the nature of Asuras and that they will have a disreputable lót or destinya-nob, ter detta
  192
  “Those wicked and cruel men who hate me-I throw them into the bondage of samsara and that in asuric births.
  :
  “Having obtained asuric births, these fools are. born again and again and without ever attaining me; they finally reach the most disreputable of all conditions”. Gita (xv-19-20).
  “He who performs all karma with the thought that it is really I that make him perform it-he will, by my grace, attain the eternal state from which there is no change.” Gita XVIII-56.
  Thus, He points out the condition of eternal bliss assigned to those who do His bidding. Some exaggerated statements are made in Karma Mimamsa in the chapter on the gods, in order that those who have not studied Vedanta may not lose their faith in karma and in order that they may continue to have faith in all karma. Those who are wellversed in the Vedas know that the two parts Karma Mimamsa and Brahma Mimamsa form a single Sastra. In order to emphasise the importance of karma, it is stated in the chapter on the gods that the fruit of the karma comes of itself and not from any gods. The real intention is not to deny the agency of the gods.
  The Arguments to prove the existence of The Region of Eternal Glory (Nityavibhuti).
  In the same way as this Supreme Being, Nará, yana, has infinite knowledge, bliss, and purity (which are attributes that define His nature), in the same way as He has countless, wonderful and unsurpassed, auspicious qualities such as wiąḍdom)
  198
  power, strength, lordship, might and splendour, in the same way as He controls, by his will, all other things, sentient and non-sentient, so also He has a celestial and unchanging form, which, besides being to his liking, conforms to His nature; He has likewise countless ornaments of wonderful and varied beauty in keeping with His form; He has also innumerable and wonderful weapons suited to His might; He has, besides, a Spouse of unsurpassed glory with a form pleasing to Him and conforming to His greatness and with beauty, greatness, sovereignty and goodness suited to His nature; He has, moreover a retinue of countless followers and attendants who possess boundless auspicious qualities like wisdom and the capacity for rendering service suited to Him; He has, further, countless objects and acompaniments of enjoyment suited to His nature, and to his greatness. So also He has a celestial abode which far transcends the power of speech and of mind to describe. There are thousands of passages in the Śrutis which state that all these are eternal and immaculate.
  (Here are some of them):-
  “I know this Supreme Person whose complexion is radiant like the sun.” Purusha Sukta.
  “This person is within the sun, all golden in appearance; His eyes are like the red lotus blossoming in the rays of the sun.” Chandogya Upanisehad 1-6-6

*Within the ether inside the heart, this Person dwells; He can be grasped oniy by the pure mind. He is immortal, all golden.” Mundaka Upanishad: 2-2-7
194
The word manomaya in the (above) Sruti means “that can be grasped only by the mind that is pure.” “All the moments had their origin from this Person who is like lightning.”
“From the Person like lightning” means from the Person whose colour is like that of lightning”.
“He shines like a black cloud in the middle of the flame of fire which shines like a streak of lightning”. Narayanopanishad: 13–2
This means:- This flame of fire which is in the ether of the small lotus (of the heart) has, in the middle of it, the form of the Supreme Being shining like a black cloud and resembles, therefore, lightning which has within it a black cloud;
“He can be grasped only by the mind that is pure; He has all beings in the world for His body. He has a radiant form. His will is irresistible; His form is as subtle as ether (akasa); He is the sole doer of all that takes place; He has all objects of pure enjoyment; He has all (transcendental), fragrances and flavours. He has all these auspicious qualities, since He is perfect in Himself, He is indifferent to everything and does not speak of anything”.
“He is dressed in a raiment coloured with saffron” and so forth.
“The Spouse of Vishnu is the queen of the world”. “The goddess of the earth and the goddess Lakshmi are His wives”, “The Suris are always gazing at the supreme abode of Vishnu”. “Ha lives beyond this universe of matter (rajas); His celestial form is endless; It is incomprehensible (avyakta), ancient, omnipresent and beyondthe region of tamas”.
man bogat, ettomuti ei oll1
195
“He who meditates on this Brahman set within the cave of the heartHe attains the Supreme abode of Brahman”. “It alone is the past and it is the future and it is in the Supreme Ether that never changes”. It is from these and hundreds of such srutis that all this is ascertained.
In “That supreme abode of Vishnu etc.,” it is stated that the Suris are always gazing at it. From the words “always gazing”, it is learnt that there are certain beings with perfect knowledge or wisdom whose vision is eternal. The words may be interpretted to mean either “Those who are suris gaze always” or “Those who always gaze are suris”. In both cases, it cannot be said that the sentence cannot be considered as declaring more things than one. Since these things cannot be proved by any other pramana than the sruti, in this passage, three things are declared as existing; the suris who are eternal; their vision, and the Supreme Abode which has them both or, in other words, the Supreme Abode qualified by the suris and their gaze is here declared to exist, as it has not been established elsewhere (aprapta) or by other pramanas.
?
(The sage Jaimini) says in his Purva Mimamsa: “If they are not taught elsewhere, the ancillary aspects of a rite mentioned along with the performance of the rite itself should be considered as also prescribed, because they are inseparable from the rite itself.” For example, in vidhis enjoining the rite like “The offering made to Agni shall be in eight potsherds,” both the rite itself and the ancillary features of the rite (like the potsherds) and the god Agni, which have not been established elsewhere should be considered as prescribed; (ie) what is ordained is the rite
!
7
of
196
all
their
qualified by all ancillary features 80 also here there is nothing inappropriate in saying that the Supreme Abode of Brahman is declared to exist with Suris gazing at it always,” because they have not been established elsewhere or otherwise. Vedic scholars maintain that the mantras uttered while offering (homa) in the fire and the mantras repeated while it is being offered, the mantras used in japas, the mantras which are chanted (stotra) and also those that are uttered (without chanting) (sustra), those which are found in the respective contexts and those which are found elsewhere out of these contexts that these are
significance and convey meaning just as they stand in the way as the
Brahmanas, provided what they state has not been already established and provided also that what they express is not opposed to the pramanas. A Stotra tells of the attributes of a god and is intended to be chanted or sung. A Sastra, on the other hand, speaks of the attributes of a god and is to be uttered (without being sung). In the case of mantras which describe the materials to be employed in the rite, those statements which are made in them about the attributes of particular deities, provided they have not been established otherwise and are not opposed (to the pramanas) are appropriate to the application of the rite.
same
This passage in the sruti, viz., “The Suris always gaze at this supreme abode of Vishnu” … is “nöt concerned with souls that have obtained release, for the word “always” (which means eternally) would then be out of place. Nor can it be said that the Suris refer to the beginningless stream of released souls in which case “always” might be justified. “Gaze” always signifies that each of ther
i
197
is the doer of the action of gazing. So, other interpretations would be against the spirit of the sruti. Even in regard to passages which refer to an action, it has already been shown that mantras and arthavadas convey valid ideas. Much more then, should there be a real idea in passages concerning an established entity (siddhavastu) which is understood from the interpretation of the words. Therefore the reasoning followed here to
prove the existence of the Supreme Abode of Brahman and of the eternal Suris is just.
The (following) objection may be made here :- “The word Paramapada in the sruti which has been rendered into ’the Supreme Abode of Brahman’ really means the essential nature (svarupa) of the Supreme Being. In passages like “Paramapada, which has the name Vishnu, is absolutely free from all that is objectionable or faulty”, Paramapada and Vishnu are spoken of as being identical. (So how could the sruti in question prove the existence of the Supreme Abode of Vishnu?).
We answer: “It is not so. The Supreme Abode is itself declared to exist in passages like the following:-
“He dwells beyond this world of rajas or matter.” Rajas here stands for sattvam and tamas as well, all the three of them being qualities of matter.
“He lives in the Supreme Ether (vyoman) which is imperishable.” :
“He who presides over all dwells in the Supreme Ether.
25
1
198
“He who knows Him that dwells in the Supreme Ether within the cave……. Further that the Paramapada is the abode and is different from Vishnu is clear also from the genitive or sixth case in “of Vishnu.’ Moreover when it is stated, The Paramapada which has the name Vishnu,” there is an implication that there are other par mapadas. It is only that paramapada which is other than the Paramapada of the name Vishnu that is said to exist and to be gazed at always by the Suris.
.i

To explain: In some places the word paramapada is employed to denote the Supreme Abode; it is sometimes employed to denote also the individual self freed from matter or prakriti and it is also used sometimes to denote Bhagavan. In the passage: “In that Paramapada of Vishnu, the suris are always gazing at it”, it refers to the abode. In the passage “The great Paramapada, which has no qualities, becomes associated with qualities (sattvam, rajas, and tamas) during creation, continuance and dissolution and is seen to be of three kinds”, the word paramapada means the soul freed from matter. In the passage “The paramapada named Vishnu is without anything objectionable or faulty”, the word means Vishnu. All these three meanings are conveyed by the word paramapada, as each of them is the supreme object of attainment. If it is asked how all these three could be objects of: attainment, we answer as follows:- Bhagavan is the supreme end or goal to be attained. The other two are also objects, of attainment, as they are attained along with Bhagavan. The attainment of that condition of the soul which is free from all the bondage of matter takes place along with the attainment of Bhagavan as is stated in the following sruti- “Those

199

auspicious qualities that are desired in moksha are obscured by anrita.” The word anrita means karma which obscures from us the true qualities of Bhagavan. If it is asked, “How are we to know that the anrita which obscures is the karma of the self in bondage, we cite the following slskas in support of the contention:

“Avidya which has the name karma is a third power (sakti) other (than these two). By it, O king, the power (sakti) called the soul in bondage (kshetrajna) which is found in all bodies is covered or obscured. Owing to

Owing to the obscuration, the soul experiences all sorts of suffering due to samsara”. Vishnu Purana.

{

(Avidya and anrita are known to be synonymous terms).

That the attain ment of the abode of the Supreme Being takes place along with the attainment of Bhagavan is obvious (and needs no explanation). edur

In the sruti “He who dwells beyond this world of rajas”, rajas signifies prakriti or matter which is endowed with three qualities sattvam, rajas and tamas, because mere rajas cannot stand by itself. So the passage means, “He dwells in a region which lies beyond matter possessed of the three qualities”. From this, we infer that Vishnu’s abode lies beyond prakriti or matter which is the object of enjoyment for the self in bondage and which is constituted of sattyam, rajas and tamas. So also in the sruti:- “I know this Supreme Person having the radiance of the sun and dwelling beyond tamas,” the word tamas signifies prakriti, as mere tamas cannot exist by itself. This passage means the same as that which speaks of Vishnu living beyond rajag. It means ““I know
$
200
the Supreme Person radiant like the
sun and dwelling beyond tamas or prakriti.” Further, it is said “The person that knows Brahman, who is truth, knowledge and infiniteness and who dwells in the Supreme Ether (vyoman) within the cave” and likewise, “In the imperishable Supreme Ether”. From these two sruti texts, it is learnt that this abode is changeless and is called by the name “the Supreme vyoman or Ether”. Since the quality of imperishability is attributed to the Supreme Ether in the sruti quoted above, the solar system (adityamandala) and the like which are perishable are not to be called by the words “Supreme Ether”.
*
Taittiaiya Aranyaka: (1-1)
From passages like “Where there is a class of devas or gods called sadhyah” and “Where there are ancient rishis or seers from the earliest times”, we learn that these are the suris referred to elsewhere. The same idea is conveyed by the sruti. *“Vishnu’s supreme abode (paramapada), where there are beings with divine wisdom (viprasah) singing (the praise of the Lord), (vipanyavah) ever vigilant in their vision (or knowledge), (jagruvamsah). viprasah means “beings possessed of wisdom”; vipanyavah means “ever singing praises”. Jagruvamsah means ‘whose intelligence never fails them’. So it means:- “These wise seers whose wisdom never fails shine radiantly always singing the praise of Vishnu’s paramapada”.

• Tad viprasah vipanyavah jagruvamsah samiadhate
  Vishnoh yat paramam padam.
  Since the sruti says, “This, my dear, existed at the begining only as Szt, alone and without a second”, it has to be understood that these followers, the abode and the like are included in the essential
  ↑ Taittiriyal Aranyaka: 1-2.quo
  201
  nature of the Supreme Being, just like the multitude of auspicious qualities like knowledge, strength and lordship. The words “only as Sat”, “alone” and “without a second” show that they have to be included as being within Brahman, because they from part of His transcendental, non-material (aprakrita) attributes. The word ’this’ in “This, my dear, existed at the beginning as Sat” refers to this universe consitituted of experiencing subjects (Jivas) bound by karma and the objects experienced or enjoyed by them. “The Suris always gaze at it” shows that they are not subject to karma, because their vision is eternal. The sruti which begins with “He is free from sin” and ends with “He has no thirst’ declares that Brahman is without any of those objectionable features that are seen in prakriti (matter) with its three qualities, in the modifications of prakriti, and in the Jiras who are associated with them, which three form the materials of His play (Lila). Then the same sentence proceeds to declare by the word satyakama that the objects of His enjoy. ment and the implements of His enjoyment are true (i.e. eternal. Whatever is desired is kama. He whose objects of desire are true (i. e.) eternal, is satyakama. Therefore, whatever objects and implements of enjoyment are desired by the Supreme Brahman as suitable are true (i.e.) eternal. The materials of His play (Lila), which are other than the objects and instruments of His enjoyment, are also eternal, in as much as they are capable of being grasped by the pramanas. They are however subject to modification, though eternal, and are hence unstable and changing. On the other hand, the objects and implements of His enjoyment in paramapada are, besides being eternal, unchanging and stable and trué. Brahman is also declared in that sruti to be satyasankalpa.
  It means that although
  202
  He has countless, eternal and wonderful objects and implements of enjoyment, He could, by His mere will, create innumerable objects unseen before.
  The word satyasankalpa (omnipotent) declares that the nature, existence, activity and differences of all things, namely the materials of His play (Lila), the objects and implements of His enjoyment, the sentient and the non-sentient, those that are not subject to change as well as those that are subject to change all these depend upon His will.
  The same truth is conveyed by Itihasas and Puranus which elaborate and elucidate the Vedas:- Srimad Ramayana was composed solely to elucidate the Vedas, as may be seen from the following sloka:- “*The great sage, Valmiki, found that these two boys, Kusa and Lava, were intelligent and well-versed in the Vedas and taught them the Ramayana to illustrate and explain the Vedas,’. In the Ramayana, we find the following (in Mandodari’s lament): “This Rama is surely the great Yogin, the eternal Supreme Self; He has no beginning, no middle, and no end; He is greater than the great; He dwells in the transcendental, non-material (aprakrita) world beyond tamas. He is the protector of the world armed with sankha, chakra and gada (olub). He has the mole Sri Vatsa on His chest; He has, as His inseparable Spouse, the goddess Lakshmi. He is invincible, eternal, immutable”. And else. where we find in The Ramayana the following:-
  “All his arrows of various kinds and his long bow took human forms and followed Rama”.
  *The Ramayana: Balakanda: 4-6 + Ibid: Yuddhakanda: 144-14
  ་
  ་
  90 of 15Z
  203
  “He entered into the splendour that is Vishnu with his body and with all his followers”.
  In the Vishnu Purana we find the following:-
  “Hari’s form is, O king, one in which all these great powers are found established. It is different from all else and is beyond all measure”.
  “Hari is Brahman with a form; all Jivas are subservient to Him The eternal mother of the world, Lakshmi, is inseparable from Him”.
  “Just as Vishnu pervades everywhere, Lakshmi, too, O best of Brahmins, pervades all. If Vishnu assumes the form of a god, she, too, assumes a like form. If He assumes the form of a human being, she, too, assumes a human form; She makes her form always be in conformity with that of Vishnu”.
  “In His Supreme Abode, there are Yogis ever in contemplation of Brahman, exclusive of all other things, and the Suris are always gazing at it”.
  “Divisions of time like kala (a few seconds) and muhoortha (one and a half hours) do not produce any change in that region of glory”.
  In the Mahabharata also it is said:-
  a
  “The Supreme Abode (Vaikuntah) is celestial region, imperishable and incomprehensibly magnificent; it cannot be seen by our senses or intelligence; it can be understood only from the Agamas; it exists from the beginning. Go there, O Lord, and in every kalpa protect us that have sought refuge in Thee by incarnating in Thy divine form”.
  “Time is itself subject to change there. It has no sway in that region”.
  The Sutrakara too says (in 1-1-

• 21):-
  204
  “He who is seen within the sun and within the eye is Brahman, because (in this Upanishad) attributes peculiar to Him are taught”.
  This Sutra indicates that the Supreme Brahman has a form. Its purport is as follows:- He who is seen within the sphere or mandala of the sun is the Supreme Being, the Supreme Brahman, Narayana. He shines like a mountain of molten gold; He has countless beams like the beams of a crore of suns; He has long and clear eyes like the petals of a lotus opened by the rays of the sun, and standing on firm stalks in deep water; He has beautiful eyebrows, a beautiful forehead and a beautiful nose; His lips are like coral and lit up with a smile. His cheeks are tender and lovely; His neck is like the conch; His well-formed ears are over his lofty shoulders; His arms are robust, round and long. The palms of His hands are charming and rosy with beautiful fingers; He has a slender waist and a broad chest. The members of His body are well-proportioned; the divine build of His body defies all description; His complexion is attractive; His two feet are as lovely as newly blossomed lotuses; He is dressed in yellow raiment adapted to His greatness; He wears countless and wonderful ornaments of a celestial nature, such as a brilliant crown, ear-rings, necklaces, the gem Kaustubha, armlets, bracelets, anklets and waistband; He is adorned with the conch, the discus (chakra); the club (gada), the bow (sarnga), the mole, Srivatsa, and the garland of wild flowers (vanamala). By His unsurpassed beauty, He allures all minds and eyes; He fills all things moving and non-moving, with the nectar of His loveliness; His youthfulness is eternal and is wonderful and inconceivable; His smile is as charming as a flower, by His holy fragrance, He fills all the quarters;
  +205
  by his grandeur. He overwhelms the three worlds; He blesses those that seek His protection with His sweet glance full of compassion and love.
  He has, for play, the creation, maintenance, and dissolution of all the world; He is free from all blemish; He is the treasurehouse of all auspicious qualities and is absolutely different from all other things.
  The words, “Because attributes peculiar to Him are taught”, in the Sutra referred to above. find their explanation in the following srutis: “He rules over all the worlds and fulfils all desires and He rises above all evil (karma). His attributes and qualities are brought out in the following srutis:- “He has all things under His sway”; “He is the Lord of everything”; “He is free from the taint of sin. He is not subject to old age (and the like)” The sruti ends with satyasankalpah (i. e.) omnipotence. Similarly, the srutis say, “He is superior to all (sentient beings) in the Universe and is eternal. He is the soul of all. He is Narayana and is called also Hari”. “He is the Lord of the Universe and is subject to no one above Him”.
  The Vakyakara has also conveyed all this meaning as follows:- “The passage in the sruti says, “A person radiant like gold is seen in the sphere of the sun. The person referred to in it is the Wise One (Prajnah), the Inner Self of all, for the sruti teaches that He is the Lord of the world and the Dispenser of all that is desired. So also He is described as being free from the taint of all sin”. The Vakyakara also declares that this form of the Lord should not be considered as not being eternal:- “It may be
  36
  206
  asked whether this form is one assumed by the Lord, for the time being, to bless His devotees. The Lord may be thought of as taking a form for showing His grace to His devotees.” Having stated this prima facie view, he refutes it by saying, “This form (of the Lord) cannot be perceived by the senses; it can be apprehended only by the mind that is pure: for that is how it is described (in the sruti)”. Just as jnana and other qualities which define the nature of Brahman are considered to be His essential attributes and are, on that account, understood to be eternal, so also, since this form is also spoken of in the sruti as defining the nature of Brahman, it should also be considered as eternal just like the essential nature (svarupa) of Brahman itself. (Dramidacharya) the commentator (Bhashyakara) has explained it as follows:- “This (form) of the Lord who created the world in an instant is not merely an illusory appearance; it cannot be seen with the eye of the flesh; it is apprehended only by the pure mind with the help of other aids; for the sruti says, “It is not apprehended by the eye and can be apprehended only by the pure mind”. A deity without form would not be taught by the sruti as having a form; the Sastra teaches the truth about things just as they are. The. srutis say: “His raiment is coloured with saffron”. “He shines radiant like the sun in a region beyond tamas”. The statements made by the srutis in other contexts are also evidences. “Having the colour of the sun” (hiranmaya) means resemblance in radiance and not “made of gold”, as in the (phrase) “a face like the moon”. So far the words of the Vakyakara; it has been commented upon as follows:- “The suffix mayat (in hiranmaya) does not signify ‘made of’ because the Atman is not a thing made of any thing”. Just as from the sruti which declares that Brahman has countless qualities like jnana, we understand that
  :
  907
  Brahman has attributes in the form of innumerable auspicious qualities, so also from the sruti: “He has a form radiant like the sun”; we under stand that Narayana, who is the Supreme Brahman and Purushottama, has a form which is to His liking and which is suited to His nature.
  Similarly from such srutis as “The Spouse of Vishnu is the queen of the world, “The goddess of the earth and the goddess Lakshmi are His wives”. “The suris are always gazing etc.,” “beyond tamas” “dwelling in a region beyond rajas,” we learn that He has consorts, attendants, a place of abode and the like. Thus says the Bhashyakara (Dramidacharya):- “The Sastra teaches things just as they really are”. To explain:- Just as from the statement “Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, and Infiniteness”, we learn that Brahman is free from all trace of blemish and is the abode of infinite bliss and has no limitations whatsoever and is therefore different from all other things, just as from the srutis, “He knows all things; He knows all the characteristics of everything”; “He has various kinds of supreme power, and the strength, knowledge and activity which belong to His nature are also varied and supreme”; “While He shines, everything else shines and that too only by His splendour”-just as from these we have to understand that He has unsurpassed and innumerable qualities which are different from those of all others, so also from srutis like “He has a form radiant like the sun”, we have to understand that He has a form, attendants, an abode and other things different from those of others, unique and found exclusively in Him and that their nature and character baffle description.
  If the Vedas are valid sources of knowledge, vidhis or sentences which enjoin an activity, mantras
  808
  which sing the praises of deities and arthavadas which explain the
  explain the performance of the rites and give reasons for the injunction,
  should all be considered as valid sources of knowledge, so long as these ideas have not been already established elsewhere and are not opposed to the other pramanas. The authority of the Vedas is thus declared in the Jaimini Sutra:- “The relation between the word and its meaning is something innate and eterna!” (and not conventional). In the same way as fire is hot and water cold by their very nature (svabhavika) — in the same way as the senses like sight have, by their very nature, the power of giving rise to knowledge of a specific kind, even so, the power of a word to give rise to a meaning is innate and natural. It connot be maintained that the power of a word to convey a meaning is based on convention (sanketa), just like conventional gestures made with the hand. The relation between the word and its meaning has continued from time immemorial without any break. Further. no one knows who established any such convention between the word and its meaning. Wherever there is a convention, the author of the convention is (invariably) known directly or indirectly. It cannot be stated that the relation between the word and its meaning is conventional as in the word “Devadatta” used as the name of a person. In such words as “Devadatta”, it is known to be a convention directly or indirectly. (We know who gave the person the name “Devadatta”). But in the case of words like “cow”, though the meaning has been conveyed by the word from beginningless time, no one knows by whom any such convention as in “Devadatta” was first established. Therefore, the power of such words as “cow” to convey their respective meanings should be considered innate or eternal (and not conventional),
  It is as
  natural
  309
  as the
  power of fire to burn and the power of the senses to generate perception.
  It may be asked, “If the word has the power of conveying a meaning by its very nature just like the senses in giving perceptual knowledge, why should a knowledge of the association (sambandha) between the word and its meaning be necessary for conveying the meaning?”, The answer is “As in the case of the reason (linga) when an inference is made”. That is, in the same way as a knowledge of the invariable association between smoke and fire is necessary while making the inference, “Because there is smoke here, there must be fire here”, a knowledge of the invariable association between the word and its meaning is necessary for the conveyance of the specific meaning. If so, it may be asked, “Would it not be a case of inference (anumana) when the meaning is conveyed by the word?”. We answer as follows:- “No. The association or relationship between a word and its meaning is of one kind and that between reason (hetu) and the knowledge derived from inference is of another kind. The resemblance is only in respect of knowledge arising out of a knowledge of relationship or association. (In (anumana) or inference, the relationship is that between cause (fire) and effect (smoke). Here in the case of words, the relationship is that between the idea conveyed and that which conveys it). Since the power of conveying a meaning is seen whenever the knowledge of the relationship (between the word and its meaning) is present and since, in spite of continuity, from beginningless time, of this power, no one has known of any one who established any such convention, we conclude that, in the word itself, there is an innate or natural power.
  210
  a
  Similarly, when a number of words, each with a meaning of its own, are employed to form what is called a sentence, they express or convey meaning, when the mutual relationship between the different words comes to be known. When the way in which the words are uttered in succession depends upon the intelligence of a man, these sentences are said to be of human authorship. On the other hand, when the order in which the words are uttered depends upon immemorial tradition, they are said to be without human authorship and are called “Vedas”. This is what is meant by saying that the Vedas are not of human authorship and that they are eternal. The words in Vedic passages are uttered in a certain order which is invariably followed by a remembrance of the traditional order existing from time immemorial. This is what constitutes non-human authorship and eternal being. These collections of words or syllables existing in a certain order of succession are Vedas and they are four: Rik, Yajus, Saman and Atharvan and each has innumerable branches. These Vedas consisting of injunctions (vidhis), mantras (hymus), and arthavadas explanatory comments teach us the essential nature of Narayana, who is the Supreme Brahman, the way of worshipping Him and the fruit of such worship. The collections of words called ‘Vedas’ which remind us of the
  us of the Supreme Person, His worship and the fruit of that worship are eternal as the Supreme Person Himself. Since the Vedas are boundless and hard to understand, some Maharishis directed by the Supreme Person reminded themselves in every kalpa of the meaning of the Vedas and composed Dharmasastras. Ithihasas and Puranas based on the injunctions, mantras and arthavadas of the Vedas for the benefit of the whole world. The words
  The words employed in ordinary
  or
  211
  life were also picked out from the Vedas and have been employed in successive ages to denote their respective meanings as before in the Vedas. “If so”, it may be asked, (i. e.) if all words with their meanings have been taken from the Vedas, why should a distinction be made between them saying, “This is so in the Vedas” and “This is so and so in ordinary language?” The answer is, “These words used in the Vedic order of succession have a certain meaning. whereas the same words used elsewhere in a different way have a different meaning.
  RECAPITULATION
  or
  Thus. Narayana, who is the Supreme Brahman, can be understood only from the Vedas with their auxiliary treatises (angas) as elucidated and explained in Itihasas. Puranas and Dharmasastras. He is opposed to all that is objectionable impure and is different from all else; His essential nature is infinite knowledge and bliss and He has, by His very nature, unsurpassed, wonderful and innumerable auspicious qualities; all things, sentient and non-sentient, owe their origin, their continuance and their varied activities to His will. He has a region of supreme glory (nityavibhuti), which is infinite in its nature and in its character, So also He has, for the objects and instruments of His play (lila), this world constituted of countless and varied beings, sentient and non-sentient.
  In passages like the following:-

• “All this is, indeed, Brahman”, “All this has Brahman for its soul”. * “That thou art, O Svetaketu”; “Some call Him Agni, some call Him Maruts,
• Chandogya Upanished (3-14-1)

• The reading in Manu Suriti in the Nirnayasagara edition is Manu instead of Maruts.
  212
  :
  others call Him Prajapati (Brahma), some again oall Him Indra, others again call Him Prana, and, yet others call Him the eternal Brahman”. “Whatever shining lights there are in this world, the three worlds, the three lords of these three worlds, the three Vedas the three fires, the five kinds of offerings made in the fire, all the gods-all these are only the son of Devaki (i, e.) Sri Krishna”. “Thou art the sacrifice, Thou the word vashatkara, Thou art the syllable om, Thou art the Vasu Ritudhama. Thou art Prajapathi among the Vasus”. “The whole Universe is Thy body; Thy firmness is the earth; Fire is Thy wrath and the Moon Thy grace”. All the shining lights are Vishnu; all the worlds are Vishnu; the mountains, the four quarters, the rivers, and the ocean-all these are only Vishnu. He is, O best of Brahmins, everything that exists as perceived by the senses and so also everything that is not perceived by the senses.” In all these sentences where there is grammatical apposition or co-ordination (samanadhikaranya), it is only Brahman that is denoted by all the words, as He has all things for His body and is in all modes (prakara). This has been already stated. The Supreme Brahman, who is omnipotent, willed, of His own accord, to become the many; He himself divided the Primal Element (Mahabhuta) which was in a subtle condition from the multitude of souls that lay merged in Him; He then created from the subtle Mahabhuta (Prakriti) the five primary elements (fire air, water, earth and ether) and caused experiencing souls to enter into them as their souls, He created the whole world out of these five elements mixed up with one another; He then entered into all as the soul of everything and stands in manifold modes or prakaras, with all things as His body, without giving up His nature as the Supreme Being. This Primal Element (Mahabhuta)
  the
  213
  in its subtle form is what is called Prakriti. The experiencing subjects are called Purushas; Prakriti and Purusha are both the bodies of the Supreme Being and are therefore His modes or prakaras. The Supreme Being, who has them as His prakaras or modes is denoted by the words Prakriti and Purusha. Everything that has been said so far is stated clearly in the following sruti:-
  “He willed (saying)” *“I will become the many”. Having created it, He entered into it; having enterd into it, He became sat, the sentient being, (which remains the same always) and tyat, the non-sentient thing (which is ever subject to change). He became the sentient being which cannot be described (in terms of genus or attributes) and the non-sentient thing which can be so described. He became the non-sentient thing which is supported by the sentient being and also the sentient being which supports the non-sentient thing; He became the knowing self and non-sentient matter. He became the sentient being which is not subject to change or modification and is therefore called “the true, (satyam)” and the non-sentient thing subject to change and hence called the unreal (asatya). In spite of His becoming the unreal, He still remains the True (satya).”
  Taittiriya Upanishad: Brahmananda - valli: 6
  The means of attaining Brahman has already been stated to be only bhakti (parabhakti) which is of the nature of constant meditation so intense as to become equal to vivid perception (pratyaksha). This supreme bhakti (parabhakti) results from Bhaktiyoga promoted by the performance of the duties and rites prescribed for one in accordance with one’s varna and asrama with a knowledge of the truths (tattva) obtained from the Sastras, The
  %7
  214
  word bhakti is used in the of love (preeti) and love is or knowledge.
  sense of a special form only a form of jnana
  It may be stated by way of objection: “Pleasure and love are synonymous terms and men of the world say that pleasure is something different from jnana or knowledge and that it is the effect of jnana and not jnana itself.” It is not so. The special or particular kind of knowledge from which pleasure is said to result is itself pleasure. To explain;- The knowledge of objects may be of the nature of pleasure (sukha), pain (dukkha) and that which is neither pleasure nor pain. These acquire their special character as pleasure or pain or that which is neither pleasure nor pain from the nature of the objects. That juana or knowledge which is characterised by a special object and which is said to produce pleasure is itself pleasure. There is nothing other than that knowledge to be called pleasure (sukha). From this knowledge characterised by a certain kind of object, we can explain whatever is meant by the word ‘pleasure’ (and there is no need to postulate an addtional entity or category called ‘pleasure’).
  This jnana which is of the nature of pleasure (or sukha) is, in the case of objects other than Brahman, limited and changeful. In the case of Brahman, this jnana, which is of the nature of pleasure, is boundless and constant. Therefore does the sruti say, “Brahman is bliss (Ananda).” Jnana or knowledge is concerned with objects and depends upon them. Therefore, Brahman which is of the nature of sukham is called sukha. The sruti says, *“He is indeed rasa (delight) and the
• Taittiriya Upanishad: Brahmananda - valli : 7.215
  self (Jiva) having attained Him becomes blissful.” This means that since Brahman is sukham (delight), the soul that has attained Brahman becomes delighted or blissful. Brahman is in Himself blissful and He becomes the cause of bliss in others as well. Since Brahman is a special form of delight or sukha, the person who knows Brahman becomes delighted or blissful. The Supreme Brahman is the abode of boundless, unsurpassed, and innumerable, auspicious attributes: He is free from all blemish; He owns endless and supreme glory (vibhuti). He is the ocean, as it were, of boundless and wonderful qualities like goodness, beauty, and love. If He is meditated upon as one for whose purposes the soul of the Jiva exists and with the knowledge that the individual self exists for the fulfilment of His purposes, the Supreme Brahman himself, having become the object of boundless and wonderful love, will lead the soul to Himself.
  It may be asked here by way of objection, “What has been said would mean that absolute dependence (upon the Lord) leads to boundless and unsurpassed pleasure or bliss. But this is entirely opposed to all worldly experience. For to all beings endowed with intelligence, independence is most desirable and dependence (upon others) is always painful. The smriti, too, says;- “The state of dependence on others is everywhere painful; independence of others or self-sovereignty is always happiness. Service has been described as
  as dog’s life and hence it should be given up”. This objection can be raised only by those who think that the soul is identical with the body and who have not understood the essential nature of the soul as being different from the body. To explain: The word ‘body’ refers to a mass (of flesh) characterised by a genus
  216
  such as ‘humans’ and qualities such as belong to ‘humans’. The man of the world who is in samsara finds the ‘I’ in his body. The objects that a man considers desirable are in accordance with his view of what the soul is. The objects desired by the lion, the tiger, the boar, the man, the yaksha, the Rakshasa, the demon, the god, the asura, and man and woman are such as depend on their respective conception of what their soul is. The essential nature of the soul is different from that of bodies such as those of gods and is of the form only of jnana. And this is characterised by entire dependence on the Supreme Self. The Smriti says, “The soul is of the nature of jnana and is pure”. This shows that the soul is wholly of the form of Jnana. There are hosts of Srutis like “He (Brahman) is the Lord of the Universe”, which show that the soul exists only for the fulfilment of the Lord’s purposes (sesha). Therefore, we should understand that this desire for independence is, like the identification of the soul with bodies like those of the lion and the tiger, due to past karma and false knowledge. Therefore, the notion that things other than the Supreme Being are objects of pleasure is due only to past karma. That is why they are only pleasant to a very limited extent and for a very short time. Only the Supreme Being is, by His very nature, bliss. Therefore, the bliss attained from Him is permanent and boundless.
  The Sruti says “Brahman is sukham(kam)”.
  Everything else except Brahman is, by its nature, not pleasant. That the pleasure arising from objects is due to karma and is transient is stated as follows by Bhagavan Parasara :-
  “O best of Brahmins, what are called Hell and Svarga are due respectively to the demerits (papa)
  217
  and merits (punya). The same (thing) causes pain to one man, pleasure to another, jealousy to a third and anger to yet another; how then could these be called objects having permanent qualities like pleasure or pain? This means:- These are not objects, as they cause neither pleasure nor pain exclusively. When they appear exclusively as pleasure or as pain, it is due to the man’s past karma, good or bad. Thus having shown that among many persons, the same object causes pleasure to one man and pain to another, he (Parasara) next proceeds to say that, even in the same person, there is no certainty of an object continuing to give pleasure or pain.
  cause
  “The same object having previously caused pleasure, now, causes pain; later it may anger and later still, peace of mind. Therefore, there is no object that is exclusively pleasant or exclusively painful.” That is, an object is pleasant or painful in accordance with past karma and not by its own nature; as soon as that karma is worked
  out, the pleasure or the pain
  ceases.
  on
  The remark that dependence in any form is painful is true only in the case of others and not of the Supreme Brahman. Dependance beings other than the Supreme Person is, of course, painful, because they are not seshis for whose purposes
  we exist as seshas. The saying that service is dog’s life is true only of the service of those who are unfit to be served. It has been stated that He alone is to be worshipped by all, whatever their asrama may be; (i. e.) by all who understand the true nature of the soul, the only person to be served is Purushottama, As Bhagavan Himself says:-
  218
  “He who adores me exclusively by means of bhakti yoga — he will pass beyond the gunas (of prakriti) and attain moksha.” This adoration or bhakti, which is a form of service, is expressed by the word ‘know’ (vedana) in such texts as:-
  “He who knows Brahman attains the Supreme.”
  “Having known Him in this way, he becomes immortal.” This has already been explained.
  In the sruti text: “He *whom this (Brahman) chooses-by him alone can He be attained,” from the qualification it is evident that the person should be capable of being chosen (or should deserve being chosen). He who deserves to be chosen should be dearest. Dearest to Bhagavan is he who has boundless and unsurpassed love to Him. So Bhagavan says:-
  man
  “I am, indeed, dear to the jnani, the who has knowledge or wisdom and he too is dear to me”. Gita: 7—7,
  Therefore, only that knowlege or vedana which has reached the intensity of supreme devotion (or parabhakti) is, in reality, the means of attaining Bhagavan.
  The same teaching is conveyed by Bhagavan Dvaipayana (Vyasa) in his Moksha Dharma, which is, as it were, a commentary on all the Upanishads:
  He
  His (Brahman’s) form does not appear before our sight and no one can see Him with his eyes. who has attained peace of mind by his firmness (dhriti) sees Brahman, who is of the nature of jnana by his devotion (bhakti). The meaning is that he who has attained mental peace by his firmness
• Mundaka Upanishad: 3-3.
  219
  of discipline (dhriti) will see Purushottama by his bhakti or devotion. It means the same as the sentence, “By exclusive devotion He can be attained.” As bhakti or devotion is only a form of knowledge. all that has been said here is appropriate.
  Note:-The first half of the sloka in Moksha Dharma (Mahabharata) is identical with a passage found in Kata Upanishad. The second half of the sloka might, at first sight, appear to mean, “He who has attained peace of mind by dhri’i and bhakti will see Brahman who is of the nature of knowledge”. But Sri Ramanuja has interpreted it differently, because bhakti alone is declared in the Sastras to be the means of attaining Brahman.
  Concluding Sloka:
  There are some great men who can distinguish between what is essential and what is not, who are free from rancour, and are guided only by the pramanas. It is for them that this Vedartha Sangraha has been written.
  Appendix.
  (See page 144)
  The Anuvaka called “Uttara Narayananu vaka” and the eight riks beginning with Hiranyagarbha’:-
  From the waters and the essence of the earth (prithivi), all creation arose as the work of the Creator of the Universe. The Creator of the world assigned to every (created) thing, its peculiar form (and so also its attributes) and pervaded all things. Therefore, I knew, at the very beginning, that the Universe was for the fulfilment of His purposes.
  I know this Supreme Person (Purusha) who is radiant in form like the sun and who dwells in the region beyond tamas (i. e., the world of prakriti or matter). He who knows Him to be of this nature (as described in the anuvakas) becomes immortal even here (i. e.) enjoys the bliss of Bhagavan even in this state of samsara. There is no other way or means of attaining Him (than that indicated here).
  Prajapati moves about in the womb (of the Universe). Though He is never born as the result of karma (and is therefore changeless), He is born in many forms (as avatars); the wise have a comprehensive understanding of the cause of His being born. The gods like Brahma and Rudra, whose bondage and release are dependent on His lila, aspire to the abode of the Marichis (i. e.) the eternal Suris).
  Note:-Prajapati here refers not to Brahma but to the Supreme Being
  Narayana.
  I bow to that Splendour which is revealed in the Vedas (and surrender myself and everything that is
  W
  221
  mine to Him) to Him who burns (the Asuras and the Rakshasas), for the sake of the devas, who ever stands before them to remove their sufferings and to reveal Himself, and who was born for the sake of the gods (as avatars).
  manifestation of
  The Devas, who rose to a their real nature resembling the light of Brahman, offered, of old, their adoration to Him (by saying namas). The student of the Vedas who comes to know of the potency of this adoration-to him, (even) the gods (like Brahma and Indra) become subject.
  (O Lord) The goddess of the earth and Lakshmi are Thy consorts. Day and night are Thy sides; Thy form or body is the stars and the Asvins are Thy palates (upper and lower); vouchsafe unto us whatever is desired (by us); grant us this (Thy feet); give us everything.
  The Eight Riks beginning with the word ‘Hiranyagarbha.’

1. Before (creation), Hiranyagarbha (He who is in the womb or centre of the region beautiful and resplendent like gold) existed (in His divine abode). After creation, He became the sole Lord of all created beings. He supported the earth and the heavens and to that deity denoted by the word Kim meaning Prajapati, let us make our offerings (let us surrender ourselves to Him):
2. By His greatness, He became the sole King and Saviour of all beings, those that breathe (and move not), those (that crawl) and wink (their eyes) and those that move (from place to place). He ruled over the bipeds and the quadrupeds and to
   28
   222
   that deity denoted by the word Kim meaning Prajapati, let us make our offerings (let us surrender ourselves to Him).
3. He who gives Himself (to His devotees), and the strength to enjoy that bliss), whose command is obeyed with reverence by all beings and even by the gods, whom the world of immortality follows like His shadow, whose orders are executed by Death-to that deity denoted by the word Kim meaning Prajapati, let us make our offerings (let us surrender ourselves to Him).
4. They say that the mountains covered with snow and the ocean and the earth exist for Him by virtue of His greatness. These directions or quarters are (as it were) His arms - to that deity denoted by the word Kim meaning Prajapati, let us make our offerings (let us surrender ourselves to Him).
5. The earth and the heavens cry and look up to Him for succour, (when threatened by the Asuras), though they are radiant; since He is the ruler, the sun rises and sets to that deity denoted by the word Kim meaning Prajapati, let us make our offerings (let us surrender ourselves to Him).
6. By Him is the region of the heavens (inhabited by the Gandharvas) fiery (and resplendent;) by Him does the earth stand firm; the world of Svarga was set firm by Him, the world of Brahma, namely, Naka, was rendered by Him free from all unhappiness and suffering; He dwells in the region of the Supreme Ether or Akasa, which is beyond rajas or the world of matter and He is beyond all comprehension-to that deity denoted by the word Kim meaning Prajapati, let us make our offerings (let us surrender ourselves to Him).
   223
7. The wide waters
   wide waters which generated Agni (Brahma) and had in them the energy required to create the world pervaded the Universe, Then did He become the very life of the devas-to that deity denoted by the word Kim meaning Prajapati, let us make our offerings (let us surrender ourselves to Him).
   8 By His greatness, He saw to it that the waters possessed of power created Agni. He is the sole God of all gods-to Him denoted by the word Kim *meaning Prajapati, let us make our offerings (let us surrender ourselves to Him).
   *Note:-Kasmai devaya haviska vidhema: This refrain in the eight riks is translated as follows by Prof. A. A Macdonnell: “To what god should we pay worship with oblation?” His comment on the word Kim from which the nominative singular form Ka is derived may be of interest to the reader: “This led to the word ka ‘who?” being used in the later Vedic literature as an independent name, Ka, of the supreme god.”
   Sanskrit Words in the Text and Their Transliteration
   in
   THE TRANSLATION
   Transliteration
   Sanskrit
   Transliteration Sanskrit
   4
   aniyastvam अणायस्त्वम्
   abhyasa
   अभ्यास
   anrita
   अनृत
   Boohadika
   आच्छादिका
   antahkaranam अन्तः करणम्
   avidya
   अविद्या anu
   अणु
   acit
   अचित्
   anubhuti
   अनुभूति
   achit
   अचित्
   anukula
   अनुकूल
   adhara
   आधार
   anumana अनुमान
   adheyatvam आधेयत्वम्
   anuvaka अनुवाक
   adesa
   आदेश
   aparamartha अपरमार्थ
   adhyasa अध्यास
   Apastamba आपस्तम्ब
   Aditya -
   mandala आदित्यमण्डल
   aprakrita
   अप्राकृत
   adrishta अच्ठ
   aprapta
   अप्राप्त
   aprapti
   agama
   आगम
   अप्राप्ति
   akara
   akasa
   ahankara अहङ्कार
   ajayamano अजायमानो
   आकार
   आकाश
   ambhasyapare अम्भस्यपारे
   अंश
   apurva
   अपूर्व
   arabhyate
   आरभ्यते
   aranyaka आरण्यक
   arthapatti अर्थापत्ति
   asamavayi-
   karana असमवायिकारण
   amsa
   anadi
   अनादि
   asrama
   ananda
   आनन्द
   asti
   anantam
   अनन्तम्
   asuric
   anavastha
   अनवस्था
   ativyapti
   अस्ति आसुरी अतिव्याप्ति
   L
   atma
   asatkaryavada असत्कार्यवाद
   आश्रम225
   Transliteration
   atmanah आत्मानः
   avadana अवदान
   Sanskrit
   Transliteration Sanskrit
   chinmatra चिन्मात्र
   chit
   चित्
   avarana
   आवरण
   cit
   चित्
   avayavi
   अवयवी
   D
   avidya
   अविद्या
   dasa
   दशा
   dasa
   दास
   B
   dehi
   Badarayana बादरायण
   देही
   devah
   देवाः
   bahudha बहुधा
   dhirah
   धीराः
   Bhagavan
   भगवान्
   dosha
   Bhaskara भास्कर
   दोष
   Dramida
   द्रमिड
   bhashya भाष्य
   dukkham
   Bhattas
   भाठ्ठाः
   दुःखम्
   E
   bhavana
   भावना
   bheda
   भेद
   eka jiva vada एक जीब वाद
   bhinna
   Bhedabheda भेदाभेद
   भिन्न
   G
   Gargi
   गार्गि
   bhinnabhinna भिन्नाभिन्न
   H
   hetu
   हेतु
   bhrama
   भ्रम
   Bhriguvalli भृगुवल्ली
   hiranmayah हिरण्मयः
   hita
   हित
   bhuta
   भूत
   Hrih
   bhutadi
   भूतादि
   ही:
   I
   Brahma ब्रह्मा
   iccha
   इच्छा
   Brahman ब्रह्मन्
   Isana
   ईशान
   Brahmasutra ब्रह्मसूत्र
   Iswara
   ईश्वर
   Brihadaran-
   yaka बृहदारण्यक
   J
   C
   jagruvamsah जागृवांसः
   Chandogya छान्दोग्य
   jati
   जाति
   Charvaka
   चार्वाक
   jiva
   जीव
   Transliteration Sanskrit
   jivatma
   जीवात्मा
   jna
   ज्ञा
   jnanam ज्ञानं jnanendriyas ज्ञानेन्द्रियाः jnani ज्ञानी jnapti ज्ञप्ति
   jyayastvam ज्यायस्त्वम्
   226
   Transliteration Sanskrit
   M
   Maitreyi मैत्रेयी Mandodari मन्दोदरी
   Mahabharata महाभारत
   maya
   medha
   माया
   मेधा
   Mimamsaka मीमांसक
   K
   moksha मोक्ष
   kala
   कला
   muhurtha मुहूर्त
   kala
   काल
   mukti मुक्ति
   kama
   काम
   karana
   Mundaka-
   Upanishad मुण्डकोपनिषत्
   कारण
   karma
   कर्म
   N
   karya
   कार्य
   nabhi
   नाभि
   karyarthavada कार्यार्थवाद
   naka
   नाक
   kashta
   काष्ठा
   nana
   नाना
   Katopanishad कठोपनिषत्
   neha
   नेह
   kaustubha कौस्तुभ
   neti
   नेति
   krama
   क्रम
   krodha
   क्रोध
   kshana
   nimesha
   निमेष
   क्षण
   kshetrajna क्षेत्रज्ञ
   nimitta निमित्त
   niravayava निरवयव
   nirguna निर्गुण nirvikalpaka निर्विकल्पक nishkriyam निष्क्रियं,
   Kusa
   कुश
   L
   Lava
   लव
   nitya
   नित्य
   laya
   लय
   niyamyatvamनियाम्यत्वम्
   lakshana
   लक्षणा
   niyanta
   नियन्ता
   lila
   लीला
   niyojya
   नियोज्य
   Transliteration Sanskrit
   P
   227
   Transliteration
   rishi
   Sanskrit
   ऋषि
   padam
   papa
   पदं
   rukmabha
   रुक्माभ
   पाप
   Paramapada परमपद
   18
   sadhana
   साधन
   Parasara पराशर
   Sadhyas साध्याः
   paramarthika पारमार्थिक
   saguna
   सगुण
   parardha परार्ध
   sakara
   साकार
   parijananti परिजानन्ति
   sakha
   शाखा
   parinama परिणाम
   sakti
   शक्ति
   pasu
   पशु
   samadarsanas समदर्शनः
   Prabhakaras प्राभाकराः
   Prajapati
   प्रजापति
   samanadhi-
   Sambhu शम्भु
   karanyam सामानाधिकरण्यं
   Prajna प्राज्ञ
   saman
   सामन्
   prakara
   प्रकार
   samagri
   सामग्री
   prana
   प्राण
   samavayi समवायि
   prasada
   प्रसाद
   samindhte समिन्धते
   prarabdha
   प्रारब्ध
   samkirna संकीर्ण
   pratibhasika प्रातिभासिक
   Samsara संसार
   pratyaksha प्रत्यक्ष
   samsthana संस्थान
   prithivi पृथिवी
   Sanaka
   सनक
   punya
   पुण्य
   Sanandana सनन्दन
   purushartha पुरुषार्थ Purushottama पुरुषोत्तम purvapaksha पूर्वपक्ष purvapakshinपूर्वपक्षिन्
   samgraha सङ्ग्रह
   sankalpa संकल्प
   sanketa
   सङ्केत
   Sankha
   श
   R
   raga
   राग
   Sankhyas साङ्ख्या: saranagati शरणागति
   rajas
   रजस्
   Sarnga
   शा
   rina
   ऋण
   sastra
   शत्र
   228
   Transliteration
   Sanskrit
   Transliteration
   Sanskrit
   Sastra
   शास्त्र
   tamasa
   तामस
   sasvatam
   शाश्वतम्
   tasya
   तस्य
   satta
   सत्ता
   tattva
   तत्त्व
   sattvam
   सत्त्वम्
   tirodhana
   तिरोधान
   sattvic
   सात्विक
   satyam
   सत्यं
   U
   sesha
   शेष
   ubhaya
   उभय
   seshi
   शेषी
   upabrihma-
   seshin
   शेषिन्
   nam उपब्रह्मणम्
   siddhanta
   सिद्धान्त
   upadana उपादान
   upadesa उपदेश
   Siva
   शिव
   upadhi उपाधि
   smritis
   स्मृति
   upalaksha-
   soonya
   शून्य
   nam उपलक्षणम्
   sraddhas
   श्राद्धा:
   upanishad उपनिषत्
   sthula
   स्थूल
   Subalopani-
   subhasraya शुभाश्रय
   shad सुबालोपनिषत्
   sukshma सूक्ष्म
   Sunyavadin शून्यत्रादिन्
   Suta
   सूत
   sushupti सुषुप्ति
   sutra
   सूत्र
   svabhavika स्वाभाविक
   svatassiddha Fa:fus Svetaketu श्वेतकेतु
   T
   Vamadeva वामदेव Vaiseshikas वैशेषिकाः
   वैकारिक
   vaikarika
   Vaikunta वैकुण्ठ
   vanamala
   vasi
   वनमाला
   वशी
   Vasudeva
   वासुदेव
   Vedanta
   Taittiriya
   तैत्तिरीय
   Deepa वेदान्तदीप
   tamas
   तमस्
   Vedanta Sara वेदान्तसार
   upasana
   उपासन
   upaya
   उपाय
   P
   vacharam-
   bhanam वाचारम्भणम्
   229
   Vedartha -
   Transliteration Sanskrit
   sangraha वेदार्थसङ्ग्रह vivarta
   Transliteration
   Sanskrit
   विवर्त
   vibhuti
   विभूति
   vyavahara व्यवहार
   vidhi
   विधि
   vyavaharika व्यावहारिक
   vidhyakshe-
   pa. विध्याक्षेप
   vyoman व्योमन् Vyomatit -
   vidya विद्या
   avadin व्योमातीतवादिन्
   vijayate
   विजयते
   vyutpatti-
   vada व्युत्पत्तिवाद
   vipanyavah विपन्यवः
   viprasas
   विप्रासः
   Y
   virya वीर्य
   Yadava -
   viseshana विशेषण viseshya विशेष्य visishta विशिष्ठ
   prakasa यादवप्रकाश
   Yamun-
   acharya. यामुनाचार्य
   yonih
   योनिः
   (The following are among the errors found in the text. I regret also that quotations do not, in some places, begin or close with the proper marks.)
   ERRATA
   Page Line
   For
   13
   6
   ot
   15
   9
   karma
   23
   2
   Brahmae
   Read
   or
   krama
   Brahman
   37
   14
   He
   he
   42
   14
   42
   29
   Srarga predicted
   Svarga
   predicated
   43
   16
   likwise
   likewise
   72
   2
   asatryavada
   asatkaryavada
   81
   4
   krama
   karma
   84
   3
   aud
   and
   97
   7
   thh
   the
   99
   18
   oontradictory
   contradictory
   99
   34
   end
   and
   108
   38
   Brahmin
   Brahman
   110
   2
   vaishamaya
   vishamya
   135
   2
   to
   te
   136
   1
   menta
   mental
   146
   10
   5
   Thu
   160
   8
   Note
   169
   15
   sigifance
   178 26
   182
   24
   of
   200
   29
   samiadhate
   Do
   32
   begining
   indenpendently
   The

• Note
  significance independently
  samindhate
  beginning
  of
  208
  15
  connot
  cannot
  211
  34
  Snriti
  Smriti
  लाल बहादुर शास्त्री राष्ट्रीय प्रशासन अकादमी, पुस्तकालय L.B.S. National Academy of Administration, Library
  मसूरी
  MUSSOORIE
  यह पुस्तक निम्नांकित तारीख तक वापिस करनी है ।
  This book is to be returned on the date last stamped
  दिनांक
  उधारकर्त्ता की संख्या
  दनांक
  उ
  Date
  Borrower’s
  No.
  Date
  की संख्या Borrower’ No.
  CGL 181.48
  VED
  181.48
  Ved
  अवाप्त संo 100789
  ACC. No. 12844
  वर्ग सं.
  पुस्तक सं.
  Class No…………………
  Book No….
  लेखक
  Author…
  शीर्षक
  Title……Vedartha Sangraha of
  Sr.i..Ramanuj.a………………….
  fair fil
  181.48
  LIBRARY
  Ved
  12844
  LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI
  National Academy of Administration
  MUSSOORIE
  Accession No. 100789

1. Books are issued for 15 days only but may have to be recalled earlier if urgently required.
2. An over-due charge of 25 Paise per day par
   volume will be charged.
3. Books may be renewed on request, at the
   discretion of the Librarian.
4. Periodicals, Rare and Reference books may not be issued and may be consulted only In the Library.
5. Books lost, defaced or injured in any way alsall have to be replaced or its double
   ku tha hAEVAILIST.