Brahmasutra sankara bhashya samgrahah full text english translation

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

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

and omnipotent.

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

individual soul.

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

individual soul.

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

by space

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

senses later.

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

the object.

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

word "Existence".

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, 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

not perceived?

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



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

appropiate context.

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

is prescribed.

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

be performed.

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

Brahman has..

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. 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

enjoining meditation.

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.


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

such texts.

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

Brahman alone.

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

Brahmasutra Bhashya

Mixing up the real with unreal, the inherent vyavahara is "I am this and this

is mine"

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

avidya, nescience,

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

exclusive devotion,

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

No comments:

Post a Comment

Do pass your comments here.