Brahmasutra sankara bhashya samgrahah
Table of Contents
1. That omnisicient and omnipotent source must be Brahman from which
occur the birth, continuance and dissolution of this universe that is manifested
through name and form, that is associated with diverse agents and experiences ,
that provides the support for actions and results, having well regulated space,
time and causation and that defies all thoughts about the real nature of this
2. And the sentence defining this is: "From Bliss certainly all these beings
originate; they live by Bliss after being born; and towards Bliss they proceed
and into Bliss they get merged, (Tai III.vi)
3. That Brahman, again, will have to be either familiar or unfamiliar. If it be
familiar, it need not be deliberated for knowledge. Again if it be totally
unfamiliar, it cannot be deliberated upon.
4. With the help of the Upanishads, the nature of Brahman with which the
individual soul becomes unified in sleep when its limiting adjuncts become
quiescent, is now being ascertained.... The Supreme Brahman, considered in
itself cannot logically have both the characteristics, for it cannot be admitted
that the very same thing is naturally possessed of attributes like form etc., and
that it is also without these, for that is self-contradictory. ..Therefore, it is
established that Brahman is without any distinguishing feature and has but
one aspect and not two or an opposite one.
5. Reply - Brahman is known in two aspects-one possessed of the limiting
adjunct of diversities because of modification, name and form and the other
6. Thus, although the knowledge of the Self is the cause of immediate liberation,
when it is imparted through special adjuncts, (their relation is not
intended) the doubt that arises whether it refers to Para or Apara Brahman ,
has to be decided by considering their purport.... Thus, the next portion of the
Brahma Sutra is begun to show that the teaching of Vedantas is that although
Brahman is one, It has to be meditated upon or known with or without the
relationship of the adjuncts respectively
7. Nothing is possible to exist separate from Brahman, as there is no proof. In
fact, we are not able to find any proof for the existence of anything else, It has
been established that the birth etc. of everything which has origin is from
Brahman. The effect is non-different from the cause. And anything which is
birthless and which is different from Brahman is not possible. Because it is
understood from Sruti "O amiable one, in the beginning, Sat alone was, one
without a second." (Ch.6-2-1) Because of the assertion that when one is known,
everything is known, the existence of anything other than Brahman cannot be
8. Of that Btahman itself, in its empirical existence, where there is a division
of ruler and the ruled, another characteristic is being described. (3-2-8-38)
9. The individual soul is a part of Iswara just a spark is of fire. Part is meant
as apparent, as the partless can have no part in the literal sense, We declare
that Iswara does not suffer just like the Jive suffers the misery of the
Samsara. The individual soul due to ignorance seem to become identified
with the body etc. and it suffers the misery occurring to the body due to its
belief that the misery created by ignornace is its own. But Iswara has neither
such Atma-body identity nor the attachment to the misery. Even though the
Self is one, this kind of injunction and prohibition are possible owing to the
"body-association" "Body-association " means the contact with the bodies.
10. Although there is difference between Upanishads while creating space
etc., there is no difference about the Creator. How? The Omniscient,
Omnipotent, Omnipresent, the one without a second is declared as the cause
in one Upanishad. In the same way, it is declared in other Upanishads......
Therefore , it follows that because the word Sat is used in common parlance to
imply things manifested through name and form, Brahman which existed
before creation is mentioned here as Asat before creation in a secondary
sense owing to the absence of manifestation.
11. Brahman has to be admitted as the material cause as well as the efficient
cause. It is not merely the efficient cause. Why ? Because the proposition and
the illustration may not be contradicted. Like this, the proposition and the
illustration will not be contradicted in the Srutis.
12. The objection to the view that Brahman is the material as well as the efficient
cause of the universe, that was raised from the stand point of the Smritis
has been disposed of. The objection from the standpoint of logic is now being
met. What was said that this universe does not have Brahman as its material
cause, since its characteristics are different, is not wholly true. For it is a
matter of common experience that from a man, well known as a conscious
being , originate hair, nail etc., that are different in nature (being insentient)
and scorpion etc. grow in cow-dung etc. known to be insentient,.....Objection:
.If Brahman, that is conscious , pure and free from sound etc. be accepted as
the cause of the effect that is opposed to It, being unconscious, impure, and
possessed of sound etc., then it comes to this that the effect was non-existent
before creation, This is not desirable for you (vedantin) who maintain Sat-
Karya. Reply: This is not objectionable. This is only a denial. and there is
no denial of that which is denied. This denial is not capable to deny the
existence of the effect before creation..........There is nothing incongruous in
our Darsana. What was said that when the effect merges with the cause, it will
tarnish the cause with its attributes, is not an objection. How? There are
examples. There are instances where the effects merge with the cause; they
do not pollute the latter with their peculiarities. For instance, plates etc., claytransfigurations
having high medium and flat differences in their separate
state, do not pollute the original substance with their attributes....There is
another example, As a magician is not himself affected at any time, past ,
present and future, by the magic conjured up by himself, it being not a Vastu,
so also the Supreme Self is not affected by the world which is non-real......
Therefore, it stands firm that in accordance with the Vedas and reasoning
conforming to the Vedas, conscious Brahman is the material and efficient
cause of the universe.
13. Hereby, by the reasons advanced for refuting the theory of Pradhana as the
cause; it is to be understood that the theories of atoms etc as the causes,which
are not accepted by the wise people like Manu, Vyasa, and others, are also
explained as not to be accepted.
14. Objection: Therefore, the assertion that Brahman is the material cause is
impro-per, for it leads to a denial of the well known division between the
experiencer and the thing experienced. Should anyone raise such an objection:
This is the reply: It can exist as seen in the world. This division can be
upheld from our point of view as well., as it is seen in the world. Thus, though
foam, ripple, wave, bubble, etc, which are different modifications of the sea,
consisting of water, are non-different from the sea, still amongst themselves,
action in the form separation and coalescence is possible. And yet the foam,
wave etc, do not lose their individuality in relation to one another , even though
they are modifications of the sea and non-different from it which is but water.
Again even though they do not lose their identity they never become different
from the sea.....Thus it is said that though all things are non-different from the
supereme cause, Brahman, still there can be such distinction as the experiencer
and the things experienced on the analogy of the sea and its waves.
15. Assuming, for the sake of argument, an empirical difference between the
experiencer and the things experienced, the refutation under the previous
aphorism was advanced by holding that the distinction can well exist as observed
in common experience. But in reality the difference does not exist, since a
non-difference between the cause and effect is recognised. The effect is the
universe, diversified as space etc., and the cause is the Supreme Brahman. In
reality, it is known that the effect has nondifference from i.e, non-existence in
isolation from, that cause. How? From the text "about origin etc". About the
word "origin" --It is said after the assertion that the knowledge of all follows
from one" "As, O amiable one, all things made of clay are known when a lump
of clay is known, since a modification has speech as its origin and exists only
in name, as clay alone is true. The idea implied is : When a lump of clay is
known as nothing but clay in reality, all things made of clay, for instance, pot,
plate, jar, etc., become known since they are non-different from clay, because
of speech it is said.
16. We speak of that entity as the creator of the universe which is by nature
eternal, pure, intelligent and which is greater than and different from the
embodied being. With regard to that Brahman, the faults of not doing what is
beneficial and the like cannot arise, for there is nothing beneficial to be
achieved or harmful to be eschewed by It, which is by nature eternally free.
Nor there is anything to debar its knowledge or power since it is omniscient
17. For on the authority of mantras, corroborative statements, Ithihasas and
Puranas, it is known that Devas, Pithrus, Rishis and others, very powerful and
sentient as they are create by themselves through mere will and without any
external help, many such things as bodies, palace,chariots etc. of various
shapes . The spider also creates its threads by itself. the cranes become pregnant
within itself; the lotus stalk moves from one lake to another without
waiting for any vehicle; Similarly, sentient by Itself may well create the
universe by itself without the help of external means.
18. There is no possibility of change of Brahman as a whole. Why? Because
of Srutis. It is said that it is transcendent of modification just like the creation
of the world by Brahman, for the material cause and its product are mentioned
separatly - That Deity that was such, deliberated, let this be so, that I
manifest name and form after myself entering into these three Gods as the
19. As in the world it is seen that though a King or some councillor of the
king whohas got all his desires fulfilled, may still without any aim in view
indulge in activities in the form of sports and pastimes, as a sort of diversion
or as inhala-tion,exhalation etc.proceed spontaneously without depending on
external motive, so also God can have activities of the nature of mere pastime
out of his spontaneity without any extraneous motive. For any motive imputed
to God can have neither the support of logic or Sruti. Similarly even in the same
Brahman there can be a diverse creation without any destruction of its nature.
20. No partiality or mercilessness can be charged agsinst God. Because of
depen-dence. Had God done the creation with differences merely on his own,
then there will be charge of partiality and cruelty. For who is not dependent,
creatorship will not happen. God does this unequal creation depending on
other factors, What is the dependent factor ? We say it is dependent on merit
and demerit. Therefore , it is not the fault of the God, since the unequal
would-be creation is dependent on the merits and demerits of the beings.
21. It is God Himself abiding in these elements as thier Self, that creates every
effect through profound meditation...........shows that He alone is omniscient.
22. It is taught here that the agency is of the Supreme Brahman. ....It is to be
understood that the products of water and fire also develop similarly.
23. That is - "To be heard of, to be reflected on (Br.2-4-5), and "A man
well informed and intelligent can reach the countries of the Gandharas;
similarly in this world, a man who has a teacher attains knowledge" (Ch-6-14-
2), these Srutis show that the help of intelligence of man is required. Like the
delibe-ration on Dharma for knowledge, Srutis are not the sole means of valid
know-ledge in the deliberation on Brahman for knowledge. But, the Srutis
and also the personal experience as applica-ble are means of valid knowledge'
because the knowledge of Brahman is the culmi-nation of personal experience
and also the subject is about an entity.which already exists.
24. Or, the Sastra, Rig veda etc, as enumerated is the valid means of knowing
the real nature of Brahman.
25. That Brahman, which is omnisicient and omnipotent, the cause of the
origin, existence and dissolution of the universe is known from the Vedanta
Sastra only....."O Somya, this universe, in the beginning, was Sat only, one,
only one and without a second "(Ch.6-2-1)," In the beginning, this only one
Self was " (Ai-1-1-1) "There is nothing prior or posterior, nothing interior or
exterior to that this Brahman. This Self is Brahman, the all experiencer, " In
the beginning this Brahman alone was immortal" (Mun2-2-11) etc. When the
nature of Brahman has been decided .correctly, correlated and understood
from those words, it is not proper to imagine some other meaning, for that
will result in rejecting what Sruti says and imagine what Sruti does not
intend. Nor do those words have their purport in establishing the nature of the
agent, as "What That will see and through what? "(Br,2-4-14), this Sruti
negates action, instrument and result. Brahman is not an object of perception,
even though it is an established positive entity, "Thou art That" (Ch.6-8-7),
without this Sruti, the unity of Self and Brahman cannot be known.
26. Hence the knowledge of Brahman is not dependent on human action.
What then? It is on the thing itself, like the knowledge of a thing got through
the valid means , such as direct perception etc. It is not possible to imagine
such a Brahman or its knowledge to be brought into contact with work by any
logic. Nor such a contact with work of Brahman is possible by virtue of its
being the object of the act of knowing.,as from the Srutis, "It is different from
the known and also different from the unknown" (Ke.1.4), "Through what one
should know That by which all this is known." (Br,2-4-14), the object of the act
of knowing is denied. Smilarly, the object of the action of meditation is also
denied. The Sruti "That which is not revealed by speech , by which speech is
revealed " after declaring that Brahman is not an object, says "Know that
alone as Brahman and not what people medidate."(Ke1-1)
1. It was shown that certain words which have familiar other meanings and
were in doubt, in fact meant Brahman as the sentences have clear indications
of Brahman, Again, some other sentences which are not-very clear meaning
of Brahman are in doubt about whether they speak of the Supreme Brahman
or any other entity. The second and third Padas are begun to ascertain this.
1. It was shown that certain words which have familiar other meanings and
were in doubt, in fact meant Brahman as the sentences have clear indications
of Brahman, Again, some other sentences which are not-very clear meaning
of Brahman are in doubt about whether they speak of the Supreme Brahman
or any other entity. The second and third Padas are begun to ascertain this.
1. From the Srutis, it is understood that Jiva is eternal; Similarly, the
birthlessness, changelessness; it is the unchanging Brahman itself exists as the
Self and it is Brahman. What are those Srutis? "The individual self does not
die" (Chand.U..6-11-3) "That Self is undecaying, immortal,undying, fearless
and Brahman" (Br.U.4-4-25) The intelligent one is not born and does not die;
This ancient one is birthless, eternal and unchanging (Kat.U,1-2-18) "Having
created that, He entered into that (Tai.U.2-6-1) "Let me manifest myself as
name and form entering as the individual self" (Chan.U.6-3-2) "This Self
permeates those bodies upto the tips and nails (Br.1-4-7) "Thou art That "
(Chan.U.6-8-7) "I am Brahman " (Br,1-4-10) "This Self , the perceiver of
everything, is Brahman" (Br,U.2-5-19) These and other Srutis speak of
eternality deny the origin of the individual Self.
2. This reference to birth and death of the individual Self is in secondary
3. It is only the Supreme Brahman itself which while remaining immutable
appears to exist as an individual soul owing to its association with limiting
adjuncts. The eternal consciousness of the Supreme Brahman is mentioned in
these Srutis "Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman " (Br.3-9-28) "Brahman is Truth,
knowledge, Infinite" (Tai,2-1-1) " Without interior or exterior, entire, pure
intelligence alone" (4-5-13) If the individual Self is but the Supreme Brahman
Itself, then it can be understood that like fire possessing heat and light, the
Jiva is also possessed of eternal Conscious-ness by its very nature.
4. Now if the individual soul be none other than the Supreme Brahman then
the soul should have the same magnitude as that of the Brahman' and as it it is
mentioned in the Srutis that the supreme Brahman is omnipresent, so the soul
also should be omnipresent. Thus only will those statements stand vindicated
that are made in the Srutis and Smritis about the omnipresence of the soul as
"That Self is great and birthless which remains identified with the intellect and
in the midst of the organs" (Br.4-4-22)
5. Everywhere it is seen, the tendency to activity is preceded by the egoconsciousness.
As in I go, I come, I eat, I drink . Again for the intellect that is
equipped with the power of the agent and possessed of the ability of doing
everything, we have to create some other instrument that can be used for
accomplishing everything. . For despite the ability possessed by an agent, he is
seen to engage in works with the help of some instruments. In that case, the
argument is only about the term and not about the thing itself., since agentship
is conceded for one who is different from the instrument.
6. It is not possible for the agent to have natural agentship, as it will result in
negation of liberation. If agentship is the nature of the Self, there can be no
freedom from it as fire can have no freedom from heat. For one who has not
got rid of agentship, there cannot be the achievement of the highest human
goal, for agentship is misery.
7. During the state of ignorance,when the individual soul is blinded by the
darkness of ignorance, Samsra consisting of the agent and the experiencer
results from the behest of the Iswara, who presides over all activities, resides
in all beings, who is the witness, imparts intelligence and is the Supreme soul.
Only by his grace, liberation from knowledge is possible.......Iswara makes the
individual soul do according to the efforts of Dharma or adharma already
done by him. Therefore the defects pointed out do not arise. Iswara is only
the efficient cause just like the rain in allocating the inequality of the results
which depends on the inequality of the Dharma and Adharma done by the
8. It has been understood that when the individual leaves the previous body,it
attains another with the help of the chief Prana, accompanied by the senses
and the mind, and also the tendencies of the previous birth resulting from
past actions due to ignorance...It is to be understood that when it acquires
another body, it goes with the subtle parts of the elements.
9. When the results of those works for enjoying which the soul had ascended
to the lunar world, get exhausted through enjoyment, then the watery body that
had been produced for that soul for enjoyment in the lunar world gets
melted by the touch of the fire of sorrow enkindled at the sight of the
exhaustion of enjoyment , like snow and hail melting at the touch of the sun's
rays or the solidity of ghee being removed by the touch of the flames of fire.
10. It is not that all go to moon.........As for others (evil doers) they enter into
the place of Yama (hell) and suffer the torments by Yama in accordance with
their own misdeeds, and then descend to this world.
11. As the liquid body formed in the lunar world for the sake of enjoyment
starts to melt after the exhaustion of enjoyment, it becomes subtle like Akasa.
Then it comes under the influence of air. Then it comes in contact with smoke
etc....Hence in this context the attainment of a state of similarity with space
etc. is meant figuratively here by "becoming space" etc.
12. The souls descend to this earth with the showers of rain after staying in the
akasa -like state for short intervals.
13. In the same descent, what happens after the shower is read.....The souls
merely comes into contact with paddy etc which are inhabited by other souls.,
just like the contact with air, smoke etc as before.
14. Now, the different states of the souls are elaborated. ...What was said
that the creation in the intervening state is real is not so. The creation in the
intervening state is the product of Maya , there being not the slightest touch of
reality in it. Why? Because of the nature of swapna not being a complete
manifestation of the totality of attributes of a real entity. What again is meant
by totality? It means the adequate space, time and circumstances and also its
not being sublated.
15. The dream state was considered. Now the state of sleep is being considered.
The absence of dream is called sleep. This occurs in the nerves and the
Self collectively and not alternatively. Since the Self itself is the locus of
sleep, for that reason that wakefulness occurs from the self always... It is the
very same soul which had gone to sleep and attained its own self, that wakes
up again and none else.
16. People call one as unconscious , in a "swoon" state. When this is examined,
it is said that unconscious state cannot be the waking state. He does not
perceive objects with his senses. It is not ackwnoledged that one who is unconscious
sleeps. By process of elimination we realise that swoon is a state of
half sleep; because of unconsciousness he is asleep and because it is different,
he is not asleep.
1. In the Upanishads, it is seen that Srutis dealing with creation are different.
Some say that Akasa originates others not. In order to clarify the meaning of
Sruti with regard to creation in all Upanishads, the succeeding section is
begun. ....Now if Akasa is not the product of Brahman, it will remain unknown
even when Brahman is known. This is not proper as it will invalidate the
Upanishads........ Therefore Akasa also originates like fire and the rest.....
Therefore it is established that Akasa is a product of Brahman.
2. By tbis explanation of space, it has been explained that air is supported
Fire comes from air.
Water comes from fire.
Earth, by the word food, comes from water - this is the intention.
6. Such products as flesh are generated from earth after it has become tripartite
and is eaten by men.
7. If the senses have come out of the elements, then their creation and
dissolution follow as a matter of course from the creation and dissolution of
the elements and so no other order need be searched for these. There is
evidence to show that the senses are of elements,............Again even if the
senses are not the products of elements, still the order of the creation of the
elements is not disturbed by the senses; it can be either that the senses
originate first and the elements later or that the elements comes out first and the
8. Just as it is understood that world etc come from Brahman,so also the
organs are from the Supreme Brahman, ....In these, it is to be construed that
Pranas come from Supreme Brahman just as space.
9. Therefore, it is proved that Pranas are eleven by name and form.
10. The Pranas under consideration are to be understood as atomic. The atomicity
is subtle and limited and not like the ultimate atom, as it would then
make the activities over the entire body impossible.
11. Like other Pranas, the chief Prana is the product of Brahman - extends.
12. Prana is neither air nor the function of the organs.
13. This chief Prana must be considered to be atomic. (subtle and limited)
14. It is said that the organs of speech etc, engage in their respective works
when they are presided over by the deities identifying themselves with fire etc
i.e, with light etc.
15. Speech etc, are really independent entities different from Prana.
16. Dissolution is in the reverse order as compared to creation. It is seen in
the world that a man descends in the ladder in a reverse order of ascendence.
17. And yet the creation of space etc. also also has no absolute reality; for
under the aphorism "the effect is non-different from the cause since terms like
'origin' etc are met with, we showed that the whole creation is but Maya.
1. (1) When it is established that it is incompatible that the object and subject
which are the contents of "you" and "we" and which are contradictory in
nature like darkness and light can have mutual identity.
1 (2) it is all the more incompatible for their attributes to have mutual identity
1 (3) the super-imposition of the object which is the content of the concept
"you" and its attributes, on the subject which is the content of the concept
"we" and which is the nature of Consciousness
1 (4) and contrarily, the superimposition of the subject and its attributes on
1 (5) are possible logically to be not -real (non-real, Mithya)
1 (6) Still, after super-imposing the nature and its attributes on one another,
because of non-discrimination.
1 (7 ) after mixing up the Real with non-real. which is due to the non-real
knowledge of the substance and its attributes which are absolutely discernible.
1 (8) the worldly behaviour continues "I am this" and "This is mine".
2. What is super-imposition? It is awareness of what was seen in another
locus and is the form of memory. Some say that it is superimposition of the
attributes of one thing on another. Some also say that the superimposition on
another is an illusion because of its non-discrimination. Some others also say
that the superimposition on another is imagination of opposite attributes there
itself. In any case there is no straying away from the awareness of one thing
as something else. Similar is the worldly experience - shell appears like
silver and a single moon appears as two.
3. How then can there be any superimposition of any object and its attributes
on the Self which is not an object.? Everyone superimposes something else
only on the object before him. You assert that Self cannot be an object and
cannot be referred to as "you". The reply - The Self is not absolutely beyond
comprehension as an object,; because it is comprehended as the object of
"I"., it is an immediately perceived entity and it is well known as the inner
Self. There is no rule that any object has to be superimposed only on another
object in front. Though the space is not an object, children superimpose
on it ideas like surface and dirt. Similarly, there is no contradiction in the
superimposition of non-self on the inner Self.
4. The Sastras like "A Brahmin shall perform sacrifice" etc become operative
based on the superimposition of caste, stage of life, age, condition etc. on the
inner Self. Superimposition, we have said, is cognising something as something
5. Thus - One superimposes external characteristics on the Self - like one
thinks"I am healthy, " " I am injured", when one one's wife or children are
healthy or injured. Similarly, one superimposes the characteristics of the
body, on the Self - I am fat, I am thin, I am fair, I stand, I go, I jump - etc.;
Likewise the characteristics of the senses on the Self - I am dumb, I have one
eye, I am a eunuch, I am deaf, I am blind ; Similarly the characteristics of
Anthahkarana like desire, will, doubt, perseverence etc. are superimposed on
the Self. Thus one superimposes the notion of "I" on that Self which is the
witness of all manifestations and conversely superimposes that Self which is
the witness of everything on the Anthahkarana etc. Thus this superimposition,
which has neither beginning nor end, which flows eternally, in the form of a
mystery, which propels the agentship or enjoyership, is experienced by all.
6. Learned men consider this Superimpositin as defined as avidya, nescience.
They said that the realisation of the real nature of that entity by discrimination
as Vidya. When this is so, the locus on which there is a superimposition,
is not connected to the bad or good characteristics of that which is
superimposed, With this understanding of the superimposition mutually on the
Self and non-Self, known thus as avidya, nescience, all worldly behaviour or
valid means of knowledge and objects is engaged in; similarly, all Sastras
containing injunctions, prohibitions and liberation.
7. How then can the perception which is the valid means of knowledge and
the Sastras be the object of one with Avidya? The answer: - For one who has
no notions of "I" and Mine" in the the body and the senses , cognisership is
incompatible and hence the incompatibility of the activity and the valid
means of kn owledge. Without the help of the senses, no perceptual function
is possible. The function of the senses is not possible without a base. Without
the superimposition of the base (body) on the Self, no one can funtion.
When all these are not present, cognisership is not compatible. Without the
cognisership, perceptual funtioning is not possible. Therefore, perception and
the Sastras are for the one who has avidya.
8. This behaviour is not different from that of animals. It is just like that
animals when they hear sounds which are unfavourable turn away and when
favourable move towards them: - Just like by noticing a man approaching
them with a raised stick, they begin to run away thinking "This man wants to
hurt me" but they approach another carrying green grass in his hands ;
Similarly, knowledgable men when they see strong, uproarious people with
evil looks and upraised swords turn away and are attracted by men with
opposite traits. Therefore, the behaviour of men and that of animals with
regard to the means and objects of knowledge are similar. It is well known
that the behaviour of animals presupposes lack of discrimination. Therefore it
is concluded that the behaviour of the knowledgable men because of the
similarity with animals is the same for that time
9. Although a man acting intelligently becomes fit for Sastric duties not
without knowing the relationship of his Self with a different world, still the
fitness does not require the knowledge of the reality of the Self, which is not
of this Samsara, devoid of the differences due to Brahmana , Kshatriya etc,.
beyond hunger and thirst and known only from Vedanta., because it is not
necessary and it is contradictory to fitness. Also before the dawn of such
knowledge of the Self, the operation of the Sastras does not preclude the
man with avidya.
1. But this primal state is held by us to be subject to the supreme Lod but not
as an independent thing. That state has to be admitted because it serves a
purpose. Without that latent state, the creatorship of God cannot have any
meaning, in as much as God cannot act without his power (of Maya) and
without that latent state, the absence of birth for the freed souls cannot be
explained, Why? Because liberation comes when the potentital power (of
Maya) is burnt away by knowlewdge. That potential power, constituted by
nescience is mentioned by the word 'unmanifest' It rests on God and is
comparable to magic. It is a kind of deep slumber in which the transmigrating
souls sleep without any consciousness of their real nature.
2. This thing, that is avyakta, is sometimes referred to by the word space........
Sometimes it is called immutable......sometimes it is called Maya......That Maya
is surely unmanifest....for it can neither be ascertained as real nor as unreal.
3. So also here (in the Swetaswetara)."The teachers of Brahman say "Is
Brahman the cause (of the universe)?" Making the start with this, it is said
"They entered into Brahman through the Yoga of meditation, saw the hidden
power, existing identified with the Deity Himself and remaining hidden (ie.
superimposed on Brahman) together with its constituents. Thus it is the power
of the Supreme Lord which creates the universe that we come across in the
very beginning of the text. Towards the end of the topic also that very power is
met with in the text, "Know Maya to be Nature and the master of Maya is to be
the great Lord and "He who, though one , presides over every source"- by this
that power is understood.........From the trend of the context it is held by us that
this very divine power in which names and forms remain undifferentiated and
which is the latent form of names and forms is mentioned by this mantra.
4. This appearance of the supreme Self in identity with the three states is a
mere superimposition, as in the case of the rope appearing as a snake etc. With
regard to this it is said by teacher Gaudapada versed in the traditional views of
Vedanta -"When the individual sleeping under the influence of beginningless
Maya is awakened , then he realizes the birthless, sleepless, dreamless, nondual,
5. It is held that the knowledge of Brahman, culminating in personal realisation,
has a perceived (or tangible) result in the form of removing ignorance
and leading to liberation.
1. Samkhyas and others , holding the view that a pre-existing entity can be
known through other means, and inferring Pradhana (Primoridal nature)and
other entities as the source of the universe, intrepret the sentences of Vedanta
accordingly. They think proper to define the cause of creation in the sentences
of the Vedanta through the effect with inference only. Samkhyas also think
that the contacts between Purushas (sentients) and the Pradhana (insentient)
have always to be inferred.
2. Now, the remaining is questioned. what was said that Pradhana is not
mentioned is not establisheed ; Because in some recensions of the Vedanta, it
is heard words which are suggestive of Pradhana. Therefore, it results that the
cause Pradhana is established in Veda itself and has been adopted by the
great Rishis like Kapila and others............Although it is an inferred entity,
Pradhana , is seen in some recensions by the word. It is read in the Kata
Upanishad, "The unmanifest (Avyakta) is higher than Mahat, Purusha is
higher than Avyakta" , Where , the Mahat, Avyakta, Purusha, which are well
known in the Smritis are themselves recollected here by the same name and
order . Pradhana is mentioned which is well known in the Smritis, because the
derivation, which is not manifest is unmanifest, is possible, it is devoid of
sound , and Avyakta is well known in Smritis as Pradhana.
3. "One goat (birthless entity - Feminine) gives birth to many being akin to
itself of the colours red, white and black `- One goat (masculine) lies by her
side enjoying and another goat leaves her after enjoyment " In this Mantra,
by the colours red, white and black are meant the qualities rajas (activity),
satva (tranquility) and tamas (inertia) The red is rajas since it is pleasing;
white is Satva, since it is of illumination; black is tamas, since it hides. The
state of equal balance by the qualities of its constituents is mentioned as
"red-black etc"........Therefore, the postulation of Pradhana by the followers of
Kapila is of the Vedic source only.
4. "That in which the pancha pancha janah and space are placed, that very Self
I regard as the immortal Brahman. Having known Brahman, I am immortal,
In this mantra, one number five is heard of in connection with another number
five., for the number five is used twice. These constitute twentyfive. By these
the number of things that can be enumerated as twentyfive corresponds exactly
to the number of categories mentioned by the Sankhyas. "Primordial Nature is
the undifferentiated; seven counting from mahat are both sources of others and
are themselves modifications of Nature, and sixteen are the evolved products.
But Purusha is neither a source nor a modification of it". Since the number
twentyfive, known from the Sruti stands for the twentyfive categories,
Pradhana and the rest have the Sruti authority.
5. The pure knowledge of the seers like Kapila is regarded as unobstructed..
There is also the Sruti. Who saw Kapila emerging out in the beginning of
creation and filled him with knowledge after birth, Therefore it is not proper to
make their view appear as wrong. Moreover they establish their interpretation
with the help of logic, For that reason also the Vedanta has to be explained
with the help of the Smritis.
6. Sankhyas think - Just as it is seen in this world, the pots, plates etc. which
separately are made of earth have earth as their common substance before;
similarly things with external or internal differences are of happiness ,
misery, and delusion; it is logical that they were of common happiness,
misery and delusion before. That which is of common happiness, misery and
delusion, is Pradhana, insentient like earth, and which engages in activity on
its own nature in a diverse transformation to serve a sentient being. . So they
infer Pradhana on the grounds of limitation etc.
7. From the Upanishads `It is not possible to have the conclusion that the
insentient Pradhana projected by Sankhyas is the cause of the Universe,
Because it is not mentioned. How? Because of the fact of "seeing". The cause
has the quality of agent of seeing. It is heard " That saw(thought). Let me
become many "
8. What was said that the insentient Pradhana is referred to by the word
Existence and that "seeing" is ascribed to it in a secondary sense just as in the
case of water and fire is wrong. Why? Because of the word "Self"....."Let me
manifest name and form by Myself entering as the Jiva that is but
Myself".........Jiva is sentient...... Self is the same as one's very essence.....The
insentient Pradhana cannot be the essence of sentient Self.
9. The insentient Pradhana cannot be implied by the word 'Self'" . Because -
the super-sensuous Existence forming the topic under discussion is referred to
in the text as "That is the Self" and then saying "That thou art", the need for
devotedness to "It" is advised for a sentient being who has to be liberated.
Still later, liberation itself is taught "One who has a teacher knows, For him
that much delay as is needed for freedom; then he comes identified with
Reality" If by saying "Thou are That" the Sastra can make one understand the
insentient Pradhana to be the meaning of the word "Reality", then it means to
a sentient being desirous of liberation, "Thou are insentient" and the Sastra
speaking contrarywise, will become invalid because it means evil for a man.
10. If in the text it has been taught that the not-self Pradhana is "That Self -
Thou art That", the teacher desiring to teach the Primary Self should have
spoken later "Do not cling to it as it is the non-Self" and advised its
rejection.He did not say thus...Therefore, Pradhana is not referred to by the
11. It is heard in the context of the "Existence" being the cause.........When the
Purusha is called swapiti, (he sleeps)..........he becomes his own Self. By the
word, swa, the Self is meant. .....Therefore that in which all sentient beings
merge is the sentient "Existence" which is the cause of the world and not
12. How Pradhana is not the cause of the Universe, In all the Upanishads,
uniformly, it is known that the sentient is the cause of the universe.
13. By the word swa, it is heard the omniscient Iswara is the cause of the
Universe. ... Therefore, the Omniscient Brahman is the cause of the Universe
and not Pradhana or anything else.
14. This sentence of the Katha Upanishad is not meant for proving the
existence of the avyaktha and mahat of Sankhyas. For we do not come across
here the very same Pradhana, as it is taught in the Sankhya Smritis as an
independent cause constituted by its three attributes. The only identical thing
we come across is the word only - avyaktha.....From a consideration of the
context also, the Pradhana postulated by others does not emerge as the
meaning, because the word is recognised as occurring in a simile illustrating
the body. Here in the simile of the chariot, the body is understood by the word
avyaktha.. Thus when we run through the context, preceding and succeding,
there remains no scope for Pradhana postulated by others. ....An additional
reason why Pradhana is not meant by avyaktha or is it to be known is that
three things alone, Fire, Jiva and Paramatma are met with in the Katha
upanishad. in conformity with what has to be said for the granting of boons.
The way in which the word mahat is used by Sankhyas to mean Pradhana's first
evolved effect is not what is in evidence in Vedic use. Similarly, the word
avyaktha cannot mean Pradhana in Vedic use. Therefore, the inferred
Pradhana has no Vedic authority.
15. By relying on this mantra, it is not possible to infer that the argument of
Sankhyas have Vedic basis. Nor does this mantra independently justify any
argument at all. This aja is to be understood as the material source of the four
classes of beings (born of eggs, moisture, uterus and earth) and consisting of
the elements counting from fire, viz, fire, water and food (i.e, earth) and not as
the three attributes (of sattva, rajas and tamas.)..Thus, the followers of certain
Vedic recension say that the origin of fire water and earth is from the Supreme
Lord and also their colours as red etc. "That the red colour that (gross fire)
has is the colour of the (unmixed element ) of light; that which is the white
colour is of water., that which is the black colour is of food, (Ch,6-4-1) ..
Therefore it is not incongruent to apply the word , aja, to fire, water and food
16. Even by the mention of the number, no inference can be made that the
Pradhana etc has Vedic sanction. Why? Because they are many. These
twentyfive entities are diverse, they do not have five common qualities to form
five groups, by which alone one could split up the number twentyfive into
another five groups,..... Because there is an excess, the twentyfive categories
are not meant. The excess from the twentyfive categories are the Self and
space, -Therefore, by denotative sense only, some beings are meant by
panchajana and not the categories of Sankhyas. ... Just like seven sages are
seven In the verse following "That in which of the five quintuplets", the five
Pranas are enumerated for proving the swarupa of Brahman.
17. The difficulty is , No, because, there will arise a defect of there being
no scope for other Smritis. If by arguing under the fear of some Smritis
having no scope, the theory of God as the cause is objected to, then other
Smritis speaking God as the cause will be left without scope. Therefore the
Kapila Tantra is contrary to Veda and also contrary to the teachings of Manu
which follows Veda, not merely because it assumes an independent Prakriti but
also because of multiplicity of souls. Vedas are an authority by themselvea in
what they reveal, just as the sun is with regard to its colour. Whereas the
words of human being is dependent on other source and has the intervention
of the memory of the author. Therefore it does not matter if the Smritis have
no application in matters contrary to Veda.
18. Sankhyas and others cite the texts of Vedanta and intrepret them in
support of their views. What was done before was just to prove that their
interpretations are mere fallacies and not the correct explanations. But here
follows a refutation of their reasonings independently of the texts. This is the
18 (1) If this has to be decided on the strength of the analogy alone. then it is
not seen in the world that any independent insentient being that is not guided
by some sentient being can produce modifications to serve some special
purpose of man; because what is noticed in the world is that houses, palaces,
beds, seats, recreation grounds etc., are made by the intelligent engineers and
others at the proper time and in a way suitable for ensuring comfort or avoiding
discomfort,.....Therefore, by reason of impossibility of design as well, the
insentient Pradhana should not be inferred to be the cause of the universe.
18 (2) For instance, a magnet though possessing no tendency to act by itself,
still induces that tendency to iron; Therefore , action can happen only in the
case of an omniscient cause but not in the case of an insentient cause.
18 (3) Because we infer that even in those cases , the milk and water develop a
tendency to act when they are under the guidance of some sentient beings.
18 (4) Of the Iswara with omniscience, omnipotence and the great power of
Maya, action or inaction present no contradiction.
18 (5) For the grass etc eaten by a cow alone changes into milk, but not so
when rejected or eaten by a bull etc... Hence the modifications in the
Pradhana cannot occur naturally on the analogy of grass.
18 (6) Hence it is wrong to say that Pradhana acts for the sake of the Soul.
18 (7) Of the Supreme Being, there is the greater advantage that It has
inactivity from Its own point of view and has action from the stand point of
view of Maya,
18 (8) And since there is no external factor to excite them there can be no
origin of mahat and the rest that results from the disturbance of the balance of
the three constituents.
18 (9) The theory of Sankhyas is self-contradictory. Because, sometime they
enumerate seven organs and some times eleven... From this also, the Samkhya
Darsana is incoherent.
18 (10) So it has to be understood that this state of one being the afflicted and
the other the afflictor is a creation of nescience and it does not exist in the real
sense.... But from the Upanishadic point of view,one should not doubt even in a
dream the absence of liberation, because it is admitted that that the Self is one ,
that the one cannot be both the subject and the object and that all the different
modifications are mentioned in the Upanishad to be based on mere speech. In
the empirical experiences the state of one being the tormentor and another the
tormented is to be accepted as it is., and it is not either an object to be
questioned about or explained.
1. By the refutation of the theory of Sankhya, it should be construed that the
theory of Yoga has also been refuted , ..Their refutation centres around only
the claim that liberation can be attained through Sankhya knowledge or the
path of Yoga independently of the Vedas. For the Upanishads reject the claim
that there can be anything apart from the Vedic knowledge of the Unity of the
Self that can bring about liberation. ...But the followers of Samkhya and Yoga
are dualists and they do not pereceive the unity of the Self. Vedic knowledge
and meditation are referred to by the words Sankhya and Yoga for these latter
have an affinity of meaning to the former. Sankhya and Yoga have their
application in so far as those features which are not antagonistic to the Vedas.
If through inference and supporting reason they are conducive to the
knowledge of the Reality, let them be so conducive, But the knowledge of the
Reality springs from the Upanishadic texts alone....
1. The postulation of Vaisesika is this: - The qualities inhering in the causal
substance reproduce the same new qualities in the effect., as it is seen that
white cloth is born out of the white yarns and the contrary is not seen.
Therefore, if the sentient Brahman is accepted as the cause of the world, then
in the world, which is the effect, sentience will inhere in it.
2. This is their process. The ultimate atoms with colour and atomicity remain
for sometime without producing an effect . They then with adrishta and aided
by conjunction begin the entire effect starting from the dyads; Qualities in the
cause produce new qualities in the effect; When two ultimate atoms produce
a dyad , then the colour and qualities inhering in the ultimate atom like whiteness
etc produce in the dyad other whiteness etc. But the special characteristic
- the atomicity - is not produced in the dyad, for they postulate that a
dyad comes to possess a new magnitude. They say that dyad is microscopic in
size and short in lengthWhen two dyads produce a tetrad (four atoms), then
the whiteness etc. inhering in the dyad, produce other whiteness etc. in a
similar way. But the microscopic size and short in length inhering in the dyad
do not produce their counter-parts, as they postulate that tetrads have great
magnitude and have length. The same line of argument ensues even if many
atoms or many dyads or the atoms in combination with the dyads produce an
3. That doctrine is like this, It is seen in the world that the cloth etc. which are
possessed of parts are produced from yarns etc, which they inhere and are
helped by conjunction. On this analogy, things that are composed of parts are
produced from those things in which they inhere and are helped by
conjunction. When this whole and part division ceases, it is the ultimate
atom, the last of the process of cessation. This whole world-mountain-ocean
etc is a composite thing, because it has the characteristic of compositeness,
just like that which has a beginning and end. As an effect is not produced
without a cause, minute aroms are the cause of the world - This is the opinion
of Kanabhug. These four elements - earth-water-fire and air - are assumed to
have four different minute atoms. When they reach the ultimate disintegration
and since further division is not possible, they become ultimate atoms. This is
the time of dissolution. Then in creation, some action depending on adrishta
is produced and that action unites with another atom, Then in the process of
dyads, air oriiginates, Just like this, fire, water and earth. The same is with
the body with its senses. Thus,the entire universe originates from atoms. From
the colour etc. inherent in the atoms, the colour of the dyads etc. are produced
as in the case of yarn and cloth. Kanadas (Vaiseshikas) think thus.
4. Like this, even from the ultimate atoms, which are minute, arise dyads
which are microscopic in size and have no length, and triads which have
both magnitude and length but not the minuteness, or from dyads which are
minute and have no length arise the triads which have magnitude and length
but not minuteness and absence of length. Similarly, if the insentient universe
emerges out of intelligent Brahman, what do you lose? Therefore, by nature
the atomicity (minuteness) does not reproduce itself: it is to be understood
that such is the case with the sentient Brahman.
5. This is said here - It has to be admitted that the conjunction of the atoms
existing in their isolation is dependent on action; since this is seen in the
conjunction of yarns depending on action. It has to be admitted that some
cause is assumed, since action is an effect. If this is not admitted, there can
be no cause, and there will be no initial action . Even if this is admitted, and
some cause is assumed for action like effort, impact, etc. as is common
experience, this is not possible, and there will be no initial action in the atoms.
For in that state, no effort which is a quality of the soul can happen, as there
is no body, Effort which is of the quality of the atman springs when there is
the conjunction of the mind and atman established in a body. By this also, the
seen cause like effort etc. has to be rejected. For all these come after creation
and hence cannot be the causes of the initial action. Again if it be said that the
initial action in the atoms is due to adrishta, then it has to inhere in the atma
or in the atoms. In either case, adrishta cannot be the action in atoms, since
adrishta is insentient. It has been proved in the examination of Sankhya theory
that an independent insentient being which is not dependent on an sentient
being neither acts nor makes anything else act.
6. Just as the dyad, which is absolutely dissimilar from two atoms, becomes
con-nected with them through the relationship of inherence, similarly
inherence also which is absolutely dissimilar to the inhering things should be
connected with the inhereing things through a separate relationship of
inherence, since similarity of absolute difference exists. Therefore, it follows
that for successive relationships of inherence, other relationships of inherence
have to be imagined; thus infinite regress results.
7. Atoms have to be accepted as naturally active, inactive, both active and
inactive and neither active or inactive, as no other alternative is possible. All
the four alternatives cannot fit. .....because they are eternal..there will be no
dissolution, ....there will be no creation..... mutually contradictory.....and noneternal
activity will result.
8. The Vaiseshikas assert that the ultimate atoms stand at the last limit of a
process of breaking up of composite things till there can be no further
division, that these atoms are of four kinds possessed of colour etc, that they
are the constituents of the four elements and the modifiations of the elements
endowed with the qualities of colour etc. and they are eternal. This tenet of
their is baseless. For by virtue of possessing colour etc., the atomicity and
everlastingness of the atoms stand contradicted; that is to say the atoms
become grosser and less eternal than the ultimate cause, a position that is
opposite of what the atomists intend.
9. Earth is gross, with qualities of smell, taste, colour and touch; water is
subtle with qualities of colour, taste and touch; fire is subtler with qualities of
colour and touch; air is subtlest with quality of touch - this is how it is seen in
the world. - four elements have greater or less number of qualities and with
differences of the characteristics of gross, subtle, subtler and subtlest. Are the
ultimate atoms considered likewise with greater or lesser qualities or not? In
both the cases, the defects cannot be explained. If they are likewise........nonatomicity
will result......if they are not, .....in fire , touch will not be present etc.
10. The theory of Pradhana as the cause has been partially accepted even by
the Vedic scholars like Manu with the view that it is helpful in some aspects as
Satkarya vada etc. But this atomic theory is not accepted by any worthy
person in any aspect. Therefore, this should not be taken in any aspect by
the followers of Veda.
11. Moreover, Vaiseshikas admit as the subject matter of their scriptures, six
categories - viz, substance, qualiy, action,class, distinction and inherence
which differ from one another like, man , horse, hare. Having defined them to
be so, they admit contrary to their own theory, that on substance alone the other
categories are dependent. But this is not tenable...... here is no such overriding
reason that apart from six categories imagined by the Vaiseshikas, other categories
greater in number - say a hundred or thousand - are not to be imagined.
12. Since this doctrine of atoms is based on the poorest logic, it is
contradictory to the Sruti with God as the cause, and it is not accepted by
worthy persons like Manu etc, who abide by the Vedas, the atom-cause theory
has to be ignored by persons wishing highest good,
1. It has been said that the doctrine of Vaiseshika is not to be relied upon
since it is built on wrong logic , it is contrary to Vedas and is not accepted by
worthy people. He is a half-nihilist having an affinity with nihilism. It is now
explained that the full-nihilists are not to be relied upon all the more. They
are of various kinds, depen-ding upon the differences in the doctrine or of the
persons who are taught. Among them there are three schools - i) Sarvastitvavadins
(Soutrantikas and Vaibhashikas). ii) Vijnavadins (Yogacharas) and iii)
Sarvasunyavadins (Madyamikas) The Sarvastit-vavadins, accept both external
and internal things. External are the elements and elementals. Internal are the
citta and caittas. Elements are earth etc. Elementals are colour etc. and organs
of sight etc. The four kinds of ultimate atoms of earth etc., have the characteristics
of solidity, fluidity, heat and motion and get massed together in the
form of earth . Similarly, there are five skandhas (groups), like, i) colour, ii)
the idea of "I", (iii) feelings, iv) conceptual knowledge, and v) attitude. They
also combine to form the basis of internal dealings.
2. Although no sentient permanent experiencer or ruler is accepted, the world
ly transaction is possible because of mutual causes due to nescience. When
this is accepted, nothing else is required. Thus the combination of things is
possible by the mutual cause and effect revolving like a wheel always.
3. Moreover, the nihilists say that whatever becomes an object of knowledge
and is different from the three categories, has an origination and is momentary.
As for the three, they say they are - pratisamkhya-nirodha (artificial annihilation),
aprati-samkhya-nirodha (opposite of pratisamkhya nirodhanatural annihilation)
and akasa is the mere absence of any obstruction.
(The above three are the view points of realist school of Buddhism--
Soutrantika and Vaibhashika. This is being refuted.)
4. This is being said here. The combination will not emerge.(is not possible)
from the two types of combination which are postulated by Buddhists - a
combination of the elements and the elementals arising from the atoms or a
combination of the five groups of things arising from those groups. Why?
Because the components of the combination are insentient and consciousness
can flash only if a combination of things is already there, Since no other
steady sentient , which is experiencer or a ruler is accepted, and activity is
accepted independent of any agent, it will result in the non-stopping activity .
Also, the currents of consciousness cannot be determined to be different or
non-different, and as momentariness has been accepted, no activity is
possible. Therefore, combination is not possible. When combination is not
possible, the mundane transactions will be nullified.
5. A combination may be if any cause for the combination can be ascertained;
but it cannot be ascertained; For although nescience can be the cause for one
another, the earlier ones will merely give rise to the later ones.............So even
if nescience etc. be the sources of the emergence of one another, let them be
so; still no combination will be achieved thereby, for there is none to experience.
That is the opinion.
6. It has been said that since nescience etc. are merely the causes for the origin
of one another, the formation of an combination cannot be achieved. Now the
compatibility of even this assumption of being the cause of origin is not
tenable. This is being proved. This is the postulate of those who argue by
momentariness. With the emergence of the entity of the succeeding moment,
the entity of the earlier moment is obliterated. By such a postulation it is not
possible to establish a cause and effect relationship between the preceding and
succeeding entities. It is incompatible for the succeeding moment to have its
cause the preceding moment which is either already obliterated or is being
obliterated because it is non-existent.
7. If then you say that effect is produced without a cause, their own postulation
will be nullified. viz, the perception of colour etc. and happiness etc. as a
result of acquiring four kinds of causes. And if origination is without a cause,
then anything may originate anywhere as there is no hindrance.
8. There is no possibility for both aritificial and natural annihilation. ...How:?
Because there can be no cessation........They cannot relate to the chain..... it
cannot also relate to the individuals,.....Therefore, there is no possibility for
both the annihilations postulated.
9. As for their view that the two kinds of destruction and akasa have no
reality......It is illogical to say that akasa is a non-entity., it is not different
from the aritificial and natural destructions as an entity. Vedic authority
(Tai.2-1) "From the Atman, Akasa was born" and others, it is known that
akasa is a substance.
10. Moreover, when the Nihilist asserts all things to be momentary, he will
have to assert the perceiver also to be momentary. That will not be possible.
Remembrance means recalling to mind something after its experience. and that
can happen only when the agent of perception and memory is the
same.......When this is so, and one and the same person is present during the
two moments of experience and remem-brance, then the momentariness theory
cannot be sustained by the nihilist.
11. The nihilist theory is untenable for the additional reason that, by not
accepting a lasting and persisting cause, it amounts to saying that something
comes out of nothing. ....Therefore, since it is not seen that origination
comes from absolute non-entities like hare's horn etc. and it is seen that
origination comes from existing things like gold etc. , the assertion that
something comes out of nothing is not tenable.
12. If it is accepted thar something can come out of nothing, then people who
do not make any effort and keeping quiet can get their desired results.
Because doing nothing is easy.
1. Thus, when the defects of the impossibility of combination based on the
external things were pointed out, now the Vijnanavadi Buddhist stands.
Seeing that some of the students who have attachment to the external things,
the theory of the existence of external things was taught This is not the view of
Buddha. His view is only of group-consciousness alone. In that Vijnanavada,
the dealings of the means and objects of knowledge are possible internally
only by the colour superimposed on consciousness. Although external things
may exist, means of knowledge etc dealings are not possible without the
superimposition on consciousness.
2. How again it is known that there are no external things apart from the
subjective cognition and all these transactions are only internal? Because it is
not possible. ......This is also to be seen like a dream. Just like in a dream, the
magic, mirage water, phantom city in the sky become perceptions without the
external things, similarly, it is known that the perceptions of a pillar etc. in the
waking state are possible. ...It is not admitted by me that even without such
mental impression, knowledge can have a variety in conformity with external
objects. Hence also, external objects do not exist.
(Refutation of Yogachara school)
3. It cannot be asserted that external things do not exist Why? Because they
are perceived. Things like a pillar, a wall, a pot, a cloth etc are perceived with
every act of cognition. It is not possible for perceived things to be non-existent,
4. The perceptions of the waking state cannot be similar to those in the dream
state. Why? Because of diffeerent characteristics. There are differences in characteristics
between the dream and waking states. What are the difference in
characteristics? We say it is sublation and non-sublation. When one is awake,
the object seen in a dream is sublated "falsely perceived by me ..." Like this the
object like a pillar etc perceived in a waking state is not sublated at any time.
5. What was said that without the objects the diversity of experience can be
explained by the diversity in tendencies is to be refuted. It is said here. There
is no exis-tence for tendencies in your view as external objects are not
perceived. It is precisely owing to the perception of objects that a variety of
tendencies can arise. How can a variety of tendencies arise when objects are
6. The ego-consciusness that is assumed to be the abode of tendencies is not
also possible as momentariness has been accepted and it has no stable form.
That cannot be the abode of the tendencies like the sense perception. When
there is nothing which runs through connecting all the three periods of time,
or some unchanging witness, the worldly transactions involvong remembrance,
recognition etc., contingent on past tendencies dependent on place .time.
and causation etc are not possible.
1. Thus both the postulates of Buddhists - those who believe in external things
and those in consciousness. No effort is made to refute the absolute nihilist
school since it is opposed to all means of valid knowledge. The worldly
transaction conforming to all means of knowledge cannot be denied as long as
a different order of reality is realised, for with no exceptions, the general rule
2. No use of elaboration. From every point of view, when the Buddhist school
is examined for its justification, it breaks down like a sand of well. We do not
see in this any justification. Therefore the nihilist school is unjustifiable. It
should not be followed by those who seek the highest goal at any time.
1. The postulate of Jainas is being refuted. Theirs are seven substances. i)
soul ii)non-soul iii) attraction iv) control v) austerities vi) bondage and vii)
liberation. In brief, they have two substances, soul and non-soul. They think
that others get included in these two accordingly. They also think of these
two substances in another way - called astikayas five in number. - soul, body,
merit, demerit, and space. They describe many subsidiary divisions of each one
of these according to the assumptions of their own doctrine. And in all places,
they apply this logic of what they call as seven facets. i) may be it exists ii)
may be it does not exist iii) may be it exists or may be it does not exist iv)
may be it is indescribable v) may be it exists and is indescribable vi) may be it
does not exist and is describable vii) may be it exists, may be it does not exist
and is indescribable. Thus they apply this logic with seven facets (saptabhangi-
naya) to unity and permanence as well.
(Refutation of Jaina theory)
2. This assumption is not justifiable. Why? Because of its impossibility in
one and the same thing. It is not possible for such contradictory characteristics
as existence and non-existence etc, to be associated simultanously with the
same thing., like cold and heat. These seven categories that are definitely
ascertained to be so many in number and such in character, must either be just
as they are described or they must not: Otherwise, the resulting knowledge of
such an indefinite nature, which may be either as it is described or may not be
so, will certainly be unauthoritative like doubts.
3. Just as the defect of the impossibility of the contradictory characteristics in
the substratum arises, also there arises the defect of the embodied soul
becoming limited (or of a medium dimension). How? The Jains think that the
soul has the dimension of the body. When the soul has the dimension of the
body, then it becomes of medium dimension, non-omnipresent and limited
wherefore it will result in the soul's impermanence.
4. It is not possible to justify without contradiction the size of the body for the
soul even by assuming the increase or decrease of parts. Why? Then,the
defect of mutability will result. Mutability will become unexplainable, when
the soul increases or decreases by the accession and depletion of the parts.
When it is mutable like leather etc., impermanence will result. Then,
assumption of bondage and liberation will get affected - which is that the soul
surrounded by eight kinds of karmas, remains sunk in the sea of this samsara
;like a bottle gourd and it floats upwards when that bond is snapped.
5. Besides, the Jainas hold that the ultimate size attained by a soul on the eve
of liberation becomes permanent. Similarly, the earlier initial and intervening
size of the soul can also be permanent and there will be no difference . Thus
the soul will have the size of one single body only and it will not acquire any
other inflated or deflated body. Or the explanation is: Since the ultimate size
of the soul is permanent, its sizes in the earlier stages also must be the same
Therefore, as there is no difference the soul has to be admitted to be atomic or
big at all times and not of the size of the body. Then,the postulate of the Jains
also like Buddhists is illogical and should be ignored.
1. The Maheswaras (Saivas) however think that the five categories - effect,
cause, union, observances and the end of sorrow have been taught by the Lord
Siva for the removal of bondage of the creatures. Pasupati is the Lord and is
the efficient cause.
2. For the Lord, there can be no causality for the world by being the Lord of
the nature and souls. Why? Because of incongruity. What is incongruity?
Non-lordship will result for the Lord like us as the defects of like and dislike
will have to be attributed to him., since his creations are of different grades,
inferior, mediocre and superior.
3. God who is different from nature and soul cannot become the ruler without
some relationship. But the relation of conjunction is not possible,since God,
Nature and souls are all omnipresent and partless. Nor can be the relationship
of inherence, because it has not been proved which is the base and which is
that is based. Nor can any other relationship be inferred from the presence of
the effect, since that very causal relationship has yet to be established.
4. How is this for the Brahma-vadin? There is no difficulty. Because an in -
describable mutual identity relationship is sustainable. Moreover, the Brahmavadin
ascertains the cause etc. from the strength of the Veda..................Here
lies the excellence...........Like this, the incongruity must be levelled against
other outside-Veda postulates of God accordingly.
5. For the additional reason, God imagined by the Tarkikas has no
justification. God is imagined to impel by having Nature etc. like the potter
does with clay etc. Nature which is beyond perception etc and is devoid of
form etc. cannot come under God's direction., being different from clay etc.
6. Just as the individual soul directs the senses counting from eye etc., which
cannot be perceived and which are without forms , so also God can direct
nature. Even then, it is not sustainable. It is by noticing such facts as the
experiencing that one is led to infer that the set of sense organs has a director.
But in this case, such experience etc. are not in evidence. And if Nature can.
be equated with the set of sense organs, then God will have the same kind of
experience as the transmigrating souls.
7. For this reason also, the postulate of God by Tarkikas is not sustainable. By
them he is considered to be omniscient and infinite. So also , Nature and souls
as infinite and different from one another. Can the limits of Nature, Souls and
Himself be determined by God or not ? In both the cases, there will be a defect,
.........Thus also when other souls become free in succession, the transmigratory
existence itself, as also those in that state of existence will become to an end.
..........then this will lead to the other defect that God will lose his omniscience.
1. The postulate of those who hold that God is both the material and efficient
cause is being refuted. ..........Although a portion of this kind is common to
both (Brahma-vadi and Bhagavata) and should not be a matter of dispute,there
is another portion which is subject to disagreement - so that is being refuted.
2. Bhagavatas think: Bhagavan Vasudeva is one, pure consciousness by nature
and the supreme reality; He has divided himself into four - in the form of
Vasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha. Vasudeva is the Supreme
Self. Sankar-shana is the individual Self, Pratyumna is the mind and Aniruddha
is Ahamkara. Vasudeva is supreme material cause and other Sankarshana
etc are the effects. One attains the Lord Himself by becoming free from
pain through worshipping Him by going to temples, acquiring the requisites
for worship, actual worship, Japa, meditation for hundred years.
3. We do not refute.........Supreme Self and Self of all..........What is opined as
exclusive meditation is also not refuted, because it is well known in Srutis and
Smritis........From the Supreme Self Vasudeva is born Jiva by name
Sankarshana, this is not possible, This will lead to the defect of
impermanence. Owing to this drawback, liberation cons0isting in attaining
God will not be possible for the soul, for an effect gets completely destroyed
on reaching back to its source. The teacher (Vyasa) will deny any origin for
the individual soul in the aphorism "The individual soul has no origin, because
the Vedic texts do not mention this and because the soul is known from them to
be eternal". Accordingly this assumption is unjustifiable,
4. For this additional reason, this postulate is not compatible. In the world it is
not seen that from the agent, like Devadatta etc. the implement like axe etc
originates. Bhagavatas describe that from the agent Jiva, Sankarshana, the
implement, mind , Pratyumna,is born.
5. It may be that these Sankarshana and others are not considered to be the
individual souls and so on But they are believed to be Gods being endowed
with all suvh divine attributes as knowledge, divinity, strength, boldness
,heroism etc. they are all Vasudeva himself, without defects, not born and free
from destruction. Even then the defect of the impossibility of origin persists,
The defect crops up from the other side. If the idea is that these four Gods
counting from Vasudeva are different from one another and are yet possessed
of equal attributes, and they do not constitute a single Self, it is unnecessary
to create many Gods since these divine functions can be accompanied by a
single one. Besides it is against their own conclusion that Vasudeva alone is
the Supreme Reality. .......Besides these forms cannot remain confined to four,
since from Brahma to a blade of grass, in the world, all are his form..
6. There are many contradictions in this Sastra, like qualities and the things
quali-fied. .....It contradicts Veda..............Discredit of Veda is also seen....
Therefore it is clear that this postulate is not logical.
1. Here, materialists who see the body to be the soul think that there is no
soul apart from the body. They consider it possible that although sentience is
not seen to belong to external things like earth etc., taken either individually or
collectively,it may belong to the elements transformed into bodies . Like the
power of intoxication, sentience is consciousness arising from them and a
man is nothing but the body endowed with sentience.. There is no soul
separate from the body with sentience given by soul to go to heaven or obtain
liberation. Body itself is both sentience and soul.. The reason they give: "its
existence being dependent on the existence of the body. That which exists
when the other exists and that wh1ich does not exist when the other does not
exist - the former is ascertained to be the attribute of the latter, like the heat
and light of the fire. As regards the attributes of the activities of vital force,
sentience, memory etc., which are held to belong to the soul according to the
believers in the soul, they are perceived within the body and not outside. and
so long as any substance other than the body cannot be proved, they must be
the attributes of the body itself. Hence soul is not distinct from the body.
2. The fact is not that the soul is not different from the body. It must be
distinct from the body since consciousness does not exist when the body is
there. If you think that the attributes of the soul exist when the body exists,
then why should you not also infer that they are not attributes of the body
owing to the non-existence of the attributes when the body exists. Because
they are different from the characteristics of the body. The attributes of the
body like colour etc. exist as long as the body exists. But such activities of
Prana etc. do not exist even when the body exists but it is dead. The attributes
of body like colour etc. are experienced by others but not the attributes of the
soul like consciousness, memory etc. Moreover, the existence of these
attributes of the soul can be conclusively determined when the body continues
during a man's life, but their non-existence cannot be so determined from the
non-existence of the body. When this body has fallen, it is possible that the
attributes of the soul may continue by transferring themselves into some other
body. Even by this doubt, the opposite view is refuted.
3. And the opponent has to be asked as to what he thinks the nature of this
consciousness to be that he wishes to derive it from the elements. For the
materialists do not accept any principle over and above the four elements .
Consciousness, they say, is nothing but experience of the elements and their
derivatives. In that case , the elements are objects of experience and hence
sentience cannot be an attribute of those elements etc., since action is
contradictory in itself........By the consciousness is perceived the elements and
their derivatives both external and internal as objects. Hence just as the
existence of this experience of the elements and their derivatives is admitted,
so also must be its separateness from them be admitted. According to us, the
soul is by nature knowledge itself, it is distinct from the body.. Consciousness
is eternal because it is uniform by nature. Although it is associated with other
states, like 'I saw this' etc. as perception, it is recognised. It is also sustainable
by memory etc.
4. Thus, it is not possible for sentience to be the attribute of the body, because
it occurs when the body is present and does not occur when the body is not present.
It is justifiable for the body to be useful as instrument like light etc, Furthermore,
the body is not absolutely necessary for perception, because when the body
is inert in the dream, many kinds of perception are seen to take place.
Therefore, the existence of soul apart from the body is beyond criticism.
1. How is it again said that Scripture alone is the valid means of knowledge
of Brahman (1). Jaimini Sutra - "Since the Vedas enjoin action and those
portion which do not enjoin action are not necessary," - shows that Sastra
enjoins action. Therefore, Vedantas are not necessary, as they do not enjoin
any action, (2) Or it is part of an injunction of action by way of revealing the
agent, deity etc. of that action. (3) Or it may be meant for enjoining some
other kind of action such as meditation.....Therefore, Vedanta becomes
supplementary to injunction of action by revealing the nature of the agent and
the deities needed for the action.
2. Here others submit - Although Brahman is known from Sastra alone , it is
presented as a factor involved in the injunction about meditation etc. .....Since
there is an injunction - just like Agnihotra is enjoined for one desiring Swarga,
- knowledge of Brahman is enjoined for one desiring immortality.
3. With regard to the well-known results of actions of creatures, which fall
under three classes--the desirable, the undesirable and the mixed and belong to
the state of transmigration, the discussion arises whether these are from action
or Iswara......The result arises from apurva which is the effect of action,
(Refutations of the above postulates of Purva Mimamsa.)
4. "O Sowmya, Before creation, this universe was but Existence, one without a
second" (Ch.U.6-1-2)..........."All that is in front is Brahman, the Immortal"
(Mu.U.2-2-11) etc. When the words in the Upanishadic sentences have been
ascertained to be revealing the nature of Brahman, and are understood to be
fully in agreement, it is not proper to imagine some other meaning as it will
result in rejecting what was intended by the Sruti and acceping what was not
intended. It cannot be held that those words have for their ultimate purpose
only a delineation of the nature of the agent, because the Sruti " Whom It will
see by what" etc (Br,U,2-4-13) deny action, agent and result.
5. Because the results of action and the knowledge of Brahman are different.
..Thus it is well known from the Sruti, Smriti and Nyaya that this Samsara is
dependent on the gradation of sorrow and happiness, which is dependent on
the gradation of the virtuous and viscious deeds of the person with the body
who are subject to the defects of ignorance etc. ..."Happiness and sorrow do
not touch one who is bodiless "(Ch.U.8-12-1) - Because this Sruti denies
contact with happiness and sorrow. it is understood that the result of virtuous
deeds as per injunctions is denied for the bodilesness-emanicipation. Therefore,
it is established that the bodilessness-emanicipation which is different from the
result of action to be performed is eternal.......Thus, if among the results of
action which are not eternal and also in a graded order, emeanicpation is an
excellent result, then it will also become impermanent, but emanicipation is
considered to be eternal by all who accept Moksha, therefore it is not logical
for the teaching of Brahman as a factor of something to be acted upon.
6. But this knowledge of the unity of the Self and Brahman is not a kind of
meditation, Called Sampat, .....Nor is it a form of medidation, called Adhyasa,
....Nor is it a meditation based on special activity. ..Nor is it a kind of
purification which is part of a rite, as for instance the act of looking at the
ghee, oblation.....If the knowledge of the unity of the Self and Brahman is
accepted to be meditations like Sampat etc., then the meaning of the words
which establish the unity of the Brahman and Self from the sentences, like
'Thou art That' and 'I am Brahman will get distorted. It will contradict the the
Srutis, ' The knot of the heart isuntied ' etc which are definition of the result
from the cessation of Avidya. In the argument of Sampat, the sentences which
teach the attainment of Brahman, like "One who knowa Brahman becomes
Brahman" cannot be fully justifiable. Therefore, the knowledge of the unity
of Self and Brahman is not meditations like Sampat etc. Therefore , Brahma
vidya is not dependent on human action.
(Notes. Sampat = When an inferior factor is meditated upon as non-different from a superior
factor. Adhyasa =Meditation with importance to the locus,/symbol)
7. Here it is established that the fruit of action is possible from the Iswara.
Why? That is only logical. It is justifiable that He only ordains the fruits to all
according to their action, as He is the Lord of all, as He knows the time, place
and environment , and lays down the different kinds of creation,preservation
and dissolution. It is unjustifiable for the result to come out at a future time
from action which get destroyed the next moment. Because something cannot
come out of nothing.........In all the Vedanta, the creations are by the Iswara
and He creates all beings according to their acts. The defects of
unjustifiability of different creations do not accrue to Him, since the acts take
into account the efforts made by the creatures.
8. There are some people who prattle thus: The obligatory and occasional rites
are performed for the sake of avoiding evil, the optional and prohibited rites
are given up for avoiding heaven and hell and the results of works which are
to be experienced in the present body get exhausted by experiencing them , so
that when the presen t body falls, at the same time there is nothing to connect
the soul with a fresh body, a man who proceeds in this way will achieve
liberation consisting in the continuance in his own real natural state even
without having realised the unity of the individual self with Brahman. This is
wrong on account of any valid evidence, for it is not establi-shed by any
scripture that a man wanting liberation should act thus.
1. What particular nature of the words is meant when it is asserted that creation
comes out of the words? They (grammarians) say it is the sphota.......... Therefore,
the universe of actions, agents and results standing for the meaning of the word,
emerges from the eternal word, conceived of as a sphota, which indicates it.
2. Whereas those holding the theory of sphota have to face the difficulties of
rejec-ting an obvious thing and imagining an unknown. Besides that theory
imagines roundabout things, in as much as these letters, apprehended in
succession reveal a sphota and then the sphota reveals the meaning.
1. Qtn: Since knowledge and works produce divergent results, they cannot
reasonably have the same result. Ans : That creates no difficulty; for just
as curds and poison, known to produce fever and death respectively, become
tasteful and nourishing when mixed with sugar and mantra, similarly
(religious) work also, when associated with knowledge, may lead to liberation.
Qtn: Since liberation has no beginning, how can it be said to be an effect of
work? Ans: That objection is hollow, since work helps from a distance (i.e.
indirectly) in producing the result. As work leads gradually to knowledge, it is
said by courtesy to lead to liberation itself. Accordingly, the statement that
knowledge and work produce the same result reffers to the work that had
preceded knowledge, for the knower of Brahman can have no such rite as
Agnibotra etc. after enlightenment, because as a result of the realization of the
unity of the Self with Brahman that cannot be the object of any injunction, the
man of enlightenment has walked out of the pale of scriptures.
1. But Brahman consists of many things. As a tree has many branches, so
Brahman has many powers and functions, Hence both unity and diversity are
necessarily true, even as a tree, considered as tree, is one but has diversity in its
aspect of branches. ........That being so, liberation can well be accomplished
through knowledge from the stand point of unity whereas social and Vedic
activities can be justified from the stand point of diversity, .....This cannot be
so, since in the illustration the truth of the material cause alone is emphasized
by saying as 'clay alone is true'........... How can the unity of the Self,
propounded by the scriptures about liberation, be true when they themselves
are false?........There is no defect. For earlier than the realisation of the identity
of the Self with Brahman, all activities can justly be true like the activities in
dream before waking up. ........ How can the true kowledge of the identity of
the Self with Brahman arise from the unreal Upanishadic texts, For a man does
not die when bitten by a snake superimposed by him on a rope............That
creates no difficulty for death etc. are seen to result from the suspicion of
poison etc.......true fulfilment is seen of a desire from seeing of a false dream,
..Hence when all the old ideas of multiplicity become uprooted after the
establishment of the oneness of the Self by the ultmate means of valid
knowledge , there can be no fancying of Brahman as a composite thing.
1. What is meant by this sublation of the universe of manifestations? Is the
world to be annihilated like the destruction of the solidity of ghee by contact
with fire; or is that the world of name and form created in Brahman by
nescience like many moons created in the moon by the eye disease called
timira, has to be destroyed through knowledge. From the very revelation of the
nature of the rope, mistaken as a snake, follows the knowledge of its real
nature, so also the removal of the manifestation of snake etc. on it brought
about by superimposition through ignorance, ...........Knowledge arises,
however, from its valid means (like perception etc) and it conforms to its
object, just as it is. It can neither be produced by hundred injunctions nor
debarred by a hundred prohibitions. For it is not a matter of personal option, it
being dependent on the object itself. For this reason also, there is no scope for
R E F L E C T I O N
1. Therefore someting has to be said about the condition after which the
deliberation on Brahman has to be begun. They are i) discrimination between
the eternal and the non-eternal ii) dispassion for the enjoyment of the result of
deeds here and hereafter iii) perfection of such practice as control of the mind,
control of the sense organs etc., and (iv) desire to attain Moksha. Granting the
existence of these, Brahman can be deliberated upon or known even before or
after the enquiry into Dharma but not otherwise. Therefore, by the word , atha,
is enjoined the succession to a perfection of the practices mentioned here.
2. Hence it is proper to understand from the mantras etc. that the gods and
others have bodies. And since on that account, they can have aspiration etc.,
their compe-tence for the knowledge of Brahman is justifiable. Moreover,
such facts as gradual liberation, mentioned become logical when this is so. .
3. But for those to whom knowledge dawns on account of the tendencies of
acions before, like Vidura and Dharmavyada, it is not possible for the
knowledge to be withheld, for the result of knowledge is inevitable. 'Four
castes should be read out '- The competence of the four castes to hear and
acquire knowledge of Itihasa and Purana is revealed in this.
1. The teacher Badarayana thinks that liberation results independently from this
- from the knowledge of the Self, as imparted by the Upanishads. The Self, my
dear is to be realised, ..........The Sruti speaks of knowledge alone as the
cause of liberation.
2. For this very reason, from the fact that knowledge is the cause of liberation,
the ritualistic works like "lighting up a fire" etc, are not required by knowledge
for producing its own result. Thus the present topic restates the result of the
discussion raised under the first topic with a view to adding something more.
3. This is what Jaimini Acharya thinks - Since the individual Self comes into
subservient relationship with religious acts by becoming their performer, the
knowledge of the Self too, must form a part of the rites etc,even as the purification
of paddy by sprinkling of water and the objects they are related to. Hence
the mention of any result that occurs in the Upanishads with regard to this
knowledge, whose purpose is ascertained to be this must be by way of eulogy.
4. (No,2 is Purvapaksha) By the word "but", the purvapksha is rebutted
.......Because of being taught to be greater. Had the transmigrating soul alone
inhabiting the body as the agent and experiencer, been taught in the Upanishads
as something distinct from the mere body, then the Upanishadic mention
of result could have been an eulogy as elaborated by the purvapakshin. But
over and above, the embodied soul, the birthless God,free from such mundane
attributes as agentship, the Supreme Self, possessed of such attributes as
freedom from sin, is taught in the Upanishads., as an object to be realised. And
His knowledge cannot supply any impulsion for work; 0n the contrary it
uproots all works. ........All this was elaborately ascertained by us earlier in the
5. Knowledge is heard of in connection of Sanyasins (observation of continence),
Knowledge cannot become subsidiary to rites in that order of Sanyasa, since
the rites are absent and they do not have rites like agnihotra etc. ....For this
reason also, knowledge is independent of rites.
6. Hence it is proved the existence of the stages of life for the continent and
hence also it is proved the independence of knowledge , it having been
enjoined for the continent. because control of the body and mind are enjoined
as a means to the acquisition of knowledge and it is necessary to practice what
7. That fact is referred to by the aphorist in"without any display". That is to
say, without showing himself off by parading his wisdom, learning, virtuousness,
etc,; he should be free from pride, conceit etc.
8. Knowldge needs the help of all the duties of the various stages of life, and it
is not a fact that there is absolutely no dependence on them..........Thus the
duties of the different stages of life are needed not for the fruition of the result
of knowledge, but for the emergence of knowledge itself.
9. What is said is this: - It is only when in great calamity, one's life itself is in
danger , that all kinds of food are permitted. .......Only when this is so. the
texts, when the food is pure, the mind becomes pure, which makes a division
between what can be eaten and what should not be, will remain uncontradicted.
10. The obligatory rights are to be performed even by one who simply sticks to
an order of life without any wish for liberation, for these are enjoined by such
texts as 'one shall perform Agnihotra as long as one lives'......These are means
to knowledge as they have been ordained...........In any case, whether they be
the normal duties of the different orders of life or the means to acquire
knowledge, these very same religious acts , viz, Agnihotra and the rest are to
11. Question:Now the point to be considered is whether Agnihotra and other
rites, not just as they are but as associated with medidation, becomethe cause of
knowledge to an aspirant for liberation and thus come to produce the same
result as knowledge or such rites do so, equally without distinction, either by
themselves or in association with knowledge......Answer:.Therefore, the
obligatory rites like Agnihotra etc. both associated and unassociated with
medidation, either undertaken in this life or the previous life, before the dawn
of kowledge, with a view to attaining liberation by one who hankers after it
become the destroyers as far as possible of the accumulated sins that stand in
the way of the realization of Brahman. Thus indirectly, they become the cause
of the realization of Brahman itself, so that in collaboration with such
proximate causes of enlightenment as hearing, reflection, faith, meditation
devotedness etc., they come to have the same result as the knowledge of
12. Even one occupying an intermediate stage , owing to being debarred from
any one of them, is also entitled to knowledge.
13. In the case of widowers and others also, it is possible for knowledge to be
helped by such virtuous acts as repetition of mantra, fasting, worshipping of
God etc. which can be resorted to by men in general and which do not clash
with the fact of one's standing outside any stage of life.
14. Just as the stories occurring in the ritualistic portion of the Vedas, for
instance, "He plucked out his own omentum etc, are meant for emphasizing
the proximate injunctions, so also is the case here, Hence they are not menat
for Pariplava (a ritualist act. - story telling )
15. Thus it is noticed in the Chan dogya Upanishad that Uddalaka teaches his
son, "That thou art", O Svetaketu" (Ch.6-8-7) and then being requested by his
son again and again "O revered Sir, explain to me again", he
removes the respective causes of his misconception and teaches that very fact
"That thou art" That very process is referred to by citing the text "It is to be
heard, reflected on and meditated upon" (Br,4-4-6)............Again, the text
"That thou art" speaks of the identity of the entity denoted by "thou" with the
entity denoted by "That". By the word "That" is denoted...............the Brahman
is by natrure Consciousness and efflugence. This object called Brahman which
is denoted by the word "That" which is free from all mundane attributes and
which by nature Consciousness is well known to the people who are adepts in
Vedanta. Equally well it has been known by them that inmost Self of the
taught is the meaning of the word "thou" which is the seer and the hearer and
which is thought of as the inmost entity inhabitating the sheaths starting from
the gross body and which is then ascertained as Consciousness itself. .....as the
meaning of a sentence is dependent on the meaning of the words, it becomes
desirable to resort repeatedly to the scriptures.
16. The mental act has to be repeated. Why? since the instruction is repeated.
The texts like "should be heard of, reflected on and medidated upon" indicates
the repetition of the mental act.
17. The Supreme Lord is to be realised as one's Self. Thus it is the Jabalas in
the context of the Supreme Lord, present him as identical with the Self in..
I am you and You are me....Vedic texts make us understand God as our very
18. From this also it follows that the texts about the Udgitha etc. are meant for
19. One should not fix the idea of the Self on symbols, because an aspirant
should not treat the separate symbols as himself.
20. The idea of Brahman Itself is to be superimposed on the sun and the rest.
Why? Becaue of superiority. Thus the sun etc are seen to be superimposed
with a superior idea.
21. The ideas of the sun etc alone are to be superimposed on such subsidiaries
as Udgita etc. Why? Because of compatibility, ....Hence the conclusion is that
the ideas of the sun etc. which are not auxiliaries of rites, are to be
superimposed on the Udgita etc., which are the auxiliaries of the rites.
22. One should worship mentally only in a sitting posture. Why? That is
alone is possible.........Upasana is the flow of a current of similar
thoughts..........Meditation means is that makes the flow of a current of similar
thoughts. ..In sitting posture, Upasana becomes without any stress.
23. One should medidate there only where the becomes concentrated easily in
respect of direction, place and time. Special regulation like, eastern direction,
forenoon., sloping down to the east etc is not mentioned.
24. One should contemplate on the thoughts till death.
1. Again, it is seen that by way of demonstrating the unity of the purport of all
Upanishads, the Uktas (hymns) etc. enjoined in one Upanishad are adopted in
other Upanishads.. And from this it can be concluded on the logic of frequent
occurrence that the medidations also are the same in all Upanishads.
2. It having been established thus that all the Upanishads present the same
ideas about all meditations, the qualities of any meditation in any one
Upanishad have to be combined with the same meditation everywhere else; for
their applications are not different.
5. Determination of meaning etc.
3-3-7-14. The Purusha mentioned in Kata Upaishad (1-3-10) is meant for
meditation and not for any gradation.
3-3-8-16. The word mentioned in the Aitereya Upanishad (1-1) refers to the
Spreme Self and not to Hiranyagarbha..
3-3-9-18. The achamana mentioned in Ch.5-2-2 and Br.6-1-14 is not a Vidhi
(injunction), since the text alludes to this duty that is already enjoined
3-3-15-26 The rejection mentioned in the Ch.8-13-1 and Mun.3-2-8 should
also include acceptance since it forms a counter part of rejection.
3-3-19-32 The Corporeal existence of the Apantaratamas and others (Vedic
teachers} engaged in the mission of encompassing the world through such
works as the promulgation of Vedas etc will continue till liberation.
3-3-23-37. The Purusha mentioned by Itareyins and Jabalas must be for
meditation in a twofold way reciprocally.
3-3-26-40. The Prana ahuti mentioned in Ch.5-19-1 is omitted when there is no
3-3-27-42. The Udgita upasanas mentioned in Ch.1-1-1 are not obligatory to
be connected with the rites.
3-3-34-59. The Upasanas mentioned in Ch.3-14-2 and 4-10-5 are to be done
individually and no combination is needed.
3-3-35-60. The Upasanas through symbols for prosperity may or may not be
combined at will.
3-3-36-61. The Udgita Upasanas as ancillary to rites enjoined in the three
Vedas can be undertaken collectively or alternatively at will.
R E S U L T
1. When Brahman becomes realised, subsequent sins become non-attached
and earlier ones destroyed., Why? Because it is so declared in the scriptures.
2. To the man of knowledge, non-attachment and destruction of virtues occur
as in the case of sins.
3. Those virtues and sins that have not begun to yield their fruits and that were
accumulated in earlier lives or even in this life before the dawn of knowledge
are alone destroyed but not the virtues and sins whose results have already
begun this present life.......liberation is put off till the death of the body.
4. The virtues and vices that have already begun to fructify are exhausted
through experiencing the results and then the aspirant becomes Brahman.
5. The soul manifests itself just as it really is but not possessed of any other
quality. Why? Because of the word "own", which occurs in "becomes
established in its own real form" .....The entity continues to be the pure Self,
becoming free from its erstwhile bondage...... Since from the context, it is
obvious that the Soul itself is presented here by the word "light"
6. The liberated Soul becomes the Supreme Self without any separation.
7. Teacher Badarayana thinks - Even so, though it is admitted that the soul
manifests itself in its own real nature of pure Consciousness, still from the
empirical point of view, the earlier form of the divine majesty of the Brahman
which is known from the teachings is not denied. Hence there is no
8. Similarly, Apantaratamas and others, though they are divine, are entrusted
with their respective missions of God; and hence though they are possessed of
full vision, leading to liberation, they continue in their bodies so long as their
missions demand this and so long as their actions are not completed, and when
that it is fulfilled,they become freed. Thus there is no contradiction.
.........Hence liberation comes inevitably to a man of knowledge.
9. The contact with the fathers and other comes about by will alone........For
that reason, because his will cannot be infructuous, the man of knowledge has
no other lord to rule over him.
10. With regard to liberation, the result of knowledge, there is no such rule.
One must not entertain any misconception of any such rule being applicable
with individual variation in the matter of resulting liberation. Why? Because
the Upanishads have definitely ascertained that state to be the same. For in all
Upanishads, the state of liberation is determined to be uniform in nature, the
state of liberation being nothing but Brahman itself. Brahman cannot be of
many sorts, since Its characteristic indication is declared to be uniform by
11. Is this departure from the body the same for the enlightened and the
unenligh-tened persons? Or is there any distinction? .............It is but proper
that the departure as described in such texts as, "Speech is wihdrawn into the
mind (Ch.6-8-6) should be the same for the knower and the ignorant upto the
point for they start for their respective separate paths, for this is spoken of
without any distinction.
12. We assert. all those who would reach Brahman have to proceed along the
path of flames. Why? That is well known. That path is well known to all
men of meditation.
13. They attain the position of air after the year and before the sun. How?
Owing to the absence and presence of specification.
14. After lightning, Varuna is to be connected.
15. Those who pass along the path of flame etc., they have thier senses and
organs bunched up owing to separation from the body and so they are devoid
of independent action. The flame etc. being insentient are also not
independent. So it can be understood that some deities who are sentient and
identify themselves with flame etc, are engaged in escorting.
16. The teacher Badari thinks, that they are led to the saguna Brahmana
alone.........In other text, it is understood that the path is related to the Saguna
17. The teacher Badarayana thinks that leaving out those who meditate with
the help of symbols, the superhuman being leads all others, who meditate on
Saguna Brahman to the Brahma Loka itself.......There is no contradiction to
accept this two fold division......... Besides, the Upanishad shows with regard to
the meditations based on such symbols as name etc. that the succeeding ones
have better results than the preceding ones.
18. From the reservation made under the aphorism "And the immortality
spoken of is one that is attained without burning ignorance, it is admitted that
in the absolute immortality there is an absence of any course to be followed
and any departure from the body, ....Because in the other Branch, the fifth case
-ending is used.............And texts like "Attains Brahman in this very body"
indicate the absence of departure and path for him.
19. It will lead to a contradiction, for instance any path leading to some region
will stand opposed to the Upanisadic text "shakes of both virtue and vice,
becomes taintless and attains absolute equality. For how can the taintless one,
who has no motion reach a different region His goal is absolute unity which is
not contingent on reaching some other world.. so that according to us any
course to be followed is meaningless in this context..........of the knower of the
supreme Brahman "merge in the supreme Self".........Besides, the constituents
that spring from ignorance can have no remnant after their resorption through
knowledge. Accordingly they must become absolutely unified with Brahman.
20. Now that doubt arises as to whether the soul follows the rays equally,
irrespective of the occurrence of the death during the day-time or night, or it
does so only when dying in the day-time. The aphorist declares that the soul
progresses by way of the rays irrespective of the time of death, for the
Upanishad speaks in general times.
21. The nerve and the sun's rays remain connected during the day. so that a
man dying during the day may well follow the rays, but that is not possible for
a man dying at night because the connection between the nerve and the rays is
then snapped, if this is so---Not so, for the connection between the nerve and
the rays lasts as long as the embodied continues..........Therefore the soul's
pursuit of the rays is the same whether it departs at nightor the day. When a
man knowledge even in Dakshinayana, he attains the result of knowledge.
22. When a liberated soul wishes to have a body he gets one; and when he
desires to remain without it, he has none; for his will is true and desires are
23. Just as a single lamp can appear to be many through its power of
transformation, so also the man of knowledge, though one, can through his
divine power beome many and enter into all bodies........Svapyaya means deep
sleep....... Sampatti means liberation. Having in view either of these two states,
it is asserted thus that there is an absence of particularized knowledge. ....This
is said sometimes with reference to the state of deep sleep and sometimes with
reference to liberation. ..But the state in which the divine powers are asserted
is a different state like heaven etc. that comes as a result of the maturity of
meditation on the Saguna Brahman.
24. The doubt is : Do those people who attain union with God as a result of
Saguna Brahma meditation acquire unlimited or limited divine powers?......
Answer is: It is proper that barring the power of creation etc of the universe,
the liberated souls should have all the divine powers like becoming very
minute etc......It is declared that this bestowing of independent soverignty is at
the disposal of Iswara who ordains others to be the rulers of particular spheres
and who resides in such special abodes as the orb of the sun......It is not a fact
that Iswara eternally liberated resides merely in the solar orb etc. as trasnsformed
things. Thus the scripture speaks of His existence in two forms.....Hence,
it is to be understood that Iswara is possesed of two aspects; one may continue
in HIs qualified aspects possessing limited powers without attaining his
unqualified aspect, so also He can exist in his qualified aspect with limited
divine powers without acquiring unfettered powers. The Srutis and Smritis say
that the Supreme Jyotis who does not abide in the effects......Therefore, they do
not get unfettered powers and all that they have in common with the eternal
Iswara is the equality of experience only... Those who go to Brahma Loka as
per the Sastra do not return as others do from the world of moon after enjoyment.
For those from whom the ignorance has been completely dispelled as a
result of their real knowledge and who are established in their liberation, nonreturn
is an accomplished fact; Also for those of Saguna Brahma meditation
who have their resort in the Nirguna Brahman , non-return is an accomplished
Quotable Quotes from Sankara Bhagavatpada's
Mixing up the real with unreal, the inherent vyavahara is "I am this and this
It is awareness of what was seen in another locus and the form of memory.
(definition of Adhyasa)
The shell appears like silver and a single moon appears as two.
Though space is not an object, still children superimpose on it ideas like
surface and dirt.
Learned men consider thissuperimposition as avidya.
This superimposition that is of this nature, is considered by the learned to be
Not different from animals (behaviour due to nescience)
Discrimination between the eternal and non-eternal, dispassion for the
enjoyment of the result of deeds here and hereafter, perfection of such
practice as conrol of the mind, sense organs etc., and desire to attain moksha.
Everyone cognises "the existence of Atman" and not "I don't exist"
Knowledge of Brahman is the culmination of personal experience and also the
of an object -entity which already exists.
"Thou art Thar" - the unity of Self and Brahman cannot be known from other
than the Sastra,
Attainment of satisfaction and cessation of all duties on realisaton of Brahman
is to ourcreedit.
Brahman is known in two aspects--one possessed of the limiting adjuncts of
diversities because of modification, name and form and the other devoid of all
Thus, the next portion of the Brahma Sutra is begun to show that the teaching
of Vedanta is that although Brahman is one, it has ro be meditated upon with
or without the relationship of the adjuncts respectively.
If through inference and supporting reason, they are conducive to the
knowledge of the Reality, let them be so. But the knowledge of the Reality
springs from the Upanishads texts alone.
By the logic of winning the imporant wrestler, he quotes (Sankhya is referred to)
Therefore, the effect is non-diffeerent from the cause, - effect does not exist
without the cause.
By all means when the Buddhism is examined for the ultimate cause, it fails
like the walls of sand of a well.
We do n ot refute the view stated therein (Bhagavata) that Narayana,who is
superior to Nature and is well known to be the Supremem Self and the Self of
all has divided Himself by Himself into many forms. It is not also refuted that
which is intended for his propitiation, like visitng His temple, etc. with
Not finding the highest good in he four Vedas, Sandilya studied this Sastra ,
etc., such slur on the Veda is seen.
What do you lose if you accept that this world is born out of a sentient Being.
I prostrate before Sri Sankara of revered feet ,who confers auspiciousness on
the whole world, who is the repository of Scripture, code of law, and epics and
who is the abode of compassion.
Obeisance with body, mind and speech be to the glorious Sun that is Sri
Sankara always; struck back by the lustre of whose knowledge the brilliance of
the solar orb was rendered dim like the moon and the effulgent renown of
whose disciples enveloped (all the continents) from the mountains of the Far
East to those of the far West, thereby ridding the universe of darkness.
I bow to that new Sankara, Lord Siva in humanform without Ganesa, without
the riches, without the serpent ornaments, without Uma in his half body.
without his anger, without the black spot on his throat. (As an adjective to
Sankara, they mean without enjoyment, with attendants, without any wealth,
a sanyasi, with grace, without any impediments,
By the Sunlight of whose wisdom, the darkness of ignorance residing in my
heart which is the cause of ceaselessly swinging between birth and death, has
been completely destroyed, by taking refuge at whose feet, groups of disciples
have become adorned with Scriptural learning, self control and humility and
have been instantly released-to that Great Sage I bow till the end of my life.
salute Sri Sankara , the author of the Bhashya which is free from any
blemish, who gave the knowledge of the Self raising from the ocean of Vedas
which grants happiness to the entire world just as Lakshmi has been raised
from the Ocean and by whom Lord Vishnu, the source of the world is
embraced and grants happiness to the entire world.
I bow to Sri Sankara, whose feet were worshipped by all, and on obtaining
whom as the exponent, the eternal speech, namely the Veda, possessed of its
true import because the fallacious reasoning consisting metaphorically of dirt
and loose clay has been removed from it.
My salutations to that wonderful Lord Sankara, who rescued the Upanishad,
misinterpreted by the Purvamimamsakas, just as Garuda rescued (his mother)
Vinata (from the slavery ) of the mother of serpants by the use of nectar.
I always offer salutations to the Acharya by whom the teachings of the
Sastra has been put in the supreme result-the ocean of bliss, wherein meres like
a river the state of becoming is Amsa which is favoured by many
commentaries and which results by reaching the respective celestial regions
that are pleasing through prescribed and specific meditative exercises.
Salutations to that Lord in the form of Sri Sankara to whom this knowledge of
Vedanta has been taken from the ocean of the Veda.
We adore Sri Sankara of revered feet--the best among those who cure the
disease of transmigratory existence and who has attained the praiseworthy state
of the sun that removes the multitude of the darkness of delusion.
Let the dust of the lotus feet of Bhavatpada always be the bridges which help
to cross the ocean of Samsara which has no bounds and which is useless.
I offer salutations at the lotus feet of the preceptor, Sri Sankara, by whose
grace, I - a dull-witted one - have become an omniscient being.
System Author Theory
Nyaya Gauthama God is creator
Vaiseshika Kanada Atom
Sankhya Kapila Prakriti
Yoga Patanjali Iswara
Purvamimamsa Jaimini Karma
2. The author of the Purva Mimamsa Sutras is Jaimini Maharishi and it
contains 12 chapters and deals with the principles of interpretation of the
Vedas and their place in the rituals prescribed therein. Sabariswamin,
Kumarila and Prabhakara have written commentaries on it. Other
commentators are Krishna Yajwa, Apodeva and Logakshi Bhaskara. Bhatta
Pradipika is the traditional standard text book. Mimamsa Paribhasha by
Krishna Yajva with an English translation is an easy introduction to Purva
3. Ancient Purvamimamsa has no place for God in their system and Karma
produces all results. It is included in the theistic system beause they concede
Self separate from the body. The main argument in Sankara Bhashya against
Purvamimasa is their contention that scriptures which are not directly
connected to Karma have no validity at all
4. The principles of logic used by Purvamimamsa are used by Bhagavat pada
inthe Sutra Bhashya. Some of them are:
1 Three kinds of injunctions, Apurva, Niyama and Parisamkya
2. Sruti, Linga, Vakya, Prakarana, Sthana and Samakya - their validities
3. Utpatti, Apti, Vikruti, Samskriti - stages of changes
4. Kim, Kena and Katham - what, through what and how