Brahma Sutras

by
Swami Sivananda
The Divine Life Society
Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh, India
TABLE O !O"TE"TS
# $reface
# $rayers
# Introduction
!%A$TER I & SA'A"(A)A AD%)A)A
Section * +Sutras *&,*-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# /i0nasadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutra *-
# /anmadyadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra 2-
# Sastrayonitvadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutra ,-
# Samanvayadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra 3-
# Ikshatyadyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras 4&**-
# Anandamayadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras *2&*6-
# Antaradhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras 28&2*-
# Akasadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutra 22-
# $ranadhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutra 2,-
# /yotischaranadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutras 23&27-
# $ratardanadhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutras 29&,*-
Section 2 +Sutras ,2&5,-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# Sarvatra $rasiddhyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&9-
# Attradhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras 6&*8-
# :uha.ravishtadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras **&*2-
# Antaradhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutras *,&*7-
# Antaryamyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras *9&28-
# Adrisyatvadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras 2*&2,-
# (aisvanaradhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras 23&,2-
Section , +Sutras 53&*85-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# Dyubhvadyadhikaranam 1 To.ic * +Sutras *&7-
# Bhumadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras 9&6-
# Aksharadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras *8&*2-
# Ikshatikarmavya.adesadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra *,-
# Daharadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras *3&2*-
# Anukrityadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras 22&2,-
# $ramitadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras 23&24-
# Devatadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras 25&,,-
# A.asudradhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutras ,3&,9-
# ;am.anadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutra ,6-
# /yotiradhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutra 38-
# Arthantaratvadivya.adesadhikaranam1 To.ic *2 +Sutra 3*-
# Sushu.tyutkrantyadhikaranam1 To.ic *, +Sutras 32&3,-
Section 3 +Sutras *87&*,3-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# Anumanikadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&7-
# !hamasadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras 9&*8-
# Sankhyo.asan<rahadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras **&*,-
# ;aranatvadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutras *3&*4-
# Ba#akyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras *5&*9-
# (akyanvayadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras *6&22-
# $rakrtyadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutra 2,&27-
# Sarvavyakhyanadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutra 29-
To
Sri (yasa Bha<avan
Sri /a<ad<uru Sankaracharya
and
Srimad A..ayya Dikshitar
$REA!E
It need not be over&em.hasised that the Brahma Sutras, or the "yaya&
$rasthana of the triad of Indian $hi#oso.hica# treatises ho#d su.reme sway over
the #ater rationa#istic and scho#astic deve#o.ments= Ri<ht from the mi<hty brain of
Sankara down to the master&inte##ects #ike Sriharsha, !hitsukha and
'adhusudana, the main .o#emics have been occu.ied with the task of estab#ishin<
the doctrine of Abso#ute 'onism and refutin< the views contrary to it, by a..ea# to
#o<ic as we## as authority a#ike, which find their seeds a#ready sown in the Brahma
Sutras= The founder of a new re#i<ious and .hi#oso.hica# schoo# had sim.#y to write
a new commentary on the Brahma Sutras so that his view may be acce.ted by the
mass of .eo.#e= Such is the authority of the Brahma Sutras, the work of
Baadarayana=
!ommentaries there have been many on the Brahma Sutras, but either they
are too short and insufficient to be usefu# for a com.rehensive study of the Sutras,
or are e>treme#y tou<h and abstruse to be uti#ised by men of ordinary
understandin<= This work of Swami Sivananda is of a ?ni@ue ty.e in itse#f,
unriva##ed by any other= This commentary is neither too short to be use#ess, nor
too verbose to be uninte##i<ib#e, but fo##ows a via media course, usefu# to one and
a##, main#y the s.iritua# as.irants, who want thou<ht, not mere word=
Swami0i has <ot his own inimitab#e way of writin<, which is a boon to the
in@uisitive student on the s.iritua# .ath= A## rea# as.irants after Truth shou#d
.ossess this book, for it is a <uide&#i<ht that is ca.ab#e of steerin< them across the
sea of i<norance and doubt=
Swami0i has #eft nothin< unsaid that may be usefu# to the student of the
Brahma Sutras, and in addition has <iven usefu# information which wi## not be
found in other notes and commentaries= The division of each $ada into the
re#evant Adhikaranas markin< at the same time the number of Sutras they
contain, the sub0ect matter they treat of, and the accom.animent of each Sutra by
the seria# number from the very be<innin< is for the use and <uidance of the
student= An e#aborate introduction .recedes the work in addition to a short
introduction and a summary of the different Adhikaranas .recedin< each $ada=
These are a## a boon to the student of the Brahma Sutras for which the
incom.arab#e Swami0i has to be eu#o<ised= Each Sutra a#so contains a word&byword
meanin< and a runnin< trans#ation=
'ore need not be said than that the .roduction is a marve##ous one= Swami0i
has com.#eted his annotations on the $rasthanatraya with his Brahma Sutras= %is
writin<s are too famous to necessitate further introduction=
The te>t of the Brahma Sutras has been inc#uded herein to enab#e the readers
to do Svadhyaya and <et them by heart for .ur.oses of meditation=
Sri (yasa $urnima T%E DI(I"E LIE SO!IET)
29th /u#y, *666
D%)A"A SLO;AS
I .rostrate myse#f before that :uru, the E>istence, devoid of the three :unas,
beyond com.rehension, the witness of a## menta# functions, chan<e#ess and .ure,
one and eterna#, transcendin< the .airs of o..osites, e>.ansive #ike the sky,
reachab#e throu<h the sentences #ike AThou art ThatA, the B#iss of Brahman, the
:iver of Su.reme %a..iness, the 'ass of Abso#ute Bisdom=
%e whom the Saivas worshi. as SivaC the (edantins as the Abso#ute
+Brahman-C the Buddhists as Lord BuddhaC the #o<icians, the e>.erts in the theory
of know#ed<e, as the !reatorC those fo##owin< the teachin<s of /aina as the Arhat
and the ritua#ists as the SacrificeC may that %ari, the Lord of the three wor#ds, <ive
you the desired ob0ect=
I worshi. the <reat Rishi (yasa, who is ca##ed ;rishna&dvai.ayana, who is
worshi..ed by <ods, men and Asuras a#ike, who is the form of (ishnu, who is #ike
the #i<ht of the risin< sun to the darkness of the im.urities of the a<e of ;a#i, who
be#on<s to the fami#y of (asishtha, who divided the (edas into different sections,
who is the seed of Dharma, who wrote the $uranas, the Brahma Sutras, the
'ahabharata and the Smriti=
I contem.#ate on Sankaracharya, who is seated in $admasana, who is
tran@ui#, who is estab#ished in se#f&restraint, whose <#ory is #ike that of the enemy
of !u.id, who wears the sacred ashes shinin< on his forehead, whose smi#in< face
resemb#es the b#ossomed #otus, who has #otus&#ike eyes, whose neck is conch&#ike,
ho#din< book in one hand and indicatin< /nana&mudra +with another hand-, who is
adored by the foremost of <ods, who <ives boons to those who .rostrate to him=
SRI SA";ARDESI;AS%TA'
+by %astama#aka-
*= O ocean of the nectar of i##umined know#ed<e of the who#e SastrasD Thou
hast revea#ed the treasure of the meanin< of the <reat ?.anishads= I meditate on
Thy .ure Lotus eet in my heart, O Sankara Desika +Acharya-, be Thou my
refu<e=
2= O ocean of mercyD $rotect me who am aff#icted sore#y by the .ains of
SamsaraC Thou hast e>.ounded the truth of the various schoo#s of .hi#oso.hy, O
Sankara Desika, be Thou my refu<e=
,= By Thee the humanity has attained ha..iness= Thou art endowed with a
fine inte##ect ref#ectin< Se#f&know#ed<e= I meditate on Thee who e>.ounded the
identity of /iva and Isvara, O Sankara, be Thou my refu<e=
3= EThou art my :odF & thus thinkin< my mind became fu## of 0oy= Remove the
<reat ocean of de#usion in me, O Sankara, be Thou my refu<e=
4= It is throu<h various meritorious actions done by me for a #on< time that I
have <ot in me a #ove for the vision of Thy Lotus eet= $rotect this humb#e se#f, O
Sankara, be Thou my refu<e=
5= or the redem.tion of mankind <reat sou#s #ike Thy Se#f move about from
.#ace to .#ace= Thou seemst to me #ike the .ure and res.#endent sun, O Sankara,
be Thou my refu<e=
7= O best of :urus, O Lord SivaD It is im.ossib#e for anyone to <au<e Thy
menta# .oise= O $rotector of the refu<eesD O Re.ository of ;now#ed<eD O Sankara,
be Thou my refu<e=
9= I have not been ab#e to find any treasure worthy of .ossession e>ce.t
Thee, O $rece.torD %ave mercy on me which is Thy natura# @ua#ity, O Sankara, be
Thou my refu<e=
I"TROD?!TIO"
%ari OmD Sa#utations to Sri (yasa, the Avatara of (ishnu, the wise
Badarayana and Sri ;rishna Dvai.ayana=
(edas consist of three .ortions viG=, the ;arma ;anda which dea#s with
sacrifices or ceremonia# rites, the ?.asana ;anda which treats of ?.asana
+worshi.- and the /nana ;anda which dea#s with know#ed<e of Brahman= ;arma
;anda re.resents the feet of a man, ?.asana ;anda the heart, and the /nana
;anda the head= /ust as the head is the most im.ortant .ortion of a man, so a#so
the ?.anishads which treat of the know#ed<e .ortion of the (edas is the head of
the (edas= %ence it is said to be the Siras +head- of (edas=
'imamsa means the investi<ation or en@uiry into the connected meanin< of
the sacred te>ts= Of this 'imamsa two branches have been reco<nised, the $urva
'imamsa +ear#ier- and the ?ttara 'imamsa +the #atter-= The former systematises
the ;arma ;anda & the .ortion of the (eda which .ertains to action and sacrifices
and which com.rises Samhitas and the BrahmanasC the #atter systematises the
/nana ;anda i=e=, that .art of the (edas which inc#udes the Aranyaka .ortion of
the Brahmanas and the ?.anishads= /aimini is the author of the $urva 'imamsa=
Sri (yasa +Badarayana or ;rishna Dvai.ayana- the :uru of /aimini is the author of
the Brahma Sutras otherwise known as (edanta Sutras= The study of Brahma
Sutras is a synthetic study of the ?.anishads= It treats of the (edanta .hi#oso.hy=
The (edas are eterna#= They were not written by any individua#= They came
out from the breath of %iranya<arbha +Lord Brahma-= (edanta is the end or <ist of
the (edas= It dea#s with the know#ed<e .ortion= (edanta is not mere s.ecu#ation=
It is the authentic record of transcendenta# e>.eriences or direct and actua#
rea#isation of the <reat %indu Rishis or seers= Brahma Sutras is the Science of the
Sou#=
Sutras are concise a.horisms= They <ive the essence of the ar<uments on a
to.ic= 'a>imum of thou<ht is com.ressed or condensed into these Sutras in as
few words as .ossib#e= It is easy to remember them= :reat inte##ectua# .eo.#e
on#y, with rea#isation, can com.ose Sutras= They are c#ues or aids to memory=
They cannot be understood without a #ucid commentary +Bhashya-= The
commentary a#so is in need of further e#aborate e>.#anation= Thus the
inter.retations of the Sutras <ave rise to various kinds of #iterary writin<s such as
(rittis +<#oss- and ;arikas= The different Acharyas +founders of different schoo#s of
thou<ht- have <iven their own inter.retations of the Sutras to estab#ish their own
doctrines= The Bhashya of Sri Sankara on Brahma Sutras is known as Sariraka
Bhashya= %is schoo# of thou<ht is ;eva#a Advaita= The Bhashya of Sri Ramanu0a
who founded the (isishtadvaita Schoo# is ca##ed Sri Bhashya= The commentary of
Sri "imbarkacharya is known as (edanta& .ari0ata&saurabha= Sri (a##abhacharya
e>.ounded his system of .hi#oso.hy of Suddhadvaita +.ure monism- and his
commentary on the Brahma Sutras is known as Anu Bhashya=
Sanskrit is very e#astic= It is #ike ;amadhenu or ;a#.ataru= )ou can mi#k out
of it various kinds of Rasas accordin< to your inte##ectua# ca#ibre and s.iritua#
e>.eriences= Therefore different Acharyas have bui#t different systems of thou<ht
or cu#ts by inter.retin< the Sutras in their own ways and became founders of
sects= 'adhva founded his own system of Dvaita= The cu#ts of (ishnu known as
Bha<avata or $ancharatra and those of Siva, $asu.ata or 'ahesvara have
inter.reted Brahma Sutras in accordance with their own tenets= "imbarkacharya
inter.reted the (edanta system from the stand.oint of Bhedabheda&Dvaitadvaita=
%e was #ar<e#y inf#uenced by the teachin<s of Bhaskara who f#ourished in the first
ha#f of the ninth century= The theory he#d by Bhaskara and "imbarka was he#d by
the ancient teacher Audu#omi= Badarayana himse#f refers to this theory in his
Brahma Sutras=
There are more than fourteen commentaries on the Brahma Sutras= Sri
A..aya Dikshita rendered the commentary of Sri Sankara more c#ear by his
$arima#a, Sri (achas.ati 'isra by his work Bhamati and Sri Ama#ananda Sarasvati
by his ;a#.ataru=
The erroneous identification of the body with the .ure Atman is the root
cause for human sufferin<s and miseries and for births and deaths= )ou identify
yourse#f with the body and say, HI am fair, dark, stout or thin= I am a Brahmin, I
am a ;shatriya, I am a doctorI= )ou identify yourse#f with the senses and say, HI
am b#ind, I am dumbI= )ou identify yourse#f with the mind and say, HI know
nothin<= I know everythin<= I became an<ry= I en0oyed a <ood mea#= I am
sufferin< from this diseaseI= The entire ob0ect of the Brahma Sutras is to remove
this erroneous identification of the Sou# with the body which is the root cause of
your sufferin<s and miseries, which is the .roduct of Avidya +i<norance- and he#.
you in the attainment of the fina# emanci.ation throu<h know#ed<e of Brahman=
The ?.anishads seem to be fu## of contradictions at first= They do not contain
consistent system of thou<ht= Sri (yasa systematised the thou<hts or .hi#oso.hy
of the ?.anishads in his Brahma Sutras= The Sutras reconci#e the conf#ictin<
statements of the ?.anishads= In rea#ity there are no conf#icts for the thinker=
Audu#omi and Asmarathya a#so did this work in their own way and founded their
own schoo#s of thou<ht=
Those who wish to study the .hi#oso.hy of (edanta shou#d study the Ten
!#assica# ?.anishads and the Brahma Sutras= A## Acharyas have commented on
Brahma Sutras= This is a <reat authority for every .hi#oso.hica# schoo# in India= If
any Acharya wishes to estab#ish his own cu#t or sect or schoo# of thou<ht he wi##
have to write a commentary of his own on Brahma Sutras= Then on#y it wi## be
reco<nised=
The five <reat Acharyas1 Sri Sankara the e>.onent of ;eva#a Advaita or
uncom.romisin< monism, Sri Ramanu0a the e>.onent of (isishtadvaita or @ua#ified
monism, Sri "imbarka the e>.onent of Bhedabheda&vada, Sri 'adhva the
e>.onent of strict Dvaitism or Dvaita&vada and Sri (a##abha the e>.onent of
Suddhadvaita&vada or .ure monism a<ree that Brahman is the cause of this wor#d
and that know#ed<e of Brahman #eads to 'oksha or the fina# emanci.ation, which
is the <oa# of #ife= They a#so em.hatica##y dec#ared that Brahman can be known
on#y throu<h the scri.tures and not throu<h mere reasonin<= But they differ
amon<st themse#ves as to the nature of this Brahman, the re#ation of the
individua# sou# to Brahman, the state of the sou# in the state of fina# emanci.ation,
the means of attainin< It and Its causa#ity with reference to this universe=
Accordin< to Sri Sankara, there is one Abso#ute Brahman who is Sat&chitananda,
who is of an abso#ute#y homo<eneous nature= The a..earance of this
wor#d is due to 'aya & the i##usory .ower of Brahman which is neither Sat nor
Asat= This wor#d is unrea#= This wor#d is a (ivarta or a..arent modification throu<h
'aya= Brahman a..ears as this universe throu<h 'aya= Brahman is the on#y
rea#ity= The individua# sou# has #imited himse#f throu<h Avidya and identification
with the body and other vehic#es= Throu<h his se#fish actions he en0oys the fruits
of his actions= %e becomes the actor and en0oyer= %e re<ards himse#f as atomic
and as an a<ent on account of Avidya or the #imitin< Antahkarana= The individua#
sou# becomes identica# with Brahman when his Avidya is destroyed= In rea#ity /iva
is a##&.ervadin< and identica# with Brahman= Isvara or Sa<una Brahman is a
.roduct of 'aya= Borshi. of Isvara #eads to ;rama 'ukti= The .ious devotees +the
knowers of Sa<una Brahman- <o to Brahma#oka and attain fina# re#ease throu<h
hi<hest know#ed<e= They do not return to this wor#d= They attain the "ir<una
Brahman at the end of the cyc#e= ;now#ed<e of "ir<una Brahman is the on#y
means of #iberation= The knowers of "ir<una Brahman attain immediate fina#
re#ease or Sadyomukti= They need not <o by the .ath of <ods or the .ath of
Devayana= They mer<e themse#ves in $ara Brahman= They do not <o to any Loka
or wor#d= Sri SankaraIs Brahman is "irvisesha Brahman +Im.ersona# Abso#ute-
without attributes=
Accordin< to Sri Ramanu0a, Brahman is with attributes +Savisesha-= %e is
endowed with a## aus.icious @ua#ities= %e is not inte##i<ence itse#f= Inte##i<ence is
his chief attribute= %e contains within %imse#f whatever e>ists= Bor#d and
individua# sou#s are essentia# rea# constituents of BrahmanIs nature= 'atter +Achit-
and sou# +!hit- form the body of the Lord, Lord "arayana who is the Inner Ru#er
+Antaryamin-= 'atter and sou#s are ca##ed modes of %im +$rakara-= The individua#
sou#s wi## never be entire#y reso#ved in Brahman= Accordin< to Ramanu0a, Brahman
is not abso#ute#y one and homo<eneous= The individua# sou#s under<o a state of
Sankocha +contraction- durin< $ra#aya= They e>.and +(ikasa- durin< creation= Sri
Ramanu0aIs Brahman is a $ersona# :od with attributes= The individua# sou# of
Ramanu0a is rea##y individua#= It wi## remain a .ersona#ity for ever= The sou#
remains in (aikuntha for ever in a state of b#iss and en0oys the divine Aisvarya of
Lord "arayana= Bhakti is the chief means to fina# emanci.ation and not /nana= Sri
Ramanu0a fo##ows in his Bhashya the authority of Bodhayana=
Accordin< to Sri "imbarkacharya, Brahman is considered as both the efficient
and materia# cause of the wor#d= Brahman is both "ir<una and Sa<una= The
universe is not unrea# or i##usory but is a true manifestation or $arinama of
Brahman= +Sri Ramanu0a a#so ho#ds this view= %e says J/ust as mi#k is transformed
into curd, so a#so Brahman has transformed %imse#f as this universeJ-= This wor#d
is identica# with and at the same time different from Brahman 0ust as the wave or
bubb#e is the same and at the same time different from water= The individua# sou#s
are .arts of the Su.reme Se#f= They are contro##ed by the Su.reme Bein<= The
fina# sa#vation #ies in rea#isin< the true nature of oneIs own sou#= This can be
achieved by Bhakti +devotion-= The individua#ity of the finite se#f +/ivatman- is not
disso#ved even in the state of fina# emanci.ation= Sri Ramanu0a a#so ho#ds that the
/iva assumes the divine body of Sri "arayana with four hands and en0oys in
(aikuntha the divine Aisvarya of the Lord=
)ou may ask why do such <reat rea#ised sou#s ho#d different views, why have
they started different cu#ts or systems= The hi<hest .hi#oso.hy of Sri Sankara
which bes.eaks of the identity of the individua# sou# and the Su.reme Sou# cannot
be understood by the vast ma0ority of .ersons= Therefore Sri 'adhva and Sri
Ramanu0a started their Bhakti cu#t= The different schoo#s are different run<s in the
#adder of )o<a= The student must .#ace his foot ste. by ste. and fina##y reach the
hi<hest .eak of .erfection the & ;eva#advaita rea#isation of Sri Sankara= As
tem.eraments are different, different schoo#s are a#so necessary to suit the taste,
ca.acity, and sta<e of evo#ution of the as.irant= Therefore a## schoo#s and cu#ts are
necessary= They have <ot their own .#ace and sco.e=
The views of various Acharyas are a## true in res.ect of the .articu#ar as.ect
of Brahman dea#t with by them each in his own way= Sankara has taken Brahman
in %is transcendenta# as.ect, whi#e Sri Ramanu0a has taken %im chief#y in %is
immanent as.ect= $eo.#e were fo##owin< b#ind#y the ritua#s durin< the time of Sri
Sankara= Bhen he was .re.arin< his commentary he had in view the .ur.ose of
combatin< the banefu# effects which b#ind ritua#ism .roduced= %e never
condemned se#f#ess service or "ishkama ;arma )o<a= %e condemned the
.erformance of ritua#s with se#fish motives=
Sankara Bhashya is the o#dest of a## commentaries= It u.ho#ds Suddha&$ara&
Brahman or the Su.reme Se#f of the ?.anishads as somethin< su.erior to other
divine bein<s= It .ro.ounds a very bo#d .hi#oso.hy and dec#ares em.hatica##y that
the individua# sou# is identica# with the Su.reme Se#f= SankaraIs .hi#oso.hica# view
accurate#y re.resents the meanin< of Badarayana= %is e>.#anations on#y faithfu##y
render the intended meanin< of Sri (yasa= This is beyond doubt and dis.ute=
Students of ;eva#advaita Schoo# of $hi#oso.hy shou#d study the Sariraka
Bhashya of Sri Sankara which is .rofound, subt#e and uni@ue= It is an authority
which #eads to the ri<ht understandin< of the Brahma Sutras= The best thinkers of
India, :ermany, America and En<#and be#on< to this schoo#= It occu.ies a hi<h
rank in books on .hi#oso.hy= Advaita .hi#oso.hy is the most sub#ime and the
<randest .hi#oso.hy of the %indus=
)ou can understand the Brahma Sutras if you have a know#ed<e of the twe#ve
c#assica# ?.anishads= )ou can understand the second cha.ter if you have a
know#ed<e of Sankhya, "yaya, )o<a, 'imamsa, (aiseshika Darsana and
Buddhistic schoo#, too= A## these schoo#s are refuted here by Sri Sankara= Sri
SankaraIs commentary is the best commentary= Dr= Thibaut has trans#ated this
commentary into En<#ish= Brahma Sutras is one of the books of $rasthanatraya=
This is an authoritative book on %indu $hi#oso.hy= The work consists of 3
Adhyayas +cha.ters-, *5 $adas +sections-, 22, Adhikaranas +to.ics- and 444
Sutras +a.horisms-= The first cha.ter +Samanvayadhyaya- unifies Brahman, the
second +Avirodhadhyaya- refutes other .hi#oso.hies, the third +Sadhanadhyaya-
dea#s with .ractice +Sadhana- to attain Brahman and the fourth +$ha#adhyaya-
treats of fruits of Se#f&rea#isation= Each cha.ter contains four $adas= Each $ada
contains Adhikaranas= Each Adhikarana has se.arate @uestion to discuss= The first
five Adhikaranas of the first cha.ter are very, very im.ortant=
:#ory to Sri (yasa Bha<avan, son of $arasara, the mi<hty sa<e, a !hiran0ivi
who has written a## $uranas and a#so divided the (edas= 'ay his b#essin<s be u.on
you a##D
!%A$TER I
SA'A"(A)A AD%)A)A
SE!TIO" *
Introduction
The (edanta Sutras are ca##ed ESariraka 'imamsaF because they dea# with
$ara Brahman, the Sarira +the embodied-=
In the first cha.ter the author shows that a## the (edic te>ts uniform#y refer
to Brahman and find their Samanvaya +reconci#iation- in %im= In the second
cha.ter, it has been .roved that there is no conf#ict between (edanta and other
Sastras= In the third cha.ter the means of attainin< Brahman are described= In the
fourth cha.ter is described the resu#t of attainin< Brahman=
The Adhikarin +one who is com.etent to understand and study the Sastra- is
one who is of tran@ui# mind and has the attributes of Sama +@uietude-, Dama +se#fcontro#-,
etc=, is fu## of faith, is constant#y en<a<ed in <ood thou<hts and
associates with the knowers of Truth, whose heart is .urified by the due dischar<e
of a## duties, re#i<ious and secu#ar, and without any idea of reward= The
Sambandha is the descri.tion of Brahman by this Sastra= The (ishaya or the
sub0ect matter of this Sastra is the Su.reme Brahman who is a## .ure= The
$rayo0ana +necessity- of this Sastra is to obtain rea#isation of the Su.reme
Brahman, by the remova# of a## fa#se notions that .revent that rea#isation=
This Sastra consists of severa# Adhikaranas or to.ics or .ro.ositions= Every
.ro.osition consists of five .arts1 +*- Thesis or (ishaya, +2- Doubt or Samsaya,
+,- Anti&thesis or $urva.aksha, +3- Synthesis or ri<ht conc#usion or Siddhanta and
+4- San<ati or a<reement of the .ro.osition with the other .arts of the Sastra=
In the who#e book of the (edanta Sutras Brahman is the main theme or the
sub0ect matter of discussion= An inter.retation of any .assa<e must not <o away
from the sub0ect matter of Brahman= Each cha.ter has a .articu#ar to.ic of its
own= A .assa<e must be inter.reted consistent#y with the to.ic of that cha.ter=
There is a certain re#ation between Adhikaranas or to.ics themse#ves= One
Adhikarana #eads to another throu<h some .articu#ar association of ideas= In a
$ada or section there are many Adhikaranas and they are not .ut to<ether in a
ha.haGard manner=
Syno.sis
This section <ives a birdIs&eye view of the sub0ect dea#t with in the Brahma
Sutras name#y the nature of the Su.reme Brahman or the %i<hest Se#f, of the
individua# sou# and the universe and their inter&re#ations and <ives hints on
meditation on Brahman=
Adhikarana I1 Sutra * <ives a hint that the book is meant for those who are
endowed with a rea# desire for attainin< the know#ed<e of Brahman=
Adhikarana II1 Sutra 2 defines Brahman as that whence the wor#d ori<inates
etc=
Adhikarana III1 Sutra , dec#ares that Brahman is the source of the (edas and
that Brahman is known on#y by the study of Sruti and by no other means of
know#ed<e=
Adhikarana I(1 Sutra 3 .roves Brahman to be the uniform to.ic of a##
(edanta te>ts=
Adhikarana (1 Sutras 4 to ** show that none but Brahman is admitted by
Sruti to be the cause of the wor#d= They .rove by various co<ent and convincin<
ar<uments that the Brahman which the (edantic te>ts .roc#aim as the cause of
the universe is an inte##i<ent .rinci.#e, and cannot be identified with the noninte##i<ent
or insentient $radhana from which the wor#d ori<inates, as dec#ared by
the Sankhyas=
Adhikarana (I1 Sutras *2 to *6 raise the @uestion whether the HAnandamayaI
in Taittiriya ?.anishad II&4 is mere#y the individua# sou# or the Su.reme Se#f= The
Sutras show that Brahman is A##&B#iss and that by the term HAnandamayaI in Sruti
is meant neither the individua# sou#, nor the $radhana of Sankhyas= The Sutras
.rove that they a## describe none but Brahman=
Adhikarana (II1 Sutras 28 and 2*, show that the <o#den .erson seen within
the sun and the .erson seen within the eye mentioned in !hh= ?.= I&5 are not
some individua# sou# of hi<h eminence, but the hi<hest Brahman or the Su.reme
Se#f=
Adhikarana (III1 Sutra 22 shows that the ether +Akasa- from which accordin<
to !hh= ?.= I&6 a## bein<s ori<inate, is not the e#ementa# ether but the Su.reme
Brahman=
Adhikarana IK1 Sutra 2, shows that $rana, a#so mentioned in !hh= ?.= I&**&
*4 is the Su.reme Brahman=
Adhikarana K1 Sutras 23 to 27 teach that the #i<ht s.oken of in !hh= ?.= III&
*,&7 is not the ordinary .hysica# #i<ht but the Su.reme Brahman=
Adhikarana KI1 Sutras 29 to ,* decide that the $rana mentioned in ;au= ?.=
III&2 is Brahman=
/i0nasadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutra *-
The en@uiry into Brahman and its .re&re@uisites
Athato Brahma0i0nasa I=*=* +*-
"ow, therefore, the en@uiry into Brahman=
Atha1 now, then, afterwardsC Atah1 thereforeC Brahma0i0nasa1 a desire for
the know#ed<e of Brahman +the en@uiry into the rea# nature of Brahman-=
Sutra #itera##y means a strin<= It serves the .ur.ose of strin<in< to<ether the
f#owers of the (edanta .assa<es=
The word Atha is not used to introduce a new sub0ect that is <oin< to be
taken u.= It is here to be taken as denotin< immediate consecution=
The en@uiry of Brahman s.ecia##y de.ends u.on some antecedent conditions=
The en@uirer shou#d be endowed with certain s.iritua# re@uisites or @ua#ifications=
Then on#y the en@uiry is .ossib#e=
Atha i=e=, after the attainment of certain .re#iminary @ua#ifications such as the
four means of sa#vation viG=, +*- "itya&anitya&vastu&viveka +discrimination
between the eterna# and the non&eterna#-C +2- Ihamutrartha.ha#abho<avira<a
+indifference to the en0oyment in this #ife or in heaven, and of the fruits of oneIs
actions-C +,- Shatsam.at +si>fo#d virtues viG=, Sama & contro# of mind, Dama &
contro# of the e>terna# senses, ?.arati & cessation from wor#d#y en0oyments or not
thinkin< of ob0ects of senses or discontinuance of re#i<ious ceremonies, Titiksha &
endurance of .#easure and .ain, heat and co#d, Sraddha & faith in the words of the
.rece.tor and of the ?.anishads and Samadhana & dee. concentration-C +3-
'umukshutva +desire for #iberation-=
Those who have <ot an earnest desire for the know#ed<e of Brahman on#y are
fit for the study of (edanta $hi#oso.hy or Brahma Sutras= Even without .ossessin<
the know#ed<e of ;arma ;anda which dea#s with re#i<ious ceremonies or sacrifices,
a desire for attainin< the know#ed<e of Brahman wi## arise direct from the study of
the Srutis= The en@uiry of Brahman does not de.end on the .erformance of any
acts=
)ou must know and rea#ise the eterna# Brahman= Then on#y you wi## attain
eterna# b#iss, freedom, .erfection and immorta#ity= )ou must have certain
.re#iminary @ua#ifications for your search= Bhy shou#d you en@uire about
BrahmanL Because the fruits obtained by sacrifices etc=, are e.hemera#, whereas
the know#ed<e of Brahman is eterna#= Life in this earth and the #ife in heaven
which you wi## attain on account of your virtuous deeds is transient= If you know
Brahman, you wi## en0oy ever#astin< b#iss and immorta#ity= That is the reason why
you must start the @uest of Brahman or the Truth or the ?#timate Rea#ity=
A time comes when a .erson becomes indifferent to ;armas= %e knows that
;armas cannot <ive him ever#astin<, una##oyed ha..iness which is not mi>ed with
.ain, sorrow and fear= Therefore, natura##y, a desire arises in him for the
know#ed<e of Brahman or the a##&.ervadin<, eterna# Sou# which is above ;armas,
which is the source of eterna# ha..iness=
!harvakas or Lokayatikas think that the body is the sou#= Some think that the
senses are the sou#= Some others think that the mind is the sou#= Some think that
the inte##ect is the sou#= Some think that the sou# is a mere momentary idea=
Some think that nothin< e>ists in rea#ity= Some think that there is a sou#
which is different from the body which is both a<ent and en0oyer of the fruits of
action= Others ho#d that he is not a doer but is on#y an en0oyer= Some think that
the individua# sou# is a .art of the Su.reme Sou#= (edantins maintain that the
individua# sou# is identica# with the Su.reme Sou#= Different schoo#s of .hi#oso.hy
ho#d different views= Therefore it is necessary to e>amine the truth of thin<s very
carefu##y=
;now#ed<e of Brahman destroys Avidya or i<norance which is the root of a##
evi#, or the seed of this formidab#e Samsara or wor#d#y #ife= %ence you must
entertain the desire of knowin< Brahman= ;now#ed<e of Brahman #eads to the
attainment of the fina# emanci.ation= %ence an en@uiry about Brahman throu<h
the study of the Srutis which treats of Brahman is worthwhi#e and shou#d be
undertaken=
The @uestion now arises1 Bhat are the characteristics of that BrahmanL The
nature of the Brahman is described in the fo##owin< Sutra or a.horism=
/anmadyadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra 2-
Definition of Brahman
/anmadyasya yatah I=*=2 +2-
+Brahman is that- from which the ori<in etc=, +i=e= the ori<in,
sustenance and disso#ution- of this +wor#d .roceed-=
/anmadi1 ori<in etc=C Asya1 of this +wor#d-C )atah1 from which=
Answer to the en@uiry of Brahman is brief#y <iven in this Sutra= It is stated
that Brahman who is eterna##y .ure, wise and free +"itya, Buddha, 'ukta
Svabhava- is the on#y cause, stay and fina# resort of this wor#d= Brahman who is
the ori<inator, .reserver and absorber of this vast wor#d must have un#imited
.owers and characteristics= %ence %e is Omni.otent and Omniscient= Bho but the
Omni.otent and Omniscient Brahman cou#d create, ru#e and destroy itL !ertain#y
mere atoms or chance cannot do this work= E>istence cannot come out of none>istence
+E> nihi#o nihi# fit-= The ori<in of the wor#d cannot .roceed from a noninte##i<ent
$radhana or $rakriti= It cannot .roceed from its own nature or
Svabhava s.ontaneous#y without a cause, because s.ecia# .#aces, times and
causes are needed for the .roduction of effects=
Brahman must have some characteristics= )ou can attain know#ed<e of
Brahman throu<h ref#ection on its attributes= Otherwise it is not .ossib#e to have
such know#ed<e= Inference or reasonin< is an instrument of ri<ht know#ed<e if it
does not contradict the (edanta te>ts=
In the ascertainment of Truth or the ?#timate Rea#ity or the first cause the
scri.tures a#one are authoritative because they are infa##ib#e, they contain the
direct intuitive e>.eriences of Rishis or Seers who attained Brahma Sakshatkara or
Se#f&rea#isation= )ou cannot de.end on inte##ect or reasons because a man of
stron< inte##ect can overthrow a man of weak inte##ect= Brahman is not an ob0ect of
the senses= It is beyond the reach of the senses and the inte##ect=
The second Sutra does not .ro.ound here that inference serves as the means
of knowin< Brahman= It .oints to a (edantic te>t which <ives a descri.tion of the
characteristics of Brahman= Bhat then, is that (edanta te>tL It is the .assa<e of
Taittiriya ?.anishad III&i1 Bhri<u (aruni went to his father (aruna sayin< & ESir,
teach me Brahman=F (aruna said1 EThat from whence these bein<s are born, that
by which, when born they #ive, that into which they enter at their death, try to
know That= That is Brahman=F
)ou wi## attain Se#f&rea#isation throu<h meditation on Brahman or the truths
dec#ared by (edantic te>ts and not throu<h mere reasonin<= $ure reason +Suddha
Buddhi- is a he#. in Se#f&rea#isation= It investi<ates and revea#s the truths of the
Scri.tures= It has a .#ace a#so in the means of Se#f&rea#isation= But .erverted
inte##ect +(i.arita Buddhi- is a <reat hindrance= It kee.s one far away from the
Truth=
That which is the cause of the wor#d is Brahman= This is Tatastha Lakshana=
The ori<in, sustenance and disso#ution of the wor#d are characteristics of the
wor#d= They do not .ertain to the eterna# unchan<in< Brahman= )et these indicate
Brahman which is the cause for this universe= Srutis <ive another definition of
Brahman= This is a descri.tion of its true, essentia# nature ESatyam /nanam
Anantam Brahma & Truth, ;now#ed<e, Infinity is Brahman=F This is Svaru.a
Lakshana=
The know#ed<e of the rea# nature of a thin< does not de.end on the notions
of man but on#y on the thin< itse#f= The know#ed<e of Brahman a#so de.ends
a#to<ether on the thin<, i=e=, Brahman itse#f= Action de.ends entire#y on your wi##
but .erce.tion is not an effect of vo#ition= It de.ends on the ob0ect .erceived= )ou
cannot convert a tree into a man by an act of wi##= A tree wi## remain a tree
a#ways= Simi#ar#y Rea#isation of Brahman is (astu Tantra= It de.ends on the rea#ity
of the ob0ect= It is not $urusha Tantra= It does not de.end on vo#ition= It is not
somethin< to be accom.#ished by action= Brahman is not an ob0ect of the senses=
It has no connection with other means of know#ed<e= The senses are finite and
de.endent= They have on#y e>terna# thin<s for their ob0ects, not Brahman= They
are characterised by out<oin< tendencies on account of the force of Ra0as= They
are in their nature so constituted that they run towards e>terna# ob0ects= They
cannot co<nise Brahman=
;now#ed<e of Brahman cannot come throu<h mere reasonin<= )ou can attain
this know#ed<e throu<h intuition or reve#ation= Intuition is the fina# resu#t of the
en@uiry into Brahman= The ob0ect of en@uiry is an e>istin< substance= )ou wi##
have to know this on#y throu<h intuition or direct co<nition +A.arakosha& anubhuti
or Anubhava & e>.erience-= Sravana +hearin< of the Srutis-, 'anana +ref#ection on
what you have heard-, "ididhyasana +.rofound meditation- on Brahman #eads to
intuition= The Brahmakara (ritti is <enerated from the Sattvic Antahkarana which
is e@ui..ed with the four means of sa#vation, and the instructions of the :uru,
who has understood the rea# si<nificance of HTat Tvam AsiI 'ahavakya= This
Brahmakara (ritti destroys the 'u#a&Avidya or .rimitive i<norance, the root cause
of a## bonda<e, births and deaths= Bhen the i<norance or vei# is removed,
Brahman which is se#f&effu#<ent revea#s Itse#f or shines by Itse#f in Its .ristine
<#ory and ineffab#e s.#endour= In ordinary .erce.tion of ob0ects the mind assumes
the form of the ob0ect= The (ritti or ray of the mind removes the vei# +Avaranabhan<a-
that enve#o.s the ob0ect and (ritti&sahita&chaitanya or inte##i<ence
ref#ected in the modification of the mind revea#s the ob0ect= Then on#y you co<nise
the ob0ect= There is (ritti&vya.ti and there is $ha#a&vya.ti a#so in the .erce.tion of
an ob0ect= )ou want a (ritti and inte##i<ence +!haitanya- associated with the (ritti=
But in the case of co<nition of Brahman there is no $ha#a&vya.ti= There is on#y
(ritti&vya.ti as Brahman is se#f&#uminous= If there is a cu. in a .ot, you want a
#am. and the eyes to see the cu. in the dark, when the .ot is broken1 but if there
is a #am. within the .ot, you want the eyes on#y to see the #am. when the .ot is
broken= )ou do not want a #am.=
Sastrayonitvadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutra ,-
Brahman is rea#isab#e on#y throu<h the scri.tures
Sastrayonitvat I=*=, +,-
The scri.ture bein< the source of ri<ht know#ed<e=
Sastra1 the scri.tureC )onitvat1 bein< the source of or the means of the
ri<ht know#ed<e=
The Omniscience of Brahman fo##ows from %is bein< the source of scri.ture=
The a.horism c#ear#y .oints out that the Srutis a#one are .roof about Brahman=
As Brahman is the cause of the wor#d we have to infer that Brahman or the
Abso#ute is Omniscient= As the scri.ture a#one is the means of ri<ht know#ed<e
with reference to Brahman the .ro.osition #aid in Sutra 2 becomes confirmed=
Brahman is not mere#y the !reator, Sustainer and Destroyer of the wor#d, %e is
the source or womb of scri.tures and is revea#ed by scri.tures= As Brahman is
beyond the reach of the senses and the inte##ect, %e can be a..rehended on#y on
the authority of the Srutis which are infa##ib#e and contain the s.iritua# e>.eriences
of rea#ised seers or sa<es= The Srutis dec#are that Brahman %imse#f breathed forth
the (edas= Therefore %e who has brou<ht forth the Srutis or the (edas which
contain such wonderfu# divine know#ed<e must be a##&know#ed<e and a##&.owerfu#=
The scri.tures i##umine a## thin<s #ike a search #i<ht= Scri.ture is the source or
the means of ri<ht know#ed<e throu<h which you have a com.rehensive
understandin< of the nature of Brahman= Srutis furnish information about what is
not known from other sources= It cannot be known by other means of know#ed<e
inde.endent#y of the Srutis= Brahman is form#ess, co#our#ess, attribute#ess= %ence
it cannot be <ras.ed by the senses by direct .erce.tion= )ou can infer the
e>istence of fire by its accom.anyin< smoke but Brahman cannot be estab#ished
by inference or ana#o<y, because it is attribute#ess and there cannot be a second
thin< which is simi#ar to Brahman= Brahman is Infinite and second#ess= %e who is
i<norant of the Srutis cannot know that Su.reme Bein<= There are other means of
know#ed<e a#so which have <ot a .#ace but they are not inde.endent= They
su..#ement after Brahman is estab#ished by the Srutis=
Samanvayadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra 3-
Brahman the main .ur.ort of a## (edantic te>ts
Tattu Samanvayat I=*=3 +3-
But that +Brahman is to be known on#y from the Scri.tures and not
inde.endent#y by any other means is estab#ished-, because it is the
main .ur.ose +of a## (edantic te>ts-=
Tat1 thatC Tu1 butC Samanvayat1 on account of a<reement or harmony,
because it is the main .ur.ose=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 2 is continued= Brahman or the Abso#ute
can be known on#y from the scri.tures because a## the scri.tura# .assa<es can be
harmonised on#y by such a doctrine= The (edantic te>ts refer to Brahman on#y,
because they have Brahman for their main to.ic= The .ro.osition that Brahman is
the on#y cause of the wor#d is estab#ished1 because this is the authoritative sayin<
of the scri.tures= A## the (edantic te>ts a<ree in this res.ect=
The word HtuI +but- is em.#oyed to rebut the above $urva.aksha or the .rima
facie view as ur<ed above= It is .ro.er to say that Brahman is the uniform to.ic
tau<ht in a## the (edantic te>ts= BhyL Samanvayat= Anvaya means construin< a
.assa<e accordin< to the si> characteristics or Shad Lin<as viG=, +*- ?.akrama&
?.asamhara Ekavakyata & a<reement in be<innin< and conc#usionC +2- Abhyasa &
re.etitionC +,- A.urvata & ?ni@ueness of sub0ect matterC +3- $ha#a & fruitC +4-
Arthavada & .raise and +5- )ukti & reasonin<= These si> marks he#. to arrive at the
rea# .ur.ort of any work= In cha.ter si> of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad Brahman is
the main .ur.ort of a## .assa<es= In the be<innin< you wi## find EThis wor#d, my
chi#d, was but the Rea# +Sat- in the be<innin<=F It conc#udes, EIn it a## that e>ists
has its Se#f= It is true= It is the Se#f=F There is a<reement in the o.enin< and
conc#udin< .assa<es= This is ?.akrama&?.asamhara= ?dda#aka the .rece.tor,
re.eats HTat Tvam AsiI nine times to his disci.#e Svetaketu= This is re.etition
+Abhyasa-= Brahman is doubt#ess uni@ue, as %e is Infinite and second#ess= Bhen
you attain know#ed<e of Brahman everythin< e#se is known= This is $ha#a or fruit=
There is reasonin< in the scri.tures= /ust as .ots are nothin< but c#ay,
ornaments are nothin< but <o#d, so a#so this wor#d of names and forms is nothin<
but Brahman= If you know the nature of c#ay, you wi## know a## that is made out of
c#ay= Even so if you know Brahman, everythin< e#se wi## be known to you=
Brahman is the source of the creation, .reservation and disso#ution of the
universe= This is Artha&vada or Stuti&vada by way of .raise= A## these si> marks or
Shad Lin<as denote that the chief to.ic or main .ur.ort of the (edantic te>ts is
Brahman=
A## the (edanta&te>ts have for their .ur.ort Brahman, for e>am.#e, EBein<
on#y this was in the be<innin<, one without a secondF +!hh= ?.= (I&2&*- EIn the
be<innin< a## this was Atman or se#f on#yF +Ait= Ara= II&3&I&*-= EThis is Brahman
without cause and without effect, without anythin< inside or outsideC this se#f is
Brahman .erceivin< everythin<F +Bri= ?.= II&4&*6- EThat Immorta# Brahman is
beforeF +'un= ?.= II&2&**- and simi#ar .assa<es= It is not ri<ht to think that these
.assa<es have a different sense= The .assa<es cannot refer to a<ents, divinities
connected with acts of re#i<ious duty= )ou wi## find in Bri= ?.= II&3&*3, EThen by
what shou#d he see and BhomLF This c#ear#y shows that there is neither an a<ent,
nor an ob0ect of action, nor an instrument=
Brahman cannot become an ob0ect of .erce.tion and other means of
know#ed<e, because It is e>treme#y subt#e, abstract, infinite and a##&.ervadin<=
%ow can a finite insentient instrument know the InfiniteL The senses and the mind
derive their .ower and #i<ht from Brahman the source= Brahman is Se#f&#uminous,
Se#f&e>istent, Se#f&know#ed<e, Se#f&de#i<ht, and Se#f&contained= Brahman cannot
be rea#ised without the aid of (edantic .assa<e ETat Tvam Asi & Thou art ThatF
+!hh= ?.= (I&9&7-=
Bhen one rea#ises Brahman, he is tota##y freed from a## sorts of miseries and
.ains= %e attains the <oa# of #ife or the summum bonum= The conce.tion of dua#ity
as a<ent, action and the #ike is destroyed= Se#f&rea#isation is not a fruit of action= It
is not a resu#t of your wi##in< or doin<= It is the resu#t of rea#isin< oneIs identity
with Brahman= Scri.ture aims on#y at removin< the vei# of i<norance or Avidya=
Then the se#f&effu#<ent Brahman shines by Itse#f in Its .ristine <#ory= The state of
'oksha or the fina# emanci.ation is eterna#= It is not transient #ike the fruits
attained throu<h action= Action de.ends u.on the wi## and is inde.endent of the
ob0ect= ;now#ed<e de.ends on the nature of the ob0ect and is inde.endent of the
wi## of the knower=
A .ro.er understandin< of the (edantic te>ts #eads to the fina# emanci.ation
of man= It is not necessary for him to e>ert or do any su.erhuman feat or action=
It is on#y mere understandin< that it is a ro.e and not a snake that he#.s to
destroy oneIs fear= Scri.ture does not s.eak on#y of ethica# and ceremonia# duties=
It revea#s the sou# and he#.s one to attain Se#f&rea#isation= The sa<e who has
#earnt by the he#. of (edantic te>ts to remove the erroneous identification with the
body wi## not e>.erience .ain= It is on#y the i<norant wor#d#y minded man who
e>.eriences .ain on account of his identification with the body=
The attainment of heaven, .rocurin< a son, <ettin< rain, etc=, are tau<ht in
the (edas as incitement to the ac@uirement of know#ed<e of Brahman by baby
sou#s and to .roduce faith in man= Bhen he finds that the (edic 'antras have the
.ower to .roduce rain he <ets faith in them and has an inc#ination to study them=
%e <radua##y <ets dis<ust for the mundane ob0ects and deve#o.s discrimination
between the rea# and the transitory and burnin< yearnin< for #iberation= %e
deve#o.s #ove for Brahman= Therefore a## (edas teach Brahman= Sacrifices <ive
mundane fruits on#y when they are done with se#fish motives, on#y when ;ama or
stron< desire is at the back of the 'antras= Bhen they are .erformed with
"ishkamya Bhava without se#fish motives they .urify the heart and he#. to attain
know#ed<e of the Se#f= %ence ;arma ;anda itse#f, by teachin< the worshi. of
various deities, becomes .art of Brahma /nana= It is rea##y the worshi. of
Brahman, when the e#ement of desire or se#fishness is removed= Such a worshi.
.urifies the heart and .roduces a taste for en@uiry of Brahman= It does not
.roduce any other earth#y desire=
The ob0ect of en@uiry in the ;arma ;anda is somethin< to be accom.#ished
viG=, duty= The ob0ect of en@uiry in (edanta te>ts is the a#ready e>istent,
abso#ute#y accom.#ished Brahman= The fruit of the know#ed<e of Brahman must be
different from the fruit of know#ed<e of duty which de.ends on the .erformance of
action=
)ou wi## find in the ?.anishads E(eri#y the Se#f +Atman- is to be seenF Bri= ?.=
II&3&4= EThe Atman which is free from sin that it is which we must search out, that
it is which we must try to understandF !hh= ?. (III&7&*= ELet a man worshi. him
as Atman or the Se#f & Bri= ?. I&3&7C Let a man worshi. the Atman on#y as his true
state & Bri= ?.= I&3&*4C %e who knows Brahman becomes Brahman & 'un= ?.= III&
2&6F= These te>ts rouse in you a desire to know what that Brahman is= The
(edantic te>ts <ive a beautifu# descri.tion of the nature of Brahman= They teach
that Brahman is eterna#, a##&knowin<, abso#ute#y se#f&sufficient, ever .ure, free,
.ure know#ed<e, abso#ute b#iss, se#f&#uminous and indivisib#e= One attains fina#
emanci.ation as the fruit of meditation on Brahman=
The (edantic te>ts dec#are, EThe wise who knows the Atman as bodi#ess
within the bodies, as unchan<in< amon< chan<in< thin<s, as <reat and
omni.resent does never <rieveF +;atha ?.= II&22-= E%e is without breath, without
mind, .ureF +'un= ?.= II&*&2-= EThat .erson is not attached to anythin<F +Bri= ?.=
I(&,&*4-= A## these te>ts estab#ish the fact that the fina# emanci.ation differs from
a## the fruits of action and is an eterna##y and essentia##y bodi#ess state= 'oksha is
;utastha "itya, i=e=, eterna#, without under<oin< any chan<e= Brahman is
omni.resent #ike ether +Akasavat Sarva<ata- free from a## modifications
+"irvikara-, abso#ute#y Se#f&sufficient, Se#f&contained +"ira.eksha-, indivisib#e
+Akhanda-= %e is not com.osed of .arts +"ishka#a-= %e is Se#f&#uminous +Svayam
$rakasa, Svayam /yoti-=
)ou wi## find in ;atha ?.anishad, EDifferent from merit and demerit, different
from effect and cause, different from .ast and future is that BrahmanF +I&2&*3-=
'oksha is the same as Brahman= 'oksha or Brahman cannot be the effect of
actions= It cannot be su..#ementary to actions= If it is so it wou#d be non&eterna#=
To know Brahman is to become Brahman= 'undaka ?.anishad says, E%e who
knows Brahman becomes Brahman=F As Brahman is an a#ready e>istin< entity,
knowin< Brahman does not invo#ve an act #ike a ritua#istic act= Bhen Avidya or
nescience is destroyed throu<h know#ed<e of the Se#f, Brahman manifests Itse#f,
0ust as the ro.e manifests itse#f when the i##usion of snake is removed= As
Brahman is your Inner Se#f you cannot attain It by any action= It is rea#ised as
oneIs own Atman when the i<norance is annihi#ated= Te>ts #ike EThe Atman is to be
rea#isedF etc=, is not an in0unction= It is intended to withdraw the mind of the
as.irant from e>terna# ob0ects and turn it inwards=
Brahman is not an ob0ect of the action of knowin<= EIt is different from the
;nown and a<ain it is beyond the ?nknown +;ena ?.= I&,- E%ow shou#d he know
him by whom %e knows a## thisF +Bri= ?.= II&3&*3-= Brahman is e>.ress#y dec#ared
not to be the ob0ect of an act of devout worshi. +?.asana-= E;now that a#one to
be Brahman, not that which .eo.#e adore hereF +;ena ?.= I&4-=
The scri.ture never describes Brahman as this or that= Its .ur.ose is to show
that Brahman as the eterna# sub0ect, $ratya<atman, the inner Se#f is never an
ob0ect= It cannot be maintained that 'oksha or Brahman is somethin< to be
ceremonia##y .urified= There is no room for a .urificatory ceremony in the eterna##y
.ure Brahman=
Brahman is the Se#f or Atman of a##= It can neither be striven nor avoided= A##
ob0ects .erish because they are mere modifications of the five e#ements= But the
Sou# or Brahman is immorta# and unchan<in<= It is in its essence eterna##y .ure
and free=
%e who identifies himse#f with his body e>.eriences .ain= A sa<e who has
removed Dehadhyasa or identification of the body by identifyin< himse#f with the
.ure, a##&.ervadin< Brahman wi## not e>.erience .ain= A rich man who is .uffed u.
by the conceit of his wea#th is affected with <rief when he #oses his wea#th= But he
is not affected by the #oss of wea#th after he has once retired from the wor#d and
has become an ascetic= A sa<e who has attained know#ed<e of Brahman cannot be
a mere#y wor#d#y doer as before= %e does not be#on< to this wor#d as he did
before= A wor#d#y man a#so can become a sa<e of Se#f&rea#isation with the Bhava
of non&doer +Akarta-, non&a<ent +Abhokta-= The Srutis dec#are EBhen he is free
from the body, then neither .#easure nor .ain touches himF +!hh= ?.= (III&*2&*-=
The ob0ector may say EThe state of bein< free from the body fo##ows on#y when a
man dies=F This is entire#y wron< because the cause of man bein< 0oined to the
body is erroneous know#ed<e= The sa<e who has attained know#ed<e of Brahman,
and who identifies himse#f with Brahman is free from his body even whi#e sti##
a#ive= The Sruti a#so dec#ares E/ust as the s#ou<h of a snake #ies on an ant&hi##,
dead and cast away, so a#so #ies this body= That bodi#ess immorta# Sou# is
Brahman on#y, is on#y #i<ht=F +Bri= ?.= I(&3&7-= Bith eyes, %e is without eyes as it
wereC with ears, without ears as it wereC with s.eech, without s.eech as it wereC
with a mind, without mind as it wereC with $rana, without $rana as it wereC The
sa<e is no #on<er connected with action of any kind=
The Sankhyas say that the (edantic te>ts about creation do not refer to
Brahman but to the $radhana which is made u. of the three :unas & Sattva, Ra0as
and Tamas & as the irst !ause= They maintain that a## the (edanta te>ts which
treat of the creation of the wor#d c#ear#y .oint out that the cause of the wor#d has
to be conc#uded from the effect by inference and the cause which is to be inferred
is the connection of the $radhana or $rakriti with the Sou#s or $urushas= The
fo##owers of ;anada +the Schoo# of (aiseshika .hi#oso.hy- infer from the very
same .assa<es that the Lord is the efficient cause of the universe and the atoms
are its materia# cause=
The Sankhyas say EOmni.otence can be attributed to the $radhana as it has
a## its effects for its ob0ects= Omniscience a#so can be ascribed to it= ;now#ed<e is
rea##y an attribute of Sattva :una= Sattva is one of the com.onents of $radhana=
Therefore $radhana can be said to be omniscient= )ou cannot ascribe Omniscience
or #imited know#ed<e to the Sou# or $urusha which is iso#ated and .ure inte##i<ence
itse#f= Therefore the (edanta te>ts ascribe Omniscience to the $radhana a#thou<h
it is in itse#f non&inte##i<entF=
EBrahman is without any instruments of action= As $radhana has three
com.onents it seems reasonab#e that it a#one is ca.ab#e of under<oin<
modifications #ike c#ay into various ob0ects and may act as a materia# cause, whi#e
the uncom.ounded, homo<eneous and unchan<eab#e Brahman is unab#e to do so=
Therefore the (edantic te>ts which treat of creation c#ear#y refer to $radhana on#y
and therefore it is the irst !ause referred to by the scri.tures=F To these
conc#usions Sri (yasa <ives an answer in the fo##owin< Sutra=
Ikshatyadyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras 4&**-
Brahman +the inte##i<ent .rinci.#e- is the irst !ause
Ikshaternasabdam I=*=4 +4-
On account of seein< +i=e= thinkin< bein< attributed in the
?.anishads to the irst !ause, the $radhana- is not +the first cause
indicated by the ?.anishadsC for- it +$radhana- is not based on the
scri.tures=
Ikshateh1 on account of seein< +thinkin<-C "a1 is notC Asabdam1 not based
on the scri.tures=
Sutras 4 to ** refute the ar<uments of the Sankhyas and estab#ish Brahman
a#one as the irst !ause=
It is not .ossib#e to find room in the (edanta te>ts for the non&inte##i<ent
$radhana, because it is not based on scri.ture= BhyL Because seein< or thinkin< is
ascribed to the cause in the scri.ture= In the scri.ture it is said that the irst
!ause wi##ed or thou<ht before creation= )ou wi## find in the !hhando<ya
?.anishad (I&2, EBein< on#y, my dear, this was in the be<innin<, one on#y without
a second= It thou<ht H'ay I be many, may I <row forth=I It .ro0ected fire=F Aitareya
?.anishad says, EThe Atman wi##ed1 HLet me .ro0ect wor#dsI= So it .ro0ected these
wor#dsF +I&*&*=2-= In $rasna ?.anishad (I&, it is said of the .erson of si>teen
.arts= E%e thou<ht= %e sent forth $rana===F There cannot be any thinkin< or wi##in<
in the insentient $radhana= It is .ossib#e on#y if the irst !ause is an inte##i<ent
bein< #ike Brahman=
If it is said that such a @ua#ity can be attributed to $rakriti in a secondary
sense, 0ust as red&hot iron can be ca##ed fire because it can burn, we re.#y, why
shou#d we ascribe creative .ower and Omniscience to such $rakriti which we
invest with wi## and Omniscience in a secondary sense when we can ascribe
creative .ower and Omniscience to Brahman %imse#f to whom Bi## and
Omniscience can be ascribed in a .rimary sense=
BrahmanIs know#ed<e is .ermanent= %e is not in need of any instruments of
know#ed<e= %e is not in need of a body= %is know#ed<e is without any
obstructions= Svetasvatara ?.anishad says, E%e <ras.s without hands, moves
without feet, sees without eyes, hears without ears= %e knows what can be known,
but no one knows %im= They ca## %im the first, the :reat .ersonF +(I&9, III&*6-=
)ou cannot attribute sentiency +!hetanatva- to $radhana even in a fi<urative
sense, because it is said that the !reator became the sou# and entered the body=
%ow can the insentient matter +Achetana- become the sentient sou# +!hetana-L
(edantic te>ts em.hatica##y dec#are that by knowin< Brahman everythin< e#se can
be known= %ow can we know the sou#s by knowin< matterL
$radhana or matter cannot be the Sat which is described as the cause of the
wor#d, because that wou#d be o..osed to the scri.ture which uses the word
EIkshatehF= )ou wi## find in Svetasvatara ?.anishad, E%e, the :od of a## sou#s, is
the !reator of the wor#dF= Therefore it is @uite c#ear that Brahman and not
$radhana is the cause of this wor#d=
In a## (edantic te>ts there is a uniform dec#aration that !hetana
+consciousness- is the cause of the wor#d= $radhana .otentia##y contains a## forms
in a seed state= The who#e wor#d e>ists in it in a subt#e seed state in $ra#aya and
yet it cannot be re<arded as the !reator because it is non&sentient= (edanta te>ts
em.hatica##y dec#are that an Inte##i<ent Bein< wi##ed and created this universe= )ou
wi## find in !hhando<ya ?.anishad, EThe Sat e>isted in the be<innin<= It was one
without a second= It wi##ed to become many= It created fireF=
The ar<umentation of the Sankhyas that the $radhana is a##&knowin< because
of its Sattva is inadmissib#e, because Sattva is not .re.onderant in the $radhana
as the three :unas are in a state of e@ui.oise= If the $radhana is a##&knowin< even
in the condition of e@ui#ibrium +:unasamyavastha- on account of the .ower of
know#ed<e residin< in Sattva, it must be #itt#e&knowin< a#so on account of the
.ower of retardin< know#ed<e which resides in Ra0as and Tamas= Therefore whi#e
Sattva wi## make it a##&knowin<, Ra0as and Tamas wi## make it #itt#e&knowin<= This
is actua##y a contradiction= urther a modification of Sattva which is not connected
with a witnessin< .rinci.#e or si#ent Sakshi is not ca##ed know#ed<e= The noninte##i<ent
$radhana is devoid of such a .rinci.#e= %ence a##&knowin<ness cannot be
ascribed to $radhana=
The case of the )o<ins does not a..#y to the .oint under consideration here=
They attain Omniscience on account of e>cess of Sattva in them= There is an
inte##i<ent .rinci.#e +Sakshi- in him inde.endent of Sattva= Bhen a )o<i attains
know#ed<e of the .ast and the future on account of the <race of the Lord, you
cannot deny the Eternity and Infinity of BrahmanIs know#ed<e=
Brahman is .ure Inte##i<ence itse#f, ?nchan<eab#e= A##& knowin<ness and
creation are not .ossib#e for Brahman= To this ob0ection it can be re.#ied that
Brahman can be A##&knowin< and creative throu<h %is i##usory .ower, 'aya=
/ust as in the case of ether we ta#k of ether inside a 0ar and ether in the sky
but it is a## rea##y one ether, so a#so the differentiation of /iva and Isvara is on#y an
a..arent differentiation on account of #imitin< ad0uncts or ?.adhis, viG=, body and
mind=
The Sankhyas raise another ob0ection= They say that fire and water a#so are
fi<urative#y s.oken of as inte##i<ent bein<s= EThe fire thou<ht H'ay I be many, 'ay
I <rowI and it .ro0ected water= Bater thou<ht H'ay I be many, 'ay I <row,I it
.ro0ected earthF !hh= ?.= 5&2&,&3= %ere water and fire are insentient ob0ects, and
yet thinkin< is attributed to them= Even so the thinkin< by the Sat in the te>t
ori<ina##y @uoted can a#so be taken fi<urative#y in the case of $radhana a#so=
%ence, thou<h $radhana is insentient, it can yet be the irst !ause=
The fo##owin< Sutra refutes this ar<ument=
:aunaschet na Atmasabdat I=*=5 +5-
If it be said that +the word Hseein<I or thinkin<- is used in a
secondary sense, +we say- not so, because of the word Atman bein<
a..#ied to the cause of the wor#d=
:aunah1 indirect, secondary, fi<urativeC !het1 ifC "a1 notC Atmasabdat1
because of the word Atman, i=e=, sou#=
)ou say that the term HSatI denotes the non&inte##i<ent $radhana or $rakriti
and that Hthinkin<I is attributed to it in a secondary or fi<urative sense on#y as it is
to fire and water= )ou may ar<ue that inert thin<s are sometimes described as
#ivin< bein<s= Therefore $radhana can we## be acce.ted as the efficient cause of
the wor#d= This cannot stand= This is certain#y untenab#e= Bhy soL Because of the
terms HAtmanI +sou#- bein< a..#ied subse@uent#y in the Sruti to that which is the
cause of the wor#d vide the Sruti EA## this universe is in essence ThatC That is the
Truth= That is Atman +Sou#-= That thou art O Svetaketu=F !hh= ?.= (I&9&7=
+Instruction by ?dda#aka to his son, Svetaketu-=
The .assa<e in !hh= ?.= (I&2 be<ins, EBein< +Sat- on#y, my dear, this was in
the be<innin<F= After creatin< fire, water, earth, It thou<ht H#et me now enter into
these three as this #ivin< se#f +/iva- and evo#ve names and formsI !hh= ?.= (I&,&2=
The Sat, the irst !ause, refers to the inte##i<ent .rinci.#e, the /iva as its Se#f= By
the term /iva we must understand the inte##i<ent .rinci.#e which ru#es over the
body and su..orts the $rana= %ow cou#d such a .rinci.#e be the se#f of the noninte##i<ent
$radhanaL By Se#f or Atman we understand a bein<Is own nature=
Therefore it is @uite obvious that the inte##i<ent /iva cannot form the nature of the
non&inte##i<ent $radhana= The thinkin< on the .art of the fire and water is to be
understood as de.endent on their bein< ru#ed over by the Sat= %ence it is
unnecessary to assume a fi<urative sense of the word Hthinkin<I=
"ow the Sankhya comes with a new ob0ection= %e says that the word HAtmanI
+Se#f- may be a..#ied to the $radhana, a#thou<h it is non&inte##i<ent, on account of
its bein< fi<urative#y used in the sense of Hthat which serves a## .ur.oses of
anotherI, as for e>am.#e, a kin< uses the word Hse#fI to some servant who carries
out his wishes H:ovinda is my +other- se#fI= Simi#ar#y it a..#ies to $radhana a#so
because the $radhana works for the en0oyment and the fina# sa#vation of the sou#
and serves the sou# 0ust in the same manner as the minister serves his kin<= Or
e#se the word Atman +Se#f- may refer to non&inte##i<ent thin<s, as we## as to
inte##i<ent bein<s, as for instance, in e>.ressions #ike Bhutatma +the Se#f of the
e#ements-, Indriyatma +the Se#f of the senses- 0ust as the one word H#i<htI +/yoti-
denotes a certain sacrifice +the /yotistoma- as we## as a f#ame= Therefore the word
Se#f +Atman- can be used with reference to the $radhana a#so= %ow then does it
fo##ow from the word HSe#fI that the Hthinkin<I attributed to the cause of the
universe is not to be taken in a fi<urative senseL
The ne>t Sutra refutes the ar<ument=
Tannishthasya moksho.adesat I=*=7 +7-
+The $radhana cannot be desi<nated by the term Se#f- because
Sa#vation is dec#ared to one who is devoted to that Sat=
Tat1 to thatC "ishthasya1 of the devotedC 'oksho.adesat1 from the
statement of sa#vation=
urther reason is <iven in this Sutra to .rove that $radhana is not the cause
of this wor#d= The non&inte##i<ent $radhana cannot be denoted by the term HSe#fI
because !hhando<ya ?.anishad dec#ares1 EO SvetaketuD That +the subt#e Sat- is
the Se#f= HThou art ThatI=F An inte##i<ent man #ike Svetaketu cannot be identified
with the non&inte##i<ent $radhana= If the non&inte##i<ent $radhana were denoted by
the term HSatI, the meanin< of the 'ahavakya ETat Tvam AsiF wou#d be HThou art
non&inte##i<entI= The teachin< wi## come to this= )ou are an Achetana or noninte##i<ence
and emanci.ation is attainin< such a state of insentiency= Then the
Srutis wou#d be a source of evi#= The scri.tures wou#d make contradictory
statements to the disadvanta<e of man and wou#d thus not become a means of
ri<ht know#ed<e= It is not ri<ht to destroy the authority of the fau#t#ess Srutis= If
you assume that the infa##ib#e Sruti is not the means of ri<ht know#ed<e this wi## be
certain#y @uite unreasonab#e= The fina# emanci.ation is dec#ared in the Srutis to
him who is devoted to the Sat, who has his bein< in Sat= It cannot be attained by
meditation on the non&inte##i<ent $radhana vide Sruti1 H%e waits on#y ti## he is
re#eased and therefrom unites with BrahmanI +!hh= ?.= (I&*3&2-=
If the scri.ture which is re<arded as a means of ri<ht know#ed<e shou#d .oint
out a man who is desirous of emanci.ation but who is i<norant of the way to it, an
insentient se#f as the true Se#f he wou#d, #ike the b#ind man who had cau<ht ho#d
of the o>Is tai# to reach his vi##a<e, never be ab#e to attain the fina# re#ease or the
true Se#f=
Therefore the word HSe#fI is a..#ied to the subt#e Sat not in a mere#y fi<urative
sense= It refers to what is inte##i<ent on#y in its .rimary meanin<= The HSatI, the
first cause, does not refer to the $radhana but to an inte##i<ent .rinci.#e= It is
dec#ared in the Sruti that he, who is abso#ute#y devoted to the !reator or cause of
the wor#d, attains the fina# emanci.ation= It is not reasonab#e to say that one
attains his re#ease by devotion to b#ind matter, $radhana= %ence $radhana cannot
be the !reator of the wor#d=
%eyatvavachanaccha I=*=9 +9-
And +the $radhana cannot be denoted by the word HSe#fI-, because
it is not stated +by the scri.tures- that It +Sat- has to be
discarded=
%eyatva1 fitness to be discardedC Avachanat1 not bein< stated +by the
scri.tures-C !ha1 and=
Another reason is <iven in this Sutra to .rove that $radhana is not the
!reator of the universe=
If you want to .oint out to a man the sma## star Arundhati, you direct his
attention at first to a bi< nei<hbourin< star and say HThat is ArundhatiI a#thou<h it
is rea##y not so= Then you .oint out to him the rea# Arundhati= Even so if the
.rece.tor intended to make his disci.#e understand the Se#f ste. by ste. from
<rosser to subt#er truths throu<h the non&se#f he wou#d definite#y state in the end
that the Se#f is not of the nature of the $radhana and that the $radhana must be
discarded= But no such statement is made= The who#e cha.ter of the !hhando<ya
?.anishad dea#s with the Se#f as nothin< but that Sat=
An as.irant has been tau<ht to fi> his mind on the cause and meditate on it=
!ertain#y he cannot attain the fina# emanci.ation by meditatin< on the inert
$radhana= If the Sruti here meant the $radhana to be the cause of the wor#d, it
wou#d have sure#y asked the as.irant to abandon such a cause and find out
somethin< hi<her for his fina# emanci.ation= %ence $radhana cannot be the end
and aim of s.iritua# @uest=
The word HandI si<nifies that the contradiction of a .revious statement is an
additiona# reason for the re0ection=
urther this cha.ter be<ins with the @uestion, EBhat is that which bein<
known everythin< is knownL %ave you ever asked, my chi#d, for that instruction by
which you hear what cannot be heard, by which you .erceive what cannot be
.erceived, by which you know what cannot be known=F "ow if the term HSatI
denoted the $radhana, if the $radhana were the first cause, then by knowin<
$radhana everythin< must be known, which is not a fact= The en0oyer +sou#- which
is different from $radhana, which is not an effect of the $radhana cannot be
known by knowin< the $radhana= If HthatI or Sat means $radhana +matter- the
Srutis shou#d teach us to turn away from it= But it is not the case= It <ives a
definite assurance that by knowin< that everythin< can be known= %ow can we
know the sou# by knowin< matterL %ow can we know the en0oyer by knowin< the
en0oyedL %ence the $radhana is not denoted by the term HSatI= It is not the first
cause, knowin< which everythin< is known, accordin< to the Sruti=
or this the Sutrakara <ives another reason=
Sva.yayat I=*=6 +6-
On account of +the individua#- mer<in< in its own Se#f +the Se#f
cannot be the $radhana-=
Sva.yayat1 on account of mer<in< in oneIs own se#f=
The ar<ument to .rove that $radhana is not the cause of the universe or the
Se#f is continued=
The wakin< state is that where the mind, the senses and the body act in
concert to know the ob0ects= The individua# sou# identifies himse#f with the <ross
body= In the dreamin< state the body and the senses are at rest and the mind
.#ays with the im.ressions which the e>terna# ob0ects have #eft= The mind weaves
its web of (asanas= In dee. s#ee. the individua# sou# is free from the #imitation of
mind= %e rests in his own Se#f thou<h in a state of i<norance=
Bith reference to the cause denoted by the word HSatI the Sruti says, EBhen
a man s#ee.s here, then my chi#d, he becomes united with the Sat, he is <one to
his own se#f= Therefore they say of him Hhe s#ee.sI +Sva.iti- because he is <one to
his own +Svam A.ita- !hh= ?.= (I&9&*= rom the fact that the individua# sou#
mer<es in the universa# sou# in dee. s#ee., it is understood that the Se#f, which is
described in the Sruti as the u#timate Rea#ity, the cause of the wor#d is not
$radhana=
In the !hhando<ya te>t it is c#ear#y said that the individua# sou# mer<es or
reso#ves in the Sat= The inte##i<ent Se#f can c#ear#y not reso#ve itse#f into the noninte##i<ent
$radhana= %ence, the $radhana cannot be the irst !ause denoted by
the term HSatI in the te>t= That into which a## inte##i<ent sou#s are mer<ed in an
inte##i<ent cause of the universe is denoted by the term Sat and not the $radhana=
A further reason for the $radhana not bein< the cause is <iven in the ne>t
Sutra=
:atisamanyat I=*=*8 +*8-
On account of the uniformity of view +of the (edanta te>ts,
Brahman is to be taken as that cause-=
:ati1 viewC Samanyat1 on account of the uniformity=
The ar<ument to .rove that $radhana is not the cause of the universe is
continued=
A## the (edanta te>ts uniform#y refer to an inte##i<ent .rinci.#e as the irst
!ause= Therefore Brahman is to be considered as the cause= A## the (edanta te>ts
uniform#y teach that the cause of the wor#d is the inte##i<ent Brahman= The Srutis
dec#are thus, EAs from a burnin< fire s.arks .roceed in a## directions, thus from
that Se#f the $ranas .roceed each towards its .#ace, from the $ranas the <ods,
from the <ods the wor#dsF +;au= ?.= III&,-= Erom that Brahman s.ran< etherF
+Tait= ?.= II&*-= EA## this s.rin<s from the Se#fF +!hh= ?.= (II&2&5-= EThis $rana is
born from the Se#fF +$ra= ?.= III&,-= A## these .assa<es dec#are the Se#f to be the
cause= The term HSe#fI denotes an inte##i<ent bein<= Therefore the a##&knowin<
Brahman is to be taken as the cause of the wor#d because of the uniformity of
view of the (edanta&te>ts=
A further reason for this conc#usion is <iven in the fo##owin< Sutra=
Srutatvaccha I=*=** +**-
And because it is direct#y stated in the Sruti +therefore the a##knowin<
Brahman a#one is the cause of the universe-=
Srutatvat1 bein< dec#ared by the SrutiC !ha1 a#so, and=
The ar<ument that $radhana is not the cause of the wor#d is continued=
The A##&knowin< Lord is the cause of the universe= This is stated in a .assa<e
of the Svetasvatara ?.anishad (I&6, E%e is the cause, the Lord of the Lords of the
or<ans= %e has neither .arent nor LordF= H%eI refers to the a##&knowin< Lord
described in the cha.ter= Therefore it is fina##y estab#ished that the A##&knowin<, A##.owerfu#
Brahman is the irst !ause and not the insentient or non&inte##i<ent
$radhana or anybody e#se=
Thus the (edanta te>ts contained in Sutra I&*&** have c#ear#y shown that the
Omniscient, Omni.otent Lord is the cause of the ori<in, subsistence and
disso#ution of the wor#d= It is a#ready shown on account of the uniformity of view +I&
*&*8- that a## (edanta te>ts ho#d an inte##i<ent cause=
rom Sutra *2 onwards ti## the end of the first cha.ter a new to.ic is taken u.
for discussion= The ?.anishads s.eak of two ty.es of Brahman, viG=, the "ir<una
or Brahman without attributes and the Sa<una or Brahman with attributes=
The ?.anishads dec#are, Eor where there is dua#ity as it were, then one sees
the otherC but when the Se#f on#y is a## this, how shou#d he see anotherLF Bri= ?.=
I(&4&*4= EBhere one sees nothin< e#se, hears nothin< e#se, understands nothin<
e#se, that is the <reatest +Infinite, Bhuma-= Bhere one sees somethin< e#se, hears
somethin< e#se, understands somethin< e#se, that is the #itt#e +finite-= The <reatest
is immorta#C the #itt#e is morta#F !hh= ?.= (II&23&*= EThe wise one, who havin<
.roduced a## forms and made a## names, sits ca##in< the thin<s by their namesF
Tait= Ar= III&*2&7=
EBho is without .arts, without actions, tran@ui#, without fau#ts, without taint,
the hi<hest brid<e of immorta#ity, #ike a fire that has consumed its fue#F Svet= ?.=
(I&*6= E"ot so, not soF Bri= ?.= II&,&5= EIt is neither coarse nor fine, neither short
nor #on<C defective in one .#ace, .erfect in the otherF Bri= ?.= III&*&9=
A## these te>ts dec#are Brahman to .ossess a doub#e nature, accordin< as it is
the ob0ect either of nescience or know#ed<e= Brahman with attributes +Sa<una- is
within the domain of nescience= It is the ob0ect of ?.asana which is of different
kinds <ivin< different resu#ts, some to e>a#tations, some to <radua# emanci.ation
+;rama&'ukti-, some to success in works= Bhen it is the ob0ect of nescience,
cate<ories of devotee, ob0ect of devotion, worshi. are a..#ied to it= The kinds of
?.asana are distinct owin< to the distinction of the different @ua#ities and #imitin<
ad0uncts= The fruits of devotion are distinct accordin< as the worshi. refers to
different @ua#ities= The Srutis say EAccordin< as man worshi.s him, that he
becomes=F EAccordin< to what his thou<ht is in this wor#d, so wi## he be when he
has #eft this #ifeF !hh= ?.= III&*3&*= 'editation on the Sa<una Brahman cannot
#ead to immediate emanci.ation +Sadyo&'ukti-= It can on#y he#. one to attain
<radua# emanci.ation +;rama&'ukti-=
"ir<una Brahman of (edantins or /nanis is free from a## attributes and
#imitin< ad0uncts= It is "iru.adhika, i=e=, free from ?.adhi or 'aya= It is the ob0ect
of know#ed<e= The ;now#ed<e of the "ir<una Brahman a#one #eads to immediate
emanci.ation=
The (edantic .assa<es have a doubtfu# im.ort= )ou wi## have to find out the
true si<nificance of the te>ts throu<h reasonin<= )ou wi## have to make a .ro.er
en@uiry into the meanin< of the te>ts in order to arrive at a sett#ed conc#usion
re<ardin< the know#ed<e of the Se#f which #eads to instantaneous emanci.ation= A
doubt may arise whether the know#ed<e has the hi<her or the #ower Brahman for
its ob0ect as in the case of Sutra I&*&2=
)ou wi## find in many .#aces in the ?.anishads that Brahman is described
a..arent#y with @ua#ifyin< ad0uncts= The Srutis say that the know#ed<e of that
Brahman #eads to instantaneous re#ease +Sadyo&'ukti-= Borshi. of Brahman as
#imited by those ad0uncts cannot #ead to immediate emanci.ation= But if these
@ua#ifyin< ad0uncts are considered as not bein< u#timate#y arrived at by the
.assa<es but used mere#y as indicative of Brahman then these .assa<es wou#d
refer to the "ir<una Brahman and the fina# emanci.ation wou#d resu#t from
knowin< that Brahman= Therefore you wi## have to find out the true si<nificance of
the .assa<es throu<h carefu# en@uiry and reasonin<=
In some .#aces you wi## have to find out whether the te>t refers to Sa<una
Brahman or the individua# sou#= )ou wi## have to arrive at a .ro.er conc#usion as to
the true si<nificance of these .assa<es which evident#y have a doubtfu# im.ort
throu<h carefu# en@uiry and reasonin<= There wi## be no difficu#ty in understandin<
for the inte##i<ent as.irant who is endowed with a shar., subt#e and .ure inte##ect=
The he#. of the teacher is a#ways necessary=
%ere ends the commentary of the e#even Sutras which form a sub&section by
itse#f=
Anandamayadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras *2&*6-
Anandamaya is $ara Brahman
AnandamayoIbhyasat I=*=*2 +*2-
Anandamaya means $ara Brahman on account of the re.etition +of
the word Hb#issI as denotin< the %i<hest Se#f-=
Anandamayah1 fu## of b#issC Abhyasat1 because of re.etition=
"ow the author Badarayana takes u. the to.ic of Samanvaya= %e c#ear#y
shows that severa# words of the Srutis which are a..arent#y ambi<uous rea##y
a..#y to Brahman= %e be<ins with the word HAnandamayaI and takes u. other
words one after another ti## the end of the cha.ter=
Taittiriya ?.anishad says, EDifferent from this (i0nanamaya is another inner
Se#f which consists of b#iss +Anandamaya-= The former is fi##ed by this= /oy +$riya-
is its head= Satisfaction +'oda- is its ri<ht win< or arm= :reat satisfaction
+$ramoda- is its #eft win< or arm= B#iss +Ananda- is its trunk= Brahman is the tai#,
the su..ort=F II&4
"ow a doubt arises as to whether this Anandamaya is /iva +human sou#- or
$ara Brahman= The $urva.akshin or o..onent ho#ds that the Se#f consistin< of
b#iss +Anandamaya- is a secondary se#f and not the .rinci.a# Se#f, which is
somethin< different from Brahman, as it forms a #ink in a series of se#fs be<innin<
with the se#f consistin< of food +Annamaya-, a## of which are not the .rinci.a# Se#f=
Even thou<h the b#issfu# Se#f, Anandamaya $urusha, is stated to be the innermost
of a## it cannot be the .rimary Se#f, because it is stated to have 0oy, etc=, for its
#imits and to be embodied= EIt a#so has the sha.e of man= Like the human sha.e of
the former is the human sha.e of the #atterF= If it were identica# with the .rimary
Se#f, 0oy, satisfaction, etc=, wou#d not affect itC but the te>t c#ear#y says, H/oy is its
headI= The te>t a#so says, HOf that former one this one is the embodied Se#fI Tait=
?.= II&5= Of that former Se#f of b#iss +Anandamaya- is the embodied Se#f= That
which has a body wi## be certain#y affected by 0oy and .ain= The term Anandamaya
si<nifies a modification= Therefore it cannot refer to Brahman which is chan<e#ess=
urther five different .arts such as head, ri<ht arm, #eft arm, trunk and tai# are
mentioned of this Anandamaya Se#f= But Brahman is without .arts= Therefore the
Anandamaya Se#f is on#y /iva or the individua# sou#=
%ere is the answer of the Siddhantin= This Sutra shows that Brahman is B#iss=
By the Anandamaya Se#f we have to understand the %i<hest Se#f, Hon account of
re.etitionI= Abhyasa or re.etition means utterin< a word a<ain without any
@ua#ifications= It is one of the Shad Lin<as or si> characteristics or marks by which
the sub0ect matter of a .assa<e is ascertained=
The word HB#issI is re.eated#y a..#ied to the hi<hest Se#f= Taittiriya ?.anishad
says1 HRaso vai sah= Rasam hyevayam #abdhvanandi bhavatiI & H%e the %i<hest Se#f
is B#iss in itse#f= The individua# sou# becomes b#issfu# after attainin< that B#issI II&7=
HBho cou#d breathe forth if that B#iss did not e>ist in the ether of the heartL
Because %e a#one causes B#iss= %e attains that Se#f consistin< of B#issI II&7= E%e
who knows the B#iss of Brahman fears nothin<F II&6= And a<ain E%e +Bhri<u,
havin< taken recourse to meditation-, rea#ised or understood that B#iss is
Brahman & Anandam Brahmeti vya0anatF III&5=
(aruna teaches his son Bhri<u what is Brahman= %e first defines Brahman as
the cause of the creation, etc=, of the universe and then teaches him that a##
materia# ob0ects are Brahman= Such as, food is Brahman, $rana is Brahman, mind
is Brahman, etc= %e says this in order to teach that they are the materia#s of
which the wor#d is made= ina##y he conc#udes his teachin< with HAnandaI dec#arin<
that HAnanda is BrahmanI= %ere he sto.s and conc#udes that Hthe doctrine tau<ht
by me is based on Brahman, the Su.remeI Taitt= ?.= III&5&*=
E;now#ed<e and B#iss is BrahmanF Bri= ?.= III&6&27= As the word HB#issI is
re.eated#y used with reference to Brahman, we conc#ude that the Se#f consistin<
of b#iss is Brahman a#so=
It is ob0ected that the b#issfu# Se#f denotes the individua# sou# as it forms a
#ink in a series of secondary se#fs be<innin< with the Annamaya Se#f= This cannot
stand because the Anandamaya Se#f is the innermost of a##= The Sruti teaches ste.
by ste., from the <rosser to the subt#er, and more and more interior and finer for
the sake of easy com.rehension by men of sma## inte##ect= The first refers to the
.hysica# body as the Se#f, because wor#d#y minded .eo.#e take this body as the
Se#f= It then .roceeds from the body to another se#f, the $ranamaya se#f, then
a<ain to another one= It re.resents the non&se#f as the Se#f for the .ur.ose of easy
understandin<= It fina##y teaches that the innermost Se#f which consists of b#iss is
the rea# Se#f, 0ust as a man .oints out at first to another man severa# stars which
are not Arundhati as bein< Arundhati and fina##y .oints out in the end the rea#
Arundhati= Therefore here a#so the Anandamaya Se#f is the rea# Se#f as it is the
innermost or the #ast=
HTai#I does not mean the #imb= It means that Brahman is the su..ort of the
individua# sou# as %e is the substratum of the /iva=
The .ossession of a body havin< .arts and 0oy and so on as head, etc=, are
a#so attributed to It, on account of the .recedin< #imitin< condition viG=, the se#f
consistin< of understandin<, the so&ca##ed (i0nanamaya ;osha= They do not rea##y
be#on< to the rea# Se#f= The .ossession of a body is ascribed to the Se#f of B#iss,
on#y because it is re.resented as a #ink in the chain of bodies which be<ins with
the se#f consistin< of food= It is not attributed to it in the same sense in which it is
.redicated of the individua# sou# or the secondary se#f +the Samsarin-= Therefore
the Se#f consistin< of B#iss is the hi<hest Brahman=
Thus, the Sutra estab#ishes that Anandamaya is Brahman= But the
commentator Sankara has a new orientation of out#ook in this re<ard= The Acharya
says that Anandamaya cannot be Brahman because Anandamaya is one of the five
sheaths or ;oshas of the individua#, the other four bein< Annamaya +.hysica#
body-, $ranamaya +vita# body-, 'anomaya +menta# body-, and (i0nanamaya
+inte##ectua# body-= The Anandamaya is actua##y the causa# body which determines
the functions of the other sheaths= The individua# enters into the Anandamaya
sheath in dee. s#ee. and en0oys b#iss there, which is the reason why this sheath is
ca##ed Anandamaya +b#iss&fi##ed-= A covera<e of individua#ity cannot be re<arded as
Brahman= urther, if Anandamaya had been Brahman itse#f, the individua# in dee.
s#ee. wi## be united with Brahman in that condition= But this does not ha..en since
one who <oes to s#ee. returns to ordinary wakin< e>.erience= %ence the
Anandamaya is not Brahman=
(ikarasabdanneti chet na .rachuryat I=*=*, +*,-
If +it be ob0ected that the term Anandamaya consistin< of b#iss
can- not +denote the su.reme Se#f- because of its bein< a word
denotin< a modification or transformation or .roduct +we say that the
ob0ection is- not +va#id- on account of abundance, +which is denoted
by the suffi> HmayaI-=
(ikara sabdat1 from the word HAnandamayaI with the suffi> HmayatI denotin<
modificationC "a1 is notC Iti1 thisC thusC !het1 ifC "a1 not soC $rachuryat1
because of abundance=
An ob0ection a<ainst Sutra *2 is refuted in this Sutra=
If the ob0ector says that HmayaI means modification, it cannot be= Be cannot
.redicate such a modification with re<ard to Brahman who is chan<e#ess= Be re.#y
that HmayaI means fu#ness or abundance and Anandamaya means not a derivative
from Ananda or B#iss but fu#ness or abundance of b#iss=
The word HAnandamayaI has been certain#y a..#ied to denote the Su.reme
Sou# or the %i<hest Se#f and not the individua# sou#= In the Tait= ?.= II&9 the B#iss
of Brahman is fina##y dec#ared to be abso#ute#y Su.reme= E'ayaF therefore denotes
abundance or Efu#nessF=
Anandamaya does not mean absence of .ain or sorrow= It is a .ositive
attribute of Brahman and not a mere ne<ation of .ain= Anandamaya means H%e
whose essentia# nature or Svaru.a is Ananda or B#issI= Bhen we say1 Hthe sun has
abundance of #i<htI, it rea##y means, the sun, whose essentia# nature is #i<ht is
ca##ed /yotirmaya= Therefore Anandamaya is not /iva but Brahman= HAnandamayaI,
is e@ua# to HAnanda&svaru.aI & %e whose essentia# nature is b#iss= H'ayaI has not
the force of (ikara or modification here=
The word HAnandaI or B#iss is used re.eated#y in the Srutis on#y with reference
to Brahman= H'ayaI does not mean that Brahman is a modification or effect of
B#iss= H'ayaI means .ervasion=
The .hrase HThe sacrifice is AnnamayaI means Hthe sacrifice is aboundin< in
foodI, not His some modification or .roduct of foodDI Therefore here a#so Brahman,
as aboundin< in B#iss, is ca##ed Anandamaya=
Taddhetuvya.adesaccha I=*=*3= +*3-
And because he is dec#ared to be the cause of it +i=e= of b#issC
therefore HmayaI denotes abundance or fu#ness-=
Tad M %etu1 the cause of that, name#y the cause of AnandaC (ya.adesat1
because of the statement of dec#arationC !ha1 and=
Another ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *2 is <iven=
The Srutis dec#are that Eit is Brahman who is the cause of b#iss of a##=F EEsha
hyevanandayati & or he a#one causes b#issF Tait= ?.= II&7= %e who causes b#iss
must himse#f abound in b#iss, 0ust as a man who enriches others must himse#f be
in .ossession of abundant wea#th= The <iver of b#iss to a## is B#iss itse#f= As H'ayaI
may be understood to denote abundance, the Se#f consistin< of b#iss,
Anandamaya, is the Su.reme Se#f or Brahman=
The Sruti dec#ares that Brahman is the source of b#iss to the individua# sou#=
The donor and the donee cannot be one and the same= Therefore it is understood
that HAnandamayaI as stated in Sutra *2 is Brahman=
'antravarnikameva cha <iyate I=*=*4 +*4-
'oreover that very Brahman which has been re&referred to in the
'antra .ortion is sun< +i=e= .roc#aimed in the Brahmana .assa<e as
the Anandamaya-=
'antra&varnikam1 %e who is described in the 'antra .ortionC Eva1 the very
sameC !ha1 and a#so, moreoverC :iyate1 is sun<=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *2 is continued= The .revious .roofs were
founded on Lin<as= The ar<ument which is now <iven is based on $rakarana=
The Se#f consistin< of b#iss is the hi<hest Brahman for the fo##owin< reason
a#so= The second cha.ter of the Taittiriya ?.anishad be<ins, E%e who knows
Brahman attains the %i<hest & Brahmavida.noti $aram= Brahman is Truth,
;now#ed<e and Infinity +Satyam, /nanam, Anantam Brahma-F +Tait= ?.= II&*-=
Then it is said that from Brahman s.ran< at first the ether and then a## other
movin< and non&movin< thin<s= The Brahman enterin< into the bein<s stays in the
recess, inmost of a##= Then the series of the different se#f are enumerated= Then for
easy understandin< it is said that different from this is the inner Se#f= ina##y the
same Brahman which the 'antra had .roc#aimed is a<ain .roc#aimed in the
.assa<e under discussion, Edifferent from this is the other inner Se#f, which
consists of b#issF= The Brahmanas on#y e>.#ain what the 'antras dec#are= There
cannot be a contradiction between the 'antra and Brahmana .ortions=
A further inner Se#f different from the Se#f consistin< of b#iss is not mentioned=
On the same i=e= the Se#f consistin< of b#iss is founded= EThis same know#ed<e of
Bhri<u and (aruna, he understood that b#iss is BrahmanF Tait= ?.= III&5= Therefore
the Se#f consistin< of B#iss is the Su.reme Se#f=
EBrahmavida.noti $aramF & The knower of Brahman obtains the %i<hest= This
shows that the worshi..er /iva obtains the worshi..ed Brahman= Therefore
Brahman who is the ob0ect attained must be considered as different from the /iva
who obtains, because the obtained and the obtainer cannot be one and the same=
%ence the Anandamaya is not /iva= The Brahman which is described in the
'antras +Satyam /nanam Anantam Brahma- is described #ater on in the
Brahmanas as Anandamaya= It is our duty to rea#ise the identity of the teachin< in
the 'antras and the Brahmanas which form the (edas=
"etaroInu.a.atteh I=*=*5 +*5-
+Brahman and- not the other +i=e= the individua# sou# is meant
here- on account of the im.ossibi#ity +of the #atter assum.tion-=
"a1 notC Itarah1 the other i=e= the /ivaC Anu.a.atteh1 because of the
im.ossibi#ity, non&reasonab#eness=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *2 is continued=
The /iva is not the bein< referred to in the 'antra ESatyam /nanam Anantam
BrahmaF because of the im.ossibi#ity of such a construction=
The individua# sou# cannot be denoted by the term Ethe one consistin< of
b#iss=F BhyL On account of the im.ossibi#ity= Because the scri.ture says with
reference to the Se#f consistin< of b#iss, E%e wished H'ay I be many, may I <row
forth=I %e ref#ected= After he had thus ref#ected, he sent forth whatever there isF=
%e who is referred to in the .assa<e, EThe Se#f consistin< of b#iss etc=F is said
to be creator of everythin<= E%e .ro0ected a## this whatever isF Tait= ?.= II&5= The
/iva or the individua# sou# cannot certain#y do this= Therefore he is not referred to
in the .assa<e EThe Se#f consistin< of b#issF etc=
Bhedavya.adesaccha I=*=*7 +*7-
And on account of the dec#aration of the difference +between the
two i=e= the one referred to in the .assa<e HThe Se#f consistin< of
b#issI etc= and the individua# sou#, the #atter cannot be the one
referred to in the .assa<e-=
Bheda1 differenceC (ya.adesat1 because of the dec#arationC !ha1 and=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *2 is continued=
The Sruti makes a distinction between the two= It describes that one is the
<iver of b#iss and the other as the receiver of b#iss= The /iva or the individua# sou#,
who is the receiver, cannot be the Anandamaya, who is the <iver of b#iss=
EThe Se#f consistin< of b#iss is of the essence of f#avour attainin< which the
individua# sou# is b#issfu#1 Raso vai sah +Brahma- Rasam hyevaIyam +/iva-
#abdhvaInandi bhavati=F Tait= ?.= II&7=
That which is attained and the attainer cannot be the same=
%ence the individua# sou# is not referred to in the .assa<e which is under
discussion=
;amachcha "anumana.eksha I=*=*9 +*9-
Because of wishin< or wi##in< in the scri.tura# .assa<e we cannot
say even inferentia##y that Anandamaya means $radhana=
;amat1 because of desire or wi##in<C !ha1 andC "a1 notC Anumana1 the
inferred one, i= e= the $radhanaC A.eksha1 necessity=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *2 is continued=
The word HAkamyataI +wi##ed- in the scri.tura# te>t shows that the
Anandamaya cannot be $radhana +.rimordia# matter-, because wi## cannot be
ascribed to non&sentient +/ada- matter= $rakriti is non&sentient and can have no
;amana or wish= Therefore the Anandamaya with re<ard to which the word ;ama
is used cannot be $rakriti or $radhana= That which is inferred i=e= the noninte##i<ent
$radhana assumed by the Sankhyas cannot be re<arded as bein< the
Se#f of b#iss +Anandamaya- and the cause of the wor#d=
Asminnasya cha tadyo<am sasti I=*=*6 +*6-
And moreover it, i e=, the scri.ture, teaches the 0oinin< of
this, i=e=, the individua# sou#, with that, i=e=, consistin< of b#iss
+Anandamaya- when know#ed<e is attained=
Asmin1 in himC in the .erson ca##ed AnandamayaC Asya1 his, of the /ivaC
!ha1 and, a#soC Tat1 thatC )o<am1 unionC Sasti1 +Sruti- teaches=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *2 is conc#uded in this Sutra=
Scri.ture teaches that the /iva or the individua# sou# obtains the fina#
emanci.ation when he attains know#ed<e, when he is 0oined or identified with the
Se#f of b#iss under discussion= The Sruti dec#ares, EBhen he finds freedom from
fear, and rest in that which is invisib#e, bodi#ess, indefinab#e and su..ort#ess, then
he has attained the fear#ess +Brahman-= If he has the sma##est distinction in it
there is fear +of Samsara- for himF Tait= ?.= **&7=
$erfect rest is .ossib#e on#y when we understand by the Se#f consistin< of
b#iss, the Su.reme Se#f and not either the $radhana or the individua# sou#=
Therefore it is .roved that the Se#f consistin< of b#iss +Anandamaya- is the
Su.reme Se#f or $ara Brahman=
Antaradhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras 28&2*-
The bein< or .erson in the Sun and the eye is Brahman
Antastaddharmo.adesat I=*=28 +28-
The bein< within +the Sun and the eye- is Brahman, because %is
attributes are tau<ht therein=
Antah1 +Antaratma, the bein< within the sun and the eye-C Tat Dharma1 %is
essentia# attributeC ?.adesat1 because of the teachin<, as Sruti teaches=
The wonderfu# $urusha of !hhando<ya ?.anishad described in cha.ters *, 5
and 7 is Brahman=
rom the descri.tion in the !hhando<ya ?.anishad of the essentia# @ua#ities
be#on<in< to the Indwe##in< S.irit residin< in the Sun and in the human eye, it is to
be understood that he is Brahman and not the individua# sou#= )ou wi## find in
!hhando<ya ?.anishad I&5&5, E"ow that .erson bri<ht as <o#d who is seen within
the sun, with beard bri<ht as <o#d and hair bri<ht as <o#d a#to<ether to the very
ti.s of his nai#s, whose eyes are #ike b#ue #otus= %is name is H?tI because he has
risen +?dita- above a## evi#= %e transcends a## #imitations= %e a#so who knows this
rises above a## evi#= So much with reference to the Devas=F
Bith reference to the body, E"ow the .erson who is seen in the eye is Rik= %e
is Sama= %e is ?ktha= %e is )a0us= %e is Brahman= %is form is the same as that of
the former i=e= of the Bein< in the Sun= The 0oints of the one are the 0oints of the
other, the name of the one is the name of the otherF !hh= ?.= I&7&4=
Do these te>ts refer to some s.ecia# individua# sou# who by means of
know#ed<e and .ious deeds has raised himse#f to an e>a#ted stateC or do they refer
to the eterna##y .erfect su.reme BrahmanL The $urva.akshin says that the
reference is to an individua# sou# on#y, as the scri.ture s.eaks of a definite sha.e,
.articu#ar abode= S.ecia# features are attributed to the .erson in the Sun, such as
the .ossession of beard as bri<ht as <o#d and so on= The same characteristics
be#on< to the bein< in the eye a#so=
On the contrary no sha.e can be attributed to the Su.reme Lord, EThat which
is without sound, without touch, without form, without decayF ;au= ?.= I&,&*4=
urther a definite abode is stated, E%e who is in the Sun= %e who is in the
eyeF= This shows that an individua# sou# is meant= As re<ards the Su.reme Lord,
he has no s.ecia# abode, EBhere does he restL In his own <#oryF !hh= ?.= (II&23&
*= ELike the ether he is Omni.resent, Eterna#F=
The .ower of the bein< in @uestion is said to be #imited= E%e is the Lord of the
wor#ds beyond that and of the wishes of the Devas,F shows that the .ower of the
bein< in the Sun is #imited= E%e is the Lord of the wor#ds beneath that and of the
wishes of men,F shows that the .ower of the .erson in the eye is #imited= Bhereas
the .ower of the Su.reme Lord is un#imited= E%e is the Lord of a##, the ;in< of a##
thin<s, the $rotector of a## thin<s=F This indicates that the Lord is free from a##
#imitations= Therefore the bein< in the Sun and in the eye cannot be the Su.reme
Lord=
This Sutra refutes the above ob0ection of the $urva.akshin= The bein< within
the Sun and within the eye is not the individua# sou#, but the Su.reme Lord on#y=
BhyL Because %is essentia# attributes are dec#ared=
At first the name of the bein< within the Sun is stated, E%is name is H?tI=F
Then it is dec#ared, E%e has risen above a## evi#F= The same name is then
transferred to the bein< in the eye, Ethe name of the one is the name of the
otherF= $erfect freedom from sins is ascribed to the Su.reme Se#f on#y, the Se#f
which is free from sin etc=, A.ahata.a.ma !hh= ?.= (III&7= There is the .assa<e,
E%e is Rik= %e is Saman, ?ktha, )a0us, Brahman,F which dec#ares the bein< in the
eye to be the Se#f, Saman and so on= This is .ossib#e on#y if the bein< is the Lord,
who as bein< the cause of a##, is to be re<arded as the Se#f of a##=
urther it is dec#ared, ERik and Saman are his 0ointsF with reference to the
Devas, and Ethe 0oints of the one are the 0oints of the other with reference to the
bodyF= This statement can be made on#y with reference to that which is the Se#f of
a##=
The mention of a .articu#ar abode, viG=, the Sun and the eye, of form with a
beard bri<ht as <o#d and of a #imitation of .owers is on#y for the .ur.ose of
meditation or ?.asana= The Su.reme Lord may assume throu<h 'aya any form
%e #ikes in order to .#ease thereby his devout worshi..ers to save and b#ess them=
Smriti a#so says, EThat thou seest me O "arada, is the 'aya emitted by me= Do
not then #ook on me endowed with the @ua#ities of a## bein<s=F The #imitation of
BrahmanIs .owers which is due to the distinction of what be#on<s to the Devas
and what to the body, has reference to devout meditation on#y= It is for the
convenience of meditation that these #imitations are ima<ined in Brahman= In %is
essentia# or true nature %e is beyond them= It fo##ows, therefore, that the Bein<
which scri.ture states to be within the eye and the Sun is the Su.reme Lord=
Bhedavya.adesachchanyah I=*=2* +2*-
And there is another one +i=e= the Lord who is different from the
individua# sou#s animatin< the Sun etc=- on account of the
dec#aration of distinction=
Bheda1 differenceC (ya.adesat1 because of dec#arationC !ha1 and, a#soC
Anyah1 is different, another, other than the /iva or the individua# sou#=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 28 is adduced=
Anyah1 +Sarirat anyah1 other than the embodied individua# sou#-= 'oreover
there is one who is distinct from the individua# sou#s which animate the Sun and
other bodies, viG=, the Lord who ru#es within= The distinction between the Lord and
the individua# sou#s is dec#ared in the fo##owin< .assa<e of the Srutis, E%e who
dwe##s in the Sun and is within the Sun, whom the Sun does not know, whose
body the Sun is and who ru#es the Sun from within, is thy Se#f, the ru#er within,
the immorta# +Bri= ?.= III&7&6-= %ere the e>.ression E%e within the Sun whom the
Sun does not knowF c#ear#y shows that the Ru#er within is distinct from that
co<nisin< individua# sou# whose body is the sun= The te>t c#ear#y indicates that the
Su.reme Lord is within the Sun and yet different from the individua# sou#
identifyin< itse#f with the Sun= This confirms the view e>.ressed in the .revious
Sutra= It is an estab#ished conc#usion that the .assa<e under discussion <ives a
descri.tion of the Su.reme Lord on#y but not of any e>a#ted /iva=
Akasadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutra 22-
The word Akasa must be understood as Brahman
Akasasta##in<at I=*=22 +22-
The word Akasa i=e=, ether here is Brahman on account of
characteristic marks +of that i=e= Brahman bein< mentioned-=
Akasah1 the word Akasa as used hereC Tad1 %is, of BrahmanC Lin<at1
because of characteristic mark=
Brahman is shown to be Akasa in this Sutra= The Akasa of !hh= ?.= I&6 is
Brahman=
In the !hhando<ya ?.anishad I&6 the fo##owin< .assa<e comes in= EBhat is
the ori<in of this wor#dL HEtherI he re.#iedF= Because a## these bein<s take their
ori<in from the ether on#y, and return into the ether= Ether is <reater than these,
ether is their u#timate resort +Dia#o<ue between Si#ak and $rabahana-= %ere the
doubt arises & Does the word HetherI denote the %i<hest Brahman or the Su.reme
Se#f or the e#ementa# etherL
%ere Akasa refers to the %i<hest Brahman and not to the e#ementa# ether,
because the characteristics of Brahman, name#y the ori<in of the entire creation
from it and its return to it at disso#ution are mentioned= These marks may a#so
refer to Akasa as the scri.tures say Efrom the Akasa s.ran< air, from air fire, and
so on and they return to the Akasa at the end of a cyc#eF= But the sentence EA##
these bein<s take their ori<in from the Akasa on#yF c#ear#y indicates the hi<hest
Brahman, as a## (edanta&te>ts a<ree in .roc#aimin< definite#y that a## bein<s take
their ori<in from the %i<hest Brahman=
But the $urva.akshin or the o..onent may say that the e#ementa# Akasa a#so
may be taken as the cause viG=, of air, fire and the other e#ements= But then the
force of the words Ea## theseF and Eon#yF in the te>t @uoted wou#d be #ost= To kee.
it, the te>t shou#d be taken to refer to the fundamenta# cause of a##, inc#udin<
Akasa a#so, which is Brahman a#one=
The word EAkasaF is a#so used for Brahman in other te>ts1 EThat which is
ca##ed Akasa is the revea#er of a## forms and namesC that within which forms and
names are, that is BrahmanF !hh= ?.= (III&*3&*= The c#ause EThey return into the
etherF a<ain .oints to Brahman and so a#so the .hrase HAkasa is <reater than
these, Akasa is their fina# resortI, because the scri.ture ascribes to the Su.reme
Se#f on#y abso#ute su.eriority= !hh= ?.= III&*3&,= Brahman a#one can be E<reater
than a##F and their Eu#timate <oa#F as mentioned in the te>t= The @ua#ities of bein<
<reater and the u#timate <oa# of everythin< are mentioned in the fo##owin< te>ts1
E%e is <reater than the earth, <reater than the sky, <reater than heaven, <reater
than a## these wor#dsF !hh= ?.= III&*3&,= EBrahman is ;now#ed<e and B#iss= %e is
the ?#timate :oa# of him who makes <iftsF Bri= ?.= III&6&29=
The te>t says that a## thin<s have been born from Akasa= Such a causation can
a..#y on#y to Brahman= The te>t says that Akasa is <reater than everythin< e#se,
that Akasa is the Su.reme :oa# and that it is Infinite= These indications show that
Akasa means Brahman on#y=
(arious synonyms of Akasa are used to denote Brahman= EIn which the (edas
are in the Im.erishab#e One +Brahman- the %i<hest, the ether +(yoman-F Tait= ?.=
III&5= A<ain EO', ;a is Brahman, ether +;ha- is BrahmanF !hh= ?. I(&*8&4 and
Ethe o#d etherF +Bri= ?.= (&*=-
Therefore we are 0ustified in decidin< that the word Akasa, thou<h it occurs in
the be<innin< of the .assa<e refers to Brahman, it is simi#ar to that of the .hrase
EA<ni +the fire- studies a cha.terF, where the word A<ni, thou<h it occurs in the
be<innin< denotes a boy= Therefore it is sett#ed that the word Akasa denotes
Brahman on#y=
$ranadhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutra 2,-
The word H$ranaI must be understood as Brahman
Ata eva $ranah I=*=2, +2,-
or the same reason the breath a#so refers to Brahman=
Ata eva1 for the same reasonC $ranah1 the breath +a#so refers to Brahman-=
As $rana is described as the cause of the wor#d, such a descri.tion can a..#y
to Brahman a#one=
EBhich then is that deityLF H$ranaI he said= Re<ardin< the ?d<itha it is said
+!hh= ?.= I&*8&6-, H$rastotriI that deity which be#on<s to the $rastava etc=
Eor a## the bein<s mer<e in $rana a#one and from $rana they arise= This is
the deity be#on<in< to the $rastavaF !hh= ?.= I&**&3= "ow the doubt arises
whether $rana is vita# force or Brahman= The $urva.akshin or o..onent says that
the word $rana denotes the fivefo#d breath= The Siddhantin says1 "o= /ust as in
the case of the .recedin< Sutra, so here a#so Brahman is meant on account of
characteristic marks bein< mentionedC for here a#so a com.#ementary .assa<e
makes us to understand that a## bein<s s.rin< from and mer<e into $rana= This
can occur on#y in connection with the Su.reme Lord=
The o..onent says EThe scri.ture makes the fo##owin< statement1 when man
s#ee.s, then into breath indeed s.eech mer<es, into breath the eye, into breath
the ear, into breath the mindC when he wakes u. then they s.rin< a<ain from
breath a#one=F Bhat the (eda here states is a matter of dai#y observation, because
durin< s#ee. when the breathin< <oes on uninterru.ted#y the functionin< of the
sense or<ans ceases and a<ain becomes manifest when the man wakes u. on#y=
%ence the sense or<ans are the essence of a## bein<s= The com.#ementary
.assa<e which s.eaks of the mer<in< and emer<in< of the bein<s can be
reconci#ed with the chief vita# air a#so=
This cannot be= $rana is used in the sense of Brahman in .assa<es #ike Hthe
$rana of $ranaI +Bri= ?.= I(&3&*9- and H$rana indeed is BrahmanI ;au= ?.= III&,=
The Sruti dec#ares EA## these bein<s mer<e in $rana and from $rana they ariseF
!hh= ?.= I&**&4= This is .ossib#e on#y if $rana is Brahman and not the vita# force in
which the senses on#y <et mer<ed in dee. s#ee.=
/yotischaranadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutras 23&27-
The #i<ht is Brahman
/yotischaranabhidhanat I=*=23 +23-
The H#i<htI is Brahman, on account of the mention of feet in a
.assa<e which is connected with the .assa<e about the #i<ht=
/yotih1 the #i<htC !harana1 feetC Abhidhanat1 because of the mention=
The e>.ression H/yotihI +#i<ht- is ne>t taken u. for discussion= The /yotis of
!hhando<ya ?.anishad III&*,&7 refers to Brahman and not to materia# #i<htC
because it is described as havin< four feet=
Sruti dec#ares, E"ow that #i<ht which shines above this heaven, hi<her than
a##, hi<her than everythin<, in the hi<hest wor#ds beyond which there are no other
wor#ds & that is the same #i<ht which is within man=F %ere the doubt arises
whether the word E#i<htF denotes the .hysica# #i<ht of the sun and the #ike or the
Su.reme Se#fL
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent ho#ds that the word H#i<htI denotes the #i<ht
of the sun and the #ike as it is the ordinary we##&estab#ished meanin< of the term=
'oreover the word HshinesI ordinari#y refers to the sun and simi#ar sources of #i<ht=
Brahman is co#our#ess= It cannot be said in the .rimary sense of the word that it
HshinesI= urther the word H/yotisI denotes #i<ht for it is said to be bounded by the
sky +Hthat #i<ht which shines above this heavenI-C the sky cannot become the
boundary of Brahman which is the Se#f of a##, which is a##&.ervadin< and infinite,
and is the source of a## thin<s movab#e or immovab#e= The sky can form the
boundary of #i<ht which is mere .roduct and which is therefore united=
The word /yoti does not mean .hysica# #i<ht of the sun which he#.s vision= It
denotes Brahman= BhyL On account of the feet +@uarters- bein< mentioned in a
.recedin< te>t1 ESuch is its <reatness, <reater than this is the $urusha= One foot
of It is a## bein<s, whi#e its remainin< three feet are the Immorta# in heavenF !hh=
?.= III&*2&5= That which in this te>t forms the three @uarter .art, immorta# and
connected with heaven of Brahman which a#to<ether constitutes four @uarters, this
very same entity is a<ain referred to in the .assa<e under discussion, for there
a#so it is said to be connected with heaven=
Brahman is the sub0ect matter of not on#y the .revious te>ts, but a#so of the
subse@uent section, Sandi#ya (idya +!hh= ?.= III&*3-= If we inter.ret H#i<htI as
ordinary #i<ht, we wi## commit the error of dro..in< the to.ic started and introduce
a new sub0ect= Brahman is the main to.ic in the section immediate#y fo##owin< that
which contains the .assa<e under discussion +!hh= ?.= III&*3-= Therefore it is
@uite reasonab#e to say that the intervenin< section a#so +!hh= ?.= III&*,- treats
of Brahman on#y= %ence we conc#ude that in the .assa<e the word H#i<htI must
denote Brahman on#y=
The word H/yotiI here does not at a## denote that #i<ht on which the function of
the eye de.ends= It has different meanin<, for instance Ewith s.eech on#y as #i<ht
man sitsF +Bri= ?.= I(&,&4-C whatever i##umines somethin< e#se may be considered
as H#i<htI= Therefore the term H#i<htI may be a..#ied to Brahman a#so whose nature
is inte##i<ence because It <ives #i<ht to the who#e universe= The Srutis dec#are E%im
the shinin< one, everythin< shines afterC by %is #i<ht a## this is i##uminedF +;au= ?.=
II&4&*4- and E%im the <ods worshi. as the Li<ht of #i<hts, as the Immorta#F +Bri=
?.= I(&3&*5-=
The mention of #imitin< ad0uncts with res.ect to Brahman, denoted by the
word H#i<htI Hbounded by heavenI and the assi<nment of a s.ecia# #oca#ity serves
the .ur.ose of devout meditation= The Srutis s.eak of different kinds of meditation
on Brahman as s.ecia##y connected with certain #oca#ities such as the sun, the eye,
the heart=
Therefore it is a sett#ed conc#usion that the word H#i<htI here denotes
Brahman=
!hhandoIbhidhananneti chet na tatha
chetoIr.anani<adat tatha hi darsanam I=*=24 +24-
If it be said that Brahman is not denoted on account of the metre
:ayatri bein< denoted, we re.#y not so, because thus i=e= by means of
the metre the a..#ication of the mind on Brahman is dec#aredC because
thus it is seen +in other .assa<es a#so-=
!hhandas1 the metre known as :ayatriC Abhidhanat1 because of the
descri.tionC "a1 notC Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC "a1 notC Tatha1 thus, #ike thatC
!hetIor.ana1 a..#ication of the mindC "i<adat1 because of the teachin<C Tatha
hi1 #ike thatC Darsanam1 it is seen +in other te>ts-=
An ob0ection raised a<ainst Sutra 23 is refuted in this Sutra=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says EIn the .assa<e, HOne foot of It is a##
bein<sI,F Brahman is not referred to but the metre :ayatri, because the first
.ara<ra.h of the .recedin< section of the same ?.anishad be<ins with E:ayatri is
everythin<, whatsoever here e>istsF= %ence the feet referred to in the te>t
mentioned in the .revious Sutra refer to this metre and not to Brahman=
In re.#y we say, not soC because the Brahmana .assa<e E:ayatri indeed is a##
thisF teaches that one shou#d meditate on the Brahman which is connected with
this metre, for Brahman bein< the cause of everythin< is connected with that
:ayatri a#so and it is that Brahman which is to be meditated u.on=
Brahman is meditated u.on as :ayatri= By this e>.#anation a## become
consistent= If :ayatri meant metre then it wou#d be im.ossib#e to say of it that
E:ayatri is everythin< whatsoever here e>istsF because certain#y the metre is not
everythin<= Therefore the Sutra says ETatha hi darsanamF & So we see= By such an
e>.#anation on#y the above .assa<e <ives a consistent meanin<= Otherwise we wi##
have to ho#d a metre to be everythin< which is absurd= Therefore throu<h :ayatri
the meditation on Brahman is shown=
The direction of the mind is dec#ared in the te>t H:ayatri is a## thisI= The
.assa<e instructs that by means of the metre :ayatri the mind is to be directed on
Brahman which is connected with that metre=
This inter.retation is in accordance with the other te>ts in the same section
e=<= EA## this indeed is BrahmanF !hh= ?.= III&*3&* where Brahman is the chief
to.ic=
Devout meditation on Brahman throu<h its modifications or effects is
mentioned in other .assa<es a#soC for instance, Ait= Ar= III&2&,=*2 Eit is the
Su.reme Bein< under the name of :ayatri, whom the Bahvrichas worshi. as
'ahat&?ktha i=e= 'aha $rana, the Adhvaryu .riests as A<ni +fire-, and the
!hando<a .riests as 'aha (rata +the <reatest rite-=F
Therefore Brahman is meant here and not the metre :ayatri=
Bhutadi.adavya.adeso.a.atteschaivam I=*=25 +25-
And thus a#so +we must conc#ude, viG=, that Brahman is the
sub0ect or to.ic of the .revious .assa<e, where :ayatri occurs-
because +thus on#y- the dec#aration as to the bein<s etc= bein< the
feet is .ossib#e=
Bhutadi1 the e#ements etc= i=e= the e#ements, the earth, the body and the
heartC $ada1 +of- foot, .artC (ya.adesa1 +of- mention +of- dec#aration or
e>.ressionC ?.a.atteh1 because of the .ossibi#ity or .roof, reasonab#eness, as it
is ri<ht#y deduced from the above reasonsC !ha1 a#soC Evam1 thus, so=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 23 is adduced=
The bein<s, earth, body and heart can be fe#t on#y of Brahman and not of
:ayatri, the metre, a mere co##ection of sy##ab#es= The .revious .assa<e has on#y
Brahman for its to.ic or sub0ect, because the te>t desi<nates the bein<s and so on
as the feet of :ayatri= The te>t at first s.eaks of the bein<s, the earth, the body
and the heart and then <oes on describin< Ethat :ayatri has four feet and is
si>fo#dF= If Brahman were not meant, there wou#d be no room for the verse Esuch
is the <reatnessF etc=
%ence by :ayatri is here meant Brahman as connected with the metre
:ayatri= It is this Brahman .articu#arised by :ayatri that is said to be the Se#f of
everythin< in the .assa<e E:ayatri is everythin<F etc= Therefore Brahman is to be
re<arded as the sub0ect matter of the .revious .assa<e a#so= This same Brahman
is a<ain reco<nised as #i<ht in !hh= ?.= III&*2&7=
The e#ements, the earth, the body and the heart cannot be re.resented as
the four verses of :ayatri= They can be understood on#y to mean the fourfo#d
manifestations of the Su.reme Bein<= The word EheavenF is a si<nificant word= Its
use in connection with H#i<htI reminds us of its use in connection with the H:ayatriI
a#so= Therefore the H#i<htI shinin< above heaven is the same as the H:ayatriI that
has three of its feet in heaven=
?.adesabhedanneti chet na
ubhayasminna.yavirodhat I=*=27 +27-
If it be said +that Brahman of the :ayatri .assa<e cannot be
reco<nised in the .assa<e treatin< of H#i<htI- on account of the
difference of desi<nation or the s.ecification +we re.#y- no, because
in either +desi<nation- there is nothin< contrary +to the
reco<nition-=
?.adesa1 of teachin< of <rammatica# construction or casesC Bhedat1
because of the differenceC "a1 notC Iti chet1 if it be saidC "a1 noC ?bhayasmin1
in both, +whether in the ab#ative case or in the #ocative case-C A.i1 evenC
Avirodhat1 because there is no contradiction=
Another ob0ection a<ainst Sutra 23 is raised and refuted= If it be ar<ued that
there is a difference of e>.ression consistin< in case&endin< in the :ayatri&Sruti
and in the /yoti Sruti re<ardin< the word HDivI +heaven- then the re.#y is H"oIC the
ar<ument is not tenab#e, as there is no materia# contradiction between the two
e>.ressions=
In the :ayatri .assa<e Ethree feet of it are what is immorta# in heavenF,
heaven is desi<nated as the abode of BrahmanC whi#e in the #atter .assa<e Ethat
#i<ht which shines above this heavenF, Brahman is described as e>istin< above
heaven= One may ob0ect that the sub0ect matter of the former .assa<e cannot be
reco<nised in the #atter= The ob0ector may say Ehow then can one and the same
Brahman be referred to in both the te>tsLF It canC there can be no contradiction
here= /ust as in ordinary #an<ua<e a bird, a#thou<h in contact with the to. of a
tree, is not on#y said to be on the tree, but a#so above the tree, so Brahman a#so,
a#thou<h bein< in heaven, is here referred to as bein< beyond heaven as we##=
The #ocative EDiviF in heaven and the ab#ative HDivahI above heaven are not
contrary= The difference in the case&endin< of the word EDivF is no contradiction as
the #ocative case +the seventh case&endin<- is often used in the scri.tura# te>ts to
e>.ress secondari#y the meanin< of the ab#ative +the fifth case&endin<-=
Therefore the Brahman s.oken of in the former .assa<e can be reco<nised in
the #atter a#so= It is a sett#ed conc#usion that the word E#i<htF denotes Brahman=
Thou<h the <rammatica# cases used in the scri.tura# .assa<e are not
identica#, the ob0ect of the reference is c#ear#y reco<nised as bein< identica#=
$ratardanadhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutras 29&,*-
$rana is Brahman
$ranastathanu<amat I=*=29 +29-
$rana is Brahman, that bein< so understood from a connected
consideration +of the .assa<e referrin< to $rana-=
$ranah1 the breath or #ife&ener<yC Tatha1 thus, so, #ikewise #ike that stated
beforeC #ike that stated in the Sruti @uoted before in connection therewithC
Anu<amat1 because of bein< understood +from the te>ts-=
The e>.ression H$ranaI is a<ain taken u. for discussion=
In the ;aushitaki ?.anishad there occurs the conversation between Indra and
$ratardana= $ratardana, the son of Divodasa, came by means of fi<htin< and
stren<th to the abode of Indra= $ratardana said to Indra, E)ou yourse#f choose for
me that boon which you think is most beneficia# to manF= Indra re.#ied, E;now me
on#y= This is what I think most beneficia# to man= I am $rana, the inte##i<ent Se#f
+$ra0natman-= 'editate on me as #ife, as immorta#ityF III&2= EThat $rana is indeed
the inte##i<ent Se#f, b#iss, undecayin<, immorta#F III&9=
%ere the doubt arises whether the word $rana denotes mere#y breath, the
modification of air or the :od Indra, or the individua# sou#, or the hi<hest
Brahman=
The word H$ranaI in the .assa<e refers to Brahman, because it is described as
the most conducive to human we#fare= "othin< is more conducive to human
we#fare than the know#ed<e of Brahman= 'oreover $rana is described as
$ra0natma= The air which is non&inte##i<ent can c#ear#y not be the inte##i<ent Se#f=
Those characteristic marks which are mentioned in the conc#udin< .assa<e,
viG=, Hb#issI +Ananda-, undecayin< +A0ara-, immorta# +Amrita- can be true on#y of
Brahman= urther know#ed<e of $rana abso#ves one from a## sins= E%e who knows
me thus by no deed of his is his #ife harmed, neither by matricide nor by .atricideF
;au= ?.= III&*=
A## this can be .ro.er#y understood on#y if the Su.reme Se#f or the hi<hest
Brahman is acknow#ed<ed to be the sub0ect matter of the .assa<es, and not if the
vita# air is substituted in its .#ace= %ence the word H$ranaI denotes Brahman on#y=
"a vakturatmo.adesaditi chet
adhyatmasambandhabhuma hyasmin I=*=26 +26-
If it be said that +Brahman is- not +denoted or referred in these
.assa<es on account of- the s.eakerIs instruction about himse#f, we
re.#y not so, because there is abundance of reference to the Inner
Se#f in this +cha.ter or ?.anishad-=
"a1 notC (aktuh1 of the s.eaker +Indra-C Atma1 of the Se#fC ?.adesat1 on
account of instructionC Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC Adhyatma sambandha bhuma1
abundance of reference to the Inner Se#fC %i1 becauseC Asmin1 in this +cha.ter or
?.anishad-=
An ob0ection to Sutra 29 is refuted=
An ob0ection is raised a<ainst the assertion that $rana denotes Brahman= The
o..onent or $urva.akshin says, EThe word $rana does not denote the Su.reme
Brahman, because the s.eaker Indra desi<nates himse#f=F Indra s.eaks to
$ratardana, E;now me on#y= I am $rana, the inte##i<ent Se#f=F %ow can the $rana
which refers to a .ersona#ity be Brahman to which the attribute of bein< a s.eaker
cannot be ascribed= The Sruti dec#ares, EBrahman is without s.eech, without
mindF Bri= ?.= III&9&9=
urther on, a#so Indra, the s.eaker <#orifies himse#f, EI s#ew the three&headed
son of Tvashtri= I de#ivered the Arunmukhas, the devotees to the wo#ves
+Sa#avrika-= I ki##ed the .eo.#e of $rah#adaF and so on= Indra may be ca##ed $rana
owin< to his stren<th= %ence $rana does not denote Brahman=
This ob0ection is not va#id because there are found abundant references to
Brahman or the Inner Se#f in that cha.ter= They are E$rana, the inte##i<ent Se#f,
a#one havin< #aid ho#d of this body makes it rise u.F= or as in a car the
circumference of the whee# is set on the s.okes and the s.okes on the naveC thus
are these ob0ects set on the sub0ects +the senses- and the sub0ects on the $rana=
And that $rana indeed is the Se#f of $ra0na, b#essed +Ananda-, undecayin< +A0ara-
and immorta# +Amrita-= E%e is my Se#f, thus #et it be knownF= EThis Se#f is
Brahman, OmniscientF Bri= ?.= II&4&*6=
Indra said to $ratardana, EBorshi. me as $ranaF= This can on#y refer to
Brahman= or the worshi. of Brahman a#one can <ive 'ukti or the fina#
emanci.ation which is most beneficia# to man +%itatma-= It is said of this $rana,
Eor he +$rana- makes him, whom he wishes to #ead out from these wor#ds, do a
<ood deed=F This shows that the $rana is the <reat cause that makes every
activity .ossib#e= This a#so is consistent with Brahman and not with breath or
Indra= %ence H$ranaI here denotes Brahman on#y=
The cha.ter contains information re<ardin< Brahman on#y owin< to .#enty of
references to the Inner Se#f, not re<ardin< the se#f of some deity=
But if Indra rea##y meant to teach the worshi. of Brahman, why does he say
Eworshi. meFL It is rea##y mis#eadin<= To this the fo##owin< Sutra <ives the .ro.er
answer=
Sastradrishtya tu.adeso vamadevavat *=*=,8 +,8-
The dec#aration +made by Indra about himse#f, viG=, that he is
and with Brahman- is .ossib#e throu<h intuition as attested by Sruti,
as in the case of (amadeva=
Sastradrishtya1 throu<h insi<ht based on scri.ture or as attested by SrutiC
Tu1 butC ?.adesah1 instructionC (amadevavat1 #ike that of (amadeva=
The ob0ection raised in Sutra 26 is further refuted=
The word HtuI +but- removes the doubt= IndraIs describin< himse#f as $rana is
@uite suitab#e as he identifies himse#f with Brahman in that instruction to
$ratardana #ike the sa<e (amadeva=
Sa<e (amadeva rea#ised Brahman and said EI was 'anu and SuryaF which is
in accordance with the .assa<e EBhatever Deva knew Brahman became ThatF
+Bri= ?.= I&3&*8-= IndraIs instruction a#so is #ike that= %avin< rea#ised Brahman by
means of Rishi&#ike intuition, Indra identifies himse#f in the instruction with the
Su.reme Brahman and instructs $ratardana about the %i<hest Brahman by means
of the words H;now me on#yI=
Indra .raises the know#ed<e of Brahman= Therefore it is not his own
<#orification when he says HI ki##ed TvashtriIs sonI etc= The meanin< of the .assa<e
is HA#thou<h I do such crue# actions, yet not even a hair of mine is harmed because
I am one with Brahman= Therefore the #ife of any other .erson a#so who knows me
thus is not harmed by any deed of his= Indra says in a subse@uent .assa<e HI am
$rana, the inte##i<ent Se#f=I Therefore the who#e cha.ter refers to Brahman on#y=
/ivamukhya.rana#in<anneti chet na u.asatraividhyat
asritatvadiha tadyo<at I=*=,* +,*-
If it be said that +Brahman is- not +meant- on account of
characteristic marks of the individua# sou# and the chief vita# air
+bein< mentioned-C we say no, because +such an inter.retation- wou#d
en0oin threefo#d meditation +?.asana-, because $rana has been
acce.ted +e#sewhere in the Sruti in the sense of Brahman- and because
here a#so +words denotin< Brahman- are mentioned with reference to
$rana=
/ivamukhya.rana#in<at1 on account of the characteristic marks of the
individua# sou# and the chief vita# airC "a1 notC Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC "a1 notC
?.asana1 worshi., meditationC Traividhyat1 because of the three waysC
Asritatvat1 on account of $rana bein< acce.ted +e#sewhere in Sruti in the sense of
Brahman-C Iha1 in the ;aushitaki .assa<eC Tadyo<at1 because of its
a..ro.riatenessC as they have been a..#iedC because words denotin< Brahman
are mentioned with reference to $rana=
But another ob0ection is raised= Bhat is the necessity of this Adhikarana
a<ain, Emeditation of $ranaF and identifyin< $rana with Brahman, when in the
.recedin< Sutra, I&*&2, it has been shown that $rana means BrahmanL
To this we answer1 this Adhikarana is not a redundancy= In the Sutra I&*&2,,
the doubt was on#y with re<ard to the meanin< of the sin<#e word $rana= In this
Adhikarana the doubt was not about the meanin< of the word $rana, but about the
who#e .assa<e, in which there are words, and marks or indications that wou#d
have #ed a .erson meditatin<, to think that there a#so /iva and breath meant to be
meditated u.on= To remove this doubt, it is dec#ared that Brahman a#one is the
to.ic of discussion in this ;aushitaki ?.anishad and not /iva or vita# breath=
Therefore this Adhikarana has been se.arate#y stated by the author=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent ho#ds that $rana does not denote
Brahman, but either the individua# sou# or the chief vita# air or both= %e says that
the cha.ter mentions the characteristic marks of the individua# sou# on the one
hand, and of the chief vita# air on the other hand=
The .assa<e HOne shou#d know the s.eaker and not en@uire into s.eechI
+;au= ?.= III&3- mentions a characteristic mark of the individua# sou#= The .assa<e
E$rana, #ayin< ho#d of his body, makes it rise u.F ;au= ?.= III= , .oints to the chief
vita# air because the chief attribute of the vita# air is that it sustains the body=
Then there is another .assa<e, HThen $rana said to the or<ans1 be not deceived= I
a#one dividin< myse#f fivefo#d su..ort this body and kee. itI $rasna ?.= II&,= Then
a<ain you wi## find HBhat is $rana, that is $ra0naC what is $ra0na, that is $rana=I
This Sutra refutes such a view and says, that Brahman a#one is referred to by
H$ranaI, because the above inter.retation wou#d invo#ve a threefo#d ?.asana, viG=,
of the individua# sou#, of the chief vita# air, and of Brahman= Bhich is certain#y
a<ainst the acce.ted ru#es of inter.retation of the scri.tures= It is ina..ro.riate to
assume that a sin<#e sentence en0oins three kinds of worshi. or meditation=
urther in the be<innin< we have Eknow me on#yF fo##owed by EI am $rana,
inte##i<ent Se#f, meditate on me as #ife, as immorta#ityFC and in the end a<ain we
read EAnd that $rana indeed is the inte##i<ent Se#f, b#essed +Ananda-, undecayin<
+A0ara- and immorta# +Amrita-=F The be<innin< and the conc#udin< .art are thus
seen to be simi#ar= Therefore we must conc#ude that they refer to one and the
same sub0ect and that the same sub0ect&matter is ke.t u. throu<hout=
Therefore H$ranaI must denote Brahman on#y= In the case of other .assa<es
where characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned the word H$ranaI is taken in
the sense of Brahman= It is a sett#ed conc#usion that Brahman is the to.ic or
sub0ect matter of the who#e cha.ter=
Thus ends the first $ada +Section *- of the first Adhyaya +!ha.ter I- of the
Brahma SutrasC or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
SE!TIO" 2
Introduction
In the irst $ada or Section Brahman has been shown to be the cause of the
ori<in, sustenance and disso#ution of the who#e universe= It has been tau<ht that
the Su.reme Brahman shou#d be en@uired into= !ertain attributes such as
Eternity, Omniscience, A##&.ervadin<ness, the Se#f of a## and so on have been
dec#ared of the Brahman=
In the #atter .art of Section I certain terms in the Sruti such as Anandamaya,
/yoti, $rana, Akasa, etc=, used in a different sense have been shown throu<h
reasonin< to refer to Brahman= !ertain .assa<es of the scri.tures about whose
sense doubts are entertained and which contain c#ear characteristics of Brahman
+S.ashta&Brahma#in<a- have been shown to refer to Brahman=
"ow in this and the ne>t Section some more .assa<es of doubtfu# im.ort
wherein the characteristic marks of Brahman are not so a..arent +As.ashta&
Brahma#in<a- are taken u. for discussion= Doubts may arise as to the e>act
meanin< of certain e>.ressions of Sruti, whether they indicate Brahman or
somethin< e#se= Those e>.ressions are taken u. for discussion in this and the ne>t
Sections=
In the Second and Third $adas wi## be shown that certain other words and
sentences in which there is on#y obscure or indistinct indication of Brahman a..#y
a#so to Brahman as in those of the irst $ada=
Syno.sis
Doubts may arise as to the e>act meanin< of certain e>.ressions of Sruti,
whether they indicate Brahman or somethin< e#se= These e>.ressions are taken u.
for discussion in this and the ne>t sections=
It is .roved in this section that the different e>.ressions used in different
Srutis for Divine contem.#ation indicate the same Infinite Brahman=
In the Sandi#ya (idya of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad it is said that as the form
and the character of a .erson in his ne>t #ife are determined by his desires and
thou<hts of the .resent one, he shou#d constant#y desire for and meditate u.on
Brahman who is .erfect, who is Sat&!hit&Ananda, who is immorta#, who is Se#f#uminous,
who is eterna#, .ure, birth#ess, death#ess, Infinite etc=, so that he may
become identica# with %im=
Adhikarana I1 +Sutras * to 9- shows that the bein< which consists of mind,
whose body is breath etc=, mentioned in !hhando<ya ?.anishad III&*3 is not the
individua# sou#, but Brahman=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutras 6 and *8- decides that he to whom the Brahmanas
and ;shatriyas are but food +;atha ?.= I&2&24- is the Su.reme Se#f or Brahman=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutras ** and *2- shows that the two which entered into the
cave +;atha ?.= I&,&*- are Brahman and the individua# sou#=
Adhikarana I(1 +Sutras *, to *7- states that the .erson within the eye
mentioned in !hh= ?.= I(&*4&* indicates neither a ref#ected ima<e nor any
individua# sou#, but Brahman=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutras *9 to 28- shows that the Inner Ru#er within
+Antaryamin- described in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad III&7&, as .ervadin< and
<uidin< the five e#ements +earth, water, fire, air, ether- and a#so heaven, sun,
moon, stars etc=, is no other than Brahman=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutras 2* to 2,- .roves that which cannot be seen, etc=,
mentioned in 'undaka ?.anishad I&*&5 is Brahman=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutras 23 to ,2- shows that the Atman, the (aisvanara of
!hhando<ya ?.anishad (&**&5 is Brahman=
The o.inions of different sa<es name#y /aimini, Asmarathya and Badari have
a#so been <iven here to show that the Infinite Brahman is sometimes conceived as
finite and as .ossessin< head, trunk, feet and other #imbs and or<ans in order to
faci#itate divine contem.#ation accordin< to the ca.acity of the meditator=
Sarvatra $rasiddhyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&9-
The 'anomaya is Brahman
Sarvatra .rasiddho.adesat I=2=* +,2-
+That which consists of the mind H'anomayaI is Brahman- because
there is tau<ht +in this te>t- +that Brahman which is- we##&known +as
the cause of the wor#d- in the ?.anishads=
Sarvatra1 everywhere, in every (edantic .assa<e i=e=, in a## ?.anishadsC
$rasiddha1 the we##&knownC ?.adesat1 because of the teachin<=
Sruti dec#ares, EA## this indeed is Brahman, emanatin< from %im, #ivin< and
movin< in %im, and u#timate#y disso#vin< in %imC thus knowin< #et a man meditate
with a ca#m mind=F A man in his .resent #ife is the outcome of his .revious
thou<hts and desires= %e becomes that in after&#ife what he now reso#ves to be=
Therefore he shou#d meditate on Brahman who is idea##y .erfect, who functions
throu<h his very #ife&ener<y and who is a##&#i<ht= E%e who consists of the mind,
whose body is $rana +the subt#e body- etc=F !hh= ?.= III&*3=
"ow a doubt arises whether what is .ointed out as the ob0ect of meditation
by means of attributes such as consistin< of mind, etc=, is the individua# sou# or
the Su.reme Brahman=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says1 the .assa<e refers to the individua#
sou# on#y= BhyL Because the embodied se#f on#y is connected with the mind= This
is a we##&known fact, whi#e the Su.reme Brahman is not= It is said in the 'undaka
?.anishad II&*&2 H%e is without breath, without mind, .ure=I
The .assa<e does not aim at en0oinin< meditation on Brahman= It aims on#y
at en0oinin< ca#mness of mind= The other attributes a#so subse@uent#y stated in
the te>t E%e to whom a## works, a## desires be#on<F refer to the individua# sou#=
The Srutis dec#are E%e is my Se#f within the heart, sma##er than a corn of rice,
sma##er than a corn of bar#ey=F This refers to the individua# sou# which has the siGe
of the .oint of a <oad, but not to the infinite or un#imited Brahman=
Be re.#y1 The Su.reme Brahman on#y is what is to be meditated u.on as
distin<uished by the attributes of consistin< of mind and so on= Because the te>t
be<ins with EA## this indeed is Brahman=F That Brahman which is considered as the
cause of the wor#d in a## scri.tura# .assa<es is tau<ht here a#so in the formu#a
ETa00a#anF= As the be<innin< refers to Brahman, the #atter .assa<e where E%e who
consists of the mindF +'anomaya- occurs, shou#d a#so refer to Brahman as
distin<uished by certain @ua#ities= Thus we avoid the fau#t of dro..in< the sub0ectmatter
under discussion and unnecessari#y introducin< a fresh to.ic= urther the
te>t s.eaks of ?.asana, meditation= Therefore it is but .ro.er that Brahman which
is described in a## other .assa<es as an ob0ect of meditation is a#so tau<ht here
and not the individua# sou#= The individua# sou# is not s.oken of anywhere as an
ob0ect of meditation or ?.asana=
'oreover you can attain serenity by meditatin< on Brahman which is an
embodiment of .eace= 'anomaya refers to Brahman in 'un= ?.= II&2&7, Tait= ?.= I&
5&* and ;atha ?.= (II&6= The we##&known 'anomaya, a..#ied in a## the above
.assa<es to Brahman, is referred to here in the !hhando<ya a#so= Therefore
'anomaya refers to the Su.reme Brahman on#y=
(ivakshita<uno.a.attescha I=2=2 +,,-
'oreover the @ua#ities desired to be e>.ressed are .ossib#e +in
BrahmanC therefore the .assa<e refers to Brahman-=
(ivakshita1 desired to be e>.ressedC :una1 @ua#itiesC ?.a.atteh1 because
of the reasonab#eness, for the 0ustificationC !ha1 and, moreover=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is adduced= And because the attributes,
sou<ht to be a..#ied by the Sruti @uoted above, 0ust#y be#on< to Brahman, it must
be admitted that the .assa<e refers to Brahman=
E%e who consists of the mind, whose body is $rana +the subt#e body-, whose
form is #i<ht, reso#ve is true, whose nature is #ike that of ether +Omni.resent and
invisib#e-, from whom .roceed a## actions, a## desires, a## scents, a## tastesC who is
A##&embracin<, who is voice#ess and unattachedF !hh= ?.= III&*3&2= These
attributes mentioned in this te>t as to.ics of meditation are .ossib#e in Brahman
on#y=
The @ua#ities of havin< true desires +Sat ;ama- and true .ur.oses +Sat
Sanka#.a- are attributed to the Su.reme Se#f in another .assa<e viG=, HThe Se#f
which is free from sin etc=I !hh= ?.= (III&7&*, E%e whose Se#f is the etherFC this is
.ossib#e as Brahman which as the cause of the entire universe is the Se#f of
everythin< and is a#so the Se#f of the ether= Thus the @ua#ities here intimated as
to.ics of meditation a<ree with the nature of Brahman=
%ence, as the @ua#ities mentioned are .ossib#e in Brahman, we conc#ude that
the Su.reme Brahman a#one is re.resented as the ob0ect of meditation=
Anu.a.attestu na saarirah I=2=, +,3-
On the other hand, as +those @ua#ities- are not .ossib#e +in it-
the embodied +sou# is- not +denoted by 'anomaya etc=-=
Anu.a.atteh1 not bein< 0ustifiab#e, because of the im.ossibi#ity, because of
the unreasonab#eness, because they are not a..ro.riateC Tu1 but on the other
handC "a1 notC Saarirah1 the embodied, the /iva or the individua# sou#=
Such @ua#ities cannot a..#y to the individua# sou#= The ar<ument in su..ort of
the Sutra is continued= The .recedin< Sutra has stated that the @ua#ities
mentioned are .ossib#e in Brahman= The .resent Sutra dec#ares that they are not
.ossib#e in the /iva or the embodied Sou#= Brahman on#y is endowed with the
@ua#ities of Hconsistin< of mind or 'anomaya, and so onI but not the embodied
Se#f=
Because the @ua#ities such as H%e whose .ur.oses are true, whose Se#f is the
ether, who is s.eech#ess, who is not disturbed, who is <reater than the earthI
cannot be ascribed to the individua# sou#= The term HSaariraI or embodied means
Hdwe##in< in a body=I
If the o..onent says HThe Lord a#so dwe##s in the bodyI, we re.#y1 true, %e
does abide in the body, but not in the body a#oneC because Sruti dec#ares HThe
Lord is <reater than the earth, <reater than the heaven, Omni.resent #ike the
ether, eterna#=I On the contrary the individua# sou# resides in the body on#y=
The /iva is #ike a <#ow&worm before the effu#<ence of the Brahman who is #ike
a Sun when com.ared with it= The su.erior @ua#ities described in the te>t are not
certain#y .ossib#e in /iva=
The A##&.ervadin< is not the embodied se#f or the individua# sou#, as it is @uite
im.ossib#e to .redicate Omni.resence of %im= It is im.ossib#e and a<ainst fact and
reason a#so that one and the same individua# cou#d be in a## the bodies at the
same time=
;armakartrivya.adesaccha I=2=3 +,4-
Because of the dec#aration of the attainer and the ob0ect
attained= %e who consists of the mind +'anomaya- refers to Brahman
and not to the individua# sou#=
;arma1 ob0ectC ;artri1 a<entC (ya.adesat1 because of the dec#aration or
mentionC !ha1 and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra , is adduced=
A se.arate distinction is drawn between the ob0ect of activity and of the
a<ent= Therefore the attributes of Hconsistin< of mindI +'anomaya- cannot be#on<
to the embodied se#f= The te>t says EBhen I sha## have de.arted from hence I
sha## obtain himF !hh= ?.= III&*3&3= %ere the word H%imI refers to that which is the
to.ic of discussion= EBho consists of the mind, the ob0ect of meditationF viG=, as
somethin< to be obtainedC whi#e the words HI sha## obtainI re.resent the meditatin<
individua# sou# as the a<ent i=e=, the obtainer=
Be must not assume that one and the same thin< is s.oken of as the attainer
+a<ent- and the ob0ect attained at the same time= The attainer and the attained
cannot be the same= The ob0ect meditated u.on is different from the .erson who
meditates, the individua# sou# referred to in the above te>t by the .ronoun HII=
Thus for the above reason a#so, that which is characterised by the attributes
consistin< of mind H'anomayaI and so on, cannot be the individua# sou#=
Sabdaviseshat I=2=4 +,5-
Because of the difference of words=
Sabda1 wordC (iseshat1 because of difference=
The ar<ument in favour of Sutra * is continued= That which .ossesses the
attributes of Econsistin< of mindF and so on cannot be the individua# sou#, because
there is a difference of words=
In the Sata.atha Brahmana the same idea is e>.ressed in simi#ar words EAs
is a <rain of rice, or a <rain of bar#ey, or a canary seed or the kerne# of a canary
seedF, so is that <o#den .erson in the Se#f +K= 5&,&2-= %ere one word i=e= the
#ocative Ein the Se#fF denotes the individua# sou# or the embodied se#f, and a
different word, viG= the nominative H.ersonI denotes the se#f distin<uished by the
attributes of consistin< of mind etc=
Be, therefore, conc#ude that the two are different and that the individua# se#f
is not referred to in the te>t under discussion=
Smritescha I=2=5 +,7-
rom the Smriti a#so +we know the embodied se#f or the individua#
sou# is different from the one referred to in the te>t under
discussion-=
Smriteh1 from the SmritiC !ha1 and, a#so=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
It is so dec#ared a#so in the Smriti +Bha<avad :ita-= rom the Smriti a#so it is
evident that the individua# sou# is marked#y different from the sub0ect matter of
the te>t under discussion=
Smriti a#so dec#ares the difference of the individua# sou# and the Su.reme
Sou# EThe Lord dwe##eth in the hearts of a## bein<s, O Ar0una, by %is i##usive .ower,
causin< a## bein<s to revo#ve, as thou<h mounted on a .otterIs whee#F +:ita1 K(III&
5*-=
The difference is on#y ima<inary and not rea#= The difference e>ists on#y so
#on< as Avidya or i<norance #asts and the si<nificance of the 'ahavakya or :reat
Sentence of the ?.anishads HTat Tvam AsiI +Thou art That- has not been rea#ised=
As soon as you <ras. the truth that there is on#y one universa# Se#f, there is an
end to Samsara or .henomena# #ife with its distinction of bonda<e, fina#
emanci.ation and the #ike=
Arbhakaukastvattadvya.adesaccha neti chet na
nichayyatvadevam vyomavaccha I=2=7 +,9-
If it be said that +the .assa<e does- not +refer to Brahman- on
account of the sma##ness of the abode +mentioned i=e= the heart- and
a#so on account of the denotation of that +i=e= of minuteness- we
say, "oC because +Brahman- has thus to be meditated and because the
case is simi#ar to that of ether=
Arbhakaukastvat1 because of the sma##ness of the abodeC Tadvya.adesat1
because of the descri.tion or denotation as such i=e= minutenessC !ha1 and a#soC
"a1 notC Iti1 not soC !het1 ifC "a1 notC "ichayyatvat1 because of meditation +in
the heart-C Evam1 thus, soC (yomavat1 #ike the etherC !ha1 and=
An ob0ection to Sutra * is raised and refuted=
"ow an ob0ection is raised, that the 'anomaya of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad
cannot be Brahman, but is /iva, because the descri.tion there is more a..#icab#e
to an individua# sou# than to Brahman= The te>t says E%e is my se#f within the
heart, sma##er than a corn of rice, sma##er than a mustard seedF !hh= ?.= III&*3&,=
This shows that the 'anomaya occu.ies very #itt#e s.ace, in fact it is atomic and
so cannot be Brahman=
This Sutra refutes it= Thou<h a man is the kin< of the who#e earth, he cou#d at
the same time be ca##ed the kin< of Ayodhya as we##= The Infinite is ca##ed the
atomic because %e can be rea#ised in the minute s.ace of the chamber of the
heart, 0ust as Lord (ishnu can be rea#ised in the sacred stone ca##ed Sa#i<rama=
A#thou<h .resent everywhere, the Lord is .#eased when meditated u.on as
abidin< in the heart= The case is simi#ar to that of the eye of the need#e= The ether,
thou<h a##&.ervadin<, is s.oken of as #imited and minute, with reference to its
connection with the eye of the need#e= So it is said of Brahman a#so=
The attributes of #imitation of abode and of minuteness are ascribed to
Brahman on#y for the convenience of conce.tion and meditation, because it is
difficu#t to meditate on the a##&.ervadin<, infinite Brahman= This wi## certain#y not
<o a<ainst %is Omni.resence= These #imitations are sim.#y ima<ined in Brahman=
They are not at a## rea#=
In the very .assa<e Brahman is dec#ared to be infinite #ike s.ace, and a##
.ervadin< #ike ether, H:reater than the earth, <reater than the sky, <reater than
heaven, <reater than a## these wor#ds=I Thou<h Brahman is a##&.ervadin<, yet %e
becomes atomic throu<h %is mysterious inconceivab#e .ower to .#ease %is
devotees= %e a..ears simu#taneous#y everywhere, wherever %is devotees are=
This simu#taneous a..earance of the atomic Brahman everywhere estab#ishes %is
a##&.ervadin<ness even in %is manifested form= :o.is saw Lord ;rishna
everywhere=
The o..onent says1 If Brahman has %is abode in the heart, which heartabode
is a different one in each body, it wou#d fo##ow, that %e is attended by a##
the im.erfections which attach to bein<s havin< different abodes, such as .arrots
shut u. in different ca<es viG=, want of unity bein< made u. of .arts, non.ermanency,
etc= %e wou#d be sub0ect to e>.eriences ori<inatin< from connection
with bodies= To this the author <ives a suitab#e re.#y in the fo##owin< Sutra=
Sambho<a.ra.tiriti chet na vaiseshyat I=2=9 +,6-
If it be said that +bein< connected with the hearts of a##
individua# sou#s to- Its +BrahmanIs- Omni.resence, it wou#d a#so have
e>.erience +of .#easure and .ain- +we say- not so, on account of the
difference in the nature +of the two-=
Sambho<a.ra.ti1 that it has e>.erience of .#easure and .ainC Iti1 thusC
!het1 ifC "a1 notC (aiseshyat1 because of the difference in nature=
Another ob0ection is raised and refuted here=
The word HSambho<aI denotes mutua# e>.erience or common e>.erience= The
force of HSamI in HSambho<aI is that of HSahaI= The mere dwe##in< within a body is
not a cause a#ways of e>.eriencin< the .#easures or .ains connected with that
body= The e>.erience is sub0ect to the inf#uence of the <ood and evi# actions=
Brahman has no such ;arma= %e is action#ess +"ishkriya, Akarta-= In the :ita the
Lord says, EThe ;armas do not touch 'e and I have no attachment to the fruit of
;armas & "a mam karmani #im.anti na me karma.ha#e s.rihaF=
There is no e@ua#ity in e>.erience between Brahman and the individua# sou#,
because Brahman is a##&.ervadin<, of abso#ute .owerC the individua# sou# is of #itt#e
.ower and abso#ute#y de.endent=
Thou<h Brahman is a##&.ervadin< and connected with hearts of a## individua#
sou#s and is a#so inte##i<ent #ike them, %e is not sub0ect to .#easure and .ain=
Because the individua# sou# is an a<ent, he is the doer of <ood and bad actions=
Therefore he e>.eriences .#easure and .ain= Brahman is not the doer= %e is the
eterna# Satchidananda= %e is free from a## evi#=
The o..onent says1 The individua# sou# is in essence identica# with Brahman=
Therefore Brahman is a#so sub0ect to the .#easure and .ain e>.erienced by the
/iva or the individua# sou#= This is a foo#ish ar<ument= This is a fa##acy= In rea#ity
there is neither the individua# sou# nor .#easure and .ain= $#easure and .ain are
menta# creations on#y= Bhen the individua# sou# is under the inf#uence of i<norance
or Avidya, he foo#ish#y thinks that he is sub0ect to .#easure and .ain=
$ro>imity wi## not cause the c#in<in< of .ain and .#easure to Brahman= Bhen
somethin< in s.ace is affected by fire, the s.ace itse#f cannot be affected by fire=
Is ether b#ue because boys ca## it soL "ot even the s#i<htest trace of e>.erience of
.#easure and .ain can be attributed to Brahman=
Sruti dec#ares ETwo birds are #ivin< to<ether as friends on the same tree i=e=
body= One of them, i=e= the individua# sou#, eats the tastefu# fruit i=e= en0oys the
fruit of his actions1 and the other i=e= the Su.reme Sou# witnesses without eatin<
anythin<, i=e= without .artakin< of fruitF 'un= ?.= III&*&*=
Sutras * to 9 have estab#ished that the sub0ect of discussion in the @uoted
.ortion of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad !ha.ter III&*3 is Brahman and not the
individua# sou#=
Attradhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras 6&*8-
The eater is Brahman
Atta charachara<rahanat I=2=6 +38-
The Eater +is Brahman-, because both the movab#e and immovab#e
+i=e= the who#e wor#d- is taken +as %is food-=
Atta1 the EaterC !harachara<rahanat1 because the movab#e and
immovab#e +i=e= the who#e universe- is taken +as %is food-=
A .assa<e from the ;atho.anishad is now taken u. for discussion= Be read in
;atho.anishad I=2=24 EBho then knows where %e is, to Bhom the Brahmanas and
;shatriyas are +as it were- but food, and death itse#f a condimentLF This te>t
shows by means of the words HfoodI and HcondimentI that there is some eater=
Bho is this eaterL Is it the fire referred to in as eater1 ESoma indeed is food,
and fire eaterF Bri= ?.= I&3&5, or is it individua# sou# referred to as eater EOne of
them eats the sweet fruitF 'un= ?.= III&I&I, or the Su.reme Se#fL
Be re.#y that the eater must be the Su.reme Se#f because it is mentioned
what is movab#e and what is immovab#e= The entire universe is re&absorbed in
Brahman= A## thin<s movab#e and immovab#e are here to be taken as constitutin<
the food of Brahman whi#e Death itse#f is the condiment= The eater of the who#e
wor#d, the consumer of a## these thin<s in their tota#ity can be Brahman a#one and
none e#se=
The Brahmanas and the ;shatriyas are mentioned as mere e>am.#es as they
are foremost of created bein<s and as they ho#d a .re&eminent .osition= The words
are mere#y i##ustrative=
The who#e universe s.rink#ed over by Death is referred to here as the food=
!ondiment is a thin< which renders other thin<s more .a#atab#e and causes other
thin<s to be eaten with <reat re#ish= Therefore the Death itse#f is consumed, bein<
a condiment as it were, it makes other thin<s .a#atab#e= Therefore the Eater of the
entire wor#d made .a#atab#e by Death, can mean on#y Brahman in %is as.ect of
Destroyer= %e withdraws the who#e universe within %imse#f at the time of $ra#aya
or disso#ution= Therefore the Su.reme Se#f must be taken here as the Eater=
The o..onent says1 Brahman cannot be an eater= The Sruti dec#ares EThe
other #ooks on without eatin<F= Be say that this has no va#idity= The .assa<e aims
at denyin< the fruition of the resu#ts of works= It is not meant to deny the reabsor.tion
of the wor#d into BrahmanC because it is we##&estab#ished by a## the
(edanta&te>ts that Brahman is the cause of the creation, sustenance and reabsor.tion
of the wor#d= Therefore the Eater can here be Brahman on#y=
$rakaranaccha I=2=*8 +3*-
And on account of the conte>t a#so the +eater is Brahman-=
$rakaranat1 from the conte>tC !ha1 a#so, and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 6 is <iven=
Brahman is the sub0ect of the discussion= In the be<innin< "achiketas asks
)ama, ETe## me of that which is above <ood and evi#, which is beyond cause and
effect and which is other than the .ast and futureF ;atha ?.= I&2&*3= )ama
re.#ies, EI wi## te## you in brief= It is O'F ;atha ?.= I&2&*4= This Atman is neither
born nor does it dieF ;atha ?.= I&2&*9= %e fina##y inc#udes Eof whom the Brahmana
and the ;shatriya c#asses are, as it were, food and Death itse#f a condiment or
.ick#e, how can one thus know where that Atman isLF
A## this obvious#y shows that Brahman is the <enera# to.ic= To adhere to the
<enera# to.ic is the .ro.er .roceedin<= %ence the Eater is Brahman= urther the
c#ause EBho then knows where he isF, shows that rea#isation is very difficu#t= This
a<ain .oints to the Su.reme Se#f=
The force of the word H!haI +and- in the Sutra is to indicate that the Smriti is
a#so to the same effect, as says the :ita=
EThou art the Eater of the wor#ds, of a## that moves and standsC worthier of
reverence than the :uruIs se#f, there is none #ike TheeF=
:uha.ravishtadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras **&*2-
The dwe##ers in the cave of the heart are
the individua# sou# and Brahman
:uham .ravistavatmanau hi taddarsanat I=2=** +32-
The two who have entered into the cavity +of the heart- are
indeed the individua# sou# and the Su.reme Sou#, because it is so
seen=
:uham1 in the cavity +of the heart- $ravishtau1 the two who have enteredC
Atmanau1 are the two se#fs +individua# sou# and the Su.reme Sou#-C %i1 indeed,
becauseC Taddarsanat1 because it is so seen=
Another .assa<e of the ;atho.anishad is taken u. for discussion= In the same
;atho.anishad I&,&* we read, E%avin< entered the cavity of the heart, the two
en0oy the reward of their works in the body= Those who know Brahman ca## them
shade and #i<ht1 #ikewise those househo#ders who .erform the Trinachiketa
sacrificeF=
The doubt arises here whether the cou.#e referred to are the individua# sou#
and Buddhi +inte##ect-=
In the .assa<e under discussion, the cou.#e referred to are the individua# sou#
and the Su.reme Se#f, for these two, bein< both inte##i<ent se#fs, are of the same
nature= Be see that in ordinary #ife a#so whenever a number is mentioned, bein<s
of the same c#ass are understood to be meant= Bhen a bu## is brou<ht to us, we
say Hbrin< another, #ook out for a secondI= It means another bu##, not a horse or a
man= So, if with an inte##i<ent se#f, the individua# sou#, another is said to enter the
cavity of the heart, it must refer to another of the same c#ass i=e= to another
inte##i<ent bein< and not to the inte##ect +Buddhi- which is insentient=
Sruti and Smriti s.eak of the Su.reme Se#f as .#aced in the cave= Be read in
;atho.anishad I&2&*2 EThe ancient who is hidden in the cave, who dwe##s in the
abyssF= Be a#so find in Taittiriya ?.anishad II&* E%e who knows him hidden in the
cave, in the hi<hest etherF and Esearch for the se#f who entered into the caveF= A
s.ecia# abode for the a##&.ervadin< Brahman is <iven for the .ur.ose of conce.tion
and meditation= This is not contrary to reason=
Sometimes the characteristics of one in a <rou. are indirect#y a..#ied to the
who#e <rou. as when we say EThe men with an umbre##aF where on#y one has an
umbre##a and not the who#e <rou.= Simi#ar#y here a#so, thou<h it is on#y one who is
en0oyin< the fruits of actions both are s.oken of as eatin< the fruits=
The word H.ibantauI is in the dua# number meanin< Hthe two drink whi#e as a
matter of fact, the /iva on#y drinks the fruit of his works and not the Su.reme Se#f=
Be may e>.#ain the .assa<e by sayin< that whi#e the individua# sou# drinks, the
Su.reme Se#f a#so is said to drink because he makes the sou# to drink= The
individua# sou# is the direct a<ent, the Su.reme Se#f is the causa# a<ent that is to
say the individua# se#f direct#y drinks whi#e the Su.reme Se#f causes the individua#
sou# to drink=
The .hrases HshadeI and H#i<htI show the difference between the Infinite
;now#ed<e of the Su.reme Se#f and the finite know#ed<e of the /iva, or that the
/iva is bound down to the chain of Samsara, whi#e the Su.reme Se#f is above
Samsara=
Be, therefore, understand by the Htwo entered into the caveI, the individua#
sou# and the Su.reme Se#f=
Another reason for this inter.retation is <iven in the fo##owin< Sutra=
(iseshanaccha I=2=*2 +3,-
And on account of the distinctive @ua#ities +of the two mentioned
in subse@uent te>ts-=
(iseshanat1 on account of distinctive @ua#itiesC !ha1 and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra ** is <iven=
This is c#ear a#so from the descri.tion in other .ortions of the same scri.ture
viG= ;atho.anishad=
urther the distinctive @ua#ities mentioned in the te>t a<ree on#y with the
individua# sou# and the Su.reme Sou#= Because in a subse@uent .assa<e +I&,&,-
the characteristics of the two that have entered the cavity of the heart are <iven=
They indicate that the two are the individua# sou# and Brahman= E;now that the
Se#f to be the charioteer, the body to be the chariot=F The individua# sou# is
re.resented as a charioteer drivin< on throu<h the transmi<ratory e>istence and
fina# emanci.ation= urther it is said E%e attains the end of his 0ourney, that
hi<hest .#ace of (ishnuF ;atha ?.= I&,&6= %ere it is re.resented that the Su.reme
Se#f is the <oa# of the driverIs course= The two are mentioned here as the attainer
and the <oa# attained i=e= the individua# sou# or /iva and the Su.reme Sou# or
Brahman=
In the .recedin< .assa<e +I&2&*2- a#so it is said EThe wise, who by means of
meditation on his Se#f, reco<nises the Ancient who is difficu#t to be seen, who has
entered into the dark, who is hidden in the cave of the heart, who abides in the
abyss as :od, he indeed #eaves 0oy and sorrow far behindF= %ere the two are
s.oken of as the meditator and the ob0ect of meditation=
'oreover the Su.reme Se#f is the <enera# to.ic= It is therefore obvious that
the .assa<e under discussion refers to the individua# sou# and the Su.reme Se#f=
Antaradhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutras *,&*7-
The .erson within the eye is Brahman
Antara u.a.atteh I=2=*, +33-
The .erson within +the eye- +is Brahman- on account of +the
attributes mentioned therein- bein< a..ro.riate +on#y to Brahman-=
Antara1 inside +the eye-, the bein< within the eyeC ?.a.atteh1 on account
of the a..ro.riateness of +attributes-=
The bein< within the eye is Brahman, because it is reasonab#e to construe the
.assa<e as a..#yin< to the Su.reme Se#f than to anythin< e#se=
The form of worshi. in another .art of !hhando<ya ?.anishad +I(&*4&*-,
takin< the bein< within the eyes as the Su.reme Se#f, is taken u. as the sub0ect
for discussion=
In !hhando<ya ?.anishad I(&*4&* we read, EThis .erson that is seen in the
eye is the Se#f= This is Immorta# and fear#ess, this is BrahmanF= The doubt here
arises whether this .assa<e refers to the ref#ected se#f which resides in the eye, or
to the individua# sou# or to the se#f of some deity which .resides over the or<an of
si<ht or to the Su.reme Se#f=
The Sutra says that the .erson in the eye is Brahman on#y, because the
attributes HImmorta#I, Hfear#essI, etc=, mentioned here accord with the nature of the
Su.reme Se#f on#y=
The attributes Hbein< untouched by sinI, bein< HSamyadvamaI etc=, are
a..#icab#e to the Su.reme Se#f on#y= The attributes of bein< H(amaniI or the #eader
of a## and HBhamaniI, the A##&effu#<ent, a..#ied to the .erson in the eye are
a..ro.riate in the case of Brahman a#so=
Therefore, on account of a<reement, the .erson within the eye is the
Su.reme Se#f or Brahman on#y=
Sthanadivya.adesaccha I=2=*3 +35-
And on account of the statement of .#ace and so on=
Sthanadi1 the .#ace and the restC (ya.adesat1 on account of the
statementC !ha1 and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *, is <iven=
In other Srutis #ocation etc=, i=e=, abode, name and form are attributed to
Brahman %imse#f to faci#itate meditation= But how can the a##&.ervadin< Brahman
be in a #imited s.ace #ike the eyeL Definite abode #ike the cavity of the heart, the
eye, the earth, disc of the sun etc=, is <iven to the a##&.ervadin< Brahman for the
.ur.ose of meditation +?.asana-, 0ust as Sa#i<rama is .rescribed for meditation on
(ishnu= This is not contrary to reason=
The .hrase Hand so onI which forms .art of the Sutra shows that not on#y
abode is assi<ned to Brahman but a#so such thin<s as name and form not
a..ro.riate to Brahman which is devoid of name and form, are ascribed to It for
the sake of meditation, as Brahman without @ua#ities cannot be an ob0ect of
meditation= (ide !hh= ?.= *=5=5&7= E%is name is H?tI= %e with the <o#den beard=F
Sukhavisishtabhidhanadeva cha I=2=*4 +35-
And on account of the .assa<e referrin< to that which is
distin<uished by b#iss +i=e= Brahman-=
Sukha1 b#issC (isishta1 @ua#ified byC Abhidhanat1 because of the
descri.tionC Eva1 a#oneC !ha1 and=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *, is continued=
Because the te>t refers to the Su.reme Se#f on#y and not to /iva who is
miserab#e=
The same Brahman which is s.oken of as characterised by b#iss in the
be<innin< of the cha.ter in the c#auses EBreath is Brahman,F E;a is BrahmanF
E;ha is BrahmanF we must su..ose It to be referred to in the .resent .assa<e
a#so, as it is .ro.er to stick to the sub0ect matter under discussion=
The fires tau<ht to ?.akosa#a about Brahman EBreath is Brahman, b#iss is
Brahman, the ether is BrahmanF !hh= ?.= I(&*8&4= This same Brahman is further
e#ucidated by his teacher as Ethe bein< in the eyeF=
On hearin< the s.eech of the fires viG=, EBreath is Brahman, ;a is Brahman,
;ha is BrahmanF, ?.akosa#a says EI understand that breath is Brahman, but I do
not understand that ;a or ;ha is BrahmanF= Therefore the fires re.#y EBhat is ;a
is ;ha= Bhat is ;ha is ;aF=
The word ;a in ordinary #an<ua<e denotes sensua# .#easure= If the word ;ha
were not used to @ua#ify the sense of ;a one wou#d think that ordinary wor#d#y
.#easure was meant= But as the two words ;a and ;ha occur to<ether and @ua#ify
each other, they indicate Brahman whose Se#f is B#iss= Therefore the reference is
to Su.reme B#iss and such a descri.tion can a..#y on#y to Brahman=
If the word Brahman in the c#ause E;a is BrahmanF were not added and if the
sentence wou#d run E;a, ;ha is BrahmanF, the word ;a wou#d be on#y an ad0ective
and thus .#easure bein< a mere @ua#ity cannot be a sub0ect of meditation= To
.revent this, both words ;a as we## as ;ha are 0oined with the word Brahman= E;a
is Brahman= ;ha is BrahmanF= Nua#ities as we## as .ersons havin< those @ua#ities
cou#d be ob0ects of meditation=
Sruto.anishatka<atyabhidhanaccha I=2=*5 +37-
And on account of the statement of the way of him who has known
the Truth of the ?.anishads=
Sruto1 heardC ?.anishatka1 ?.anishadsC :ati1 wayC Abhidhanat1 because
of the statementC !ha1 and=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *, is continued=
The .erson in the eye is the Su.reme Se#f for the fo##owin< reason a#so= rom
Sruti we know of the way of the knower of Brahman= %e trave#s after death
throu<h the Devayana .ath or the .ath of the :ods= That way is described in
$rasna ?.= *&*8= EThose who have sou<ht the Se#f by .enance, abstinence, faith
and know#ed<e attain the Sun by the "orthern $ath or the .ath of Devayana=
rom thence they do not return= This is the immorta# abode, free from fear, and
the hi<hest=F
The knower of the E.erson in the eyeF a#so <oes by this .ath after death=
rom this descri.tion of the way which is known to be the way of him who knows
Brahman it is @uite c#ear that the .erson within the eye is Brahman=
The fo##owin< Sutra shows that it is not .ossib#e for the above te>t to mean
either the ref#ected Se#f or the /iva or the deity in the Sun=
Anavasthiterasamhhavaccha netarah I=2=*7 +39-
+The .erson within the eye is the Su.reme Se#f- and not any other
+i=e= the individua# sou# etc=- as these do not e>ist a#waysC and on
account of the im.ossibi#ity +of the @ua#ities of the .erson in the
bein< ascribed to any of these-=
Anavasthiteh1 not e>istin< a#waysC Asambhavat1 on account of the
im.ossibi#ityC !ha1 andC "a1 notC Itarah1 any other=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *, is continued=
The ref#ected se#f does not .ermanent#y abide in the eye= Bhen some .erson
comes near the eye the ref#ection of that .erson is seen in the eye= Bhen he
moves away the ref#ection disa..ears=
Sure#y you do not .ro.ose to have some one near the eye at the time of
meditation so that you may meditate on the ima<e in the eye= Such a f#eetin<
ima<e cannot be the ob0ect of meditation= The individua# sou# is not meant by the
.assa<e, because he is sub0ect to i<norance, desire and action, he has no
.erfection= %ence he cannot be the ob0ect of meditation= The @ua#ities #ike
immorta#ity, fear#essness, immanence, eternity, .erfection etc=, cannot be
a..ro.riate#y attributed to the ref#ected se#f or the individua# sou# or the deity in
the sun= Therefore no other se#f save the Su.reme Se#f is here s.oken of as the
.erson in the eye= The .erson in the eye +Akshi $urusha- must be viewed as the
Su.reme Se#f on#y=
Antaryamyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras *9&28-
The interna# ru#er is Brahman
Antaryamyadhidaivadishu taddharmavya.adesat I=2=*9 +36-
The interna# ru#er over the <ods and so on +is Brahman- because
the attributes of that +Brahman- are mentioned=
Antaryami1 the ru#er withinC Adhidaivadishu1 in the <ods, etc=C Tat1 %isC
Dharma1 attributesC (ya.adesat1 because of the statement=
A .assa<e from the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad is now taken u. for
discussion= In Bri= ?.= III&7&* we read J%e who within ru#es this wor#d and the
other wor#d and a## bein<sJ and #ater on J%e who dwe##s in the earth and within the
earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is, who ru#es the
earth from within, he is thy Se#f, the ru#er within, the immorta#J etc=, III&7&,=
%ere a doubt arises whether the Inner Ru#er +Antaryamin- denotes the
individua# sou# or some )o<in endowed with e>traordinary .owers such as for
instance, the .ower of makin< his body subt#e or the .residin< deity or $radhana
or Brahman +the %i<hest Se#f-=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says1 Some <od .residin< over the earth
and so on must be the Antaryamin= %e on#y is ca.ab#e of ru#in< the earth as he is
endowed with the or<ans of action= Ru#ershi. can ri<ht#y be ascribed to him on#y=
Or e#se the ru#er may be some )o<in who is ab#e to enter within a## thin<s on
account of his e>traordinary )o<ic .owers= !ertain#y the su.reme Se#f cannot be
meant as %e doesnot .ossess the or<ans of actions which are needed for ru#in<=
Be <ive the fo##owin< re.#y= The interna# Ru#er must be Brahman or the
Su.reme Se#f= Bhy soL Because %is @ua#ities are mentioned in the .assa<e under
discussion= Brahman is the cause of a## created thin<s= The universa# ru#ershi. is
an a..ro.riate attribute of the Su.reme Se#f on#y= Omni.otence, Se#fhood,
Immorta#ity, etc=, can be ascribed to Brahman on#y=
The .assa<e J%e whom the earth does not know,J shows that the Inner Ru#er
is not known by the earth&deity= Therefore it is obvious that the Inner Ru#er is
different from that deity= The attributes HunseenI, HunheardI, a#so refer to the
Su.reme Se#f on#y Bhich is devoid of sha.e and other sensib#e @ua#ities=
%e is a#so described in the section as bein< a##&.ervadin<, as %e is inside and
the Ru#er within of everythin< viG=, the earth, the sun, water, fire, sky, the ether,
the senses, etc= This a#so can be true on#y of the %i<hest Se#f or Brahman= or a##
these reasons, the Inner Ru#er is no other but the Su.reme Se#f or Brahman=
"a cha smartamataddharmabhi#a.at I=2=*6 +48-
And +the Interna# Ru#er is- not that which is tau<ht in the
Sankhya Smriti +viG=, $radhana- because @ua#ities contrary to its
nature are mentioned +here-=
"a1 neitherC !ha1 a#so, andC Smartam1 that which is tau<ht in +Sankhya-
SmritiC Ataddharmabhi#a.at1 because @ua#ities contrary to its nature are
mentioned=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *9 is <iven=
The word Antaryamin +Inner Ru#er- cannot re#ate to $radhana as it has not
<ot !haitanya +sentiency- and cannot be ca##ed Atman=
The $radhana is not this HInterna# Ru#erI as the attributes J%e is the immorta#,
unseen Seer, unheard %earerJ etc=, JThere is no other seer but %e, there is no
other thinker but %e, there is no other ;nower but %e= This is the Se#f, the Ru#er
within, the Immorta#= Everythin< e#se is of evi#J +Bri= ?.= III&7&2,-, cannot be
ascribed to the non&inte##i<ent b#ind $radhana=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says1 Be## then, if the term HInterna# Ru#erI
cannot denote the $radhana as it is neither a Se#f nor seer it can certain#y denote
the individua# sou# or /iva who is inte##i<ent and therefore sees, hears, thinks and
knows, who is interna# and therefore of the nature of Se#f= urther the individua#
sou# is ca.ab#e of ru#in< over the or<ans, as he is the en0oyer= Therefore the
interna# ru#er is the individua# sou# or /iva=
The fo##owin< Sutra <ives a suitab#e answer to this=
SariraschobhayeI.i hi bhedenainamadhiyate I=2=28 +4*-
And the individua# sou# +is not the Interna# Ru#er- for both a#so
+i=e= both recensions viG=, the ;anva and 'adhyandina Sakhas of the
Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad- s.eak of it as different +from the Interna#
Ru#er=-
Sarirah1 the embodied, the individua# sou#C !ha1 a#so, andC +"a1 not-C
?bhaye1 the both name#y the recentions ;anva and 'adhyandinasC A.i1 even,
a#soC %i1 becauseC Bhedena1 by way of differenceC Enam1 this, the /ivaC
Adhiyate1 read, s.eak of, indicate=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *9 is continued= The word HnotI is to be su..#ied
from the .recedin< Sutra=
The fo##owers of both Sakhas s.eak in their te>ts of the individua# sou# as
different from the interna# ru#er= The ;anvas read J%e who dwe##s in ;now#ed<e &
)o vi0nane tishthanJ Bri= ?.= III&7&22= %ere Hknow#ed<eI stands for the individua#
sou#= The 'adhyandinas read J%e who dwe##s in the Se#f & ya atmani tishthanJ=
%ere HSe#fI stands for the individua# sou#= In either readin< the individua# sou# is
s.oken of as different from the HInterna# Ru#erI, for the Interna# Ru#er is the Ru#er
of the individua# sou# a#so=
The difference between the /iva and Brahman is one of ?.adhi +#imitation-=
The difference between the Interna# Ru#er and the individua# sou# is mere#y the
.roduct of i<norance or Avidya= It has its reason in the #imitin< ad0unct, consistin<
of the or<ans of action, .resented by i<norance= The difference is not abso#ute#y
true= Because the Se#f within is one on#yC two interna# Se#fs are not .ossib#e= But
on account of #imitin< ad0uncts the one Se#f is .ractica##y treated as if it were two,
0ust as we make a distinction between the ether of the 0ar and the universa# ether=
The scri.tura# te>t Jwhere there is dua#ity, as it were, there one sees
anotherJ intimates that the wor#d e>ists on#y in the s.here of i<norance, whi#e the
subse@uent te>t JBut when the Se#f on#y is a## this how shou#d one see anotherJ
dec#ares that the wor#d disa..ears in the s.here of true know#ed<e=
Adrisyatvadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras 2*&2,-
That which cannot be seen is Brahma
Adrisyatvadi<unako dharmokteh I=2=2* +42-
The .ossessor of @ua#ities #ike indivisibi#ity etc=, +is Brahman-
on account of the dec#aration of Its attributes=
Adrisyatva1 invisibi#ityC Adi1 and the rest, be<innin< withC :unakah1 one
who .ossesses the @ua#ity +Adrisyatvadi<unakah1 .ossessor of @ua#ities #ike
invisibi#ity-C Dharmokteh1 because of the mention of @ua#ities=
Some e>.ressions from the 'undaka ?.anishad are now taken u. as the
sub0ect for discussion=
Be read in the 'undaka ?.anishad +I&*&4 O 5- JThe hi<her know#ed<e is this
by which the indestructib#e is known or rea#ised= That which cannot be seen nor
seiGed, which is without ori<in and @ua#ities, without hands and feet, the eterna#,
a##&.ervadin<, omni.resent, infinitesima#, that which is im.erishab#e, that it is
which the wise consider as the source of a## bein<s=J
%ere the doubt arises whether the source of a## bein<s which is s.oken of as
characterised by invisibi#ity etc=, is $radhana, or the individua# sou#, or the
Su.reme Se#f or the %i<hest Lord=
That which here is s.oken of as the source of a## bein<s +Bhutayoni-
characterised by such attributes as invisibi#ity and so on, can be the Su.reme Se#f
or Brahman on#y, nothin< e#se, because @ua#ities #ike J%e is a##&knowin<
+Sarva0na-, a##&.erceivin< +Sarvavit- 'un= ?.= I&*&6 are true on#y of Brahman and
not of the $radhana which is non&inte##i<ent= !ertain#y it cannot refer to the /iva or
the embodied sou# as he is narrowed by his #imitin< conditions= The section a#so, in
which these .assa<es occur re#ates to the %i<hest ;now#ed<e or $ara (idya=
Therefore it must refer to Brahman and not to $radhana or /iva=
(iseshanabhedavya.adesabhyam cha netarau I=2=22 +4,-
The other two +viG= the individua# sou# and the $radhana- are not
+the source of a## bein<s- for distinctive attributes and differences
are stated=
(iseshanabhedavya.adesabhyam1 on account of the mention of
distinctive attributes and differencesC !ha1 andC "a1 notC Itarau1 the other two=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 2* is <iven=
The source of a## bein<s is Brahman or the Su.reme Se#f but not either of the
two others viG=, the individua# sou# for the fo##owin< reason a#so=
Be read in the 'undaka ?.anishad II=*, 2 JThat the heaven#y .erson is
without a body= %e is both without and within, is birth#ess, without breath, and
without mind, .ure, hi<her than the hi<h, Im.erishab#e=J The distinctive attributes
mentioned here such as Jbein< of a heaven#y natureJ +Divya-, HBirth#essI, H$ureI,
etc=, can in no way be#on< to the individua# sou# who erroneous#y re<ards himse#f
to be #imited by name and form as .resented by Avidya or i<norance and
erroneous#y considers himse#f #imited, im.ure, cor.orea#, etc= Therefore the
.assa<e obvious#y refers to the Su.reme Se#f or Brahman who is the sub0ect of a##
the ?.anishads=
J%i<her than the hi<h, Im.erishab#e +$radhana-J intimates that the source of
a## bein<s s.oken of in the #ast Sutra is not the $radhana but somethin< different
from it= %ere the term im.erishab#e means the Avyaktam or Avyakrita +the
unmanifested or the undifferentiated- which re.resents the .otentia#ity or the
seed of a## names and forms, contains the subt#e .arts of the materia# e#ements
and abides in the Lord= As it is no effect of anythin<, it is hi<h when com.ared to
a## effects= Inte##ect, mind, e<oism, the Tanmatras, the or<ans are a## born from it=
JAksharat .aratah .arah & %i<her than the hi<h Im.erishab#eJ, which e>.resses a
difference c#ear#y indicates that the Su.reme Se#f or Brahman is meant here=
Beyond $radhana or Avyaktam is $ara Brahman= It is a sett#ed conc#usion
therefore that the source of a## bein<s must mean the hi<hest Se#f or Brahman
on#y=
A further ar<ument in favour of the same conc#usion is <iven in the fo##owin<
Sutra=
Ru.o.anyasaccha I&2&2, +43-
And on account of its form bein< mentioned +the .assa<e under
discussion refers to Brahman-=
Ru.a1 formC ?.anyasat1 because of the mentionC !ha1 and=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 2* is continued=
urther %is form is described in the 'undaka ?.anishad II&*&3 Jire is %is
head, %is eyes the sun and the moon, the @uarters %is ears, %is s.eech the
(edas, the wind %is breath, %is heart the universeC from %is feet came the earth,
%e is indeed the inner Se#f of a## bein<s=J
This statement of form can refer on#y to the Su.reme Lord or Brahman= Such
a descri.tion is a..ro.riate on#y in the case of Brahman, because the /iva is of
#imited .ower and because $radhana +matter- cannot be the Sou# or inner Se#f of
#ivin< bein<s=
As the Jsource of a## bein<sJ forms the <enera# to.ic, the who#e .assa<e from
Jrom %im is born breathJ u.to J%e is the inner Se#f of a## bein<sJ refers to that
same source=
JThe $erson indeed is a## this, sacrifice, know#ed<e etc=J 'un= ?.= II&*&*8,
intimates that the source of a## bein<s referred to in the .assa<e under discussion
is none other than the Su.reme Se#f or Brahman, for %e is the inner Se#f of a##
bein<s=
(aisvanaradhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras 23&,2-
(aisvanara is Brahman
(aisvanarah sadharanasabdaviseshat I=2=23 +44-
(aisvanara +is Brahman- on account of the distinction @ua#ifyin<
the common terms +J(aisvanaraJ and JSe#fJ-=
(aisvanarah1 (aisvanaraC Sadharana sabda1 common wordC (iseshat1
because of the distinction=
This Sutra .roves that the word J(aisvanaraJ used in Sruti for worshi.
indicates Brahman=
Be read in !hh= ?.= (=*9=*&2 J%e who meditates on the (aisvanara Se#f,
e>tendin< from heaven to earth as identica# with his own Se#f, eats food in a##
bein<s, in a## se#fs= Of that (aisvanara Se#f Sute0as +heaven- is the head, the sun
the eye, the feet the earth, the mouth the Ahavaniya fire=J
%ere the doubt arises whether by the term J(aisvanaraJ we have to
understand the <astric fire or the e#ementa# fire, or the <od .residin< over the
e#ementa# fire, or the individua# sou# or the Su.reme Se#f +Brahman-=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says that (aisvanara is the <astric fire
because it is said in Bri= ?.= (&6 JA<ni (aisvanara is the fire within man by which
the food that is eaten is di<ested= Or it may denote fire in <enera# or the deity
which .resides over the e#ementa# fire or the individua# sou# who bein< an en0oyer
is in c#ose vicinity to (aisvanara fire=
The Siddhantin says here that the Su.reme Se#f or Brahman on#y is referred
to on account of the @ua#ifyin< ad0uncts to these words= The ad0uncts are J%eaven
is the head of this (aisvanara Se#f, the Sun its eyes, etc=J This is .ossib#e on#y in
the case of the Su.reme Se#f=
urther in the .assa<e J%e eats food in a## wor#ds, in a## bein<s, in a## se#fs=J
This is .ossib#e on#y if we take the term (aisvanara to denote the %i<hest Se#f=
The fruit of meditation on this (aisvanara Se#f is the attainment of a## desires
and destruction of a## sins +!hh= ?.= (=23=,-= This can on#y be true if the Su.reme
Se#f is meant= 'oreover the cha.ter be<ins with the en@uiry JBhat is our Se#fL
Bhat is BrahmanLJ The words HSe#fI and HBrahmanI are marks of Brahman and
indicate the Su.reme Se#f on#y= The word HBrahmanI is used in its .rimary sense=
Therefore it is .ro.er to think that the who#e cha.ter treats of Brahman on#y=
'oreover, etymo#o<ica##y a#so the word (aisvanara means BrahmanC because it is
com.osed of two words J(isvaJ meanin< Ja##J and J"araJ meanin< HmenI name#y
J%e who contains a## men within himse#f=J Such a bein< is Brahman on#y=
It is a sett#ed conc#usion, therefore, that on#y Brahman can be meant by the
term J(aisvanaraJ=
Smaryamanamanumanam syaditi I=2=24 +45-
Because that +cosmic form of the Su.reme Lord- which is described
in the Smriti is an indicatory mark or inference +from which we infer
the meanin< of this Sruti te>t under discussion-=
Smaryamanam1 mentioned in the SmritiC Anumanam1 indicatory mark,
inferenceC Syat1 may beC Iti1 because thus=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 23 is <iven= The word HItiI denotes a reason=
It .oints to a corroborative statement which e>.resses the same thin< as the
Sruti= The Smritis inter.ret the .assa<es of the Sruti= Therefore where a doubt
arises as to the si<nificance of a .assa<e in the Sruti, the Smriti may be consu#ted
in order to <et more #i<ht on the sub0ect matter= The Smriti <ives a descri.tion of
the cosmic form of the %i<hest Lord as J%e whose mouth is fire, whose head is
heaven, whose nave# the ether, whose eyes the sun, whose ears the re<ions,
reverence to %im, whose body is the wor#d=J This is in a<reement with the
descri.tion in the te>t under discussion= The same Lord who is s.oken of in the
Sruti is described in the Smriti a#so=
In the Bha<avad :ita K(&*3 the word (aisvanara is e>.ress#y a..#ied to the
Lord & JI havin< become the fire of #ife, take .ossession of the bodies of breathin<
bein<s and united with the #ife&breaths, I di<est the four kinds of food=J %ere a
truth about the Lord is dec#ared in a Smriti .assa<e and from it we may infer that
the (aisvanara (idya tau<ht in the !hhando<ya ?.anishad a#so refers to this
mystery of the Lord= %ence (aisvanara is the %i<hest Lord= Therefore it is a sett#ed
conc#usion that the Su.reme Lord is referred to in the te>t=
In the fo##owin< Sutra the author removes the doubt that the (aisvanara
may denote the <astric fire=
SabdadibhyoIntah.ratisthanaccha neti chet na tatha
drishtyu.adesat asambhavat .urushama.i
chainamadhiyate I=2=25 +47-
If it be said that +(aisvanara is- not +Brahman- or the %i<hest
Lord on account of the term +viG=, (aisvanara which has a different
sett#ed meanin< viG=, <astric fire- etc=, and on account of his
abidin< within +which is a characteristic of the <astric fire- +we
say- no, because there is the instruction to conceive +Brahman- as
such +as the <astric fire, because it is im.ossib#e for the <astric
fire to have the heaven etc=, for its head and other #imbs- and a#so
because they +the (a0asaneyins- describe him +viG= the (aisvanara- as
man +which term cannot a..#y to the <astric fire-=
Sabdadibhyah1 on account of the wordC Antah1 withinC $ratishthanat1
because of abidin<C !ha1 andC "a1 notC Iti chet1 if it be saidC "a1 not soC Tatha1
thus, as suchC Drishtyu.adesat1 on account of the instructions to conceive itC
Asambhavat1 because of im.ossibi#ityC $urusham1 as .ersonC A.i1 a#soC !ha1
andC Evam1 himC Adhyate1 +they- describe=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 23 is continued=
The $urva.akshin raises the fo##owin< ob0ection= The ordinary meanin< of
J(aisvanaraJ is fire= 'oreover scri.ture s.eaks of the (aisvanara as abidin<
within= J%e knows him abidin< within manJ Sat= Br= *8&5&*&** which a..#ies to the
<astric fire on#y= Therefore the <astric fire a#one and not Brahman is referred to in
the te>t under discussion=
This Sutra refutes this ob0ection= The Siddhantin <ives the fo##owin< re.#y=
The Sruti here teaches the worshi. of Brahman in the <astric fire by way of
meditation +?.asana- ana#o<ous#y to such .assa<es as JLet a man meditate on
the mind as BrahmanJ !hh= ?.= III&*9&*=
'oreover the <astric fire cannot have heaven for its head, and so on= urther
the (a0asaneyins consider (aisvanara as a man +$urusha-= JThis A<ni (aisvanara
is a manJ Sat= Br= *8=5=*&**=
Therefore J(aisvanaraJ here refers to Brahman on#y= In the fo##owin< Sutra
the author sets aside the view that (aisvanara of this .assa<e means the Devata
ca##ed A<ni or the e#ementa# fire=
Ata eva na devata bhutam cha I=2=27 +49-
or the same reasons +the (aisvanara- cannot be the deity +fire-
or the e#ement +fire-=
Ata eva1 for the same reasonsC "a1 +is- notC Devata1 the .residin< deity of
fireC Bhutam1 the e#ement of fireC !ha1 and=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 23 is continued=
The $urva.akshin says1 the .residin< deity of fire is a mi<hty bein<= %e is
endowed with <reat #ord#iness and .ower= Therefore heaven, etc=, may very
a..ro.riate#y be its head and other members= Therefore the .assa<e may very
we## a..#y to him=
or the same reasons stated in Sutra 25 (aisvanara is neither the divinity of
fire nor the e#ement of fire= The e#ementa# fire is mere heat and #i<ht= The heaven
and so on cannot .ro.er#y be ascribed as its head and so on, because an effect
cannot be the Se#f of another effect= A<ain the heaven#y wor#d cannot be ascribed
as head, etc=, to the <od of fire, because it is not the Su.reme !ause but a mere
effect and its .ower or <#ory de.ends on the Su.reme Lord= To them the word
JAtmanJ cou#d not a..ro.riate#y be a..#icab#e at a##=
Sakshada.yavirodham /aiminih I=2=29 +46-
/aimini +dec#ares that there is- no contradiction even +if by
(aisvanara- +Brahman is- direct#y +taken as the ob0ect of worshi.-=
Sakshat1 direct#yC A.i1 a#so, evenC Avirodham1 no ob0ection, no
contradictionC /aiminih1 +so says- /aimini=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 23 is continued=
/aimini says that it is not necessary to state that what is meant by
(aisvanara is fire as a symbo# of :od and that the view that it means Brahman
direct#y and in a .rimary sense is @uite consistent and a..ro.riate= The very word
H(aisvanaraI means the tota#ity of #ife and a..#ies to Brahman as he is the Sou# of
a## +Sarvatmatvat-=
This Sutra dec#ares that H(aisvanaraI can be taken direct#y to mean Brahman
as an ob0ect of meditation, because (aisvanara a#so means the universa# man i=e=,
the a##&.ervadin< Brahman %imse#f= As the word (aisvanara #itera##y means J%e to
whom be#on< a## menJ or Jwho is the #eader +"ara- of a## +(isva-J so the word
(aisvanara denotes etymo#o<ica##y the Su.reme Brahman=
Abhivyakterityasmarathyah I=2=26 +58-
On account of the manifestation, so says Aasmarathya=
Abhivyakteh1 because of manifestationC Iti1 thus, soC Aasmarathyah1
+says- Asmarathya=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 23 is continued=
In the !hhando<ya ?.anishad under discussion (aisvanara is described as
havin< the siGe of a s.an= %ow can the Infinite Brahman be #imited by the
measure of a $radesa or a s.anL To this ob0ection the author <ives his answer in
the fo##owin< Sutra=
The sa<e Aasmarathya says that for the benefit of the worshi..er the Infinite
Brahman manifests %imse#f in the finite individua##y bein< #oca#ised in #imited
.#aces such as the body or the heart of the human bein<= Therefore there is no
incon<ruity in usin< the word J(aisvanaraJ +even standin< for the <astric fire- to
si<nify Brahman= Even thou<h Brahman is a##&.ervadin<, yet %e s.ecia##y
manifests %imse#f as e>tendin< from heaven to earth or in the heart for the sake
of %is devotees=
Asmarathya says that the Infinite is rea#ised throu<h %is <race in the #imited
s.ace of menta# ima<e in the mind or a .hysica# ima<e without= The devotees who
meditate on Brahman in their heart as havin< the siGe of a s.an, see %im of that
siGe, because %e manifests %imse#f to them in that form=
This is the o.inion of Aasmarathya=
%ence, accordin< to the o.inion of the teacher Aasmarathya the scri.tura#
te>t which s.eaks of %im who is measured by a s.an may refer to the Su.reme
Se#f or the %i<hest Lord=
Anusmriterbadarih I=2=,8 +5*-
or the sake of meditation or constant remembrance & so says the
sa<e Badari=
Anusmriteh1 for the sake of meditation or constant remembranceC
Baadarih1 +so says- the sa<e Baadari=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 23 is continued=
The sa<e Baadari is of o.inion that this measure of a s.an is a menta# device
to faci#itate meditation=
%e says that the siGe of the thumb refers to a menta# ima<e and not to the
actua# siGe=
The Su.reme Lord may be ca##ed Hmeasured by a s.anI because %e is
remembered or meditated, by means of the mind, which is seated in the heart
which is measured by a s.an= The siGe of the heart is that of a s.an= As Brahman
is meditated as abidin< in the #otus of the heart, the as.irant invo#untari#y
associates him with the siGe of a s.an= This menta# association or Anusmriti is the
cause why Brahman is ca##ed $radesamatra, the measure of a s.an=
Therefore (aisvanara may we## stand for Brahman=
Sam.atteriti 0aiministatha hi darsayati I=2=,* +52-
Because of ima<inary identity the Su.reme Lord may be ca##ed
$radesamatra +s.an #on<-= So says /aimini because so +the Sruti-
dec#ares=
Sam.atteh1 because of ima<inary identityC Iti1 thus, soC /aimini1 +says-
/aiminiC Tatha1 in this wayC %i1 becauseC Darsayati1 +the Sruti- dec#ares=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 23 is continued=
/aimini says that the descri.tion refers to a state of rea#isation of form
between the crown of the head and the chin in your body= The cosmic bein< is
worshi..ed throu<h the identification of different .arts of %is with the different
.arts of the worshi..erIs body from the to. of head to the chin= The head of the
meditator or worshi..er is heaven, the eyes the sun and the moon, and so on= In
this meditation the cosmic bein< is #imited to the siGe of a s.an, the distance from
the crown of the head to the chin= %ence /aimini says that the %i<hest Lord in the
.assa<e under discussion is considered as of the siGe of a s.an=
The Sruti a#so dec#ares JThe teacher said, .ointin< to his own head= HThis is
the %i<hest (aisvanaraI i=e= the head of the (aisvanaraJ & (a0asaneyi Brahmana=
Amananti chainamasmin I=2=,2 +5,-
'oreover they +the /aba#as- teach that this +Su.reme Lord is to
be meditated u.on- in this +the s.ace between the head and the chin-=
Amananti1 +they- s.eak, teach, recite, dec#areC !ha1 moreover, a#so, andC
Enam1 thisC Asmin1 in this=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 23 is conc#uded=
'oreover the /aba#as s.eak in their te>t of the Su.reme Lord in the
intermediate s.ace between the to. of the head and the chin=
/aba#a Sruti a#so says so= It says that %e is to be rea#ised Avimukta +fu##
#iberation- between (arana +sin .reventor- and "asi +sin destroyer-=
/aba#a ?.anishad says JBhat is the .#aceL The .#ace where the eye&brows
and the nose 0oin= That is the 0oinin< .#ace of the heaven#y wor#d re.resented by
the u..er .art of the head and of the other i=e= the earth#y wor#d re.resented by
the chin=J
Sutras 27 to ,2 dec#are that the reference to the Su.reme Lord by the term
J$radesamatra as e>tendin< from heaven to the earth or as measured by a s.anJ
is @uite a..ro.riate=
By a## this it is .roved that (aisvanara is the Su.reme Lord=
See /aba#a ?.anishad&*=
Thus ends the Second $ada +Section 2- of the irst Adhyaya +!ha.ter I- of
the Brahma&Sutras of the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
SE!TIO" ,
Introduction
In the #ast Section te>ts of doubtfu# im.ort were inter.reted to refer to
Brahman= Some other e>.ressions .rescribed for divine contem.#ation in different
Srutis, not a#ready discussed in Section 2 are now taken u. for discussion to .rove
that they a## indicate the same Infinite Brahman=
In the irst Section of the irst !ha.ter the author +Sutrakara- took u. the
terms which referred to the manifested wor#d such as Akasa +ether-, $rana
+ener<y-, /yoti +#i<ht- and showed that they rea##y refer to Brahman= In the
Second Section the author took u. the terms which referred to the human body
and showed that they refer to Brahman= The Section referred to the Sa<una
as.ect of Brahman= The Third Section refers to the "ir<una as.ect of Brahman=
%ere the sub0ect of discussion is to $ara Brahman or the Su.reme "ir<una
Brahman=
Syno.sis
Some other .assa<es .rescribed for meditation in different Srutis, not a#ready
discussed in Section&2 are now taken u. for discussion to .rove that they a##
indicate the same Infinite, Satchidananda, a##&.ervadin<, eterna#, Immorta#
Brahman=
Adhikarana I1 +Sutras *&7- .roves that that within which the heaven, the
earth etc=, are woven +'un= ?.= II&2&4- is Brahman=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutras 9&6- shows that the Bhuma referred to in !hh= ?.= (II&
2, is Brahman=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutras *8&*2- teaches that the Akshara +the Im.erishab#e
one- of Bri= ?.= III&9&9 in which the ether is woven is Brahman=
Adhikarana I(1 +Sutra *,- decides that the %i<hest $erson who is to be
meditated u.on with the sy##ab#e O' accordin< to $rasna ?.= (&4 is not the #ower
but the hi<her Brahman=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutras *3&2*- shows that the sma## ether +Daharakasa- within
the #otus of the heart mentioned in !hh= ?.= (III&* is Brahman=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutras 22&2,- .roves that he after whom everythin< shines,
by whose #i<ht a## this is #i<hted & ;atha ?.= II&2&*4 & is not some materia#
#uminous body, but Brahman itse#f=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutras 23&24- decides that the .erson of the siGe of a
thumb mentioned in ;atha ?.= II&*&*2 is not the individua# sou# but Brahman=
Adhikarana (III1 +Sutras 25&,,- The ne>t two Adhikaranas are of the nature
of a di<ression= They raise a side issue and decide that deities are e@ua##y entit#ed
to .ractise Brahma (idya as .rescribed in the (edas= Sutras 26 and ,8 estab#ish
the conc#usion that the (edas are eterna#=
Adhikarana IK1 +Sutras ,3&,9- e>.#ains that Sudras are a#to<ether not
entit#ed for Brahma (idya=
Adhikarana K1 +Sutra ,6- .roves that the $rana in which everythin< tremb#es
accordin< to ;atha ?.= II&,&2 is Brahman=
Adhikarana KI1 +Sutra 38- .roves that the H#i<htI +/yoti- mentioned in !hh=
?.= (III&*2&, is the %i<hest Brahman=
Adhikarana KII1 +Sutra 3*- decides that the ether which revea#s names and
forms +!hh= ?.= (III&*3- is not the e#ementa# ether but Brahman=
Adhikarana KIII1 +Sutras 32&3,- teaches that the (i0nanamaya & he who
consists of know#ed<e of Bri= ?.= I(&,&7 is not the individua# sou# but Brahman=
Dyubhvadyadhikaranam 1 To.ic * +Sutras *&7-
The abode of heaven, earth etc= is Brahman
Dyubhvadyayatanam svasabdat I=,=* +53-
The abode of heaven, earth, etc=, +is Brahman- on account of the
term, HownI i=e=, HSe#fI=
Dyu1 heavenC Bhu1 earthC Adi1 and the restC Ayatanam1 abodeC Sva1
ownC Sabdat1 from the word +Sva sabdat1 on account of the word HSe#fI-=
An e>.ression from the 'undaka ?.anishad is taken u. for discussion=
$ara Brahman is the basis or restin< .#ace of heaven, earth etc=, as the term
Atman indicative of %im is found in the .assa<e= Be read in 'undaka ?.anishad II&
2&4 J%e in whom the heaven, the earth, and the sky are woven, as a#so the mind
with a## the senses, know %im a#one as the Se#f, and #eave off other ta#kD %e is the
brid<e of immorta#ity=J
%ere the doubt arises whether the abode is the Su.reme Brahman or
somethin< e#se=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent ho#ds that the abode is somethin< e#se on
account of the e>.ression J%e is the brid<e of immorta#ityJ= %e says1 it is known
from dai#y e>.erience that a brid<e takes one to some further bank= It is
im.ossib#e to assume somethin< beyond the Su.reme Brahman, because the
Srutis dec#are, JBrahman is end#ess without a shoreJ Bri= ?.= II&3&*2= As the
$radhana is the <enera# cause, it may be ca##ed the <enera# abode= Or the
Sutratman may be the abode= The Srutis say JAir is that thread, O :autamaD By
air as by a thread O :autamaD this wor#d and the other wor#d and a## bein<s are
strun< to<etherJ Bri= ?.= III&7&2= So the air su..orts a## thin<s= Or e#se the /iva
may be the abode with reference to the ob0ects of en0oyment as he is the en0oyer=
%e who is s.oken of as the abode, in whom the earth, heaven etc=, are
woven is Brahman on#y, on account of the term HOwnI or HSe#fI which is a..ro.riate
on#y if Brahman is referred to in the te>t and not $radhana or Sutratman= +Be
meet with the word HSe#fI in the .assa<e & J;now him a#one as the Se#fJ-=
Brahman is s.oken of in the Sruti as the <enera# abode by its own terms i=e=
by terms .ro.er#y desi<natin< Brahman as, for instance, JA## these creatures, my
dear, have their root in the bein<, their abode in the bein<, their rest in the bein<J
+!hh= ?.= (I&9&3-=
In the te>ts .recedin< and fo##owin< this one, i=e= in 'un= ?.= II&*&*8 and II&
2&** Brahman is s.oken of= Therefore it is on#y .ro.er to infer that Brahman on#y
is referred to in the intervenin< te>ts which is under discussion= In the te>ts cited
above mention is made of an abode and that which abides= In 'undaka ?.anishad
II&2&** we read1 JBrahman indeed is a## this=J rom this a doubt may arise that
Brahman is of a manifo#d varie<ated nature, 0ust as in the case of a tree consistin<
of #eaves, branches, stem, root etc= #n order to remove this doubt the te>t
dec#ares in the .assa<e under discussion J;now %im a#one as the Se#fJ i=e= know
the Se#f a#one and not that which is mere#y a .roduct of Avidya +i<norance- and is
fa#se or i##usory= Another scri.tura# te>t re.roves the man who thinks that this
wor#d is rea#= Jrom death to death <oes he who beho#ds any difference hereJ
+;atha ?.= II&3&**-=
The statement JA## is BrahmanJ aims at disso#vin< the wron< conce.tion of
the rea#ity of the wor#d= It does not intimate that Brahman is of manifo#d,
varie<ated nature= The homo<eneous nature of Brahman is c#ear#y stated in the
Srutis= JAs a mass of sa#t has neither inside nor outside, but is a#to<ether a mass
of taste, thus indeed has that Se#f +Brahman- neither inside nor outside, but is
a#to<ether a mass of know#ed<eJ +Bri= ?.= I(&4&*,-= or a## these reasons the
abode of heaven, earth etc=, is the Su.reme Brahman=
The word Setu +brid<e- in the words HAmritasyaisa SetuhI +%e is the brid<e of
immorta#ity- mere#y refers to %is bein< the basis of every created ob0ect and the
means of immorta#ity= The word Hbrid<eI is meant to intimate on#y that which is
ca##ed a brid<e that su..orts, not that it has a further bank= )ou shou#d not think
that the brid<e meant is #ike an ordinary brid<e made of wood or stone= Because
the word HSetuI is derived from the root HSiI which means to bind= The word
conveys the idea of ho#din< to<ether or su..ortin<=
'ukto.asri.yavya.adesat I=,=2 +54-
Because of the dec#aration +in the scri.tures- that that is to be
attained by the #iberated=
'ukta u.asri.ya1 to be attained by the #iberatedC (ya.adesat1 because
of dec#aration=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra I is <iven=
The above word JDyubhvadyayatanamJ refers to $ara Brahman, a#so because
%e is described as attained by the emanci.ated sou#=
A further reason is <iven to intimate that Brahman is meant in the .assa<e
under discussion= Brahman is the <oa# of the emanci.ated= That Brahman is that
which is to be resorted to by the #iberated is known from other scri.tura# .assa<es
such as JThe fetter of the heart is broken, a## doubts are so#ved, a## his works
.erish when %e who is the hi<her and the #ower has been behe#dJ 'un= ?.= II&2&9=
JThe wise man freed from name and form <oes to the divine $erson who is <reater
than the <reatJ +'un= ?.= III=2&9-= JBhen a## desires which once entered his heart
are destroyed then does the morta# become immorta#, then he obtains BrahmanJ
+Bri= ?.= I(&3&7-=
"owhere you wi## find that the $radhana and simi#ar entities are to be
resorted to by the emanci.ated=
Be read in the Bri= ?.= I(&3&2*, JLet a wise Brahmana after he has
discovered %im, .ractise wisdom= Let him not seek after many words, because
that is mere weariness of the ton<ue=J or this reason a#so the abode of heaven,
earth, etc=, is the Su.reme Brahman=
"anumanamatacchabdat I=,=, +55-
+The abode of heaven etc=- is not that which is inferred i=e=
$radhana because there is no term indicatin< it=
"a1 notC Anumanam1 that which is inferred i=e= $radhanaC Atad sabdat1
because there is no word denotin< it=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
The abode referred to in Sutra * does not indicate $radhana because there is
no such e>.ression in the said 'undaka ?.anishad as can be construed to indicate
$radhana or matter= On the contrary such terms as J%e who knows a## +Sarva0na-
understands a## +Sarvavit-J +'un= ?.= I&*&6- intimate an inte##i<ent bein< o..osed
to $radhana in nature= or the same reason the air +Sutratman- cannot be
acce.ted as the abode of heaven, earth etc=
$ranabhriccha I=,=3 +57-
+"or- a#so the individua# sou#=
$ranabhrit1 the #ivin< or individua# sou#, su..orter of $rana, i=e=, /ivaC !ha1
a#soC +"a1 not-=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
The word HnotI is understood here from the .recedin< Sutra=
A#thou<h the individua# sou# is an inte##i<ent bein< and can therefore be
denoted by the word HSe#fI yet omniscience and simi#ar @ua#ities do not be#on< to
him, as his know#ed<e is #imited by the ad0uncts= %e cannot become the restin<
.#ace or abode of the entire wor#d as he is #imited and therefore not omni.resent=
The individua# sou# cannot be acce.ted as the abode of heaven, earth etc=, for
the fo##owin< reason a#so=
Bhedavya.adesat I=,=4 +59-
+A#so- on account of the dec#aration of difference +between-
individua# sou# and the abode of heaven etc=
Bhedavya.adesat1 on account of difference bein< mentioned=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
In the te>t under discussion viG=, J;now him a#one as the Se#f +Atman-J +'un=
?.= II&2&4-, there is a dec#aration of difference= The individua# sou# who is desirous
of emanci.ation is the ;nower and abode of heaven is the thin< to be known=
Brahman which is denoted by the word HSe#fI and re.resented as the ob0ect of
know#ed<e is understood to be the abode of heaven, earth and so on=
or the fo##owin< reason a#so the individua# sou# cannot be acce.ted as the
abode of heaven, earth etc=
$rakaranat I=,=5 +56-
On account of the sub0ect matter=
$rakaranat1 On account of the sub0ect matter, from the conte>t=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
The Su.reme Brahman is the sub0ect matter of the entire cha.ter= )ou can
understand this from the .assa<e JSir, what is that throu<h which when it is
known, everythin< e#se becomes knownLJ 'un= ?.= I&*&,= %ere the know#ed<e of
everythin< is said to be de.endent on the know#ed<e of one thin<= Because a## this
i=e= the who#e universe becomes known if Brahman the Se#f of a## is known, but
not if on#y the individua# sou# is known=
The 'undaka ?.anishad be<ins with Hwhat is that throu<h whichI and
conc#udes by sayin< JThe knower of the Brahman becomes BrahmanJ III&2&6= This
c#ear#y intimates that the sub0ect matter of the who#e ?.anishad from the
be<innin< to the end is Brahman on#y= %ence it is the same Brahman which is
s.oken of as the restin< .#ace of heaven, earth and so on=
Another reason a<ainst the individua# sou# is <iven in the fo##owin< Sutra=
Sthityadanabhyam cha I= ,=7 +78-
And on account of the two conditions of remainin< unattached and
eatin< +of which the former is characteristic of the Su.reme Se#f,
the #atter of the individua# sou#-=
Sthiti1 abidin<, e>istenceC Adanabhyam1 eatin<C !ha1 and=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is conc#uded=
Be read in 'undako.anisad III&*&*= JTwo birds, inse.arab#e friends c#in< to
the same tree= One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other #ooks on +remains as a
witness-=J The .assa<e refers to Brahman as Se#f&.oised b#iss and to the individua#
sou# as eatin< the sweet and bitter fruits of actions= %ere Brahman is described as
the si#ent witness= The .assa<e describes the condition of mere inactive .resence
of Brahman= The individua# sou# eats the fruits of his works viG= .#easure and .ain
and therefore he is different from Brahman= The two states viG= mere .resence
and the en0oyment indicate that Brahman and the individua# sou# are referred to=
This descri.tion which distin<uishes the two can be a.t on#y if the abode of heaven
etc= is Brahman= Otherwise there wi## be no continuity of to.ic=
It cannot be said that the .assa<e mere#y describes the nature of the
individua# sou#, because it is nowhere the .ur.ose of the scri.ture to describe the
individua# sou#= The individua# sou# is known to everyone as a<ent and en0oyer=
Ordinary e>.erience te##s us nothin< of Brahman= Brahman is the s.ecia# to.ic of
a## scri.tura# te>ts= The .ur.ose of the scri.tures is a#ways to describe and
estab#ish Brahman which is not we## known=
Bhumadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras 9&6-
Bhuma is Brahman
Bhuma sam.rasadadadhyu.adesat I=,=9 +7*-
Bhuma +is Brahman- because it is tau<ht after the state of dee.
s#ee. +i=e= after $rana or the vita# air which remains awake even in
that state-=
Bhuma1 the vast, the Infinite, the fu##C Sam.rasadat adhi1 beyond the
state of dee. s#ee. +here the vita# .rinci.#e or $rana-C ?.adesat1 because of the
teachin<=
The term HBhumaI does not denote numerica# #ar<eness but .ervasion in the
sha.e of fu#ness= Sam.rasada means the undisturbed .#ace or b#iss hence the
state of dee. s#ee., when that b#iss is en0oyed= HAdhiI means above, beyond=
Bhuma denotes Brahman, because it is described in Sruti to be above $rana,
which is here re.resented by the b#iss en0oyed durin< dee. s#ee.= Bhuma refers to
Brahman as the .assa<e teaches an entity hi<her than Sam.rasada i=e= $rana or
vita# air which is awake and active even in dee. s#ee.=
An e>.ression from the !hhando<ya ?.anishad is now taken u. for
discussion= In the seventh cha.ter of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad Sanatkumara
<ives instructions to "arada= %e be<ins with HnameI and takes the student ste. by
ste.= %e <oes hi<her and hi<her and u#timate#y teaches the hi<hest truth which is
Bhuma or the Infinite= Sanatkumara says to "arada JBhuma is B#iss= )ou shou#d
desire to understand where one sees nothin< e#se, hears nothin< e#se,
understands nothin< e#se, that is Bhuma=J (III&22&23=
%ere the doubt arises whether Bhuma is the vita# air or Brahman +the
Su.reme Se#f-=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent maintains that the vita# air is Bhuma= %e
says1 "arada a..roaches Sanatkumara for initiation into the mysteries of Atman=
Be meet with a series of @uestions and answers such as JIs there anythin<
<reater than a nameL S.eech is <reater than name= Is there anythin< <reater than
s.eechL 'ind is <reater than s.eech which e>tends from name u. to vita# airJ=
Then "arada does not ask whether there is any hi<her truth= But sti##
Sanatkumara <ives an e>.osition on Bhuma= This intimates that Bhuma is not
different from the vita# air tau<ht a#ready=
urther he ca##s the knower of the vita# air an Ativadin i=e=, one who makes a
statement sur.assin< .recedin< statements= This c#ear#y shows that the vita# air is
the hi<hest Truth=
This Sutra refutes the ar<ument and says that Bhuma is Brahman=
Sanatkumara distinct#y says to "arada & EBut veri#y he is an Ativadin who dec#ares
the hi<hest Bein< to be the True +Satya-F !hh= ?.= (II&*5&*= This c#ear#y indicates
that it refers to somethin< hi<her than $rana or the vita# air= One can become tru#y
an Ativadin by knowin< this Su.reme Truth on#y=
Thou<h "arada does not ask Sanatkumara EIs there anythin< <reater than
the vita# airLF, a new to.ic about Brahman +Bhuma- which is the Su.reme Truth is
be<un= "arada said to Sanatkumara ESir, may I become an Ativadin throu<h the
Truth=F Sanatkumara #eads "arada ste. by ste., sta<e by sta<e to the know#ed<e
of Brahman or Bhuma and instructs him that this Bhuma is Brahman=
"arada at first #istens to the instruction <iven by Sanatkumara on various
matters, the #ast of which is $rana and then becomes si#ent= Thereu.on the wise
Sanatkumara e>.#ains to him s.ontaneous#y without bein< asked that he on#y is
an Ativadin who has know#ed<e of the %i<hest Truth, and that the know#ed<e of
vita# air which is an unrea# .roduct is destitute of substance= By the term EThe
TrueF is meant the Su.reme Brahman, because Brahman is the on#y Rea#ity=
Sanatkumara thereu.on #eads "arada by a series of ste.s be<innin< with
understandin< u. to the know#ed<e of Bhuma= Be, therefore, conc#ude that the
Bhuma is the Su.reme Brahman, and that it is different from $rana or the vita#
air=
If $rana or the vita# air were the Bhuma then Sanatkumara wou#d not have
continued his instructions= %e wou#d have sto..ed his instructions after sayin<
E$rana is <reater than ho.eF +(II&*4&*-= But he <ives a c#ear descri.tion of the
nature of Bhuma in Sections 2,, 23, 24 of the same cha.ter= Therefore Bhuma
a#one is Brahman or the %i<hest Truth=
Se#fhood does not be#on< to $rana= 'oreover one can free himse#f from <rief
on#y by know#ed<e of the Su.reme Brahman= Brahman on#y is A## u##= Bhuma
means a#so fu#ness= The @ua#ity of the Bhuma a<rees best with the Su.reme
Brahman which is the cause, source, su..ort and substratum for everythin<=
Bhuma is tau<ht as the #ast of the series= It is Infinite B#iss= Therefore it is the
hi<hest of a##=
The meditation on $rana is hi<her than meditation on "ame u. to ho.e=
Therefore he who thus meditates on $rana is ca##ed an Ativadin= %e is an Ativadin
com.ared with those be#ow him= But the meditation on the Su.reme Brahman is
su.erior even to that on $rana= %ence he who meditates on Brahman or the
Bhuma is the rea# Ativadin=
"arada thou<ht that the instruction about the Atman is now com.#eted=
Therefore he did not ask any further @uestion= Sanatkumara knew that the
know#ed<e of $rana is not the hi<hest know#ed<e= Therefore he s.ontaneous#y
continues his teachin< to "arada and te##s him that the know#ed<e of Brahman or
the Bhuma is the hi<hest know#ed<e= The Srutis say that $rana s.rin<s from
Brahman= Therefore $rana is inferior to Brahman= Brahman a#one is the Bhuma of
the .assa<e of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad under discussion=
Dharmo.a.attescha I=,=6 +72-
And because the attributes +dec#ared in the scri.tura# .assa<e to
Bhuma- a..#y a..ro.riate#y on#y to $ara Brahman=
Dharma1 @ua#ities, attributesC ?.a.atteh1 because of the suitabi#ityC !ha1
and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 9 is <iven=
The attributes which the scri.ture attributes to the Bhuma a<ree we## with
Brahman= In the Bhuman the ordinary activities of seein< etc= are absent= The
Sruti dec#ares Jwhere one sees nothin< e#se, hears nothin< e#se, understands
nothin< e#se, that is the BhumaJ= Be know from another te>t that this is the
characteristic of the Su.reme Se#f= JBut when the Atman on#y is a## this, how cou#d
he see anotherLJ Bri= ?.= I(&4&*4=
The @ua#ities of bein< the True, restin< on its own <reatness, non&dua#ity,
b#iss, Infiniteness, the se#f of everythin<, Omni.resence, Immorta#ity etc=,
mentioned in the te>t under discussion can be#on< to the Su.reme on#y, not to
$rana which is an effect and as such cannot .ossess any of these attributes=
By a## this it is .roved that the Bhuma is the Su.reme Se#f or Brahman=
Aksharadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras *8&*2-
Akshara is Brahman
Aksharamambarantadhriteh I=,=*8 +7,-
The Im.erishab#e +is Brahman- on account of +its- su..ortin<
everythin< u. to Akasa +ether-=
Aksharam1 the Im.erishab#eC Ambaranta dhriteh1 because it su..orts a##
u. to Akasa=
An e>.ression from the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad is now taken u. for
discussion= Be read in Bri= ?.= III&9&7, JIn what then is the ether woven #ike war.
and woofLJ :ar<i .ut this @uestion to sa<e )a0nava#kya= %e re.#ied1 JO :ar<i, the
Brahmanas ca## this Akshara +the Im.erishab#e-= It is neither coarse nor fine,
neither short nor #on< etc=J Bri= ?.= III&9&9= %ere the doubt arises whether the
word HAksharaI means sy##ab#e HO'I or Brahman= The $urva.akshin or the
o..onent maintains that HAksharaI etymo#o<ica##y means a sy##ab#e and therefore
<enera##y re.resents the sy##ab#e O', which is a#so an ob0ect of meditation= Be
have no ri<ht to disre<ard the sett#ed meanin< of a word=
This Sutra refutes the above view and says that HAkshara here stands for
Brahman on#yI= BhyL Because the Akshara is said to su..ort everythin< from
earth u. to ether= The te>t says JIn that Akshara, :ar<iD is the ether woven #ike
war. and woofJ Bri= ?$= III&9&**= "ow the attribute of su..ortin< everythin< u. to
ether cannot be ascribed to any bein< but Brahman=
'oreover JIt is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor #on<J etc=, indicates
that re#ative @ua#ities are absent in it= Therefore the HAksharaI is Brahman= The
ob0ector says1 But even $radhana su..orts everythin< u. to ether, because it is
the cause of a## the modified ob0ects in the universe and so the Akshara or the
Im.erishab#e may be $radhana= To this doubt the fo##owin< Sutra <ives an answer=
Sa cha .rasasanat I=,=** +73-
This +su..ortin<- on account of the command +attributed to the
Im.erishab#e, can be the work of the Su.reme Se#f on#y and not of the
$radhana-=
Sa1 this +the @ua#ity of su..ortin< everythin< u. to ether-C !ha1 and, a#soC
$rasasanat1 because of the command=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *8 is <iven=
The su..ortin< of a## thin<s u. to ether is the work of the %i<hest Se#f on#y=
BhyL On account of the command= The te>t s.eaks of a command JBy the
command of that Akshara O :ar<iD the sun and the moon stand a.artJ Bri= ?.= III&
9&6=
This command or ru#ershi. can be the work of the hi<hest Lord on#y, not of
the non&inte##i<ent $radhana= Because non&inte##i<ent causes such as c#ay and the
#ike cannot command their effects such as 0ars and the #ike= Therefore the
$radhana cannot be the HAksharaI which su..orts everythin< u. to Akasa or ether=
Anyabhavavyavrittescha I=,=*2 +74-
And on account of +the Sruti- se.aratin< +the Akshara- from that
nature is different +from Brahman-=
Anya1 anotherC Bhava1 natureC (yavritteh1 on account of the e>c#usion=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *8 is conc#uded=
The Im.erishab#e +Akshara- is not $radhana or /iva, because in the same te>t
we find descri.tion of attributes which wou#d e>c#ude another nature than
Brahman= In a su..#ementary .assa<e in the same ?.anishad we find descri.tion
of this Akshara which e>c#udes $radhana and /iva, because they do not .ossess
that nature=
The @ua#ities referred to in the te>t name#y, seein<, hearin<, thinkin<,
knowin< etc=, JThat Akshara, O :ar<iD is unseen but seein<, unheard but hearin<,
un.erceived but .erceivin<, unknown but knowin<= There is no other seer but %e,
no other hearer but %e, no other thinker but %e, no other knower but %e= In that
Im.erishab#e O :ar<iD the ether is woven war. and woofJ +Bri= ?.= III&9&**-, .oint
to an inte##i<ent bein< and therefore ne<ate the $radhana which is non&inte##i<ent=
The word HAksharaI cannot denote the individua# sou# as he is not free from
#imitin< ad0uncts, from which Akshara is free= The Srutis say JAkshara is without
eyes, without ears, without s.eech, without mind etc=J +Bri= ?.= III&9&9-=
Therefore it is a sett#ed conc#usion that the Akshara or the im.erishab#e is the
Su.reme Brahman on#y=
Ikshatikarmavya.adesadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra *,-
The %i<hest .erson to be meditated u.on is the %i<hest Brahman
Ikshatikarmavya.adesat sah I=,=*, +75-
Because of %is bein< mentioned as the ob0ect of si<ht, %e +who is
to be meditated u.on is Brahman-=
Ikshati1 seein<, rea#isin<C ;arma1 ob0ectC (ya.adesat1 because of his
bein< mentionedC Sah1 he=
An e>.ression from the $rasno.anishad is taken u. now for discussion=
The %i<hest Brahman is described as %e is stated to be the ob0ect of Ikshana
+rea#isation by vision-= The reference is c#ear#y to the Su.reme Se#f as the ob0ect
of Ikshana=
Be read in $rasna ?.anishad (&2 EO Satyakama, the sy##ab#e O' is the
hi<hest and a#so the other BrahmanC therefore he who knows it arrives by the
same means at one of the twoF= The te>t then <oes on EA<ain he who meditates
with the sy##ab#e Om of three 'atras +A&?&'- on the %i<hest $ersonF $rasna ?.= (&
4= A doubt arises whether the ob0ect of meditation is the %i<hest Brahman or the
#ower Brahman, because in (&2 both are mentioned, and a#so because Brahma#oka
is described as the fruit by the worshi. of this %i<hest $erson=
The Sutra says1 Bhat is here tau<ht as the ob0ect of meditation is the
%i<hest Brahman and not %iranya<arbha +the #ower Brahman-= BhyL On account
of its bein< s.oken of as the ob0ect of si<ht & E%e sees the %i<hest $ersonF= This
intimates that he actua##y rea#ises or <ets himse#f identified with the %i<hest
$erson= %iranya<arbha a#so is unrea# from the hi<hest or transcendenta# view
.oint= %e is within the rea#m of 'aya= %e is associated with 'aya= Therefore the
%i<hest $erson means the %i<hest Brahman on#y which is the on#y Rea#ity= This
very Brahman is tau<ht at the be<innin< of the .assa<e as the ob0ect of
meditation=
The Sruti dec#ares that the re#ease from evi# is the fruit of meditation EAs a
snake is freed from its skin, so is he freed from evi#F= This c#ear#y indicates that
the Su.reme constitutes the ob0ect of meditation=
The attainment of Brahma#oka by the worshi..er shou#d not be considered as
an ina..ro.riate or insi<nificant fruit of the worshi. of the %i<hest $erson,
because it is a ste. in <radua# #iberation or emanci.ation by de<rees +;rama
'ukti-= %e who meditates on the Su.reme Se#f by means of the sy##ab#e O' as
consistin< of the 'atras, obtains for his first reward Brahma#oka and after that
;aiva#ya 'oksha or oneness with Su.reme Brahman=
In $rasna ?.anishad we read E%e arrives at this by means of the OmkaraC
the wise arrives at that which is at rest, free from decay, from death, from fear,
the %i<hestF= ree from decay, free from death, free from fear, the %i<hest can
a..#y on#y to the Su.reme Brahman and not to the #ower Brahman=
The word Brahma#oka does not mean the Loka of Brahman but the Loka or
condition which is Brahman %imse#f, 0ust as we e>.#ain the com.ound word
"ishadastha.ati, not as the head&man of the "ishadas but a headman who at the
same time is a "ishada= It is a ;armadharaya com.ound which does not mean the
Ewor#d of Brahman, but that wor#d which is Brahman=F
Daharadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras *3&2*-
The Dahara or the HSma## AkasaI is Brahman
Dahara uttarebhyah I=,=*3 +77-
The sma## +ether, Akasa, is Brahman- on account of the subse@uent
ar<uments or e>.ression-=
Daharah1 the sma##C ?ttarebhyah1 from subse@uent te>ts or e>.ressions or
ar<uments=
Another e>.ression from the !hhando<ya ?.anishad is taken u. for
discussion=
HDaharaI refers to Brahman, because the reason stated in the #ater .ortions of
the .assa<e show this c#ear#y=
Be read in !hhando<ya ?.anishad (III&*&* E"ow there is this city of
Brahman +the body-, and in it the .#ace, the sma## #otus +the heart- and in it that
sma## ether +Akasa-F= "ow what e>ists within that sma## ether is to be sou<ht, that
is to be understood=
%ere the doubt arises whether the sma## ether within the sma## #otus of the
heart, which the Sruti s.eaks, is the e#ementa# ether, or the individua# sou#, or the
Su.reme Sou#=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says1 By the sma## ether we have to
understand the e#ementa# ether which is the ordinary meanin< of the word= It is
here ca##ed sma## with reference to its sma## abode, the heart= Or e#se the Hsma##
oneI may be taken to mean the individua# sou# on account of the term the city of
Brahman +Brahma.uri-= The body is here ca##ed the city of Brahman because the
individua# sou# has his abode in the body, and has ac@uired this by his deeds= The
individua# sou# is here ca##ed Brahman in a meta.horica# sense= The Su.reme
Brahman cannot be meant, because %e is not #inked with the body as its Lord= The
Lord of the city i=e=, the individua# sou# resides in one s.ot of the city viG=, the
heart, 0ust as a ;in< dwe##s in one s.ot of his ;in<dom= urther the mind, the
#imitin< ad0unct of the individua# sou#, abides in the heart= On#y the individua# sou#
is com.ared in the Sruti in siGe to the .oint of a <oad=
%ere the Hsma## AkasaI is Brahman and does not mean e#ementa# ether,
a#thou<h there is the @ua#ification Hsma##I which may indicate that he is a #imited
somethin<= BhyL Because the nature of Brahman is described #ater on in the te>t
EAs #ar<e as this +e>terna#- ether is, so #ar<e is that Akasa within the heart= Both
heaven and earth are contained within it=F !hh= ?.= (III *&,= This c#ear#y intimates
that it is not actua##y sma##=
Akasa cannot be com.ared with itse#f= The finite individua# sou# a#so with its
#imitin< ad0uncts cannot be com.ared with the a##&.ervadin< Akasa or ether= The
Sruti dec#ares EBoth the earth and heaven are contained in itF= This indicates that
this Akasa is the su..ort of the who#e wor#d= rom this it is manifest that the ether
is the Su.reme Se#f=
Be read in the !hhando<ya ?.anishad (III&*&4 EThe Se#f or Atman is sin#ess,
a<e#ess, death#ess, <rief#ess, free from o#d a<e, hun<er, thirst, with true desire
+Satkama-, true thou<ht +Satsanka#.a- that ever comes trueF= This cannot a..#y
to mere .hysica# ether= These are a## distinct @ua#ities of the Su.reme Brahman=
The descri.tion cannot refer to the individua# sou#, because the com.arison to the
infinite ether and the statement that heaven and earth are contained in it cannot
a..#y to the finite individua# sou#=
The word HBrahmaI in Brahma.uri shows the reference to Brahman on#y= Even
if you take the word as referrin< to /iva the teachin< re#ates to Brahman who is
rea#ised in the heart which is the Brahma.uri +the city of sou# or Brahman-=
'oreover the .romise of Infinite B#iss to the knower of Dahara Akasa intimates
that the reference is on#y to the Su.reme Brahman=
or a## the reasons e>.#ained, that ether is the %i<hest Se#f or Su.reme
Brahman=
:atisabdabhyam tatha hi drishtam #in<am cha I=,=*4 +79-
The sma## Akasa +ether- is Brahman on account of the action of
<oin< +into Brahman- and of the word +Brahma#oka-C because thus it is
seen +i=e= the individua# sou#s <o into Brahman- is seen e#sewhere in
other Sruti te>tsC and this dai#y <oin< of the sou#s into Brahman
+durin< dee. s#ee.- is an inferentia# si<n by means of which we may
.ro.er#y inter.ret the word HBrahma#okaI-=
:atisabdabhyam1 on account of the <oin< and of the wordC Tatha hi1 thus,
#ikeC Drishtam1 it is seenC Lin<am1 mark, si<n from which somethin< may be
inferredC !ha1 and=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *3 is <iven=
It has been said in the .recedin< Sutra that the sma## ether is Brahman on
account of the reasons <iven in the subse@uent .assa<es= These subse@uent
.assa<es are now described=
The mention of H<oin<I and a HwordI refers to Brahman= Be read in
!hhando<ya ?.anishad (III&,&2= EA## these creatures day after day <o into this
Brahma#oka +i=e= they are mer<ed in Brahman durin< dee. s#ee.- and yet do not
discover itF etc= This .assa<e shows that a## /ivas or individua# sou#s <o dai#y into
the Hsma## AkasaI ca##ed here Brahma#oka= This intimates that the Hsma## AkasaI is
Brahman=
This <oin< of the individua# sou#s into Brahman which occurs dai#y in the dee.
s#ee. is mentioned in the other Sruti te>t1 E%e becomes united with the true +Sat-,
he is mer<ed in his own Se#fF !hh= ?.= (I&9&*=
In common .ar#ance or ordinary #ife a#so we say of a man who is in dee.
s#ee. E%e has become BrahmanF= E%e is <one into the state of BrahmanF=
The word HBrahma#okaI is to be inter.reted as Brahman %imse#f, and not as
the wor#d of Brahman +Satya Loka- because there is the indicatory si<n in the
.assa<e= Bhat is that indicatory si<n or Lin<amL It is said in the te>t that the sou#
<oes to this wor#d dai#y= It is certain#y im.ossib#e for the /iva to <o to the wor#d of
Brahman dai#y= %ence the term HBrahma#okaI means here Brahman %imse#f=
Dhritescha mahimnoIsyasminnu.a#abdheh I=,=*5 +76-
'oreover on account of the su..ortin< a#so +attributed to it- the
sma## ether must be Brahman, because this <reatness is observed in
this +Brahman on#y accordin< to other scri.tura# .assa<es-=
Dhriteh1 on account of su..ortin< +of the wor#d by the Akasa or ether-C !ha1
and, moreover, a#soC Asya mahimnah1 this <reatnessC Asmin1 in BrahmanC
?.a#abdheh1 on account of bein< observed or found=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *3 is continued=
Daharakasa or the sma## ether referred to in Sutra *3 indicates Brahman, as
the <#ory of su..ortin< a## the wor#ds can be reasonab#y true on#y in res.ect of
Brahman= And a#so on account of the Hsu..ortin<I the sma## ether can be the
Su.reme Brahman on#y= %owL To be<in with the te>t introduces the <enera#
sub0ect of discussion in the .assa<e EIn it is that sma## etherF= Then the sma##
ether is to be com.ared with the universa# ether= Everythin< is contained in it=
Then the term Se#f is a..#ied to it= Then it is stated that it is free from sin etc=
ina##y it is said EThat Se#f is a bank, a #imitin< su..ort +(idhriti- so that these
wor#ds may not be confoundedF +!hh= ?.= (III&3&*-= In this .assa<e the <#ory of
sma## ether by way of su..ortin< the wor#ds is seen= /ust as a dam stores the
water so that the boundaries of the fie#ds are not confounded, so a#so that Se#f
serves #ike a dam in order that the wor#d and a## the different castes and Ashramas
may not be confounded=
Other te>ts dec#are that this <reatness of su..ortin< be#on<s to Brahman
a#one EBy the command of that Im.erishab#e +Akshara- O :ar<i, the sun and
moon are he#d in their .ositionsF Bri= ?.= III&9&6= E%e is the #ord of a##, the kin< of
a## kin<s, the .rotector of a## thin<s= %e is a bank and a #imitin< su..ort, so that
these wor#ds may not be confoundedF Bri= ?.= I(&3&22= This a#so shows that to be
a boundary and su..ort of the wor#ds is the distinctive attribute of Brahman on#y=
Therefore, on account of the Hsu..ortin<I a#so, the sma## +ether- is nothin< e#se but
Brahman=
$rasiddhescha I=,=*7 +98-
A#so because of the we##&known meanin< +of Akasa as Brahman the
sma## Akasa is Brahman-=
$rasiddheh1 of the we##&known +meanin<-C !ha1 a#so
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *3 is continued=
Akasa has the sett#ed meanin< of Brahman= It is a we##&known fact in Sruti
that Brahman is indicated by the term Akasa= Therefore HDaharakasaI a#so stands
for Brahman=
Be read in !hh= ?.= (III&*3&* EAkasa is the revea#er of a## names and formsF=
EA## these bein<s take their ori<in from Akasa a#oneF !hh= ?.= I&6&*= Eor who
cou#d breathe if that Akasa +ether- were not b#issF Tait= ?.= II&7= In a## these te>ts
HAkasaI stands for Brahman=
Itara.aramarsat sa iti chen nasambhavat I=,=*9 +9*-
If it is said that the other one +i=e= the individua# sou#- is
meant on account of a reference to it +made in a com.#ementary
.assa<e- +we say- no, on account of the im.ossibi#ity=
Itara1 the other one, that is the /ivaC $aramarsat1 on account of referenceC
Sa1 he +the individua# sou#-C Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC "a1 notC Asambhavat1 on
account of im.ossibi#ity=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *3 is continued= Be read in the
!hhando<ya ?.anishad & E"ow that serene bein<, the individua# sou# +/iva- indeed
which havin< risen above this earth#y body, and havin< reached the hi<hest #i<ht,
a..ears in its true form, that is the Se#f1 thus he s.oke=F
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says1 As in the com.#ementary .assa<e
the individua# sou# is referred to, the sma## Akasa of !hh= ?.= (III&*&* is a#so the
individua# sou#= EThe word HserenityI +Sam.rasada- which denotes the state of
dee. s#ee. conveys the idea of the individua# sou# on#y= The Hrisin< from the bodyI
a#so can be s.oken of the individua# sou# on#y whose abode is therefore Hthe sma##
AkasaIC this denotes in the .assa<e under discussion on#y the individua# sou#, on
account of reference to the ether=F
This cannot be= In the first .#ace the individua# sou# which is #imited by the
interna# or<an and its other ad0uncts, cannot be com.ared with the a##&.ervadin<
ether=
In the second .#ace, the attributes #ike Hfreedom from evi#I and the #ikes of
this Akasa, referred to in the .assa<e under discussion, cannot be true of the
individua# sou#= %ence Brahman is meant in that .assa<e=
?ttaracchedavirbhutasvaru.astu I=,=*6 +92-
If it be said that for subse@uent te>ts +it a..ears that the
individua# sou# is meant, we say that what is there referred to is-
rather +the individua# sou# in so far- as its rea# nature has become
manifest +i=e= as it is non&different from Brahman-=
?ttarat1 from the subse@uent te>ts of the SrutiC !het1 ifC Avirbhutasvaru.at1
with its true nature made manifestC Tu1 but=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *3 is continued=
An ob0ection is a<ain raised by the $urva.akshin to 0ustify that the Hsma##
AkasaI +Dahara- refers to the individua# sou#= $ra0a.ati at the outset dec#ares that
the Se#f, which is free from sin and the #ike is that which we must try to
understand !hh= ?.= (III&7&*= After that he .oints out that the seer within the eye
i=e= Hthe individua# sou# is the Se#fI, !hh= ?.= (III&7&,= %e a<ain e>.#ains the nature
of the same individua# sou# in its different states= E%e who moves about ha..y in
dreams is the Se#fF !hh= ?.= (III&*8&*= EBhen a man bein< as#ee., re.osin<, and
at .erfect rest sees no dreams, that is the Se#fF !hh= ?.= (III&*#&*= The @ua#ifyin<
terms HImmorta#, fear#essI used in each of these descri.tions of the se#f show that
the individua# sou# is free from sin or evi# and the #ike= Obvious#y the individua#
sou# is meant here because Brahman is free from the three states viG= wakin<,
dream and dee. s#ee.= It is a#so said to be free from evi#= Therefore Hsma## AkasaI
refers to the individua# sou# or /iva and not to Brahman=
The Sutra refutes this= The Sutra uses the e>.ression E%e whose nature has
become manifestF= $ra0a.ati fina##y e>.#ains the individua# sou# in its true nature as
identica# with Brahman= The reference is to the individua# sou# in its true nature as
identica# with Brahman or, in other words, who has rea#ised his oneness with
Brahman and not to the individua# sou# as such= EAs soon as it has a..roached the
hi<hest #i<ht it a..ears in its own form= Then It is the %i<hest $urushaF !hh= ?.=
(III&*2&,= The individua# sou# is free from evi# etc=, when it becomes identica# with
Brahman and not when it is enve#o.ed by #imitin< ad0uncts and remains as the
finite /iva or embodied sou#= A<ency +;artritva-, en0oyin< +Bhoktritva-, #ike and
dis#ike +Ra<a&dvesha- indicate /ivahood= If these are removed the individua# sou#
shines as Brahman=
As #on< as the individua# sou# does not free itse#f from Avidya +i<norance- in
the form of dua#ity and does not rise to the know#ed<e of the Se#f or Brahman,
whose nature is unchan<eab#e and Satchidananda which e>.resses itse#f in the
form HI am BrahmanI, so #on< it remains as an individua# sou#= The i<norance of
the /iva may be com.ared to the mistake of a man who in the twi#i<ht mistakes a
.ost for a man, a ro.e for a ser.ent=
Bhen it <ives u. the identification with the body, sense or<ans and mind,
when it rea#ises its identity with the Su.reme Brahman it becomes Brahman itse#f
whose nature is unchan<eab#e and Satchidananda, as is dec#ared in 'un= ?.= III&2&
6= E%e who knows the hi<hest Brahman becomes even BrahmanF= This is the rea#
nature of the individua# sou# by means of which it arises from the body and
a..ears in its own rea# form=
Bhy a reference has at a## been made to /iva in this Section treatin< of
Dahara, you wi## find an answer in the fo##owin< Sutra=
Anyarthascha .aramarsah I=,=28 +9,-
And the reference +to the individua# sou#- is for a different
.ur.ose=
Anyarthah1 for a different .ur.oseC !ha1 andC $aramarsah1 reference=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *3 is continued=
The reference to the individua# sou# has a different meanin<= The reference to
the individua# sou# is not meant to determine the nature of the individua# sou#, but
rather the nature of the Su.reme Brahman= The reference to the three states of
the individua# sou# is meant not to estab#ish the nature of /iva as such, but to
show fina##y its rea# nature +Svaru.a- which is not different from Brahman=
Another ob0ection is raised= The te>t describes this HDaharaI as occu.yin< a
very sma## s.ace in the heart, and because HDaharaI is so sma## and /iva is a#so
sma##, therefore, HDaharaI must be /iva mentioned subse@uent#y= The fo##owin<
Sutra <ives a suitab#e answer=
A#.asruteriti chet taduktam I=,=2* +93-
If it be said that on account of the scri.tura# dec#aration of
the sma##ness +of the ether- +the Brahman cannot be meant- +we say
that- that has a#ready been e>.#ained=
A#.asruteh1 because of the Sruti dec#arin< its sma##nessC Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC
Tat1 thatC ?ktam1 has a#ready been e>.#ained=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *3 is conc#uded=
The $urva.akshin or the ob0ector has stated that the sma##ness of the ether
stated by the Sruti EIn it is that sma## etherF does not a<ree with Brahman, that it
may however refer to the /iva or the individua# sou# which is com.ared to the
.oint of a <oad= This has a#ready been refuted= It has a#ready been shown under
I=2=7 that sma##ness may be attributed to Brahman for the .ur.ose of meditation
+?.asana-= The same refutation is to be a..#ied here a#so= That sma##ness is
contradicted by that Sruti te>t which com.ares the ether within the heart with the
universa# ether EAs #ar<e as is this ether so #ar<e is the ether within the heartF=
Anukrityadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras 22&2,-
Everythin< shines after Brahman
Anukritestasya cha I=,=22 +94-
On account of the actin< after +i=e= the shinin< after- +that
after which sun, moon, etc= are said to shine is the Su.reme Se#f-
and +because by the #i<ht- of %im +everythin< e#se is #i<hted-=
Anukriteh1 because of the actin< after, from imitation, from the fo##owin<C
Tasya1 itsC !ha1 and=
A .assa<e from the 'undaka ?.anishad is taken now for discussion=
Be read in 'undaka ?.anishad II&2&*8 and ;atho.anisad II&ii&*4 EThe Sun
does not shine there nor the moon and the stars, nor these #i<htnin<s, much #ess
the fire= After him when he shines everythin< shinesC by the #i<ht of him a## this is
#i<hted=F
"ow a doubt arises whether Ehe after whom when he shines everythin<
shines, and by whose #i<ht a## this is #i<htedF is some effu#<ent substance, or the
Su.reme Se#f=
The Hshinin< afterI mentioned in the te>t EAfter him when he shines
everythin< shinesF is .ossib#e on#y if the Su.reme Se#f or Brahman is understood=
Another Sruti dec#ares of that Su.reme Se#f, E%is form is #i<ht, his thou<hts are
trueF !hh= ?.= III&*3&2= E%im the <ods worshi. as the #i<ht of #i<hts, as immorta#
timeF Bri= ?.= I(&3&*5=
The c#ause EOn account of the actin< afterF .oints to the Hshinin< afterI
mentioned in the te>t under discussion=
That the #i<ht of the Sun etc=, shou#d shine by some other materia# #i<ht is not
known= It is absurd to say that one #i<ht is #i<hted by another= Be do not know of
any .hysica# #i<ht, e>ce.t the sun, that can #i<ht Brahman=
The manifestation of this who#e universe has for its cause the e>istence of the
#i<ht of Brahman, 0ust as the e>istence of the #i<ht of the sun is the cause of the
manifestation of a## form and co#ours= Brahman is se#f&#uminous= It remains in Its
own <#ory= It i##umines the sun, the moon, the stars, the #i<htnin<, the fire, the
senses, the mind and the inte##ect and a## ob0ects= It does not need any other #i<ht
to i##umine it= Sruti te>ts #ike EBrahman is the #i<ht of #i<hts +/yotisham /yotih-F
c#ear#y intimate that Brahman is Se#f&effu#<ent= It is @uite .ossib#e to deny the
shinin< of sun, moon etc=, with reference to Brahman, because whatever is seen is
seen by the #i<ht of Brahman on#y= As Brahman is Se#f&effu#<ent, it is not seen by
means of any other #i<ht=
Brahman manifests everythin< e#se but is not manifested by anythin< e#se=
Be read in Bri= ?.= EBy the Se#f a#one as his #i<ht man sitsF I(&,&5= The word
HSarvamI denotes that the entire wor#d of names and forms is de.endent on the
<#ory of Brahman= The word HanuI intimates that the reference is to Brahman
because it is from %im that a## effu#<ence is derived=
A.i cha smaryate I=,=2, +95-
'oreover the Smriti a#so s.eaks of him i=e= Brahman to be the
universa# #i<ht=
A.i cha1 moreover, a#soC Smaryate1 the Smriti states=
An ar<ument insu..ort of Sutra 22 is <iven=
The Smriti or :ita a#so says so= In :ita, !ha.ter K(&5 we read E"either the
sun, nor the moon, nor the fire i##umines that, havin< <one into which men do not
return, that is my hi<hest seat=F And EThe #i<ht which abidin< in the sun i##umines
the who#e wor#d and that which is in the moon and that which is in the fire, a## that
#i<ht know to be mineF K(&*2=
$ramitadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras 23&24-
The .erson of the siGe of a thumb is Brahman
Sabdedeva .ramitah I=,=23 +97-
rom the very word +viG=, the term Lord a..#ied to it- the
+.erson- measured +by the siGe of the thumb- +is Brahman-=
Sabdat1 from the very wordC Eva1 even, on#y, itse#fC $ramitah1 measured,
i=e=, described as havin< the siGe of the thumb=
An e>.ression from the ;atho.anishad is taken u. for discussion=
Be read in ;atho.anishad II&3&*2, EThe .erson of the siGe of a thumb resides
in the midd#e or centre of the body etc=F and in II&3&*, EThat .erson, of the siGe of
a thumb is #ike a #i<ht without smoke, #ord of the .ast and of the future, he is the
same today and tomorrow= ;nowin< %im one does not seek to hide onese#f any
more= This is That=F
A doubt arises now whether the .erson of the siGe of a thumb mentioned in
the te>t is the individua# sou# or the Su.reme Se#f +Brahman-=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent ho#ds that on account of the statement of
the .ersonIs siGe of thumb the individua# sou# is meant, because to the Su.reme
Se#f which is Infinite the Sruti te>t wou#d not ascribe the measure of a thumb=
To this we re.#y that the .erson of the siGe of a thumb can on#y be Brahman=
BhyL On account of the term HIsanaI, HLord of the .ast and of the future=I The
hi<hest Lord on#y is the abso#ute ru#er of the .ast and the future= urther the
c#ause EThis is thatF connects the .assa<e with that which had been en@uired
about, and therefore forms the to.ic of discussion= Bhat had been en@uired about
by "achiketas is Brahman= "achiketas asks Lord )ama, EThat which thou seest as
neither this nor that, as neither effect nor cause, as neither .ast nor future, te##
me thatF +;atha ?.= I&2&*3-= )ama refers to this .erson of the siGe of a thumb
thus EThat which you wanted to know is this=F
Brahman is said to be of the siGe of a thumb, thou<h %e is a##&.ervadin<,
because %e is rea#isab#e in the #imited chamber of the heart of a man=
The e.ithet HThe Lord of the .ast and the futureI, cannot be a..#ied to /iva at
a##, whose .ast and the future is bound by his ;armas and who is not free to
.ossess so much <#ory=
But how the a##&.ervadin< Lord can be said to be #imited by the measure of a
thumbL The fo##owin< Sutra <ives a suitab#e answer=
%ridya.ekshaya tu manushyadhikaratvat I= , 24 +99-
But with reference to the heart +the hi<hest Brahman is said to
be of the siGe of a thumb- as man a#one is entit#ed +to the study of
the (edas, to .ractise meditation and attain Se#f&rea#isation-=
%ridi1 in the heart, with reference to the heartC A.ekshaya1 by reference to,
in consideration ofC Tu1 butC 'anushyadhikaratvat1 because of the .rivi#e<e of
men=
A @ua#ifyin< e>.#anation of Sutra 23 is <iven, and the .rivi#e<e for ?.asana or
meditation is discussed=
The measure of a thumb is ascribed to Brahman, a#thou<h a##&.ervadin<,
which with reference to his residin< within the heart which is <enera##y as bi< as
the thumb= Brahman dwe##s within the heart of a## #ivin< bein<s= The hearts differ
accordin< to the anima#s, some have #ar<er hearts, some have sma##er, some are
more than a thumb, some are #ess than a thumb= Bhy is the HthumbI used as a
standardL Bhy a manIs heart on#y and not that of any other anima#, a#soL The
second ha#f of the Sutra <ives an answer & Hon account of man on#y bein< entit#edI=
'an on#y is entit#ed to the study of the (edas and .ractice of meditation and
different ?.asanas of Brahman .rescribed in them= Therefore the thumb is used
as the standard of measurement with reference to him a#one=
The aim here is to show the identity of individua# sou# with Brahman which is
inside the body and is of the siGe of a thumb= The (edanta .assa<es have twofo#d
.ur.ort= Some of them aim in <ivin< a descri.tion of the nature of Brahman, some
in teachin< the unity of the individua# sou# with the Su.reme Sou#= Our .assa<e
teaches the unity of the individua# sou# with the Su.reme Sou# or Brahman, not
the siGe of anythin<= This .oint is rendered @uite c#ear further on in the ?.anishad=
EThe .erson of the siGe of a thumb, the inner Se#f, a#ways abides in the heart of
men= Let a man draw that Se#f forth from his body with steadiness, as one draws
the .ith from a reed= Let him know that Se#f as HBri<ht as the Immorta#I=F ;atha
?.= II&5&*7=
Devatadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras 25&,,-
The Devas a#so are entit#ed to the study of (edas
Tadu.arya.i Baadarayanah sambhavat I=,=25 +96-
A#so +bein<s- above them +viG=, men- +are entit#ed for the study
and .ractice of the (edas- on account of the .ossibi#ity +of it-
accordin< to Badarayana=
Tad u.ari1 above them i=e= hi<her than men name#y DevasC A.i1 a#so, evenC
Baadarayanah1 the sa<e Baadarayana is of o.inionC Sambhavat1 because +it is-
.ossib#e=
The descri.tion of the .rivi#e<e of study of (edas and meditation is continued=
There is a di<ression from the main to.ic in this Section in Sutras 25 to ,9=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent ho#ds that such meditation is not .ossib#e in the
case of the Devas, because they are not endowed with the sense or<ans= %ence
they have <ot no ca.abi#ity to meditate= The Devas #ike Indra and the rest are
mere thou<ht forms created by the chantin< of 'antras= They have no desire for
the .ossession of (aira<ya +dis.assion-, (iveka +discrimination- etc= To this the
author <ives a re.#y in this Sutra= A doubt may arise from the .revious Sutra that
as it is stated that men a#one have the .rivi#e<e to the study of the (edas, the
<ods are thereby debarred= This Sutra removes this doubt=
The teacher Baadarayana thinks that the Sutra entit#es <ods a#so who are
above men for the study of (edas, .ractice of meditation and attainment of
know#ed<e of Brahman= %owL Because it is .ossib#e for them a#so as they too are
cor.orea# bein<s= The ?.anishads, the 'antra .ortion of the (edas, the Itihasas
and the $uranas a## unanimous#y describe that the Devas have bodies= They may
have the desire of fina# re#ease caused by the ref#ection that a## effects, ob0ects
and .ower are non&.ermanent= They may have the desire to .ossess the fourfo#d
@ua#ification which is necessary for attainin< the know#ed<e of Brahman= The <ods
under<o disci.#eshi. in order to attain know#ed<e= Be read in !hh= ?.= (III&7&**
EIndra #ived as a disci.#e with $ra0a.ati for one hundred and one yearsFC EBhri<u
(aruni went to his father (aruna, sayin<, sir, teach me BrahmanF Tait= ?.= III&*=
The <od (aruna .ossessed the know#ed<e of Brahman which he teaches to his
son Bhri<u=
The <ods a#so .ossess a## the re@uisites for .ractisin< meditation= Therefore
they are a#so entit#ed for the study of the (edas and attainin< Se#f&rea#isation=
Even without ?.anayana and study the (eda is manifest of itse#f to the <ods=
The .assa<e about that which is of the siGe of a thumb is e@ua##y va#id when
the ri<ht of the <ods is acce.ted= In their case the Sruti describin< the Lord of the
siGe of a thumb refers to the siGe of their thumbs=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says if we admit that Devas have bodies,
then there wou#d arise difficu#ties with re<ard to sacrifices, because it is not
.ossib#e for one finite cor.orea# bein< #ike Indra to be simu#taneous#y .resent at
many .#aces of sacrifices, when he is invoked simu#taneous#y by a## his
worshi..ers= Therefore sacrifices wi## become use#ess= To this ob0ection the author
<ives a suitab#e re.#y in the fo##owin< Sutra=
(irodhah karmaniti chet, na, aneka.rati.atterdarsanat I=,=27 +68-
If it be said that +the cor.orea#ity of the <ods invo#ves- a
contradiction to sacrificesC +we say- no, because we find +in the
scri.tures- the assum.tion +by the <ods- of many +forms at one and
the same time-=
(irodhah1 contradictionC ;armani1 In the sacrificesC Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC "a1
notC Aneka1 many +bodies-C $rati.atteh1 because of the assum.tionC Darsanat1
because it is found +in the scri.tures-=
An ob0ection a<ainst Sutra 25 is raised and refuted=
It is .ossib#e for a Devata to assume severa# forms at the same time= %e can
a..ear in sacrifices .erformed simu#taneous#y at different .#aces= Smriti a#so
states EA )o<in, O hero of the Bharatas, may by his .ower mu#ti.#y his se#f in
many thousand forms and in them wa#k about on earth= In some he may en0oy the
ob0ects, in others he may under<o dire .enance, and fina##y he may a<ain
withdraw them a##, 0ust as the sun withdraws its many raysF= If such Smriti
.assa<e dec#ares that even )o<ins, who have mere#y ac@uired various
e>traordinary .owers, such as subt#ety of body and the #ike may assume severa#
bodies at the same time, how much more ca.ab#e of such feats must the <ods be,
who natura##y .ossess a## su.ernatura# .owers= A <od may divide himse#f into
many forms and .resent himse#f in many sacrifices at the same time= %e can
remain a## the whi#e unseen by others, in conse@uence of his .ower to make
himse#f invisib#e= 'oreover, why cannot the same <od be the ob0ect of many
sacrifices, 0ust as the same man can be the ob0ect of sa#utation of many .ersonsL
Sabda iti chet, na, atah .rabhavat
.ratyakshanumanabhyam I=,=29 +6*-
If it be said +that a contradiction wi## resu#t- in res.ect of
the word +we say- no, because +the wor#d- ori<inates from the word,
as is known from direct .erce.tion +Sruti- and inference +Smriti-=
Sabda1 re<ardin< (edic wordsC Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC "a1 noC Atah1 from this,
from these wordsC $rabhavat1 because of the creationC
$ratyakshanumanabhyam1 from direct .erce.tion +Sruti- and inference
+Smriti-=
Another ob0ection a<ainst Sutra 25 +with res.ect to the cor.orea#ity of the
<ods- is raised and refuted=
The $urva.akshin maintains1 The (edic words have been .roved in the
$urvamimamsa .hi#oso.hy to be .ermanent, i=e= without be<innin< or end= "ow if
<ods are said to have bodies they must have births and deaths, which a##
embodied bein<s are sub0ect to= Therefore the (edic words for individua# deities
cannot e>ist before their birth, nor can those words si<nify any deities, when they
have ceased to e>ist durin< disso#ution= %ence the .ermanency of (edic words
fai#s=
To this ob0ection the answer is that there cannot be any such incon<ruity with
re<ard to (edic words, because both Sruti and Smriti maintain that individua# <ods
owe their ori<in to (edic words=
The (edic words e>ist from eternity= They have <ot their sett#ed meanin<=
The (edic names for <ods si<nify their ty.es and not the individua#s= Therefore the
births or deaths of individua# <ods cannot affect the ty.es, much #ess the
.ermanent character of (edic words=
!ows are innumerab#e but it is with the ty.e that the word HcowI is
inse.arab#y connected= The word HcowI is eterna#= It does not de.end on the birth
and death of individua#s be#on<in< to that ty.e= Bords re.resentin< the <ods have
for their counter.art ob0ects that are ty.es and not individua#s= Indra refers to a
divine function #ike the office of the (iceroy and whoever is ca##ed to that function
is ca##ed Indra= Therefore here is no non&eterna#ity with reference to the (edas=
The word, inc#udin< even the <ods, is created from scri.tura# words= The
scri.tura# words are the source for the wor#d and the <ods= If you ob0ect to this
and say that this conf#icts with the Sutra I&*&2, which says that Brahman is the
cause of the wor#d, we re.#y1 Brahman is the ?.adanakarana +materia# cause-=
The (eda is not such materia# cause= The creator utters the (edic words and
creates= %e says earth and creates the earth and so on=
The creation of every embodied bein<, whether Indra or a cow, .roceeds
from remembrance of the form and its characteristics by Lord Brahma= Bhen he
utters these words, which by association a#ways su<<est the .articu#ar form and
the characteristics of that form= Bhen a s.ecia# individua# of the c#ass ca##ed Indra
has .erished, the creator, knowin< from the (edic word HIndraI which is .resent in
his mind as the c#ass characteristics of the bein< denoted by the word, creates
another Indra .ossessin< those very same characteristics, 0ust as the .otter
fashions a new 0ar on the basis of the word H0arI which is revo#vin< in his mind=
Every (edic word a#ways e>.resses a .articu#ar ty.e form and does not
e>.ress any individua#= Brahman creates the wor#d by rememberin< the .articu#ar
ty.e forms denoted by those words= orms +Akritis- are eterna# and e>ist in the
archety.a# .#ane from eternity before they become concrete in any individua#
form= Brahma, the creator created the Devas by ref#ectin< on the word Hetc=I
+these-= %e created the men by the word HAsri<ramIC the $itris by the word
HIndavahI +dro.s-C the .#anets by the word HTiras .avitramIC the son<s by the word
HAsuvaIC the 'antras by the word H(isvaniI and he created a## other creatures by
the word HAbhisaubha<aI=
The word HetadI +this- reminds Brahma the creator of the Devas .residin<
over the sensesC the word HAsri<raI meanin< b#ood, reminds him of those creatures
in which b#ood is the chief #ife&e#ement, name#y menC the wordIInduI denotin<
moon, reminds him of the fathers, who #ive in the !handra#okaC the word HTiras
.avitramI meanin< Hho#din< of the .ure ambrosiaI reminds of the .#anets where
the Soma f#uid e>istsC the word HAsuvaI +f#owin<- reminds him of the sweet f#ow of
musicC the word H(isvaI reminds him of the hymns sacred to the (isvedevasC the
word HAbhisubha<aI, meanin< H<reat .ros.erityI, reminds him of a## creatures= Be
read in Bri= ?.= E%e with his mind united himse#f with s.eechF i=e= the word of the
(eda=
Every word has for its counter.art a form or an ob0ect which it denotes=
"ame and form are inse.arab#e= Bhenever you think of a form its name comes
before your mind at once= Bhenever you utter a name the ob0ect comes before
your mind= The re#ation between a name or word and form +the ob0ect- is eterna#=
The (eda is not the materia# cause of the universe= If you say that the (eda
refers to (asus, Rudras, Adityas and other <ods who are born and are therefore
non&eterna# and, hence, the (edas a#so must be non&eterna#, we re.#y that what
are born are the individua# manifestations of Dravya +substance-, :una +@ua#ity-
and ;arma +actions- but not the Akritis, s.ecies= The ori<ination of the universe
from the HwordI is not to be understood in the sense that the word constitutes the
materia# cause of the wor#d as Brahman does=
EThe severa# names, actions, and conditions of a## thin<s %e sha.ed in the
be<innin< from the words of the (edasF 'anu I&2*=
Thou<ht first manifests as a word and then as the more concrete form= )ou
cannot se.arate the thou<ht from name and form= If you wish to do a thin< you
first remember the word denotin< the thin< and then you start the work= The
(edic words manifested in the mind of $ra0a.ati, the creator before the creation=
After that he created the thin<s corres.ondin< to those words= E?tterin< Bhur he
created the earthF etc= Taittiriya Brahmana II&2&3&2=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent maintains that the universe cannot be
born of #etters which are .erishab#e, that there is an eterna# S.hota +causa# form
of sound- of which uttered sounds are manifestations and that such S.hota is the
cause of the universe= S.hota is that which causes the conce.tion of the sense of
a word +Arthadhiketu-= S.hota is a su.ersensuous entity which is manifested by
the #etters of the word and if com.rehended by the mind itse#f manifests the sense
of the word=
This statement of the $urva.akshin is rea##y untenab#e= This is certain#y not
our actua# e>.erience= The uttered sounds do not .erish, for at the end of their
utterance we rea#ise their identity when we utter them a<ain= It is said that there
mi<ht be a difference of intonation when utterin< the same word twiceC this does
not ne<ate the identity, for the difference is on#y a difference of the instrument of
manifestation= A#beit the #etters are many, their <rou. can be the sub0ect of a
conce.tion +e=<= ten, hundred etc-= The S.hota theory is therefore @uite
unnecessary=
It is therefore @uite c#ear that the (edic sounds are eterna# and that there is
no #o<ica# fa##acy in the doctrine that throu<h them has been created the entire
universe inc#udin< the <ods=
Ata eva cha nityatvam I=,=26 +62-
rom this very reason a#so there fo##ows the eternity of the
(edas=
Ata eva1 therefore, from this very reasonC !ha1 a#soC "ityatvam1 The
eternity of the (edas=
A side issue is deduced from Sutra 29=
The eterna# nature of (edic words is a#so estab#ished from the same reasons
adduced in Sutra 29 i=e= because those words si<nify .ermanent ty.es=
This Sutra now confirms the a#ready estab#ished eternity of the (edas= The
universe with its definite eterna# ty.es or s.heres such as <ods and so on
ori<inates from the word of the (eda= or this very reason the eternity of the word
of the (eda must be acce.ted= As <ods etc=, as ty.es are eterna#, the (edic words
are a#so eterna#=
The (edas were not written by anybody= They are the very breath of the
Lord= They are eterna#= The Rishis were not the authors of the (edas= They on#y
discovered them= EBy means of their .ast <ood deeds the .riests were ab#e to
understand the (edas= They found them dwe##in< in the Rishis=F The 'antra EBy
means of sacrifice they fo##owed the trace of s.eechC they found it dwe##in< in the
Rishis=F in Ri<veda Samhita K&7*&, shows that the s.eech found by the Rishis was
.ermanent= (eda (yasa a#so says Eormer#y the <reat Rishis, bein< a##owed to do
so by Svayambhu, obtained throu<h their .enance the (edas to<ether with the
Itihasas, which had been hidden at the end of the )u<a=F
Samananamaru.atvat cha avrittava.yavirodho
darsanat smritescha I=,=,8 +6,-
And on account of the sameness of names and forms in every fresh
cyc#e there is no contradiction +to the eternity of the words of the
(edas- even in the revo#vin< of the wor#d cyc#es, as is seen from the
Sruti and Smriti=
Samananamaru.atvat1 on account of simi#ar names and formsC !ha1 andC
Avrittau1 in the cyc#es of creationC A.i1 even, a#soC Avirodhah1 no inconsistency
or contradictionC Darsanat1 from the SrutiC Smriteh1 from the Smriti, !ha1 and=
An ar<ument in favour of Sutra 26 is <iven in this Sutra=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says1 At the end of a cyc#e everythin< is
tota##y annihi#ated= There is new creation at the be<innin< of the ne>t cyc#e= There
is a break in the continuity of e>istence= %ence even as ty.es, the <ods are not
eterna# and the eterna# re#ation of (edic words and the ob0ects they denote does
not remain= !onse@uent#y there is contradiction to the eternity and the authority
of the (edas=
Be say it is not so= /ust as a man who rises from s#ee. continues the same
form of e>istence which he en0oyed .revious#y to his s#ee., so a#so the wor#d is a
#atent or .otentia# state +in seed form- in $ra#aya or disso#utionC it is a<ain
.ro0ected with a## the .revious variety of names and forms at the be<innin< of the
ne>t cyc#e= Therefore the eternity of the re#ation between (edic words and their
ob0ects is not at a## contradicted= !onse@uent#y the authoritativeness of the (edas
remains= This is su..orted by Sruti and Smriti= Be read in Ri<veda K&*68&, JAs
former#y the Lord ordered the sun and the moon, heaven, earth, the sky etc=J Be
read in the Smriti JAs the same si<ns of seasons a..ear a<ain and a<ain in their
due course, so do bein<s a..ear and rea..ear in successive cyc#esJ=
The word H!haI in the Sutra is used to remove the doubt raised= Even after a
<reat $ra#aya there is no contradiction with re<ard to the eternity of (edic words,
because the new creation .roceeds on the sameness of names and forms etc=, in
the .recedin< creation= In a 'aha.ra#aya the (edas and the ty.es denoted by the
words of the (edas mer<e in the Lord and become one with %im= They remain in
%im in a state of #atency= Bhen the Lord desires to create they come out from %im
a<ain and become manifest= The creation of individua#s is a#ways .receded by a
ref#ection on the words of the (edas and the ty.es denoted by them=
After the 'aha.ra#aya the Lord creates the (edas in e>act#y the same order
and arran<ements as they had been before= %e ref#ects on the words and ty.es
and .ro0ects the who#e universe= A subse@uent creation is simi#ar to the .ast
creation= The Lord creates the wor#d 0ust as a .otter who makes a .ot by
rememberin< the word H.otI and the form which the word ca##s u. in his mind=
After a 'aha.ra#aya the Lord %imse#f creates a## e#ements from 'ahat
downwards u. to Brahmanda= %e .ro0ects Brahma from %is body and teaches %im
the (edas menta##y +not ora##y- and entrusts %im with the work of further creation=
In minor $ra#aya Brahma does not cease to e>ist, nor do the e#ements= Brahma
%imse#f creates the wor#d after every minor $ra#aya=
It may be ob0ected that when we s#ee. and then wake u. we can reca## the
a#ready e>.erienced e>terna# universe and that such a thin< is not .ossib#e in the
case of the disso#ution of the wor#d= But our answer is that by the <race of the
su.reme Lord, %iranya<arbha or Brahma can reco##ect the state of the wor#d as it
was before the disso#ution= Be read in the Svetasvatara ?.anishad JDurin<
$ra#aya a## forms vanish but Sakti remains= The ne>t creation takes .#ace throu<h
it a#one=J Otherwise you wou#d have to .ostu#ate a creation out of nothin<=
'adhvadishvasambhavadanadhikaram /aiminih I=,=,* +63-
On account of the im.ossibi#ity +of the <ods bein< @ua#ified- for
'adhu (idya etc=, /aimini +is of o.inion that the <ods- are not
@ua#ified +either for ?.asana or for the Brahma (idya or the
know#ed<e of the Se#f-=
'adhu adishu1 in 'adhu (idya etc=C Asambhavat1 on account of the
im.ossibi#ityC Anadhikaram1 dis@ua#ificationC /aiminih1 /aimini is of o.inion=
Another ob0ection to Sutra 25 is raised=
or 'adhu (idya vide !hh= ?.= III&*&**, the sa<e /aimini, the author of
$urvamimamsa, says that as the sun and the other <ods are the deities to be
worshi..ed in 'adhu (idya and the #ike, it is im.ossib#e that they shou#d a#so be
the worshi..ers= %ence they are not entit#ed for the ?.asana .rescribed in Sruti,
because obvious#y they cannot worshi. themse#ves= In 'adhu (idya one is to
meditate on the Sun as honey +beneficia#-= Such a meditation is not .ossib#e for
Surya or the Sun&<od because one and the same .erson cannot be both the ob0ect
of meditation as we## as the .erson meditatin<=
urther the Devas #ike (asu etc=, a#ready be#on< to the c#ass of (asus etc=
Therefore in their case the meditation is use#ess as the fruit is a#ready
accom.#ished= The Devas have nothin< to <ain by such meditation= So they have
no desire for this meditation, because they a#ready are in .ossession of that which
is the fruit of such meditation=
/yotishi bhavacca I=,=,2 +64-
And +the <ods are not @ua#ified for (idyas- because +the words
Hsun, moonI etc=, s.oken of as <ods- are used in the sense of mere
s.heres of #i<ht=
/yotishi1 as mere s.heres of #i<htC Bhavat1 because used in the senseC !ha1
and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of the ob0ection raised in Sutra ,* is <iven=
The $urva.akshin raises another ob0ection1 The #uminous orbs cannot
.ossib#y do acts of meditation= Such and other #uminary ob0ects as A<ni etc=,
cannot have a bodi#y form with hands, heart or inte##i<ence= They are materia#
inert ob0ects= They cannot have wishes= Be cannot .#ace faith on Itihasas and
$uranas, as they are of human ori<in and as they themse#ves stand in need of
other means of know#ed<e on which to base= The 'antras do not form an
inde.endent means of authoritative know#ed<e= The Arthavada .assa<es cannot
be re<arded to constitute by themse#ves reasons for the e>istence of the
.ersona#ity of the <ods= !onse@uent#y the <ods are not @ua#ified for any kind of
(idya or know#ed<e of Brahman=
Bhavam tu BaadarayanoIsti hi I= ,=,, +65-
But Baadarayana, on the other hand +maintains- the e>istence +of
@ua#ification on the .art of the <ods for Brahma (idya-C for there
are +.assa<es indicatory of thatC body, desires etc=, which @ua#ify
one for such know#ed<e do e>ist in the case of the <ods-=
Bhavam1 the e>istence +of the @ua#ification to .ractise the meditation #ike
'adhu (idya etc=-C Tu1 butC Baadarayanah1 the sa<e Baadarayana +maintains-C
Asti1 does e>istC %i1 because=
This Sutra refutes the ar<uments in the .revious two Sutras and conc#udes
the discussion=
But Baadarayana ho#ds that the <ods too have the ri<ht to .ractise ?.asana
as meditation and Brahma (idya, because there are indications in Sruti to that
effect= %e maintains that each #uminary orb has a .residin< deity with body,
inte##i<ence, desires etc= The <ods can assume any form at wi##= Indra assumed the
form of a ram and carried off 'edhatithi= Surya assumed the form of a man and
came to ;unti= Be read in !hh= ?.= (III&*2&5 JThe <ods indeed do worshi. the
Atman=J The sun&<od may be dis@ua#ified for a .articu#ar form of meditation &
'adhu (idya, as he cannot meditate on the sun himse#f, but that is no reason why
he shou#d be dis@ua#ified for other meditations or for Brahma (idya or the
know#ed<e of Brahman= Simi#ar is the case with other <ods=
The e>.ression HTuI +but, on the other hand- is meant to rebut the
$urva.akshin=
Scri.ture dec#ares that the Devas are @ua#ified= JBhatever Deva was
awakened so to know Brahman he indeed became thatJ Bri= ?.= *&3&*8= Indra
went to $ra0a.ati sayin< Jwe##, #et us search for that Se#f by which if one has
searched it out, a## wor#ds and a## desires are obtainedJ !hh= ?.= (III&7=
The descri.tion of the forms of <ods is rea#= %ow can unrea# forms of <ods be
conceived by our minds for our offerin< sacrifices to themL Ordinary .eo.#e are
not ab#e to beho#d their forms= But sa<es #ike (yasa have seen them= They s.oke
to the <ods= The )o<a Sutras say JBy Svadhyaya one can be in communion with
the deity which we worshi.=J %ow can you deny the .owers of )o<aL Rishis had
marve##ous .owers=
Therefore <ods have forms and are e#i<ib#e for Brahma (idya=
A.asudradhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutras ,3&,9-
The ri<ht of the Sudras to the study of (edas discussed
Su<asya tadanadarasravanat tadadravanat suchyate hi I=,=,3 +67-
+;in< /anasruti- was in <rief on hearin< some contem.tuous words
used about him by the sa<e in the form of a swanC owin< to his
a..roachin< Raikva, overwhe#min< with that <rief, Raikva ca##ed him
SudraC for it +the <rief- is .ointed at by Raikva=
Suk1 <riefC Asya1 hisC Tat1 that, name#y that <riefC Anadarasravanat1 from
hearin< his +the RishiIs- disres.ectfu# s.eechC Tada1 thenC Adravanat1 because of
<oin< to him i=e, to RaikvaC Suchyate1 is referred toC %i1 because=
The discussion on the .rivi#e<e of divine meditation be<un in Sutra 24 is
continued=
The who#e of this Adhikarana about Sudras to<ether with the .recedin< one
about the Devas a..ears to be an inter.o#ation of some #ater author=
In the .revious Sutra it has been shown that the <ods are entit#ed to the
study of (edas and Brahma (idya= This Sutra discusses whether the Sudras are
entit#ed to them or not=
The $urva.akshin says1 The Sudras a#so have <ot bodies and desires= %ence
they are a#so entit#ed= Raikva refers to /anasruti who wishes to #earn from him by
the name of Sudra= Jie, neck#ace and carria<e be thine, O Sudra, to<ether with
the cowsJ !hh= ?.= I(&2 O ,= But when he a..ears a second time, Raikva acce.ts
his .resents and teaches him= Smriti s.eaks of (idura and others who were born
from Sudra mothers as .ossessin< hi<hest know#ed<e= Therefore the Sudra has a
c#aim to Brahma (idya or know#ed<e of Brahman=
This Sutra refutes the view and denies the ri<ht to the study of the (edas for
Sudra= The word HSudraI does not denote a Sudra by birth which is its conventiona#
meanin<, because /anasruti was a ;shatriya kin<= %ere we wi## have to take the
etymo#o<ica# meanin< of the word which is, J%e rushed into <rief +Sukam abhi
dudrava- or as J<rief rushed on himJ or as Jhe in his <rief rushed to RaikvaJ= The
fo##owin< Sutra a#so intimates that he was a ;shatriya=
;shatriyatvava<ateschottaratra chaitrarathena #in<at I=,=,4 +69-
And because the ;shatriyahood +of /anasruti- is known from the
inferentia# mark +su..#ied by his bein< mentioned- #ater on with
!haitraratha +who was a ;shatriya himse#f-=
;shatriyatva1 the state of his bein< a ;shatriyaC Ava<ateh1 on account of
bein< known or understoodC !ha1 andC ?ttaratra1 #atter on in a subse@uent .art
of the te>tC !haitrarathena1 with !haitrarathaC Lin<at1 because of the indicatory
si<n or the inferentia# mark=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra ,3 is <iven=
/anasruti is mentioned with the ;shatriya !haitraratha Abhi.ratarin in
connection with the same (idya= %ence we can infer that /anasruti a#so was a
;shatriya because, as a ru#e, e@ua#s are mentioned to<ether with e@ua#s= %ence
the Sudras are not @ua#ified for the know#ed<e of Brahman=
Samskara.aramarsat tadabhavabhi#a.acca +I=,=,5- +66-
Because .urificatory ceremonies are mentioned +in the case of the
twice&born- and their absence is dec#ared +in the case of the Sudra-=
Samskara1 the .urificatory ceremonies, the investiture with sacred threadC
$aramarsat1 because of the referenceC Tat1 that ceremonyC Abhava1 absenceC
Abhi#a.at1 because of the dec#arationC !ha1 and=
The discussion on the .rivi#e<e of Brahma (idya on the .art of Sudras is
continued=
In different .#aces of the (idyas the ?.anayana ceremony is referred to= The
?.anayana ceremony is dec#ared by the scri.tures to be a necessary condition for
the study of a## kinds of know#ed<e or (idya= Be read in $rasna ?.= I&* JDevoted
to Brahman, firm in Brahman, seekin< for the hi<hest Brahman they, carryin< fue#
in their hands, a..roached the venerab#e $i..a#ada, thinkin< that he wou#d teach
them a## that=J ?.anayana ceremony is meant for the hi<her castes= Bith
reference to the Sudras on the other hand, the absence of ceremonies is
fre@uent#y mentioned in the scri.tures= JIn the Sudra there is not any sin by
eatin< .rohibited food, and he is not fit for any ceremonyJ 'anu K&*2&5= A Sudra
by birth cannot have ?.anayana and other Samskaras without which the (edas
cannot be studied= %ence the Sudras are not entit#ed to the study of the (edas=
The ne>t Sutra further stren<thens the view that a Sudra can have no
Samskara=
Tadabhavanirdharane cha .ravritteh I=,=,7 +*88-
And because the inc#ination +on the .art of :autama to im.art
know#ed<e is seen on#y- on the ascertainment of the absence of
Sudrahood +in /aba#a Satyakama-=
Tad1 that, name#y the SudrahoodC Abhava1 absenceC "irdharane1 in
ascertainmentC !ha1 andC $ravritteh1 from inc#ination=
The same discussion on the SudrasI ri<ht is continued=
:autama, havin< ascertained /aba#a not to be a Sudra from his s.eakin< the
truth .roceeded to initiate and instruct him= J"one who is not a Brahmana wou#d
thus s.eak out= :o and fetch fue#, friend, I sha## initiate you= )ou have not
swerved from the truthJ !hh= ?.= I(&3&4=
This scri.tura# te>t furnishes an inferentia# si<n of the Sudras not bein<
ca.ab#e of initiation=
Sravanadhyayanartha.ratishedhat smritescha I=,=,9 +*8*-
And on account of the .rohibition in Smriti of +the Sudras-
hearin<, studyin< and understandin< +the (eda- and .erformin< (edic
rites +they are not entit#ed to the know#ed<e of Brahman-=
Sravana1 hearin<C Adhyayana1 studyin<C Artha1 understandin<C
$ratishedhat1 on account of the .rohibitionC Smriteh1 in the SmritiC !ha1 and=
The same discussion on the SudrasI ri<ht is conc#uded here=
The Smriti .rohibits their hearin< the (eda, their studyin< and understandin<
the (eda and their .erformin< (edic rites= JThe ears of him who hears the (eda
are to be fi##ed with mo#ten #ead and #ac=J or a Sudra is #ike a cemetery= Therefore
the (eda is not to be read in the vicinity of a Sudra= J%is ton<ue is to be s#it if he
.ronounces itC his body is to be cut throu<h if he .reserves it=J Sudras #ike (idura
and the re#i<ious hunter Dharma (yadha ac@uired know#ed<e owin< to the after
effects of former deeds in .ast births= It is .ossib#e for the Sudras to attain that
know#ed<e throu<h the $uranas, :ita and the e.ics, Ramayana and 'ahabharata
which contain the @uintessence of the (edas=
It is a sett#ed .oint that the Sudras do not .ossess any such @ua#ification with
re<ard to the (eda=
The di<ression be<un from Sutra 25 ends here and the <enera# to.ic is a<ain
taken u.=
;am.anadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutra ,6-
The $rana in which everythin< tremb#es is Brahman
;am.anat I=,=,6 +*82-
+$rana is Brahman- on account of the vibration or tremb#in<
+s.oken of the who#e wor#d-=
;am.anat1 on account of shakin< or vibration=
After discussin< the side issues in Sutra 24&,9 the Sutrakara or the author of
the Sutras resumes the e>amination of the main issue=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 23 is <iven here=
The discussion of @ua#ification for Brahma (idya or know#ed<e of Brahman is
over= Be return to our chief to.ic i=e=, the en@uiry into the .ur.ort of the (edanta
te>ts=
Be read in ;atho.anishad II&,&2 JBhatever there is in the who#e wor#d has
come out of $rana and tremb#es in the $rana= The $rana is a <reat terror, a raised
thunderbo#t= Those who know it become immorta#=J
The $urva.akshin maintains that the term $rana denotes the air or the vita#
force with its five modifications= The Siddhantin says1 %ere $rana is Brahman and
not the vita# force, because Brahman on#y is s.oken of in the .recedin< as we## as
in the subse@uent .art of the cha.ter= %ow then can it be su..osed that a## at
once the vita# force shou#d be referred to in the intermediate .artL
JThe who#e wor#d tremb#es in $rana=J Be find here a @ua#ity of Brahman viG=,
its constitutin< the abode of the who#e wor#d= That the word H$ranaI denotes the
hi<hest Se#f a..ears from such .assa<es as Hthe $rana of $ranaI Bri= ?.= I(&3&*9=
The scri.ture dec#ares J"o morta# #ives by the $rana and the breath that <oes
down= Be #ive by another in whom these two re.oseJ +;atha ?.= II&4&4=- In the
.assa<e subse@uent to the one under discussion Jrom terror of it fire burns, from
terror the sun shines, from terror Indra and (ayu and Death as the fifth run
away=J Brahman and not the vita# force is s.oken of as the sub0ect of that
.assa<e, which is re.resented as the cause of fear on the .art of the entire
universe inc#usive of the $rana itse#f= Brahman on#y is the cause of the #ife of the
entire universe inc#udin< the vita# force=
Brahman is com.ared to a thunderbo#t because he ins.ires fear in fire, air,
sun, Indra and )ama= urther Immorta#ity is dec#ared to him who knows this
$rana= JA man who knows him on#y .asses over death, there is no other .ath to
<o=J +Svet= ?.= (I&*4-= $rana is a#so often used to denote Brahman in the Sruti=
/yotiradhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutra 38-
The H#i<htI is Brahman
/yotirdarsanat I=,=38 +*8,-
The #i<ht +is Brahman- on account of that +Brahman- bein< seen
+in the scri.tura# .assa<e-=
/yotih1 #i<htC Darsanat1 on account of +Brahman- bein< seen=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 23 is continued=
Be read in the Sruti JThus does that serene bein< arisin< from this body,
a..ear in its own form as soon as it has a..roached the %i<hest Li<htJ +!hh= ?.=
(III&*2&,-=
%ere the doubt arises whether the word H#i<htI denotes the .hysica# #i<ht
which is the ob0ect of si<ht and dis.e#s darkness, or the %i<hest Brahman=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says1 The word #i<ht denotes the we##known
.hysica# #i<ht because that is the conventiona# sense of the word=
To this we have the fo##owin< re.#y= The word H#i<htI can denote the %i<hest
Brahman on#y= BhyL Because in the who#e cha.ter Brahman is the to.ic of
discussion= The %i<hest Li<ht is a#so ca##ed the H%i<hest $ersonI in that te>t itse#f
#ater on= reedom from body is said to be#on< to that bein< which is one with this
#i<ht= Sruti dec#ares JBhen he is free from the body then neither .#easure nor .ain
touches himJ +!hh= ?.= (III&*2=*-= reedom from body is not .ossib#e outside
Brahman= One can attain freedom or the bodi#ess state when he identifies himse#f
with Brahman=
Arthantaratvadivya.adesadhikaranam1 To.ic *2 +Sutra 3*-
The Akasa is Brahman
AkasoIrthantaratvadivya.adesat I=,=3* +*83-
Akasa +is Brahman- because it is dec#ared to be somethin<
different etc=, +from names and forms-=
Akasah1 AkasaC Arthantaratvadi&vya.adesat1 because it is dec#ared to
be somethin< differentC Artha1 with a meanin<C Antaratva1 differentness= Adi1
etc=C (ya.adesat1 from statement on account of desi<nation=
Another e>.ression from the !hhando<ya ?.anishad is now taken u. for
discussion= Be read in !hhando<ya ?.anishad (III&*3&* JThat which is ca##ed
Akasa is the revea#er of a## names and forms= That within which these names and
forms are contained is Brahman, the Immorta#, the Se#f=J
%ere a doubt arises whether that which here is ca##ed Akasa is the %i<hest
Brahman or the ordinary e#ementa# ether=
The $urva.akshin or the ob0ector says that Akasa means here the e#ementa#
ether, because this is the conventiona# meanin< of the word=
To this the Siddhantin <ives the fo##owin< re.#y= %ere HAkasaI is Brahman
on#y, because it is desi<nated as a different thin< etc= "ames and forms are said
to be within this Akasa, which is therefore different from these=
The term Akasa si<nifies Brahman because it is stated to be the source of a##
names and forms, a#so because it is @ua#ified by such e.ithets as HInfinite,
Immorta#I HSe#fI= The word Akasa, refers to Brahman because the descri.tion
Jbeyond name and formJ a..#ies on#y to Brahman=
Sushu.tyutkrantyadhikaranam1 To.ic *, +Sutras 32&3,-
The Se#f consistin< of know#ed<e is Brahman
Sushu.tyutkrantyorbhedena I=,=32 +*84-
Because of the %i<hest Se#f bein< shown as different +from the
individua# sou#- in the states of dee. s#ee. and death=
Sushu.ti utkrantyoh1 In dee. s#ee. and deathC Bhedena1 by the
difference, as differentC +Sushu.ti1 dee. s#ee.C ?tkranti1 de.artin< at the time
of death-=
An e>.ression from the si>th cha.ter of the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad is now
taken u. for discussion=
In the si>th $ra.athaka or cha.ter of the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad, in re.#y
to the @uestion & JBho is that Se#fLJ +I(&,&7-, a #en<thy e>.osition of the nature of
the Se#f is <iven= J%e who is within the heart, amon< the $ranas, the .erson of
#i<ht, consistin< of know#ed<eJ=
%ere a doubt arises whether the Se#f is the %i<hest Se#f or the individua# sou#=
The Sutra dec#ares that it is the %i<hest Se#f= BhyL Because it is shown to be
different from the individua# sou# in the state of dee. s#ee. and at the time of
death= JThis .erson embraced by the %i<hest inte##i<ent Se#f knows nothin< that is
without or withinJ Bri= ?.= I(&,&2*= This c#ear#y indicates that in dee. s#ee. the
H.ersonI or the individua# sou# is different from the %i<hest inte##i<ent Se#f or
Brahman=
%ere the term Jthe .ersonJ must mean the /iva or the embodied sou#,
because the absence of the know#ed<e of what is within and without in dee. s#ee.
can be .redicated on#y of the individua# sou#= The Su.reme inte##i<ent Se#f is
Brahman because such inte##i<ence can be .redicated of Brahman on#y= Brahman
is never dissociated from a##&embracin< know#ed<e= Simi#ar#y the .assa<e that
treats of de.arture i=e= death +this bodi#y Se#f mounted by the inte##i<ent se#f
moves a#on< <roanin<- refers to the Su.reme Lord as different from the individua#
sou#= The /iva who casts off this morta# body is different from Su.reme Se#f or
Brahman= The /iva a#one .asses throu<h the sta<es of sound&s#ee. and death=
Brahman has neither s#ee. nor death= %e is wide awake a#ways=
Therefore Brahman is the chief to.ic in this Section= The !ha.ter e>c#usive#y
aims at describin< the nature of Brahman= The #en<thy discourse on the individua#
sou# in this Section is to show that he is in essence identica# with Brahman=
$atyadisabdebhyah I=,=3, +*85-
+The Bein< referred to in Sutra 32 is Brahman- because of the
words HLordI etc=, bein< a..#ied to %im= J%e is the contro##er, the
Ru#er, the Lord of a##=J Bri= ?.= I(&3&22=
$atyadi sabdebhyah1 On account of words #ike HLordI etc=, +the se#f in the
te>t under discussion is the Su.erme Se#f-=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 32 is <iven=
These e.ithets are a.t on#y in the case of Brahman, because these e.ithets
intimate that the thin< s.oken of is abso#ute#y free= %ence the word Se#f denotes
the %i<hest Se#f or Brahman and not the /iva or the embodied sou#, from a## of
which we conc#ude that the !ha.ter refers to the Su.reme Brahman=
%ere ends the Third $ada of the irst Adhyaya of the Brahma Sutras and of
Sariraka Bhashya of Sri Sankaracharya=
SE!TIO" 3
Introduction
In To.ic 4, Section *, it has been shown that as the $radhana of the
Sankhyas is not based on the authority of the scri.tures and that as a## the Sruti
te>ts refer to an inte##i<ent .rinci.#e as the first cause, Brahman is the first cause=
The nature of Brahman has been defined in I=*=2= It has been shown that the
.ur.ort of a## (edanta te>ts is to set forth the doctrine that Brahman and not the
$radhana, is the cause of the wor#d=
The Sankhyas say that it has not been satisfactori#y .roved that there is no
scri.tura# authority for the $radhana, because some Sakhas contain e>.ression
which seem to convey the idea of the $radhana=
This $ada or Section .roceeds to dea# with the consideration of other (edic
te>ts which are asserted by the Sankhyas to dec#are that the $radhana is the
cause of the universe=
The who#e of Section 3 <ives suitab#e and co<ent answers to a## ob0ections
raised by the Sankhyas=
Syno.sis
The fourth $ada or Section of the first !ha.ter is s.ecia##y directed a<ainst
the Sankhyas= This Section e>amines some .assa<es from the ?.anishads where
terms occur which may be mistaken for the names of the insentient matter of
Sankhyas= It dec#ares authoritative#y that the (edanta te>ts #end no su..ort
whatsoever to the Sankhya theory of creation or the doctrine of $radhana= This
Section .roves that Brahman is the materia# as we## as the efficient cause of the
universe=
Adhikarana I1 +Sutras *&7- discusses the .assa<e in ;atha ?.anishad I&,&*8,
** where mention is made of the <reat +'ahat- and the undeve#o.ed +Avyaktam-=
Avyakta is a synonym for $radhana in the Sankhya Sastra= H'ahatI means inte##ect
in Sankhya .hi#oso.hy= Sri Sankaracharya shows that the term Avyakta denotes
the subt#e body or Sukshma Sarira as we## as the <ross body a#so and the term
'ahat Brahman or the Su.reme Se#f=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutras 9&*8- shows that accordin< to Sankara the trico#oured
HA0aI s.oken of in the Svetasvatara ?.anishad I(=4 is not the $radhana of
the Sankhyas but either that .ower of the Lord from which the wor#d takes its
ori<in or the .rimary causa# matter first .roduced by that .ower=
Adhikarana I#I1 +Sutras **&*,- shows that the H$ancha&.ancha& 0anahI
mentioned in Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad I(&3&*7 are not the twenty&five .rinci.#es
of the Sankhyas=
Adhikarana I(1 +Sutras *3&*4- shows that a#thou<h there is conf#ict as
re<ards the order of creation, scri.ture does not contradict itse#f on the a##im.ortant
.oint of Brahman i=e=, a Bein< whose essence is inte##i<ence, which is
the cause of this universe=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutras *5&*9- .roves that J%e who is the maker of those
.ersons, of whom this is the workJ mentioned in ;au= ?.= I(&*&*6 is not either the
$rana +the vita# air- or the individua# sou#, but Brahman=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutras *6&22- decides that the JSe#f to be seen, to be heardJ
etc= +Bri= ?.= II&3&4- is the Su.reme Se#f, but not the individua# sou#= The views of
/aimini, Asmarathya, Audu#omi and ;asakritsna are e>.ressed=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutras 2,&27- teaches that Brahman is not on#y the efficient
or o.erative cause +"imitta- of the wor#d, but its materia# cause as we##= The wor#d
s.rin<s from Brahman by way of modification +$arinama Sutra 25-=
Adhikarana (III1 +Sutra 29- shows that the refutation of the Sankhya views is
a..#icab#e to other theories a#so such as the atomic theory which says that the
wor#d has ori<inated from atoms, etc=
Anumanikadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&7-
The 'ahat and Avyakta of the ;atho.anishad
do not refer to the Sankhya Tattvas
Anumanikama.yekeshamiti chet na
sariraru.akavinyasta<rihiter darsayati cha I=3=* +*87-
If it be said that in some +recensions of the (edas- that which
is inferred +i=e= the $radhana- +is- a#so +mentioned-, +we say- no,
because +the word HAvyaktaI occurrin< in the ;atha ?.anishad- is
mentioned in a simi#e referred to the body +and means the body itse#f
and not the $radhana of the +Sankhyas-C +the Sruti- a#so e>.#ains
+it-=
Anumanikam1 that which is inferred +i=e=, the $radhana-C A.i1 a#soC
Ekesham1 of some branches or schoo# of Srutis or recensions of the te>tC Iti1
thusC !het1 ifC "a1 "oC Sariraru.a& kavinyasta<rihiteh1 because it is
mentioned in a simi#e referrin< to the body +Sarira1 body, Ru.aka1 simi#e,
(inyasta1 contained, :rihiteh1 because of the reference-C Darsayati1 +the
Srutis- e>.#ainC !ha1 a#so, too, and=
The Sankhyas a<ain raise an ob0ection= They say that the $radhana is a#so
based on scri.tura# authority, because some Sakhas #ike the ;atha Sakha +schoo#-
contain e>.ressions wherein the $radhana seems to be referred to JBeyond the
'ahat there is the Avyakta +the unmanifested or the undeve#o.ed-, beyond the
Avyakta is the $urusha +Bein< or $erson-J ;atha ?.= *&,&**=
The Sankhyas say that the word HAvyaktaI here refers to the $radhana
because the words H'ahatI, HAvyaktaI and H$urushaI which occur in the same order
in the Sankhya .hi#oso.hy, occur in the Sruti te>t= %ence they are reco<nised to
be the same cate<ories of the Sankhyas= The $radhana is ca##ed Hundeve#o.edI
because it is destitute of sound and other @ua#ities= It cannot therefore be said
that there is no scri.tura# authority for the $radhana= Be dec#are that this
$radhana is the cause of the wor#d on the stren<th of Sruti, Smriti and
ratiocination=
This Sutra refutes it thus= The word HAvyaktaI does not refer to the $radhana=
It is used in connection with a simi#e referrin< to the body= The immediate#y
.recedin< .art of the !ha.ter e>hibits the simi#e in which the Se#f, the body, and
so on, are com.ared to the Lord of a chariot, a charioteer etc= J;now the sou# to
be the Lord of the chariot, the body to be the chariot, the inte##ect the charioteer
and the mind the reins= The senses they ca## the horses, the ob0ects of the senses
their roads= Bhen the Se#f is in union with the body, the senses and the mind,
then wise .eo.#e ca## him the en0oyerJ ;atha ?.= I=,=,&3=
A## these thin<s that are referred to in these verses are found in the
fo##owin<1 JBeyond the senses there are the ob0ects, beyond the ob0ects there is
mind, beyond the mind there is the inte##ect, the <reat Se#f +'ahat- is beyond the
inte##ect= Beyond the <reat +'ahat- is the Avyakta +the undeve#o.ed-, beyond the
Avyakta there is the $urusha= Beyond the $urusha there is nothin< & this is the
<oa#, the hi<hest .athJ ;atha ?.= I=,=*8&**=
"ow com.are these two @uotations= In this .assa<e we reco<nise the senses
etc= which in the .recedin< simi#e had been com.ared to horses and so on= The
senses, the inte##ect and the mind are referred to in both .assa<es under the same
names= The ob0ects in the second .assa<e are the ob0ects which are in the former
.assa<e desi<nated as the roads of the senses= The 'ahat of the #ater te>t means
the cosmic inte##ect= In the ear#ier .assa<e inte##ect is the charioteer= It inc#udes
the individua# and cosmic inte##ect= The Atman of the ear#ier te>t corres.onds to
the $urusha of the #ater te>t and body of the ear#ier te>t corres.onds to Avyakta in
the #ater te>t= Therefore Avyakta means the body here and not the $radhana=
There remains now the body on#y which had before been com.ared to the chariot
in the ear#ier te>t=
"ow an ob0ection is raised= %ow can the body which is manifest, <ross and
visib#e +(yakta- be said to be unmanifest and unevo#vedL The fo##owin< Sutra
<ives a suitab#e answer=
Sukshmam tu tadarhatvat I=3=2 +*89-
But the subt#e +body is meant by the term Avyakta- on account of
its ca.abi#ity +of bein< so desi<nated-=
Sukshmam1 the subt#e, the .ermanent atoms, the causa# bodyC Tu1 butC
Tad arhatvat1 because it can be .ro.er#y so termed=
An ob0ection to Sutra * is refuted=
The Sutra re.#ies that what the term HAvyaktaI denotes is the subt#e causa#
body= Anythin< subt#e may be s.oken of as Hundeve#o.edI or HunmanifestedI= The
subt#e .arts of the e#ements, the causa# substance, i=e=, the five uncom.ounded
e#ements out of which the body is formed may be ca##ed so= As they are subt#e and
not manifest, and as they a#so transcend sense .erce.tion, they can be .ro.er#y
desi<nated by the term HAvyaktaI=
It is a#so a matter of common occurrence to denote the effect by the cause=
Therefore the <ross body is referred to here indirect#y= !om.are for instance the
.hrase J'i> the Soma with the cow +i=e=, mi#k-J Ri<veda IK=38=3= Another
scri.tura# .assa<e a#so dec#ares J"ow a## this, i=e=, this deve#o.ed wor#d with
names and forms is ca.ab#e of bein< desi<nated Hundeve#o.edI in so far as in a
.revious state it was in a mere#y semina# or .otentia# state destitute of names and
formsJ=
In Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad I&3&7, the ;arana Sarira is ca##ed by the term
unevo#ved or Avyakta= Before the wor#d came into manifestation it was in the form
of a seed or causa# body=
An ob0ection is raised= If the Avyakta is taken to be matter in its subt#e state
consistin< of the causa# body, what ob0ection is there to inter.ret it as the
$radhana of the Sankhya system, because there a#so Avyakta means matter in
subt#e state= The fo##owin< Sutra <ives a suitab#e answer to this ob0ection=
Tadadhinatvat arthavat I=3=, +*86-
On account of its de.endence +on the Lord, such a .revious
semina# condition of the wor#d may be admitted, because such an
admission is- reasonab#e=
Tad1 itsC Adhinatvat1 on account of de.endenceC Arthavat1 havin< a
sense or a meanin< subservin< an end or .ur.oseC is fittin<=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
The o..onent says= If a suitab#e causa# state of the <ross wor#d is admitted it
is as <ood as acce.tin< the $radhana, for we Sankhyas understand by the term
$radhana, nothin< but the antecedent condition of the universe=
The Siddhantin <ives the fo##owin< re.#y= The $radhana of the Sankhyas is an
inde.endent entity= The subt#e causa# state admitted here is de.endent on the
%i<hest Lord= A .revious subt#e sta<e of the universe must necessari#y be
admitted= It is @uite reasonab#e= or without it the Lord cannot create= It is the
.otentia# .ower of Brahman= The who#e Li#a is ke.t u. throu<h this .ower= %e
cou#d not become active if he were destitute of this .otentia# .ower= It is the
causa# .otentia#ity inherent in Brahman= That causa# .otentia#ity is of the nature of
nescience=
The e>istence of such a causa# .otentia#ity renders it .ossib#e that the
/ivanmuktas or #iberated sou#s do not take further birth as it is destroyed by
.erfect know#ed<e= It is ri<ht#y denoted by the term Hundeve#o.edI +Avyakta-= It
has the Su.reme Lord for its substratum= It is of the nature of an i##usion= It is
Anirvachaniya or indescribab#e= )ou can neither say that it is nor that it is not=
This undeve#o.ed .rinci.#e is sometimes denoted by the term HAkasaI, ether=
JIn that Im.erishab#e then, O :ar<i, the ether is woven #ike war. and woofJ Bri=
?.= III&9&**= Sometimes, a<ain, it is denoted by the term Akshara, the
Im.erishab#e= J%i<her than the hi<h, Im.erishab#eJ 'un= ?.= II&*&2=
/ust as the i##usion of a snake in a ro.e is not .ossib#e mere#y throu<h
i<norance without the substratum & ro.e, so a#so the wor#d cannot be created
mere#y by i<norance without the substratum, the Lord= Therefore the subt#e causa#
condition is de.endent on the Lord, and yet the Lord is not in the #east affected by
this i<norance, 0ust as the snake is not affected by the .oison= J;now that the
$rakriti is 'aya and the <reat Lord the ru#er of 'ayaJ Svet= ?.= I(&*8=
So the Avyakta is a he#.er +Sahakari- to the Lord in %is creation= The Lord
creates the universe usin< it as a means= It is de.endent on the Lord= It is not #ike
the $radhana of the Sankhyas which is an inde.endent entity=
The Lord #ooks on 'aya and ener<ises her= Then she has the .ower of
.roducin< the wor#d= In her own nature she is /ada or insentient=
In the ne>t Sutra the author <ives another reason for ho#din< that the
HAvyaktaI of the ;atha ?.anishad is not to be inter.reted as $radhana=
/neyatvavachanaccha I=3=3 +**8-
And because it is not mentioned +that the Avyakta- is to be known
+it cannot be the $radhana of the Sankhyas-=
/neyatva1 that is the ob0ect to be knownC Avachanat1 because of nonmentionC
!ha1 and=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
Accordin< to the Sankhyas, emanci.ation resu#ts when the difference
between the $urusha and the Avyakta +$rakriti- is known= or without a
know#ed<e of the nature of the constitutive e#ements of $radhana it is im.ossib#e
to reco<nise the difference of the sou# from them= %ence the Avyakta is to be
known accordin< to the Sankhyas= But here there is no @uestion of knowin< the
Avyakta= %ence it cannot be the $radhana of the Sankhyas=
It is im.ossib#e to ho#d that know#ed<e of thin<s which is not tau<ht in the
te>t is of any use to man= or this reason a#so we ho#d that the word HAvyaktaI
cannot denote the $radhana=
The Sankhyas ca## Avyakta or $radhana the first cause= But the first cause
has been stated in the Sruti as the ob0ect to be known= In the Sruti HAvyaktaI is
not stated to be an ob0ect of .ursuit= %ence it is not the first cause and
conse@uent#y, cannot be mistaken for the matter of Sankhyas=
Accordin< to the Sankhyas, #iberation is attained by knowin< that $urusha is
different from $rakriti= The know#ed<e of $rakriti is thus an essentia# of re#ease=
But the ;atha ?.anishad nowhere mentions that the know#ed<e of HAvyaktaI is
necessary for the fina# emanci.ation= Therefore the Avyakta of the ;atha
?.anishad is not the $rakriti of the Sankhyas=
"owhere does the scri.ture dec#are that $radhana +'atter- is /neya +to be
known- or ?.asya +to be worshi..ed-= Bhat is aimed at as the ob0ect of
know#ed<e of adoration in the Srutis is the Su.reme seat of (ishnu +Tad (ishnoh
.aramam .adam-=
(adatiti chet na .ra0no hi .rakaranat I=3=4 +***-
And if you maintain that the te>t does s.eak +of the $radhana as
an ob0ect of know#ed<e- we deny thatC because the inte##i<ent
+su.reme- Se#f is meant on account of the <enera# sub0ect matter=
(adati1 the verse or the te>t statesC Iti1 thusC !het1 if= "a1 noC $ra0nah1
the inte##ect su.remeC %i1 becauseC $rakaranat1 from the conte>t, because of the
<enera# sub0ect&matter of the !ha.ter=
An ob0ection to Sutra 3 is raised and refuted=
The Sruti says, J%e who has .erceived that which is without sound, without
touch, without form, decay, without taste, eterna#, without sme##, without
be<innin<, without end, beyond the <reat +'ahat- and unchan<eab#e, is freed
from the 0aws of deathJ ;atha ?.= II&,&*4=
The Sankhyas says that the $radhana has to be known to attain the fina#
re#ease, because the descri.tion <iven of the entity to be known a<rees with the
$radhana, which is a#so beyond the 'ahat +<reat-= %ence we conc#ude that the
$radhana is denoted by the term HAvyaktamI=
This Sutra refutes this= It says that by Avyakta, the one beyond 'ahat
+<reat- etc=, the inte##i<ent Su.reme Se#f is meant, as that is the sub0ect&matter of
that Section=
urther the hi<hest Se#f is s.oken of in a## (edantic te>ts as .ossessin< 0ust
those @ua#ities which are mentioned in the .assa<e @uoted above viG=, absence of
sound etc=
%ence it fo##ows that the $radhana in the te>t is neither s.oken of as the
ob0ect of know#ed<e nor denoted by the term HAvyaktamI=
Even the .ro.ounders of the Sankhya .hi#oso.hy do not state that #iberation
or re#ease from death is the resu#t of the know#ed<e of $radhana= They state that
it is due to the know#ed<e of the sentient $urusha=
The author <ives another reason for ho#din< that $radhana is not meant in
the .assa<e of the ;atha ?.anishad=
Trayanameva chaivamu.anyasah .rasnascha I=3=5 +**2-
And there is @uestion and e>.#anation re#atin< to three thin<s
on#y +not to the $radhana-=
Trayanam1 of the three, name#y three boons asked by "achiketasC Eva1
on#yC !ha1 andC Evam1 thusC ?.anyasah1 mentioned, +.resentation by way of
answer-C $rasnat1 @uestionC !ha1 and=
The ob0ection raised in Sutra 4 is further refuted=
In the ;atha ?.anishad "achiketas asks )ama three @uestions on#y viG=,
about the fire sacrifice, the individua# sou# and the Su.reme Se#f= These three
thin<s on#y )ama e>.#ains and to them on#y the @uestions of "achiketas refer=
$radhana is not mentioned= "othin< e#se is mentioned or en@uired about= There is
no @uestion re#ative to the $radhana and hence no sco.e for any remarks on it=
Be cannot e>.ect )ama to s.eak of the $radhana which has not been en@uired
into= So $radhana has no .#ace in the discourse=
'ahadvaccha I=3=7 +**,-
And +the case of the term Avyakta- is #ike that of the term
'ahat=
'ahadvat1 #ike the 'ahatC !ha1 and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is <iven= /ust as in the case of 'ahat,
Avyakta a#so is used in the (edas in a sense different from that attached to it in
the Sankhya=
The Sankhyas use the term H'ahatI +the <reat one- to denote the first born
entity, the inte##ect= The term has a different meanin< in the (edic te>ts= In the
(edic te>ts it is connected with the word Se#f= Thus we see in such .assa<es as
the fo##owin< & JThe <reat Se#f is beyond the inte##ectJ +;atha ?.= I&,&*8-, JThe
<reat Omni.resent Se#fJ +;atha ?.= I&2&22-, JI know the <reat .ersonJ +Svet= ?.=
III&9-= Be therefore, conc#ude that the term HAvyaktaI a#so where it occurs in the
Srutis, cannot denote the $radhana= Thou<h the Avyakta may mean the $radhana
or $rakriti in the Sankhya .hi#oso.hy, it means somethin< different in the Sruti
te>ts= So the $radhana is not based on scri.tura# authority, but is a mere
conc#usion of inference=
'ahat is the Buddhi of the Sankhyas= But in the ;atha ?.anishad the 'ahat
is said to be hi<her than Buddhi= JBuddheratma mahan .arah=J So the 'ahat of
the ;atho.anishad is different from the 'ahat of the Sankhyas=
!hamasadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras 9&*8-
The A0a of Svetasvatara ?.anishad does not mean $radhana
!hamasavadaviseshat I=3=9 +**3-
+It cannot be maintained that HA0aI means the $radhana- because
no s.ecia# characteristic is stated, as in the case of the cu.=
!hamasavat1 #ike a cu.C Aviseshat1 because there is no s.ecia#
characteristic=
An e>.ression from the Svetasvatara ?.anishad is now taken u. for
discussion in su..ort of Sutra *=
The author ne>t refutes another wron< inter.retation <iven by the Sankhyas
of a verse from the Svetasvatara ?.anishad=
Be find in the Svetasvatara ?.anishad I(&4, JThere is one HA0aI red, white
and b#ack in co#our, .roducin< manifo#d offs.rin< of the same nature=J
%ere a doubt arises whether this HA0aI refers to the $radhana of the Sankhyas
or to the subt#e e#ements fire, water, earth= The Sankhyas maintain that HA0aI here
means the $radhana, the unborn= The words red, white and b#ack refer to its three
constituents, the :unas, Sattva, Ra0as and Tamas= She is ca##ed HunbornI= She is
not an effect= She is said to .roduce manifo#d offs.rin< by her own unaided effort=
This Sutra refutes this= The 'antra taken by itse#f is not ab#e to <ive assertion
what the Sankhya doctrine is meant= There is no basis for such a s.ecia# assertion
in the absence of s.ecia# characteristics= The case is ana#o<ous to that of the cu.
mentioned in the 'antra, JThere is a cu. havin< its mouth be#ow and its bottom
aboveJ Bri= ?.= II&2&,= It is im.ossib#e to decide from the te>t itse#f what kind of
cu. is meant= Simi#ar#y it is not .ossib#e to fi> the meanin< of HA0aI from the te>t
a#one=
But in connection with the 'antra about the cu. we have a su..#ementary
.assa<e from which we #earn what kind of cu. is meant= JBhat is ca##ed the cu.
havin< its mouth be#ow and its bottom above is the sku##=J Simi#ar#y, here we have
to refer this .assa<e to su..#ementary te>ts to fi> the meanin< of A0a= Be shou#d
not assert that it means the $radhana=
Bhere can we #earn what s.ecia# bein< is meant by the word HA0aI of the
Svetasvatara ?.anishadL To this @uestion the fo##owin< Sutra <ives a suitab#e
answer=
/yotiru.akrama tu tatha hyadhiyata eke I=3=6 +**4-
But +the e#ements- be<innin< with #i<ht +are meant by the term
A0a-, because some read so in their te>t=
This is e>.#anatory to Sutra 9=
/yotiru.akrama1 e#ements be<innin< with #i<htC Tu1 butC Tatha1 thusC %i1
becauseC Adhiyate1 some read, some recensions have a readin<C Eke1 some=
By the term HA0aI we have to understand the causa# matter from which fire,
water and earth have s.run<= The matter be<ins with #i<ht i=e=, com.rises fire,
water and earth= The word HtuI +but- <ives em.hasis to the assertion= One Sakha
assi<ns to them red co#our etc= JThe red co#our is the co#our of fire, white co#our is
the co#our of water, b#ack co#our is the co#our of earthJ !hh= ?.= (I&2&3, 3&*=
This .assa<e fi>es the meanin< of the word HA0aI= It refers to fire, earth and
water from which the wor#d has been created= It is not the $radhana of the
Sankhyas which consists of the three :unas= The words red, white, b#ack .rimari#y
denote s.ecia# co#ours= They can be a..#ied to the three :unas of the Sankhyas in
a secondary sense on#y= Bhen doubtfu# .assa<es have to be inter.reted, the
.assa<es whose sense is beyond doubt are to be used= This is <enera##y a
reco<nised ru#e=
In the Svetasvatara ?.anishad in !ha.ter I we find that A0a is used a#on<
with the word JDevatma Sakti & the divine .ower=J Therefore A0a does not mean
$radhana=
The creative .ower is BrahmanIs inherent ener<y, which emanates from %im
durin< the .eriod of creation= $rakriti herse#f is born of Brahman= Therefore A0a in
its #itera# sense of HunbornI cannot a..#y to $rakriti or $radhana= Lord ;rishna
says, J'ama yonir mahad Brahma & 'y womb is the <reat Brahman, in that I
.#ace the <erm thence cometh forth the birth of a## bein<s, O Bharata=J This shows
that $rakriti herse#f is .roduced from the Lord=
;a#.ano.adesaccha madhvadivadavirodhah I=3=*8 +**5-
And on account of the statement of the assum.tion +of a meta.hor-
there is nothin< contrary to reason +in A0a denotin< the causa#
matter- as in the case of honey +denotin< the sun in 'adhu (idya for
the sake of meditation- and simi#ar cases=
;a#.ana1 the creative .ower of thou<htC ?.adesat1 from teachin<C !ha1
andC 'adhvadivat1 as in the case of honey etc=C Avirodhah1 no incon<ruity=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 9 is continued=
The $urva.akshin says, JThe term A0a denotes somethin< unborn= %ow can it
refer to the three causa# e#ements of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad, which are
somethin< createdL This is contrary to reason=J
The Sutra says1 There is no incon<ruity= The source of a## bein<s viG=, fire,
water and earth is com.ared to a she&<oat by way of meta.hor= Some she&<oat
mi<ht be .art#y red, .art#y white and .art#y b#ack= She mi<ht have many youn<
<oats resemb#in< her in co#our= Some he&<oat mi<ht #ove her and #ie by her side,
whi#e some other he&<oat mi<ht abandon her after havin< en0oyed her= Simi#ar#y
the universa# causa# matter which is tri&co#oured on account of its com.risin< fire,
water and earth .roduces many inanimate and animate bein<s #ike unto itse#f and
is en0oyed by the sou#s who are bound by Avidya or i<norance, whi#e it is
renounced by those sou#s who have attained true know#ed<e of the Brahman=
The words H#ike honeyI in the Sutra mean that 0ust as the sun a#thou<h not
bein< honey is re.resented as honey +!hh= ?.= III=*-, and s.eech as cow +Bri= ?.=
(&9-, and the heaven#y wor#d etc=, as the fires +Bri= ?.= (I&2=6-= So here the
causa# matter thou<h not bein< a tri&co#oured she&<oat, is meta.horica##y or
fi<urative#y re.resented as one= %ence there is nothin< incon<ruous in usin< the
term HA0aI to denote the a<<re<ate of fire, water and earth= HA0aI does not mean
HunbornI= The descri.tion of "ature as an A0a is an ima<inative way of teachin< a
Truth= The sun is the honey of the <ods, thou<h the sun is not mere honey=
Sankhyo.asan<rahadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras **&*,-
The five&fo#d&five +$ancha&.ancha0anah- does not refer to the twenty&five
Sankhyan cate<ories
"a sankhyo.asan<rahada.i nanabhavadatirekaccha I=3=** +**7-
Even from the statement of the number +five&fo#d&five i=e=,
twenty&five cate<ories by the Sruti it is- not +to be understood that
the Sruti refers to the $radhana- on account of the differences +in
the cate<ories and the e>cess over the number of the Sankhyan
cate<ories-=
"a1 notC Sankhya1 numberC ?.asan<rahat1 from statementC A.i1 evenC
"anabhavat1 on account of the differencesC Atirekat1 on account of e>cessC
!ha1 and=
This Sutra discusses whether the twenty&five .rinci.#es of the Sankhyan
.hi#oso.hy are admitted by the Sruti=
The Sankhya or $urva.akshin fai#ed in his attem.t to base his doctrine on the
te>t which s.eaks of the HA0aI= %e a<ain comes forward and .oints to another te>t=
J%e in whom the five <rou.s of five and the ether rest, %im a#one I be#ieve to be
the Se#fC I who know be#ieve %im to be BrahmanJ +Bri= ?.= I(&3&*7-= "ow fivetimes&
five makes twenty&five= This is e>act#y the number of the Sankhya Tattvas
or .rinci.#es= The doctrine of $radhana rests on a scri.tura# basis= %ere is the
scri.tura# authority for our .hi#oso.hy=
This Sutra refutes such an assum.tion= $ancha.ancha0anah, five&five&.eo.#e
cannot denote the twenty&five cate<ories of the Sankhyas= The Sankhya
cate<ories have each their individua# difference= There are no attributes in
common to each .entad= The Sankhya cate<ories cannot be divided into <rou.s of
five of any basis of simi#arity, because a## the twenty&five .rinci.#es or Tattvas
differ from each other=
This is further not .ossib#e Hon account of the e>cessI= The ether is mentioned
as a se.arate cate<ory= This wi## make the number twenty&si> in a##= This is not in
accordance with the theory of the Sankhyas=
rom the mere enumeration of the number 24 we cannot say that the
reference is to the twenty&five Sankhya cate<ories and that hence the Sankhya
doctrine has the sanction of the (edas=
The .assa<e refers to Atma a#so= Then the tota# number wi## be twenty&seven=
Atma is described as the basis of the others= Therefore it cannot be one of the
twenty&five .rinci.#es=
The .rinci.#es of Sankhya .hi#oso.hy are .ro.ounded as inde.endent of
$urusha= But here the cate<ories are known to be entire#y de.endent on Brahman
or Atma who is said to be the mainstay of them a##= So they cannot be acce.ted as
the inde.endent .rinci.#es of Sankhya=
The word $ancha0anah is a <rou. denotin< term= It is the s.ecia# name
be#on<in< to a## the members of that <rou.= The <rou. consists of five members,
each of whom is ca##ed a $ancha0anah= Therefore the .hrase H$ancha&.ancha0anahI
does not mean five times five bein<s but five bein<s= Every one of whom is ca##ed
a $ancha0anah= It is 0ust #ike the .hrase Sa.tarshi, which denotes the conste##ation
?rsa 'a0or, consistin< of seven stars= The word Sa.tarshi is a s.ecia# name of
everyone of these stars= Bhen we say seven Sa.tarshis we do not mean seven
times&seven stars but seven stars each one of whom is ca##ed a Sa.tarshi=
Therefore H$ancha&.ancha&0anahI does not mean five times five .roducts, but five
.eo.#e every one of whom is ca##ed a $ancha0anah= The twenty&five Tattvas of the
Sankhyas are these1 *, $rakritiC 2&9, seven modifications of $rakriti viG=, 'ahat
etc=, which are causa# substances, as we## as effectsC 6&23 si>teen effectsC the 24
is the sou# which is neither a causa# substance nor an effect=
Bho then are these bein<s ca##ed $ancha0anahL The fo##owin< Sutra <ives the
re.#y=
$ranadayo vakyaseshat I=3=*2 +**9-
+The $ancha0anah or the five .eo.#e referred to are- the vita#
force etc=, +as is seen- from the com.#ementary .assa<e=
$ranadayah1 the $rana and the restC (akyaseshat1 because of the
com.#ementary .assa<e=
The Sutra is e>.#anatory to Sutra **=
The te>t in which the $ancha0anah are mentioned is fo##owed by another one
in which the vita# force and four other thin<s are mentioned in order to describe
the nature of Brahman= JThey who know the $rana of $rana +the breath of
breath-, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the food of the food, the mind of
mind etc=J +Bri= 'adhya= I(&3&2*-=
The five .eo.#e refer to the $rana and the other four of the te>t and are
mentioned for the .ur.ose of describin< the nature of Brahman=
The Sankhya asks how can the word H.eo.#eI be a..#ied to the breath, the
eye, the ear and so onL %ow we ask in return, can it be a..#ied to your
cate<oriesL In both cases the common meanin< of the term H.eo.#eI is a..#ied to
the $ranas in the te>t, JThese are the five .ersons of BrahmanJ +!hh= ?.= III&*,&
5-= JBreath is father, breath is motherJ +!hh= ?.= (II&*4&*-=
The ob0ector says= This is .ossib#e on#y in the recension of the 'adhyandinas,
who read the additiona# word HAnnasya AnnamI= But in ;anva recension that
.hrase Hannasya annamI is omitted= Be have on#y four= This ob0ection is answered
by the author in the fo##owin< Sutra=
/yotishaikeshamasatyanne I=3=*, +**6-
In the te>t of some +the ;anva recension- where food is not
mentioned +the number five is made u.- by H#i<htI +mentioned in the
.revious verse-=
/yotisha1 by #i<htC Ekesham1 of some te>ts or recensions, i=e=, of the
;anvasC Asati1 in the absence ofC Anne1 food=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra ** is continued=
JThe immorta# #i<ht of #i<hts the <ods worshi. as #on<evityJ Bri= ?.= I(&3&*8=
A#thou<h food is not mentioned in the te>t cited in the #ast Sutra, accordin< to the
;anva recension of the Sata.atha Brahmana, yet the four of that verse, to<ether
with H#i<htI mentioned in the te>t @uoted above, wou#d make the five .eo.#e=
Be have .roved herewith that scri.tures offer no basis for the doctrine of the
$radhana= It wi## be shown #ater on that this doctrine cannot be .roved either by
Smriti or by ratiocination=
;aranatvadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutras *3&*4-
Brahman is the irst cause
;aranatvena chakasadishu yathavya.adishtokteh I=3=*3 +*28-
A#thou<h there is a conf#ict of the (edanta te>ts as re<ards the
thin<s created such as ether and so on, there is no such conf#ict
with res.ect to Brahman as the irst !ause, on account of %is bein<
re.resented in one te>t as described in other te>ts=
;aranatvena1 as the +irst- causeC !ha1 andC Akasadishu1 with reference
to Akasa and the restC )atha1 asC (ya.adishta1 tau<ht in different SrutisC
?kteh1 because of the statement=
The doubt that may arise from Sutra *, that different Srutis may draw
different conc#usions as to the cause of the universe is removed by this Sutra=
In the .recedin< .art of the work the .ro.er definition of Brahman has been
<iven= It has been shown that a## the (edanta te>ts have Brahman for their
common to.ic= It has been .roved a#so that there is no scri.tura# authority for the
doctrine of the $radhana= But now the Sankhya raises a new ob0ection=
%e says1 It is not .ossib#e to .rove either that Brahman is the cause of the
ori<in etc=, of the universe or that a## the (edanta te>ts refer to BrahmanC because
the (edanta .assa<es contradict one another= A## the (edanta te>ts s.eak of the
successive ste.s of the creation in different order= In rea#ity they s.eak of different
creations= Thus in Tait= ?.= II&*&* we find that creation .roceeds from Se#f or
Brahman Jrom the Se#f s.ran< Akasa, from Akasa airJ etc= This .assa<e shows
that the cause of creation is Atman= In another .#ace it is said that the creation
be<an with fire +!hh= ?.= (I&2&,-= In another .#ace, a<ain, it is said JThe .erson
created breath and from breath faithJ +$ras= ?.= I(&3-C in another .#ace, a<ain,
that the Se#f created these wor#ds, the water above the heaven, #i<ht, the morta#
+earth- and the water be#ow the earth +Aitareya Aranyaka II&3&*&2, ,-= There no
order is stated at a##= Somewhere it is said that the creation ori<inated from the
non&e>istent +Asat-= JIn the be<innin< there was the non&e>istent +Asat-C from it
was born what e>istsJ +Tait= ?.= II&7-= JIn the be<innin< there was the none>istentC
it became e>istentC it <rewJ +!hh= ?.= III&*6&*-= In another .#ace it is
said JOthers say, in the be<innin< there was that on#y which is notC but how cou#d
it be thus, my dearL %ow cou#d that which is to be born of that which is notJ +!hh=
?.= (I&2&*O 2-=
In another .#ace Sat is said to be the cause of the universe JSat a#one was in
the be<innin<J !hh= ?.= (I&2&*= In another .#ace, a<ain, the creation of the wor#d
is s.oken of as havin< taken .#ace s.ontaneous#y= A<ain we find that Avyakta is
said to be the cause of the wor#d J"ow a## this was then Avyakrita +undeve#o.ed-=
It became deve#o.ed by name and formJ Bri= ?.= *&3&7= Thus the ?.anishads are
not consistent, as re<ards the cause of the universe= Thus it is not .ossib#e to
ascertain that Brahman a#one is tau<ht in the ?.anishads as the cause of the
wor#d= As many discre.ancies are observed, the (edanta te>ts cannot be acce.ted
as authorities for determinin< the cause of the universe= Be must acce.t some
other cause of the wor#d restin< on the authority of Sruti and reasonin<=
It is .ossib#e to say that $radhana a#one is tau<ht to be the cause of the
wor#d as we find from the .assa<e of the Bri= ?.= a#ready @uoted above= urther
the words Sat, and Asat, $rana, Akasa and Avyakrita can very we## be a..#ied to
$radhana, because some of them such as Akasa, $rana are the effects of
$radhana, whi#e others are the names of $radhana itse#f= A## these terms cannot
be a..#ied to Brahman=
In some .assa<es we find that Atman and Brahman are a#so said to be the
cause of the wor#dC but these two terms can be a..#ied to $radhana a#so= The
#itera# meanin< of the word HAtmanI is a##&.ervadin<= $radhana is a##&.ervadin<=
Brahman #itera##y means that which is .re&eminent#y <reat +Brihat-= $radhana may
be ca##ed Brahman a#so= $radhana is ca##ed Asat in its as.ect of modified thin<s
and it is ca##ed Sat or bein< in its causa# or eterna# as.ect= $radhana is ca##ed
$rana as it is an e#ement .roduced from it= Thinkin< etc=, may a#so a..#y to
$radhana in a meta.horica# sense, meanin< the commencement of action= So
when the ?.anishad says JIt thou<ht, #et me become manyJ, it means, that
$radhana started the action of mu#ti.#ication= Therefore a## the ?.anishad
.assa<es re#atin< to creation harmonise better with the theory of $radhana bein<
the creator than of Brahman=
The Siddhantin <ives the fo##owin< re.#y= A#thou<h the (edanta te>ts may be
conf#ictin< with re<ard to the order of the thin<s created such as ether and so on,
yet they uniform#y dec#are that Brahman is the irst !ause= The (edantic .assa<es
which are concerned with settin< forth the cause of the wor#d are in harmony
throu<hout= It cannot be said that the conf#ict of statements re<ardin< the
universe affects the statements re<ardin< the cause i=e=, Brahman= It is not the
main ob0ect of the (edanta te>ts to teach about creation= Therefore it wou#d not
even matter <reat#y= The chief .ur.ose of the Srutis is to teach that Brahman is
the irst !ause= There is no conf#ict re<ardin< this=
The teacher wi## reconci#e #ater on these conf#ictin< .assa<es a#so which refer
to the universe=
Samakarshat I=3=*4 +*2*-
On account of the connection +with .assa<es treatin< of Brahman,
non&e>istence does not mean abso#ute "on&e>istence-
Samakarshat1 from its connection with a distant e>.ression=
Some te>ts from the Taittiriya, the !hhando<ya and Brihadaranyaka
?.anishads are taken u. for discussion=
The Sankhyas raise another ob0ection= They say1 There is a conf#ict with
reference to the first cause, because some te>ts dec#are that the Se#f created
these wor#ds +Ait= Ar= II&3&*&2&,-= Some (edanta .assa<es dec#are that creation
ori<inated from non&e>istence +Tait= II&7-= A<ain in some .assa<es e>istence is
tau<ht as the irst !ause +!hh= ?.= (I&*&2-= Some Srutis s.eak of s.ontaneous
creation= It cannot be said that the Srutis refer to Brahman uniform#y as the irst
!ause owin< to the conf#ictin< statements of the (edanta te>ts=
The Siddhantin <ives the fo##owin< re.#y= Be read in the Tait= ?.= II&7 JThis
was indeed non&e>istence in the be<innin<=J "on&e>istence here does not mean
abso#ute non&e>istence= It means undifferentiated e>istence= In the be<innin<
e>istence was undifferentiated into name and form= Taittriya ?.anishad says J%e
who knows Brahman as non&e>istin< becomes himse#f non&e>istin<= %e who knows
Brahman as e>istin<, him we know himse#f as e>istin<J Tait= ?.= II&5= It is further
e#aborated by means of the series of sheaths viG=, the sheath of food etc=
re.resented as the inner se#f of everythin<= This same Brahman is a<ain referred
to in the c#ause= %e wished H'ay I be manyI= This c#ear#y intimates that Brahman
created the who#e universe=
The term HBein<I ordinari#y denotes that which is differentiated by means and
forms= The term H"on&bein<I denotes the same substance .revious to its
differentiation= Brahman is ca##ed H"on&bein<I .revious#y to the ori<ination of the
wor#d in a secondary sense=
Be read in !hh= ?.= (I&2&2 J%ow can that which is created from none>istence
beLJ This c#ear#y denies such a .ossibi#ity=
J"ow this was then undeve#o.edJ +Bri= ?.= I&3&7- does not by any means
assert that the evo#ution of the wor#d took .#ace without a ru#er, because it is
connected with another .assa<e where it is said, J%e has entered here to the very
ti.s of the fin<er&nai#sJ +Bri= ?.= I&3&7-= H%eI refers to the Ru#er= Therefore we have
to take that the Lord, the Ru#er, deve#o.ed what was undeve#o.ed=
Another scri.tura# te>t a#so describes that the evo#ution of the wor#d took
.#ace under the su.erintendence of a Ru#er= JLet me now enter these bein<s with
this #ovin< Se#f, and #et me then evo#ve names and formsJ !hh= ?.= (I&,&2=
A#thou<h there is a rea.er it is said JThe corn&fie#d rea.s itse#f=J It is said a#so
JThe vi##a<e is bein< a..roached=J %ere we have to su..#y Jby Devadatta or
somebody e#se=J
Brahman is described in one .#ace as e>istence= In another .#ace it is
described as the Se#f of a##= Therefore it is a sett#ed conc#usion that a## (edanta
te>ts uniform#y .oint to Brahman as the irst !ause= !ertain#y there is no conf#ict
on this .oint=
Even in the .assa<e that dec#ares Asat i=e= non&bein< to be the cause there is
a reference to Sat i=e= Bein<= Even the te>t that describes Asat as the !ausa# force
ends by referrin< to Sat=
The doubt about the meanin< of a word or .assa<e can be removed by
reference to its connection with a distant .assa<e in the same te>t, for such
connection is found to e>ist in the different .assa<es of Sruti= The e>act meanin<
of such words as HAsatI which means non&entity, a..arent#y, HAvyakritaI which
means a..arent#y non&manifest $radhana of Sankhya, is thus ascertained to be
Brahman= !om.are the Srutis1 J%e desired, I wi## be many I wi## manifest myse#fJ
Tait= ?.= II&5&2= The meanin< of the word Asat of the second .assa<e is
ascertained to be Brahman by reference to the first .assa<e where the same
@uestion name#y the state of the universe before creation is answered in a c#earer
way=
The meanin< of the word Avyakrita in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad I&3&7 in
the .assa<e +thus therefore, that was the undifferentiated- is ascertained to be
the Brahman as sti## undeve#o.ed by a reference to the .assa<e +the same is
.ervadin< a## throu<h and throu<h down to the ti.s of the nai#s of the fin<ers and
the toes-= Avyaka is reco<nised in the #ast .assa<e more c#ear#y by the words ASa
eshaA +the same&se#f one-=
The $radhana of the Sankhyas does not find a .#ace anywhere in the
.assa<es which treat about the cause of the wor#d= The words HAsatI HAvyakritaI
a#so denote Brahman on#y=
The word HAsatI refers to Brahman which is the sub0ect under discussion in
the .revious verse= Before the creation, the distinction of names and forms did not
e>ist= Brahman a#so then did not e>ist in the sense that %e was not connected
with names and forms= As he has then no name and form, he is said to be Asat or
non&e>istent=
The word HAsatI cannot mean matter or non&bein<, because in this very
.assa<e we find that the descri.tion <iven of it can a..#y on#y to Brahman=
Brahman is not HAsatI in the #itera# meanin< of that word= The seer of the
?.anishad uses it in a sense tota##y distinct from its ordinary denotation=
Ba#akyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras *5&*9-
%e who is the maker of the Sun, 'oon, etc= is Brahman and not $rana or the
individua# sou#
/a<advachitvat I=3=*5 +*22-
+%e whose work is this is Brahman- because +the HworkI- denotes
the wor#d=
/a<at1 the wor#dC (achitvat1 because of the denotation=
A .assa<e from the ;aushitaki ?.anishad is now taken u. for discussion=
In the ;aushitaki Brahmana the sa<e Ba#aki .romises to teach Brahman by
sayin< JI sha## te## you BrahmanJ, and he <oes on to describe si>teen thin<s as
Brahman, be<innin< with the Sun= A## these are set aside by the ;in< A0atasatru
who says, none of them is Brahman= Bhen Ba#aki is si#enced, A0atasatru <ives the
teachin< about Brahman in these words1 JO Ba#akiD %e who is the maker of those
.ersons whom you mentioned and whose work is the visib#e universe & is a#one to
be known=J
Be read in the ;aushitaki ?.anishad in the dia#o<ue between Ba#aki and
A0atasatru JO Ba#aki, %e who is the maker of those .ersons whom you mentioned,
and whose work is this +visib#e universe- is a#one to be knownJ +;au= ?.= I(&*6-=
A doubt arises now whether what is here said as the ob0ect of know#ed<e is
the individua# sou# or the $rana or Brahman, the Su.reme Se#f= The $urva.akshin
ho#ds that the vita# force or $rana is meant, because he says the c#ause Jof whom
this is the workJ .oints to the activity of motion and that activity rests on $rana=
Second#y, we meet with the term H$ranaI in a com.#ementary .assa<e= JThen he
becomes one with the $rana a#oneJ ;au= ?.= I(&28= The word H$ranaI denotes the
vita# force= This is we## known= Third#y, $rana is the maker of a## the .ersons, the
.erson in the Sun, the .erson in the moon etc= Be know from another scri.tura#
te>t that the Sun and other deities are on#y differentiations of $rana, JBho is that
one :od in whom a## other <ods are containedL $rana and he is Brahman, and
they ca## him ThatI +Bri= ?.= III&6&6-=
Or the .assa<e refers to the individua# sou# as the ob0ect of know#ed<e= A
subse@uent .assa<e contains an inferentia# mark of the individua# sou#, JAs the
master feeds with his .eo.#e, nay as his .eo.#e feed on the master, thus does this
conscious Se#f feed with the other se#fsJ ;au= ?.= I(&28= As the individua# sou# is
the su..ort of the $rana, it may itse#f be ca##ed $rana= Be thus conc#ude that the
.assa<e under discussion refers either to the individua# sou# or to the chief $rana
but not to the Lord of whom it does not contain any inferentia# marks whatsoever=
The Sutra refutes a## these and says it is Brahman that is referred to the
maker in the te>tC because Brahman is tau<ht here JI sha## teach you Brahman=J
A<ain HthisI which means the wor#d, is his Hwork=I This c#ear#y .oints out that the
HheI is Brahman on#y=
The reference in the ;aushitaki Brahmana .assa<e is to the Su.reme Lord
because of the reference to the wor#d= The activity referred to is the wor#d of
which the Lord is the !reator=
Therefore the maker is neither $rana nor the individua# sou#, but the %i<hest
Lord= It is affirmed in a## (edanta te>ts that the 'aker of the wor#d is the Su.reme
Lord=
/ivamukhya.rana#in<anneti chet tad vyakhyatam I=3=*7 +*2,-
If it be said that on account of the inferentia# marks of the
individua# sou# and the chief $rana +Brahman is- not +referred to by
the word HmatterI in the .assa<e @uoted-, +we re.#y- that has a#ready
been e>.#ained=
/iva1 the individua# sou#C 'ukhya.rana1 the chief vita# airC Lin<at1
because of the inferentia# marksC "a iti1 not thusC !het1 ifC Tat1 thatC
)yakhyatam1 has a#ready been e>.#ained=
An ob0ection to Sutra *5 is raised and refuted= The ob0ection has a#ready
been dis.osed of under I&*&,*=
In the Sutra I&*&,* which dea#t with the to.ic of the dia#o<ue between Indra
and $ratardana, this ob0ection was raised and answered= A## those ar<uments
wou#d a..#y here a#so= It was shown there that when a te>t is inter.reted as
referrin< to Brahman on the <round of a com.rehensive survey of its initia# and
conc#udin< c#auses, a## other inferentia# marks which .oint to other to.ics, such as
/iva or $rana etc=, must be so inter.reted that they may be in harmony with the
main to.ic=
%ere a#so the initia# c#ause refers to Brahman in the sentence JSha## I te## you
BrahmanLJ The conc#udin< c#ause is J%avin< overcome a## evi#s, he obtains .reeminence
amon< a## bein<s, soverei<nty and su.remacy, yea, he who knows thisJ=
Thus the initia# and conc#udin< c#auses here a#so refer to Brahman= If in the midd#e
of this te>t we find any mark from which /iva or any other to.ic may be inferred,
we must so inter.ret the .assa<e as to refer to Brahman, in order to avoid
contradiction=
This to.ic is not redundant as it is a#ready tau<ht in Sutra I&*&,*, because
the chief .oint discussed here is the word H;armaI which is #iab#e to
misinter.retation= Therefore this Adhikarana certain#y teaches somethin< new=
The word $rana occurs in the sense of Brahman in the .assa<e JThe mind
sett#es down on $ranaJ !hh= ?.= (I&9&2=
Anyartham tu /aiminih .rasnavyakhyanabhyama.i
chaivameke I=3=*9 +*23-
But /aimini thinks that +the reference to the individua# sou# in
the te>t- has another .ur.ose on account of the @uestion and the
re.#yC moreover, thus some a#so +the (a0asaneyins- +read in their
te>t or recension-=
Anyartham1 for another .ur.oseC Tu1 butC /aiminih1 /aiminiC $rasnavyakhyanabhyam1
from the @uestion and the re.#yC A.i1 a#soC !ha1 andC Evam1
in this wayC Eke1 others, other Srutis
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *5 is <iven=
Even the reference to the individua# sou# has a different .ur.ose i=e= aims at
intimatin< Brahman=
After A0atasatru has tau<ht Ba#aki by wakin< the s#ee.in< man, that the sou#
is different from the $rana or the vita# air, he asks the fo##owin< @uestion1 JBa#aki,
where did the .erson here s#ee.L Bhere was heL Bhence came he thus backLJ
;au= ?.= I(= *6= These @uestions c#ear#y refer to somethin< different from the
individua# sou#= And so #ikewise does the answer +;au= ?.= I(=28- say that the
individua# sou# is mer<ed in Brahman in dee. s#ee.=
Bhen s#ee.in< he sees no dream, then he becomes one with that $rana
a#one, and Hfrom that Se#f a## $ranas .roceed, each towards its .#ace, from the
$ranas the <ods, from the <ods the wor#dsJ=
This conversation occurs in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad= It c#ear#y refers to
the individua# sou# by means of the term Jthe .erson consistin< of co<nitionJ
+(i0nanamaya- and distin<uishes from it the %i<hest Se#f= JBhere was then the
.erson consistin< of co<nitionL and from whence did he thus come backLJ +Bri=
?.= II&*&*5- and #ater on, in the re.#y to the above @uestion, dec#ares that Hthe
.erson consistin< of co<nition #ies in the ether within the heartI= Be a#ready know
that the word HetherI denotes the su.reme seat for instance in the .assa<e above
the Jsma## ether within the #otus of the heartJ +!hh= ?.= (III&*&*-=
(akyanvayadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras *6&22-
The Atman to be seen throu<h hearin< etc=, of the Bri= ?.= II&3&4 is Brahman and
not /ivatma
(akyanvayat I=3=*6 +*24-
+The Se#f to be seen, to be heard etc=, is the Su.reme Se#f- on
account of the connected meanin< of the sentences=
(akyanvayat1 On account of the connected meanin< of the sentences=
A .assa<e from the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad is now taken u. for
discussion=
rom the synthetic study of the conte>t it is c#ear that the reference is to the
Su.reme Se#f=
Be read in the 'aitreyi&Brahmana of the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad the
fo##owin< .assa<e1 J(eri#y a husband is not dear that you may #ove the husband
etc=, but that you may #ove the Se#f, therefore everythin< is dear= (eri#y the Se#f is
to be seen, to be heard, to be ref#ected and to be meditated u.on, O 'aitreyiD
Bhen the Se#f has been seen, heard, ref#ected and rea#ised or known, then a## this
is knownJ Bri= ?.= I(&4&5=
%ere a doubt arises whether that which is re.resented as the ob0ect to be
seen, to be heard and so on is the individua# sou# or the Su.reme Se#f=
The $urva.akshin says1 The Se#f is by the mention of dear thin<s such as
husband and so on, indicated as the en0oyer= rom this it a..ears that the te>t
refers to the individua# sou#=
This Sutra refutes this and says that in this .assa<e the hi<hest Se#f is
referred to, and not the individua# sou#= In the who#e Section Brahman is treated=
'aitreyi says to her husband )a0nava#kya1 JBhat shou#d I do with the wea#th by
which I do not become immorta#L Bhat my Lord knoweth te## that to me=J
Thereu.on )a0nava#kya e>.ounds to her the know#ed<e of the Se#f= Scri.ture and
Smriti dec#are that immorta#ity can be attained on#y by the know#ed<e of the
Su.reme Se#f= Then )a0nava#kya teaches her the know#ed<e of the Se#f= ina##y the
Section conc#udes with JThus far <oes immorta#ity=J
Immorta#ity cannot be attained by the know#ed<e of the individua# sou#, but
on#y by the know#ed<e of the %i<hest Se#f or Brahman= Therefore Brahman a#one
is the sub0ect matter of the .assa<e under discussion= Brahman a#one is to be
seen or rea#ised throu<h hearin<, ref#ection and meditation=
)a0nava#kya dec#ares that the Se#f is the centre of the who#e wor#d with the
ob0ects, the senses and the mind, that it has neither inside nor outside, that it is
a#to<ether a mass of know#ed<e= It fo##ows from a## this that what the te>t
re.resents as the ob0ect of si<ht and so on is the Su.reme Se#f=
urther it is said in the te>t that by the know#ed<e of the Se#f everythin< is
known= This c#ear#y intimates that the Se#f is Brahman on#y because how can the
know#ed<e of finite /iva or individua# sou# <ive us know#ed<e of everythin<L
$rati0nasiddher#in<amasmarathyah I=3=28 +*25-
+The fact that the individua# sou# is tau<ht as the ob0ect of
rea#isation is an- indicatory mark which is .roof of the .ro.ositionC
so Asmarathya thinks=
$rati0nasiddheh1 because of the .roof of the .ro.ositionC Lin<am1
indicatory markC Asmarathyah1 the sa<e Asmarathya=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *6 is <iven= The indication is that the
individua# sou# is not different from Brahman, the ?#timate !ause, of which it is a
ray= %ence to know Brahman, the !ause, is to know a## that=
If the individua# were @uite different from Brahman, then by the know#ed<e of
Brahman everythin< e#se wou#d not be known= The initia# statement aims at
re.resentin< the individua# sou# or /iva and the Su.reme Se#f as non&different for
the .ur.ose of fu#fi##in< the .romise made= The non&difference between Brahman
and the individua# sou# estab#ishes the .ro.osition, JBhen the Se#f is known a## this
is knownJ, JA## this is that Se#fJ=
Asmarathya is of o.inion that the .assa<es HAtmani vi0nate sarvamidam
vi0natam bhavatiI and HIdam sarvam yadayamatmaI .rove the as.ect of identity of
the individua# sou# and the Su.reme Se#f, because on#y then can be attained what
is .romised i=e=, that by the know#ed<e of Brahman everythin< can be attained= I&
3&28=
The s.arks that .roceed from a fire are not abso#ute#y different from the fire
as they are of the nature of the fire= They are not abso#ute#y non&different from
the fire, because in that case they cou#d be distin<uished neither from the fire nor
from each other= Simi#ar#y the individua# sou#s a#so, which are the effects of
Brahman, are neither abso#ute#y different from Brahman, because that wou#d
mean that they are not of the nature of inte##i<enceC nor abso#ute#y non&different
from Brahman, because in that case they cou#d not be distin<uished from each
otherC and because if they were identica# with Brahman, and therefore Omniscient,
it wou#d be use#ess to <ive them any instruction= Therefore the individua# sou#s are
somehow different from Brahman and somehow non&different= This doctrine of
Asmarathya is known as JBhedabhedavadaJ= This is the o.inion of the sa<e
Asmarathya=
?tkramishyata evambhavadityaudu#omih I=3=2* +*27-
The initia# statement identifies the individua# sou# with Brahman
or the Su.reme Se#f because the sou#, when it wi## de.art +from the
body-, is such +i=e= one with the Su.reme Se#f-C thus Audu#omi
thinks=
?tkramishyata1 of him who wou#d .ass away from the bodyC Evam
bhavat1 because of this conditionC Iti1 thusC Audu#omih1 the sa<e Audu#omi=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *6 is continued=
/iva or the individua# sou# which is associated with its different #imitin<
ad0uncts viG=, body, senses and mind, attains freedom throu<h meditation and
know#ed<e= Bhen it rises from the body i=e=, when it is free and has no bodyconsciousness,
it rea#ises that it is identica# with Brahman= Therefore it is
re.resented as non&different from the Su.reme Se#f= This is the o.inion of the
teacher Audu#omi=
Be read in the Srutis a#so Jthat serene bein< arisin< from this body, a..ears
in its own form as soon as it has a..roached the %i<hest Li<htJ !hh= ?.= (III&*2&
,= 'undako.anishad says JAs the f#owin< rivers vanish in the sea, havin< #ost their
name and form, so a#so the sa<e, freed from name and form, <oes to the Divine
$erson who is <reater than the <reatJ 'un= ?.= III&2&9=
The individua# sou# is abso#ute#y different from the Su.reme Se#f= It is
conditioned by the different #imitin< ad0uncts viG=, body, senses, mind and
inte##ect= But it is s.oken of in the ?.anishads as non&different from the Su.reme
Se#f because it may .ass out of the body and become one with the Su.reme Se#f,
after havin< .urified itse#f by means of meditation and know#ed<e= The te>t of the
?.anishad thus transfers a future state of non&difference to that time when
difference actua##y e>ists= This doctrine advocated by Audu#omi & which ho#ds that
difference between the individua# sou# and Brahman in the state of i<norance is a
rea#ity & is a Satyabhedavada=
Avasthiteriti ;asakritsnah I=3=22 +*29-
+The initia# statement is made- because +the Su.reme Se#f- e>ists
in the condition +of the individua# sou#-C so the Sa<e ;asakritsna
thinks=
Avasthiteh1 because of the e>istenceC Iti1 thus +ho#ds-C ;asakritsnah1 the
sa<e ;asakritsna=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *6 is continued=
The individua# sou# or /iva is @uite different in nature from Brahman or the
Su.reme Se#f= It is not .ossib#e for the individua# sou# to be one with Brahman in
the state of emanci.ation= Therefore the teacher ;asakritsna thinks that the
%i<hest Se#f Itse#f e>ists as the individua# sou#= As the Su.reme Se#f e>ists a#so in
the condition of the individua# sou#, the Sa<e ;asakritsna is of o.inion that the
initia# statement which aims at intimatin< the non&difference of the two is .ossib#e=
Brahman of the Su.reme Se#f and the individua# sou# are abso#ute#y nondifferent=
The a..arent difference is due to ?.adhis or #imitin< vehic#es or ad0uncts
which are on#y .roducts of Avidya or i<norance= The difference is i##usory or unrea#
from the abso#ute or transcendenta# view .oint= Therefore it fo##ows that
everythin< e#se is known by the know#ed<e of the Se#f or Brahma0nana=
That the Su.reme Se#f on#y is that which a..ears as the individua# sou# is
obvious from the Brahmana&.assa<e JLet me enter into them with this #ivin< Se#f
and evo#ve names and forms=J
Sutra 28 means that, the affirmation that Jby knowin< It everythin< is
knownJ, shows the individua# sou# and the Su.reme Se#f are non&different= Sutra
2* means the identity of the sou# and the Su.reme Se#f, refers to the state of
attainment of the Su.reme Se#f by the .urified and .erfected sou#= Sutra 22
means that even now the Su.reme Se#f is the individua# sou#= It is not that the
individua# sou# is disso#ved or mer<ed in the Su.reme Se#f= Our erroneous sense of
diversity and se.arateness is #ost or disso#ved but the sou#, which is in rea#ity the
Su.reme Se#f +or the one Atman which a#one e>ists-, e>ists for ever=
Of these three o.inions, the one he#d by ;asakritsna is in accordance with
the Scri.ture, because it a<rees with what a## the (edanta te>ts teach=
Accordin< to the statement of Asmarathya, the sou# is not abso#ute#y
different from the Su.reme Se#f= %is dec#aration indicates by the e>.ression
JOwin< to the fu#fi#ment of the .romiseJ, that there is a certain re#ation of cause
and effect between the Su.reme Se#f and the individua# sou#= The .romise is made
in the two .assa<es Jwhen the Se#f is known, a## this is knownJ and Ja## this is that
Se#f=J Accordin< to Asmarathya the individua# sou# is a .roduct of the %i<hest Se#f=
Therefore the know#ed<e of the cause <ives rise to the know#ed<e of everythin<= If
the Sou# and the Su.reme Se#f are non&different, the .romise that throu<h the
Jknow#ed<e of one everythin< becomes knownJ can be fu#fi##ed=
Accordin< to the view of Audu#omi the difference and non&difference of the
two de.end on difference of conditionC the individua# sou# is on#y a state of the
hi<hest Se#f or Brahman= The view of Asmarathya and Audu#omi cannot stand=
/ivahood is an unrea#ity= It is a creation of Avidya or nescience= The individua#
sou# is identica# with Brahman in essence= On account of i<norance we fee# that we
are conditioned or #imited by the fa#se, i##usory ?.adhis and that we are different
from Brahman= Rea##y the individua# sou# is neither created nor destroyed= If the
/ivahood is a rea#ity it can never be destroyed and #iberation wou#d be im.ossib#e=
If the individua# sou# becomes one with Brahman or the %i<hest Se#f when it
attains freedom or the fina# emanci.ation, then /ivahood is i##usory= The ori<in of
the sou#s from the Su.reme Se#f #ike s.arks from the fire is not rea# creation= It
must be viewed on#y with reference to the #imitin< ad0uncts=
The ob0ector says1 the .assa<e, HRisin< from out of these e#ements he
vanishes a<ain after them= Bhen he has de.arted there is no more know#ed<eI,
indicates the fina# annihi#ation of the sou#, but not its oneness with the Su.reme
Se#f=
Be re.#y, this is incorrect= The .assa<e means to say on#y that a## sense
.erce.tion ceases when the sou# de.arts from the body, not that the Se#f is
annihi#ated= The .assa<e intimates that the eterna##y unchan<in< Se#f which is one
mass of know#ed<e or consciousness cannot certain#y .erish but by means of true
know#ed<e of the Se#f, disconnection with the e#ements and the sense or<ans,
which are the .roducts of i<norance, has taken .#ace=
The individua# sou# and the Su.reme Se#f differ in name on#y= It is a sett#ed
conc#usion that .erfect know#ed<e .roduces abso#ute oneness of the two= The Se#f
is ca##ed by many different names but it is One on#y= $erfect know#ed<e is the door
to 'oksha or the fina# emanci.ation= 'oksha is not somethin< effected and noneterna#,
It is eterna# and is not different from the eterna##y unchan<in<, immorta#,
.ure Brahman who is One without a second= Those who state that there is
distinction between the individua# and the Su.reme Se#f are not in harmony with
the true sense of the (edanta te>ts=
$rakrtyadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutra 2,&27-
Brahman is both the efficient and the materia# cause
$rakritischa .rati0na drishtantanu.arodhat I=3=2, +*26-
+Brahman is- the materia# cause a#so on account of +this view-
not bein< in conf#ict with the .ro.osition and the i##ustrations
+@uoted in the Sruti-=
$rakritih1 the materia# causeC !ha1 a#soC $rati0na1 the .ro.ositionC
Drishtanta1 i##ustrationsC Anu.arodhat1 on account of this not bein< in conf#ict=
This Sutra states that Brahman is the efficient as we## as the materia# cause
of the universe=
Brahman has been defined as that from which .roceed the ori<in, sustenance
and disso#ution of this universe= "ow a doubt arises whether Brahman is the
materia# cause #ike c#ay or <o#d, or the efficient or o.erative causa#ity #ike .otter or
<o#dsmith=
The $urva.akshin or the ob0ector ho#ds that Brahman is the on#y o.erative or
the efficient cause of the wor#d, as in te>ts #ike, J%e ref#ected, he created $ranaJ
$ras= ?.= (I=,PQROPQR3= Observation and e>.erience intimate that the action of
o.erative causes on#y such as .otters and the #ike is .receded by thinkin< or
ref#ection= It is, therefore, @uite correct that we shou#d re<ard the creator a#so in
the same #i<ht= The creator is dec#ared as the HLordI= Lords such as kin<s are
known on#y as o.erative causes= The Su.reme Lord must be re<arded as an
o.erative cause=
This Sutra refutes this .rima facie view of the $urva.akshin= Brahman is a#so
the materia# cause of this universe= The term HchaI +a#so- indicates that Brahman is
the efficient cause as we##= On#y if Brahman is the materia# cause of the universe it
is .ossib#e to know everythin< throu<h the know#ed<e of Brahman= J%ave you ever
asked for that instruction by which that which is not heard becomes heardC that
which is not .erceived, .erceivedC that which is not known, knownLJ +!hh= ?.=
I(=*&2-, which dec#are that the effects are not different from their efficient cause,
because we know from ordinary e>.erience that the car.enter is different from the
house he has bui#t=
The i##ustrations referred to here are J'y dear, as by one #um. of c#ay a##
that is made of c#ay is known, the modification i=e=, the effect bein< a name
mere#y which has its ori<in in s.eech, whi#e the truth is that it is c#ay mere#yJ etc=
+!hh= ?.= (I&*3-= These te>ts c#ear#y indicate that Brahman is the materia# cause
of the universe, otherwise they wou#d be meanin<#ess=
$romisin< statements are made in other .#aces a#so= or instance JBhat is
that throu<h which if it is known everythin< e#se becomes known,J 'un= ?.= I=*=,=
JBhen the Se#f has been seen, heard, .erceived and known then a## this is knownJ
+Bri= ?.= I(&4&5-= A## these .romissory statements and i##ustrative instances which
are to be found in a## (edanta te>ts .rove that Brahman is a#so the materia# cause=
There is no other <uidin< bein< than Brahman= Be have to conc#ude from
this that Brahman is the efficient cause at the same time= Lum.s of c#ay and
.ieces of <o#d are de.endent on e>traneous o.erative causes such as .otters and
<o#dsmiths in order to sha.e themse#ves into vesse#s and ornamentsC but outside
Brahman as materia# cause there is no other o.erative or efficient cause to which
the materia# cause cou#d #ook, because the scri.ture says that Brahman was One
without a second .revious to creation= Bho e#se cou#d be an efficient or o.erative
cause when there was nothin< e#seL
If that were admitted that there is a <uidin< .rinci.#e different from the
materia# cause, in that case everythin< cannot be known throu<h one thin<=
!onse@uent#y the .romissory statements and the i##ustrations wou#d be stu#tified=
Therefore Brahman is the efficient cause, because there is no other ru#in<
.rinci.#e= %e is the materia# cause as we## because there is no other substance
from which the universe can take its ori<in=
or the sake of harmony between the .ro.osition to be estab#ished and
i##ustrations <iven therein, we conc#ude that Brahman is the materia# cause of the
wor#d= The te>t e>.ress#y dec#ares %im to be the efficient or o.erative cause as
we##=
Abhidhyo.adesacca I= 3=23 +*,8-
On account of the statement of wi## or ref#ection +to create on
the .art of the Su.reme Se#f, It is the materia# cause-=
Abidhya1 wi##, ref#ectionC ?.adesat1 on account of instruction or teachin<
or statementC !ha1 a#so, and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 2, is <iven J%e wished or thou<ht may I be
many, may I <row forthJ= In this te>t the desire and ref#ection indicate that
Brahman is the efficient cause=
J'ay I be manyJ shows that Brahman %imse#f became many= Therefore %e is
the materia# cause as we##=
%e wi##ed to manifest %imse#f as many i=e=, as the universe=
%e wi##ed to evo#ve the universe out of %imse#f= This intimates that %e is at
once the materia# and the efficient cause of creation=
Sakshaccobhayamnanat I=3=24 +*,*-
And because the Sruti states that both +the ori<in and the
disso#ution of the universe- have Brahman for their materia# cause=
Sakshat1 directC !ha1 a#soC ?bhayamnanat1 because the Sruti states
both=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 2, is continued=
This Sutra .rovides a further ar<ument for BrahmanIs bein< the <enera#
materia# cause=
That from which a thin< takes its ori<in and into which it is withdrawn, and
absorbed is its materia# cause= This is we## known= Thus the earth, for instance, is
the materia# cause of rice, bar#ey and the #ike= JA## these thin<s take their ori<in
from the Akasa +Brahman- a#one and return into the AkasaJ !hh= ?.= I&6&*=
JThat from which these thin<s are .roduced, by which, when .roduced they
#ive, and into which they enter at their disso#ution & try to know that= That is
BrahmanJ Tait= ?.= III=*= These ?.anishadic .assa<es indicate c#ear#y that
Brahman is the materia# cause a#so=
The word HSakshatI +direct- in the Sutra shows that there is no other materia#
cause, but that a## this ori<inated from the Akasa +Brahman- on#y= Observation
and e>.erience teach that effects are not re&absorbed into anythin< e#se but their
materia# cause=
Atmakriteh .arinamat I=3=25 +*,2-
+Brahman is the materia# cause of the wor#d- because it created
Itse#f by under<oin< modification=
Atmakriteh1 created itse#fC $arinamat1 by under<oin< modification=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 2, is continued=
Be read in the Tait= ?.= II&7 JThat Itse#f manifested Itse#f=J This intimates
that Brahman a#one created the wor#d out of Itse#f, which is .ossib#e on#y by
under<oin< modification= This re.resents the Se#f as the ob0ect of action as we## as
the a<ent= So %e is the ;arta +creator&a<ent- and ;arma +creation-= %e becomes
the creation by means of $arinama +evo#ution or modification-=
The word HItse#fI intimates the absence of any other o.erative cause but the
Se#f= The modification is a..arent +(ivarta-, accordin< to Sri Sankaracharya= It is
rea#, accordin< to Sri Ramanu0acharya= The wor#d is unrea# in the sense that it is
not .ermanent= It is an i##usion in the sense it has on#y a .henomena# e>istence, it
has no e>istence se.arate from Brahman=
)onischa hi <iyate I=3=27 +*,,-
And because +Brahman- is ca##ed the source=
)oni1 the womb, the source, the ori<inC !ha1 andC %i1 becauseC :iyate1 is
ca##ed=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 2, is continued=
Brahman is the materia# cause of the universe, a#so because %e is stated in
Sruti to be the source of the universe=
Be read in 'undaka ?.anishad III&*&,, JThe 'aker, the Lord, the $erson,
who has his source in BrahmanJ and Jthat which the wise re<ard as the Source of
a## bein<sJ 'un= ?.= I& *&5=
Achintyam&avyaktam&ananta ru.am, sivam, .rasantam amritam
brahmayonimC Tamadimadhyantavihinam&ekam vibhum chid& anandam&aru.amadbhutam
& %e is incom.rehensib#e, uns.eak& ab#e, infinite in form, a##&<ood, a##.eace,
immorta#, the .arent of the universe, without be<innin<, midd#e and end,
without riva#, a##&.ervadin<, a##&consciousness, a##&b#iss, invisib#e, and inscrutab#e &
this indicates that Brahman is the materia# cause of the wor#d=
The word )oni or womb a#ways denotes the materia# cause, as in the
sentence Jthe earth is the )oni or womb of herbs and trees=J
It is thus .roved or estab#ished that Brahman is the materia# cause of the
universe=
Sarvavyakhyanadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutra 29-
The ar<uments which refute the Sankhyas refute the others a#so
Etena sarve vyakhyata vyakhyatah I=3=29 +*,3-
By this a## +the doctrines concernin< the ori<in of the wor#d
which are o..osed to the (edanta te>ts- are e>.#ained=
Etena1 by this, by what has been saidC Sarve1 a##C (yakhyatah1 are
e>.#ained=
The ar<ument is conc#uded in this Sutra=
By what has been said in the fore<oin< Sutras it is to be understood that the
teachin< of a## the Srutis, even those that have not been discussed .oints to
Brahman, the on#y cause of the wor#d=
By thus dis.rovin< the doctrine of $radhana bein< the cause of the wor#d a##
have been refuted= By overthrowin< the chief dis.utant others are overthrown 0ust
as by defeatin< the commander a## the others are a#so defeated= Thus those who
attribute creation to atoms and other theorists are a## defeated=
A## doctrines that s.eak of two se.arate causes are refuted= The atomic
theory and other theories are not based on scri.tura# authority= They contradict
many scri.tura# te>ts=
The Sankhya doctrine accordin< to which the $radhana is the cause of the
universe, has in the Sutras be<innin< with I=*=4 been a<ain and a<ain brou<ht
forward and refuted=
The doctrine of $radhana stands somewhat near to the (edanta doctrine as it
admits the non&difference of cause and effect #ike the (edanta doctrine= urther, it
has been acce.ted by some of the authors of the Dharma Sutras such as Deva#a
and others= 'oreover the (edanta te>ts contain some .assa<es which to some
.eo.#e who are endowed with du## inte##ect may a..ear to contain inferentia#
marks .ointin< to it= or a## these reasons the commentator has taken s.ecia#
troub#e to refute the $radhana doctrine= %e has not directed his s.ecia# attention
to the atomic and other theories=
The re.etition of the .hrase Hare e>.#ainedI shows that the !ha.ter ends
here=
It is .roved that Brahman is the materia# as we## as the efficient cause of the
universe=
Thus ends the ourth $ada +Section 3- of the irst Adhyaya +!ha.ter I- of the
Brahma Sutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
%ere ends !ha.ter I
Brahma Sutras
by
Swami Sivananda
The Divine Life Society
Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh, India
TABLE O !O"TE"TS
!%A$TER II & A(IROD%A AD%)A)A
Section * +Sutras *,4&*7*-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# Smrityadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&2-
# )o<a.ratyuktyadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra ,-
# "a (i#akshanatvadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras 3&**-
# Sishta.ari<rahadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra *2-
# Bhoktra.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutra *,-
# Arambhanadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras *3&28-
# Itaravya.adesadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras 2*&2,-
# ?.asamharadarsanadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras 23&24-
# ;ritsna.rasaktyadhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutras 25&26-
# Sarvo.etadhikaranam 1 To.ic *8 +Sutras ,8&,*-
# $rayo0anatvadhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutras ,2&,,-
# (aisamyanair<hrinyadhikaranam1 To.ic *2 +Sutras ,3&,5-
# Sarvadharmo.a.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic *, +Sutra ,7-
Section 2 +Sutras *72&2*5-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# Rachananu.a.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&*8-
# 'ahaddir<hadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra **-
# $aramanu0a<adakaranatvadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras *2&*7-
# Samudayadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutras *9&27-
# "abhavadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras 29&,2-
# Ekasminnasambhavadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras ,,&,5-
# $atyadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras ,7&3*-
# ?t.attyasambhavadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras 32&34-
Section , +Sutras 2*7&256-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# (iyadadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&7-
# 'atarisvadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra 9-
# Asambhavadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutra 6-
# Te0oIdhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra *8-
# Abadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutra **-
# $rithivyadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutra *2-
# Tadabhidhyanadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutra *,-
# (i.aryayadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutra *3-
# Antaravi0nanadhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutra *4-
# !haracharavya.asrayadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutra *5-
# Atmadhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutra *7-
# /nadhikaranam1 To.ic *2 +Sutra *9-
# ?tkranti<atyadhikaranam1 To.ic *, +Sutras *6&,2-
# ;artradhikaranam1 To.ic *3 +Sutras ,9&,6-
# Takshadhikaranam1 To.ic *4 +Sutra 38-
# $arayattadhikaranam1 To.ic *5 +Sutras 3*&32-
# Amsadhikaranam1 To.ic *7 +Sutras 3,&4,-
Section 3 +Sutras 278&26*-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# $ranot.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&3-
# Sa.ta<atyadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras 4&5-
# $rananutvadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutra 7-
# $ranasraishthyadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra 9-
# (ayukriyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras 6&*2-
# Sreshthanutvadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutra *,-
# /yotiradyadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras *3&*5-
# Indriyadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras *7&*6-
# Sam0namurtik#ri.tyadhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutras 28&22-
SE!TIO" *
Introduction
Smriti&nyaya&virodha&.arihara forms the to.ic of the first $ada= The
Smritivirodha is dea#t with in Sutras *&, and *2 a#so= The "yayavirodha is treated
in the rest of the Sutras= $ada +Section- 2 attacks the various Darsanas or
systems of .hi#oso.hy on their own <rounds= The Third and ourth $adas aim at
estab#ishin< a unity of .ur.ort in the a..arent#y diver<ent and inconsistent
cosmo#o<ica# and .sycho#o<ica# thou<hts of the severa# (edanta .assa<es= Thus
the tit#e Avirodha or absence of contradiction <iven to the cha.ter is @uite
a..ro.riate=
It has been shown in the irst !ha.ter that the Omniscient Lord of a## is the
cause of the ori<in of the wor#d 0ust as c#ay is the materia# cause of .ots etc=, and
<o#d of <o#den ornaments= It has been conc#usive#y .roved a#so in the irst
!ha.ter that a## the (edanta te>ts treat of Brahman as the irst !ause and that
Brahman is the im.ort of a## the (edanta te>ts= This was estab#ished by the
Samanvaya=
/ust as the ma<ician is the cause of the subsistence of the ma<ica# i##usion, so
a#so Brahman is the cause of the subsistence of this universe by %is Ru#ershi.=
/ust as the four c#asses of creatures are reabsorbed into the earth, so a#so,
.ro0ected wor#d is fina##y reabsorbed into %is essence durin< $ra#aya or disso#ution=
It has been further .roved a#so that the Lord is the Se#f of a## bein<s= The
doctrine of $radhana bein< the cause of the wor#d has been refuted in the irst
!ha.ter as it is not based on the authority of the scri.tures=
In this Section the ar<uments based on reasonin< a<ainst the doctrine which
s.eaks of Brahman as the irst !ause are refuted= urther ar<uments which c#aim
their authoritativeness from the Smritis to estab#ish the doctrine of $radhana and
the theory of the atoms are refuted in this Section=
Syno.sis
$revious#y it has been .roved on the authority of Sruti that the matter or
$radhana is not the cause of the wor#d= The irst !ha.ter has .roved that a## the
(edantic te>ts unanimous#y teach that there is on#y one cause of the universe,
viG=, Brahman, whose nature is inte##i<ence= It has a#so been .roved that there is
no scri.tura# te>t which can be used to estab#ish systems o..osed to the (edanta,
more .articu#ar#y the Sankhya system=
The first two $adas of the Second !ha.ter refute any ob0ections which may
be raised a<ainst the (edanta doctrine on .ure#y s.ecu#ative <rounds a.art from
the authority of the Srutis= They a#so show that no system that cannot be
reconci#ed with the (edanta can be estab#ished in a satisfactory manner=
Section I +$ada- of the Second !ha.ter .roves by ar<uments that Brahman is
the cause of the wor#d and removes a## ob0ections that may be #eve##ed a<ainst
such conc#usion=
Adhikarana I1 +Sutras *&2- refutes the ob0ection of the Sankhyas that the
acce.tin< of the system of (edanta invo#ves the re0ection of the Sankhya doctrine
which constitutes a .art of Smriti and so has c#aims or consideration= The (edanta
re.#ies that the acce.tance of the Sankhya Smriti wou#d force us to re0ect other
Smritis such as the 'anu Smriti which are o..osed to the doctrine of the
Sankhyas= The (eda does not confirm the Sankhya Smriti but on#y those Smritis
which teach that the universe takes its ori<in from an inte##i<ent creator or
inte##i<ent .rimary cause +Brahman-=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutra ,- e>tends the same #ine of ar<umentation to the )o<a&
Smriti= It discards the theory of the )o<a .hi#oso.hy of $atan0a#i re<ardin< the
cause of the wor#d=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutras 3&4- raises an ob0ection that as Brahman and the
wor#d are not simi#ar in nature and .ro.erties, one bein< sentient, etc=, and the
other insentient, etc=, Brahman cannot be the cause of the universe=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutras 5&7- refutes the ob0ection by statin< that there are
instances in the wor#d of <eneration of the inanimate from the animate as, for
instance, the .roduction of hair from the #ivin< body, a#so of the animate from the
inanimate as, for instance, the birth of scor.ions and other insects from cow&dun<=
They .rove that it is not necessary that the cause and the caused shou#d be
simi#ar in a## res.ects=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutra 9- raises an ob0ection that at the time of <enera#
disso#ution, when the effect +wor#d- is mer<ed in the cause +Brahman-, the #atter
must be contaminated by the former=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutra 6- refutes the ob0ection by showin< that there are
direct instances to the contrary, 0ust as the .roducts of the earth such as 0ars etc=,
at the time of disso#ution do not chan<e earth into their own natureC but, on the
contrary, they are themse#ves chan<ed into the substance of earth=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutras *8&**-, Adhikarana I(1 +Sutra *2-, Adhikarana IK1
+Sutra 26- show that ar<uments directed a<ainst the view that Brahman is the
cause of the wor#d may be #eve##ed a<ainst the o..onents as we##, such as the
Sankhyas and the (aiseshikas, because in the Sankhya system, the name#ess
$radhana .roduces a## names and forms and in the (aiseshika system invisib#e and
form#ess atoms unite and form a visib#e wor#d= The Sutras state that ar<uments
may be .ro#on<ed without any conc#usion bein< arrived at and that the conc#usion
of the (edas on#y is to be res.ected= A## the views which are anta<onistic to the
(edas are ruth#ess#y refuted=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutra *,- teaches that a#thou<h the en0oyin< sou#s and the
ob0ects are in rea#ity nothin< but Brahman, yet they may .ractica##y be he#d a.art,
0ust as in ordinary #ife we ho#d a.art and distin<uish as se.arate individua# thin<s,
the waves, the ri..#es and foam of the ocean a#thou<h they are in essence
identica# and on#y sea water=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutras *3&28- treats of the non&difference of the effect from
the cause, a doctrine of the (edanta which is defended by the fo##owers of the
(edanta a<ainst the (aiseshikas= Accordin< to the (aiseshikas, the effect is
somethin< different from the cause=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutras 2*&22- refutes the ob0ection that Brahman in the
form of the individua# sou# is sub0ect to .#easure and .ain by showin< that thou<h
Brahman assumes the form of the individua# sou#, yet %e transcends the #atter and
remains untainted by any .ro.erty of /iva whom %e contro#s from within= Thou<h
the individua# sou# or /iva is no other than Brahman %imse#f, yet Brahman remains
the abso#ute Lord and as such above .#easure and .ain= /iva is a s#ave of Avidya=
Brahman is the contro##er of 'aya= Bhen /iva is freed from Avidya, he becomes
identica# with Brahman=
Adhikarana (III1 +Sutras 2,&24- shows that Brahman, a#thou<h devoid of
materia# and instruments of action, may yet create the wor#d throu<h %is Sat&
Sanka#.a or wi## .ower, 0ust as <ods by their mere .ower of vo#ition create
.a#aces, anima#s and the #ike and mi#k by itse#f turns into curds=
Adhikarana IK1 +Sutras 25&26- e>.#ains that Brahman does not entire#y
transform %imse#f into the universe thou<h %e is without .arts= A#thou<h %e
.ro0ects the wor#d from %imse#f, yet %e remains one and undivided= The wor#d is
unrea#= The chan<e is on#y a..arent #ike the snake is the ro.e but not rea#=
Brahman is not e>hausted in the creation=
Adhikarana K1 +Sutras ,8&,*- teaches that Brahman, a#thou<h devoid of
instruments of action, is ab#e to create the universe by means of the diverse
.owers %e .ossesses=
Adhikarana KI1 +Sutras ,2&,,- e>.#ains that Brahman has no motive in
creatin< the wor#d but .ro0ects the universe out of mere s.ortin< im.u#se which is
inherent in %im=
Adhikarana KII1 +Sutras ,3&,5- 0ustifies Brahman from the char<es of
.artia#ity and crue#ty which are brou<ht a<ainst %im owin< to the ine@ua#ity of
.osition and fate of the various .ersons and the universa# sufferin< in the wor#d=
Brahman acts as a creator and dis.enser with reference to the merit and demerit
of the individua# sou#s=
Adhikarana KIII1 +Sutra ,7- sums u. the .recedin< ar<uments and states
that a## the attributes of Brahman, viG=, Omniscience, Omni.otence and the #ike,
are found a..ro.riate in Brahman a#one and none e#se and are such as to
ca.acitate %im for the creation of the universe= Brahman is, therefore, the cause
of the wor#d=
Smrityadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&2-
Refutation of Smritis not based on Srutis
Smrityanavakasadosha.rasan<a iti chet na
anyasmrityanavakasadosha.rasan<at II=*=* +*,4-
If it be ob0ected that +from the doctrine of Brahman bein< the
cause of the wor#d- there wou#d resu#t the defect of there bein< no
room for certain Smritis +we say- no, because +by the re0ection of
that doctrine- there wou#d resu#t the defect of want of room for some
other Smriti=
Smriti1 the Sankhya .hi#oso.hyC Anavakasa1 no roomC Dosha1 defectC
$rasan<at1 Resu#t, chanceC Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC "a1 notC Anyasmriti1 other
SmritisC Anavakasadosha.rasan<at1 because there wou#d resu#t the defect of
want of room for other Smritis=
The conc#usion arrived at in !ha.ter I & Section I(, that Brahman is the cause
of the wor#d is corroborated by Smritis other than Sankhya= The ear#iest and the
most orthodo> of these Smritis is the Smriti written by 'anu=
If you say that one set of Smritis wi## be i<nored if it is said that $radhana is
not the cause of the wor#d, wi## not another set of Smritis #ike 'anu Smriti which is
based on the Srutis and therefore more authoritative be i<nored if you say that
Brahman is not the causeL Be have shown that the Sruti dec#ares Brahman to be
the cause= On#y such Smritis which are in fu## a<reement with the Sruti are
authoritative= Bhat if ;a.i#a and others are SiddhasL Siddhi +.erfection- de.ends
on Dharma and Dharma de.ends on the (edas= "o Siddha is authoritative if his
view is contrary to that of the Sruti= Smritis which are o..osed to the (edas
shou#d be re0ected ruth#ess#y=
;a.i#a acknow#ed<es a .#ura#ity of se#fs= %e does not admit the doctrine of
there bein< one universa# Se#f= The system of ;a.i#a contradicts the (edas, not
on#y the assum.tion of an inde.endent $radhana but a#so by its hy.othesis of a
.#ura#ity of se#fs= Be cannot e>.#ain the (edanta te>ts in such a manner as not to
brin< them into conf#ict with ;a.i#a Smriti= ;a.i#a Smriti contradicts the Srutis=
%ence it shou#d be disre<arded=
The verse (&2 of Svetasvatara ?.anishad does not refer to ;a.i#a founder of
Sankhya .hi#oso.hy= It refers to a different bein< a#to<ether= The verse rea##y
means J%e who before the creation of the wor#d .roduced the <o#den co#oured
Brahma +;a.i#a- in order to maintain the universeJ= The word ;a.i#a means here
A<o#den co#ouredA and is another name for Brahma ca##ed %irany<arbha=
Itaresham chanu.a#abdheh II=*=2 +*,5-
And there bein< no mention +in the scri.tures- of others +i=e=,
the effects of the $radhana accordin< to the Sankhya system-, +the
Sankhya system cannot be authoritative-=
Itaresham1 of othersC !ha1 andC Anu.a#abdheh1 there bein< no mention=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is <iven=
urther such .rinci.#es as 'ahat etc=, which are said to be .roducts of
$radhana are .erceived neither in the (eda nor in ordinary e>.erience= On the
other hand the e#ements and the senses are found in the (eda and in the wor#d
and hence may be referred to in the Smriti= %ence such words as 'ahat etc=,
found in Smritis do not refer to .roducts of $radhana but to other cate<ories
revea#ed in the Sruti= See I=3=*=
There is no mention of the other cate<ories of the Sankhyas anywhere in the
(edas= Therefore the Sankhya system cannot be authoritative=
Sankaracharya has .roved that by the word 'ahat we have to understand
either the cosmic inte##ect or %iranya<arbha or the individua# sou#, but in no case
the 'ahat of the Sankhya .hi#oso.hy i=e=, the first .roduct of the $rakriti=
It is not on#y because Sankhya teaches that $radhana is the author of
creation which makes it unauthoritative, but it teaches other doctrines a#so which
have no foundation in the (edas= It teaches that sou#s are .ure consciousness and
a##&.ervadin<, that bonda<e and freedom is the work of $rakriti= It further teaches
that there is no Su.reme Se#f, the Lord of a##= It a#so maintains that $ranas are
mere#y forms of the functions of the five senses and have no se.arate e>istence of
their own= A## these heterodo> doctrines are to be found there= %ence the Sankhya
system cannot be authoritative=
)o<a.ratyuktyadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra ,-
Refutation of )o<a
Etena yo<ah .ratyuktah II=*=, +*,7-
By this the )o<a .hi#oso.hy is +a#so- refuted=
Etena1 by this viG=, by the refutation of the Sankhya SmritiC )o<ah1 the
)o<a .hi#oso.hyC $ratyuktah1 is +a#so- refuted=
The )o<a .hi#oso.hy of $atan0a#i is refuted here= )o<a is ca##ed JSesvara&
SankhyaJ=
The $urva.akshin says1 The )o<a system is <iven in the ?.anishads a#so, #ike
the Svetavatara ?.anishad etc= J%o#din< his head, neck, trunk erectJ etc= Svet=
?.= II&9= JThe Se#f is to be heard, to be thou<ht of, to be meditated u.onJ Bri= ?.=
II&3&4= JThis the firm ho#din< back of the senses is what is ca##ed )o<aJ ;atha ?.=
II&,&**= J%avin< received this know#ed<e and the who#e ru#e of )o<aJ ;atha= ?.=
II&,&*9= )o<a is an aid to the concentration of mind= Bithout concentration one
cannot have know#ed<e of Brahman= %ence )o<a is a means to know#ed<e= As the
)o<a Smriti is based on the Srutis, it is authoritative= The )o<a Smriti
acknow#ed<es the $radhana which is the irst !ause=
or the same reason as adduced a<ainst the Sankhya system, the )o<a
.hi#oso.hy by $atan0a#i is a#so refuted as it a#so acce.ts the theory that $rakriti is
the cause of the universe=
This Sutra remarks that by the refutation of the Sankhya Smriti the )o<a
Smriti a#so is to be considered as refuted because the )o<a .hi#oso.hy a#so
reco<nises, in o..osition to scri.ture, a $radhana as the inde.endent cause of the
wor#d and the <reat .rinci.#e etc=, as its effects a#thou<h the (eda or common
e>.erience is not in favour of these views=
Thou<h the Smriti is .art#y authoritative it shou#d be re0ected as it contradicts
the Srutis on other to.ics=
A#thou<h there are many Smritis which treat of the sou#, we have directed
our attention to refute the Sankhya and )o<a, because they are wide#y known as
offerin< the means for attainin< the hi<hest end of man= 'oreover, they have
obtained the a..reciation of many <reat .ersons= urther their .osition is
stren<thened by Sruti J%e who has known that cause which is to be a..rehended
by Sankhya and )o<a he is freed from a## fettersJ Svet= ?.= (I&*,=
Be say that the hi<hest <oa# of man cannot be attained by the know#ed<e of
the Sankhya Smriti, or )o<a .ractice= Sruti c#ear#y says that the fina# emanci.ation
or the su.reme beatitude can on#y be obtained by the know#ed<e of the unity of
the Se#f which is conveyed by the (eda= JOn#y the man who knows Brahman
crosses over Death, there is no other .ath to <oJ Svet= ?.= III&9=
The Sankhya and )o<a systems maintain dua#ity= They do not discern the
unity of the Se#f= In the te>t cited JThat cause which is to be known by Sankhya
and )o<aJ, the terms ASankhyaA and A)o<aA denote (edic know#ed<e and
meditation as these terms are used in a .assa<e standin< c#ose to other .assa<es
which refer to (edic know#ed<e=
Be certain#y a##ow room for those .ortions of the two systems which do not
contradict the (eda= The Sankhyas say, JThe sou# is free from a## @ua#ities
+Asan<a-=J This is in harmony with the (eda which dec#ares that $urusha is
essentia##y .ure= Jor that .erson is not attached to anythin<J Bri= ?.= I(&,&*5=
The )o<a .rescribes retirement from the concerns of #ife +"ivritti- for the
wanderin< Sannyasin= This is corroborated by the Sruti= JThen the $arivra0aka with
oran<e robe, shaven, without any .ossessionJ etc= /aba#a ?.anishad= I(&7=
Their reasonin< is acce.tab#e to the e>tent to which it #eads to Se#frea#isation=
The above remarks wi## serve as a re.#y to the c#aims of a## ar<umentative
Smritis= Be ho#d that the truth can be rea#ised nor known from the (edanta te>ts
on#y, J"one who does not know the (eda .erceives the <reat oneJ Taittiriya
Brahmana III&*2=6=7=
JI now ask thee that $erson tau<ht in the ?.anishadsJ Bri= ?.= III&6&2=
"a (i#akshanatvadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras 3&**-
Brahman can be the cause of the universe, a#thou<h It is of a contrary nature from
the universe
"a vi#akshanatvadasya tathatvam cha sabdat II=*=3 +*,9-
+The ob0ector says that- Brahman cannot be the cause of the
wor#d, because this +the wor#d- is of a different nature +from
Brahman- and its bein< so +different from Brahman- +is known- from
the scri.tures=
"a1 not +i=e= Brahman is not the cause of the wor#d-C (i#akshanatvat1
because of difference in natureC Asya1 its +i=e= of this wor#d-C Tathatvam1 its
bein< soC !ha1 andC Sabdat1 from the word, from the Sruti=
There are ei<ht Sutras in this Adhikarana= The first and the second e>.ress
the $urva.aksha +ob0ection- and the others e>.ress the true doctrine +Siddhanta-=
The ob0ections founded on Smriti a<ainst the doctrine of Brahman bein< the
efficient and the materia# cause of the universe have been refuted= Be now
.roceed to refute those founded on reasonin<=
Some .#ausib#e ob0ections a<ainst Brahman bein< the cause of the wor#d are
raised in this Sutra and the subse@uent one=
The ob0ector says1 Brahman is inte##i<ence= Brahman is .ure= But the
universe is materia#, insentient and im.ure= Therefore, it is different from the
nature of Brahman= %ence, Brahman cannot be the cause of this wor#d=
The effect must be of the same nature as the cause= The effect is on#y cause
in another form= The cause and effect cannot be entire#y of a different nature= The
inte##i<ent and sentient Brahman cannot .roduce non&inte##i<ent, insentient,
materia# universe= If Brahman is taken to be the cause of the wor#d, the nature of
the two must be simi#ar= But they a..ear to be @uite different in essence or
nature= %ence, Brahman cannot be the cause of the wor#d=
The difference in nature is a#so known from the statements of Sruti,
JBrahman became inte##i<ence as we## as non&inte##i<ence +wor#d-J +Taittiriya
?.anishad, Brahmananda (a##i, Si>th Anuvaka & (i0nanam cha avi0nanam cha
abhavat-= Therefore, Brahman cannot be the cause of the materia# universe=
Brahman, which is .ure s.irit, cannot be the cause of this universe, which is
im.ure matter= The wor#d which consists of .ain, .#easure and i##usion cannot be
derived from Brahman=
Abhimanivya.adesastu viseshanu<atibhyam II=*=4 +*,6-
But the reference is to the .residin< deities +of the or<ans- on
account of the s.ecia# characterisation and a#so from the fact of a
deity so .residin<=
Abhimani1 the .residin< deity +of the or<ans and the e#ements-C
(ya.adesah1 an e>.ression, an indication, .ointin< out of, denotation ofC Tu1
butC (isesha1 s.ecific ad0unct, on account of distinction, because of so bein<
@ua#ifiedC Anu<atibhyam1 the act of .ervadin<C (iseshanu<atibhyam1 from the
s.ecific ad0unct as we## as from the fact of .ervadin<, on account of their enterin<=
This Sutra meets an ob0ection to Sutra 3= The word ATuA +but- discards the
doubt raised=
Bhenever an inanimate ob0ect is described in Smriti as behavin< #ike animate
bein<s, we are to understand that it is an indication of a deity .residin< over it= In
the case of actions #ike s.eakin<, dis.utin<, and so on, which re@uire inte##i<ence,
the scri.tura# te>ts do not denote the mere materia# e#ements and or<ans but
rather the inte##i<ent deities which .reside over each or<an viG=, s.eech, etc=
)ou wi## find in ;aushitaki ?.anishad1 JThe deities contendin< with each other
for who was the best=J JA## the deities reco<nised the .re&eminence in $ranaJ
+;au= ?.= II&*3-= The ;aushitakins make e>.ress use of the word JdeitiesJ in order
to e>c#ude the idea of the mere materia# or<ans bein< meant= Aitareya Aranyaka
+II&2&3- says, JA<ni havin< become s.eech entered the mouthJ= This shows that
each or<an is connected with its own .residin< deity=
There is a te>t in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad +(I&I&7- which says, JThese
or<ans @uarre##ed over their res.ective <reatness=J
The te>ts of !hhando<ya ?.anishad a#so show the e>istence of such .residin<
deities= JThe fire thou<ht and .roduced water=J This indicates that the inanimate
ob0ect may be ca##ed :od havin< reference to its .residin< deity= The thou<ht
s.oken of is that of the %i<hest Deity which is connected with the effects as a
su.erintendin< .rinci.#e= A## these stren<then the hy.othesis that the te>ts refer
to the su.erintendin< deities=
rom a## this, we have to conc#ude that this universe is different in nature
from Brahman= Therefore, the ?niverse cannot have Brahman for its materia#
cause=
The ne>t Sutra <ives a very suitab#e re.#y to the ob0ection raised by the
$urva.akshin or the ob0ector=
Drishyate tu II=*=5 +*38-
But it +such or<anisation of #ife from matter- is a#so seen=
Drishyate1 is seenC Tu1 but=
Ob0ection raised in Sutras 3 and 4 are now refuted=
The word AbutA discards the $urva.aksha= AButA refutes the $urva.akshinAs or
ob0ectorAs views e>.ressed in the #ast Sutra, viG=, that this universe cannot have
ori<inated from Brahman, because it is different in character= or we see that from
man who is inte##i<ent, non&inte##i<ent thin<s such as hair and nai#s ori<inate, and
that from non&inte##i<ent matter such as cow&dun<, scor.ions etc=, are .roduced=
So the ob0ections raised in Sutras 3 and 4 are not va#id= %ence it is @uite .ossib#e
that this materia# universe cou#d be .roduced by an inte##i<ent Bein<, Brahman=
Ori<ination of insentient creation from the sentient !reator is not unreasonab#e=
The 'undaka ?.anishad says J/ust as the s.ider stretches forth and <athers
to<ether its threads, as herbs <row out of the earth, as from a #ivin< man comes
out the hair, so a#so from the Im.erishab#e comes out this universeJ +I=*=7-=
The ob0ector may say that the body of a man is the cause of the hair and
nai#s and not the man, and the cow&dun< is the cause of the body of the scor.ion,
etc= Even then, there is difference in character between the cause, the dun< and
the effect, the body of the scor.ion, in so far as some non&inte##i<ent matter +the
body- is the abode of an inte##i<ent .rinci.#e +the sou# of the scor.ion-, which the
other non&inte##i<ent matter +the cow&dun<- is not= They are not simi#ar in a##
res.ects= If they were, then there wou#d be nothin< #ike cause and effect= If you
e>.ect to find a## the as.ects of Brahman in the wor#d, then what is the difference
between cause and effectL
The cause and its effects are not simi#ar in a## res.ects, but somethin< in the
cause is found in the effect a#so, 0ust as c#ay in the #um. is found in the 0ar a#so,
thou<h the sha.e, etc=, of the two vary= The very re#ationshi. of cause and effect
im.#ies that there is some difference between the two= Some @ua#ities of the
cause, Brahman, such as e>istence and inte##i<ence, are found in Its effect, the
universe= A## ob0ects in the universe e>ist= The universe <ets this @ua#ity from
Brahman, which is E>istence itse#f= urther the inte##i<ence of Brahman i##umines
the entire wor#d= The two @ua#ities of Brahman, viG=, e>istence and inte##i<ence,
are found in the universe= %ence it is @uite .ro.er to take Brahman as the cause
of this universe, thou<h there may be some difference in other res.ects between
them=
Asaditi chet na .ratishedhamatratvat II=*=7 +*3*-
If it be said +that the wor#d, the effect, wou#d then be- none>istent
+before its ori<ination or creation-, +we say- no, because
it is a mere ne<ation +without any basis-=
Asat1 non&e>istenceC Iti chet1 if it be saidC "a1 noC
$ratishedhamatratvat1 because of denia#, as it sim.#y denies=
An ob0ection to Sutra 5 is raised and refuted=
The o..onent says that if Brahman which is inte##i<ent, .ure and devoid of
@ua#ities such as sound and so on, is the cause of the universe which is of an
o..osite nature, i=e=, non&inte##i<ent, im.ure, .ossessin< the @ua#ities of sound,
etc=, it fo##ows that the effect, i=e=, the wor#d, was non&e>istent before its actua#
ori<ination, because Brahman was then the on#y e>istence= This means that
somethin< which was non&e>istin< is brou<ht into e>istence, which is not acce.ted
by the (edantins who maintain the doctrine of the effect e>istin< in the cause
a#ready=
The ob0ection raised by the o..onent is no rea# ob0ection= It has no force on
account of its bein< a mere ne<ation=
This Sutra refutes the ob0ection raised by the o..onent= It dec#ares that this
ne<ation is a mere statement without any ob0ective va#idity= If you ne<ative the
e>istence of the effect .revious to its actua# ori<ination, your ne<ation is a mere
ne<ation without any ob0ect to be ne<atived= The effect certain#y e>ists in the
cause before its ori<ination and a#so after it= The effect can never e>ist
inde.endent#y, a.art from the cause either before or after creation= The Sruti
says, JBhosoever #ooks for anythin< e#sewhere than in Brahman is abandoned by
everythin<J +Bri= ?.= II&3&5-=
Therefore, the universe e>ists in Brahman even before creation= It is not
abso#ute#y non&e>istent=
A.itau tadvat.rasan<adasaman0asam II=*=9 +*32-
On account of the conse@uence that at the time of $ra#aya or
<reat disso#ution +the cause becomes- #ike that +i=e=, #ike the
effect-, the doctrine maintained hitherto +that Brahman is the cause
of the universe- is absurd=
A.itau1 at the time of $ra#aya or the <reat disso#utionC Tadvat1 #ike that,
#ike the effectC $rasan<at1 on account of the conse@uencesC Asaman0asam1
inconsistent, absurd=
A .#ausib#e ob0ection a<ainst Brahman bein< the cause of the wor#d is raised
here=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent raises further ob0ections=
Durin< disso#ution the effect, i=e=, the wor#d, is absorbed in the cause, the
Brahman= !onse@uent#y, it fo##ows that the cause becomes #ike the effect= The
cause is affected by the nature of the effect= The evi#s of defects inherent in the
effect wi## taint the cause= Brahman must be affected by the nature of the wor#d,
0ust as water is affected by the sa#t which is disso#ved in it, 0ust as the who#e food
is scented by the .un<ent sme## of asafoetida when it is mi>ed with any
condiment= %e wou#d become im.ure and wou#d no more be the Omniscient cause
of the universe as the ?.anishads ho#d= %e must become insentient, <ross,
#imited, #ike the wor#d, which is absurd= Brahman, therefore, cannot be the cause
of the wor#d=
There is another ob0ection a#so= Durin< disso#ution a## thin<s have <one into a
state of oneness with Brahman= A## distinctions .ass at the time of reabsor.tion
into the state of non&distinction= Then there wou#d be no s.ecia# cause #eft at the
time of a new be<innin< of the universe= !onse@uent#y, the new wor#d cou#d not
arise with a## the distinctions of en0oyin< sou#s, ob0ects to be en0oyed, etc= There
wi## be no factor brin<in< about creation a<ain=
The third ob0ection is, if in s.ite of this a new creation is .ossib#e, then even
the #iberated sou#s or the 'uktas who have become one with Brahman, wi## be
dra<<ed into rebirth=
It cannot be said that the universe remains distinct from the %i<hest
Brahman even in the state of reabsor.tion or disso#ution, because in that case it
wou#d be no disso#ution at a##= The effect e>istin< se.arate from the cause is not
.ossib#e=
%ence the (edanta doctrine of Brahman bein< the cause of the universe is
ob0ectionab#e as it #eads to a## sorts of absurdities=
The ne>t Sutra <ives a suitab#e re.#y to this=
"a tu drishtantabhavat II=*=6 +*3,-
But not +so- on account of the e>istence of i##ustrations=
"a1 notC Tu1 butC Drishtantabhavat1 on account of i##ustrations=
The ob0ection raised in Sutra 9 is refuted=
By the word HtuI +but- the .ossibi#ity of the ob0ection is set aside=
The ob0ections have no force= Bhy shou#d an effect which is reso#ved into the
cause a<ain affect the cause by introducin< the defects of the effectL Bhen the
effect is invo#ved in the cause, it does not at a## taint the cause by its effects=
There are innumerab#e instances= If a <ood ornament is me#ted into <o#d, how can
the .ecu#iarities of form of the ornament a..ear in the <o#dL
Bhen a 0ar made u. of c#ay is broken and reabsorbed into its ori<ina#
substance, i=e=, c#ay, it does not im.art to it its s.ecia# features or @ua#ities= It
does not turn the earth into .ots and .itchers but it is itse#f transformed as earth=
The four&fo#d com.#e> of or<anic bein<s which s.rin<s from the earth does not
im.art its @ua#ities to the #atter at the time of re&absor.tion=
Reabsor.tion cannot occur at a## if the effect, when reso#vin< back into its
causa# substance, continues to subsist there with a## its individua# .ro.erties=
Des.ite the non&difference of cause and effect, the effect has its se#f in the
cause but not the cause in the effect= The effect is of the nature of the cause and
not the cause the nature of the effect= Therefore the @ua#ities of the effect cannot
touch the cause=
Instead of Brahman bein< transformed into the wor#d, the wor#d is
transformed into Brahman, bein< mer<ed in %im at the time of its disso#ution=
%ence there cannot be any ob0ection to Brahman bein< acce.ted as the cause of
the wor#d on the <round su<<ested in Sutra 9=
Thou<h the wor#d is fu## of misery, etc=, yet Brahman is a## .ure, etc= %e
remains a#ways untouched by evi#= As youth, chi#dhood and o#d a<e be#on< to the
body on#y and not to the Se#f, as b#indness and deafness etc=, be#on< to the
senses and not to the Se#f, so the defects of the wor#d do not be#on< to Brahman
and do not .ervade the .ure Brahman=
If cause and effect are se.arate as you say, there wi## be no invo#ution at a##=
As cause and effect are one and the same, the ob0ection that the defects of the
effect wi## affect the cause is not .ecu#iar to invo#ution a#one= If what the
$urva.akshin says is correct, the defect wi## affect the cause even now= That the
identity of cause and effect of Brahman and the universe, ho#ds <ood
indiscriminate#y with re<ard to a## time, not on#y the time of invo#ution or
reabsor.tion is dec#ared in many scri.tura# .assa<es, as for instance & This
everythin< is that Se#f +Bri= ?.= II=3=5-= The Se#f is a## this +!hh= ?.= (II=24=2-= The
Immorta# Brahman is this before +'un= ?.= II=2=**-= A## this is Brahman +!hh= ?.=
III=*3=*-=
If it is said that the defects are the effects of su.erim.osition of Avidya or
nescience and cannot affect the cause, this e>.#anation wi## a..#y to invo#ution
a#so=
!obra is not affected by the .oison= A ma<ician is not affected by the ma<ica#
i##usion .roduced by himse#f, because it is unrea#= Even so Brahman is not affected
by 'aya= The wor#d is on#y an i##usion or a..earance= Brahman a..ears as this
universe, 0ust as a ro.e a..ears as the snake= Therefore Brahman is unaffected by
'aya or the wor#d i##usion= "o one is affected by his dream&creations or the
i##usory visions of his dream, because they do not accom.any the wakin< state
and the state of dream#ess s#ee.= Simi#ar#y the Eterna# Bitness of a## states of
consciousness is not affected by the wor#d or 'aya=
E@ua##y base#ess is the second ob0ection= There are .ara##e# instances with
reference to this a#so= In the state of dee. s#ee., you do not see anythin<= The
sou# enters into an essentia# condition of non&distinction= There is no diversity, but
as soon as you wake u. you beho#d the wor#d of diversity= The o#d sta<e of
distinction comes a<ain, as i<norance or Avidya is not destroyed= !hhando<ya
?.anishad says, JA## these creatures when they have become mer<ed in the True,
know not that they are mer<ed in the True= Bhatever these creatures are here,
whether a #ion, or a wo#f, or a boar or a worm or a <nat or a mos@uito, that they
become a<ainJ +!hh= ?.= (I&6&2 O ,-=
A simi#ar .henomenon takes .#ace durin< $ra#aya or disso#ution= The .ower of
distinction remains in a .otentia# state as Avidya or "escience in the state of
disso#ution a#so= So #on< as the basic Avidya or i<norance is there, creation or
evo#ution wi## fo##ow invo#ution 0ust as a man wakes u. after s#ee.=
The #iberated sou#s wi## not be born a<ain because in their case wron<
know#ed<e or i<norance has been com.#ete#y destroyed by .erfect know#ed<e of
Brahman=
The view he#d by the $urva.akshin that even at the time of reabsor.tion the
wor#d shou#d remain distinct from Brahman is not admitted by the (edantins=
In conc#usion it can be correct#y said that the system founded on the
?.anishads is in every way unob0ectionab#e=
Sva.akshadosacca II=*=*8 +*33-
And because the ob0ections +raised by the Sankhya a<ainst the
(edanta doctrine- a..#y to his +Sankhya- view a#so=
Sva.akshadoshat1 because of the ob0ections, to his own viewC !ha1 and=
The ob0ections raised in Sutras 3 and 9 are #eve##ed a<ainst the o..onents=
"ow the tab#es are turned on the ob0ector= The ob0ections raised by him +the
Sankhya- to the doctrines of (edanta are a..#icab#e to his theory as we##= In his
doctrine of causation a#so, the wor#d of forms and sounds takes its ori<in from
$radhana and $rakriti which has no form or sound= Thus the cause is different
from the effect here a#so= In the state of reabsor.tion or disso#ution, a## ob0ects
mer<e into $radhana and become one with it=
There is .ervasion into the $radhana of a## the effects of the wor#d= It is
admitted by the Sankhyas a#so that at the time of reabsor.tion the effect .asses
back into the state of non&distinction from the cause, and so the ob0ection raised
in Sutra 9 a..#ies to $radhana a#so= The Sankhya wi## have to admit that before
the actua# be<innin<, the effect was non&e>istent= Bhatever ob0ections that are
raised a<ainst (edanta in this res.ect are in fact true of the Sankhyas= That
Brahman is the cause of the wor#d, which is admitted by Sruti, cannot be thrown
out by this sort of vain reasonin<= (edanta is based on the Srutis= %ence the
doctrine of (edanta is authoritative and infa##ib#e= Therefore it must be admitted=
urther, the (edantic view is .referab#e, because the ob0ections have a#so been
answered from the view.oint of (edanta= It is not .ossib#e to answer them from
the view.oint of the Sankhya=
Tarka.ratishthanada.i anyathanumeyamiti chet
evama.yanirmoksha .rasan<ah II=*=** +*34-
If it be said that in conse@uence of the non&fina#ity of
reasonin< we must frame our conc#usions otherwiseC +we re.#y that-
thus a#so there wou#d resu#t non&re#ease=
Tarka1 reasonin<, ar<umentC A.ratishthanat1 because of not havin< any
fi>ity or fina#ityC A.i1 a#soC Anyatha1 otherwiseC Anumeyam1 to be inferred, to
be ascertained, by ar<uin<C Iti chet1 if it be said, even thus in this wayC A.i1
evenC Anirmoksha1 want of re#ease, absence of the way outC $rasan<ah1
conse@uence=
Ob0ections raised in Sutras 3 and 9 are further refuted=
:reat thinkers #ike ;a.i#a and ;anada are seen to refute each other= Lo<ic
has no fi>ity or fina#ity= The deductions of one reasoner are overthrown by
another= Bhat one man estab#ishes throu<h reason can be refuted by another
man more inte##i<ent and in<enious than he= "either ana#o<y nor sy##o<ism can
a..#y to the sou#= !onc#usions arrived at by mere ar<umentation, however we##reasoned,
and not based on any authoritative statement, cannot be acce.ted as
fina# as there sti## remains the chance of their bein< refuted by more e>.ert
so.hists= %ence, the conc#usion of Sruti a#one must be acce.ted=
Bithout showin< any re<ard to reasonin< we must be#ieve Brahman to be the
materia# cause of the universe, because the ?.anishad teaches so=
The conc#usions of (edanta are based on the Srutis which are infa##ib#e and
authoritative= Reasonin< which has no sure basis cannot overthrow the
conc#usions of (edanta=
Reason has its own .rovince and sco.e= It is usefu# in certain secu#ar matters
but in matters transcendenta# such as the e>istence of Brahman, fina# re#ease, #ife
beyond, the .ronouncements of human inte##ect can never be .erfect#y free from
doubt, because these are matters which are beyond the sco.e of inte##ect= Even if
there is to be any fina#ity of reasonin<, it wi## not brin< about any fina#ity of
doctrine with reference to the sou#, because the sou# cannot be e>.erienced by the
senses= Brahman cannot be an ob0ect of .erce.tion or of inference based on
.erce.tion= Brahman is inconceivab#e and conse@uent#y unar<uab#e=
;atho.anishad says, JThis know#ed<e is not to be obtained by ar<ument, but it is
easy to understand it, O "achiketas, when tau<ht by a teacher who beho#ds no
differenceJ +I=2=6-=
The o..onent says1 )ou cannot say that no reasonin< whatever is we##founded
because even the 0ud<ment about reasonin< is arrived at throu<h
reasonin<= )ou yourse#f can see that reasonin< has no foundation on reasonin<
on#y= %ence the statement that reasonin< has never a sure basis is not correct=
urther, if a## reasonin< were unfounded, human #ife wou#d have to come to an
end= )ou must reason correct#y and .ro.er#y=
Be remark a<ainst this ar<ument of the o..onent that thus a#so then resu#ts
Jwant of re#easeJ= A#thou<h reasonin< is we##&founded with res.ect to certain
thin<s, with re<ard to the matter in hand there wi## resu#t Jwant of re#easeJ=
Those sa<es who teach about the fina# emanci.ation of the sou#, dec#are that
it resu#ts from .erfect know#ed<e= $erfect know#ed<e is a#ways uniform= It de.ends
u.on the thin< itse#f= Bhatever thin< is .ermanent#y of one and the same nature
is acknow#ed<ed to be the true thin<= ;now#ed<e that .ertains to this is .erfect or
true know#ed<e= 'utua# conf#ict of menIs o.inions is not .ossib#e in the case of
true or .erfect know#ed<e= But the conc#usions of reasonin< can never be uniform=
The Sankhyas maintain throu<h reasonin< that $radhana is the cause of the
universe= The "aiyayikas arrive throu<h reasonin< that the $aramanus or atoms
are the cause of the wor#d= Bhich to acce.tL %ow, therefore, can know#ed<e which
is based on reasonin<, and whose ob0ect is not somethin< a#ways uniform, be true
of .erfect know#ed<eL Be cannot come to a definite, .ositive conc#usion throu<h
reasonin< inde.endent of the Srutis= The (eda is eterna#= It is the source of
know#ed<e= It has for its ob0ect firm#y estab#ished thin<s= ;now#ed<e which is
founded on the (eda cannot be denied at a## by any of the #o<icians of the .ast,
.resent or future= As the truth cannot be known throu<h reasonin< there wi## be
no #iberation=
Be have thus estab#ished that .erfection can be attained throu<h know#ed<e
of Brahman with the aid of ?.anishads or the Srutis= $erfect know#ed<e is not
.ossib#e without the he#. of the Srutis= Disre<ard of Srutis wi## #ead to absence of
fina# emanci.ation= Reasonin< which <oes a<ainst the scri.tures is no .roof of
know#ed<e=
Our fina# .osition is that the inte##i<ent Brahman must be re<arded as the
cause and substratum of the universe on the <round of scri.ture and of reasonin<
subordinate to scri.ture=
Sishta.ari<rahadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra *2-
;anada and :autama refuted
Etena sishta.ari<raha a.i vyakhyatah II=*=*2 +*35-
By this +i=e= by the ar<uments a<ainst the Sankhyas- +those other
theories- not acce.ted by the wise or com.etent .ersons are e>.#ained
or refuted=
Etena1 by this +by the above reasonin<, by what has been said a<ainst
Sankhya-C Sishta.ari<rahah1 not acce.ted by the wise or com.etent .ersonsC
A.i1 a#soC (yakhyatah1 are e>.#ained or refuted=
Other views or theories not acce.ted by the (edas are refuted=
Sishtah & the remainin< systems #ike those of the JAtomistsJ trained, i=e=,
trained in the (edas=
Sishta.ari<rahah & a## other views or systems of thou<ht not acce.ted by
those who are we## instructed in the (edasC a## the different views or systems
contrary to the (edas=
A.ari<rahah means those systems which do not acknow#ed<e or acce.t
+$ari<raha- the (edas as authority on these matters, but which re#y on reason
a#one and which are not countenanced by the (eda=
A## the different views or systems of thou<ht which are contrary to the (edas
and which are not acce.ted by the disci.#ined and the wise are refuted by what is
said a<ainst Sankhya, i=e=, by the same ar<uments=
Like the theory of those who say that $radhana or $rakriti is the cause of the
wor#d, the theories of those who .ostu#ate atoms as the cause are refuted by
those who know the truths of scri.ture, #ike 'anu or (yasa, trained in the correct
way of knowin< them= The doctrine of the $radhana deserves to be refuted first as
it stands near to the (edic system, and is su..orted by somewhat stron< and
wei<hty ar<uments= urther, it has to a certain e>tent been ado.ted by some
authorities who fo##ow the (eda= If the most dan<erous enemy is con@uered, the
minor enemies are a#ready con@uered= Even so, if the Sankhya doctrine is refuted,
a## other systems are a#ready refuted a#so=
The Sutra teaches that by the demo#ition of the Sankhya doctrine <iven
above, the remainin< theories not com.rised within the (edas are a#so refuted,
such as the theories of ;anada, :autama, Aksha.ada, Buddhists, etc=, because
they are o..osed to the (edas on these .oints= The reasons are the same as in
the case of Sankhya=
As re<ards the nature of the atom, there is no unanimity of o.inion= ;anada
and :autama maintain it to be .ermanent, whi#e the four schoo#s of Buddhas ho#d
it to be im.ermanent= The (aibhashika Bauddhas ho#d that the atoms are
momentary but have an ob0ective e>istence +;shanikam artha&bhutam-= The
)o<achara Bauddhas maintain it to be mere#y co<nitiona# +/nanaru.am-= The
'adhyamikas ho#d it to be fundamenta##y void +Sunya&ru.am-= The /ains ho#d it to
be rea# and unrea# +Sad&asad&ru.am-=
Bhoktra.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutra *,-
The distinctions of en0oyer and en0oyed do not o..ose unity
Bhoktra.atteravibha<aschet sya##okavat II=*=*, +*37-
If it be said +that if Brahman be the cause then- on account of
+the ob0ects of en0oyment- turnin< into the en0oyer, non&distinction
+between the en0oyer and the ob0ects en0oyed- wou#d resu#t, we re.#y
that such distinction may e>ist neverthe#ess as is e>.erienced
common#y in the wor#d=
Bhoktri1 one who en0oys and suffersC A.atteh1 from the ob0ections, if it be
ob0ectedC Avibha<ah1 non&distinctionC !het1 if it be saidC Syat1 may e>istC
Lokavat1 as is e>.erienced in the wor#d=
Another ob0ection based on reasonin< is raised a<ainst Brahman bein< the
cause and refuted=
The distinction between the en0oyer +the /iva or the individua# sou#- and the
ob0ects of en0oyment is we## known from ordinary e>.erience= The en0oyers are
inte##i<ent, embodied sou#s whi#e sound and the #ike are the ob0ects of en0oyment=
Ramakrishna for instance, is an en0oyer whi#e the man<o which he eats is an
ob0ect of en0oyment= If Brahman is the materia# cause of the universe, then the
wor#d, the effect wou#d be non&different from Brahman= The /iva and Brahman
bein< identica#, the difference between the sub0ect and the ob0ect wou#d be
annihi#ated, as the one wou#d .ass over into the other= !onse@uent#y, Brahman
cannot be he#d to be the materia# cause of the universe, as it wou#d #ead to the
sub#ation of the we##&estab#ished distinction between the en0oyer and the ob0ects
of en0oyment=
If you say that the doctrine of Brahman bein< the cause of the wor#d wi## #ead
to the en0oyer or s.irit becomin< one with the ob0ect of en0oyment +matter-, we
re.#y that such differentiation is a..ro.riate in our case a#so, as instances are
found in the universe in the case of ocean, its waves, foams and bubb#es and of
the Sun and its #i<ht= The ocean waves, foams and bubb#es are one and yet
diverse in the universe= Simi#ar#y, are the Brahman and the wor#d= %e created and
entered into the creation= %e is one with them, 0ust as the ether in the sky and the
ether in the .ot are one a#thou<h they a..ear to be se.arate=
Therefore it is .ossib#e to have difference and non&difference in thin<s at the
same time owin< to the name and form= The en0oyers and the ob0ects of
en0oyment do not .ass over into each other and yet they are not different from
the Su.reme Brahman= The en0oyers and ob0ects of en0oyment are not different
from the view.oint of Brahman but they are different as en0oyers and ob0ects
en0oyed= There is no contradiction in this=
The conc#usion is that the distinction of en0oyers and ob0ects of en0oyment is
.ossib#e, a#thou<h both are non&different from Brahman, their %i<hest !ause, as
the instance of the ocean, and its waves, foams and bubb#es demonstrates=
Arambhanadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras *3&28-
The wor#d +effect- is non&different from Brahman +the cause-
Tadananyatvamarambhanasabdadibhyah II=*=*3 +*39-
The non&difference of them +i=e=, of cause and effect- resu#ts
from such terms as Hori<inI and the #ike=
Tat1 +its, of the universe-C Ananyatvam1 non&differenceC Arambhana
sabdadibhyah1 from words #ike Hori<inI, etc=
That the effect is not different from the cause is shown here=
In Sutra *,, the Sutrakara s.oke from the .oint of view of $arinamavada and
refuted the ob0ection raised by the o..onent that Brahman cannot be the materia#
cause as it contradicts .erce.tion= In $arinamavada, Brahman actua##y under<oes
transformation or modification= "ow the same ob0ection is overthrown from the
view .oint of (ivartavada= In (ivartavada there is on#y a..arent modification=
Ro.e a..ears as a snake= It is not transformed into an actua# snake= This is the
doctrine of Advaita of Sri Sankara=
In the .revious Sutra the simi#e of the ocean and the waves was stated,
acce.tin< the a..arent variety of ob0ects= But in rea#ity, cause and effect are one
even now= This is c#ear from the word HArambhanaI +be<innin<-, 0ust as by
knowin< a #um. of c#ay, a## c#ay wi## be known= "ame is on#y a verba# modification=
The true bein< is on#y c#ay= A .ot is on#y c#ay even now= Simi#ar#y, the wor#d is on#y
Brahman even now= It is wron< to say that oneness and manifo#dness are both
true as in the case of ocean and waves, etc= The word HevaI in H'rittiketyevaI
shows that a## diversity is unrea#= The sou# is dec#ared to be one with Brahman=
The ob0ector or $urva.akshin says1 HIf there is on#y one Truth viG=, Brahman,
the diverse ob0ects of .erce.tion wi## be ne<ated= The ethica# in0unction wi##
become use#ess= A## the te>ts embodyin< in0unctions and .rohibitions wi## #ose their
.ur.ort if the distinction on which their va#idity de.ends does not rea##y e>ist=
'oreover, the science of #iberation of the sou# wi## have no rea#ity, if the distinction
of teacher and the student on which it de.ends is not rea#= There wou#d be no
bonda<e and hence no #iberation= As the science of the sou# itse#f is unrea#, it
cannot #ead to the Rea#ity= If the doctrine of re#ease is untrue, how can we
maintain the truth of the abso#ute unity of the Se#fL
But these ob0ects have no force because the who#e .henomena# e>istence is
re<arded as true as #on< as the know#ed<e of Brahman has not arisen, 0ust as the
dream creatures are re<arded to be true ti## the wakin< state arrives= Bhen we
wake u. after dreams, we know the dream wor#d to be fa#se but the know#ed<e of
dreams is not fa#se= 'oreover, even dreams sometimes forebode the imminent
rea#ity of death= The rea#ity of rea#isation of Brahman cannot be said to be i##usory
because it destroys i<norance and #eads to the cessation of i##usion=
Bhave cho.a#abdheh II=*=*4 +*36-
And +because- on#y on the e>istence +of the cause- +the effect-
is e>.erienced=
Bhave1 on the e>istenceC !ha1 andC ?.a#abdheh1 is e>.erienced=
The ar<ument be<un in Sutra *3 as to how it fo##ows that the effect +wor#d- is
inse.arab#e from its materia# cause, Brahman, is continued=
The effect is .erceived on#y when the cause is .resent in itC otherwise not= A
.ot or c#oth wi## e>ist even if the .otter or the weaver is absent, but it wi## not e>ist
if the c#ay or thread is absent= This .roves that the effect is not different from the
cause= The !hhando<ya ?.anishad says, JA## these created thin<s, O my son,
ori<inate from Sat, i=e=, Brahman, rest in %im and eventua##y disso#ve in %imJ +(I&
9&3-=
The ob0ector says1 There is no reco<nition of fire in the smoke= The smoke
bein< the effect of fire, ou<ht to show fire in it= To this we re.#y that smoke is
rea##y the effect of dam. fue#= The dam. fue# comes in contact with fire and throws
off its earth#y .artic#es in the form of smoke= The smoke and the fue# are identica#=
Be can reco<nise the fue# in the smoke= This is .roved by the fact that the smoke
has sme## 0ust as the fue# has= The smoke is <enera##y of the same nature as that
of the fue#=
The .henomena of the universe manifest on#y because Brahman e>ists= They
cannot certain#y a..ear without Brahman= Therefore the wor#d +effect- is not
different from Brahman, the cause=
Sattvaccavarasya II=*=*5 +*48-
And on account of the .osterior +i=e=, the effect which comes
after the cause- e>istin< +as the cause before creation-=
Sattvat1 Because of the e>istenceC !ha1 andC Avarasya1 of the .osterior,
i=e=, of the effect as it comes after the cause, i=e=, of the wor#d=
The ar<ument be<un in Sutra *3 is continued=
The scri.ture says that the effect +the wor#d- e>isted in its causa# as.ect
+Brahman- before the creation=
JIn the be<innin<, my dear, Sadeva somyedama<ra asit, this was on#y
e>istenceJ +!hh= ?.-= JAtma va idam eka a<ra asit, veri#y in the be<innin< this
was Se#f, one on#yJ +Ait= Ar= 2=3=*-= JBrahma va idama<ra asit= Before creation,
this universe e>isted as BrahmanJ +Bri= ?.= *=3=*8-=
The ?.anishads dec#are that the universe had its bein< in the cause,
Brahman, before creation= It was one with Brahman= As the wor#d was nondifferent
from the cause before creation, it continues to be non&different after
creation a#so=
The effect +wor#d- is non&different from the cause +Brahman- because it is
e>istent in the cause, identica##y even, .rior to its manifestation, thou<h in time it
is .osterior=
A thin< which does not e>ist in another thin< by the se#f of the #atter is not
.roduced from that other thin<= or instance, oi# is not .roduced from sand= Be
can <et oi# from the <roundnut because it e>ists in the seed, thou<h in #atency, but
not from sand, because it does not e>ist in it= The e>istence is the same both in
the wor#d and in Brahman= As everythin< e>ists in Brahman, so it can come out of
it=
Brahman is in a## time neither more nor #ess than that which is= So the effect
a#so +the wor#d- is in a## time on#y that which is= That which is, is one on#y= %ence
the effect is non&different from the cause=
Asadvya.adesanneti chet na dharmantarena
vakyaseshat II=*=*7 +*4*-
If it be said that on account of +the effect- bein< described as
that which is not, +the effect does- not +e>ist before creation-, we
re.#y Hnot soI, because the term Hthat which is notI denotes another
characteristic or attribute +as is seen- from the #atter .art of the
te>t=
Asadvya.adesat1 on account of its bein< described as non&e>istentC "a1
notC Iti chet1 if it be saidC "a1 noC Dharmantarena1 by another attribute or
characteristicC (akyaseshat1 from the #atter .art of the te>t or .assa<e, because
of the com.#ementary .assa<e=
The ar<ument that the wor#d had no e>istence before creation is refuted=
rom the word HAsatI, #itera##y meanin< non&e>istence, in the Sruti, it may be
ar<ued that before creation the wor#d had no e>istence= But that ar<ument cannot
stand as the #atter .art of the same te>t uses e.ithets other than Jnon&e>istentJ to
describe the condition of the wor#d before creation= Be understand from this that
the wor#d was e>istent before creation= This is estab#ished by reasonin< a#so
because somethin< cannot come out of nothin< and a#so by c#ear statements on
other te>ts of Sruti= JAsad va idam a<ra asitJ & Asat was this veri#y in the
be<innin< +Tait= ?.= II&7&*-=
JAsat eva a<re asitJ & This universe was at first but non&e>istent= Asat indeed
was this in the be<innin<= rom it veri#y .roceeded the Sat +!hh= ?.= III=*6=*-=
The #atter .art of the .assa<e is JTatsadasitJ +That was e>istent-= The word Hnone>istentI
+asat- does not certain#y mean abso#ute non&e>istence, but that the
universe did not e>ist in a <ross, differentiated state= It e>isted in an e>treme#y
subt#e unmanifested state= It was not differentiated= It had not yet deve#o.ed
name and form= The wor#d was .ro0ected= Then it became <ross, and deve#o.ed
name and form= )ou can <et the meanin< if you <o throu<h the #atter .art of the
.assa<e HIt became e>istent=I JIt <rew=J
It is absurd to say that non&e>istence +Asat- e>isted= Therefore, Sat means
manifest, i=e= havin< name and form, whereas Asat sim.#y means fine, subt#e and
unmanifested= HAsatI refers to another attribute of the effect, name#y nonmanifestation=
The words Sat and Asat refer to two attributes of one and the same
ob0ect, name#y to its <ross or manifested condition and subt#e or unmanifested
condition=
Asad va idama<ra asit= Tato vai sada0ayata= Tadatmanam svayamkuruta=
Tasmat tatsukritamuchyata ita= )advai tatsukritam= Asat indeed was this in the
be<innin<= rom it veri#y .roceeded the Sat= That made itse#f its Se#f= Therefore, it
is said to be se#f&made=
The words JAsat made itse#f its Se#fJ c#ears u. any doubt as to the rea#
meanin< of the word JthatJ= If the word JAsatJ meant abso#ute non&e>istence,
then there wi## be a contradiction in terms, because non&e>istence can never make
itse#f the Se#f of anythin<= The word JAsitJ or JwasJ becomes absurd when a..#ied
to JAsatJ because abso#ute non&e>istence can never be said to e>ist and HwasI
means He>istedI= An abso#ute non&e>istence can have no re#ation with time .ast or
.resent= urther, it cannot have any a<ency a#so as we find in the .assa<e, JIt
made itse#f its Se#f=J %ence the word HAsatI shou#d be e>.#ained as a subt#e state of
an ob0ect=
)ukteh sabdantaracca II=*=*9 +*42-
rom reasonin< and from another Sruti te>t +the same is c#ear=
This re#ation between cause and effect is estab#ished=-
)ukteh1 from reasonin<C Sabda&antarat1 from another Sruti te>tC !ha1
and=
That the effect e>ists before its ori<ination and is non&different from the
cause fo##ows from reasonin< and a#so from a further scri.tura# .assa<e or another
te>t of the (edas=
The same fact is c#ear from #o<ic or reasonin< a#so= Otherwise, everythin<
cou#d have been .roduced from anythin<= If non&bein< is the cause, then why
shou#d there be an inevitab#e se@uenceL Bhy shou#d curds be .roduced from mi#k
and not from mudL It is im.ossib#e even within thousands of years to brin< about
an effect which is different from its cause= $articu#ar causes .roduce .articu#ar
effects on#y= This is a .ower in the cause which .roduces the effect= The re#ation of
cause and effect +e=<=, the re#ation of mud and .ot- is a re#ation of identity= The
cause of our thinkin< and sayin< Hthe .ot e>istsI is the fact that the #um. of c#ay
assumes a .articu#ar form of a neck, ho##ow be##y, etc=, whi#e the materia# remains
as c#ay on#y= On the contrary we think and say Hthe 0ar does not e>istI, when the
c#ay .ot is broken into .ieces= %ence e>istence and non&e>istence show on#y their
different conditions= "on&e>istence in this connection does not mean abso#ute none>istence=
This is reasonin< or )ukti=
/ust as an actor .uts on many dis<uises and is yet the same man, so a#so the
?#timate !ause +Brahman- a..ears as these diverse ob0ects and yet is the same=
%ence the cause e>ists before the effects and is non&different from the effect=
The effect e>ists in the cause in an unmanifested state= It is manifested
durin< creation= That is a##= An abso#ute#y non&e>istent thin< #ike the horns of a
hare can never come into e>istence= The cause cannot .roduce a#to<ether a new
thin< which was not e>istin< in it a#ready=
urther, we find from the we##&known .assa<e of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad,
JIn the be<innin<, my dear, there was on#y e>istence, one without a secondJ +!hh=
?.= (I&2&*-, that the effect e>ists even before creation and is non&different from
its cause=
The author now <ives some i##ustrations in order to confirm the doctrine that
effect is identica# with the cause=
$atavacca II=*=*6 +*4,-
And #ike a .iece of c#oth=
$atavat1 #ike a .iece of c#othC !ha1 and=
An e>am.#e in su..ort of Sutra *7 is .resented=
/ust as a ro##ed or fo#ded .iece of c#oth is subse@uent#y unro##ed or unfo#ded,
so a#so the wor#d which rested unmanifested before creation becomes afterwards
manifested= The wor#d is #ike a fo#ded c#oth before creation= It is #ike a c#oth that is
s.read out after creation= A fo#ded c#oth is not seen as a c#oth ti## it is s.read out=
The threads are not seen as a c#oth ti## they are woven= Even so, the effect is in
the cause and is identica# with the cause= In the fo#ded state you cannot make out
whether it is a c#oth or anythin< e#se= But when it is s.read out you can c#ear#y
know that it is a c#oth= In the state of disso#ution +$ra#aya- the wor#d e>ists in a
seed state or .otentia# condition in Brahman=
There are no names and forms= The universe is in an undifferentiated or
unmanifested state= It takes a <ross form after creation= The names and forms are
differentiated and manifested=
As a .iece of c#oth is not different from the threads, so the effect +wor#d- is
not different from its cause +Brahman-=
The word J!haJ +and- of the Sutra shows that other i##ustrations #ike the seed
and the tree may a#so be <iven here=
Bhen the c#oth is fo#ded, you do not know of what definite #en<th and width it
is= But when it is unfo#ded you know a## these .articu#ars= )ou a#so know that the
c#oth is not different from the fo#ded ob0ect= The effect, the .iece of c#oth, is
unmanifested as #on< as it e>ists in its cause, i=e=, the threads= It becomes
manifest and is c#ear#y seen on account of the o.erations of shutt#e, #oom, weaver,
etc=
The conc#usion is that the effect is not different from the cause=
)atha cha .ranadi II=*=28 +*43-
And as in the case of the different $ranas or (ita# airs=
)atha1 asC !ha1 andC $ranadi1 in the case of $ranas or vita# airs=
Another i##ustration in su..ort of Sutra *7 is .resented=
The word H!haI +and- in the Sutra shows that the #ast i##ustration of the .iece
of c#oth and the .resent one of #ife functions shou#d be read to<ether as one
i##ustration=
Bhen the five different vita# airs are contro##ed by the .ractice of $ranayama,
they mer<e in the chief $rana, the cause which re<u#ates breathin<= 'ere #ife on#y
is maintained= A## other functions such as bendin< and stretchin< of the #imbs etc=,
are sto..ed= This shows that the various vita# airs, the effects, are not different
from their cause, the chief $rana= The different vita# airs are on#y modifications of
the chief or 'ukhya.rana= So is the case with a## effects= They are not different
from the cause=
Thus it is estab#ished that the effect, the wor#d, is identica# with its cause,
Brahman= Therefore, by knowin< Brahman everythin< is known= As the who#e
wor#d is an effect of Brahman and non&different from it, the .romise he#d out in
the scri.tura# te>t Hwhat is not heard is heard, what is not .erceived is .erceived,
what is not known is knownI +!hh= ?.= (I=I=,- is fu#fi##ed=
Itaravya.adesadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras 2*&2,-
Brahman does not create evi#
Itaravya.adesaddhitakaranadidosha.rasaktih II=*=2* +*44-
On account of the other +i=e=, the individua# sou#- bein< stated
+as non&different from Brahman- there wou#d arise +in Brahman- the
fau#ts of not doin< what is beneficia# and the #ike=
Itaravy.adesat1 on account of the other bein< stated +as non&different
from Brahman-C %itakaranadidosha.rasaktih1 defects of not doin< what is
beneficia# and the #ike wou#d arise=
+Itara1 other than bein< Brahman, i=e= the individua# sou#C (ya.adesat1
from the desi<nation, from the e>.ressionC %ita1 <ood, beneficia#C Akaranadi1
not creatin<, etc=C Dosha1 im.erfection, defect, fau#tsC $rasaktih1 resu#t,
conse@uence=-
The discussions on the re#ation of the wor#d to Brahman have been finished
now= The @uestion of the re#ation of the individua# sou# to Brahman is bein< raised
by way of an ob0ection in this Sutra=
In the .revious Adhikarana, the oneness of the effect +wor#d- with its cause
+Brahman- has been estab#ished=
In this Sutra, the o..onent or $urva.akshin raises an ob0ection= %e says, that
if Brahman is the cause of the wor#d, there is ina..ro.riateness in that view
because the scri.ture describes /iva as bein< Brahman and, therefore, he wi## not
cause harm to himse#f such as birth, death, o#d a<e, disease, by <ettin< into the
.erson of the body= A bein< which is itse#f abso#ute#y .ure, cannot take this
a#to<ether im.ure body as formin< .art of its Se#f=
The scri.ture dec#ares the other, i=e=, the embodied sou# to be one with
Brahman, JThat is the Se#fJ= JThou art That, O SvetaketuJ +!hh= ?.= (I=9=7-= By
statin< that the individua# sou# is one with Brahman, there arises room for findin<
out a fau#t in the wisdom of Brahman, that %e is not doin< <ood to %imse#f by
creatin< sufferin< and .ain on account of re.eated births and deaths for %imse#f=
Bi## any one do what is harmfu# and un.#easant to himse#fL Bi## he not remember
that he created the wor#dL Bi## he not destroy it as the cause of his sufferin<L
Brahman wou#d have created a very beautifu# wor#d where everythin< wou#d have
been .#easant for the individua# sou# without the #east .ain or sufferin<= That is not
so= %ence, Brahman is not the cause of the wor#d as (edanta maintains= As we see
that what wou#d be beneficia# is not done, the hy.othesis of the wor#d havin<
come out of an Inte##i<ent !ause +Brahman- is not acce.tab#e=
Adhikam tu bhedanirdesat II=*=22 +*45-
But +Brahman, the !reator, is- somethin< more +than the
individua# sou#- on account of the statement in the Srutis +of
difference- between the individua# sou# +and Brahman-=
Adhikam1 somethin< more, <reater than the /ivaC Tu1 butC
Bhedanirdesat1 because of the .ointin< out of differences on account of the
statement of difference= +Bheda1 differenceC "irdesat1 because of the .ointin<
out-=
The ob0ection raised in Sutra 2* is refuted=
The word HtuI +but- refutes the ob0ection of the #ast Sutra= It discards the
$urva.akha=
The !reator of the wor#d is Omni.otent= %e is not the im.risoned, embodied
sou#= The defects mentioned in the .revious Sutra such as doin< what is not
beneficia# and the #ike do not attach to that Brahman because as eterna# freedom
is %is characteristic nature, there is nothin< either beneficia# to be done by %im or
non&beneficia# to be avoided by %im= 'oreover, there is no obstruction to %is
know#ed<e and .ower, because %e is Omniscient and Omni.otent= %e is a mere
witness= %e is conscious of the unrea#ity of the wor#d and /iva= %e has neither
<ood nor evi#= %ence the creation of a universe of <ood and evi# by %im is
unob0ectionab#e=
The /iva is of a different nature= The defects mentioned in the .revious Sutra
be#on< to the /iva on#y, so #on< as he is in a state of i<norance= The Srutis c#ear#y
.oint out the difference between the individua# sou# and the !reator in te>ts #ike
J(eri#y, the Se#f is to be seen, to be heard, to be ref#ected and to be meditated
u.onJ +Bri= ?.= II=3=4-= A## these differences are ima<inary or i##usory on account
of i<norance= Bhen the individua# sou# attains know#ed<e of Brahman, he
remembers his identity with Brahman= Then the who#e .henomenon of .#ura#ity
which s.rin<s from wron< know#ed<e disa..ears= There is neither the embodied
sou# nor the creator=
This Brahman is su.erior to the individua# sou#= The individua# sou# is not the
creator of this universe= %ence the ob0ection raised in Sutra 2* cannot stand= The
.ossibi#ity of fau#ts c#in<in< to Brahman is e>c#uded=
Thou<h Brahman assumes the form of the individua# sou#, yet %e is not
e>hausted thereby= But %e remains as somethin< more, i=e=, as the contro##er of
the individua# sou#= This is obvious from the distinction .ointed out in the Sruti=
%ence there is no occasion for the fau#t s.oken of in Sutra 2*=
Asmadivacca tadanu.a.attih II=*=2, +*47-
And because the case is simi#ar to that of stones, etc=,
+.roduced from the same earth-, the ob0ection raised is untenab#e=
Asmadivat1 #ike stone, etc=C !ha1 andC Tat anu.a.attih1 its untenabi#ity,
unreasonab#eness, im.ossibi#ityC +Tat1 of thatC Tasya1 its, of the ob0ection raised
in Sutra 2*-=
The ob0ection raised in Sutra 2* is further refuted=
The ob0ector may say that Brahman which is ;now#ed<e and B#iss and
unchan<eab#e cannot be the cause of a universe of diversity, of <ood and bad=
This ob0ection cannot stand, because we see that from the same materia# earth,
stones of different va#ues #ike diamonds, #a.is #aGu#i, crysta#s and a#so ordinary
stones are .roduced= rom the seeds which are .#aced in one and the same
<round various .#ants are seen to s.rin< u., such as sanda#wood and cucumbers,
which show the <reatest difference in their #eaves, b#ossoms, fruits, fra<rance,
0uice, etc= One and the same food .roduces various effects such as b#ood, hair,
nai#, etc= So a#so, one Brahman a#so may contain in itse#f the distinction of the
individua# se#ves and the hi<hest Se#f and may .roduce various effects= So a#so
from Brahman which is B#iss and ;now#ed<e, a wor#d of <ood and evi# can be
created=
%ence the ob0ection ima<ined by others a<ainst the doctrine of Brahman
bein< the cause of the wor#d cannot be maintained=
'oreover, the scri.ture dec#ares that a## effects have their ori<in in s.eech
on#y= The dreamin< man is one but the dream .ictures are many= These are hinted
at by the word H!haI of the Sutra=
?.asamharadarsanadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras 23&24-
Brahman is the cause of the wor#d
?.asamharadarsananneti chenna kshiravaddhi II=*=23 +*49-
If you ob0ect that Brahman without instruments cannot be the
cause of the universe, because an a<ent is seen to co##ect materia#s
for any construction, +we say- no, because +it is- #ike mi#k +turnin<
into curds-=
?.asamharadarsanat1 because co##ection of materia#s is seenC "a1 notC Iti
chet1 if it be saidC "a1 noC ;shiravat1 #ike mi#kC %i1 because, as=
Darsanat1 because of the seein<C Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC (at1 #ike, has the force
of an instrumenta# case here= +See Sutra of $anini, Tena tu#yam kriya etc=-
An ob0ection that materia#s are necessary for the creation of the wor#d is
refuted=
Thou<h Brahman is devoid of materia#s and instruments, %e is yet the cause
of the universe= If you ob0ect that an efficient cause #ike a .otter is seen to use
instruments and therefore Brahman cannot be the materia# cause as a#so the
efficient cause, we re.#y that it is #ike mi#k turnin< into curds=
The ob0ector, $urva.akshin, says1 Borkmen are found to co##ect materia#s to
do their works= Brahman a#so must have re@uired materia#s wherewith to create
the wor#d, but there was no other thin< than Brahman before creation= %e is one
without a second= %e cou#d not have brou<ht out %is work of creation as there was
no materia#, 0ust as a .otter cou#d not have made his .ots, if there had been no
materia#s #ike earth, water, staffs, whee#s, etc=, before him=
This ob0ection has no force= 'ateria#s are not re@uired in every case= or
instance, mi#k is itse#f transformed into curd= In mi#k no e>terna# a<ency is needed
to chan<e it into curds= If you say that in the case of mi#k heat is necessary for
curd#in< the mi#k, we re.#y that heat mere#y acce#erates the .rocess of curd#in<=
The curd#in< occurs throu<h the inherent ca.acity of the mi#k= )ou cannot turn
water into curds by the a..#ication of heat= The mi#kIs ca.abi#ity of turnin< into
curd is mere#y com.#eted by the coo.eration of au>i#iary means=
Brahman manifests %imse#f in the form of the universe by %is inscrutab#e
.ower= %e sim.#y wi##s= The who#e universe comes into bein<= Bhy cannot the
Omni.otent Infinite Brahman create the wor#d by %is wi##&.ower +Sanka#.a- a#one
without instruments and e>traneous aidsL
Brahman is Omni.otent and Infinite= %ence no e>traneous aid or instrument
is necessary for %im to create this wor#d=
Thus Sruti a#so dec#ares JThere is no effect and no instrument known of %im,
no one is seen #ike unto or better= %is hi<h .ower is revea#ed as manifo#d and
inherent, actin< as force and know#ed<eJ +Svet= ?.= (I=9-=
Therefore, Brahman, a#thou<h one on#y, is ab#e to transform %imse#f as this
universe of diverse effects without any instrument or e>traneous aid, on account
of %is infinite .owers=
Devadivada.i #oke II=*=24 +*46-
+The case of Brahman creatin< the wor#d is- #ike that of <ods and
other bein<s in the wor#d +in ordinary e>.erience-=
Devadivat1 #ike <ods and others +saints-C A.i1 even, a#soC Loke1 in the
wor#d=
The word HvatI has the force of si>th case here= Another readin< is HItiI +thus-,
instead of HA.iI=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 23 is brou<ht forward=
An ob0ector +or $urva.akshin- says1 HThe e>am.#e of mi#k turnin< into curds
is not a..ro.riate as it is an insentient thin<= Inte##i<ent a<ents #ike .otters be<in
to do their work after .rovidin< themse#ves with a com.#ete set of instruments=
%ow then can it be said that Brahman, an inte##i<ent Bein<, can do %is work of
creation without any au>i#iary, without the aid of any constituent materia#sLI Be
re.#y, H#ike <ods and others=I
Be see a#so that in the wor#d <ods and sa<es create .articu#ar thin<s such as
.a#aces, chariots, etc=, by force of wi##, without e>terna# aid= Bhy cannot the
Omni.otent !reator create the wor#d by %is wi##&.ower +Sat Sanka#.a- or %is
infinite .ower of 'ayaL
/ust as the s.ider .ro0ects out of itse#f the threads of its web, 0ust as the
fema#e crane conceives without a ma#e from hearin< the sound of thunder, 0ust as
the #otus wanders from one #ake to another without any means of conveyance so
a#so the inte##i<ent Brahman creates the wor#d by itse#f without e>terna#
instruments or aid=
The case of Brahman is different from that of .otters and simi#ar a<ents= "o
e>traneous means is necessary for Brahman for creation= There is #imitation in the
creation of .ots= The creation of Brahman cannot be #imited by the conditions
observed in the creation of .ots= Brahman is Omni.otent=
;ritsna.rasaktyadhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutras 25&26-
Brahman is the materia# cause of the universe, thou<h %e is without .arts
;ritsna.rasaktirniravayavatvasabdako.o va II=*=25 +*58-
Either the conse@uence of the entire +Brahman under<oin< chan<e-
has to be acce.ted, or e#se a vio#ation of the te>ts dec#arin<
Brahman to be without .arts +if Brahman is the materia# cause of the
wor#d-=
;ritsna.rasaktih1 .ossibi#ity of the entire +Brahman bein< modified-C
"iravayavatvasabdako.at1 contradiction of the scri.tura# statement that
Brahman is without .artsC (a1 or, otherwise=
+;ritsna1 entire, fu##, tota#C com.#eteC $rasaktih1 e>i<ency, em.#oymentC
activityC "iravayava1 without .arts, without form, without members, indivisib#eC
Sabda1 word, te>t, e>.ressions in SrutiC ;o.at1 contradiction, vio#ation,
incon<ruity, stu#tificationC (a1 or=-
An ob0ection that Brahman is not the materia# cause of the wor#d, is raised in
the Sutra=
The ob0ector says that if the entire Brahman becomes the wor#d, then no
Brahman wi## remain distinct from the wor#d and that if a .art of Brahman
becomes the wor#d, the scri.tura# te>ts which dec#are Brahman to be without .arts
wi## be vio#ated=
If Brahman is without .arts and yet the materia# cause of the universe, then
we have to admit that the entire Brahman becomes modified into the universe=
%ence there wi## be no Brahman #eft but on#y the effect, the universe= urther, it
wi## <o a<ainst the dec#aration of the Sruti te>t that Brahman is unchan<eab#e=
If on the contrary it is said that a .ortion of Brahman on#y becomes the
universe, then we wi## have to acce.t that Brahman is made u. of .arts, which is
denied by the scri.tura# te>ts= The .assa<es are, J%e who is without .arts, without
actions, tran@ui#, without fau#t, without taintJ +Svet= ?.= (I=*6-= JThat heaven#y
.erson is without body, %e is both without and within, not .roducedJ +'un= ?.=
II=*=2-= JThat <reat Bein< is end#ess, un#imited, consistin< of nothin< but
;now#ed<eJ +Bri= ?.= II=3=*2-= J%e is to be described by "o, "oJ +Bri= ?.=
III=6=25-= JIt is neither coarse nor fineJ +Bri= ?.= III=9&9-= A## these .assa<es deny
the e>istence of .arts or distinctions in Brahman=
Bhatever has form is .erishab#e and so Brahman a#so wi## become .erishab#e
or non&eterna#=
A#so if the universe is Brahman, where is the need for any command to see
+Drastavya-L The te>ts which e>hort us to strive to see Brahman become
.ur.ose#ess, because the effects of Brahman may be seen without any effort and
a.art from them no Brahman e>ists= ina##y, the te>ts which dec#are Brahman to
be unborn are contradicted thereby=
%ence Brahman cannot be the materia# cause of the universe= This ob0ection
is refuted in the ne>t Sutra=
Srutestu sabdamu#atvat II=*=27 +*5*-
But +this is not so- on account of scri.tura# .assa<es and on
account of +Brahman- restin< on scri.ture +on#y-=
Sruteh1 from Sruti, as it is stated in Sruti, on account of scri.tura# te>tsC
Tu1 butC Sabdamu#atvat1 on account of bein< based on the scri.ture, as Sruti is
the foundation=
+Sabda1 word, reve#ation, SrutiC 'u#a1 foundation=-
The ob0ection raised in Sutra 24 is refuted=
The entire Brahman does not become the wor#d because the scri.ture
dec#ares so, and Brahman can be known on#y throu<h the source of scri.ture=
The word HtuI +but- discards the ob0ection= It refutes the view of the .revious
Sutra= These ob0ections have no force because we re#y on the Sruti or scri.ture=
The entire Brahman does not under<o chan<e, a#thou<h the scri.tures
dec#are that the universe takes its ori<in from Brahman= Sruti says, Jone foot
+@uarter- of %im is a## bein<s, and three feet are what is immorta# in heaven=J
'oreover, we are one with Brahman in dee. s#ee. as stated by the scri.ture=
%ow cou#d that ha..en if the entire Brahman has become the wor#dL
urther, the scri.ture dec#ares that we can rea#ise Brahman in the heart= %ow
cou#d that be if the entire Brahman has become the wor#dL
'oreover, the .ossibi#ity of Brahman becomin< the ob0ect of .erce.tion by
means of the senses is denied whi#e its effects may thus be .erceived=
The scri.tura# te>ts dec#are Brahman to be without .arts= Then how cou#d a
.art become manifestL Be re.#y that it is on#y the resu#t of Avidya=
Are there two moons if on account of a defect of your vision you see two
moonsL )ou must re#y on scri.tures a#one but not on #o<ic for knowin< what is
beyond the mind=
Brahman rests e>c#usive#y on the Srutis or scri.tures= The sacred scri.tures
a#one, but not the senses, are authoritative re<ardin< Brahman= %ence we wi##
have to acce.t the dec#arations of the Srutis without the #east hesitation=
The scri.tura# te>ts dec#are on the one hand that not the entire Brahman
chan<es into its effects and on the other hand, that Brahman is without .arts=
Even certain ordinary thin<s such as <ems, s.e##s, herbs, etc=, .ossess .owers
which .roduce diverse o..osite effects on account of difference of time, .#ace,
occasion and so on= "o one is ab#e to find out by mere ref#ection the number of
these .owers, their favourin< conditions, their ob0ects, their .ur.oses, etc=,
without the he#. of instruction= Bhen such is the case with ordinary thin<s, how
much more im.ossib#e is it to conceive without the aid of scri.ture the true nature
of Brahman with its .owers unfathomab#e by thou<htL The scri.ture dec#ares JDo
not a..#y reasonin< to what is unthinkab#e=J
%ence the Srutis or the scri.tures a#one are authority in matters
su.ersensuous= Be wi## have to acce.t that both these o..osite views e>.ressed
by the scri.tures are true, thou<h it does not stand to reason= It must be
remembered that the chan<e in Brahman is on#y a..arent and not rea#= Brahman
somehow a..ears as this universe, 0ust as ro.e a..ears as the snake= Brahman
becomes the basis of the entire, a..arent universe with its chan<es, but it
remains at the same time unchan<ed in its true and rea# nature=
Atmani chaivam vichitrascha hi II=*=29 +*52-
And because in the individua# sou# a#so +as in <ods, ma<icians,
in dreams- various +creation e>ists-= Simi#ar#y +with Brahman a#so-=
Atmani1 in the individua# sou#C !ha1 a#so, andC Evam1 thusC (ichitrah1
diverse, manifo#d, varie<atedC !ha1 and, a#soC %i1 because=
The ob0ection raised in Sutra 25 is further refuted by an i##ustration=
There is no reason to find fau#t with the doctrine that there can be a manifo#d
creation in the one Se#f without destroyin< its character= In the dream state, we
see such diverse and wonderfu# creation in ourse#ves= JThere are no chariots in
that dreamin< state, no horses, no roads, but he himse#f creates chariots, horses
and roadsJ +Bri= ?.= I(=,=*8-, and yet the individua# character of the se#f is not
affected by it= This does not #essen or affect our inte<rity of bein<=
In ordinary #ife too mu#ti.#e creations, e#e.hants, horses and the #ike are seen
to e>ist in <ods, ma<icians, without any chan<e in themse#ves, without interferin<
with the unity of their bein<= Simi#ar#y, a mu#ti.#e creation may e>ist in Brahman
a#so without divestin< it of its character of unity= The diverse creation ori<inates
from Brahman throu<h Its inscrutab#e .ower of 'aya and Brahman Itse#f remains
unchan<ed=
The second HchaI +a#so, and- is in order to indicate that when such wonderfu#
thin<s are be#ieved by us as the dreams, the .owers of the <ods and the
ma<icians, why shou#d we hesitate to be#ieve in the mysterious .owers of
BrahmanL The word HhiI im.#ies that the facts above mentioned are we## known in
the scri.tures=
Sva.akshadoshacca II=*=26 +*5,-
And on account of the o..onentIs own view bein< sub0ect to these
very ob0ections=
Sva.aksha1 in oneIs own viewC Doshat1 because of the defectsC !ha1 a#so,
and=
The ob0ection raised in Sutra 25 is further refuted=
The ar<ument raised in Sutra 25 cannot stand, because the same char<e can
be #eve##ed a<ainst the ob0ectorIs side a#so=
The ob0ection raised by you wi## e@ua##y a..#y to your doctrine that the
form#ess +im.artite- Infinite $radhana or $rakriti void of sound and other @ua#ities
creates the wor#d= The Sankhyas may say, JBe do not mention that our $radhana
is without .arts= $radhana is on#y a state of e@ui.oise of the three :unas, Sattva,
Ra0as and Tamas= $radhana forms a who#e containin< the three :unas as its .arts=
Be re.#y that such a .artiteness does not remove the ob0ection in hand since
Sattva, Ra0as and Tamas are each of them e@ua##y im.artite=
Each :una by itse#f assisted by the two other :unas, constitutes the materia#
cause of that .art of the wor#d which resemb#es it in its nature= %ence, the
ob0ection #ies a<ainst the Sankhya view #ikewise=
As reasonin< is a#ways unstab#e, if you are inc#ined to be#ieve in the
$radhanaIs bein< in fact ca.ab#e of .artition, then it fo##ows that the $radhana
cannot be eterna#=
Let it then be said that the various .owers of the $radhana to which the
variety of its effects are .ointin< are its .arts= Be##, we re.#y, those diverse
.otencies are admitted by us a#so as we see the cause of the wor#d in Brahman=
The same ob0ection a..#ies a#so to your atomic theory=
The same ob0ections can be #eve##ed a<ainst the doctrine of the wor#d havin<
ori<inated from atoms= The atom is not made u. of .arts= Bhen one atom
combines with another atom, it must enter into combination with its who#e e>tent
with another= It cannot enter into .artia# contact with another= There wi## be entire
inter.enetration= %ence, there cou#d be no further increase in the siGe= The
com.ound of two atoms wou#d not occu.y more s.ace than one atom= The resu#t
of the con0unction wou#d be a mere atom= But if you ho#d that the atom enters into
the combination with a .art on#y, that wou#d <o a<ainst the assum.tion of the
atoms havin< no .arts=
If the $radhana is taken to be the cause of the universe as the Sankhyas
maintain, in that case a#so the view of the Sankhyas wi## be e@ua##y sub0ect to the
ob0ections raised a<ainst the (edantic view of Brahman as the cause of the
universe, as the $radhana, too, is without .arts= As for the .ro.ounder of the
Brahman& theory, he has a#ready refuted the ob0ection directed a<ainst his own
view=
Sarvo.etadhikaranam 1 To.ic *8 +Sutras ,8&,*-
u##y&e@ui..ed Brahman
Sarvo.eta cha taddarsanat II=*=,8 +*53-
And +Brahman is- endowed with a## +.owers-, because it is seen
+from the scri.tures-=
Sarvo.eta1 endowed with a## .owers, a##&.owerfu#C !ha1 a#so, andC
Taddarsanat1 because it is seen +from the scri.tures-=
+Sarva1 a##C ?.eta1 endowed with, .ossessed withC Tat1 that, the .ossession
of such .owers=-
The ob0ection in Sutra 25 is further refuted=
Brahman is Omni.otent as is c#ear from the scri.tures= %ence it is .erfect#y
within %is .owers to manifest %imse#f as the wor#d and to be at the same time
beyond it=
The ob0ector +$urva.akshin- says1 Be see that men who have a .hysica#
body are endowed with .owers= But Brahman has no body= %ence %e cannot be in
the .ossesssion of such .owers=
This has no force= This Sutra <ives .roof of Brahman bein< endowed with
'aya Sakti= (arious scri.tura# te>ts dec#are that Brahman .ossesses a## .owers=
J%e to whom a## actions, desires, a## odours, a## tastes be#on<, he who embraces a##
this, who never s.eaks, and is never sur.risedJ +!hh= ?.= III=*3=3-= J%e who
desires what is true and ima<ines what is trueJ +!hh= ?.= (III=7=*-= J%e who
knows a## in its tota#ity and co<nises a## in its detai#sJ +'un= ?.= I=*=6-= JBy the
command of that Im.erishab#e, O :ar<i, sun and moon stand a.artJ +Bri= ?.=
III=9=6-= JThe <reat Lord is the 'ayin +the Ru#er of 'aya-J +Svet= ?.= I(=*8- and
other simi#ar .assa<es=
(ikaranatvanneti chet taduktam II=*=,* +*54-
If it be said that because +Brahman- is devoid of or<ans, +it is-
not +ab#e to create-, +we re.#y that- this has a#ready been
e>.#ained=
(ikaranatvat1 because of want of or<ans of action and .erce.tionC "a1
notC Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC Tat1 that, that ob0ectionC ?ktam1 has been e>.#ained or
answered=
Another ob0ection to Brahman bein< the cause of the wor#d is refuted=
The o..onent says1 JBrahman is destitute of or<ans= %ence, thou<h %e is a##.owerfu#,
%e cannot create= Scri.ture dec#ares, J%e is without eyes, without ears,
without s.eech, without mindJ +Bri= ?.= III=9=9-= urther Srutis say, J"ot this, "ot
this=J This .rec#udes a## attributes= Be know from 'antras and Arthavadas, etc=,
that the <ods and other inte##i<ent bein<s, thou<h endowed with a## .owers, are
ab#e to create because they are furnished with bodi#y instruments of action=
The Sutra consists of an ob0ection and its re.#y= The ob0ection .ortion is
H(ikaranatvanneti chetI and the re.#y .ortion is HTaduktam=I
Even thou<h Brahman has no eyes or ears, or hands or feet, %e is
Omni.otent= That has been e>.#ained above in Sutras II=*=3 and II=*=24= %e
assumes different forms throu<h Avidya or 'aya= Bith res.ect to Brahman, the
scri.ture a#one is the authority, but not reason= The scri.ture dec#ares that
Brahman, thou<h destitute of or<ans, .ossesses a## ca.acities and .owers,
J:ras.s without hands, moves swift#y without feet, sees without eyes and hears
without earsJ +Svet= ?.= III=*6-= Thou<h Brahman is devoid of a## attributes, yet
%e is endowed with a## .owers throu<h Avidya or 'aya=
$rayo0anatvadhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutras ,2&,,-
ina# end of !reation
"a .rayo0anavattvat II=*=,2 +*55-
+Brahman is- not +the creator of the universe- on account of
+every activity- havin< a motive=
"a1 not +i=e= Brahman cannot be the creator-C $rayo0ana& vattvat1 on
account of havin< motive=
Another ob0ection to Brahman bein< the cause of the wor#d is raised=
The ob0ector says1 JIn this wor#d, everybody does a work with some motive=
%e does any work to satisfy his desire= There is a#so a scri.tura# .assa<e that
confirms this resu#t of common e>.erience, H(eri#y, everythin< is not dear that you
may #ove everythin<, but that you may #ove the Se#f, therefore everythin< is dearI
+Bri= ?.= II=3=4-= But Brahman is a##&fu##, se#f&sufficient and se#f&contained= %e has
nothin< to <ain by the creation= Therefore %e cannot en<a<e %imse#f in such a
use#ess creation= %ence, Brahman cannot be the cause of the universe=J
The undertakin< of creatin< this wor#d with a## its detai#s is indeed a wei<hty
one= If Brahman desires creation to fu#fi# a wish, then %e cannot be an eterna##y
ha..y, .erfect bein< with no unfu#fi##ed desires= If %e has no desire, then %e wi##
not wish to create and so there wi## be no creation= It cannot be said that %e
creates without .ur.ose, #ike a sense#ess man in a state of frenGy= That wou#d
certain#y contradict %is Omniscience=
%ence the doctrine of the creation .roceedin< from an inte##i<ent Bein<
+Brahman- is untenab#e=
Lokavattu #i#akaiva#yam II=*=,, +*57-
But +BrahmanIs creative activity- is mere s.ort, such as is seen
in the wor#d +or ordinary #ife-=
Lokavat1 as in the wor#d, as in ordinary #ifeC Tu1 butC Li#akaiva#yam1 mere
.astime=
+Li#a1 s.ort, .#ayC ;aiva#yam1 mere#yC Li#amatram1 mere .astime=-
The ob0ection raised in Sutra ,2 is re.#ied to=
The word HtuI +but- removes the above obe0ction=
Brahman has created the wor#d not out of any desire or motive= It is sim.#y
%is .astime, .roceedin< from %is own nature, which is inherent in and inse.arab#e
from %im, as it is seen a#so in the wor#d that sometimes a rich man or a .rince,
does some action without any motive or .ur.ose, sim.#y out of a s.ortive im.u#se=
/ust as chi#dren .#ay out of mere fun, or 0ust as men breathe without any motive
or .ur.ose, because it is their very nature, 0ust as a man fu## of cheerfu#ness when
awakenin< from sound s#ee., be<ins to dance about without any ob0ective, but
from mere e>uberance of s.irit, so a#so Brahman en<a<es %imse#f in creatin< this
wor#d not out of any .ur.ose or motive, but out of s.ortin< or Li#a or .#ay
.roceedin< from %is own nature=
A#thou<h the creation of this universe a..ears to us a wei<hty and difficu#t
undertakin<, it is mere .#ay to the Lord, whose .ower is infinite or #imit#ess=
If in ordinary #ife we may .ossib#y by c#ose scrutiny detect some subt#e motive
even for s.ortfu# action +.#ayin< at a <ame of ba##s is not a#to<ether motive#ess,
because the .rince <ets some .#easure by the .#ay-, we cannot do so with re<ard
to the actions of the Lord= The scri.ture dec#ares that a## wishes are fu#fi##ed in the
Lord and that %e is a##&fu##, se#f&contained and se#f&sufficient=
It shou#d not be for<otten however that there is no creation from the
stand.oint of the Abso#ute, because name and form are due to Avidya or
i<norance and because Brahman and Atman are rea##y one=
The o..onent a<ain raises an ob0ection= The theory that Brahman is the
creator is o.en to the ob0ection that %e is either .artia# or crue#, because some
men en0oy ha..iness and others suffer misery= %ence this theory is not a
con<ruous one= This ob0ection is removed by the fo##owin< Sutra=
(aisamyanair<hrinyadhikaranam1 To.ic *2 +Sutras ,3&,5-
Brahman is neither .artia# nor crue#
(aishamyanair<hrinye na sa.ekshatvat tatha hi darsayati II=*=,3 +*59-
$artia#ity and crue#ty cannot +be ascribed to Brahman- on account
of %is takin< into consideration +other reasons in that matter viG=,
merit and demerit of the sou#s-, for so +scri.ture- dec#ares=
(aishamya1 ine@ua#ity, .artia#ityC "air<hrinye1 crue#ty, unkindnessC "a1
not +cannot be ascribed to Brahman-C Sa.ekshatvat1 because of de.endence
u.on, as it is de.endent on somethin< e#se, i=e=, u.on the ;arma of the sou#sC
Tatha1 soC %i1 becauseC Darsayati1 the scri.ture dec#ares=
The accusation that Brahman is .artia# and crue# in %is creation of the wor#d
is removed=
Some are created .oor, some rich= Therefore Brahman or the Lord is .artia#
to some= %e makes .eo.#e suffer= Therefore %e is crue#= or these two reasons
Brahman cannot be the cause of the wor#d= This ob0ection is untenab#e= The Lord
cannot be accused of ine@ua#ity and crue#ty, because en0oyment and sufferin< of
the individua# sou# are determined by his own .revious <ood and bad actions= Sruti
a#so dec#ares= JA man becomes virtuous by his virtuous deeds and sinfu# by his
sinfu# acts & $unyo vai .unyena karmana bhavati, .a.ah .a.enaJ +Bri= ?.=
III=2=*,-=
The <race of the Lord is #ike rain which brin<s the .otency of each seed to
manifest itse#f accordin< to its nature= The variety of .ain and .#easure is due to
variety of ;arma=
The .osition of the Lord is to be re<arded as simi#ar to that of $ar0anya, the
<iver of rain= $ar0anya is the common cause of the .roduction of rice, bar#ey and
other .#ants= The difference between the various s.ecies is due to the diverse
.otentia#ities #yin< hidden in the res.ective seeds= Even so, the Lord is the
common cause of the creation of <ods, men, etc= The differences between these
c#asses of bein<s are due to the different merit be#on<in< to the individua# sou#s=
Scri.ture a#so dec#ares, JThe Lord makes him whom %e wishes to #ead u.
from these wor#ds do a <ood action= The Lord makes %im whom %e wishes to #ead
down do a bad actionJ +;au= ?.= III=9-= JA man becomes <ood by <ood work, bad
by bad workJ +Bri= ?.= III=2=*,-= Smriti a#so dec#ares that the Lord metes out
rewards and .unishments on#y in consideration of the s.ecific actions of bein<s= HI
serve men in the way in which they a..roach 'e=I +Bha<avad :ita I(=**-=
"a karmavibha<aditi chet na anaditvat II=*=,4 +*56-
If it be ob0ected that it +viG=, the LordIs havin< re<ard to
merit and demerit- is not .ossib#e on account of the non&distinction
+of merit and demerit before creation-, +we say- no, because of +the
wor#d- bein< without a be<innin<=
"a1 notC ;armavibha<at1 because of the non&distinction of work +before
creation-C Iti chet1 if it be said, if it be ob0ected in this wayC "a1 no, the ob0ection
cannot standC Anaditvat1 because of be<innin<#essness=
An ob0ection a<ainst Sutra ,3 is raised and refuted=
The Sutra consists of two .arts, viG=, an ob0ection and its re.#y= The ob0ective
.ortion is H"a karmavibha<aditi chetI and the re.#y .ortion is H"a anaditvatI=
An ob0ection is raised now= The Sruti says, JBein< on#y this was in the
be<innin<, one without a second=J There was no distinction of works before
creation of the wor#d= There was on#y the abso#ute#y One Rea# Bein< or Brahman=
The creation at the be<innin< of one man as rich and of another as .oor and
unha..y cannot certain#y de.end on the res.ective .revious <ood or bad deeds=
The first creation must have been free from ine@ua#ities=
This ob0ection cannot stand= The creation of the wor#d is a#so without a
be<innin<= There was never a time that may be said to be an abso#ute be<innin<=
The @uestion of first creation cannot arise= !reation and destruction of the wor#d
fo##owin< each other continua##y by rotation is without any be<innin< and end= The
condition of individua# sou#s in any .articu#ar cyc#e of creation is .redetermined by
their actions in the .revious cyc#e=
It cannot be said that there cou#d be no ;arma .rior to creation, which
causes the diversity of creation, because ;arma is Anadi +be<innin<#ess-= !reation
is on#y the shoot from a .re&e>istin< seed of ;arma=
As the wor#d is without a be<innin<, merit and ine@ua#ity are #ike seed and
s.rout= There is an unendin< chain of the re#ation of cause and effect as in the
case of the seed and the s.rout= Therefore, there is no contradiction .resent in the
LordIs creative activity=
?.a.adyate cha.yu.a#abhyate cha II=*=,5 +*78-
And +that the wor#d & and a#so ;arma & is without a be<innin<- is
reasonab#e and is a#so seen +from the scri.tures-=
?.a.adyate1 is .roved by reasonin<, is reasonab#e that it shou#d be soC
!ha1 andC A.i1 and, a#so, assured#yC ?.a#abhyate1 is seen, is found in Sruti or
Scri.turesC !ha1 a#so, and=
;arma is Anadi +be<innin<#ess-= This is #o<ica# and is su..orted by scri.ture=
By reasonin< a#so it can be deduced that the wor#d must be be<innin<#ess=
Because, if the wor#d did not e>ist in a .otentia# or seed state, then an abso#ute#y
non&e>istin< thin< wou#d be .roduced durin< creation= There is a#so the .ossibi#ity
of #iberated .ersons bein< reborn a<ain= urther, .eo.#e wou#d be en0oyin< and
sufferin< without havin< done anythin< to deserve it= As there wou#d e>ist no
determinin< cause of the une@ua# dis.ensation of .#easure and .ain, we shou#d
have to submit or assert to the doctrine of rewards and .unishments bein<
a##otted without reference to .revious virtues and vicious deeds= There wi## be
effect without a cause= This is certain#y absurd= Bhen we assume effect without a
cause, there cou#d be no #aw at a## with reference to the .ur.ose or re<u#arity of
creation= The Sruti dec#ares that creation is HAnadiI +be<innin<#ess-=
'oreover, mere Avidya +i<norance- which is homo<eneous +Ekaru.a-, cannot
cause the hetero<eneity of creation= It is Avidya diversified by (asanas due to
;arma that can have such a resu#t= Avidya needs the diversity of individua# .ast
work to .roduce varied resu#ts= Avidya may be the cause of ine@ua#ity if it be
considered as havin< re<ard to demerit accruin< from action .roduced by the
menta# su..ression of wrath, hatred and other aff#ictin< .assions=
The scri.tures a#so .osit the e>istence of the universe in former cyc#es or
;a#.as in te>ts #ike, JThe creator fashioned the sun and the moon as beforeJ +Ri<
(eda Samhita, K&*68&,-= %ence .artia#ity and crue#ty cannot be ascribed to the
Lord=
Sarvadharmo.a.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic *, +Sutra ,7-
Sa<una Brahman necessary for creation
Sarvadharmo.a.attescha II=*=,7 +*7*-
And because a## the @ua#ities +re@uired for the creation of the
wor#d- are reasonab#y found +on#y in Brahman- %e must be admitted to
be the cause of the universe=
Sarva1 a##C Dharma1 attributes, @ua#itiesC ?.a.atteh1 because of the
reasonab#eness, because of bein< .rovedC !ha1 and, a#so=
Another reason to .rove that Brahman is the cause of the wor#d is brou<ht
forward=
The ob0ector says1 'ateria# cause under<oes modification as the effect= Such
a cause is endowed with the attributes= Brahman cannot be the materia# cause of
the universe as %e is attribute#ess= This Sutra <ives a suitab#e answer to this
ob0ection=
There is no rea# chan<e in Brahman but there is an a..arent modification in
Brahman on account of %is inscrutab#e .ower of 'aya=
Brahman a..ears as this universe, 0ust as ro.e a..ears as snake= A## the
attributes needed in the cause for the creation +such as Omni.otence,
Omniscience- are .ossib#e in Brahman on account of the .ower of 'aya= %ence,
Brahman is the materia# cause of this universe throu<h a..arent chan<e= %e is
a#so the efficient cause of this universe=
Therefore it is estab#ished that Brahman is the cause of the universe= The
(edantic system founded u.on the ?.anishads is not o.en to any ob0ection= Thus
it fo##ows that the who#e creation .roceeds from $ara Brahman=
In the (edantic theory as hitherto demonstrated, viG=, that Brahman is the
materia# and the efficient cause of the wor#d & the ob0ection a##e<ed by our
o..onents such as difference of character and the #ike have been refuted by the
<reat Teacher= %e brin<s to a conc#usion the section .rinci.a##y devoted to
stren<then his own theory= The chief aim of the ne>t cha.ter wi## be to refute the
o.inions he#d by other teachers=
Thus ends the irst $ada +Section *- of the Second Adhyaya +!ha.ter II- of
the Brahma Sutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
SE!TIO" 2
Introduction
In the irst Section of the Second !ha.ter BrahmanIs creatorshi. of the wor#d
has been estab#ished on the authority of the scri.tures su..orted by #o<ic= A##
ar<uments a<ainst Brahman bein< the cause of the universe have been refuted=
In the .resent Section the Sutrakara or the framer of the Sutras e>amines
the theories of creation advanced by other schoo#s of thou<ht in vo<ue in his time=
A## the doctrines of the other schoo#s are taken u. for refutation throu<h reasonin<
a#one without reference to the authority of the (edas= %ere he refutes by
reasonin< the 'atter theory or the $radhana theory of the Sankhya .hi#oso.hy,
the Atom theory of the (aiseshika .hi#oso.hy, the momentary and the "ihi#istic
view of the Buddhists, the /ain theory of simu#taneous e>istence and none>istence,
the $asu.ata theory of coordinate dua#ity and theory of ener<y unaided
by inte##i<ence=
It has been shown in the #ast Sutra of the irst Section of the Second !ha.ter
that Brahman is endowed with a## the attributes throu<h 'aya, such as
Omni.otence, Omniscience, etc=, for @ua#ifyin< %im to be the cause of the wor#d=
"ow in Section 2 the @uestion is taken u. whether the $radhana of the
Sankhya .hi#oso.hy can satisfy a## those conditions=
Syno.sis
I
To .ut a## thin<s concise#y in a nutshe##, Sri (yasa Bha<avan refutes in this
section a## the doctrines or theories .reva#ent in his time and inconsistent with the
(edanta theoryC viG=, +*- The Sankhya theory of the $radhana as the first cause=
+2- Refutation of the ob0ection from the (aiseshika stand .oint a<ainst the
Brahman bein< the irst !ause= +,- Refutation of the Atomic theory of the
(aiseshikas= +3- Refutation of the Bauddha Idea#ists and "ihi#ists= +4- Refutation of
the Bauddha Rea#ists= +5- Refutation of the /ainas= +7- Refutation of the $asu.ata
doctrine, that :od is on#y the efficient and not the materia# cause of the wor#d= +9-
Refutation of the $ancharatra or the Bha<avata doctrine that the sou# ori<inates
from the Lord, etc=
In the irst Section of the Second !ha.ter BrahmanIs authorshi. of the wor#d
has been estab#ished on the authority of the scri.tures su..orted by #o<ic= The
task of the Second $ada or Section is to refute by ar<uments inde.endent of (edic
.assa<es the more im.ortant .hi#oso.hica# theories concernin< the ori<in of the
universe which are contrary to the (edantic view=
Adhikarana I1 +Sutras *&*8- is directed a<ainst the Sankhyas= It aims at
.rovin< that a non&inte##i<ent first cause such as the $radhana of the Sankhyas is
unab#e to create and dis.ose=
Adhikaranas II and III1 +Sutras **&*7- refute the (aiseshika doctrine that the
wor#d takes its ori<in from the atoms which are set in motion by the Adrishta=
Adhikaranas I( and (1 are directed a<ainst various schoo#s of Buddhistic
.hi#oso.hy=
Adhikarana I(1 +Sutras *9&27- refutes the view of Buddhistic Rea#ists who
maintain the rea#ity of an e>terna# as we## as an interna# wor#d=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutras 29&,2- refutes the view of the (i0nanavadins or
Buddhistic Idea#ists, accordin< to whom Ideas are the on#y rea#ity= The #ast Sutra
of the Adhikarana refutes the view of the 'adhyamikas or Sunyavadins +"ihi#ists-
who teach that everythin< is void, i=e=, that nothin< whatsoever is rea#=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutras ,,&,5- refutes the doctrine of the /ainas=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutras ,7&3*- refutes the $asu.ata schoo# which teaches
that the Lord is not the materia# but on#y the efficient or o.erative cause of the
wor#d=
Adhikarana (III1 +Sutras 32&34- refutes the doctrine of the Bha<avatas or
$ancharatras=
II
In Sutras * to *8 the .rinci.#e of Sankhya .hi#oso.hy is further refuted by
reasonin<= $radhana or b#ind matter is inert= It is insentient or non&inte##i<ent=
There is methodica# arran<ement in the causation of this wor#d= %ence it is not
reasonab#e to su..ose that b#ind matter can have any inc#ination for the creation
of the wor#d without the he#. of inte##i<ence=
The Sankhya says that the inert $radhana may become active of its own
accord and s.ontaneous#y .ass into the state of the wor#d and under<o
modification into inte##ect, e<oism, mind, Tanmatras, etc=, 0ust as water f#ows in
rivers s.ontaneous#y, rain from the c#ouds, or mi#k from the udder to the ca#f= This
ar<ument of the Sankhya is untenab#e, because the f#owin< of water or mi#k is
directed by the inte##i<ence of the Su.reme Lord=
Accordin< to the Sankhyas, there is no e>terna# a<ent to ur<e $radhana into
activity or restrainin< from activity= $radhana can work @uite inde.endent#y= Their
$urusha is a#ways inactive and indifferent= %e is not an a<ent= %ence the
contention that $radhana in .resence of $urusha or S.irit ac@uires a tendency
towards action or creation cannot stand=
The Sankhya ar<ues that $radhana is by itse#f turned into the visib#e wor#d,
0ust as <rass eaten by a cow is itse#f turned into mi#k= This ar<ument is <round#ess
as no such transformation is found on the .art of the <rass eaten by the bu##=
%ence, a#so, it is the wi## of the Su.reme Lord that brin<s about the chan<e, not
because the cow has eaten it= Therefore $radhana by itse#f cannot be said to be
the cause of the wor#d=
The Sankhya says that $urusha can direct the $radhana or ins.ire activity in
$radhana thou<h %e has no activity, 0ust as a #ame man can move by sittin< on
the shou#ders of a b#ind man and direct his movements= The inde.endent and
b#ind $radhana, in con0unction with the .assive but inte##i<ent $urusha, ori<inates
the wor#d= This ar<ument a#so is untenab#e because the .erfect inactivity and
indifference of $urusha and the abso#ute inde.endence of $radhana cannot be
reconci#ed with each other=
The $radhana consists of three :unas, viG=, Sattva, Ra0as and Tamas= They
are in a state of e@ui.oise before creation= "o :una is su.erior or inferior to the
other= The $urusha is a#to<ether indifferent= %e has no interest in brin<in< about
the disturbance of e@ui#ibrium of the $radhana= !reation starts when the e@ui.oise
is u.set and one :una becomes more .redominant than the other two= As there
was in the be<innin< of creation no cause for the disturbance of the state of
e@ui.oise, it was not .ossib#e for $radhana to be transformed into the wor#d=
Sutras ** to *7 refute the Atomic theory of the (aiseshika .hi#oso.hy where
the indivisib#e minute atoms are stated to be the cause of the wor#d= If an atom
has any .arts of an a..reciab#e ma<nitude, then it cannot be an atom= Then it can
be further divisib#e= If they are without .arts of any a..reciab#e ma<nitude, as
they are so described in (aiseshika .hi#oso.hy, it is not .ossib#e for such two
.art#ess atoms to .roduce by their union a substance havin< any ma<nitude=
%ence com.ound substances can never be formed by the combination of atoms=
Therefore the (aiseshika theory of ori<ination of the wor#d from indivisib#e atoms
is untenab#e=
The inanimate atoms can have no tendency of themse#ves to unite to<ether
and cohere so as to form com.ounds= (aiseshikas ho#d that the motion which is
due to the unseen .rinci.#e +Adrishta-, 0oins the atoms in which it resides to
another atom= Adrishta is a #atent force of the sum tota# of .revious deeds which
waits to bear fruit in the future= Thus the who#e wor#d ori<inates from atoms=
As Adrishta is insentient it cannot act= It cannot reside in the atoms= It must
inhere in the sou#= If the #atent force or Adrishta be an inherent .ro.erty of atoms,
the atoms wi## a#ways remain united= %ence there wi## be no disso#ution and no
chance for fresh creation=
If the two atoms unite tota##y or .erfect#y the atomic state wi## continue as
there wi## be no increase in bu#k= If in .art, then atoms wi## have .arts= This is
a<ainst the theory of the (aiseshikas= %ence, the theory of the (aiseshikas that
the wor#d is caused by combination of atoms is untenab#e=
The atomic theory invo#ves another difficu#ty= If the atoms are by nature
active, then creation wou#d be .ermanent= "o $ra#aya or disso#ution cou#d take
.#ace= If they are by nature inactive, no creation cou#d take .#ace= The disso#ution
wou#d be .ermanent= or this reason a#so, the atomic doctrine is untenab#e=
Accordin< to the (aiseshika .hi#oso.hy, the atoms are said to have co#our
etc= That which has form, co#our etc=, is <ross, and im.ermanent= !onse@uent#y,
the atoms must be <ross and im.ermanent= This contradicts the theory of the
(aiseshikas that they are minute and .ermanent=
If the res.ective atoms of the e#ements a#so .ossess the same number of
@ua#ities as the <ross e#ements, then the atom of air wi## have one @ua#ity, an
atom of earth wi## have four @ua#ities= %ence an atom of earth which .ossesses
four @ua#ities wi## be bi<<er in siGe= It wou#d not be an atom any #on<er= %ence the
Atom theory of the (aiseshikas on the causation of the wor#d does not stand to
reason in any way= This Atom theory is not acce.ted by the (edas=
Sutras *9 to ,2 refute the Buddhistic theory of momentarism and "ihi#ism
+Sunyavada-= The (aiseshikas are the Rea#ists +Sarvastitvavadins-= They acce.t
the rea#ity of both the outside wor#d and the inside wor#d consistin< res.ective#y of
e>terna# ob0ects and consciousness and fee#in<s= The Sautrantikas are the idea#ists
+(i0nanavadins-= They ho#d that thou<ht a#one is rea#= They maintain that ideas
on#y e>ist and the e>terna# ob0ects are inferred from the ideas= The )o<acharas
ho#d that ideas a#one are rea# and there is no e>terna# wor#d corres.ondin< to
these ideas= The e>terna# ob0ects are unrea# #ike dreamy ob0ects= The 'adhymikas
maintain that even the ideas themse#ves are unrea# and there is nothin< that
e>ists e>ce.t the void +Sunyam-= They are the "ihi#ists or Sunyavadins who ho#d
that everythin< is void and unrea#= A## of them a<ree that everythin< is
momentary= Thin<s of the .revious moment do not e>ist in the ne>t moment=
Accordin< to the Buddhists, atoms and consciousness are both inanimate=
There is no .ermanent inte##i<ence which can brin< about the a<<re<ation or which
can <uide the atoms to unite into an e>terna# thin< or to form a continuous menta#
.henomena= %ence the doctrine of this schoo# of Bauddhas is untenab#e=
"escience etc=, stand in a causa# re#ation to each other mere#y= They cannot
be made to account for the e>istence of the a<<re<ates= Accordin< to the
Buddhistic theory, everythin< is momentary= A thin< of the .resent moment
vanishes in the ne>t moment, when its successor manifests= At the time of the
a..earance of a subse@uent thin<, the .revious thin< a#ready vanishes= %ence it is
im.ossib#e for the .revious thin< to be the cause of the subse@uent thin<=
!onse@uent#y the theory is untenab#e=
The Buddhists maintain that e>istence ori<inates from none>istence because
they ho#d that the effect cannot manifest without the destruction of the cause, the
tree cannot a..ear unti# the seed is destroyed= Be a#ways .erceive that the cause
subsists in the effect as the thread subsists in the c#oth= %ence the Buddhistic view
is incorrect, unreasonab#e and inadmissib#e=
Even the .assin< of cause into effect in a series of successive states #ike
nescience, etc=, cannot take .#ace un#ess there is a coordinatin< inte##i<ence= The
Buddhists say that everythin< has on#y a momentary e>istence= Their schoo#
cannot brin< about the simu#taneous e>istence of two successive moments= If the
cause e>ists ti## it .asses into the sta<e of effect, the theory of momentary
e>istence +;shanikavada- wi## vanish=
Accordin< to the Buddhistic view, sa#vation or freedom is attained when
i<norance is destroyed= I<norance is the fa#se idea of .ermanency in thin<s which
are momentary=
The i<norance can be annihi#ated by the ado.tion of some means such as
.enance, know#ed<e, etc=, +conscious destruction-, or it may destroy itse#f
+s.ontaneity-= But both the a#ternatives are defective= Because this annihi#ation of
i<norance cannot be attained by the ado.tion of .enance or the #ike, because the
means #ike every other thin< is a#so momentary accordin< to the Buddhistic view
and is therefore, not #ike#y to .roduce such annihi#ation= Annihi#ation cannot take
.#ace of its own accord, for in that case a## Buddhistic instructions, the disci.#ines
and methods of meditation for the attainment of sa#vation wi## be use#ess=
The Buddhists do not reco<nise the e>istence of Akasa= They re<ard Akasa as
a non&entity= This is unreasonab#e= Akasa has the @ua#ity of sound= It is a#so a
distinct entity #ike earth, water, etc= If Akasa be a non&entity, then the entire
wor#d wou#d become destitute of s.ace= Scri.tura# .assa<es dec#are JAkasa s.ran<
from Atman=J %ence Akasa is a rea# thin<= It is a (astu +e>istin< ob0ect- and not
non&e>istence=
If everythin< is momentary the e>.eriencer of somethin< must a#so be
momentary= But the e>.eriencer is not momentary because .eo.#e have the
memory of .ast e>.eriences= 'emory can take .#ace in a man who has .revious#y
e>.erienced it= %e is connected with at #east two moments= This certain#y refutes
the theory of momentariness=
A non&entity has not been observed to .roduce entity= Therefore it does not
stand to reason to su..ose non&entity to be the cause= The wor#d which is a rea#ity
is stated by the Buddhists to have arisen out of non&entity= This is absurd= A .ot is
never found to be .roduced without c#ay= If e>istence can come out of none>istence,
then anythin< may come out of anythin<, because non&entity is one
and the same in a## cases= A 0ack tree may come out of a man<o seed= If an
e>istin< thin< can arise out of nothin<, then an indifferent and #aGy man may a#so
attain sa#vation without efforts= Emanci.ation may be attained #ike a windfa##= Rice
wi## <row even if the farmer does not cu#tivate his fie#d=
The (i0nanavadins say that the e>terna# thin<s have no ob0ective rea#ity=
Everythin< is an idea without any rea#ity corres.ondin< to it= This is not correct=
The e>terna# ob0ects are actua##y .erceived by senses of .erce.tion= The e>terna#
wor#d cannot be non&e>istent #ike the horns of a hare=
The Buddhist Idea#ists say that .erce.tion of the e>terna# wor#d is #ike the
dream= This is wron<= The consciousness in dream de.ends on the .revious
consciousness in the wakefu# state, but the consciousness in the wakefu# state
does not de.end on anythin< e#se but on the actua# .erce.tion by the sense=
urther, the dream e>.eriences become fa#se as soon as one wakes u.=
The Buddhist Idea#ists ho#d that thou<h an e>terna# thin< does not actua##y
e>ist, yet its im.ressions do e>ist, and from these im.ressions diversities of
.erce.tion and ideas #ike chair, tree arise= This is not .ossib#e, as there can be no
.erce.tion of an e>terna# thin< which is itse#f non&e>istent= If there be no
.erce.tion of an e>terna# thin<, how can it #eave an im.ressionL
The menta# im.ressions cannot e>ist because the e<o which receives
im.ressions is itse#f momentary in their view=
The Sunyavada or "ihi#ism of the Buddhists which asserts that nothin< e>ists
is fa##acious, because it <oes a<ainst every method of .roof, viG=, .erce.tion,
inference, testimony or scri.ture and ana#o<y=
Sutras ,, to ,5 refute the /aina theory= Accordin< to the /aina theory,
everythin< is at once e>istin< and non&e>istin<= "ow this view cannot be acce.ted,
because in one substance it is not .ossib#e that contradictory @ua#ities shou#d e>ist
simu#taneous#y= "o one ever sees the same ob0ect to be hot and co#d at the same
time= Simu#taneous e>istence of #i<ht and darkness in one .#ace is im.ossib#e=
Accordin< to the /aina doctrine heaven and #iberation may e>ist or may not
e>ist= Be cannot arrive at any definite know#ed<e= There is no certainty about
anythin<=
The /ainas ho#d that the sou# is of the siGe of the body= As the bodies of
different c#asses of creatures are of different siGes, the sou# of a man takin< the
body of an e#e.hant on account of his .ast deeds wi## not be ab#e to fi## u. the
body of an e#e.hant= The sou# of an e#e.hant wi## not have sufficient s.ace in the
body of an ant= The stabi#ity of the dimensions of the sou# is im.aired= The /aina
theory itse#f fa##s to the <round=
Sutras ,7 to 3* refute the theory of the fo##owers of the $asu.ata system=
The fo##owers of this schoo# reco<nise :od as the efficient or the o.erative cause=
They reco<nise the .rimordia# matter as the materia# cause of the wor#d= This view
is contrary to the view of the Sruti or (edanta where Brahman is stated to be both
the efficient and the materia# cause of the wor#d= %ence, the theory of $asu.atas
cannot be acce.ted=
:od, in their view, is .ure, without attributes, and activity= %ence there can
be no connection between %im and the inert .rimordia# matter= %e cannot ur<e
and re<u#ate matter to work= To say that :od becomes the efficient cause of the
wor#d by .uttin< on a body is a#so fa##acious because a## bodies are .erishab#e= :od
is eterna# accordin< to the $asu.atas, and so cannot have a .erishab#e body and
become de.endent on this .hysica# instrument=
If it be said that the Lord ru#es the $radhana, etc=, 0ust as the /iva ru#es the
senses which are a#so not .erceived, this cannot beC because the Lord a#so wou#d
e>.erience .#easure and .ain, hence wou#d forfeit %is :odhead= %e wou#d be
sub0ect to births and deaths, and devoid of Omniscience= %e wi## #ose a## %is
su.remacy= This sort of :od is not admitted by the $asu.atas=
Sutras 32 to 34 refute the doctrine of the Bha<avatas or the $ancharatra
doctrine= Accordin< to this schoo#, the Lord is the efficient as we## as the materia#
cause of the universe= This is in @uite a<reement with the Srutis= Another .art of
the system is o.en to ob0ection= The doctrine that Sankarshana or the /iva is born
of (aasudeva, $radyumna or mind from Sankarshana, Aniruddha or Ahamkara
from $radyumna is incorrect= Such creation is not .ossib#e= If there is such birth, if
the sou# be created it wou#d be sub0ect to destruction and hence there cou#d be no
#iberation=
The Bha<avatas may say that a## the (yuhas or forms are (aasudeva, the
Lord havin< inte##i<ence, Lordshi., stren<th, .ower, etc=, and are free from fau#ts
and im.erfections= In this case there wi## be more than one Isvara or Lord= This
<oes a<ainst their own doctrine accordin< to which there is on#y one rea# essence,
the ho#y (aasudeva= urther, there are a#so inconsistencies or manifo#d
contradictions in the system= There are .assa<es which are contradictory to the
(edas= It contains words of de.reciation of the (edas= %ence, the doctrine of the
Bha<avatas cannot be acce.ted=
Rachananu.a.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&*8-
Refutation of the Sankhyan theory of the $radhana as the cause of the wor#d
Rachananu.a.attescha nanumanam II=2=* +*72-
That which is inferred, +by the Sankhyas, viG=, the $radhana-
cannot be the cause +of the wor#d- because +in that case it is- not
.ossib#e +to account for the- desi<n or order#y arran<ement +found in
the creation-=
Rachana1 construction, the desi<n in creationC Anu.a.atteh1 on account of
the im.ossibi#ityC !ha1 andC "a1 notC Anumanam1 that which is inferred, what is
arrived at by inference, i=e=, the $radhana of the Sankhyas=
An ar<ument is brou<ht forward to the effect that the $radhana of the
Sankhyas is not the cause of the wor#d=
The main ob0ect of the (edanta Sutras is to show the .ur.ose of the
reve#ation of truth in the (edas= They aim a#so at refutin< the wron< doctrines in
the other systems of .hi#oso.hy= In the .revious .ortion the doctrine of the
Sankhyas has been refuted here and there on the authority of the scri.tures=
Sutras *&*8 refute it throu<h #o<ica# reasonin<=
$radhana or b#ind matter is inert= It is an insentient entity= It does not .ossess
the inte##i<ence that is needed for creatin< such a mu#tifarious, e#aborate,
wonderfu#, order#y, methodica# and we##&desi<ned universe as this= It cannot brin<
into bein< the manifo#d order#iness of the cosmos= "o one has ever seen a
beautifu# .a#ace constructed by the fortuitous comin< to<ether of bricks, mortar,
etc=, without the active coo.eration of inte##i<ent a<ents #ike the architects,
masons and the rest= %ence, $radhana cannot be the cause of this wor#d=
!#ay cannot chan<e itse#f into a .ot=
The reasonin< that $radhana is the cause of the wor#d because it has in it
.#easure, .ain, du##ness, which are found in the wor#d is not va#id, because it is not
.ossib#e for an insentient entity to create the wonderfu#, order#y universe=
'oreover, how do you say that .#easure and .ain and du##ness are found in the
outside wor#dL The e>terna# ob0ects are a factor in .#easure and .ain which are
interna# e>.eriences= 'oreover, there can be .#easure and .ain even irres.ective
of the e>terna# ob0ects= %ow can you ascribe them to an insentient entity
+Achetana-L
$hysica# ob0ects #ike f#owers, fruits, etc=, no doubt have the .resence in them
of the @ua#ity of .roducin< .#easure= But the fee#in< of .#easure is a#to<ether an
interna# fee#in<= Be cannot say that f#owers and fruits have the nature of .#easure
in them, thou<h they e>cite .#easure in man= $#easure is a#to<ether an attribute of
the sou# and not of matter or $radhana= %ence, matter or $radhana cannot be said
to have the @ua#ity of .#easure, etc=
$ravrittescha II=2=2 +*7,-
And on account of the +im.ossibi#ity of- activity=
$ravritteh1 because of the activity, of a tendencyC !ha1 and +it has the
force of Hon#yI here-=
This is an ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *=
$radhana +b#ind matter- cannot be the cause of the wor#d, because it is a#so
im.ossib#e for it to have an inc#ination for creation=
%ow does $radhana in a state of e@ui#ibrium of its three :unas become
dynamic and creativeL It cannot disturb its own e@ui.oise= The desire or tendency
to create cannot be ascribed to the inert $radhana= The inert chariot cannot move
by itse#f= It is on#y the inte##i<ent charioteer who moves the chariot by directin< the
movements of the horse= 'ud by itse#f is never seen to create a 0ar without the
a<ency of an inte##i<ent .otter= rom what is seen we determine what is not seen=
Be .roceed from the known to the unknown= %ow then do you .rove that
$radhana which is insentient is se#f&movin<L %ence the inert $radhana cannot be
the cause of the universe, because the activity that is necessary for the creation of
the universe wou#d be im.ossib#e in that case= There must be a directive
inte##i<ent Bein< or Entity for that .ur.ose=
The activity must be attributed to the directive inte##i<ence rather than to the
inert matter or $radhana= That which sets $radhana or matter in motion is the rea#
a<ent= Every activity is seen as the resu#t of an inte##i<ent a<ent= Inert matter or
$radhana therefore has no a<ency= 'atter or $radhana has no se#f&initiated
activity of its own=
The ob0ector may say JI do not see !hetana +sou#- active and that I see on#y
the activity of the body=J Be re.#y that there is no activity without the sou#=
%e may a<ain say that the sou#, bein< .ure consciousness, cannot have
activity= Be re.#y that the sou# can induce activity, thou<h not se#f&active, 0ust as
a #odestone or ma<net thou<h unmovin< can make iron move= A materia# ob0ect
thou<h fi>ed causes activity in our senses=
The ob0ector may a<ain say that as the sou# is one and infinite, there is no
.ossibi#ity of causation of activity= Be re.#y that it causes activity in the names
and forms created by 'aya owin< to Avidya=
%ence, motion can be reconci#ed with the doctrine of an inte##i<ent irst !ause
but not with the doctrine of a non&inte##i<ent first cause +$radhana of the
Sankhyas-=
$ayoImbuvaccet tatraI.i II=2=, +*73-
If it be said +that the $radhana moves or s.ontaneous#y modifies
herse#f into the various .roducts- #ike mi#k or water +without the
<uidance of any inte##i<ence-, +we re.#y that- there a#so +it is due
to inte##i<ence-=
$ayoImbuvat1 #ike mi#k and waterC !het1 ifC Tatra1 there, in those casesC
A.i1 even, a#so= +$ayah1 mi#kC Ambuvat1 #ike water=-
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
If the ob0ector says that there cou#d be se#f&activity of nature as in mi#k or
water, we re.#y that even then there is the o.eration of an inte##i<ent a<ent=
The Sankhya says that the inert $radhana may become active of its own
accord and under<o modification into inte##ect, e<oism, mind, Tanmatra, etc=, 0ust
as water f#ows in rivers s.ontaneous#y, rain from the c#ouds or mi#k from the udder
to the ca#f=
This is refuted by the #atter .art of Sutra HTatra A.iI, even there= Even the
f#owin< of water or mi#k is directed by the inte##i<ence of the Su.reme Lord= This
we infer from the e>am.#e of chariot, etc= Be may not see the inte##i<ent driver of
the chariot, but we infer his e>istence from the motion of the car=
The scri.tures a#so say, J%e who dwe##s in the water, who ru#es the water from
withinJ +Bri= ?.= III=7=3-= JBy the command of that Akshara, O :ar<iD some rivers
f#ow to the eastJ +Bri= ?.= III=9=6-= Everythin< in this wor#d is directed by the Lord=
urther the cow is an inte##i<ent creature= She #oves her ca#f, and makes her
mi#k f#ow by her wish= The mi#k is in addition drawn forth by the suckin< of the
ca#f= The f#ow of water de.ends on the downward s#o.in< of the earth=
(yatirekanavasthiteschana.ekshatvat II=2=3 +*74-
And because +the $radhana- is not de.endent +on anythin<-, there
bein< no e>terna# a<ent besides it +it cannot be active-=
(yatirekanavasthiteh1 There bein< no e>terna# a<ency besides itC !ha1
and a#soC Ana.ekshatvat1 because it is not de.endent= +(yatireka1 an e>terna#
a<entC Anavasthiteh1 from non&e>istence, as it does not e>ist=-
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
Accordin< to the Sankhyas, there is no e>terna# a<ent to ur<e $radhana into
activity, or restrain from activity= Their $urusha is indifferent, neither moves to,
nor restrains from, action= %e is not an a<ent= %e is unres.onsive to the first
stimu#us for startin< the .rocess of creation= %ence, there is no a<ency to disturb
the .rimordia# e@ui#ibrium= Therefore, the $radhana of the Sankhyas cannot be the
irst !ause of the wor#d=
The state in which the three :unas are in a state of e@ui.oise is ca##ed
$radhana by the Sankhyas= Accordin< to the Sankhyas, no contro##in< sentient
.ower o.erates on the $radhana= $urusha is static and @uiescent=
Therefore, $radhana may evo#ve in one way now and in another way
afterwards or may not evo#ve at a##, as it is not contro##ed by any directin< and
ru#in< Inte##i<ence= But the Su.reme Lord is Omniscient and Omni.otent= %e has
.erfect contro# over 'aya= %e can create or not create as %e .#eases=
The $radhana of the Sankhyas is inert, so it cannot of itse#f start to be activeC
or when it is set in motion it can hard#y sto. to be active of itse#f= %ence, the
Sankhyas cannot e>.#ain creation and disso#ution when there is no directin< or
ru#in< inte##i<ence= A## other .rinci.#es are on#y effects of the $radhana= Therefore,
they cannot e>ercise any inf#uence on it= %ence, the theory of the Sankhyas is se#fcontradictory=
Anyatrabhavaccha na trinadivat II=2=4 +*75-
And +it can- not +be said that the $radhana modifies itse#f
s.ontaneous#y- #ike <rass, etc=, +which turn into mi#k-, because of
its absence e#sewhere +than in the fema#e anima#s-=
Anyatra1 e#sewhere, in the other case, e#sewhere than in cowsC Abhavat1
because of the absenceC !ha1 and, a#soC "a1 notC Trinadivat1 #ike the <rass etc=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
The word HchaI & and, has the force of Hon#yI=
The ob0ector says that as <rass becomes mi#k, so $radhana may evo#ve into
the wor#d= But does <rass become mi#k of its own .owerL "o= If so, try to .roduce
mi#k from <rass= A cow a#one converts <rass into mi#k= Does a bu## do soL
The s.ontaneous modification of the $radhana is not .ossib#e= :rass is not
chan<ed into mi#k s.ontaneous#y= It is converted into mi#k on#y when eaten by
cows but not by the bu##s= %ere a#so it is the wi## of the Su.reme Lord that brin<s
about the chan<e, not because the cow has eaten it=
The i##ustration or ana#o<y is use#ess= It cannot stand= The ar<ument of the
Sankhyas is not sound= %ence, the $radhanaIs under<oin< modification of itse#f
cannot be acce.ted= The s.ontaneous modification of $radhana cannot be .roved
from the instances of <rass and the #ike=
Abhyu.a<ameI.yarthabhavat II=2=5 +*77-
Even if we admit +the Sankhya .osition with re<ard to the
s.ontaneous modification of the $radhana, it cannot be the cause of
the universe- because of the absence of any .ur.ose=
Abhyu.a<ame1 acce.tin<, admittin<, takin< for <rantedC A.i1 evenC Artha1
.ur.oseC Abhavat1 because of the absence=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
Even thou<h we admit for the sake of ar<ument that the $radhana is
s.ontaneous#y active, it wi## #ead to a contradiction in their .hi#oso.hy= If the
$radhana is s.ontaneous#y active, if it is ca.ab#e of an inherent tendency for
modification, motion or chan<e, its activity cannot have any .ur.ose= This wi##
contradict the view of the Sankhyas that the modification of the $radhana is for
the e>.erience or en0oyment +Bho<a- and re#ease of the sou# +'oksha-=
There is no en0oyment to be en0oyed by the ever&.erfect $urusha +or Sou#-= If
he cou#d en0oy, how cou#d he ever become free from en0oymentL %e is a#ready
free= %e is a#ready in a state of beatitude= As %e is .erfect, %e can have no desire=
The insentient $radhana cannot have a desire to evo#ve= So the satisfaction of
a desire cannot be considered as the .ur.ose of activity of the $radhana= If you
say that evo#ution must be .ostu#ated because creative .ower wou#d become
ino.erative otherwise, we re.#y that in that case creative .ower wi## be a#ways
o.erative and there cou#d be no attainment of freedom from it by the attainment
of beatitude=
It is, therefore, im.ossib#e to maintain that the $radhana becomes active for
the .ur.ose of the sou#= It cannot be the cause of the universe=
$urushasmavaditi chet tatha.i II=2=7 +*79-
If it be said +that the $urusha or Sou# can direct or move the
$radhana- as the +#ame- man can direct a b#ind man, or as the ma<net
+moves the iron-, even then +the difficu#ty cannot be overcome-=
$urusha1 a .erson= Asma1 a #odestone, a ma<netC (at1 #ikeC Iti1 thusC
!het1 ifC Tatha.i1 even then, sti##=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
The Sankhyas say that $urusha can direct the $radhana or ins.ire activity in
$radhana, thou<h %e has no activity, 0ust as a #ame man can move by sittin< on
the shou#ders of a b#ind man and direct his movements or 0ust as a ma<net
attracts iron= But these i##ustrations are not a.t= A #ame man s.eaks and directs
the b#ind man= The b#ind man, thou<h inca.ab#e of seein<, has the ca.acity of
understandin< those instructions <iven by the #ame man and actin< u.on them=
But $urusha is .erfect#y indifferent= %e has no kind of activity at a##= %ence, %e
cannot do that with re<ard to the $radhana=
'oreover, the #ame and the b#ind are both conscious entities and the iron and
the ma<net are both insentient matter= !onse@uent#y, the instances <iven are not
to the .oint= Accordin< to the Sankhyas the $radhana is inde.endent= %ence, it is
not ri<ht to say that it de.ends on the .ro>imity of the $urusha for its activity,
0ust as the iron de.ends on the ma<net for its motion= A ma<net attracts when the
iron is brou<ht near= The .ro>imity of the ma<net to the iron is not .ermanent= It
de.ends on a certain activity and the ad0ustment of the ma<net in a certain
.osition= But no one brin<s the $urusha near $radhana= If $urusha is a#ways near,
then creation wi## be eterna#= There wi## be no #iberation at a##=
The $urusha and the $radhana are a#to<ether se.arate and inde.endent=
$radhana is non&inte##i<ent, inert and inde.endent= $urusha is uninte##i<ent and
indifferent= "o one e#se +a third .rinci.#e- e>ists to brin< them to<ether= %ence
there can be no connection between them=
There cou#d be no creative activity at a## accordin< to the doctrine of the
Sankhyas= If there cou#d be such activity, there cou#d be no fina# re#ease as the
cause of creation cou#d never cease=
In (edanta Brahman which is the cause of the universe is indifferent but %e is
endowed with attributes and activity throu<h 'aya= %e is characterised by nonactivity
inherent in %is own nature and at the same time by movin< .ower
inherent in 'aya= So %e becomes the !reator= %e is indifferent by nature and
active by 'aya= %ence, %is creative .ower is we## e>.#ained= %e is su.erior to the
$urusha of the Sankhyas=
An<itvanu.a.attescha II=2=9 +*76-
And a<ain +the $radhana cannot be active- because the re#ation of
.rinci.a# +and subordinate matter- is im.ossib#e +between the three
:unas-=
An<itvanu.a.atteh1 on account of the im.ossibi#ity of the re#ation of
.rinci.a# +and subordinate-C !ha1 and, a#so= +An<itva1 the re#ation of bein< the
.rinci.a#, bein< .re.onderantC Anu.a& .atteh1 on account of the im.ossibi#ity
and unreasonab#eness-=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
The $radhana has been defined to be the e@ui#ibrium of the three :unas= The
$radhana consists of three :unas, viG=, Sattva, Ra0as and Tamas= Three :unas are
inde.endent of each other= They are in a state of e@ui.oise before creation= In the
state of $radhana no :una is su.erior or inferior to the other= Every one of them is
e@ua# to the other and conse@uent#y the re#ation of subordinate and .rinci.a# cou#d
not e>ist then= The $urusha is a#to<ether indifferent= %e has no interest in brin<in<
about the disturbance of e@ui#ibrium of the $radhana= !reation starts when the
e@ui.oise is u.set and one :una becomes more .redominant than the other two=
As there e>ists no e>traneous .rinci.#e to stir u. the :unas, the .roduction of the
:reat $rinci.#e and the other effects which wou#d re@uire for its o.erative cause a
non&ba#anced state of the :unas is im.ossib#e= E@ui.oise cannot be disturbed
without any e>terna# force= The :unas are abso#ute#y inde.endent when they are
in a state of e@ui#ibrium= They cannot take of themse#ves a subsidiary .osition to
another :una without #osin< their inde.endence= %ence, creation wou#d be
im.ossib#e=
This Sutra says that such .re.onderance is not .ossib#e= The Sankhyas cannot
e>.#ain why shou#d one :una .re.onderate over the other= %ence, on account of
the im.ossibi#ity of such .re.onderance of one over the other :unas, $radhana
cannot be acce.ted to be the cause of the wor#d=
Anyathanumitau cha 0nasaktiviyo<at II=2=6 +*98-
Even if it be inferred otherwise on account of the $radhana bein<
devoid of the .ower of inte##i<ence +the other ob0ections to the
$radhana bein< the cause of the universe remain in force-=
Anyatha1 otherwise, in other waysC Anumitau1 if it be inferred, in case of
inferenceC !ha1 even, andC /nasakti1 .ower of inte##i<enceC (iyo<at1 because of
bein< destitute of, because of dissociation=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is continued=
Even if the ob0ector .ostu#ates such .ower of modification as bein< inherent
in $radhana, the ina..ro.riateness wi## continue because of the insentiency or noninte##i<ence
of the $radhana=
The Sankhya says1 Be do not acknow#ed<e the :unas to be characterised by
abso#ute inde.endence, irre#ativity and unchan<eab#eness= Be infer the
characteristics of the :unas from those of their effects= Be .resume that their
nature must be such as to make the .roduction of the effects .ossib#e= The :unas
have some characteristics, different attributes and mysterious .owers inherent in
them #ike unstabi#ity= !onse@uent#y the :unas themse#ves are ab#e to enter into a
state of ine@ua#ity, even whi#e they are in a state of e@ui.oise= Even in that case
we re.#y, the ob0ections stated above which were founded on the im.ossibi#ity of
an order#y arran<ement of the wor#d, etc=, remain in force on account of the
$radhana bein< devoid of the .ower of inte##i<ence= As $radhana is insentient it
has not the .ower of se#f&consciousness= Bein< thus destitute of it, it has not the
idea of any .#an or desi<n= It cannot say as an inte##i<ent entity wou#d say, JLet
me create the wor#d in such and such a way=J A house can never be bui#t by mere
bricks and mortar without the su.ervision and active a<ency of the architect and
masons= Even so, creation never .roceeds from dead matter or $radhana= Bithout
the directive action of inte##i<ence, the :unas, however wonderfu# in their .owers
and attributes, cannot of themse#ves create the universe=
On account of #ack of inte##i<ence the ob0ections, founded on desi<n etc=, in
the universe and that it wou#d #ead to continuous creation, come in the way of
acce.tin< the $radhana as the cause of the universe +(ide Sutras *, 3 and 7-=
(i.ratishedhaccasaman0asam II=2=*8 +*9*-
And moreover +the Sankhya doctrine- is ob0ectionab#e on account
of its contradictions=
(i.ratishedhat1 because of contradictionC !ha1 a#so, andC Asaman0asam1
inconsistent, ob0ectionab#e, not harmonious, untenab#e=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is conc#uded=
urther, the Sankhya doctrine is inconsistent because there are various
contradictions in the Sankhya .hi#oso.hy= Sometimes the senses are said to be
e#even and a<ain they are said to be seven= It sometimes says that the Tanmatras
come from 'ahat and sometimes that they come from Ahamkara= Sometimes it
says that there are three Antahkaranas= Sometimes it says that there is on#y one
Antahkarana=
'oreover, their doctrine contradicts Sruti which teaches that the Lord is the
cause of the universe, and Smriti based on Sruti= or these reasons a#so the
Sankhya system is ob0ectionab#e= It cannot be acce.ted=
%ere the Sankhya a<ain brin<s a counter&char<e= %e says J)ou a#so have <ot
such ina..ro.riateness in your doctrine=J %e asks whether if Brahman is cause
and effect, there cou#d be any #iberation from effects and whether scri.ture
affirmin< #iberation wi## not become use#ess= %e ar<ues Jfire cannot become free
from heat and #i<ht or water free from waves= On#y when there is se.arateness of
cause and effect, there can be any meanin< in #iberation=J
Be re.#y that even the ob0ector must admit that $urusha bein< by nature
.ure, cannot be disturbed and that disturbance is due to Avidya and is not
abso#ute#y rea#= That is our .osition too= But you <ive Avidya a state of
.ermanence= !onse@uent#y even if $urusha <ets free from it, there is no surety
that such se.aration wi## be .ermanent= Be .ostu#ate on#y one Bein<= A## effects
are on#y re#ative and cannot, therefore, affect the abso#ute rea#ity=
'ahaddir<hadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra **-
Refutation of the (aiseshika view
'ahaddir<havadva hrasva.arimanda#abhyam II=2=** +*92-
+The wor#d may ori<inate from Brahman- as the <reat and the #on<
ori<inate from the short and the atomic=
'ahat dir<havat1 #ike the <reat and the #on<C (a1 orC
%rasva.arimanda#abhyam1 from the short and the atomic=
The atomic theory of the (aiseshikas that form#ess, indivisib#e atoms enter
into the com.osition of the wor#d is now refuted=
The sa<e ;anada is the founder of the (aiseshika .hi#oso.hy= %e ho#ds a##
ob0ects which have any sha.e or form as .erishab#e and they are a## made of
minute, indivisib#e, form#ess and immutab#e .artic#es known as atoms +Anu-=
These atoms are considered to be the cause of the wor#d= The atoms are of four
kinds, viG=, the atoms of earth, the atoms of water, the atoms of fire and the
atoms of air= These atoms e>ist distinct from one another without any sha.e or
form= At the be<innin< of creation, one atom +a monad- unites with another and
forms a dyad, an a<<re<ate of two atoms= The dyad +dvyanu- unites with another
atom and forms a triad, an a<<re<ate of three atoms, and so on= Thus a visib#e
universe is formed=
The (aiseshikas ar<ue thus1 The @ua#ities which inhere in the substance
which constitutes the cause .roduces @ua#ities of the same kind in the substance
which forms the effect= Bhite c#oth is .roduced from a c#oth of a different co#our=
!onse@uent#y, when the inte##i<ent Brahman is taken as the cause of the universe,
we shou#d find inte##i<ence inherent in the effect a#so, viG=, the universe= But this is
not so= %ence, the inte##i<ent Brahman cannot be the cause of the universe=
The Sutrakara or the author of the Sutras shows that this reasonin< is
fa##acious on the <round of the system of (aiseshikas themse#ves=
The Sankhya .hi#oso.hy has been refuted in Sutras *&*8= "ow the (aiseshika
system is taken u. in Sutras **&*7 and refuted= The inconsistency in the
ori<ination of an a<<re<ate of the three and of four atoms from the union of
monads and of dyads of the (aiseshika is #ike the inconsistency in the ori<ination
of the wor#d from the insentient $radhana of Sankhya= If the atom has any .arts
of an a..reciab#e ma<nitude, then it cannot be an atom= Then it can be further
divisib#e= If they are without .arts of any a..reciab#e ma<nitude, as they are so
described in (aiseshika .hi#oso.hy, it is not .ossib#e for such two .art#ess atoms
to .roduce by their union a substance havin< any ma<nitude= The same is the
case with three atoms and so on= %ence, com.ound substances can never be
formed by the combination of atoms= Therefore, the (aiseshika theory of
ori<ination of the wor#d u.on indivisib#e atoms is untenab#e=
Accordin< to the (aiseshika .hi#oso.hy, two u#timate atoms +$arimanda#as or
$aramanus- become a doub#e atom +Dvyanuka or %rasva- on account of Adrishta,
etc= But the atomic nature of the u#timate atom is not found in the Dvyanuka
which is sma##= Two Dvyanukas form a !haturanuka +@uadru.#e atom- which has
not the characteristics of sma##ness but becomes #on<er and bi<<er= If the u#timate
atom can create somethin< which is contrary to the atom, what is the
ina..ro.riateness in Brahman which is ;now#ed<e and B#iss creatin< the insentient
and non&inte##i<ent wor#d fu## of miseryL /ust as the atomic nature of the u#timate
atom is not found in the #ater combinations which have other traits, so a#so the
!haitanya or inte##i<ence of Brahman is not found in the wor#d=
The u#timate condition of the wor#d is atomic, accordin< to the (aiseshika
system= The atoms are eterna#= They are the u#timate cause of the universe= The
universe e>ists in the atomic state in the state of $ra#aya or disso#ution= An atom
is infinitesima#= A dyad is minute and short= !haturanuka or @uadru.#e atom is
<reat, and #on<=
If two atoms which are s.herica# can .roduce a dyad which is minute and
short but which has not <ot the s.herica# nature of the atom, if the dyads which
are short and minute can .roduce a !haturanuka which is <reat and #on< but
which has not <ot the minuteness and shortness of the dyad, it is @uite obvious
that a## the @ua#ities of the cause are not found in the effect= So it is @uite .ossib#e
that the inte##i<ent, b#issfu# Brahman can be the cause of a wor#d which is noninte##i<ent
and fu## of sufferin<=
$aramanu0a<adakaranatvadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras *2&*7-
Refutation of the atomic theory of the (aiseshikas
The ob0ection a<ainst the view of (edanta has been answered in the .revious
Sutra= "ow the (aiseshika system is refuted=
?bhayatha.i na karmatastadabhavah II=2=*2 +*9,-
In both cases a#so +in the cases of the Adrishta, the unseen
.rinci.#e inherin< either in the atoms or the sou#- the activity +of
the atoms- is not .ossib#eC hence ne<ation of that +viG=, creation
throu<h the union of the atoms-=
?bhayatha1 in either case, in both ways, on both assum.tions or
hy.othesesC A.i1 a#soC "a1 notC ;arma1 action, activity, motionC Atah1 thereforeC
Tadabhavah1 absence of that, ne<ation of that, i,e, ne<ation of the creation of
the wor#d by union of atoms=
The ar<ument a<ainst the (aiseshika system commenced in Sutra ** is
continued=
Bhat is the cause that first o.erates on the u#timate atomsL (aiseshikas ho#d
that the motion which is due to the unseen .rinci.#e +Adrishta- 0oins the atom in
which it resides, to another atom= Thus binary com.ounds, etc= are .roduced and
fina##y the e#ement of air= Simi#ar#y fire, water, earth, the body with its or<ans are
.roduced= Thus the who#e wor#d ori<inates from atoms= The @ua#ities of the binary
com.ounds are .roduced from the @ua#ities inherin< in the atoms, 0ust as the
@ua#ities of the c#oth resu#t from the @ua#ities of the threads= Such is the teachin<
of the (aiseshika system of .hi#oso.hy=
The motion in the atoms cannot be brou<ht about by the Adrishta residin< in
the atoms, because the Adrishta which is the resu#tant of the <ood and bad
actions of the sou# cannot reside in the atoms= It must inhere in the sou#= The
Adrishta residin< in the sou# cannot .roduce motion in the atom= The motion of the
atom is not e>.#ained on both these views= As Adrishta is insentient it cannot act=
As Adrishta is in the sou#, how can it o.erate in the atomsL If it can, such
o.eration wi## <o on for ever as there is no a<ency to contro# it= Bhen two atoms
combine do they unite .erfect#y or notL If they unite tota##y, if there is tota#
inter.enetration, the atomic state wi## continue as there wi## be no increase in bu#k=
If in .art, then atoms wi## have .arts= This is a<ainst the theory of the (aiseshikas=
'oreover, if they combine once, there cannot be se.aration or disso#ution=
Adrishta wi## be active to brin< about creation for the en0oyment of the fruits of
actions= or these reasons the doctrine of the atoms bein< the cause of the wor#d
must be re0ected=
The (aiseshikas may ar<ue that the motion ori<inates in the atoms as soon
as they come in the .ro>imity of the sou#s char<ed with any definite Adrishta= This
a#so is untenab#e= Because there can be no .ro>imity or contact between the sou#s
which are .art#ess and the atoms which a#so are .art#ess=
An insentient ob0ect cannot move another as it is inert= A## motion of ob0ects
are initiated, <uided and directed by inte##i<ence and inte##i<ent bein<s=
The sou# cannot be the cause of the .rima# motion of the atoms at the
be<innin< of creation= Because in disso#ution, accordin< to the (aiseshikas, the
sou# itse#f #ies dormant without .ossessin< any inte##i<ence and hence is in no way
su.erior to the atom=
It cannot be said a#so that the .rima# motion of the atom is caused by the wi##
of the Lord in conformity with the Adrishta of the sou#s, because the Adrishtas of
the sou#s do not mature and are not awakened= %ence the wi## of the Lord is not
active=
As there is thus no motion in the atoms in the be<innin< of the creation, they
cannot come to<ether and form an a<<re<ate= !onse@uent#y, there can be no
creation as the binary com.ounds cannot be .roduced=
Accordin< to the (aiseshikas, the universe is created by the union of the
atoms= "ow what causes this unionL If it is a seen cause, it is not .ossib#e before
the creation of the body= A seen cause can be an endeavour or an im.act= There
can be no endeavour on the .art of the sou# if there is no connection of the sou#
with mind= As there is neither body nor mind before creation, there cannot be any
endeavour= Simi#ar is the case with im.act or the #ike=
Bhat causes the union of the atomsL Adrishta or the unseen .rinci.#e cannot
be the cause of the first motion of the atoms because the Adrishta is noninte##i<ent=
There is no inte##i<ence to <uide the Adrishta= %ence it cannot act by
itse#f=
Does the Adrishta inhere in the sou# or the atomsL If it is inherent in the sou#,
there is no inte##i<ence to direct the Adrishta as the sou# is then inert= 'oreover,
the sou# is .art#ess #ike the atoms= !onse@uent#y, there cannot be any connection
between the sou# and the atoms= %ence, if the Adrishta inheres in the sou#, it
cannot .roduce motion in the atoms which are not connected with the sou#=
If the Adrishta is inherent in the atoms, there wou#d be no disso#ution
because the atoms wi## ever be active as the Adrishta is a#ways .resent=
Therefore there is no .ossibi#ity for ori<ina# motion in the atoms and so
combination of atoms is not .ossib#e=
%ence the theory of (aiseshikas that the universe is caused by the
combination of atoms is untenab#e=
Samavayabhyu.a<amaccha samyadanavasthiteh II=2=*, +*93-
And because in conse@uence of Samavaya bein< admitted, a
re<resssus ad infinitum resu#ts on simi#ar reasonin< +hence the
(aiseshika theory is untenab#e-=
Samavayabhyu.a<amat1 Samavaya bein< admittedC !ha1 and, a#soC
Samyat1 because of e@ua#ity of reasonin<C Anavasthiteh1 re<ressus ad infinitum
wou#d resu#t=
The ar<ument a<ainst the (aiseshika .hi#oso.hy commenced in Sutra ** is
continued=
Samavaya is inse.arab#e inherence or concomitant cause or combinin< force=
It is one of the seven cate<ories of the (aiseshika .hi#oso.hy= It is the affinity
which brin<s about the union of the atoms=
The (aiseshikas say that two $aramanus become a Dvyanuka on account of
the o.eration of the combinin< force +Samavaya- and that the Samavaya connects
the dyad with its constituents, the two atoms, as the dyad and the atoms are of
different @ua#ities= Samavaya is different from the u#timate atoms and dyads which
it connects= Bhy shou#d it o.erate un#ess there be another Samavaya to make it
o.erateL That new Samavaya wi## re@uire another Samavaya to connect it with the
first and so on= Thus their theory is vitiated by the fau#t of Anavastha Dosha or
re<ressus ad infinitum=
The ar<ument is fau#ty= %ence the atomic doctrine which admits Samavaya
re#ationshi. for the union of the atoms is not admissib#e= It must be re0ected as it
is use#ess and as it is an incon<ruous assum.tion=
"ityameva cha bhavat II=2=*3 +*94-
And on account of the .ermanent e>istence +of activity or nonactivity,
the atomic theory is not admissib#e-=
"ityam1 eterna#C Eva1 certain#y, evenC !ha1 and, a#soC Bhavat1 because of
the e>istence, from the .ossibi#ity=
The ar<ument a<ainst the (aiseshika commencin< in Sutra ** is continued=
The atomic theory invo#ves another difficu#ty= If the atoms are by nature
active, then creation wou#d be .ermanent= "o $ra#aya or disso#ution cou#d take
.#ace= If they are by nature inactive, no creation cou#d take .#ace= The disso#ution
wou#d be .ermanent= Their nature cannot be both activity and inactivity because
they are se#f&contradictory= If they were neither, their activity and non&activity
wou#d have to de.end on an o.erative or efficient cause #ike Adrishta= As the
Adrishta is in .ermanent .ro>imity to the atoms, as the Adrishta is a#ways
connected with the atoms, they wi## be ever active= !onse@uent#y, creation wou#d
be .ermanent= If there is no efficient or o.erative cause, there wi## be no activity
of the atoms= !onse@uent#y, there wou#d be no creation=
or this reason a#so the atomic doctrine is untenab#e and inadmissib#e=
Ru.adimatvacca vi.aryayo darsanat II=2=*4 +*95-
And on account of the atoms .ossessin< co#our, etc=, the o..osite
+of which the (aiseshikas ho#d wou#d take .#ace-, because it is seen
or observed=
Ru.adimatvat1 because of .ossessin< co#our, etc=C !ha1 and, a#soC
(i.aryayah1 the reverse, the o..ositeC Darsanat1 because it is seen or
observed, from common e>.erience=
The ar<ument a<ainst (aiseshika commencin< in Sutra ** is continued=
Accordin< to the (aiseshika .hi#oso.hy, the atoms are said to have co#our,
etc= If this is not the case, the effects wi## not .ossess these @ua#ities, as the
@ua#ities of the cause on#y are found in the effects= Then the atoms wou#d no
#on<er be atomic and .ermanent= Because that which has form, co#our, etc=, is
<ross, e.hemera# and im.ermanent= !onse@uent#y the atoms, etc=, which are
endowed with co#our etc=, must be <ross and in.ermanent= This contradicts the
theory of the (aiseshikas that they are minute and .ermanent=
%ence the atomic theory, bein< thus se#f&contradictory, cannot be acce.ted=
The atoms cannot be the u#timate cause of the universe= There wou#d resu#t from
the circumstance of the atoms havin< co#our, etc=, the o..osite of which the
(aiseshikas mean=
?bhayatha cha doshat II=2=*5 +*97-
And because of defects in both cases +the atomic theory cannot be
acce.ted-=
?bhayatha1 in both ways, on either side, in either caseC !ha1 a#so, andC
Doshat1 because of defects +or difficu#ties-=
The ar<ument a<ainst (aiseshikas is continued=
Earth has the @ua#ities of sme##, taste, co#our and is <ross= Bater has co#our,
taste and touch and is fine= ire has co#our and touch and is finer sti##= Air is the
finest of a## and has the @ua#ity of touch on#y= The four <ross e#ements earth,
water, fire and air are .roduced from atoms=
If we su..ose that the res.ective atoms of the e#ements a#so .ossess the
same number of @ua#ities as the <ross e#ements, then the atom of air wi## have
one @ua#ity, an atom of earth wi## have four @ua#ities= %ence an atom of earth
which .ossesses four @ua#ities wi## be bi<<er in siGe= It wou#d not be an atom any
#on<er= It wi## not satisfy the definition of an atom=
If we su..ose them a## to .ossess the same number of @ua#ities, in that case
there cannot be any difference in the @ua#ities of the effects, the <ross e#ements
because the attributes of the cause +the atoms- are re.roduced in its effects +the
<ross e#ements-=
If the atom is one and the same and has on#y one @ua#ity, then more than
one @ua#ity shou#d not be found= ire shou#d not have form in addition to touch as
so on=
%ence, in either case the doctrine of the (aiseshikas is defective and
therefore untenab#e= It cannot be #o<ica##y maintained=
A.ari<rahacchatyantamana.eksha II=2=*7 +*99-
And because +the atomic theory- is not acce.ted +by authoritative
sa<es #ike 'anu and others- it is to be tota##y re0ected=
A.ari<rahat1 because it is not acce.tedC !ha1 andC Atyantam1 a#to<ether,
tota##y, com.#ete#yC Ana.eksha1 to be re0ected=
The ar<ument a<ainst (aiseshika is conc#uded=
At #east the Sankhya doctrine of $radhana was acce.ted to some e>tent by
'anu and other knowers of the (eda but the atomic doctrine has not been
acce.ted by any .erson of authority in any of its .arts= Therefore, it is to be
disre<arded entire#y by a## those who take their stand on the (eda=
urther, there are other ob0ections to the (aiseshika doctrine= The
(aiseshikas assume si> cate<ories or $adarthas viG=, Dravya +substance-, :una
+@ua#ity-, ;arma +action-, Samanya +<enera#ity-, (isesha +.articu#arity- and
Samavaya +inherence-= They maintain that the si> cate<ories are abso#ute#y
different from each other and .ossess different characteristics 0ust as a man, a
horse and a hare differ from one another= They say that the cate<ories are
inde.endent and yet they ho#d that on Dravya the other five cate<ories de.end=
This contradicts the former one= This is @uite ina..ro.riate= /ust as anima#s, <rass,
trees and the #ike, bein< abso#ute#y different from each other, do not de.end on
each other, so a#so the @ua#ities etc=, a#so bein< abso#ute#y different from
substance cannot de.end on the #atter=
The (aiseshikas say that Dravya +substance- and :una +@ua#ity- are
inse.arab#y connected= At the same time they say that each be<ins its activity=
The threads brin< the c#oth into e>istence and the whiteness in the threads
.roduces the whiteness in the c#oth= JSubstances ori<inate another substance and
@ua#ities another @ua#ityJ +(aiseshika Sutras I=*=*8-= If the thread and its @ua#ity
occu.y the same s.ace and are inse.arab#y united, how can this take .#aceL If the
substance and the @ua#ity are inse.arab#y to<ether with reference to time, the two
horns of a cow wou#d have to <row to<ether= If there is inse.arabi#ity in the nature
of the substance and its @ua#ity, why can you not say that both are one and
identica#= %ence the theory that the @ua#ity de.ends u.on substance and that the
@ua#ity and substance are inse.arab#e, is untenab#e and inadmissib#e=
urther, the (aiseshikas make distinction between Samyo<a +con0unction-
and Samavaya +inherence-= They say that Samyo<a is the connection of thin<s
which e>ists se.arate#y and Samavaya is the connection of thin<s which are
inca.ab#e of se.arate e>istence= This distinction is not tenab#e as the cause which
e>ists before the effect cannot be said to be inca.ab#e of se.arate e>istence= Bhat
is the .roof of the e>istence of Samyo<a or Samavaya a.art from cause and
effectL "or is there any Samyo<a or Samavaya a.art from the thin<s which
become connected= The same man a#thou<h bein< one on#y forms the ob0ect of
many different names and notions accordin< as he is considered in himse#f or in
his re#ation to others= Thus he is thou<ht and s.oken of as man, Brahmana,
#earned in the (eda, <enerous boy, youn< man, o#d man, father, son, <randson,
brother, son&in&#aw, etc= The same di<it connotes different numbers, ten or
hundred or thousand, accordin< to its .#ace=
'oreover, we have not seen Samyo<a e>ce.t as between thin<s which
occu.y s.ace= But mind is Anu and does not occu.y s.ace accordin< to you= )ou
cannot say that you wi## ima<ine some s.ace for it= If you make such a
su..osition, there is no end to such su..ositions= There is no reason why you
shou#d not assume a further hundred or thousand thin<s in addition to the si>
cate<ories assumed by the (aiseshikas=
'oreover, two $aramanus which have no form cannot be united with a
Dvyanuka which has form= There does not e>ist that kind of intimate connection
between ether and earth which e>ists between wood and varnish=
"or is the theory of Samavaya necessary to e>.#ain which, out of cause and
effect, de.ends on the other= There is mutua# de.endence= (edantins do not
acce.t any difference between cause and effect= Effect is on#y cause in another
form= The (edantins acknow#ed<e neither the se.arateness of cause and effect,
nor their standin< to each other in the re#ation of abode and the thin< abidin<=
Accordin< to the (edanta doctrine, the effect is on#y a certain state of the cause=
'oreover, $aramanus are finite and so they wi## have form= Bhat has form
must be #iab#e to destruction=
Thus it is @uite c#ear that the atomic doctrine is su..orted by very weak
ar<uments= It is o..osed to those scri.tura# te>ts which dec#are the Lord to be the
<enera# cause= It is not a#so acce.ted by sa<es #ike 'anu and others= Therefore, it
shou#d be tota##y disre<arded by wise men=
Samudayadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutras *9&27-
Refutation of the Bauddha Rea#ists
Samudaya ubhayahetukeI.i tada.ra.tih II=2=*9 +*96-
Even if the +two kinds of- a<<re<ates .roceed from their two
causes, there wou#d take .#ace non&estab#ishment +of the two
a<<re<ates-=
Samudaya1 the a<<re<ateC ?bhayahetuke1 havin< two causesC A.i1 a#so,
evenC Tada.ra.tih1 it wi## not take .#ace, it cannot be estab#ished=
After refutin< the atomic theory of (aiseshika, the Buddhistic theories are
now refuted=
Lord Buddha had four disci.#es who founded four systems of .hi#oso.hy,
ca##ed res.ective#y (aibhashika, Sautrantika, )o<achara and 'adhyamika= The
(aibhashikas are the Rea#ists +Sarvastitvavadins- who acce.t the rea#ity of both
the outside and the inside wor#d consistin< res.ective#y of e>terna# ob0ects and
thou<ht +a#so consciousness, fee#in<s, etc=-= The Sautrantikas are the Idea#ists
+(i0nanavadins-= They ho#d that thou<ht a#one is rea#= They maintain that there is
no .roof whether e>terna# ob0ects rea##y e>ist or not, the ideas on#y e>ist and the
e>terna# ob0ects are inferred from these ideas= Thus the (aibhashikas ho#d that
the e>terna# ob0ects are direct#y .erceived whi#e the Sautrantikas maintain that
the outward wor#d is an inference from ideas= The third c#ass, the )o<acharas ho#d
that ideas a#one are rea# and there is no e>terna# wor#d corres.ondin< to these
ideas= The outward ob0ects are unrea# #ike dream ob0ects=
The 'adhyamikas maintain that even the ideas themse#ves are unrea# and
there is nothin< that e>ists e>ce.t the void +Sunyam-= They are the "ihi#ists or
Sunyavadins who ho#d that everythin< is void and unrea#= A## of them a<ree that
everythin< is momentary= "othin< #asts beyond a moment= Thin<s of the .revious
moment do not e>ist in the ne>t moment= One a..ears and the ne>t moment it is
re.#aced by another= There is no connection between the one and the other=
Everythin< is #ike a scene in a cinema which is .roduced by the successive
a..earance and disa..earance of severa# iso#ated .ictures=
The Rea#ists reco<nise two a<<re<ates, viG=, the e>terna# materia# wor#d and
the interna# menta# wor#d, which to<ether make u. the universe= The e>terna#
wor#d is made u. of the a<<re<ate of atoms, which are of four kinds, viG=, atoms
of earth which are so#id, atoms of water which are viscid, atoms of fire which are
hot and atoms of air which are mobi#e=
The five Skandhas or <rou.s are the cause for the interna# wor#d= They are
Ru.a Skandha, (i0nana Skandha, (edana Skandha, Sam0na Skandha and
Samskara Skandha= The senses and their ob0ects form the Ru.a Skandha= (i0nana
Skandha is the stream of consciousness which <ives the notion of e<oism or HII=
The (edana Skandha com.rises the fee#in< of .#easure and .ain= The Sam0na
Skandha consists of names such as Ramakrishna, etc= A## words thus constitute
the Sam0na Skandha= The fifth Skandha ca##ed Samskara Skandha consists of the
attributes of the mind such as affection, hatred, de#usion, merit +Dharma-, demerit
+Adharma-, etc= A## interna# ob0ects be#on< to any one of the #ast four Skandhas=
The four #ast Skandhas form the interna# ob0ects= A## activities de.end u.on the
interna# ob0ects= The interna# ob0ects constitute the inner motive of everythin<= A##
e>terna# ob0ects be#on< to one Skandha name#y the Ru.a Skandha= Thus the
who#e universe consists of these two kinds of ob0ects, interna# and e>terna#= The
interna# a<<re<ate or the menta# wor#d is formed by the a<<re<ate of the #ast four
Skandhas= These are the two interna# and e>terna# a<<re<ates referred to in the
Sutra=
The theory of the Bauddhas which c#assifies a## ob0ects under two heads, one
a<<re<ate bein< ca##ed the e>terna#, the other interna#, is not sufficient to e>.#ain
the wor#d orderC because a## a<<re<ates are uninte##i<ent and there is no
.ermanent inte##i<ence admitted by the Bauddhas which can brin< about this
a<<re<ation= Everythin< is momentary in its e>istence accordin< to the Bauddhas=
There is no .ermanent inte##i<ent bein< who brin<s about the con0unction of these
Skandhas= The continuation is not .ossib#e for these e>terna# atoms and interna#
sensations without the intervention of an inte##i<ent <uide= If it be said they come
to<ether of their own interna# motion, then the wor#d becomes eterna#C because
the Skandhas wi## be constant#y brin<in< about creation as they are eterna# and as
they .ossess motion of their own= Thus this theory is untenab#e=
It cannot be e>.#ained how the a<<re<ates are brou<ht about, because the
.arts that constitute the materia# a<<re<ates are destitute of inte##i<ence= The
Bauddhas do not admit any other .ermanent inte##i<ent bein< such as en0oyin<
sou# or a ru#in< #ord, which cou#d effect the a<<re<ation of atoms=
%ow are the a<<re<ates formedL Is there any inte##i<ent .rinci.#e behind the
a<<re<ates as the !ause, the :uide, the !ontro##er or the DirectorL Or does it take
.#ace s.ontaneous#yL If you say that there is an inte##i<ent .rinci.#e, is it
.ermanent or momentaryL If it is .ermanent, then the Buddhistic doctrine of
momentariness is o..osed= If it is momentary, it must come into e>istence first
and then unite the atoms= Then the cause shou#d #ast more than one moment= If
there is no inte##i<ent .rinci.#e as director or contro##er, how can non&inte##i<ent
atoms and the Skandhas a<<re<ate in an order#y mannerL urther, the creation
wou#d continue for ever= There wou#d be no disso#ution=
or a## these reasons the formation of a<<re<ates cannot be .ro.er#y
e>.#ained= Bithout a<<re<ates there wou#d be an end of the stream of earth#y
e>istence which .resu..oses those a<<re<ates= Therefore, the doctrine of this
schoo# of Bauddhas is untenab#e and inadmissib#e=
Itaretara.ratyayatvaditi chennot.attimatranimittatvat II=2=*6 +*68-
If it be said that +the formation of a<<re<ates may be e>.#ained-
throu<h +nescience- standin< in the re#ation of mutua# causa#ity, we
say HnoIC they mere#y are the efficient cause of the ori<in +of the
immediate#y subse@uent #inks and not of the a<<re<ation-=
Itara&itara1 mutua#, one anotherC $ratyayatvat1 because of bein< the
cause, one bein< the cause of the otherC Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC +Iti chet1 if it be
said-C "a1 noC ?t.attimatranimittatvat1 because they are mere#y the efficient
cause of the ori<in=
An ob0ection a<ainst Sutra *9 is raised and refuted=
The series be<innin< with nescience com.rise the fo##owin< members1
"escience, Samskara or im.ression, (i0nana +know#ed<e-, name and form, the
abode of the si> +i=e=, the body and the senses, contact, e>.erience of .#easure
and .ain, desire, activity, merit, demerit, birth, s.ecies, decay, death, <rief,
#amentation, menta# aff#iction and the #ike-=
"escience is the error of considerin< that what is momentary, im.ure, etc=, to
be .ermanent, .ure, etc= Im.ression, +affection, Samskara- com.rises desire,
aversion, etc=, and the activity caused by them= ;now#ed<e +(i0nana- is the se#fconsciousness
+Aham iti a#ayavi0nanasya vritti#abhah- s.rin<in< u. in the embryo=
"ame and form is the rudimentary f#ake or bubb#e&#ike condition of the embryo=
The abode of the si> +Sadayatana- is the further deve#o.ed sta<e of the embryo in
which the #atter is the abode of the si> senses= Touch +S.arsa- is the sensation of
co#d, warmth, etc=, on the embryoIs .art= ee#in< +(edana- is the sensation of
.#easure and .ain resu#tin< therefrom= Desire +Trishna- is the wish to en0oy the
.#easurab#e sensations and to shun the .ainfu# ones= Activity +?.adana- is the
effort resu#tin< from desire= Birth is the .assin< out from the uterus= S.ecies +/ati-
is the c#ass of bein<s to which the new&born creature be#on<s= Decay +/ara-, death
+'arana- is e>.#ained as the condition of the creature when about to die
+'umursha-= :rief +Soka- is the frustration of wishes connected therewith= Lament
+$arivedana-1 the #amentations on that account= $ain +Duhkha- is such .ain as
caused by the five senses= Durmanas is menta# aff#iction= The Hand the #ikeI im.#ies
death, the de.arture to another wor#d and the subse@uent return from there=
The Buddhistic rea#ist says1 A#thou<h there e>ists no .ermanent inte##i<ent
.rinci.#e of the nature either of a ru#in< Lord of an en0oyin< sou# under whose
inf#uence the formation of the a<<re<ates cou#d take .#ace, yet the course of
earth#y e>istence is rendered .ossib#e throu<h the mutua# causa#ity of nescience
+i<norance- and so on, so that we need not #ook for any other combinin< .rinci.#e=
"escience, Samskara, etc=, constitute an uninterru.ted chain of cause and
effect= In the above series the immediate#y .recedin< item is the cause of the
ne>t= The whee# of cause and effect revo#ves unceasin<#y #ike the water&whee# and
this cannot take .#ace without a<<re<ates= %ence a<<re<ates are a rea#ity=
Be re.#y1 Thou<h in the series the .recedin< one is the cause of the
subse@uent one, there is nothin< which can be the cause of the a<<re<ates= It
may be ar<ued that the union of atom and the continuous f#ow of sensations are
.roved by the mutua# interde.endence e>istin< amon< them= But the ar<ument
cannot stand, as this mutua# interde.endence cannot be the cause of their
cohesion= Of two thin<s one may .roduce the other, but that is no reason why
they shou#d unite to<ether=
Even if Avidya +nescience-, Samskara, (i0nana, "ama, and Ru.a, etc=, may
without a sentient or inte##i<ent a<ency .ass from the sta<e of cause to the sta<e
of effect, yet how can the tota#ity of a## these simu#taneous#y e>ist without the wi##
of a coordinatin< mindL
If you say that this a<<re<ate or the wor#d is formed by the mutua# causation
of Avidya and the rest, we say it is not so, because your #ink of causation e>.#ains
on#y the ori<in of the subse@uent from the .revious= It on#y e>.#ains how (i0nana
arises from Samskara, etc= It does not e>.#ain how the a<<re<ate is brou<ht
about= An a<<re<ate ca##ed San<hata a#ways shows a desi<n and is brou<ht about
for the .ur.ose of en0oyment= A San<hata #ike a house may be e>.#ained to have
been .roduced by .uttin< to<ether of bricks, mortar, etc=, but they do not e>.#ain
the desi<n= )ou say that there is no .ermanent Atman= )our Atman is momentary
on#y= )ou are a ;shanikatvavadin= There can be no en0oyment or e>.eriencin< for
such a momentary sou#C because the en0oyin< sou# has not .roduced the merit or
demerit whose fruits it has to en0oy= It was .roduced by another momentary sou#=
)ou cannot say that the momentary sou# suffers the fruits of the acts done by its
ancestra# sou#, for then that ancestra# sou# must be he#d to be .ermanent and not
momentary= If you ho#d any sou# to be .ermanent, it wi## contradict your theory of
the momentariness of everythin<= But if you ho#d everythin< to be im.ermanent,
your theory is o.en to the ob0ection a#ready made= %ence the doctrine of the
San<hatas +Buddhists- is untenab#e= It is not based on reason=
The atoms cannot combine by themse#ves even when they are assumed to be
.ermanent and eterna#= Be have a#ready shown this when e>aminin< the doctrine
of the (aiseshikas= Their combination is much more im.ossib#e when they are
momentary=
The Bauddhas say that a combinin< .rinci.#e of the atoms is not necessary if
the atoms stand in a re#ation of causa#ity= The atoms wou#d combine by
themse#ves= This is incorrect= The causa#ity wi## e>.#ain on#y the .roduction of
atoms at different moments= It cannot certain#y e>.#ain the union of the atom into
an a<<re<ate= The combination of an a<<re<ate can take .#ace on#y if there is an
inte##i<ent a<ent behind= Otherwise it is im.ossib#e to e>.#ain the union of inert
and momentary atoms=
)ou wi## say that in the eterna# Samsara the a<<re<ates succeed one another
in an unbroken chain and hence a#so "escience and so on which abide in those
a<<re<ates= But in that case you wi## have to assume either that each a<<re<ate
necessari#y .roduces another a<<re<ate of the same kind, or that it may .roduce
either a #ike or an un#ike one without any sett#ed or definite ru#e= In the former
case a human body cou#d never .ass over into that of a <od or an anima# or a
bein< of the inferna# re<ions as #ike wi## <o on .roducin< #ikeC in the #atter case a
man mi<ht in an instant become an e#e.hant or a <od and a<ain become a manC
either of which conse@uences wou#d be contrary to your system=
The individua# sou# for whose en0oyment this a<<re<ate of body etc=, e>ists is
a#so evanescent or momentary= It cannot therefore be an en0oyer= As the
individua# sou# is momentary, whose is #iberationL As there is no .ermanent
en0oyer, there is no necessity for these a<<re<ates= There may e>ist a causa#
re#ation between the members of the series consistin< of "escience, etc=, but in
the absence of a .ermanent en0oyin< sou#, it is not .ossib#e to estab#ish on that
<round the e>istence of a<<re<ates= %ence the doctrine of momentariness of the
Buddhist schoo# of Rea#ists cannot stand=
?ttarot.ade cha .urvanirodhat II=2=28 +*6*-
+"or can there be a causa# re#ation between nescience, etc=-
because on the ori<ination of the subse@uent thin< the .recedin< one
ceases to be=
?ttarot.ade1 at the time of the .roduction of the subse@uent thin<C !ha1
andC $urvanirodhat1 because the antecedent one has ceased to e>ist, because of
the destruction of the .revious thin<= +?ttara1 in the ne>t, in the subse@uentC
?t.ade1 on the ori<ination, on the .roduction=-
The ar<ument a<ainst the Buddhistic theory, commenced in Sutra *9, is
continued=
Be have hitherto ar<ued that nescience and so on stand in a causa# re#ation
to each other mere#y, so that they cannot be made to account for the e>istence of
the a<<re<ates= Be are now <oin< to .rove that they cannot even be re<arded as
efficient causes of the subse@uent members of the series to which they be#on<=
Accordin< to the Buddhistic theory everythin< is momentary= A thin< of the
.resent moment vanishes in the ne>t moment when its successor manifests= At
the time of the a..earance of a subse@uent thin<, the .revious thin< vanishes=
%ence it is im.ossib#e for the .revious thin< to be the cause of the subse@uent
thin<= !onse@uent#y the theory is untenab#e and inadmissib#e= It cannot stand to
reason=
Be a#ways .erceive that the cause subsists in the effect as the thread
subsists in the c#oth= But the Buddhists ho#d that e>istence ori<inates from none>istence
because they maintain that the effect cannot manifest without the
destruction of the cause, the tree cannot a..ear unti# the seed is destroyed=
Even the .assin< of cause into effect in a series of successive states #ike
nescience, etc=, cannot take .#ace, un#ess there is a coordinatin< inte##i<ence= )ou
say that everythin< has on#y a momentary e>istence= )our Schoo# cannot brin<
about the simu#taneous e>istence of two successive moments= If the cause e>ists
ti## it .asses into the sta<e of effect, the theory of momentary e>istence
+;shanikatva- wi## vanish=
)ou may say that the former momentary e>istence when it has reached its
fu## deve#o.ment becomes the cause of the #ater momentary e>istence= That a#so
is im.ossib#e, because even that wi## re@uire a successive or second moment for
o.eration= This contradicts the doctrine of momentariness=
The theory of momentary e>istence +;shanikatva- cannot stand= The <o#d
that e>ists at the time the ornament is made is a#one the cause of the ornament
and not that which e>isted before and has ceased to e>ist then= If it be sti## he#d to
be the cause, then e>istence wi## come out of non&e>istence= This is not .ossib#e=
The theory of momentariness wi## contradict the doctrine that the effect is the
cause in a new form= This doctrine indicates that the cause e>ists in the effect=
This shows that it is not momentary= urther, ori<ination and destruction wi## be
the same owin< to momentariness= If it is said that there is difference between
ori<ination and destruction, then we wi## have to say that the thin< #asts for more
than one moment= %ence we have a<ain to dec#are the doctrine of momentariness
to be untenab#e=
Asati .rati0no.arodho yau<a.adyamanyatha II=2=2* +*62-
If non&e>istence +of cause- be assumed, +whi#e yet the effect
takes .#ace-, there resu#ts contradiction of the admitted .rinci.#e
or .ro.osition= Otherwise there wou#d resu#t simu#taneity +of cause
and effect-=
Asati1 in the case of non&e>istence of cause, if it be admitted that an effect
is .roduced without a causeC $rati0na1 .ro.osition, admitted .rinci.#eC
?.arodhah1 contradiction, denia#C )au<a.adyam1 simu#taneity, simu#taneous
e>istenceC Anyatha1 otherwise=
The ar<ument a<ainst the Buddhistic theory is continued=
If the Buddhists say that an effect is .roduced without a cause then they
wou#d contradict their own .ro.osition that every effect has a cause= The
.ro.osition admitted by Buddhists that the consciousness of b#ue, etc=, arises
when mind, eye, #i<ht and ob0ect act in union as cause wi## fai#= A## sorts of effects
can co&e>ist=
If a cause be assumed then we have to acce.t that the cause and effect e>ist
simu#taneous#y at the ne>t moment= The cause e>ists for more than one moment=
The cause e>ists ti## the state of effect is reached= Then the doctrine of
momentariness wi## fai#=
$ratisankhya.ratisankhyanirodha.ra.tiravicchedat II=2=22 +*6,-
!onscious and unconscious destruction wou#d be im.ossib#e on
account of non&interru.tion=
$ratisankhya nirodha1 conscious destruction, destruction due to some
cause or a<encyC causa# destruction, destruction de.endin< u.on the vo#ition of
conscious entityC A.ratisankhya nirodha1 unconscious destruction, destruction
not de.endin< u.on any vo#untary a<encyC A.ra.tih1 non&attainment,
im.ossibi#ityC Avicchedat1 because of non&interru.tion, because it <oes on
without interru.tion=
The ar<ument a<ainst the theory of the Buddhists is continued=
The Buddhists ho#d that universa# destruction is ever <oin< on and that this
destruction or cessation is of two kinds, viG=, conscious and unconscious=
!onscious destruction de.ends u.on an act of thou<ht as when a man breaks a 0ar
havin< .revious#y formed the intention of doin< so= ?nconscious destruction is the
natura# decay of ob0ects=
The f#ow of cause and effect <oes on without interru.tion and therefore
cannot be sub0ect to either kind of destruction= "or can any individua# antecedent
of a series be said to be tota##y destroyed, as it is reco<nised in its immediate
conse@uence=
Both kinds of destruction or cessation are im.ossib#e because it must refer
either to the series of momentary e>istences or to the sin<#e members constitutin<
the series=
The former a#ternative is not .ossib#e because in a## series of momentary
e>istences the members of the series stand in an unbroken re#ation of cause and
effect so that the series cannot be interru.ted= The #atter a#ternative is simi#ar#y
not admissib#e, because it is not .ossib#e to ho#d that any momentary e>istence
shou#d under<o com.#ete annihi#ation entire#y undefinab#e and disconnected with
the .revious state of e>istence, as we observe that a thin< is reco<nised in the
various states throu<h which it may .ass and thus has a connected e>istence=
Bhen an earthen 0ar is destroyed we find the e>istence of the c#ay in the
.otsherds or fra<ments into which the 0ar is broken or in the .owder into which
the .otsherds are <round= Be infer that even thou<h what seems to vanish
a#to<ether such as a dro. of water which has fa##en on heated iron, yet continues
to e>ist in some other form, viG=, as steam=
The series of momentary e>istence formin< a chain of causes and effect is
continuous and can never be sto..ed, because the #ast momentary e>istence
before its annihi#ation must be su..osed either to .roduce its effect or not to
.roduce it= If it does, then the series is continued and wi## not be destroyed= If it
does not .roduce the effect, the #ast #ink does not rea##y e>ist as the Bauddhas
define Satta of a thin< as its causa# efficiency and the non&e>istence of the #ast
#ink wou#d #ead backward to the non&e>istence of the who#e series=
Be cannot have then two kinds of destruction in the individua# members of
the series a#so= !onscious destruction is not .ossib#e on account of the momentary
e>istence of each member= There cannot be unconscious destruction as the
individua# member is not tota##y annihi#ated= Destruction of a thin< rea##y means
on#y chan<e of condition of the substance=
)ou cannot say that when a cand#e is burnt out, it is tota##y annihi#ated= Bhen
a cand#e burns out, it is not #ost but under<oes a chan<e of condition= Be do not
certain#y .erceive the cand#e when it is burnt out, but the materia#s of which it
consisted continue to e>ist in a very subt#e state and hence they are
im.erce.tib#e=
or these reasons the two kinds of destruction which the Bauddhas assume
cannot be .roved=
?bhayatha cha doshat II=2=2, +*63-
And on account of the ob0ections .resentin< themse#ves in either
case=
?bhayatha1 in either caseC !ha1 and, a#soC Doshat1 because of ob0ections=
The ar<ument a<ainst the Buddhistic theory is continued=
There is a fa##acy in either view, i=e=, that Avidya or i<norance is destroyed by
ri<ht know#ed<e or se#f&destroyed=
Accordin< to the Buddhistic view, emanci.ation is the annihi#ation of
i<norance= Sa#vation or freedom is attained when i<norance is destroyed=
I<norance +Avidya or nescience- is the fa#se idea of .ermanency in thin<s which
are momentary=
The i<norance can be annihi#ated by the ado.tion of some means such as
.enance, know#ed<e, etc=, +conscious destruction-C or it may destroy itse#f
+s.ontaneity-= But both the a#ternatives are defective= Because this annihi#ation of
i<norance cannot be attained by the ado.tion of .enance or the #ikeC for the mean
#ike every other thin<, is a#so momentary accordin< to the Buddhistic view and is,
therefore, not #ike#y to .roduce such annihi#ationC annihi#ation cannot take .#ace of
its own accord, for in that case a## Buddhistic instructions, the disci.#ines and
methods of meditation for the attainment of emanci.ation wi## be use#ess=
Accordin< to the Buddhistic theory, there can be no vo#untary e>ertion on the
.art of the as.irant for the breakin< asunder of his continued wor#d#y e>.eriences
or nescience= There is no ho.e of their ever comin< to an end by mere e>haustion
as the causes continue to <enerate their effects which a<ain continue to <enerate
their own effects and so on and there is no occasion #eft for .ractices for attainin<
re#ease=
Thus in the Buddhistic system re#ease or freedom can never be estab#ished=
The teachin< of the Buddhists cannot stand the test of reasonin<=
Aakase chaviseshat II=2=23 +*64-
The cause of Akasa +ether- a#so not bein< different +from the two
other kinds of destruction it a#so cannot be a non&entity=-
Akase1 in the case of Akasa or etherC !ha1 a#so, andC Aviseshat1 because
of no s.ecific difference=
The ar<ument a<ainst the Buddhistic theory is continued=
Be have shown in Sutras 22&2, that the two kinds of destruction +cessation-
are not tota##y destitute of a## .ositive characteristics and so cannot be nonentities=
Be now .roceed to show the same with re<ard to s.ace +ether, Akasa-=
The Buddhists do not reco<nise the e>istence of Akasa= They re<ard Akasa as
a non&entity= Akasa is nothin< but the absence of coverin< or occu.yin< body
+Avaranabhava-= This is un&reasonab#e= Akasa has the @ua#ity of sound, 0ust as
earth has sme##, water taste, fire form, air touch= Akasa a#so is a distinct entity #ike
earth, water, etc= %ence there is no reason why Akasa a#so shou#d be re0ected as a
non&entity, whi#e earth, water, etc=, are reco<nised as bein< entities=
/ust as earth, air, etc=, are re<arded as entities on account of their bein< the
substratum of attributes #ike sme##, etc=, so a#so Akasa shou#d be considered as an
entity on account of its bein< the substratum of sound, earth, water, etc=, that are
e>.erienced throu<h their res.ective @ua#ities, viG=, sme##, taste, form, touch= The
e>istence of Akasa is e>.erienced throu<h its @ua#ity, sound= %ence Akasa a#so
must be an entity=
S.ace is inferred from its attribute of sound, 0ust as earth is inferred from
sme##= Bhere there is re#ation of substance and attribute there must be an ob0ect=
The Buddhists ho#d that s.ace is mere non&e>istence of matter
+Avaranabhavamatram-= If so, a bird may fa## down as there is no obstructive
matter, but how can it f#y u.L "on&e>istence of matter is s.ace which is a .ositive
ob0ect and not mere ne<ation or non&entity=
The doctrine that Akasa is an abso#ute non&entity is not tenab#e= Bhy do you
say soL Aviseshat, because there is no difference in the case of Akasa from any
other kind of substance which is an ob0ect of .erce.tion= Be .erceive s.ace when
we say, Jthe crow f#ies in s.ace=J The s.ace, therefore, is as much a rea#
substance as the earth, etc= As we know the earth by its @ua#ity of sme##, water by
its @ua#ity of taste, and so on, so we know from the @ua#ity of bein< the abode of
ob0ects, the e>istence of s.ace, and that it has the @ua#ity of sound= Thus Akasa is
a rea# substance and not a non&entity=
If Akasa be a non&entity, then the entire wor#d wou#d become destitute of
s.ace=
Scri.tura# .assa<es dec#are JS.ace s.ran< from the AtmanJ +Atmana
akasassambhutah-= So Akasa is a rea# thin<= It is a (astu +e>istin< ob0ect- and not
non&e>istence=
O BuddhistsD )ou say that air e>ists in Akasa= In the Bauddha scri.tures, a
series of @uestions and answers be<innin< JOn which, O revered Sir, is the earth
foundedLJ in which the fo##owin< @uestion occurs, JOn which is the air foundedLJ
to which it is re.#ied that the air is founded on s.ace +ether-= "ow it is c#ear that
this statement is a..ro.riate on#y on the su..osition of s.ace bein< a .ositive
entity, not a mere ne<ation= If Akasa was tota##y non&e>istent, what wou#d be the
rece.tac#e of airL
)ou cannot say that s.ace is nothin< but the absence of any occu.yin<
ob0ect= This a#so cannot stand to reason= If you say that s.ace is nothin< but the
absence in <enera# of any coverin< or occu.yin< body, then when one bird is
f#yin<, whereby s.ace is occu.ied, there wou#d be no room for a second bird which
wishes to f#y at the same time= )ou may <ive an answer that the second bird may
f#y there where there is absence of a coverin< body= But we dec#are that that
somethin< by which the absence of coverin< bodies is distin<uished must be a
.ositive entity, viG=, s.ace in our sense and not the mere non&e>istin< of coverin<
bodies=
'oreover, there is a se#f&contradiction in the statements of Buddhists with
reference to the three kinds of ne<ative entities +"iru.akhya-= They say that the
ne<ative entities are not .ositive#y definab#e, and a#so are eterna#= It is absurd to
ta#k of a non&bein< as bein< eterna# or evanescent= The distinction of sub0ects and
.redicates of attribution tota##y rests on rea# thin<s= Bhere there is such
distinction, there e>ists the rea# thin< such as .ot, etc=, which is not a mere
undefinab#e ne<ation or non&entity=
Anusmritescha II=2=24 +*65-
And on account of memory the thin<s are not momentary=
Anusmriteh1 on account of memoryC !ha1 and=
The ar<ument a<ainst the Buddhistic theory is continued=
The theory of momentariness of the Buddhists is refuted here= If everythin<
is momentary the e>.eriencer of somethin< must a#so be momentary= But the
e>.eriencer is not momentary, because .eo.#e have the memory of .ast
e>.eriences= 'emory can take .#ace on#y in a man who has .revious#y
e>.erienced it, because we observe that what one man has e>.erienced is not
remembered by another man= It is not that the e>.erience is that one sees and
another remembers= Our e>.erience is JI saw and I now remember what I saw=J
%e who e>.eriences and remembers is the same= %e is connected with at #east
two moments= This certain#y refutes the theory of momentariness=
The Buddhists may say that memory is due to simi#arity= But un#ess there be
one .ermanent knowin< sub0ect, who can .erceive the simi#arity in the .ast with
the .resent= One cannot say JThis is the .ot, this is the chair which was in the
.ast=J So #on< there is not the same sou# which saw and which now remembers,
how can mere simi#arity brin< about such a consciousness as JI saw and I now
remember +$ratyabhi0na-LJ The knowin< sub0ect must be .ermanent and not
momentary=
Doubt may arise with reference to an e>terna# ob0ect= )ou may not be ab#e to
say whether it is identica##y the same ob0ect which was .erceived in the .ast or
somethin< simi#ar to it= But with reference to the Se#f, the co<nisin< sub0ect, there
can never arise any such doubt whether I am the same who was in the .ast, for it
is im.ossib#e that the memory of a thin< .erceived by another shou#d e>ist in
oneIs own Se#f=
If you say that this, the thin< remembered, is #ike that, the thin< seen, in
that case a#so two thin<s are connected by one a<ent= If the thin< .erceived was
se.arate and ceased tota##y, it cannot be referred at a##= 'oreover the e>.erience
is not that Jthis is #ike thatJ but that Jthis is that=J
Be admit that sometimes with reference to an e>terna# thin< a doubt may
arise whether it is that or mere#y is simi#ar to thatC because mistake may occur
concernin< what #ies outside our minds= But the conscious sub0ect never has any
doubt whether it is itse#f or on#y simi#ar to itse#f= It is distinct#y conscious that it is
one and the same sub0ect which yesterday had a certain sensation and
remembers that sensation today= Does any one doubt whether he who remembers
is the same as he who sawL
or this reason a#so the theory of momentariness of the Buddhists is to be
re0ected=
Be do not .erceive ob0ects comin< into e>istence in a moment or vanishin<
in a moment= Thus the theory of momentariness of a## thin<s is refuted=
"asatoIdristatvat II=2=25 +*67-
+E>istence or entity does- not +s.rin<- from non&e>istence or nonentity,
because it is not seen=
"a1 notC Asatah1 from non&e>istence, of the unrea#, of a non&entityC
Adrishtatvat1 because it is not seen=
The ar<ument a<ainst the Buddhistic theory is continued=
A non&entity has not been observed to .roduce entity= Therefore it does not
stand to reason to su..ose non&entity to be the cause=
The Bauddhas +(ainasikas- assert that no effect can be .roduced from
anythin< that is unchan<in< and eterna#, because an unchan<in< thin< cannot
.roduce an effect= So they dec#are that the cause .erishes before the effect is
.roduced= They say from the decom.osed seed on#y the youn< .#ant s.rin<s,
s.oi#t mi#k on#y turns into curds, and the #um. of c#ay has ceased to be a #um.
when it becomes a .ot= So e>istence comes out of non&e>istence=
Accordin< to the view of the Buddhists, a rea# thin<, i=e=, the wor#d has come
into e>istence out of nothin<= But e>.erience shows that this theory is fa#se= A .ot
for instance is never found to be .roduced without c#ay= Such a hy.othetica#
.roduction can on#y e>ist in the ima<ination, for e>am.#e, the chi#d of a barren
woman= %ence the view of the Buddhists is untenab#e and inadmissib#e=
If e>istence can come out of non&e>istence, if bein< can .roceed from nonbein<,
then the assum.tion of s.ecia# causes wou#d have no meanin< at a##= Then
anythin< may come out of anythin<, because non&entity is one and the same in a##
cases= There is no difference between the non&entity of a man<o seed and that of
a 0ack&seed= %ence a 0ack tree may come out of a man<o seed= S.routs a#so may
ori<inate from the horns of hares= If there are different kinds of non&e>istence,
havin< s.ecia# distinctions 0ust as for instance, b#ueness and the #ike are the
s.ecia# @ua#ities of #otuses and so on, the non&e>istence of a man<o seed wi## differ
from that of a 0ack&seed, and then this wou#d turn non&entities into entities=
'oreover if e>istence s.rin<s from non&e>istence a## effects wou#d be affected
with non&e>istence, but they are seen to be .ositive entities with their various
s.ecia# characteristics=
The horn of a hare is non&e>istent= Bhat can come out from that hornL Be
see on#y bein< emer<in< from bein<, e=<=, ornament from <o#d, etc=
Accordin< to the Bauddhas, a## mind and a## menta# modifications s.rin< from
the four Skandhas and a## materia# a<<re<ates from the atoms= And yet they say
at the same time that entity is born of non&entity= This is certain#y @uite
inconsistent and se#f&contradictory= They stu#tify their own doctrine and need#ess#y
confuse the minds of every one=
?dasinanama.i chaivam siddhih II=2=27 +*69-
And thus +if e>istence shou#d s.rin< from non&e>istence, there
wou#d resu#t- the attainment of the <oa# by the indifferent and nonactive
.eo.#e a#so=
?dasianam1 of the indifferent and non&activeC A.i1 even, a#soC !ha1 andC
Evam1 thusC Siddih1 success accom.#ishment, and attainment of the <oa#=
The ar<ument a<ainst the Buddhistic theory is continued=
If it were admitted that e>istence or entity s.rin<s from non&e>istence or non
entity, #aGy inactive .eo.#e a#so wou#d attain their .ur.ose= Rice wi## <row even if
the farmer does not cu#tivate his fie#d= /ars wi## sha.e themse#ves even if the
.otter does not fashion the c#ay= The weaver too wi## have finished .ieces of c#oth
without weavin<= "o body wi## have to e>ert himse#f in the #east either for <oin< to
the heaven#y wor#d or for attainin< fina# emanci.ation= A## this is absurd and not
maintained by anybody=
Thus the doctrine of the ori<ination of e>istence or entity from non&e>istence
or non&entity is untenab#e or inadmissib#e=
"abhavadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras 29&,2-
Refutation of the Bauddha Idea#ist
"abhava u.a#abdheh II=2=29 +*66-
The non&e>istence +of eterna# thin<s- cannot be maintainedC on
account of +our- consciousness +of them-=
"a1 notC Abhavah1 non&e>istenceC ?.a#abdheh1 because they are
.erceived, because of .erce.tion, because we are conscious of them on account of
their bein< e>.erienced=
The ar<ument a<ainst the Buddhistic theory is continued= rom this Sutra
be<ins the refutation of Buddhistic Idea#ists=
The doctrine of the Buddhist which affirms the momentary e>istence of
e>terna# ob0ects has been refuted= The Sutrakara or the author of the Sutras now
.roceeds to refute the doctrine of the Buddhistic schoo# which affirms the
momentariness of thou<ht, which dec#ares that on#y ideas e>ist and nothin< e#se=
Accordin< to the Buddhistic Idea#ists +(i0nanavadins-, the e>terna# wor#d is
non&e>istent= They maintain that every .henomenon reso#ves itse#f into
consciousness and idea without any rea#ity corres.ondin< to it= This is not correct=
The e>terna# .henomena are not non&e>istent as they are actua##y witnessed by
our senses of .erce.tion= The e>terna# wor#d is an ob0ect of e>.erience throu<h
the senses= It cannot therefore, be non&e>istent #ike the horns of a hare=
The (i0nanavadins say1 "o e>terna# ob0ect e>ists a.art from consciousness=
There is im.ossibi#ity for the e>istence of outward thin<s= Because if outward
ob0ects are admitted, they must be either atoms or a<<re<ates of atoms such as
chairs, .ots, etc= But atoms cannot be com.rehended under the ideas of chair,
etc= It is not .ossib#e for co<nition to re.resent thin<s as minute as atoms= There
is no reco<nition of atoms and so the ob0ects cou#d not be atoms= They cou#d not
be atomic combinations because we cannot affirm if such combinations are one
with atoms or se.arate therefrom=
Accordin< to the (i0nanavadins or the )o<achara system the (i0nana Skandha
or idea a#one is rea#= An ob0ect #ike .ot or chair which is .erceived outside is
nothin< more than ideas= The (i0nana or idea modifies itse#f into the form of an
ob0ect= A## wor#d#y activities can <o on with mere ideas, 0ust as in dream a##
activities are .erformed with the thou<ht ob0ects= Ideas on#y e>ist= It is use#ess to
assume that the ob0ect is somethin< different from the idea= It is .ossib#e to have
.ractica# thou<ht and intercourse without e>terna# ob0ects, 0ust as it is done in
dream= A## .ractica# .ur.oses are we## rendered .ossib#e by admittin< the rea#ity of
ideas on#y, because no <ood .ur.ose is served by additiona# assum.tion of
e>terna# ob0ects corres.ondin< to interna# ideas=
The mind assumes different sha.es owin< to the different (asanas or desire
im.ressions submer<ed in it= /ust as these (asanas create the dream wor#d, so
the e>terna# wor#d in the wakin< state is a#so the resu#t of (asanas= The
assum.tion of an e>terna# ob0ect is unnecessary= Be do not see any se.aration of
co<nition and ob0ect= In dream we co<nise without ob0ects= Even so in the wakin<
state there cou#d be co<nition without ob0ects= Our manifo#dness of (asanas can
account for such co<nitions=
$erce.tion in the wakin< state is #ike a dream= The ideas that are .resent
durin< a dream a..ear in the form of sub0ect and ob0ect, a#thou<h there is no
e>terna# ob0ect= %ence, the ideas of chair, .ot which occur in our wakin< state are
#ikewise inde.endent of e>terna# ob0ects, because they a#so im.#y ideas=
This ar<ument is fa##acious= Bhen you see a chair or a .ot how can you deny
itL Bhen you eat, your hun<er is a..eased= %ow can you doubt the hun<er or the
foodL )ou say that there is no ob0ect a.art from your co<nition on account of your
ca.riciousness= Bhy do you not see a chair as a .otL If an ob0ect is a mere menta#
creation #ike a dream why shou#d the mind #ocate it outsideL
The Buddhist may say JI do not affirm that I have no consciousness of an
ob0ect= I a#so fee# that the ob0ect a..ears as an e>terna# thin<, but what I affirm is
this that I am a#ways conscious of nothin< direct#y save my own ideas= 'y idea
a#one shines as somethin< e>terna#= !onse@uent#y the a..earance of the e>terna#
thin<s is the resu#t of my own ideas=J
Be re.#y that the very fact of your consciousness .roves that there is an
e>terna# ob0ect <ivin< rise to the idea of e>terna#ity= That the e>terna# ob0ect
e>ists a.art from consciousness has necessari#y to be acce.ted on the <round of
the nature of consciousness itse#f= "o one when .erceivin< a chair or a .ot is
conscious of his .erce.tion on#y, but a## are conscious of chair or a .ot and the #ike
as ob0ects of .erce.tion=
)ou +(i0nanavadins- say that the interna# consciousness or idea a..ears as
somethin< e>terna#= This a#ready indicates that the e>terna# wor#d is rea#= If it
were not rea#, your sayin< #ike somethin< e>terna# wou#d be meanin<#ess= The
word H#ikeI shows that you admit the rea#ity of the e>terna# ob0ects= Otherwise you
wou#d not have used this word= Because no one makes a com.arison with a thin<
which is an abso#ute unrea#ity= "o one says that Ramakrishna is #ike the son of a
barren woman=
An idea #ike a #am. re@uires an u#terior inte##ectua# .rinci.#e or i##uminer to
render it manifest= (i0nana has a be<innin< and an end= It a#so be#on<s to the
cate<ory of the known= The knower is as indis.ensab#e of co<nitions as of ob0ects=
The Buddhist idea#ist, whi#e contendin< that there is nothin< outside the
mind, for<ets the fa##acy of the ar<ument= If the wor#d, as they ar<ue, were on#y
an outward e>.ression of interna# ideas, then the wor#d a#so wou#d be 0ust mind=
But the Buddhists ar<ue that the mind, which is ostensib#y in the individua#, is a#so
the wor#d outside= %ere the @uestion arises1 %ow does the idea of there bein<
nothin< outside arise without the mind itse#f bein< outsideL The consciousness
that nothin< e>ists outside cannot arise if there is rea##y nothin< outside= %ence
the Buddhist (i0nanavada doctrine is defective=
Bhen the Buddhists came to know of the i##o<ica#ity of their conce.t, they
modified their doctrine sayin< that the mind referred to here is not the individua#
mind but the cosmic mind, known as A#aya&(i0nana, which is the re.ository of a##
individua# minds in a .otentia# form= %ere the Buddhist stumb#es on the (edanta
doctrine that the wor#d is a manifestation of the ?niversa# 'ind=
(aidharmyaccha na sva.nadivat II=2=26 +288-
And on account of the difference in nature +in consciousness
between the wakin< and the dreamin< state, the e>.erience of the
wakin< state- is not #ike dreams, etc=, etc=
(aidharmyat1 on account of difference of nature, because of dissimi#arityC
!ha1 and, a#soC "a1 notC Sva.nadivat1 #ike dreams etc=
The ar<ument a<ainst the Buddhistic theory is continued=
The wakin< state is not #ike dream, etc=, because of dissimi#arity= The ideas of
the wakin< state are not #ike those of a dream on account of their difference of
nature=
The Buddhists say1 The .erce.tion of the e>terna# wor#d is #ike the dream=
There are no e>terna# ob0ects in a dream and yet the ideas manifest as sub0ect
and ob0ect= Even so the a..earance of the e>terna# universe is inde.endent of any
ob0ective rea#ity=
The ana#o<y of dream .henomena to the .henomena of the wakin< wor#d is
wron<= The consciousness in a dream and that in a wakefu# state are dissimi#ar=
The consciousness in a dream de.ends on the .revious consciousness in the
wakefu# state, but the consciousness in the wakefu# state does not de.end on
anythin< e#se, but on the actua# .erce.tion by senses= urther the dream
e>.erience become fa#se as soon as one wakes u.= The dreamin< man says as
soon as he wakes u., JI wron<#y dreamt that I had a meetin< with the co##ector=
"o such meetin< took .#ace= 'y mind was du##ed by s#ee. and so the fa#se ideas
arose=J Those thin<s on the contrary, of which we are conscious in our wakin<
state such as .ost and the #ike are never ne<ated in any state= They stand
uncha##en<ed and uncontradicted= Even after hundreds of years they wi## have the
same a..earance as now=
'oreover dream .henomena are mere memories whereas the .henomena of
the wakin< state are e>.erienced as rea#ities= The distinction between
remembrance and e>.erience or immediate consciousness is direct#y rea#ised by
everyone as bein< founded on the absence or .resence of the ob0ect= Bhen a man
remembers his absent son, he does not direct#y meet him= Sim.#y because there is
simi#arity between dream state and wakin< state we cannot say that they have the
same nature= If a characteristic is not the nature of an ob0ect it wi## not become its
inherent nature sim.#y by bein< simi#ar to an ob0ect which has that nature= )ou
cannot say that fire which burns is co#d because it has characteristics in common
with water=
%ence the dreamin< state and the wakin< state are tota##y dissimi#ar in their
inherent nature=
"a bhavoInu.a#abdheh II=2=,8 +28*-
The e>istence +of Samskaras or menta# im.ressions- is not .ossib#e
+accordin< to the Bauddhas-, on account of the absence of .erce.tion
+of e>terna# thin<s-=
"a1 notC Bhavah1 e>istence +of im.ressions or Samskaras-C
Anu.a#abdheh1 because they are not .erceived, because +e>terna# thin<s- are
not e>.erienced=
The ar<ument a<ainst the Buddhistic theory is continued=
Accordin< to your doctrine there cou#d be no e>istence of (asanas or menta#
im.ressions as you deny the e>istence of ob0ects=
)ou say that thou<h an e>terna# thin< does not actua##y e>ist, yet its
im.ressions do e>ist, and from these im.ressions diversities of .erce.tion and
ideas #ike chair, tree arise= This is not .ossib#e, as there can be no .erce.tion of
an e>terna# thin< which is itse#f non&e>istent= If there be no .erce.tion of an
e>terna# thin<, how can it #eave an im.ressionL
If you say that the (asanas or the menta# im.ressions are Anadi
+be<innin<#ess, or cause#ess-, this wi## #and you in the #o<ica# fa##acy of re<ressus
ad infinitum= This wou#d in no way estab#ish your .osition= (asanas are Samskaras
or im.ressions and im.#y a cause and basis or substratum, but for you there is no
cause or basis for (asanas or menta# im.ressions, as you say that it cannot be
co<nised throu<h any means of know#ed<e=
;shanikatvacca II=2=,* +282-
And on account of the momentariness +of the A#ayavi0nana or e<oconsciousness
it cannot be the abode of the Samskaras or menta#
im.ressions-=
;shanikatvat1 on account of the momentarinessC !ha1 and=
The ar<ument a<ainst the Buddhistic theory is continued=
The menta# im.ressions cannot e>ist without a rece.tac#e or abode= Even the
A#ayavi0nana or e<o&consciousness cannot be the abode of menta# im.ressions as
it is a#so momentary accordin< to the Buddhistic view=
?n#ess there e>ists one continuous .ermanent .rinci.#e e@ua##y connected
with the .ast, the .resent and the future, or an abso#ute#y unchan<eab#e Se#f
which co<nises everythin<, we are unab#e to account for remembrance,
reco<nition, which are sub0ect to menta# im.ressions de.endent on .#ace, time
and cause= If you say that A#ayavi0nana is somethin< .ermanent then that wou#d
contradict your doctrine of momentariness=
Be have thus refuted the doctrine of the Buddhists which ho#ds the
momentary rea#ity of the e>terna# wor#d and the doctrine which dec#ares that ideas
on#y e>ist=
Sarvathanu.a.attescha II=2=,2 +28,-
And +as the Bauddha system is- i##o<ica# in every way +it cannot
be acce.ted-=
Sarvatha1 in every wayC Anu.a.atteh1 because of its not bein< .roved
i##o<ica#C !ha1 and, a#so=
The ar<ument a<ainst the Buddhistic theory is conc#uded here=
The Sunyavada or "ihi#ism of the Buddhist which asserts that nothin< e>ists
is fa##acious because it <oes a<ainst every method of .roof, viG=, .erce.tion,
inference, testimony and ana#o<y= It <oes a<ainst the Sruti and every means of
ri<ht know#ed<e= %ence it has to be tota##y i<nored by those who care for their
own ha..iness and we#fare= It need not be discussed in detai# as it <ives way on
a## sides, #ike the wa##s of a we## du< in sandy soi#= It has no foundation whatever
to rest u.on= Any endeavour to use this system as a <uide in the .ractica#
concerns of #ife is mere fo##y=
O SunyavadinsD )ou must admit yourse#f to be a bein< and your reasonin<
a#so to be somethin< and not nothin<= This contradicts your theory that a## is
nothin<=
urther, the means of know#ed<e by which Sunyata is to be .roved must at
#east be rea# and must be acknow#ed<ed to be true, because if such means of
know#ed<e and ar<uments be themse#ves nothin<, then the theory of nothin<ness
cannot be estab#ished= If these means and ar<uments be true, then somethin<
certain#y is .roved= Then a#so the theory of nothin<ness is dis.roved=
Ekasminnasambhavadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras ,,&,5-
Refutation of the /aina Doctrine
"aikasminnasambhavat II=2=,, +283-
On account of the im.ossibi#ity +of contradictory attributes- in
one and the same thin< at the same time +the /aina doctrine is- not
+to be acce.ted-=
"a1 notC Ekasmin1 in oneC Asambhavat1 on account of the im.ossibi#ity=
After the refutation of the Buddhistic doctrine of momentariness, (i0nanavada
and "ihi#ism, the /aina doctrine is taken u. for discussion and refutation=
The /ainas acknow#ed<e seven cate<ories or Tattvas, viG=, sou#+/iva-, nonsou#
+A0iva-, the issuin< outward+Asrava-, restraint +Samvara-, destruction
+"ir0ara-, bonda<e +Bandha-, and re#ease +'oksha-= These cate<ories can be
main#y divided into two <rou.s, the sou# and the non&sou#= The /ainas say a#so
that there are five Astikayas viG=, /iva or sou#, $ud<a#a +body, matter-, Dharma
+merit-, Adharma +demerit- and Akasa +s.ace-=
Their chief doctrine is the Sa.tabhan<inyaya= They .redicate seven different
views with reference to the rea#ity of everythin<, i=e=, it may e>ist, may not e>ist,
may e>ist and may not e>ist, may be ine>.ressib#e, may e>ist and may be
ine>.ressib#e, may not e>ist and may be ine>.ressib#e and may e>ist and may not
e>ist and may be ine>.ressib#e=
"ow this view about thin<s cannot be acce.ted, because in one substance it
is not .ossib#e that contradictory @ua#ities shou#d e>ist simu#taneous#y= "o one
ever sees the same ob0ect to be hot and co#d at the same time= Simu#taneous
e>istence of #i<ht and darkness in one .#ace is im.ossib#e=
Accordin< to the /aina doctrine, heaven and #iberation may e>ist or may not
e>ist= This wor#d, heaven and even #iberation wi## become doubtfu#= Be cannot
arrive at any definite know#ed<e= It wou#d be use#ess to #ay down ru#es of .ractice
for the attainment of heaven, for the avoidance of he## or for emanci.ation
because there is no certainty about anythin<= The heaven may as we## be he## and
fina# freedom not different from these= As everythin< is ambi<uous, there wou#d be
nothin< to distin<uish heaven, he## and fina# #iberation from each other=
!onfusion wi## arise not on#y with re<ard to the ob0ect of the wor#d, but of the
wor#d a#so= If thin<s are indefinite, and if everythin< is Jsomehow it is, somehow it
is not,J then a man who wants water wi## take fire to @uench his thirst and so on
with everythin< e#se, because it may be that fire is hot, it may be that fire is co#d=
If there is such doubt how can true know#ed<e resu#tL %ow can the /aina
teachers teach anythin< with certainty if everythin< is doubtfu#L %ow can their
fo##owers act at a##, #earnin< such teachin<sL
A..#yin< this Sa.tabhan<inyaya to their five Astikayas, the five may become
four or even #ess= If they are ine>.ressib#e, why do they ta#k about itL
Be have a#ready refuted the atomic theory on which is based the /aina
doctrine that $ud<a#a +matter- is due to atomic combination=
%ence the /aina doctrine is untenab#e and inadmissib#e= Their #o<ic is fra<i#e
as the thread of a s.ider and cannot stand the strain of reasonin<=
Evam chatmakartsnyam II=2=,3 +284-
And in the same way +there resu#ts from the /aina doctrine- the
non&universa#ity of the sou#=
Evam1 thus, in the same way, as it is su<<ested by the /aina theoryC !ha1
a#so, andC Atma&akartsnyam1 non&universa#ity of the sou#=
Other defects of the /aina theory are shown=
Be have hitherto s.oken about the ob0ection resu#tin< from the Syadvada of
the /ainas, viG=, that one thin< cannot have contradictory attributes= Be now turn
to the ob0ection that from their doctrine it wou#d fo##ow that the individua# sou# is
not universa#, i=e=, not omni.resent=
The /ainas ho#d that the sou# is of the siGe of the body= In that case it wou#d
be #imited and with .arts= %ence it cannot be eterna# and omni.resent=
'oreover, as the bodies of different c#asses of creatures are of different siGes,
the sou# of a man takin< the body of an e#e.hant on account of its .ast deeds wi##
not be ab#e to fi## u. that body= The sou# of an ant a#so wi## not be ab#e to fi## u.
the body of an e#e.hant= The sou# of an e#e.hant wi## not have sufficient s.ace in
the body of an ant= A #ar<e .ortion of it wi## have to be outside that body= The sou#
of a chi#d or a youth bein< sma##er in siGe wi## not be ab#e to fi## com.#ete#y the
body of a <rown&u. man=
The stabi#ity of the dimensions of the sou# is im.aired= The /aina theory itse#f
fa##s to the <round=
The /ainas may <ive an answer that a /iva has infinite #imbs and therefore
cou#d e>.and or contract= But cou#d those infinite #imbs be in the same .#ace or
notL If they cou#d not, how cou#d they be com.ressed in a sma## s.aceL If they
cou#d, then a## the #imbs must be in the same .#ace and cannot e>.and into a bi<
body= 'oreover they have no ri<ht to assume that a /iva has infinite #imbs= Bhat
is there to 0ustify the view that a body of #imited siGe contains an infinite number
of sou# .artic#esL
Be## then, the /ainas may re.#y, #et us assume that by turns whenever the
sou# enters a bi< body, some .artic#es accede to it, whi#e some withdraw from it,
whenever it enters a sma## body=
To this hy.othesis, the ne>t Sutra <ives a suitab#e answer=
"a cha .aryayada.yavirodho vikaradibhyah II=2=,4 +285-
"or is non&contradiction to be derived from the succession +of
.arts accordin< to and de.artin< from the sou# to such different
bodies- on account of the chan<e, etc=, +of the sou#-=
"a1 notC !ha1 a#so, andC $aryayat1 in turn, because of assumin< by
successionC A.i1 evenC Avirodhah1 no inconsistencyC (ikaradibhyah1 on account
of chan<e, etc=
urther defects of the /aina doctrine are shown in this Sutra=
The /aina may say that the sou# is rea##y indefinite in its siGe= Therefore when
it animates the bodies of an infant or a youth it has that siGe, and when it occu.ies
the bodies of horses or e#e.hants it e>.ands itse#f to that siGe= By successive
e>.ansion and di#ation #ike the <as it fu##y occu.ies the entire body which animates
for the time bein<= Then there is no ob0ection to our theory that the sou# is of the
siGe of the body=
Even if you say that the #imbs of the sou# kee. out or come in accordin< as
the body is sma## or bi<, you cannot <et over the ob0ection that in such a case the
sou# wi## be #iab#e to chan<e and conse@uent#y wi## not be eterna#= Then any ta#k of
bonda<e and emanci.ation wou#d be meanin<#ess= The futi#ity of the @uestion of
re#ease and of the .hi#oso.hy that dea#s with it wou#d resu#t=
If the sou#Is #imbs can come and <o, how cou#d it be different in nature from
the bodyL So one of these #imbs on#y can be the Atman= Bho can fi> itL Bhence
do the #imbs of the sou# comeL Bhere do they take restL They cannot s.rin< from
the materia# e#ements and re&enter the e#ements because the sou# is immorta#=
The #imbs come and <o= The sou# wi## be of an indefinite nature and stature=
The /aina may say that a#thou<h the sou#Is siGe successive#y chan<es it may
yet be .ermanent= /ust as the stream of water is .ermanent a#thou<h the water
continua##y chan<es=
Then the same ob0ection as that ur<ed a<ainst the Buddhists wi## arise= If
such a continuity is not rea# but is on#y a..arent, there wi## be no Atman at a##= Be
are #ed back to the doctrine of a <enera# void= If it is somethin< rea#, the sou# wi##
be #iab#e to chan<e and hence not eterna#= This wi## render the view of the /aina
im.ossib#e=
Antyavasthiteschobhayanityatvadavisesah II=2=,5 +287-
And on account of the .ermanency of the fina# +siGe of the sou#
on re#ease- and the resu#tin< .ermanency of the two +.recedin<
siGes-, there is no difference +of siGe of the sou#, at any time-=
Antyavasthiteh1 because of the .ermanency of the siGe at the endC !ha1
andC ?bhayanityatvat1 as both are .ermanentC Aviseshah1 because there bein<
no difference=
Discussion on the defects of the /aina doctrine is conc#uded=
urther the /ainas themse#ves admit the .ermanency of the fina# siGe of the
sou#, which it has in the sta<e of re#ease= rom this it fo##ows a#so that its initia#
siGe and its intervenin< siGe must be .ermanent= Therefore there is no difference
between the three siGes= Bhat is the s.ecia#ity of the state of re#easeL There is no
.ecu#iarity of difference, accordin< to the /ainas, between the state of re#ease and
the mundane state= The different bodies of the sou# have one and the same siGe
and the sou# cannot enter into bi<<er and sma##er bodies= The sou# must be
re<arded as bein< a#ways of the same siGe, whether minute or infinite and not of
the varyin< siGes of the bodies=
Therefore the /aina doctrine that the sou# varies accordin< to the siGe of the
body is untenab#e and inadmissib#e= It must be set aside as not in any way more
rationa# than the doctrine of the Buddhas=
$atyadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras ,7&3*-
Refutation of the $asu.ata System
$atyurasaman0asyat II=2=,7 +289-
The Lord +cannot be the efficient or the o.erative cause of the
wor#d- on account of the inconsistency +of that doctrine-=
$atyuh1 of the Lord, of $asu.ati, of the Lord of anima#sC Asaman0asyat1 on
account of inconsistency, on account of untenab#eness, ina..ro.riateness=
The $asu.atas or the 'ahesvaras are divided into four c#asses, viG=, ;a.a#a,
;a#amukha, $asu.ata and Saiva= Their scri.ture describes five cate<ories, viG=,
!ause +;arana-, Effect +;arya-, ?nion +)o<a by the .ractice of meditation-, Ritua#
+(idhi- and the end of .ain or sorrow +Duhkhanta-, i=e=, the fina# emanci.ation=
Their cate<ories were revea#ed by the <reat Lord $asu.ati %imse#f in order to
break the bonds of the sou# ca##ed herein $asu or anima#=
In this system $asu.ati is the o.erative or the efficient cause +"imitta
;arana-= 'ahat and the rest are the effects= ?nion means union with $asu.ati,
their :od, throu<h abstract meditation= Their ritua#s consist of bathin< thrice a
day, smearin< the forehead with ashes, interturnin< the fin<ers in re#i<ious
worshi. +'udra-, wearin< Rudraksha on the neck and arms, takin< food in a
human sku##, smearin< the body with ashes of a burnt human body, worshi..in<
the deity immersed in a wine&vesse#= By worshi..in< the $asu.ati the sou# attains
.ro>imity with the Lord, and there accrues a state of cessation of a## desires and
a## .ains which is 'oksha=
The fo##owers of this schoo# reco<nise :od as the efficient or the o.erative
cause= They reco<nise the .rimordia# matter as the materia# cause of the wor#d=
This theory is contrary to the view of the Sruti where Brahman is stated to be both
the efficient and the materia# cause of the wor#d= %ence the theory of $asu.atas
cannot be acce.ted=
Accordin< to (edanta, the Lord is both the efficient and the materia# cause of
the universe= The "aiyayikas, (aiseshikas, )o<ins and 'ahesvaras say that the
Lord is the efficient cause on#y and the materia# cause is either the atoms,
accordin< to the "aiyayikas and (aiseshikas, or the $radhana, accordin< to the
)o<ins and 'ahesvaras= %e is the ru#er of the $radhana and the sou#s which are
different from %im=
This view is wron< and inconsistent= Because :od wi## be .artia# to some and
.re0udiced a<ainst others= Because some are .ros.erous, whi#e others are
miserab#e in this universe= )ou cannot e>.#ain this sayin< that such difference is
due to diversity of ;arma, for if the Lord directs ;arma, they wi## become mutua##y
de.endent= )ou cannot e>.#ain this on the <round of be<innin<#essness, for the
defect of mutua# de.endence wi## .ersist=
)our doctrine is ina..ro.riate because you ho#d the Lord to be a s.ecia# kind
of sou#= rom this it fo##ows that %e must be devoid of a## activity=
The Sutrakara himse#f has .roved in the .revious Section of this book that
the Lord is the materia# cause as we## as the ru#er of the wor#d +efficient or the
o.erative cause-=
It is im.ossib#e that the Lord shou#d be the mere efficient cause of the wor#d,
because %is connection with the wor#d cannot be estab#ished= In ordinary wor#d#y
#ife we see that a .otter who is mere#y the efficient cause of the .ot has a certain
connection with the c#ay with which he fashions the .ot=
The Srutis em.hatica##y dec#are HI wi## become manyI +Tait= ?.= II=5-= This
indicates that the Lord is both the efficient and the materia# cause of the universe=
Sambandhanu.a.attescha II=2=,9 +286-
And because re#ation +between the Lord and the $radhana or the
sou#s- is not .ossib#e=
Sambandha1 re#ationC Anu.a.atteh1 because of the im.ossibi#ityC !ha1
and=
The ar<ument a<ainst the $asu.ata view is continued=
A Lord who is distinct from the $radhana and the sou#s cannot be the ru#er of
the #atter without bein< connected with them in a certain way= It cannot be
con0unction +Samyo<a-, because the Lord, the $radhana and the sou#s are of
infinite e>tent and destitute of .arts= %ence they cannot be ru#ed by %im=
There cou#d not be Samavaya&sambandha +inherence- which subsists
between entities inse.arab#y connected as who#e and .art, substance and
attributes etc=, +as in the case of Tantu&.ata, thread and c#oth-, because it wou#d
be im.ossib#e to define who shou#d be the abode and who the abidin< thin<=
The difficu#ty does not arise in the case of the (edantins= They say that
Brahman is Abhinna&"imitta&?.adana, the efficient cause and the materia# cause
of the wor#d= They affirm Tadatmya& sambandha +re#ation of identity-= urther
they de.end on the Srutis for their authority= They define the nature of the cause
and so on, on the basis of Sruti= They are, therefore, not ob#i<ed to render their
tenets entire#y conformab#e to observation as the o..onents have to=
The $asu.atas cannot say that they have the su..ort of the A<ama +Tantras-
for affirmin< Omniscience about :od= Such a statement suffers from the defect of
a #o<ica# see&saw +.etitio .rinci.ii-, because the omniscience of the Lord is
estab#ished on the doctrine of the scri.ture and the authority of the scri.ture is
a<ain estab#ished on the omniscience of the Lord=
or a## these reasons, such doctrines of Sankhyayo<a about the Lord is devoid
of foundation and is incorrect= Other simi#ar doctrines which #ikewise are not based
on the (eda are to be refuted by corres.ondin< ar<uments=
Adhishthananu.a.attescha II=2=,6 +2*8-
And on account of the im.ossibi#ity of ru#ershi. +on the .art of
the Lord-=
Adhisthana1 ru#ershi.C Anu.a.atteh1 because of the im.ossibi#ityC !ha1
and=
The ar<ument a<ainst the $asu.ata view is continued=
The Lord of the ar<umentative .hi#oso.hers, such as "aiyayikas, etc=, is
untenab#e hy.othesis= There is another #o<ica# fa##acy in the "yaya conce.tion of
Isvara= They say that the Lord creates the wor#d with the he#. of $radhana, etc=,
0ust as a .otter makes .ots with the mud=
But this cannot be admitted, because the $radhana which is devoid of co#our
and other @ua#ities and therefore not an ob0ect of .erce.tion, is on that account of
an entire#y different nature from c#ay and the #ike= Therefore, it cannot be #ooked
u.on as the ob0ect of the LordIs action= The Lord cannot direct the $radhana=
There is another meanin< a#so for this Sutra= In this wor#d we see a kin< with
a body and never a kin< without a body= Therefore, the Lord a#so must have a
body which wi## serve as the substratum of his or<ans= %ow can we ascribe a body
to the Lord, because a body is on#y .osterior to creationL
The Lord, therefore, is not ab#e to act because he is devoid of a materia#
substratum, because e>.erience teaches us that action needs a materia#
substratum= If we assume that the Lord .ossesses some kind of body which serves
as a substratum for his or<ans .rior to creation, this assum.tion a#so wi## not do,
because if the Lord has a body %e is sub0ect to the sensations of the ordinary
sou#s and thus no #on<er is the Lord=
The LordIs .uttin< on a body a#so cannot be estab#ished= So the Lord of
anima#s +$asu.ati- cannot be the ru#er of matter +$radhana-= That by .uttin< on a
body the Lord becomes the efficient cause of the wor#d is a#so fa##acious= In the
wor#d it is observed that a .otter havin< a bodi#y form fashions a .ot with the c#ay=
If from this ana#o<y the Lord is inferred to be the efficient cause of the wor#d, %e
is to be admitted to have a bodi#y form= But a## bodies are .erishab#e= Even the
$asu.atas admit that the Lord is eterna#= It is untenab#e that the eterna# Lord
resides in a .erishab#e body and so becomes de.endent on another additiona#
cause= %ence it cannot be inferred that the Lord has any bodi#y form=
There is sti## another meanin<= urther, there is in his case the im.ossibi#ity
+absence- of .#ace= or an a<ent #ike the .otter etc=, stands on the <round and
does his work= %e has a .#ace to stand u.on= $asu.ati does not .ossess that=
;aranavacchenna bho<adibhyah II=2=38 +2**-
If it be said +that the Lord ru#es the $radhana etc=,- 0ust as
+the /iva ru#es- the senses +which are a#so not .erceived-, +we say-
no, because of the en0oyment, etc=
;aranavat1 #ike the sensesC !het1 if, if it be conceived= "a1 not +no it cannot
be acce.ted-C Bho<adibhyah1 because of en0oyment, etc=
An ob0ection a<ainst Sutra ,9 is raised and refuted=
The Sutra consists of two .arts, name#y an ar<ument and its re.#y= The
ar<ument is H;aranavacchetI and the re.#y is H"a bho<adibhyahI=
The o..onent says1 /ust as the individua# sou# ru#es the sense or<ans which
are not .erceived, so a#so the Lord ru#es the $radhana, etc=
The ana#o<y is not correct, because the individua# sou# fee#s .#easure and
.ain= If the ana#o<y be true, the Lord a#so wou#d e>.erience .#easure and .ain,
caused by the $radhana etc=, and hence wou#d forfeit %is :odhead=
Antavattvamasarva0nata va II=2=3* +2*2-
+There wou#d fo##ow from their doctrine the LordIs- bein< sub0ect
to destruction or %is non&omniscience=
Antavattvam1 finiteness, terminab#eness, sub0ect to destructionC
Asarva0nata1 absence of OmniscienceC (a1 or=
The ar<ument raised in Sutra 38 is further refuted and thus the $asu.ata
doctrine is refuted=
Accordin< to these schoo#s +"yaya, $asu.ata, the 'ahesvara, etc=-, the Lord
is Omniscient and eterna#= The Lord, the $radhana and the sou#s are infinite and
se.arate= Does the Omniscient Lord know the measure of the $radhana, sou# and
%imse#f or notL If the Lord knows their measure, they a## are #imited= Therefore a
time wi## come when they wi## a## cease to e>ist= If Samsara ends and thus there is
no more $radhana, of what can :od be the basis or %is #ordshi.L Or, over what is
%is Omniscience to e>tendL If nature and sou#s are finite, they must have a
be<innin<= If they have a be<innin< and end, there wi## be sco.e for Sunyavada,
the doctrine of nothin<ness= If %e does not know them, then he wou#d no #on<er
be Omniscient= In either case the doctrine of the LordIs bein< the mere efficient
cause of the wor#d is untenab#e, inconsistent and unacce.tab#e=
If :od be admitted to have or<ans of senses and so to be sub0ect to .#easure
and .ain, as stated in Sutra 38, %e is sub0ect to birth and death #ike an ordinary
man= %e becomes devoid of Omniscience= This sort of :od is not acce.ted by the
$asu.atas even= %ence the doctrine of the $asu.atas, that :od is not the materia#
cause of the wor#d cannot be acce.ted=
?t.attyasambhavadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras 32&34-
Refutation of the Bha<avata or the $ancharatra schoo#
?t.attyasambhavat II=2=32 +2*,-
On account of the im.ossibi#ity of the ori<ination +of the
individua# sou# from the %i<hest Lord-, +the doctrine of the
Bha<avatas or the $ancharatra doctrine cannot be acce.ted-=
?t.atti1 causation, ori<ination, creationC Asambhavat1 on account of the
im.ossibi#ity=
The $ancharatra doctrine or the doctrine of the Bha<avatas is now refuted=
Accordin< to this schoo#, the Lord is the efficient cause as we## as the materia#
cause of the universe= This is in @uite a<reement with the scri.ture or the Sruti
and so it is authoritative= A .art of their system a<rees with the (edanta system=
Be acce.t this= Another .art of the system, however, is o.en to ob0ection=
The Bha<avatas say that (aasudeva whose nature is .ure know#ed<e is what
rea##y e>ists= %e divides %imse#f fourfo#d and a..ears in four forms +(yuhas- as
(aasudeva, Sankarshana, $radyumna and Aniruddha= (aasudeva denotes the
Su.reme Se#f, Sankarshana the individua# sou#, $radyumna the mind, and
Aniruddha the .rinci.#e of e<oism, or Ahamkara= Of these four (aasudeva
constitutes the ?#timate !ause, of which the three others are the effects=
They say that by devotion for a #on< .eriod to (aasudeva throu<h
Abhi<amana +<oin< to the tem.#e with devotion-, ?.adana +securin< the
accessories of worshi.-= I0ya +ob#ation, worshi.-, Svadhyaya +study of ho#y
scri.ture and recitation of 'antras- and )o<a +devout meditation- we can .ass
beyond a## aff#ictions, .ains and sorrows, attain Liberation and reach the Su.reme
Bein<= Be acce.t this doctrine=
But we controvert the doctrine that Sankarshana +the /iva- is born from
(aasudeva and so on= Such creation is not .ossib#e= If there is such birth, if the
sou# be created it wou#d be sub0ect to destruction and hence there cou#d be no
Liberation= That the sou# is not created wi## be shown in Sutra II=,= *7=
or this reason the $ancharatra doctrine is not acce.tab#e=
"a cha kartuh karanam II=2=3, +2*3-
And +it is- not +observed that- the instrument +is .roduced- from
the a<ent=
"a1 notC !ha1 andC ;artuh1 from the a<entC ;aranam1 the instrument=
The ar<ument a<ainst the $ancharatra doctrine is continued=
An instrument such as a hatchet and the #ike is not seen to be .roduced from
the a<ent, the woodcutter= But the Bha<avatas teach that from an a<ent, viG=, the
individua# sou# termed Sankarshana, there s.rin<s its interna# instrument or mind
+$radyumna- and from the mind, the e<o or Ahamkara +Aniruddha-=
The mind is the instrument of the sou#= "owhere do we see the instrument
bein< born from the doer= "or can we acce.t that Ahamkara issues from the mind=
This doctrine cannot be acce.ted= Such doctrine cannot be sett#ed without
observed instances= Be do not meet with any scri.tura# .assa<e in its favour= The
scri.ture dec#ares that everythin< takes its ori<in from Brahman=
(i0nanadibhave va tada.ratishedhah II=2=33 +2*4-
Or if the +four (yuhas are said to- .ossess infinite know#ed<e,
etc=, yet there is no denia# of that +viG=, the ob0ection raised in
Sutra 32-=
(i0nanadibhave1 if inte##i<ence etc= e>istC (a1 or, on the other handC Tat1
that +Tasya iti-C A.ratishedhah1 no denia# +of-= +(i0nana1 know#ed<eC Adi1 and
the restC Bhave1 of the nature +of-=-
The ar<ument a<ainst the $ancharatra doctrine is continued=
The error of the doctrine wi## .ersist even if they say that a## the (yuhas are
:ods havin< inte##i<ence, etc=
The Bha<avatas may say, that a## the forms are (aasudeva, the Lord, and
that a## of them e@ua##y .ossess ;now#ed<e, Lordshi., Stren<th, $ower, etc=, and
are free from fau#ts and im.erfections=
In this case there wi## be more than one Isvara= This <oes a<ainst your own
doctrine accordin< to which there is on#y one rea# essence, viG=, the ho#y
(aasudeva= A## the work can be done by on#y One Lord= Bhy shou#d there be four
IsvarasL
'oreover, there cou#d be no birth of one from another, because they are
e@ua# accordin< to the Bha<avatas, whereas a cause is a#ways <reater than the
effect= Observation shows that the re#ation of cause and effect re@uires some
su.eriority on the .art of the cause, as for instance, in the case of the c#ay and
the .ot, where the cause is more e>tensive than the effect and that without such
su.eriority the re#ation is sim.#y im.ossib#e= The Bha<avatas do not acknow#ed<e
any difference founded on su.eriority of know#ed<e, .ower, etc=, between
(aasudeva and the other Lords, but sim.#y say that they are a## forms of
(aasudeva without any s.ecia# distinction=
Then a<ain, the forms of (aasudeva cannot be #imited to four on#y, as the
who#e wor#d from Brahma down to a b#ade of <rass is a form or manifestation of
the Su.reme Bein<= The who#e wor#d is the (yuha of (aasudeva=
(i.ratishedhacca II=2=34 +2*5-
And because of contradictions +the $ancharatra doctrine is
untenab#e-=
(i.ratishedhat1 because of contradictionC !ha1 and=
The ar<ument a<ainst the doctrine of the Bha<avatas is conc#uded here=
There are a#so other inconsistencies, or manifo#d contradictions in the
$ancharatra doctrine= /nana, Aisvarya, or ru#in< ca.acity, Sakti +creative .ower-,
Ba#a +stren<th-, (irya +va#our- and Te0as +<#ory- are enumerated as @ua#ities and
they are a<ain in some other .#ace s.oken of as se#fs, ho#y (aasudevas and so on=
It says that (aasudeva is different from Sankarshana, $radyumna and Aniruddha=
)et it says that these are the same as (aasudeva= Sometimes it s.eaks of the four
forms as @ua#ities of the Atman and sometimes as the Atman itse#f=
urther we meet with .assa<es contradictory to the (edas= It contains words
of de.reciation of the (edas= It says that Sandi#ya <ot the $ancharatra doctrine
after findin< that the (edas did not contain the means of .erfection= "ot havin<
found the hi<hest b#iss in the (edas, Sandi#ya studied this Sastra=
or this reason a#so the Bha<avata doctrine cannot be acce.ted= As this
system is o..osed to and condemned by a## the Srutis and abhored by the wise, it
is not worthy of re<ard=
Thus in this $ada has been shown that the .aths of Sankhyas, (aiseshikas
and the rest down to the $ancharatra doctrine are strewn with thorns and are fu##
of difficu#ties, whi#e the .ath of (edanta is free from a## these defects and shou#d
be trodden by every one who wishes his fina# beatitude and sa#vation=
Thus ends the Second $ada +Section 2- of the Second Adhyaya +!ha.ter II-
of the Brahmasutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
SE!TIO" ,
Introduction
In the .revious Section the inconsistency of the doctrines of the various non&
(edantic schoo#s has been shown= After showin< the untenabi#ity and unre#iabi#ity
of other systems, Sri (yasa, the author of (edanta Sutras now .roceeds to e>.#ain
the a..arent contradictions and inconsistencies in the Sruti system because there
a..ear to be diversities of doctrines with reference to the ori<in of the e#ements,
the senses, etc=
Be now c#ear#y understand that other .hi#oso.hica# doctrines are worth#ess
on account of their mutua# contradictions= "ow a sus.icion may arise that the
(edantic doctrine a#so is e@ua##y worth#ess on account of its intrinsic
contradictions= Therefore a new discussion is be<un in order to remove a## doubts
in the (edanta .assa<es which refer to creation and thus to remove the sus.icion
in the minds of the readers= %ere we have to consider first the @uestion whether
ether +Akasa- has an ori<in or not=
In Sections III and I( the a..arent contradictions in Sruti te>ts are
beautifu##y harmonised and reconci#ed= The ar<uments of the o..onent
+$urva.akshin- who attem.ts to .rove the Se#f&contradiction of the scri.tura# te>ts
are <iven first= Then comes the refutation by the Siddhantin=
Syno.sis
The Third Section of !ha.ter II dea#s with the order of creation as it is tau<ht
in Sruti, of the five .rima# e#ements name#y Akasa, air, fire, water and earth= It
discusses the @uestion whether the e#ements have an ori<in or not, whether they
are co&eterna# with Brahman or issue from it and are withdrawn into it at stated
interva#s= The essentia# characteristics of the individua# is a#so ascertained=
The first seven Adhikaranas dea# with the five e#ementary substances=
Adhikarana I1 +Sutras *&7- teaches that the ether is not co&eterna# with
Brahman but ori<inates from it as its first effect= Thou<h there is no mention of
Akasa in the !hhando<ya ?.anisad, the inc#usion of Akasa is im.#ied=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutra 9- shows that air ori<inates from ether=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutra 6- teaches that there is no ori<in of that which is +i=e=,
Brahman- on account of the im.ossibi#ity of there bein< an ori<in of Brahman, and
as it does not stand to reason=
Adhikarana I(, (, (I1 +Sutras, *8, **, *2- teach that fire s.rin<s from air,
water from fire, earth from water=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutra *,- teaches that the ori<ination of one e#ement from
another is due not to the #atter in itse#f but to Brahman actin< in it= Brahman who
is their Indwe##er has actua##y evo#ved these successive e#ements=
Adhikarana (III1 +Sutra *3- shows that the absor.tion of the e#ements into
Brahman takes .#ace in the inverse order of their creation=
Adhikarana IK1 +Sutra *4- teaches that the order in which the creation and
the re&absor.tion of the e#ements takes .#ace is not interfered with by the creation
and re&absor.tion of $rana, mind and the senses, because they a#so are the
creations of Brahman, and are of e#ementa# nature and therefore are created and
absorbed to<ether with the e#ements of which they consist=
The remainin< .ortion of this Section is devoted to the s.ecia# characteristics
of the individua# sou# by com.arin< different Srutis bearin< on this .oint=
Adhikarana K1 +Sutra *5- shows that e>.ressions such as JRamakrishna is
bornJ JRamakrishna has diedJ, strict#y a..#y to the body on#y and are transferred
to the sou# in so far on#y as it is connected with a body=
Adhikarana KI1 +Sutra *7- teaches that the individua# sou# is accordin< to the
Srutis .ermanent, eterna#= Therefore it is not #ike the ether and the other
e#ements, .roduced from Brahman at the time of creation= The /iva is in rea#ity
identica# with Brahman= Bhat ori<inates is mere#y the sou#Is connection with its
#imitin< ad0uncts such as mind, body, senses, etc= This connection is moreover
i##usory=
Adhikarana KII1 +Sutra *9- defines the nature of the individua# sou#= The
Sutra dec#ares that inte##i<ence is the very essence of the sou#=
Adhikarana KIII1 +Sutras *6&,2- dea#s with the @uestion whether the
individua# sou# is Anu, i=e=, of very minute siGe or omni.resent, a##&.ervadin<= The
Sutras *6&29 re.resent the view of the $urva.akshin accordin< to which the
individua# sou# is Anu, whi#e Sutra 26 formu#ates the Siddhanta viG=, the individua#
sou# is in rea#ity a##&.ervadin<C it is s.oken of as Anu in some scri.tura# .assa<es
because the @ua#ities of the interna# or<an itse#f are Anu which constitute the
essence of the /iva so #on< as he is invo#ved in the Samsara=
Sutra ,8 e>.#ains that the sou# may be ca##ed Anu as it is connected with the
Buddhi as #on< as it is im.#icated in the Samsara=
Sutra ,* intimates that in the state of dee. s#ee. the sou# is .otentia##y
connected with the Buddhi whi#e in the wakin< state that connection becomes
actua##y manifest=
Sutra ,2 intimates that if no inte##ect e>isted there wou#d resu#t constant
.erce.tion or constant non&.erce.tion=
Adhikaranas KI( and K(1 +Sutras ,,&,6 and 38- refer to the ;artritva of the
individua# sou#, whether the sou# is an a<ent or not=
Sutras ,,&,6 dec#are that the sou# is an a<ent= The sou# is an a<ent when he
is connected with the instruments of action, Buddhi, etc= Sutra 38 intimates that
he ceases to be an a<ent when he is dissociated from them, 0ust as the car.enter
works as #on< as he wie#ds his instruments and rests after havin< #aid them aside=
Adhikarana K(I1 +Sutras 3*&32- teaches that the a<entshi. of the individua#
sou# is veri#y subordinate to and contro##ed by the Su.reme Lord= The Lord a#ways
directs the sou# accordin< to his <ood or bad actions done in .revious births=
Adhikarana K(II +Sutras 3,&4,- treats of the re#ation of the individua# sou# to
Brahman=
Sutra 3, dec#ares that the individua# sou# is a .art +Amsa- of Brahman= This
Sutra .ro.ounds Avacchedavada i=e=, the doctrine of #imitation i=e=, the doctrine
that the sou# is the Su.reme Se#f in so far as #imited by its ad0uncts=
The fo##owin< Sutras intimate that the Su.reme Lord is not affected by
.#easure and .ain #ike the individua# sou#, 0ust as #i<ht is unaffected by the shakin<
of its ref#ections=
Accordin< to Sankara, HAmsaI must be understood to mean HAmsa ivaI, a .art
as it were= The one universa# indivisib#e Brahman has no rea# .arts but a..ears to
be divided owin< to its #imitin< ad0uncts=
Sutra 37 teaches that the individua# sou#s are re@uired to fo##ow the different
in0unctions and .rohibitions #aid down in the scri.tures, when they are connected
with bodies, hi<h and #ow= ire is one on#y but the fire of a funera# .yre is re0ected
and that of the sacrifice is acce.ted= Simi#ar is the case with the Atman= Bhen the
sou# is attached to the body, ethica# ru#es, ideas of .urity and im.urity have fu##
a..#ication=
Sutra 36 shows that there is no confusion of actions or fau#ts of actions= The
individua# sou# has no connection with a## the bodies at the same time= %e is
connected with one body on#y and he is affected by the .ecu#iar .ro.erties of that
one a#one=
Sutra 48 .ro.ounds the doctrine of ref#ection +Abhasavada- or
$ratibimbavada, the doctrine that the individua# sou# is a mere ref#ection of the
Su.reme Brahman in the Buddhi or inte##ect=
In the Sankhya .hi#oso.hy the individua# sou# has been stated to be a##.ervadin<=
If this view be acce.ted there wou#d be confusion of works and their
effects= This view of the Sankhyas is, therefore, an unfair conc#usion=
(iyadadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&7-
Ether is not eterna# but created
"a viyadasruteh II=,=* +2*7-
+The $urva.akshin, i=e=, the ob0ector says that- ether +Akasa-
+does- not +ori<inate-, as Sruti does not say so=
"a1 notC (iyat1 ether, s.ace, AkasaC Asruteh1 as Sruti does not say so=
The o..onent raises a contention that Akasa is uncreated and as such not
.roduced out of Brahman= This .rima facie view is set aside in the ne>t Sutra=
To be<in with the te>ts which treat of creation are taken u.= Akasa +ether- is
first dea#t with= The $urva.akshin says that Akasa is not caused or created
because there is no Sruti to that effect= Akasa is eterna# and is not caused because
the Sruti does not ca## it caused, whi#e it refers to the creation of fire= JTadaikshata
bahu syam .ra0ayeyeti tatte0oIsri0ataJ JIt thou<ht H'ay I become many, may I
<row forthI & It sent forth fireJ= +!hh= ?.= (I=2=,-= %ere there is no mention of
Akasa bein< .roduced by Brahman= As scri.tura# sentence is our on#y authority in
the ori<ination of know#ed<e of su.ersensuous thin<s, and as there is no scri.tura#
statement dec#arin< the ori<in of ether, ether must be considered to have no
ori<in= Therefore Akasa has no ori<in= It is eterna#=
In the (edantic te>ts, we come across in different .#aces different statements
re<ardin< the ori<in of various thin<s= Some te>ts say that the ether and air
ori<inatedC some do not= Some other te>ts a<ain make simi#ar statements
re<ardin< the individua# sou# and the $ranas +vita# airs-= In some .#aces the Sruti
te>ts contradict one another re<ardin< order of succession and the #ike=
Asti tu II=,=2 +2*9-
But there is +a Sruti te>t which states that Akasa is created-=
Asti1 there isC Tu1 but=
The contradiction raised in Sutra * is .artia##y met here=
The word HbutI +tu- is used in this Sutra in order to remove the doubt raised
in the .recedin< Sutra=
But there is a Sruti which e>.ress#y says so= Thou<h there is no statement in
the !hhando<ya ?.anishad re<ardin< the causation of Akasa, yet there is a
.assa<e in the Taittiriya Sruti on its causation= JTasmad va etasmadatmana
akasah sambhutahJ & Jrom the Se#f +Brahman- s.ran< Akasa, from Akasa the air,
from air the fire, from fire the water, from water the earth +Tait= ?.= II=*-=J
:aunyasambhavat II=,=, +2*6-
+The Sruti te>t concernin< the ori<ination of Akasa- has a
secondary sense, on account of the im.ossibi#ity +of the ori<ination
of the Akasa-=
:auni1 used in a secondary sense, havin< a meta.horica# senseC
Asambhavat1 because of the im.ossibi#ity=
%ere is an ob0ection a<ainst Sutra 28=
The o..onent says1 The Taittiriya te>t referred to in the .revious Sutra which
dec#ares the ori<ination of the Akasa shou#d be taken in a secondary sense
+fi<urative-, as Akasa cannot be created= It has no .arts= Therefore it cannot be
created=
The (aiseshikas deny that Akasa was caused= They say that causation im.#ies
three factors, viG=, Samavayikarana +inherent causes & many and simi#ar factors-,
Asamavayikarana +non& inherent causes, their combination- and "imittakarana
+o.erative causes, a human a<ency-= To make a c#oth threads and their
combination and a weaver are needed= Such causa# factors do not e>ist in the case
of Akasa=
Be cannot .redicate of s.ace a s.ace#ess state, 0ust as we can .redicate of
fire an antecedent state without bri<htness=
urther un#ike earth, etc=, Akasa is a##&.ervadin< and hence cou#d not have
been caused or created= It is eterna#= It is without ori<in=
The word HAkasaI is used in a secondary sense in such .hrases as Hmake
roomI, Hthere is roomI= A#thou<h s.ace is on#y one it is desi<nated as bein< of
different kinds when we s.eak of the s.ace of a .ot, the s.ace of a house= Even in
(edic .assa<es a form of e>.ression such as H%e is to .#ace the wi#d anima#s in the
s.aces +Akaseshu-I is seen= %ence we conc#ude that those Sruti te>ts a#so which
s.eak of the ori<ination of Akasa must be taken to have a secondary sense or
fi<urative meanin<=
Sabdacca II=,=3 +228-
A#so from the Sruti te>ts +we find that Akasa is eterna#-=
Sabdat1 from the Sruti te>ts, because Sruti says soC !ha1 a#so, and=
%ere is an ob0ection a<ainst Sutra 2=
In the .revious Sutra Akasa was inferred to be eterna#= In this Sutra the
o..onent cites a Sruti te>t to show that it is eterna#= %e .oints out that Sruti
describes Akasa as uncaused and uncreated= J(ayuschantariksham
chaitadamritamJ & JThe air and the Akasa are immorta#J +Br ?.= II=,=,-= Bhat is
immorta# cannot have an ori<in=
Another scri.tura# .assa<e, JOmni.resent and eterna# #ike etherJ & JAkasavat
sarva<ato nityahJ, indicates that those two @ua#ities of Brahman be#on< to the
ether a#so= %ence an ori<in cannot be attributed to the Akasa=
Other scri.tura# .assa<es are1 JAs this Akasa is infinite, so the Se#f is to be
known as infinite=J JBrahman has the ether for its body, the Akasa is the Se#f=J If
the Akasa had a be<innin< it cou#d not be .redicated of Brahman as we .redicate
b#ueness of a #otus +#otus is b#ue-=
Therefore the eterna# Brahman is of the same nature as Akasa= +This is the
view of the o..onent & $urva.akshin-=
Syaccaikasya Brahmasabdavat II=,=4 +22*-
It is .ossib#e that the one word +Hs.ran<I & Sambhutah- may be
used in a secondary and .rimary sense #ike the word Brahman=
Syat1 is .ossib#eC !ha1 a#so, andC Ekasya1 of the one and the same wordC
Brahmasabdavat1 #ike the word Brahman=
An ar<ument in su..ort of the above ob0ection is now advanced by the
o..onent +$urva.akshin-=
The o..onent says that the same word Hs.ran<I +Sambhutah- in the Taittiriya
te>t +II=*- & Jrom that Brahman s.ran< Akasa, from Akasa s.ran< air, from air
s.ran< fire=J & can be used in a secondary sense with res.ect to Akasa and in the
.rimary sense with res.ect to air, fire, etc= %e su..orts his statement by makin<
reference to other Sruti te>ts where the word HBrahmanI is so used= JTry to know
Brahman by .enance, because, .enance is BrahmanJ +Tait= ?.= III=2-= %ere
Brahman is used both in a .rimary and in a secondary sense in the same te>t=
The same word Brahman is in the way of fi<urative identification +Bhakti-
a..#ied to .enance which is on#y the means of knowin< Brahman and a<ain
direct#y to Brahman as the ob0ect of know#ed<e=
A#so Jood is Brahman & Annam BrahmaJ +Tait= ?.= III=2-, and JB#iss is
Brahman & Anando BrahmaJ +Tait= ?.= III=5-= %ere Brahman is used in a
secondary and .rimary sense res.ective#y in two com.#ementary te>ts=
The (edantin says1 But how can we u.ho#d now the va#idity of the statement
made in the c#ause, JBrahman is one on#y without a second & Ekameva Advitiyam
BrahmaJ= Because if Akasa is a second entity co&e>istin< with Brahman from
eternity, it fo##ows that Brahman has a second= If it is so, how can it be said that
when Brahman is known everythin< is knownL +!hh= ?.= (I=*=,-=
The o..onent re.#ies that the words JEkameva & one on#yJ are used with
reference to the effects= /ust as when a man sees in a .otterIs house a #um. of
c#ay, a staff, a whee# and so on today and on the fo##owin< day a number of .ots
and says that c#ay a#one e>isted on the .revious day, he means on#y that the
effects, i=e=, the .ots did not e>ist and does not deny the whee# or the stick of the
.otter, even so the .assa<e means on#y that there is no other cause for Brahman
which is the materia# cause of the wor#d= The term Hwithout a secondI does not
e>c#ude the e>istence from eternity of ether but e>c#udes the e>istence of any
other su.erintendin< Bein< but Brahman= There is a su.erintendin< .otter in
addition to the materia# cause of the vesse#s, i=e=, the c#ay= But there is no other
su.erintendent in addition to Brahman, the materia# cause of the universe=
The o..onent further adds that the e>istence of Akasa wi## not brin< about
the e>istence of two thin<s, for number comes in on#y when there are diverse
thin<s= Brahman and Akasa have no such diverseness before creation as both are
a##&.ervadin< and infinite and are indistin<uishab#e #ike mi#k and water mi>ed
to<ether= Therefore the Sruti says1 JAkasasariram Brahma & Brahman has the
ether for its bodyJ= It fo##ows that the two are identica#=
'oreover a## created thin<s are one with Akasa which is one with Brahman=
Therefore if Brahman is known with its effects, Akasa a#so is known=
The case is simi#ar to that of a few dro.s of water .oured into a cu. of mi#k=
These dro.s are taken when the mi#k is taken= The takin< of the dro.s does not
form somethin< additiona# to the takin< of the mi#k= Simi#ar#y the Akasa which is
non&se.arate in .#ace and time from Brahman, and its effects, is com.rised within
Brahman= Therefore, we have to understand the .assa<es about the ori<in of the
ether in a secondary sense=
Thus the o..onent +$urva.akshin- tries to estab#ish that Akasa is uncreated
and is not an effect and that the Sruti te>t ca##s it HSambhutaI +created- on#y in a
secondary sense=
$rati0naIhaniravyatirekacchabdebhyah II=,=5 +222-
The non&abandonment of the .ro.osition +viG=, by the know#ed<e of
one everythin< e#se becomes known, can resu#t on#y- from the nondifference
+of the entire wor#d from Brahman- accordin< to the words
of the (eda or the Sruti te>ts +which dec#are the non&difference of
the cause and its effects-=
$rati0na ahanih1 non&abandonment of the .ro.ositionC Avyatirekat1 from
non distinction, on account of non&difference, because of absence of e>c#usionC
Sabdebhyah1 from the words name#y from the Srutis=
The ob0ection raised in Sutra * and continued in Sutras ,, 3 and 4 is now
re.#ied to=
The Sutrakara refutes the $urva.akshinIs +ob0ectorIs- view and estab#ishes
his .osition= The scri.tura# assertion that from the know#ed<e of One +Brahman-
everythin< e#se is known can be true on#y if everythin< in the wor#d is an effect of
Brahman= Because the Sruti says that the effects are not different from the cause=
Therefore if the cause +Brahman- is known, the effects a#so wi## be known= If
Akasa does not ori<inate from Brahman, then by knowin< Brahman we cannot
know Akasa= Therefore the above assertion wi## not come true= Akasa sti## remains
to be known as it is not an effect of Brahman= But if Akasa is created then there
wi## be no such difficu#ty at a##= Therefore Akasa is an effect= It is created= If it is
not created the authoritativeness of the (edas wi## disa..ear=
The o..onent is entire#y wron< in ima<inin< that the Taittiriya Sruti is in
conf#ict with !hhando<ya ?.anishad= )ou wi## have to add in the !hhando<ya Sruti
JAfter creatin< Akasa and (ayuJ= Then the te>t wou#d mean that after creatin<
Akasa and (ayu JBrahman created fire=J "ow there wi## be no conf#ict at a##=
'oreover, the e>.#anation that as Brahman and Akasa are one #ike mi#k and
water and that as Akasa is one with a## thin<s it wi## be known by knowin<
Brahman and its effects is entire#y wron<, because the know#ed<e of mi#k and
water which are one is not a correct know#ed<e= The ana#o<y <iven in the Sruti
te>t is not mi#k and water, but c#ay and 0ars to indicate that a## effects are not
se.arate from the cause and because the word HevaI in JEkameva AdvitiyamJ
e>c#udes two combined thin<s #ike mi#k and water and says that on#y one entity is
the cause=
The know#ed<e of everythin< throu<h the know#ed<e of one thin< of which
the Sruti s.eaks cannot be e>.#ained throu<h the ana#o<y of mi#k mi>ed with
water, for we understand from the .ara##e# instance of a .iece of c#ay bein<
brou<ht forward, +!hh= ?.= (I=*=3-, that the know#ed<e of everythin< has to be
e>.erienced throu<h the re#ation of the materia# cause and the materia# effect= The
know#ed<e of the cause im.#ies the know#ed<e of the effect= urther, the
know#ed<e of everythin<, if taken to be simi#ar to the case of know#ed<e of mi#k
and water, cou#d not be ca##ed a .erfect know#ed<e +Samya<&(i0nana-, because
the water which is a..rehended on#y throu<h the know#ed<e of the mi#k with
which it is mi>ed is not <ras.ed by .erfect know#ed<e, because the water a#thou<h
mi>ed with the mi#k, yet is different from it=
That nothin< has an inde.endent e>istence a.art from Brahman is
corroborated by statements in Sruti1 JSarvam kha#vidam BrahmaJ & JIdam sarvam
yadayamatmaJ= That Se#f is a## that is +Bri= ?.= II=3=5-=
)avadvikaram tu vibha<o #okavat II=,=7 +22,-
But wherever there are effects, there are se.arateness as is seen
in the wor#d +as in ordinary #ife-=
)avat vikaram1 so far as a## modifications <o, wherever there is an effectC
Tu1 butC (ibha<ah1 division, se.arateness, distinction, s.ecificationC Lokavat1 as
in the wor#d= +)avat1 whateverC (ikaram1 transformation=-
The ar<ument be<un in Sutra 5 is conc#uded here=
The word HtuI +but- refutes the idea that Akasa is not created= It shows that
the doubt raised in the #ast Sutra is bein< removed=
The !hhando<ya ?.anishad .ur.ose#y omits Akasa and (ayu from the #ist
enumerated, because it kee.s in view the .rocess of Trivritkarana, combination of
the three visib#e e#ements +'urta, i=e=, with form-, instead of $anchikarana,
combination of five e#ements which is e#sewhere deve#o.ed=
It is to be noted here that thou<h a## the e#ements ori<inate from Brahman,
yet Akasa and air are not mentioned by name in the Sruti, !hhando<ya
?.anishad, whereas fire, water and earth are distinct#y stated therein to have
ori<inated from Brahman= The s.ecification is #ike that found in simi#ar cases of
ordinary e>.erience in the wor#d, for instance, to mean a## the sons of a .articu#ar
.erson, Ramakrishna, on#y a few of them are named=
This is 0ust #ike what we find in the ordinary wor#d= If a man says Ja## these
are sons of "arayanaJ and then he <ives certain .articu#ars about the birth of one
of them, he im.#ies thereby that it a..#ies to the birth of a## the rest= Even so
when the ?.anishad says that Ja## this has its se#f in BrahmanJ and then it <oes on
to <ive the ori<in of some of them from Brahman such as fire, water and earth, it
does not mean that others have not their ori<in in %im, but it on#y means that it
was not thou<ht necessary to <ive a detai#ed account of their ori<in= Therefore,
thou<h there is no e>.ress te>t in the !hhando<ya ?.anishad as to the ori<in of
Akasa, yet we infer from the universa# .ro.osition therein that Jeverythin< has its
se#f in BrahmanJ, that Akasa has its se#f in Brahman, and so is .roduced from
Brahman=
Akasa is an e#ement #ike fire and air= Therefore it must have an ori<in= It is
the substratum of im.ermanent @ua#ity #ike the sound, and so it must be
im.ermanent= This is the direct ar<ument to .rove the ori<in and destruction of
Akasa= The indirect ar<ument to .rove it is, Jwhatever has no ori<in is eterna# as
BrahmanJ and whatever has .ermanent @ua#ities is eterna# as the sou#, but Akasa
not bein< #ike Brahman in these res.ects, cannot be eterna#=
Akasa takes its ori<in from Brahman, thou<h we cannot conceive how s.ace
can have any ori<in=
Be see in this universe that a## created thin<s are different from each other=
Bhatever we observe1 effects or modifications of a substance such as 0ars, .ots,
brace#ets, arm#ets, and ear&rin<s, need#es, arrows, and swords we observe division
or se.arateness= Bhatever is divided or se.arate is an effect, as 0ars, .ots, etc=
Bhatever is not an effect is not divided as the Atman or Brahman= A .ot is
different from a .iece of c#oth and so on= Everythin< that is divided or se.arate is
created= It cannot be eterna#= )ou cannot think of a thin< as se.arate from others
and yet eterna#=
Akasa is se.arate from earth, etc= %ence Akasa a#so must be an effect= It
cannot be eterna#= It must be a created thin<=
If you say that Atman a#so, bein< a..arent#y se.arate from Akasa etc=, must
be an effect we re.#y that it is not so, because Akasa itse#f has ori<inated from
Atman= The Sruti dec#ares that JAkasa s.ran< from the AtmanJ +Tait= ?.= II=*-= If
Atman a#so is an effect, Akasa etc=, wi## be without an Atman i=e=, Svaru.a= The
resu#t wi## be Sunyavada or the doctrine of nothin<ness= Atman is Bein<, therefore
it cannot be ne<atived= JAtmatvacchatmano nirakaranasankanu.a.attihJ= It is se#f
e>istent= J"a hyatma& <antukah kasyachit, svayam siddhatvatJ= It is se#f&evident=
J"a hyatma atmanah .ramana.ekshaya siddhyati=J
Akasa etc=, are not stated by any one to be se#f&e>istent= %ence no one can
deny the Atman, because the denier is himse#f, Atman= Atman e>ists and is
eterna#=
The A##&.ervasiveness and eternity of Akasa are on#y re#ative#y true= Akasa is
created= It is an effect of Brahman=
In the c#auses, JI know at the .resent moment whatever is .resent, I knew at
former moments, the nearer and the remoter .astC I sha## know in the future, the
nearer and remoter futureJ the ob0ect of know#ed<e chan<es accordin< as it is
somethin< .ast or somethin< future or somethin< .resent= But the knowin< a<ent
does not chan<e at a## as his nature is eterna# .resence= As the nature of the
Atman is eterna# .resence it cannot be annihi#ated even when the body is burnt to
ashes= )ou cannot even think that it ever shou#d become somethin< different from
what it is= %ence the Atman or Brahman is not an effect= The Akasa, on the
contrary, comes under the cate<ory of effects=
'oreover, you say that there must be many and simi#ar causa# factors before
an effect can be .roduced= This ar<ument is not correct= Threads are Dravya
+substance-= Their combination +Samyo<a- is a :una +attribute- and yet both are
factors in the .roduction of an effect= Even if you say that the need for many and
simi#ar causa# factors a..#ies on#y to Samavayikarana, this sort of e>.#anation is
not correct, for a ro.e or a car.et is s.un out of thread, woo#, etc=
'oreover, why do you say that many causa# factors are neededL In the case
of $aramanu or u#timate atom or mind, the initia# activity is admitted#y not due to
many causa# factors= "or can you say that on#y for a Dravya +substance- many
causa# factors are necessary= That wou#d be so, if combination causes the effect as
in the case of threads and c#oth= But in many instances, +e=<=, mi#k becomes curd-
the same substance chan<es into another substance= It is not the LordIs #aw that
on#y severa# causes in con0unction shou#d .roduce an effect= Be therefore decide
on the authority of the Sruti that the entire wor#d has s.run< from the one
Brahman, Akasa bein< .roduced first and #ater on the other e#ements in due
succession +(ide II=*=23-=
It is not ri<ht to say that with reference to the ori<in of Akasa we cou#d not
find out any difference between its .re&causa# state and its .ost&causa# state +the
time before and after the ori<ination of ether-= Brahman is described as not <ross
and not subt#e +Asthu#am na anu- in the Sruti= The Sruti refers to an Anakasa
state, a state devoid of Akasa=
Brahman does not .artici.ate in the nature of Akasa as we understand from
the .assa<e= JIt is without AkasaJ +Bri= ?.= III=9=9-= Therefore it is a sett#ed
conc#usion that, before Akasa was .roduced, Brahman e>isted without Akasa=
'oreover, you +$urva.akshin or o..onent- are certain#y wron< in sayin< that
Akasa is different in its nature from earth, etc= The Sruti is a<ainst the
uncreatedness of Akasa= %ence there is no <ood in such inference=
The inference drawn by you that Akasa has no be<innin< because it differs in
nature from these substances which have a be<innin< such as earth, etc=, is
without any va#ue, because it must be considered fa##acious as it is contradicted by
the Sruti= Be have brou<ht forward co<ent, convincin< and stron< ar<uments
showin< that Akasa is an ori<inated thin<=
Akasa has Anitya&<una +non&eterna# attribute-= Therefore it a#so is Anitya
+non&eterna#-= Akasa is non&eterna# because it is the substratum of a non&eterna#
@ua#ity, viG=, sound, 0ust as 0ars and other thin<s, which are the substrata of noneterna#
@ua#ities are themse#ves non&eterna#= The (edantin who takes his stand on
the ?.anishads does not admit that the Atman is the substratum of non&eterna#
@ua#ities=
)ou cannot say that Atman a#so may be Anitya +non&eterna#- for Sruti
dec#ares that Atman is eterna# +"itya-=
The Sruti te>ts which describe Akasa as eterna# +Amrita- describe it so in a
secondary sense on#y +:auna-, 0ust as it ca##s heaven&dwe##in< <ods as eterna#
+Amrita-= The ori<in and destruction of Akasa has been shown to be .ossib#e=
Even in the Sruti te>t, JAkasavat sarva<atacha nityahJ which describes Atman
as simi#ar to Akasa in bein< a##&.ervadin< and eterna#, these words are used on#y
in a secondary and fi<urative sense +:auna-=
The words are used on#y to indicate infiniteness or su.er&eminent <reatness
of Atman and not to say that Atman and Akasa are e@ua#= The use is as Jwhen the
sun is said to <o #ike an arrow=J Bhen we say that the sun moves with the s.eed
of an arrow, we sim.#y mean that he moves fast, not that he moves at the same
rate as an arrow=
Such .assa<es as JBrahman is <reater or vaster than AkasaJ .rove that the
e>tent of Akasa is #ess than that of Brahman= $assa<es #ike JThere is no ima<e of
%im= There is nothin< #ike Brahman & "a tasya .ratimastiJ +Svet= ?.= I(=*6- show
that there is nothin< to com.are Brahman to= $assa<es #ike JEverythin< e#se is of
evi#J +Bri= ?.= III=3=2- show that everythin< different from Brahman such as Akasa
is of evi#= A## but Brahman is sma##= %ence Akasa is an effect of Brahman=
Srutis and reasonin< show that Akasa has an ori<in= Therefore the fina# sett#ed
conc#usion is that Akasa is an effect of Brahman=
'atarisvadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra 9-
Air ori<inates from ether
Etena matarisva vyakhyatah II=,=9 +223-
By this i=e=, the fore<oin< e>.#anation about Akasa bein< a
.roduct, +the fact of- air +a#so bein< an effect- is e>.#ained=
Etena1 by this, i=e=, the fore<oin< e>.#anation about Akasa bein< a
.roduction, by this .arity of reasonin<C 'atarisva1 the air, the mover in mother,
s.aceC (yakhyatah1 is e>.#ained=
This Sutra states that air a#so, #ike Akasa, has been created by and from
Brahman=
The .resent Sutra e>tends the reasonin< concernin< Akasa to the air of which
the Akasa is the abode= The $urva.akshin maintains that the air is not a .roduct,
because it is not mentioned in the cha.ter of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad which
treats of the ori<ination of thin<s= The $urva.akshin says that the birth of air
mentioned in the Taittiriya ?.anishad is fi<urative on#y, because air is said to be
one of the immorta# a#on< with Akasa=
J(ayu +the air- is the deity that never setsJ +Bri= ?.= I=4=22-= The denia# of
(ayuIs never settin< refers to the #ower know#ed<e or A.ara (idya in which
Brahman is s.oken of as to be meditated u.on under the form of (ayu and is
mere#y a re#ative one=
The <#ory of (ayu is referred to as an ob0ect of worshi.= The Sruti says J(ayu
never sets=J Some du## ty.e of men may think that (ayu +air- is eterna#= To
remove this doubt there is made a forma# e>tension of the former reasonin< to air
a#so=
(ayu is ca##ed death#ess or immorta# on#y in a fi<urative sense= (ayu +air- a#so
has ori<in #ike Akasa=
Asambhavadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutra 6-
Brahman +Sat- has no ori<in
Asambhavstu satoInu.a.atteh II=,=6 +224-
But there is no ori<in of that which is +i=e=, Brahman-, on
account of the im.ossibi#ity +of such an ori<in-=
Asambhavah1 no ori<ination, no creationC Tu1 butC Satah1 of the Sat, of
the true one, eterna##y e>istin<, of BrahmanC Anu.a.atteh1 as it does not stand
to reason, on account of the im.ossibi#ity of there bein< an ori<in of Brahman=
This Sutra states that Brahman has no ori<in as it is, neither .roved by
reasonin< nor direct#y stated by Sruti=
The word HtuI +but- is used in order to remove the doubt=
The o..onent says that Svetasvatara ?.anishad dec#ares that Brahman is
born, JThou art born with Thy face turned to a## directionsJ +Svet= ?.= 3=,-=
Be cannot, as in the case of Akasa and (ayu, attribute ori<in to Brahman
a#so= Brahman is not an effect #ike Akasa, etc= Ori<ination of Brahman cannot be
estab#ished by any method of .roof=
Brahman is e>istence itse#f= It cannot be an effect, as It can have no cause=
The Sruti te>t e>.ress#y denies that Brahman has any .ro<enitor= J%e is the
cause, the Lord of the Lords of the or<ans and there is of %im neither .ro<enitor
nor LordJ +Svet= ?.= (I=6-=
'oreover it is not se.arated from anythin< e#se=
"either can Sat come from Asat, as Asat has no bein<, for that which is not
+Asat- is without a se#f and cannot therefore constitute a cause, because a cause
is the se#f of its effects= The Sruti says J%ow can e>istence come out of none>istenceL
+!hh= ?.= (I=2=2-=
)ou cannot say that Sat comes from Sat as the re#ation of cause and effect
cannot e>ist without a certain su.eriority on the .art of the cause= The effect must
have some s.ecia#ity not .ossessed by the cause= Brahman is mere e>istence
without any destruction=
Brahman cannot s.rin< from that which is somethin< .articu#ar, as this wou#d
be contrary to e>.erience= Because we observe that .articu#ar forms are .roduced
from what is <enera#, as for instance, 0ars and .ots from c#ay, but not that which
is <enera# is .roduced from .articu#ars= %ence Brahman which is e>istence in
<enera#, cannot be the effect of any .articu#ar thin<=
If there is no eterna# irst !ause, the #o<ica# fa##acy of Anavastha Dosha
+re<ressus ad infinitum- is inevitab#e= The non&admission of a fundamenta# cause
+substance- wou#d drive us to a retro<ressus ad infinitum= Sruti says, JThat <reat
birth#ess Se#f is undecayin<J +Bri= ?.= I(=3=24-=
Brahman is without any ori<in= Accordin< to Sruti, %e a#one is the True one,
who e>ists eterna##y= On the su..osition of the ori<in of Brahman, %e cannot be
said to be eterna#= %ence such a su..osition is a<ainst Sruti= It is a#so a<ainst
reasonin<, because by admittin< such an ori<in the @uestion of source of that
ori<in arisesC then a<ain another source of that source and so on= Thus an
ar<ument may be continued ad infinitum without comin< to a definite conc#usion=
That fundamenta# cause & substance & which is <enera##y acknow#ed<ed to
e>ist, 0ust that is our Brahman=
Therefore Brahman is not an effect but is eterna#=
Te0oIdhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra *8-
ire ori<inates from air
Te0oItah tatha hyaha II=,=*8 +225-
ire +is .roduced- from this +i=e=, air-, so veri#y +dec#ares the Sruti-=
Te0ah1 fireC Atah1 from this, name#y from air which has been 0ust s.oken of
in Sutra 9C Tatha1 thus, soC %i1 because, veri#yC Aha1 says +Sruti-=
Taittiriya ?.anishad dec#ares that fire was born of air J(ayora<nih & rom air
is .roduced fireJ +Tait= ?.= II=*-= !hhando<ya ?.anishad dec#ares JThat
+Brahman- created fireJ +!hh= ?.= I(=2=,-=
The consistency of the two Srutis is shown in Sutra *,=
There is thus a conf#ict of scri.tura# .assa<es with re<ard to the ori<in of fire=
The $urva.akshin maintains that fire has Brahman for its source= BhyL Because
the te>t dec#ares in the be<innin< that there e>isted on#y that which is= It sent
forth fire= The assertion that everythin< can be known throu<h Brahman is
.ossib#e on#y if everythin< is .roduced from Brahman= The scri.tura# statement
JTa00a#anJ +!hh= ?.= III=*3=*- s.ecifies no difference= The 'undaka te>t +II=*=,-
dec#ares that everythin< without e>ce.tion is born from Brahman= The Taittiriya
?.anishad s.eaks about the entire universe without any e>ce.tion JAfter havin<
brooded, sent forth a## whatever there isJ +Tait= ?.= II=5-= Therefore, the
statement that Hire was .roduced from airI +Tait= ?.= II=*- teaches the order of
succession on#y= Jire was .roduced subse@uent#y to air=J
The $urva.akshin says1 The above two ?.anishadic .assa<es can be
reconci#ed by inter.retin< the Taittiriya te>t to mean the order of se@uence &
Brahman after creatin< air, created fire=
This Sutra refutes this and says that ire is .roduced from (ayu or air= This
does not at a## contradict the !hhando<ya te>t= It means that Air is a .roduct of
Brahman and that fire is .roduced from Brahman, which has assumed the form of
air= ire s.ran< from Brahman on#y throu<h intermediate #inks, not direct#y= Be
may say e@ua##y that mi#k comes from the cow, that curds come from the cow,
that cheese comes from the cow=
The <enera# assertion that everythin< s.rin<s from Brahman re@uires that a##
thin<s shou#d u#timate#y be traced to that cause, and not that they shou#d be its
immediate effects= Thus there is no contradiction= There remains no difficu#ty=
It is not ri<ht to say that Brahman direct#y created ire after creatin< Air,
because the Taittiriya e>.ress#y says that fire was born of Air= "o doubt Brahman
is the root cause=
Abadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutra **-
Bater is .roduced from fire
A.ah II=,=** +227-
Bater +is .roduced from fire-=
A.ah1 water=
+Atah1 from itC Tatha1 thusC %i1 becauseC Aha1 says the Sruti=-
The same thin< may be said of water=
Be have to su..#y from the .recedin< Sutra the words JthenceJ and Jfor thus
the te>t dec#aresJ=
The author of the Sutras e>.#ained the creation of fire in the .revious Sutra=
%e e>.#ains creation of earth in the ne>t Sutra= %e .ro.ounds the Sutra in order to
insert water and thus to .oint out its .osition in the Srishtikrama or order of
creation=
JA<nera.ahJ & rom fire s.ran< water +Tait= ?.= II=*-= JTatte0a aiksata bahu
syam .ra0ayeyeti tada.oIsri0ata & The fire thou<ht H'ay I be many, may I <row
forth=I It created water=J +!hh= ?.= (I=2=,-=
Doubt1 Does water come out direct#y from fire or from BrahmanL
The $urva.akshin says1 Bater comes out direct#y from Brahman as the
!hhandyo<a te>t teaches=
Siddhanta1 There is no such conf#ict= rom fire is .roduced water, for thus
says the scri.ture=
%ere a#so it means that as fire is a .roduct of Brahman, it is from Brahman
which has assumed the form of fire, that water is .roduced= There is no room for
inter.retation re<ardin< a te>t which is e>.ress and unambi<uous=
In the !hhando<ya ?.anishad is <iven the reason why water comes out of
fire= JAnd, therefore, whenever anybody anywhere is hot and .ers.ires water is
.roduced on him from fire a#one= Simi#ar#y, when a man suffers <rief and is hot
with sorrow, he wee.s and thus water is a#so .roduced from fire=J
These e>.#icit statements #eave no doubt that water is created from fire=
$rithivyadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutra *2-
Earth is created from water
$rithivi adhikararu.asabdantarebhya II=,=*2 +229-
The earth +is meant by the word HAnnaI- because of the sub0ect
matter, co#our and other Sruti te>ts=
$rithivi1 earthC Adhikara1 because of the conte>t, because of the sub0ect
matterC Ru.a1 co#ourC Sabdantarebhyah1 on account of other te>ts +Sruti-=
The same thin< may be said of earth=
Jrom water s.ran< earthJ +Tait= ?.= II=*-= JIt +water- .roduced Anna
+#itera##y food-J +!hh= ?.= (I=2=3-= The two Sruti te>ts are a..arent#y
contradictory, because in one te>t water is said to .roduce earth and in another
food=
The Sutra says that HAnnaI in the !hhando<ya te>t means not food but earth=
BhyL On account of the sub0ect matter, on account of the co#our, and on account
of other .assa<es= The sub0ect matter in the first .#ace is c#ear#y connected with
the e#ements, as we see from the .recedin< .assa<es= JIt sent forth fireC it sent
forth water=J In describin< the creative order we cannot 0um. from water to
cerea#s without havin< the earth= The creative order referred to is in re<ard to the
e#ements= Therefore HAnnaI shou#d refer to an e#ement and not food=
A<ain we find in a com.#ementary .assa<e, JThe b#ack co#our in fire is the
co#our of AnnaJ +!hh= ?.= (I=3=*-= %ere, the reference to co#our e>.ress#y
indicates that the earth is meant by HAnnaI= B#ack co#our a<rees with earth= The
.redominant co#our of earth is b#ack= Eatab#e thin<s such as cooked dishes, rice,
bar#ey and the #ike are not necessari#y b#ack= The $auranikas a#so desi<nate the
co#our of the earth by the term Hni<htI= The ni<ht is b#ack= Be, therefore, conc#ude
that b#ack is the co#our of earth, a#so=
Other Sruti te>ts #ike JBhat was there as the froth of the water, that was
hardened and became the earth=J +Bri= ?. I=2=2-, c#ear#y indicate that from water
earth is .roduced=
On the other hand the te>t dec#ares that rice and the #ike were .roduced from
the earth, Jrom earth s.ran< herbs, from herbs foodJ +Tait= ?.= II=*=2-=
The com.#ementary .assa<e a#so, Jwhenever it rainsJ etc=, .ointin< out that
owin< to the earth#y nature of food +rice, bar#ey, etc=-, earth itse#f immediate#y
s.rin<s from water=
Therefore, for a## these reasons the word HAnnaI denotes this earth= There is
rea##y no contradiction between the !hhando<ya and Taittiriya te>ts=
Tadabhidhyanadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutra *,-
Brahman abidin< within the e#ement is the creative .rinci.#e
Tadabhidhyanadeva tu ta##in<at sah II=,=*, +226-
But on account of the indicatin< mark su..#ied by their
ref#ectin<, i=e=, by the ref#ection attributed to the e#ements, %e
+i=e=, the Lord is the creative .rinci.#e abidin< within the
e#ements-=
Tat +Tasya-1 %is +of Brahman-C Abhidhynat1 because of the vo#ition,
ref#ectionC Eva1 even, on#yC Tu1 butC Tat #in<at1 because of %is indicatin< marksC
Sah1 %e=
The contention raised in Sutra *8 is now refuted=
The word HtuI +but- is used in order to remove the doubt=
The $urva.akshin or the ob0ector says1 The Srutis dec#are that Brahman is
the creator of everythin<= But the Taittiriya ?.anishad says Jrom Akasa s.ran<
airJ +Tait= ?.= II=*-= This indicates that certain e#ements .roduce certain effects
inde.endent#y= There is contradiction in the Sruti .assa<es= This Sutra refutes this
ob0ection=
!reation of Akasa, fire, wind, water is done so#e#y to :odIs wi##= One e#ement
cannot create another e#ement out of its own .ower= It is :od in the form of one
e#ement that creates another e#ement therefrom by %is wi##=
The e#ements are inert= They have no .ower to create= Brahman %imse#f
actin< from within the e#ements was the rea# creator of a## those e#ements= )ou wi##
find in Brihadaranyka ?.anishad J%e who dwe##s within the fire, who is different
from fire, whom fire does not know, whose body is fire, who ru#es the fire from
within, is Thy Immorta# Atman, the Inner Ru#er withinJ +Bri= ?.= III=7=4-=
This Sruti te>t indicates that the Su.reme Lord is the so#e Ru#er and denies
a## inde.endence to the e#ements=
Thou<h it is stated in the !hhando<ya ?.anishad that the e#ements have
created each one, the other ne>t of it, yet the Su.reme Lord is indeed the creator
of everythin< because Sruti dec#ares that Brahman has created this wor#d by the
e>ercise of %is wi##=
Te>ts such as J%e wished may I become many, may I <row forthJ +Tait= ?.=
II=5- and JIt made itse#f its Se#f,J i=e=, the Se#f of everythin< which e>ists +II=7- &
indicates that the Su.reme Lord is the Se#f of everythin<= The .assa<e JThere is
no other seer +thinker- but %eJ denies there bein< any other seer +thinker-, that
which is +i=e=, Brahman- in the character of seer or thinker constitutes the sub0ect
matter of the who#e !ha.ter, as we conc#ude from the introductory .assa<e JIt
thou<ht, may I be many, may I <row forthJ +!hh= ?.= (I=2=,-=
In the !hhando<ya ?.anishad it is stated JThat fire thou<ht= That water
thou<ht=J Ref#ection is not .ossib#e for the inert e#ements= The Su.reme Lord, the
Inner Ru#er of a## e#ements, the Indwe##er within the e#ements ref#ected and
.roduced the effects= This is the rea# meanin<= The e#ements became causes on#y
throu<h the a<ency of the Su.reme Lord who abides within them and ru#es them
from within= Therefore there is no contradiction at a## between the two te>ts=
or a wise man who ref#ects and co<itates there is no contradiction= The Sruti
te>ts are infa##ib#e and authoritative= Remember this .oint we## a#ways= The Sruti
te>ts have come out from the hearts of rea#ised sa<es who had direct intuitive
e>.erience in "irvika#.a Samadhi= They are neither fictitious nove#s nor .roducts
of the inte##ect=
(i.aryayadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutra *3-
The .rocess of disso#ution of the e#ements is in the reverse order from that of
creation
(i.aryayena tu kramoItah u.a.adyate cha II=,=*3 +2,8-
The order +in which the e#ements are indeed withdrawn into
Brahman durin< $ra#aya or disso#ution- is the reverse of that +i=e=,
the order in which they are created- and this is reasonab#e=
(i.aryayena1 in the reverse orderC Tu1 indeed, butC ;ramah1 order, the
.rocess of disso#utionC Atah1 from that +the order of creation-C !ha1 andC
?.a.adyate1 is reasonab#e=
The .rocess of disso#ution of the e#ement is described in this Sutra=
The word HtuI +but- has the force of Hon#yI here= The @uestion here is whether
at the time of cosmic disso#ution or $ra#aya the e#ements are withdrawn into
Brahman in an indefinite order, or in the order of creation or in the reverse order=
In creation the order is from above and in disso#ution the order is from be#ow=
The order of invo#ution is in the inverse of the order of evo#ution= It a#one is @uite
a..ro.riate and reasonab#e= Because we see in ordinary #ife that a man who has
ascended a stair has in descendin< to take the ste.s in the reverse order=
urther, we observe that thin<s made of c#ay such as 0ars, dishes, etc=, on
bein< destroyed .ass back into c#ay and that thin<s which have ori<inated from
water such as snow and hai#&stones a<ain disso#ve into water, the cause=
The <ross becomes reso#ved into the subt#e, the subt#e into the subt#er and so
on ti## the who#e manifestation attains its fina# irst !ause, viG=, Brahman= Each
e#ement is withdrawn into its immediate cause, in the reverse order ti## Akasa is
reached, which in turn <ets mer<ed in Brahman=
Smriti a#so dec#ares JO Divine RishiC the earth, the basis of the universe is
disso#ved into water, water into fire, fire into air=J
Those which are .roduced first in creation are more .owerfu#= !onse@uent#y
they have #on<er e>istence= Therefore, it fo##ows #o<ica##y that the #atest in
creation, bein< of feeb#e essence, shou#d first become absorbed in those of hi<her
.owers= The hi<her .owers shou#d #ater on take their turn= (amana $urana
dec#ares1 JThe ear#ier a thin< ha..ens to be in creation, the more it becomes the
rece.tac#e of the LordIs <#ory= !onse@uent#y those that are ear#ier in creation are
more .owerfu# and are withdrawn on#y #ater= And for the same reason undoubted#y
their .ervasion is a#so <reater=J
Antaravi0nanadhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutra *4-
The mention of the mind and inte##ect does not interfere with the order of creation
and reabsor.tion as they are the .roducts of the e#ements
Antara vi0nanamanasi kramena ta##in<aditi
chet na aviseshat II=,=*4 +2,*-
If it be said that between +Brahman and the e#ements- the
inte##ect and the mind +are mentioned, and that therefore their
ori<ination and re&absor.tion are to be .#aced- somewhere in the
series on account of their bein< inferentia# si<ns +whereby the order
of the creation of the e#ements is broken-, we say, not so on account
of the non&difference +of the inte##ect and the mind from the
e#ements-=
Antara1 intervenin< between, in betweenC (i0nanamanasi1 the inte##ect and
the mindC ;ramena1 in the order of succession, accordin< to the successive
orderC Tat #in<at1 owin< to indication of that, as there is indication in Sruti to that
effect, because of an inferentia# mark of thisC Iti1 thus, thisC !het1 ifC "a1 not, no,
not so, the ob0ection cannot standC Aviseshat1 because of no s.ecia#ity, as there
is no s.ecia#ity mentioned in Sruti about the causation of the e#ements, because
there bein< no .articu#ar difference, on account of non&difference=
A further ob0ection to the causation of the .rimary e#ements from Brahman is
raised and refuted=
The Sutra consists of two .arts name#y an ob0ection and its refutation= The
ob0ection is JAntara vi0nanamanasi kramena ta##in<at iti chetJ= The refutation
.ortion is J"a aviseshatJ=
In the Atharvana +'undaka ?.anishad- in the cha.ter which treats of the
creation occurs the fo##owin< te>t1 Jrom this +Brahman- are born $rana, mind,
the senses, ether, air, fire, water and earth, the su..ort of a##J +II=*=,-=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says1 The order of creation which is
described in the 'undaka ?.anishad contradicts the order of creation of e#ements
described in the !hhando<ya ?.anishad (I=2=,, and other Srutis=
To this we re.#y1 This is on#y a seria# enumeration of the or<ans and the
e#ements= It is not certain#y a statement as to the order of their ori<ination= The
'undaka te>t on#y states that a## these are .roduced from Brahman=
In the Atharva (eda +'undaka- mind, inte##ect and the senses are mentioned
in the midd#e of the enumeration of the e#ements= This does not affect the
evo#utionary order, because the mind, the inte##ect and the senses are the effects,
of the e#ements and their invo#ution is inc#uded in the invo#ution of the e#ements=
The inte##ect, the mind and the senses are .roducts of the e#ements=
Therefore, they can come into bein< on#y after the e#ements are created= The
ori<ination and reabsor.tion of the mind, inte##ect and the senses are the same as
those of the e#ements as there is no difference between the senses and the
e#ements=
Even if the mind, the inte##ect and the senses are se.arate from the
e#ements, the evo#utionary order is either the mind and the senses fo##owed by the
e#ements or the e#ements fo##owed by the mind and the senses= Anyhow they have
an order#y evo#ution=
That the mind, inte##ect and the or<ans are modifications of the e#ements and
are of the nature of the e#ements is .roved by Sruti te>ts #ike Jor the mind, my
chi#d, consists of earth, breath or vita# force of water, s.eech of fireJ +!hh= ?.=
(I=5=4-=
%ence the 'undaka te>t which treats of creation does not contradict the order
of creation mentioned in the !hhando<ya and Taittiriya ?.anishads= The
ori<ination of the or<ans does not cause a break in the order of the ori<ination of
the e#ements=
The $urva.akshin a<ain says1 that as there is mention in Sruti of the mind
and the senses, Akasa and the other e#ements shou#d not be considered to be
created out of Brahman and to disso#ve in Brahman but to be created out of and
to disso#ve in the mind and the senses accordin< to the order of succession, as
there is indication in the 'undaka to that effect=
This ar<ument is untenab#e as there is no s.ecia#ity mentioned in Sruti about
the creation of the e#ements= The mind, the inte##ect and the senses have a##
without e>ce.tion been stated therein as created out of Brahman=
The word HEtasmatI of that te>t is to be read a#on< with every one of these
i=e=, $rana, mind, etc= Thus Jfrom %im is born $rana, from %im is born mind, from
%im are born the senses etc= & Etasmat $ranah, Etasmat 'anahJ, etc=
!haracharavya.asrayadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutra *5-
Births and deaths are not of the sou#
!haracharavya.asrayastu syat tadvya.adeso bhaktah
tadbhavabhavitvat II=,=*5 +2,2-
But the mention of that +viG=, birth and death of the individua#
sou#- is a.t on#y with reference to the bodies of bein<s movin< and
non&movin<= It is secondary or meta.horica# if a..#ied to the sou#,
as the e>istence of those terms de.ends on the e>istence of that
+i=e=, the body-=
!haracharavya.asrayah1 in connection with the bodies fi>ed and
movab#eC Tu1 but, indeedC Syat1 may be, becomesC Tadvya.adesah1 mention of
that, that e>.ression, i=e=, to .o.u#ar e>.ressions of births and deaths of the sou#C
Bhaktah1 secondary, meta.horica#, not #itera#C Tadbhavabhavitvat1 on account
of +those terms- de.endin< on the e>istence of that= +Tadbhave1 on the e>istence
of that, i=e=, the bodyC Bhavitvat1 de.endin<=-
The essentia# nature or character of the individua# sou# is discussed now=
A doubt may arise that the individua# sou# a#so has births and deaths because
.eo.#e use such e>.ressions as JRamakrishna is bornJ, JRamakrishna is deadJ and
because certain ceremonies such as the /atakarma etc=, are .rescribed by the
scri.tures at the birth and death of .eo.#e=
This Sutra refutes such a doubt, and dec#ares that the individua# sou# has
neither birth nor death= Birth and death .ertain to the body with which the sou# is
connected but not to the sou#= If the individua# sou# .erishes there wou#d be no
sense in the re#i<ious in0unctions and .rohibitions referrin< to the en0oyment and
avoidance of .#easant and un.#easant thin<s in another body +another birth-=
The connection of the body with the sou# is .o.u#ar#y ca##ed birth, and the
disconnection of the sou# from the body is ca##ed death in the common .ar#ance=
Scri.ture says, JThis body indeed dies when the #ivin< sou# has #eft it, the #ivin<
sou# does not dieJ +!hh= ?.= (I=**=,-= %ence birth and death are s.oken .rimari#y
of the bodies of movin< and non&movin< bein<s and on#y meta.horica##y of the
sou#=
That the words HbirthI and HdeathI have reference to the con0unction with and
se.aration from a body mere#y is a#so shown by the fo##owin< Sruti te>t, JOn bein<
born that .erson assumin< his body, when he .asses out of the body and diesJ
etc= +Bri= ?.= I(=,=9-=
The /atakarma ceremony a#so has reference to the manifestation of the body
on#y because the sou# is not manifested=
%ence the birth and death be#on< to the body on#y but not to the sou#=
Atmadhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutra *7-
The individua# sou# is eterna#= HIt is not .roducedI
"atma, asruternityatvat cha tabhyah II=,=*7 +2,,-
The individua# sou# is not +.roduced-, +because- it is not +so-
mentioned by the scri.tures, and as it is eterna# accordin< to them
+the Sruti te>ts-=
"a1 not +.roduced-C Atma1 the individua# sou#C Asruteh1 because of no
mention in Sruti, as it is not found in SrutiC "ityatvat1 because of its
.ermanence, as it is eterna#C !ha1 a#so, andC Tabhyah1 from them +Srutis-,
accordin< to the Srutis=
The discussion on the essentia# characteristics of the individua# sou# is bein<
continued=
Aitareya ?.anishad dec#ares1 At the be<innin< of creation there was on#y
JOne Brahman without a secondJ +I=*-= Therefore it is not reasonab#e to say that
the individua# sou# is not born, because then there was nothin< but Brahman=
A<ain the Sruti says, JAs sma## s.arks come forth from fire, thus from that
Atman a## $ranas, a## wor#ds, a## <ods emanateJ +Bri= ?.= II=*=28-= JAs from a
b#aGin< fire s.arks, bein< of the same nature as fire, f#y forth a thousandfo#d, thus
are various bein<s brou<ht forth from the Im.erishab#e, my friend, and return
thither a#so,J +'un= ?.= II=*=*-= Therefore the $urva.akshin or the ob0ector ar<ues
that the individua# sou# is born at the be<innin< of the cyc#e, 0ust as Akasa and
other e#ements are born=
This Sutra refutes it and says that the individua# sou# is not born= BhyL on
account of the absence of scri.tura# statement= or in the cha.ters which treat of
the creation the Sruti te>ts e>.ress#y deny birth to the individua# sou#=
Be know from scri.tura# .assa<es that the sou# is eterna#, that it has no
ori<in, that it is unchan<in<, that what constitutes the sou# is the unmodified
Brahman, and that the sou# has its se#f rooted in Brahman= A bein< of such a
nature cannot be .roduced=
The scri.tura# .assa<es to which we are a##udin< are the fo##owin<1 JThe <reat
unborn Se#f undecayin<, undyin<, immorta#, fear#ess is indeed BrahmanJ +Bri= ?.=
I(=3=24-= JThe knowin< se#f is not born, it dies notJ +;atha ?.= I=2=*9-= JThe
ancient is unborn, eterna#, ever#astin<J +;atha ?.= I=2=*9-=
It is the one Brahman without a second that enters the inte##ect and a..ears
as the individua# sou# J%avin< sent forth that entered into itJ +Tait= ?.= II=5-= JLet
me now enter those with this #ivin< se#f and #et me then evo#ve names and formsJ
+!hh= ?.= (I=,=2-= J%e entered thither to the very ti.s of fin<er&nai#sJ +Bri= ?.=
I=3=7-=
JThou art ThatJ +!hh= ?.= (I=9=7-= JI am BrahmanJ +Bri= ?.= I=3=*8-= JThis
se#f is Brahman, knowin< a##J +Bri= ?.= II=4=*6-= A## these te>ts dec#are the eternity
of the sou# and thus contend a<ainst the view of its havin< been .roduced=
Therefore there is in rea#ity no difference between the individua# sou# and
Brahman= /iva is not created= It is not a .roduct= It is not born 0ust as Akasa and
other e#ements are born= The fact of the individua# sou#Is bein< non&created does
not contradict the Sruti .assa<e JAt the be<innin< there was on#y the Atman the
one without a secondJ +Ait= ?.= I=*-=
The mention of creation of sou#s in the other Sruti .assa<es cited is on#y in a
secondary sense= It does not therefore contradict the Sruti .assa<e J%avin<
created it, It entered into it=J
The doctrine that sou#s are born from Brahman is not correct= Those who
.ro.ound this doctrine dec#are that if sou#s are born from Brahman, the scri.tura#
statement that by knowin< Brahman everythin< can become true, because
Brahman is the cause and the know#ed<e of the cause wi## #ead to the know#ed<e
of a## the ob0ects= They say further that Brahman cannot be identified with the
individua# sou#s, because %e is sin#ess and .ure, whereas they are not so= They
further say that a## that is se.arate is an effect and that as the sou#s are se.arate
they must be effects=
The sou#s are not se.arate= The Sruti dec#ares, JThere is one :od hidden in
a## bein<s, a##&.ervadin<, the Se#f within a## bein<sJ +Svet= ?.= (I=**-= It on#y
a..ears divided owin< to its #imitin< ad0uncts, such as the mind and so on, 0ust as
the ether a..ears divided by its connection with 0ars and the #ike= It is %is
connection with the inte##ect that #eads to his bein< ca##ed a /iva, or the individua#
sou#= Ether in a .ot is identica# with the ether in s.ace= A## the above ob0ections
cannot stand because of the actua# identity of the individua# sou# and Brahman=
Therefore there is no contradiction of the dec#aration of the Sruti that by knowin<
Brahman we can know everythin<= Ori<ination of sou#s has reference on#y to the
body=
/nadhikaranam1 To.ic *2 +Sutra *9-
The nature of the individua# sou# is inte##i<ence
/noIta eva II=,=*9 +2,3-
or this very reason +viG=, that it is not created-, +the individua# sou# is-
inte##i<ence +itse#f-=
/nah1 inte##i<ent, inte##i<ence, knowerC Ata eva1 for this very reason,
therefore=
The discussion on the essentia# characteristics of the individua# sou# is
continued=
The Sankhya doctrine is that the sou# is a#ways !haitanya or .ure
consciousness in its own nature=
The (aiseshikas dec#are that the individua# sou# is not inte##i<ent by nature,
because it is not found to be inte##i<ent in the state of dee. s#ee. or swoon= It
becomes inte##i<ent when the sou# comes to the wakin< state and unites with the
mind= The inte##i<ence of the sou# is adventitious and is .roduced by the
con0unction of the sou# with the mind, 0ust as for instance the @ua#ity of redness is
.roduced in an iron rod by the con0unction of the iron rod with fire=
If the sou# were eterna#, essentia# inte##i<ence, it wou#d remain inte##i<ent in
the states of dee. s#ee., swoon etc= Those who wake u. from s#ee. say that they
were not conscious of anythin<= Therefore, as inte##i<ence is c#ear#y intermittent,
we conc#ude that the inte##i<ence of the sou# is adventitious on#y=
To this we re.#y that the sou# is of eterna# inte##i<ence= Inte##i<ence
constitutes the essentia# nature of Brahman= This we know from Sruti te>ts such
as JBrahman is know#ed<e and B#issJ +Bri= ?.= III=6=29=7-= JBrahman is true,
know#ed<e, infiniteJ +Tait= ?.= II=*-= J%avin< neither inside nor outside but bein<
a#to<ether a mass of know#ed<eJ +Bri= ?.= I(=4=*,-= "ow if the individua# sou# is
nothin< but that Su.reme Brahman, then eterna# inte##i<ence constitutes the sou#Is
essentia# nature, 0ust as #i<ht and heat constitute the nature of fire=
The inte##i<ent Brahman Itse#f bein< #imited by the ?.adhis or #imitin<
ad0uncts such as body, mind etc=, manifests as the individua# sou# or /iva=
Therefore, inte##i<ence is the very nature of /iva and is never a#to<ether destroyed,
nor even in the state of dee. s#ee. or swoon=
Sruti te>ts direct#y dec#are that the individua# sou# is of the nature of se#f#uminous
inte##i<ence= J%e not as#ee., himse#f #ooks down u.on the s#ee.in<
sensesJ +Bri= ?.= I(=,=**-= JThat .erson is se#f&i##uminatedJ +Bri= ?.= I(=,=*3-= Jor
there is no intermission of the knowin< of the knowerJ +Bri= ?.= I(=,=,8-=
That the sou#Is nature is inte##i<ence fo##ows moreover from the .assa<e +!hh=
?.= (III=*2=3- where it is stated as connected with know#ed<e throu<h a## sense
or<ans= J%e who knows #et me sme## this, he is the se#f=J
)ou may ask, what is the use of the senses if the Atman itse#f is of the nature
of know#ed<e= The senses are needed to brin< about the differentiated sensations
and ideas +(ritti0nana-=
rom the sou#Is essentia# nature bein< inte##i<ence it does not fo##ow that the
senses are use#essC because they serve the .ur.ose of determinin< the s.ecia#
ob0ect of each sense, such as sme## and so on= Sruti e>.ress#y dec#ares1 JSme##
+or<an of sme##- is for the .ur.ose of .erceivin< odourJ +!hh= ?.= (III=*2=3-=
The ob0ection that s#ee.in< .ersons are not conscious of anythin< is refuted
by scri.ture, where we read concernin< a man #yin< in dee. s#ee., JAnd when
there he does not see, yet he is seein< thou<h he does not see= Because there is
no intermission of the seein< of the seer for it cannot .erish= But there is then no
second, nothin< e#se different from him that he cou#d seeJ +Bri= ?.= I(=,=2,-=
The non&sentiency in dee. s#ee. is not due to absence of !haitanya but
absence of (ishaya +ob0ects-= The /iva does not #ose its .ower of seein<= It does
not see, because there is no ob0ect to see= It has not #ost its inte##i<ence, for it is
im.ossib#e= The absence of actua# inte##ectua#ity is due to the absence of ob0ects,
but not to the absence of inte##i<ence, 0ust as the #i<ht .ervadin< s.ace is not
a..arent owin< to the absence of thin<s to be i##uminated, not to the absence of
its own nature=
If inte##i<ence did not e>ist in dee. s#ee., etc=, then who wou#d be there to
say that it did not e>istL %ow cou#d it be knownL The man after wakin< from dee.
s#ee. says, JI s#e.t sound#y= I en0oyed .erfect rest= I did not know anythin<=J %e
who says, JI did not know anythin<= I en0oyed .erfect restJ must have been
e>istent at that time= If it is not so how cou#d he remember the condition of that
stateL
Therefore, the inte##i<ence of the individua# sou# or /iva is never #ost under
any condition= The reasonin< of the (aiseshikas and others is mere#y fa##acious= It
contradicts the Srutis= Be therefore conc#ude and decide that eterna# inte##i<ence
is the essentia# nature of the sou#=
?tkranti<atyadhikaranam1 To.ic *, +Sutras *6&,2-
The siGe of the individua# sou#
?tkranti<atya<atinam II=,=*6 +2,4-
+On account of the scri.tura# dec#arations- of +the sou#Is-
.assin< out, <oin<, and returnin< +the sou# is not infinite in siGeC
it is of atomic siGe-=
?tkranti1 .assin< out, comin< outC :ati1 <oin<C A<atinam1 returnin<=
The discussion on the character of the individua# sou# is continued=
rom this u. to Sutra ,2 the @uestion of the siGe of the sou#, whether it is
atomic, medium&siGed or infinite is discussed= The first ten Sutras +*6&29- state
the ar<uments for the view that the individua# sou# is Anu +atomic-= The ne>t four
Sutras <ive the re.#y=
Svetasvatara ?.anishad dec#ares J%e is the one :od, a##&.ervadin<J +(I=**-=
'undaka Sruti says, JThis Atman is atomicJ +III=*=6-= The two te>ts contradict
each other and we have to arrive at a decision on the .oint=
It has been shown above that the sou# is not a .roduct and that eterna#
inte##i<ence constitutes its nature= Therefore it fo##ows that it is identica# with the
Su.reme Brahman= The infinity of the Su.reme Brahman is e>.ress#y dec#ared in
the Srutis= Bhat need then is there of a discussion of the siGe of the sou#L True,
we re.#y= But Sruti te>ts which s.eak of the sou#Is .assin< out from the body
+?tkranti-, <oin< +:ati- and returnin< +A<ati-, estab#ish the .rima facie view that
the sou# is of #imited siGe= urther, the Sruti c#ear#y dec#ares in some .#aces that
the sou# is of atomic siGe= The .resent discussion is therefore be<un in order to
c#ear this doubt=
The o..onent or $urva.akshin ho#ds that the sou# must be of #imited atomic
siGe owin< to its bein< said to .ass out, <o and return= Its .assin< out is
mentioned in ;aushitaki ?.anishad +III=,-, JAnd when he .asses out of this body
he .asses out to<ether with a## these=J Its <oin< is said in ;aushitaki ?.anishad
+I=2-, JA## who de.art from this wor#d <o to the moon=J Its returnin< is seen in
Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad +I(=3=5-, Jrom that wor#d he returns a<ain to this
wor#d of action=J rom these statements as to the sou#Is .assin< out from the
body, <oin< to heaven, etc=, and returnin< from there to this wor#d, it fo##ows that
it is of #imited siGe= Because motion is not .ossib#e in the case of an a##&.ervadin<
bein<= If the sou# is infinite, how can it rise, or <o or comeL Therefore the sou# is
atomic=
Svatmana chottarayoh II=,=28 +2,5-
And on account of the #atter two +i=e=, <oin< and returnin<-
bein< connected with their sou# +i=e=, a<ent-, +the sou# is of atomic
siGe-=
Svatmana1 +bein< connected- direct#y with the a<ent, the sou#C !ha1 and,
on#y, a#soC ?ttarayoh1 of the #atter two, name#y, of :ati and A<ati, of the <oin<
away and comin< back, as stated in the .revious Sutra=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *6 is <iven in this Sutra=
Even if it can be said that H.assin< outI means on#y disconnection with the
body, how can they who say that the sou# is infinite e>.#ain its <oin< to the moon
or returnin< from thereL
Even if the sou# is infinite sti## it can be s.oken of as .assin< out, out of the
body, if by that term is meant ceasin< to be the ru#er of the body, in conse@uence
of the resu#ts of its former actions havin< become e>hausted, 0ust as somebody,
when ceasin< to be the ru#er of a vi##a<e may be said to H<o outI= The .assin< away
from the body may mean on#y cessation of the e>ercise of a definite function 0ust
as in the case of a man no #on<er retained in office=
But the two #atter activities viG=, <oin< to the moon, returnin< from there to
the wor#d, are im.ossib#e for an a##&.ervadin< sou#=
%ence the sou# is atomic in siGe=
"anuratacchruteriti chet, na, itaradhikarat II=,=2* +2,7-
If it be said that +the sou# is- not atomic, as the scri.tures
state it to be otherwise, +i=e=, a##&.ervadin<-, +we say- not so,
because +the one- other than the individua# sou# +i=e=, the Su.reme
Brahman or the %i<hest Se#f- is the sub0ect matter +of those
.assa<es-=
"a1 notC Anu1 minute, atomicC Atat1 not that, otherwise, name#y o..osite
of AnuC Sruteh1 as it is stated in Sruti, because of a Sruti or scri.tura# te>tC Iti1
thusC !het1 ifC "a1 notC Itara1 other than the individua# sou#, i=e=, the Su.reme
Se#fC Adhikarat1 because of the conte>t or to.ic, from the sub0ect matter of the
.ortion in the !ha.ter=
An ob0ection to Sutra *6 is raised and refuted=
The Sutra consists of an ob0ection and its answer= The ob0ection&.ortion is
J"anuratacchruteriti chetJ and the answer& .ortion is J"a itaradhikarat=J
The .assa<es which describe the sou# and infinite a..#y on#y to Su.reme
Brahman and not to the individua# sou#=
Sruti .assa<es #ike J%e is the one :od, who is hidden in a## bein<s, a##.ervadin<,
etc=J +Svet= ?.= (I=**-, J%e is that <reat unborn Se#f who consists of
know#ed<e, is surrounded by the $ranas, the ether within the heart= +Bri= ?.=
I(=3=22-, JLike the ether %e is Omni.resent, eterna#,J JTruth, ;now#ed<e, Infinite
is BrahmanJ +Tait= ?.= II=*- & refer not to the /iva or the individua# sou# with its
#imitations, but to the Su.reme Brahman or the %i<hest Se#f, who is other than
the individua# sou#, and forms the chief sub0ect matter of a## the (edanta te>ts,
because Brahman is the one thin< that is to be known or rea#ised intuitive#y and is
therefore .ro.ounded by a## the (edanta .assa<es=
Svasabdonmanabhyam cha II=,=22 +2,9-
And on account of direct statements +of the Sruti te>ts as to the
atomic siGe- and infinitesima# measure +the sou# is atomic-=
Svasabdonmanabhyam1 from direct statements +of Sruti te>ts- and
infinitesima# measureC !ha1 and= +Svasabda1 the word itse#fC the word direct#y
denotin< HminuteIC ?nmanabhyam1 on account of the measure of com.arisonC
?t1 subt#eC 'ana1 measure, hence subt#e divisionC hence sma##er even than the
sma##= Svasabdonmanabhyam1 as these are the words direct#y denotin< HminuteI
and to e>.ression denotin< sma##er than the sma## as measured by division=-
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *6 is continued=
The sou# must be atomic because the Sruti e>.ress#y says so and ca##s him
infinite#y sma##=
'undaka Sruti dec#ares, JThis Atma is atomicJ +III=*=6-= Svetasvatara
?.anishad says, JThe individua# is of the siGe of the hundredth .art of a .art,
which itse#f is one hundredth .art of the .oint of a hairJ +(=6-C JThat #ower one
a#so is seen sma## even #ike the .oint of a <oad=J
Therefore the sou# is atomic in siGe=
But an ob0ection may here be raised= If the sou# is of atomic siGe, it wi##
occu.y a .oint of the body on#y= Then the sensation which e>tends over the who#e
body wou#d a..ear contrary to reason= And yet it is a matter of e>.erience that
those who take bath in the :an<a e>.erience the sensation of co#d a## over their
who#e bodies= In summer .eo.#e fee# hot a## over the body= The fo##owin< Sutra
<ives a suitab#e answer to the ob0ection=
Avirodhaschandanavat II=,=2, +2,6-
There is no contradiction as in the case of sanda# .aste=
Avirodhah1 non&conf#ict, no contradiction, no incon<ruity, it is not
incon<ruousC !handanavat1 #ike the sanda# .aste=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *6 is continued=
/ust as one dro. of sanda#&wood .aste, smeared on one .art of the body
makes the who#e body thri## with 0oy, so a#so the individua# sou#, thou<h natura##y
minute, manifests itse#f throu<hout the who#e body and e>.eriences a## the
sensations of .#easure and .ain= Thou<h the sou# is atomic it may e>.erience
.#easure and .ain e>tendin< over the who#e body= Thou<h the sou# is atomic sti## it
is .ossib#e that it .ervades the entire body, 0ust as a dro. of sanda# .aste
a#thou<h in actua# contact with one .articu#ar s.ot of the body on#y .ervades, i=e=,
causes refreshin< sensation a## over the body=
As the sou# is connected with the skin which is the seat of fee#in<, the
assum.tion that the sou#Is sensations shou#d e>tend over the who#e body is not
contrary to reason because the connection of the sou# and the skin abides in the
entire skin and the skin e>tends over the entire body=
Avasthitivaiseshyaditi chenna,
adhyu.a<amaddhridi hi II=,=23 +238-
If it be said +that the two cases are not .ara##e#-, on account
of the s.ecia#isation of abode +.resent in the case of the sanda#ointment,
absent in the case of the sou#-, we deny that, on account
of the acknow#ed<ement +by scri.ture, of a s.ecia# .#ace of the
sou#-, viG=, within the heart=
Avasthiti1 e>istence, residence, abodeC (aiseshyat1 because of the
s.ecia#ity, on account of s.ecia#isationC Iti1 thus, thisC !het1 if +if it be ar<ued-C
"a1 not +so-, no, the ar<ument cannot standC Adhyu.a<amat1 on account of the
admission, or acknow#ed<mentC %ridi1 in the heartC %i1 indeed=
An ob0ection to Sutra 2, is raised and refuted by the o..onent or
$urva.akshin=
The Sutra consists of two .arts name#y, an ob0ection, and its re.#y= The
ob0ection&.ortion is1 HAvasthitivaiseshyaditi chetI, and the re.#y .ortion is1
H"abhyu.a<amaddhridi hiI=
The $urva.akshin or the ob0ector raises an ob0ection a<ainst his own view=
The ar<umentation re#ied u.on in the #ast Sutra is not admissib#e, because the two
cases com.ared are not .ara##e#= The simi#arity is not e>act= The ana#o<y is fau#ty
or ina..ro.riate= In the case of the sanda# .aste, it occu.ies a .articu#ar .oint of
the body and refreshes the entire body= But in the case of the sou# it does not
e>ist in any .articu#ar #oca#ity but is .erci.ient of a## sensations throu<hout the
entire body= Be do not know that it has a .articu#ar abode or s.ecia# seat= Bhen
there is no s.ecia# seat, for the sou#, we cannot infer that it must have a .articu#ar
abode in the body #ike the sanda# .aste and therefore be atomic= Because, even an
a##&.ervadin< sou# #ike ether, or a sou# .ervadin< the entire body #ike the skin may
.roduce the same resu#t=
Be cannot reason #ike this1 the sou# is atomic because it causes effects
e>tendin< over the entire body #ike a dro. of sanda# ointment, because that
reasonin< wou#d a..#y to the sense of touch, the skin a#so, which we know not to
be of atomic siGe= Therefore it is not easy to decide the siGe of the sou# when there
is no .ositive .roof=
The o..onent refutes the above ob0ection by @uotin< such Sruti te>ts as1
JThe sou# abides within the heartJ +$ras= ?.= III=5-, JThe se#f is in the heartJ +!hh=
?.= (III=,=,-, JThe Se#f abides in the heartJ +Bri= ?.= I(=,=7-, JBho is that se#fL %e
who is within the heart, surrounded by the $ranas, the .erson of #i<ht, consistin<
of know#ed<e,J e>.ress#y dec#are that the sou# has a s.ecia# abode or .articu#ar
seat in the body, viG=, the heart= Therefore it is atomic=
The ana#o<y is not fau#ty= It is @uite a..ro.riate= The two cases are .ara##e#=
%ence the ar<umentation resorted to in Sutra 2, is not ob0ectionab#e=
:unadva a#okavat II=,=24 +23*-
Or on account of +its- @ua#ity +viG=, inte##i<ence-, as in cases
of ordinary e>.erience +such as in the case of a #am. by its #i<ht-=
:unat1 on account of its @ua#ity +of inte##i<ence-C (a1 or +a further e>am.#e
is <iven-C A#okavat1 #ike a #i<ht= +Or Lokavat1 as in the wor#d, as in cases of
ordinary e>.erience-=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 2, is continued=
Or it is #ike a sma## #i<ht which, by its own virtue, i##uminates the who#e
house= The sou#, thou<h atomic and occu.ies a .articu#ar .ortion of the body, may
.ervade the who#e body by its @ua#ity of inte##i<ence as the f#ame .ervades the
who#e room by its rays and thus e>.eriences .#easure and .ain throu<hout the
who#e body=
A further e>am.#e is <iven by way of com.arison to show how an atomic sou#
can have e>.erience throu<hout the entire body=
(yatireko <andhavat II=,=25 +232-
The e>tension +of the @ua#ity of inte##i<ence- beyond +the sou#
in which it inheres- is #ike the odour +which e>tends beyond the
fra<rant ob0ect-=
(yatirekah1 e>.ansion, e>tension beyond +the ob0ect i=e=, sou#-C
:andhavat1 #ike the odour=
Sutra 2, is further e#ucidated by this Sutra=
/ust as the sweet fra<rance of f#owers e>tends beyond them and diffuses
throu<hout a #ar<er s.ace, so a#so the inte##i<ence of the sou#, which is atomic,
e>tends beyond the sou# and .ervades the entire body=
If it be said that even the ana#o<y in the above Sutra is not a..ro.riate,
because a @ua#ity cannot be a.art from the substance, and hence the #i<ht of a
#am. is on#y the #am. in its tenuous form, the ana#o<y of .erfume wi## a..#y= /ust
as thou<h a f#ower is far away its scent is fe#t around, so thou<h the sou# is atomic
its co<nition of the entire body is .ossib#e= This ana#o<y cannot be ob0ected on the
<round that even the fra<rance of a f#ower is on#y the subt#e .artic#es of the
f#ower, because our e>.erience is that we fee# the fra<rance and not any .artic#es=
Tatha cha darsayati II=,=27 +23,-
Thus a#so, +the Sruti- shows or dec#ares=
Tatha1 thus, in the same wayC !ha1 a#soC Darsayati1 +the Sruti- dec#ares=
The Sruti a#so, after havin< si<nified the sou#Is abidin< in the heart and its
atomic siGe, dec#ares by means of such .assa<es as J?.to the hairs, u.to the ti.s
of the nai#sJ +;au= ?.= I(=28, Bri= ?.= I=3=7-, that the sou# .ervades the who#e
body by means of inte##i<ence, which is its @ua#ity=
$ritha<u.adesat II=,=29 +233-
On account of the se.arate teachin< +of the Sruti- +that the sou#
.ervades the body on account of its @ua#ity of inte##i<ence-=
$rithak1 se.arate, differentC ?.adesat1 because of teachin< or statement=
This Sutra is a defence in favour of the .recedin< Sutra where inte##i<ence is
used as an attribute of the individua# sou# and so se.arate from it=
A further ar<ument is <iven here to estab#ish the .ro.osition of the .revious
Sutra= ;aushitaki ?.anishad dec#ares J%avin< by $ra0na, +inte##i<ence,
know#ed<e,- taken .ossession of the bodyJ +III=5-= This indicates that inte##i<ence
is different from the sou# bein< re#ated as instrument and a<ent and the sou#
.ervades the entire body with this @ua#ity of inte##i<ence=
A<ain the te>t JThou the inte##i<ent .erson havin< throu<h the inte##i<ence of
the senses absorbed within himse#f a## inte##i<enceJ +Bri= ?.= II=*=*7- shows
inte##i<ence to be different from the a<ent, i=e=, the /iva or the individua# sou# and
so #ikewise confirms our views=
Thou<h there is no fundamenta# difference between the individua# sou# and
his inte##i<ence, they are different in the sense that inte##i<ence is the attribute of
the individua# sou# which is the substance= The individua# sou# is the .ossessor of
that attribute, because the Sruti states a difference between the two=
Tad<unasaratvat tu tadvya.adesah .ra0navat II=,=26 +234-
But that dec#aration +as to the atomic siGe of the sou#- is on
account of its havin< for its essence the @ua#ities of that +viG=,
the Buddhi-, as in the case of the inte##i<ent Lord +Sa<una Brahman-=
Tad<unasaratvat1 on account of its .ossessin< for its essence the @ua#ities
of that +viG=, the Buddhi-C Tu1 butC Tadvya.adesah1 that dec#aration +as to its
atomic siGe-C $ra0navat1 as in the case of the Inte##i<ent Lord=
The discussion on the true character of the individua# sou#, commenced in
Sutra *5 is continued=
The word HtuI +but-, refutes a## that has been said in Sutras *6&29 and decides
that the sou# is a##&.ervadin<=
The ne>t four Sutras are the Siddhanta Sutras which #ay down the correct
doctrine=
The sou# is not of atomic siGe as the Sruti does not dec#are it to have had an
ori<in= The scri.ture dec#ares that the Su.reme Brahman entered the universe as
the individua# sou# and that the individua# sou# is identica# with Brahman, and that
the individua# sou# is nothin< e#se but the Su.reme Brahman= If the sou# is the
Su.reme Brahman, it must be of the same e>tent as Brahman= The scri.ture
states Brahman to be a##&.ervadin<= Therefore the sou# a#so is a##&.ervadin<=
)our ar<ument is that thou<h the sou# is Anu, it can co<nise a## that <oes on
in the body because of its contact with the skin= But that ar<ument is untenab#e
because when a thorn .ricks we fee# .ain on#y in the .ricked s.ot= 'oreover, your
ana#o<y of the #am. and its #i<ht and of the f#ower and its fra<rance has no rea#
a..#icabi#ity, because a :una +@ua#ity- can never be a.art from the substance
+:una-= The #i<ht and the .erfume are on#y subt#e .ortions of the f#ame and the
f#ower= urther, as !haitanya is the nature or Svaru.a of the sou#, the sou# a#so
must be of the siGe of the body if there is co<nition of the who#e body= This #atter
doctrine has been a#ready refuted= Therefore the sou# must be infinite=
The /iva is dec#ared to be atomic by reason of its identification with the
Buddhi=
Accordin< to the e>tent of inte##ect, the siGe of the individua# sou# has been
fi>ed= It is ima<ined that the sou# is connected with the Buddhi or inte##ect and
bound= $assin< out, <oin< and comin< are @ua#ities of the inte##ect and are
su.erim.osed on the /iva or the individua# sou#= The sou# is considered to be
atomic on account of the #imitation of the inte##ect= That the non&transmi<ratin<
eterna##y free Atman, which neither acts nor en0oys is dec#ared to be of the same
siGe as the Buddhi is due on#y to its havin< the @ua#ities of the Buddhi +inte##ect-
for its essence, viG=, as #on< as it is in fictitious connection with the Buddhi= It is
simi#ar to ima<inin< the a##&.ervadin< Lord as #imited for the sake of ?.asana or
worshi.=
Svetasvatara ?.anishad +(=6- says, JThat #ivin< sou# is to be known as .art of
the hundredth .art of the .oint of a hair divided a hundred times and yet it is to
be infinite=J This Sruti te>t at first states the sou# to be atomic and then teaches it
to be infinite= This is a..ro.riate on#y if the atomicity of the sou# is meta.horica#
and its infinity is rea#, because both statements cannot be taken in their .rimary
sense at the same time= The infinity certain#y cannot be understood in a
meta.horica# sense, as a## the ?.anishads aim at showin< that Brahman
constitutes the Se#f of the sou#=
The other .assa<e +Svet= ?.= (=9- which treats of the measure of the sou#
JThe #ower one endowed with the @ua#ity of mind and the @ua#ity of the body, is
seen sma## even #ike the .oint of a <oadJ teaches the sou#Is sma## siGe to de.end
on its connection with the @ua#ities of the Buddhi, not u.on its own Se#f=
'undaka ?.anishad dec#ares, JThat sma## +Anu- Se#f is to be known by
thou<htJ +III=*=6-= This ?.anishad does not teach that the sou# is of atomic siGe,
as the sub0ect of the cha.ter is Brahman in so far as not to be fathomed by the
eye, etc=, but to be rea#ised by the #i<ht of know#ed<e= urther, the sou# cannot be
of atomic siGe in the .rimary sense of the word=
Therefore the statement about Anutva +sma##ness, subt#ety- has to be
understood as referrin< either to the difficu#ty of knowin< the sou#, or e#se to its
#imitin< ad0uncts=
The Buddhi abides in the heart= So it is said that the sou# abides in the heart=
Rea##y the sou# is a##&.ervadin<=
As the sou# is invo#ved in the Samsara and as it has for its essence the
@ua#ities of its #imitin< ad0unct viG=, Buddhi, it is s.oken of as minute=
)avadatmabhavitvacca na doshastaddarsanat II=,=,8 +235-
And there is no defect or fau#t in what has been said in the
.revious Sutra +as the con0unction of the sou# with the inte##ect
e>ists- so #on< as the sou# +in its re#ative as.ect- e>istsC because
it is so seen +in the scri.tures-=
)avat1 so #on< asC Atmabhavitvat1 as the sou# +in its re#ative as.ect-
e>istsC !ha1 a#so, andC "a doshah1 there is no defect or fau#tC Taddarsanat1
because it is so seen +in the scri.tures-, as Sruti a#so shows that=
An additiona# reason is <iven in su..ort of Sutra 26=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent raises an ob0ection= (ery we##, #et us then
assume that the transmi<ratory condition of the sou# is due to the @ua#ities of the
inte##ect formin< its essence= It wi## fo##ow from this that, as the con0unction of the
inte##ect and sou# which are different entities must necessari#y come to an end, the
sou# when dis0oined from the inte##ect wi## either cease to e>ist a#to<ether or at
#east cease to be a Samsarin +individua# sou#-=
To this ob0ection this Sutra <ives a re.#y= There can be no such defect in the
ar<ument of the .revious Sutra, because this connection with the Buddhi
+inte##ect- #asts so #on< as the sou#Is state of Samsara is not brou<ht to an end by
means of .erfect know#ed<e= As #on< as the sou#Is connection with the Buddhi, its
#imitin< ad0unct #asts, so #on< the individua# sou# remains individua# sou#, invo#ved
in transmi<ratory e>istence=
There is no /iva or individua# sou# without identification with inte##ect= The
connection of the sou# with the inte##ect wi## cease on#y by ri<ht know#ed<e= The
scri.ture dec#ares JI know that $erson of sun#ike #ustre beyond darkness= A man
who knows %im .asses over death, there is no other .ath to <o +Svet= ?.= III=9-=
%ow is it known that the sou# is connected with the Buddhi as #on< as it
e>istsL Be re.#y, because that is seen, viG=, in scri.ture= It is known from the
Srutis that this connection is not severed even at death= The scri.ture dec#ares,
J%e who is within the heart, consistin< of know#ed<e, surrounded by $ranas, the
.erson of #i<ht, he remainin< the same wanders a#on< the two wor#ds as if
thinkin<, as if movin<J +Bri= ?.= I(=,=7-= %ere the term Jconsistin< of know#ed<eJ
means Hconsistin< of BuddhiI= The .assa<e J%e remainin< in the same wanders
a#on< the two wor#dsJ dec#ares that the Se#f, even when <oin< to another wor#d, is
not se.arated from the Buddhi etc= The term Jas if thinkin<,J Jas if movin<J mean
that the individua# sou# does not think and move on its own account, but on#y
throu<h its association with the Buddhi= The individua# sou# thinks as it were, and
moves as it were, because the inte##ect to which it is 0oined rea##y moves and
thinks=
The connection of the individua# sou# with the inte##ect, its #imitin< ad0unct,
de.ends on wron< know#ed<e= Bron< know#ed<e +'ithya0nana- cannot cease
e>ce.t throu<h .erfect know#ed<e= Therefore, as #on< as there does not arise the
rea#isation of Brahman or Brahma0nana, so #on< the connection of the sou# with
the inte##ect and its other #imitin< ad0uncts does not come to an end=
$umstvadivat tvasya satoIbhivyaktiyo<at II=,=,* +237-
On account of the a..ro.riateness of the manifestation of that
+connection- which e>ists +.otentia##y- #ike viri#e .ower, etc=
$umstvadivat1 #ike the viri#e .ower etc=C Tu1 veri#y, butC Asya1 its, i=e=, of
the connection with the inte##ectC Satah1 e>istin<C Abhivyaktiyo<at1 on account
of the manifestation bein< .ossib#e, because of a..ro.riateness of the
manifestation=
A .roof is now <iven in su..ort of Sutra 26 by showin< the .er.etua#
connection between the individua# sou# and the inte##ect= The word HtuI +but-, is
used in order to set aside the ob0ection raised above=
An ob0ection is raised that in Sushu.ti or dee. s#ee. and $ra#aya there can be
no connection with the inte##ect, as the scri.ture dec#ares, JThen he becomes
united with the TrueC he is <one to his ownJ +!hh= ?.= (I=9=*-= %ow then can it be
said that the connection with the inte##ect #asts so #on< as the individua# sou#
e>istsL
The Sutra refutes it and says that this connection e>ists in a subt#e or
.otentia# form even in dee. s#ee.= %ad it not been for this, it cou#d not have
become manifest in the wakin< state= Such connection is c#ear from the
a..ro.riateness of such connection becomin< manifest durin< creation, after
disso#ution and durin< the wakin< state after s#ee., as in the case of viri#ity
dormant in boyhood and manifest in manhood=
The connection of the sou# with the inte##ect e>ists .otentia##y durin< dee.
s#ee. and the .eriod of disso#ution and a<ain becomes manifest at the time of
wakin< and the time of creation=
(iri#e .ower becomes manifest in manhood on#y if it e>ists in a fine or
.otentia# state in the body= %ence this connection with the inte##ect #asts so #on< as
the sou# e>ists in its Samsara&state=
"ityo.a#abdhyanu.a#abdhi.rasan<oInyataraniyamo
vaInyatha II=,=,2 +239-
Otherwise +if no inte##ect e>isted- there wou#d resu#t either
constant .erce.tion or constant non&.erce.tion, or e#se a #imitation
of either of the two +i=e=, of the sou# or of the senses-=
"ityo.a#abdhyanu.a#abdhi.rasan<at1 there wou#d resu#t .er.etua#
.erce.tion or non&.erce.tionC Anyatara1 otherwise, either of the twoC "iyamah1
restrictive ru#eC (a1 orC Anyatha1 otherwise= +?.a#abdhi1 .erce.tion,
consciousnessC Anu.a#abdhi1 non&.erce.tion, non&consciousness=-
The interna# or<an +Antahkarana- which constitutes the #imitin< ad0unct of the
sou# is ca##ed in different .#aces by different names such as 'anas +mind-, Buddhi
+inte##ect-, (i0nana +know#ed<e-, and !hitta +thou<ht- etc= Bhen it is in a state of
doubt it is ca##ed 'anasC when it is in a state of determination it is ca##ed Buddhi=
"ow we must necessari#y acknow#ed<e the e>istence of such an interna# or<an,
because otherwise there wou#d resu#t either .er.etua# .erce.tion or .er.etua# non.erce.tion=
There wou#d be .er.etua# .erce.tion whenever there is a con0unction
of the sou#, and senses and the ob0ects of senses, the three to<ether formin< the
instruments of .erce.tion= Or e#se, if on the con0unction of the three causes the
effect did not fo##ow, there wou#d be .er.etua# non&.erce.tion= But neither of
these two a#ternatives is actua##y observed=
Or e#se we wi## have to acce.t the #imitation of the .ower either of the sou# or
of the senses= But the #imitin< of .ower is not .ossib#e, as the Atman is
chan<e#ess= It cannot be said that the .ower of the senses which is not obstructed
either in the .revious moment or in the subse@uent moment is #imited in the
midd#e=
Therefore we have to acknow#ed<e the e>istence of an interna# or<an
+Antahkarana- throu<h whose connection and disconnection .erce.tion and non.erce.tion
take .#ace= The scri.ture dec#ares, J'y mind was e#sewhere, I did not
see, my mind was e#sewhere, I did not hearC for a man sees with his mind and
hears with the mindJ +Bri= ?.= I=4=,-= The scri.ture further shows that desire,
re.resentation, doubt, faith, want of faith, memory, for<etfu#ness, shame,
ref#ection, fear, a## this is mind=
Therefore there e>ists an interna# or<an, the Antahkarana, and the
connection of the sou# with the interna# or<an causes the Atman to a..ear as the
individua# sou# or as the sou# its Samsara state as e>.#ained in Sutra 26= The
e>.#anation <iven in Sutra 26 is therefore an a..ro.riate one=
;artradhikaranam1 To.ic *3 +Sutras ,9&,6-
The individua# sou# is an a<ent
;arta sastrarthavattvat II=,=,, +236-
+The sou# is- an a<ent on account of the scri.ture havin< a
.ur.ort thereby=
;arta1 a<entC Sastrarthavattvat1 in order that the scri.tures may have a
meanin<, on account of the scri.tures havin< a .ur.ort=
Another characteristic of the individua# sou# is bein< stated=
The @uestion as re<ards the siGe of the sou# has been stated= "ow another
characteristic of the sou# is taken u. for discussion= The /iva is a doer or an a<ent,
for otherwise the scri.tura# in0unctions wi## be use#ess= On that assum.tion
scri.tura# in0unctions such as J%e is to sacrifice,J J%e is to make an ob#ation into
the fire,J J%e is to <ive,J etc=, have a .ur.ort, otherwise they wou#d be
.ur.ort#ess= The scri.tures en0oin certain acts to be done by the a<ent= If the sou#
be not an a<ent these in0unctions wou#d become meanin<#ess= On that su..osition
there is meanin< to the fo##owin< .assa<e a#so, Jor, it is he who sees, hears,
.erceives, conceives, acts, he is the .erson whose se#f is know#ed<eJ +$ras= ?.=
I(=6-= J%e who desires to attain heaven, has to .erform sacrificesC and he, who
desires to attain sa#vation, has to worshi. Brahman in meditation=J
(iharo.adesat II=,=,3 +248-
And on account of +the Sruti- teachin< +its- wanderin< about=
(ihara1 wanderin< at wi##, .#ay, s.ortin< aboutC ?.adesat1 on account of
dec#aration, as Sruti dec#ares=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra ,, is <iven=
The Sruti dec#ares JThe immorta# one <oes wherever he #ikesJ +Bri= ?.=
I(=,=*2-, and a<ain J%e takin< the senses a#on< with him moves about accordin<
to his .#easure, within his own bodyJ +Bri= ?.= II=*=*9-= These .assa<es which <ive
a descri.tion of the wanderin< of the sou# in the dream indicate c#ear#y that the
sou# is an a<ent=
?.adanat II=,=,4 +24*-
+A#so it is a doer- on account of its takin< the or<ans=
?.adanat1 on account of its takin< +the or<ans-=
Another ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra ,, is <iven=
The te>t @uoted in the #ast Sutra a#so indicates that the sou# in dream state
takes the or<ans with it= J%avin< taken throu<h the inte##i<ence of the senses,
inte##i<ence, and havin< taken the sensesJ +Bri= ?.= II=*=*9, *6-= This c#ear#y
shows that the sou# is an a<ent=
It is a doer or an a<ent because it is said to use the senses= The individua#
sou# is to be admitted as the a<ent, because he is described in Sruti to take the
senses a#on< with him as instruments of his work, whi#e roamin< within his own
body durin< the dream state= JThus, he takin< the senses a#on< with him, moves
about within his own body, 0ust as he .#eases=J +Bri= ?.= II=*=*9-=
In the :ita a#so we find Jwhen the sou# ac@uires a body and when he
abandons it, he seiGes these and <oes with them, as the wind takes fra<rance
from the f#owersJ +:ita= K(=9-=
(ya.adesaccha kriyayam na chennirdesavi.aryayah II=,=,5 +242-
+The sou# is an a<ent- a#so because it is desi<nated as such with
re<ard to actionsC if it were not so, there wou#d be a chan<e of
desi<nation=
(ya.adesat1 on account of mention, from a statement of SrutiC !ha1 a#so,
andC ;riyayam1 in res.ect of .erformance of ritesC "a chet1 if it were not so, or
e#se, otherwiseC "irdesavi.aryayah1 reversa# of the statement, chan<e of
desi<nation=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra ,, is continued=
In the .assa<e J(i0nanam ya0nam tanute, ;armani tanuteI.i chaJ &
JInte##i<ence +i=e=, the inte##i<ent .erson, /iva- .erforms sacrifices, and it a#so
.erforms a## actsJ +Tait= ?.=II=4-, by HInte##i<enceI the sou# is meant and not the
Buddhi= This c#ear#y shows that the sou# is an a<ent=
(i0nana refers to /iva and not to Buddhi, because if Buddhi is referred to, the
word wou#d be H(i0nanenaI= The nominative case in H(i0nanam ya0nam tanuteI,
shou#d be instrumenta# case, H(i0nanenaI, Hby inte##i<enceI meanin< throu<h its
instrumenta#ity=
Be see that in another te>t where the Buddhi is meant the word Hinte##i<enceI
is e>hibited in the instrumenta# case J%avin< throu<h the inte##i<ence of these
senses it takes a## understandin<J +Bri=?.= II=*=*7-= In the .assa<e under
discussion, on the contrary, the word Hinte##i<enceI is <iven in the characteristic of
the a<ent, viG=, nominative case and therefore indicates the sou# which is distinct
from the Buddhi=
?.a#abdhivadaniyamah II=,=,7 +24,-
As in the case of .erce.tion +there is- no ru#e +here a#so-=
?.a#abdhivat1 as in the case of .erce.tionC Aniyamah1 +there is- no ru#e=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra ,, is continued=
An ob0ection is raised that if the sou# were a free a<ent, then why shou#d he
do any act .roductive of harmfu# effectsL %e wou#d have done on#y what is
beneficia# to him and not both <ood and evi# actions=
This ob0ection is refuted in this Sutra= /ust as the sou#, a#thou<h he is free,
.erceives both .#easant and un.#easant thin<s, so a#so he .erforms both <ood and
evi# actions= There is no ru#e that he shou#d .erform on#y what is beneficia# and
avoid what is bad or harmfu#=
In the .erformance of actions, the sou# is not abso#ute#y free as he de.ends
on differences of .#ace, time and efficient causes= But an a<ent does not cease to
be so because he is in need of assistance= A cook remains the a<ent in action of
cookin<, a#thou<h he needs fue#, water, etc= %is function as a cook e>ists at a##
times=
Saktivi.aryayat II=,=,9 +243-
On account of the reversa# of .ower +of the Buddhi-=
Saktivi.aryayat1 on account of the reversa# of .ower +of the Buddhi-=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra ,, is continued=
If the Buddhi which is an instrument becomes the a<ent and ceases to
function as an instrument there wou#d take .#ace a reversa# of .ower, i=e=, the
instrumenta# .ower which .ertains to the Buddhi wou#d have to be set aside and
to be re.#aced by the .ower of an a<ent=
If the Buddhi has the .ower of an a<ent, it must be admitted that it is a#so
the ob0ect of se#f&consciousness +Aham&.ratyaya-, as we see that everywhere
activity is .receded by se#f&consciousness1 JI <o, I come, I eat, I drink, I do, I
en0oy=J
If the Buddhi is endowed with the .ower of an a<ent and affects a## thin<s,
we have to assume for it another instrument by means of which it affects
everythin<, because every doer needs an instrument= %ence the who#e dis.ute is
about a name on#y= There is no rea# difference, since in either case that which is
different from the instrument of action is admitted to be the a<ent= In either case
an a<ent different from the instrument has to be admitted=
Samadhyabhavaccha II=,=,6 +244-
And on account of the im.ossibi#ity of Samadhi=
Samadhyabhavat1 on account of the im.ossibi#ity of SamadhiC !ha1 and,
a#so= +Samadhi1 su.erconscious stateC Abhavat1 for want, for im.ossibi#ity, as it
becomes an im.ossib#e thin<-=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra ,, is continued=
If the sou# is not a doer, there wi## be non&e>istence of attainment of
#iberation= If the /iva or sou# is not an a<ent, then the rea#isation .rescribed by
Sruti te>ts #ike JThe Atman is to be rea#isedJ +Bri= ?.= II=3=4=- throu<h Samadhi
wou#d be im.ossib#e= The meditation tau<ht in the (edanta te>ts is .ossib#e on#y if
the sou# is the a<ent= J(eri#y, the Atman is to be seen, to be heard, to be
.erceived, to be searched=J JThe Se#f we must seek out, we must try to
understandJ +!hh= ?.= (III=7=*=- J'editate on the Se#f as O'J +'un= ?.= II=2=5-=
Therefrom a#so it fo##ows that the sou# is an a<ent=
JThe sou# wi## not be ca.ab#e of .ractisin< hearin<, reasonin<, ref#ection, and
meditationJ which #ead to Samadhi and the attainment of ;now#ed<e of the
Im.erishab#e= %ence there wi## be no emanci.ation for the sou#= Therefore it is
estab#ished that the sou# a#one is the a<ent, but not the Buddhi=
Takshadhikaranam1 To.ic *4 +Sutra 38-
The sou# is an a<ent as #on< as it is #imited by the ad0uncts
)atha cha takshobhayatha II=,=38 +245-
And as the car.enter is both=
)atha1 asC !ha1 a#so, andC Taksha1 the car.enterC ?bhayatha1 in both
ways, is both=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra ,, is continued=
That the individua# sou# is an a<ent has been .roved by the reasons set forth
in Sutras ,, to ,6= Be now have to consider whether this a<ency is its rea# nature
or on#y a su.erim.osition due to its #imitin< ad0uncts= The "yaya Schoo# maintains
that it is its very nature=
This Sutra refutes it and dec#ares that it is su.erim.osed on the sou# and not
rea#= Such doershi. is not the sou#Is nature, because if it is so, there cou#d be no
#iberation, 0ust as fire, bein< hot in its nature, can never be free from heat= Doin<
is essentia##y of the nature of .ain= )ou cannot say that even if there is the .ower
of doin<, emanci.ation can come when there is nothin< to do, because the .ower
of doin< wi## resu#t in doin< at some time or other= The Sruti ca##s the Atman as
havin< an eterna##y .ure conscious and free nature= %ow cou#d that be if doershi.
is its natureL %ence, its doershi. is due to its identification with a #imitin< function=
So there is no sou# as doer or en0oyer a.art from $ara&Brahman= )ou cannot say
that in that case :od wi## become a Samsarin, because doershi. and en0oyment
are due on#y to Avidya=
The body of the car.enter is not the cause of his function= %is too#s are the
cause= Even so the sou# is a doer on#y throu<h the mind and the senses= The
scri.tura# in0unctions do not command doin< but command acts to be done on the
basis of such doershi. which is due to Avidya=
The Sruti dec#ares JThis Atman is non&attachedJ +Bri= ?.= I(=,=*4-= /ust as in
ordinary #ife, a car.enter suffers when he is workin< with his too#s and is ha..y
when he #eaves his work, so does the Atman suffer when he is active in the
wakin< and dream states throu<h his connection with the inte##ect, etc=, and is
b#issfu# when he ceases to be an a<ent as in the state of dee. s#ee.=
The scri.tura# in0unctions in .rescribin< certain acts refer to the conditioned
state of the se#f= By nature the sou# is inactive= It becomes active throu<h
connection with its ?.adhis or #imitin< ad0uncts, the inte##ect, etc= Doershi. rea##y
be#on<s to the inte##ect= Eterna# ?.a#abdhi or !onsciousness is in the sou#=
Doershi. im.#ies Ahamkara or e<o&consciousness= %ence such doershi. does not
be#on< to the sou# as its nature but be#on<s to the inte##ect=
The scri.tura# in0unctions in .rescribin< certain acts .resu..ose an a<entshi.
estab#ished somehow on account of Avidya or i<norance, but do not themse#ves
aim at estab#ishin< the direct a<entshi. of the Se#f= The a<entshi. of the Se#f does
not constitute its rea# nature because scri.ture teaches that its true Se#f is
Brahman= Be, therefore, conc#ude that the (edic in0unctions are o.erative with
reference to that a<entshi. of the sou# which is due to Avidya=
"or can you infer doershi. from the descri.tion of (ihara +.#ay or activity- in
dreams, because the connection with the mind or inte##ect continues in dreams=
Even in the state of dream the instruments of the Se#f are not a#to<ether at restC
because scri.ture dec#ares that even then it is connected with the Buddhi= J%avin<
become a dream, to<ether with Buddhi, it .asses beyond this wor#d=J Smriti a#so
says, Jwhen the senses bein< at rest, the mind not bein< at rest is occu.ied with
the ob0ects, that state know to be a dream=J
It is c#ear#y estab#ished that the a<entshi. of the sou# is due to its #imitin<
ad0unct Buddhi on#y=
$arayattadhikaranam1 To.ic *5 +Sutras 3*&32-
The sou# is de.endent on the Lord, when he works
$arattu tat sruteh II=,=3* +247-
But +even- that +a<ency of the sou#- is from the Su.reme Lord, so
dec#ares the Sruti=
$arat1 from the Su.reme LordC Tu1 but, indeedC Tat1 a<ency, a<entshi.C
Sruteh1 from Sruti, so dec#ares the Sruti=
A #imitation to Sutra ,, is stated=
Be now enter on the discussion whether the a<entshi. characterisin< the
individua# sou# in the state of i<norance on account of its #imitin< ad0uncts is
inde.endent of the Lord or de.endent on %im=
The $urva.akshin maintains that the sou# as far as it is an a<ent does not
de.end on the Lord=
The word HtuI +but-, is em.#oyed in order to remove the doubt raised by the
$urva.akshin= The view that the sou#Is doershi. is due to its desires and its
.ossession of the senses as instruments and not to the Lord is wron<, because the
Sruti dec#ares that Lord is the cause=
The a<ency of the sou# is a#so due to the Su.reme Lord= It can be understood
from Sruti that the a<entshi. of the individua# sou# is veri#y subordinate to and
contro##ed by the Su.reme Lord= The sou# does <ood and bad deeds bein< so
directed by the Lord=
Sruti dec#ares, J%e makes him, whom %e wishes to #ead u. from these wor#ds
do <ood deedsC %e makes him, whom %e wishes to #ead down from these wor#ds,
do bad deeds=J +;au= ?.= III=9- and, a<ain, J%e who dwe##in< within the Se#f .u##s
the Se#f withinJ +Sat= Br= KI(=5=7=,8-= JThe ?niversa# Sou# enterin< within, <overns
the individua# sou#sJ & JAntah .ravishtah sasta 0ivanamJ JThe Lord is within a##, the
Ru#er of a## creatures=J
)ou cannot say that that wi## cause the attribution of .artia#ity +(aishamya-
and crue#ty +"air<hrinya- to the Lord, because %e acts accordin< to Dharma
+merit- and Adharma +demerit-= )ou may re.#y that these are due to doershi. and
if doershi. is due to the Lord, how can the Lord act accordin< to Dharma and
AdharmaL
Be re.#y that the Sruti says that the sou# is the doer and dec#ares as cause of
doershi. the Su.reme Lord who is the bestower of the fruits of actions, who is
immanent in a##, who is the witness of a## actions, and who is the ins.irer and
<uider of a##=
;rita.rayatna.ekshastu
vihita.ratishiddhavaiyarthyadibhyah II=,=32 +249-
But +the LordIs makin< the sou# act- de.ends on the works done
+by it-, for otherwise there wi## be use#essness of the scri.tura#
in0unctions and .rohibitions=
;rita.rayatna.ekshah1 de.ends on works doneC Tu1 butC (ihita.ratishiddha&
avaiyarthyadibhyah1 so that the scri.tura# in0unctions and
.rohibitions may not be meanin<#ess= +(ihita1 ordainedC $ratishiddha1
.rohibitedC Avaiyarthyadibhyah1 on account of non&meanin<#essness=-
This Sutra .roceeds to narrow the sco.e of Sutra 3* within certain #imits=
If causa# a<ency be#on<s to the Lord, it fo##ows that %e must be crue# and
un0ust and that the sou# has to under<o conse@uences of what it has not done= %e
must be crue# and whimsica# too as %e makes some .ersons do <ood acts and
others evi# deeds= This Sutra refutes this doubt=
The word HtuI +but-, removes the ob0ections= The Lord a#ways directs the sou#
accordin< to its <ood or bad actions done in .revious births= %e bestows <ood and
bad fruits accordin< to the sou#Is <ood and bad actions= %e is the rain which
a#ways causes each seed to fructify accordin< to its .ower= Thou<h doershi. is
de.endent on the Lord, doin< is the sou#Is act= Bhat the sou# does the Lord causes
to be done= Such doin< is due to deeds done in .revious birth and (asanas which,
a<ain, are due to .revious ;armas and so on, Samsara bein< without be<innin<
+Anadi-= As Samsara is be<innin<#ess there wi## a#ways be .revious births with
actions .erformed in those births for the <uidance of the Lord= %ence %e cannot
be accused of bein< crue#, un0ust and whimsica#= To <ive fruits the Lord de.ends
on the sou#Is actions= If this were not so, the scri.tura# in0unctions and .rohibitions
wou#d be meanin<#ess= If Lord does not de.end on the sou#Is actions for <ivin<
fruit, effort or e>ertion +$urushartha- wi## have no .#ace at a##= The sou# wi## <ain
nothin< by fo##owin< these in0unctions=
'oreover, time, .#ace and causation wi## be ca.ricious#y o.erative and not
accordin< to the #aw of cause and effect, if our ;arma is not the instrumenta#
cause, and the Lord the Su.ervisin< !ause=
Amsadhikaranam1 To.ic *7 +Sutras 3,&4,-
Re#ation of the individua# sou# to Brahman
Amso nanavya.adesad anyatha cha.i
dasakitavaditvamadhiyata eke II=,=3, +246-
+The sou# is- a .art of the Lord on account of difference
+between the two- bein< dec#ared and otherwise a#so +i=e=, as nondifferent
from Brahman-C because in some +(edic te>ts- +Brahman- is
s.oken of as bein< fishermen, knaves, etc=
Amsah1 .artC "anavya.adesat1 on account of difference bein< dec#aredC
Anyatha1 otherwiseC !ha1 andC A.i1 a#soC Dasakitavaditvam1 bein< fisher&men,
knaves, etc=C Adhiyata1 readC Eke1 some +Srutis, Sakhas of the (edas-=
This Sutra shows that the individua# sou# is different from as we## as the same
with Brahman=
In the #ast to.ic it has been shown that the Lord ru#es the sou#= "ow the
@uestion of the re#ation of the individua# sou# to Brahman is taken u.= Is it that of
master and servant or as between fire and its s.arksL
The $urva.akshin ho#ds that the re#ation is #ike that of master and servant,
because that connection on#y is we## known to be the re#ation of ru#er +Lord- and
ru#ed +sub0ect-=
To this the Sutra says that the sou# must be considered a .art of the Lord,
0ust as a s.ark is a .art of the fire= But then the sou# is not actua##y a .art, but a
.art as it were= It is an ima<ined .art on#y, because Brahman cannot have any
.arts= Brahman is "ishka#a, without .arts= %e is Akhanda +indivisib#e-= %e is
"iravayava +without #imbs-=
Bhy then shou#d it be taken as a .art and not identica# with the LordL
Because the scri.tures dec#are a difference between them in te>ts #ike JThat se#f it
is which we must search out, that it is we must try to understandJ +!hh= ?.=
(III=7=*-= J%e who knows %im becomes a 'uniJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=22-= J%e who
dwe##in< within the se#f, .u##s the se#f from withinJ +Bri= ?.= III=7=2,-= JThe Atman
is to be seenL +Bri= ?.= II=3=4-= This difference is s.oken of from the re#ative
view.oint= They are identica# from the abso#ute view.oint=
The te>t JBrahman is the fishermen, Brahman the s#aves, Brahman these
<amb#ersJ etc=, indicate that even such #ow .ersons are in rea#ity Brahman and
that a## individua# sou#s, men, women and chi#dren are a## Brahman=
The same view.oint is set forth in other .assa<es such as JThou art woman,
Thou art man, Thou art the youth, Thou art the maidenC Thou as an o#d man
totters a#on< on Thy staff, Thou art born with Thy face turned everywhereJ +Svet=
?.= I(=,-= Te>ts #ike JThere is no other but %eJ and simi#ar ones estab#ish the
same truth= "on&differentiated inte##i<ence be#on<s to the sou# and the Lord a#ike,
0ust as heat be#on<s to the s.arks as we## as the fire=
rom these two views of difference, and non&difference, there resu#ts the
com.rehensive view of the sou# bein< a .art of the Lord=
'antravarnaccha II=,=33 +258-
A#so from the words of the 'antra +it is known that the sou# is a
.art of the Lord-=
'antravarnat1 from the words of the 'antra, from the #etters in sacred
verses, because of descri.tion <iven in the sacred 'antrasC !ha1 a#so, and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 3,, that the individua# sou# is a .art of
Brahman is <iven=
A further reason is <iven to show that the sou# is a .art of the Lord= JSuch is
the <reatness of itC <reater than it is the $erson= One foot of It are a## these
bein<s, three feet of It are the immorta# in heaven,J +!hh= ?.= III=*2=5- where
bein<s inc#udin< sou#s are said to be a foot or .art of the Lord=
+One foot, i=e=, the fourth .art of %im are a## bein<s, the who#e creation
covers on#y a fraction of %im-= $urusha Sukta1 Ri<veda1 K=68=,, dec#ares the same
thin<= JA## the bein<s are but a foot of %imJ=
The word H.adaI and HamsaI are identica#= Both mean .art or a .ortion=
%ence we conc#ude that the individua# sou# is a .art of the Lord, and a<ain
from the fo##owin< reason=
A.i cha smaryate II=,=34 +25*-
And it is so stated in the Smriti=
A.i1 a#soC !ha1 andC Smaryate1 it is +so- stated in the Smriti=
The ar<ument that the individua# sou# is a .art of Brahman is conc#uded here=
The Smriti a#so says so & that the individua# sou# is a .art of Brahman= JAn
eterna# .ortion of 'yse#f becomes the individua# sou# in the wor#d of #ifeJ
+Bha<avad :ita1 K(=7-=
$rakasadivannaivam .arah II=,=35 +252-
The Su.reme Lord is not +affected by .#easure and .ain- #ike this
+individua# sou#- 0ust as #i<ht +is unaffected by the shakin< of its
ref#ections-=
$rakasadivat1 #ike #i<ht, etc=C "a1 is notC Evam1 thus, #ike this, #ike the
individua# sou#C $arah1 the Su.reme Lord=
The s.ecia#ity of the Su.reme Lord is shown in this Sutra=
%ere the $urva.akshin raises another ob0ection= If the sou# is a .art of the
Lord, the Lord a#so must e>.erience .#easure and .ain #ike the sou#= Be see in
ordinary #ife that the entire Ramakrishna suffers from the .ain affectin< his hand
or foot or some other #imb= %ence attainment of :od wou#d mean ma>imum <rief
and .ain, and the o#d #imited .ain of individua# sou# wou#d be far better=
This Sutra refutes it= The Lord does not e>.erience .#easure and .ain #ike the
individua# sou#= The individua# sou# identifies itse#f with the body, the senses and
the mind, on account of i<norance, and therefore e>.eriences .#easure and .ain=
The Su.reme Lord neither identifies himse#f with a body, nor ima<ines himse#f to
be aff#icted by .ain=
The .ain of the individua# sou# a#so is not rea# but ima<inary on#y= It is due to
non&discrimination of the Se#f from the body, senses and mind which are the
.roducts of Avidya or i<norance=
/ust as a man fee#s the .ain of a burn or cut which affects his body by
erroneous#y identifyin< himse#f with the #atter, so a#so he fee#s the .ain which
affects others such as sons or friends, by erroneous#y identifyin< himse#f with
them= %e enters as it were into them throu<h 'oha or #ove and ima<ines JI am
the son, I am the friend=J This c#ear#y shows that the fee#in< of .ain is due mere#y
to the error of fa#se ima<ination=
Some men and women are sittin< to<ether and ta#kin<= If then somebody
ca##s out Jthe son has diedJ, <rief is .roduced in the minds of those who have
'oha or #ove for sons on account of erroneous ima<ination, identification, and
connection, but not in the minds of re#i<ious ascetics or Sannyasins who have
freed themse#ves from that ima<ination= If even a man of ri<ht know#ed<e who
has become an ascetic has no .ain or <rief conse@uent on death of re#ations or
friends, :od who is Su.reme and a#one, who is .ure consciousness, who is eterna#
.ure inte##i<ence, who sees nothin< beside the Se#f for which there are no ob0ects,
can have no .ain at a##=
To i##ustrate this view the Sutra introduces a com.arison #ike #i<ht etc= /ust as
the #i<ht of the sun which is a##&.ervadin< becomes strai<ht or bent by comin< in
contact with .articu#ar ob0ects, but does not rea##y become so, or the ether of a
.ot seems to move when the .ot is moved, but does not rea##y move, or as the
sun does not tremb#e a#thou<h its ima<e which is ref#ected in water tremb#es, so
a#so the Lord is not affected by .#easure, .ain or <rief a#thou<h .#easure and .ain
etc=, are fe#t by that .art of %im, which is ca##ed the individua# sou# which is a
.roduct of i<norance and is #imited by Buddhi, etc=
/ust as the sun does not become contaminated by its touch throu<h its .arts,
the rays with the im.urities of the earth, so a#so the Su.reme Lord does not
become affected by the en0oyment and sufferin< of the individua# sou#, thou<h
#atter is .art and .arce# of the former=
Bhen the sou#Is individua# state due to i<norance is sub#ated, it becomes
Brahman, JThou art ThatJ etc= Thus the Su.reme Lord is not affected by the .ain
of the individua# sou#=
Smaranti !ha II=,=37 +25,-
The Smritis a#so state +that-=
Smaranti1 the Smritis stateC !ha1 and, a#so=
JOf the two, the Su.reme Se#f is said to be eterna#, devoid of @ua#ities= It is
not touched by the fruits of actions, any more than a #otus #eaf by water=J The
Smriti te>ts #ike these state that the Su.reme Lord does not e>.erience .#easure
and .ain=
Anu0na.ariharau dehasambandha00yotiradivat II=,=39 +253-
In0unctions and .rohibitions +are .ossib#e- on account of the
connection +of the Se#f- with the body, as in the case of #i<ht, etc=
Anu0na.ariharau1 in0unctions and .rohibitionsC Dehasamban& dhat1 on
account of connection with the bodyC /yotiradivat1 #ike #i<ht etc=
The necessity for observance of mandatory and .rohibitory ru#es is e>.#ained=
The Atman or the Su.reme Se#f is one= There can be no in0unctions and
.rohibitions with re<ard to the Atman= But in0unctions and .rohibitions are
.ossib#e when it is connected with a body= Bhat are those .ermissions and
in0unctionsL J%e is to a..roach his wife at the .ro.er time=J J%e is not to a..roach
the wife of his :uru=J J%e is to ki## the anima# devoted to A<nistoma=J and J%e is
not to hurt any bein<=J
ire is one on#y but the fire of the funera# .yre is re0ected and that of a
sacrifice is acce.ted= Some thin<s consistin< of earth, #ike diamonds, are desiredC
other thin<s consistin< of earth, #ike dead bodies, are shunned= The urine and
dun< of cows are considered .ure and used as suchC those of other anima#s are
re0ected= Bater .oured from a c#ean vesse# or offered by a c#ean .erson is to be
acce.tedC that contained in an unc#ean vesse# or offered by an unc#ean man is to
be re0ected= Simi#ar is the case with the Atman=
Bhen the sou# is in a state of attachment to the body, ethica# ideas of .urity
and im.urity have fu## a..#ication=
Asantateschavyatikarah II=,=36 +254-
And on account of the non&e>tension +of the sou# beyond its own
body- there is no confusion +of resu#ts of actions-=
Asantateh1 on account of non&e>tension +beyond its own body-C !ha1 andC
Avyatikarah1 there is no confusion +of resu#ts of actions-=
The discussion on the s.ecia# characteristic of the individua# sou# is continued=
An ob0ection is raised that on account of the unity of the se#f there wou#d
resu#t a confusion of the resu#ts of actions, there bein< on#y one master, i=e=, one
sou# to en0oy the fruits of actions= This Sutra refutes such a .ossibi#ity=
This is not so, because there is no e>tension of the actin< and en0oyin< se#f,
i=e=, no connection on its .art with a## bodies= The individua# sou# de.ends on its
ad0uncts, and there is a#so non&e>tension of the sou# on account of the none>tension
of those ad0uncts= The individua# sou#s are different from each other=
Each sou# is connected with a .articu#ar body, mind, etc=
The individua# sou# has no connection with a## the bodies at the same time= %e
is connected with one body on#y and he is affected by the .ecu#iar .ro.erties of
that one a#one= Therefore the effects of works done by the sou# in one body
be#on<s to him in res.ect of that body on#y and not of any other body= A## the
individua#s are not affected by the works done by a .articu#ar individua#=
There wi## be no .ossibi#ity for the Atman, as it is one, to e>.erience a## the
.#easures and a## the .ains of a## the bodies, because the bodies are disconnected=
Therefore there is no confusion of actions or fruits of actions=
Abhasa eva cha II=,=48 +255-
And +the individua# sou# is- on#y a ref#ection +of $aramatman or
the Su.reme Lord-=
Abhasa1 a ref#ectionC Eva1 on#yC !ha1 and=
Accordin< to (edanta, the individua# sou# is on#y a ref#ection of Brahman or
the Su.reme Sou# in the mind #ike the ref#ection of the sun in the water= /ust as
the ref#ections of the sun in different .ots of water are different, so a#so the
ref#ections of the Su.reme Sou# in different minds are different= /ust as, when one
ref#ected ima<e of the sun tremb#es, another ref#ected ima<e does not on that
account tremb#e a#so, so a#so when a .articu#ar sou# e>.eriences fruits of his
actions, viG=, .#easure and .ain, it is not shared by other sou#s= Bhen the
individua# sou# in one body is under<oin< the effects of his actions, the sou# in any
other body is not affected on that account=
or those, such as the Sankhyas, the (aiseshikas and the "aiyayikas on the
contrary, who maintain that there are many sou#s and a## of them a##&.ervadin<, it
fo##ows that there must be a confusion of actions and resu#ts, because each sou# is
.resent everywhere near to those causes which .roduce .#easure and .ain=
Accordin< to the o.inion of the Sankhya,s there e>ist many a##&.ervadin<
se#fs, whose nature is .ure inte##i<ence, devoid of @ua#ities and of unsur.assab#e
e>ce##ence= or the common .ur.ose of a## of them there e>ists the $radhana
throu<h which the sou#s obtain en0oyment and re#ease=
In the Sankhya .hi#oso.hy the individua# sou# has been stated to be a##.ervadin<=
If this view be acce.ted there wou#d be confusion of works and their
effects= This view of Sankhyas is therefore an unfair conc#usion=
Therefore there can be no confusion of the resu#ts of action=
Adrishtaniyamat II=,=4* +257-
There bein< no fi>ity about the unseen .rinci.#e +there wou#d
resu#t confusion of works and their effects for those who be#ieve in
many sou#s, each a##&.ervadin<-=
Adrishtaniyamat1 There bein< no fi>ity about the unseen .rinci.#e=
+Adrishta1 the fate, the accumu#ated stock of .revious actions, waitin< as a #atent
force to brin< forth fruits in future, merit or demerit ac@uired by the sou#s by
thou<hts, words and actionsC Aniyamat1 for want of any bindin< ru#e, on account
of non&determinateness=-
The discussion be<un in Sutra 48 is continued=
Sutras 4* to 4, refute the doctrine of the Sankhyas and other schoo#s about
the .#ura#ity of sou#s, each of which is a##&.ervadin<= It #eads to absurdities=
This confusion cannot be avoided by brin<in< the Adrishta or unseen
.rinci.#e, because if a## the sou#s e@ua##y are a##&.ervadin<, there cannot be any
bindin< ru#e as to u.on which of them the force wi## act=
Accordin< to the Sankhyas, the Adrishta does not inhere in the sou# but in the
$radhana which is common to a## sou#s= %ence there is nothin< to fi> that a
.articu#ar Adrishta o.erates in a .articu#ar sou#=
The doctrine of the other two schoo#s is o.en to the same ob0ection=
Accordin< to the "yaya and (aiseshika schoo#s, the unseen .rinci.#e is created by
the con0unction of the sou# with the mind= %ere a#so there is nothin< to fi> that a
.articu#ar Adrishta be#on<s to a .articu#ar sou#, as every sou# is a##&.ervadin< and
therefore e@ua##y connected with a## minds=
Therefore the confusion of resu#ts is unavoidab#e=
Abhisandhyadishu a.i chaivam II=,=42 +259-
And this is a#so the case in reso#utions, etc=
Abhisandhyadishu1 in reso#utions, etc=C A.i1 evenC !ha1 andC Evam1
thus, #ike this, in the #ike manner=
The discussion be<un in Sutra 48 is continued=
The same #o<ica# defect wi## a..#y a#so to the reso#ve to do actions= There wi##
be no order#iness of reso#ves to do actions= That is want of order a#so in matters of
.ersona# determination, etc=, if the individua# sou# be admitted to be a##&.ervadin<=
If it be he#d that the reso#ution which one makes to <et somethin< or to avoid
somethin< wi## a##ot the Adrishta to .articu#ar sou#s, even then there wi## be this
confusion of resu#ts of actions, because reso#utions are formed by the con0unction
of the sou# and the mind= Therefore the same ar<ument a..#ies here a#so=
If the individua# sou# is a##&.ervadin<, there cannot be any order in motives or
matters of .ersona# determination such as JI wi## do a certain thin<J or JI wi## not
do a certain thin<J because in such a case, everyone becomes conscious of the
determination of every other= Therefore no order of determination and its .uttin<
it into action can be maintained= 'oreover co##ision between wi##s cannot be
avoided= But order is found in this wor#d everywhere=
Therefore it is estab#ished that the sou# is not a##&.ervadin<=
$radesaditi chenna antarbhavat II=,=4, +256-
If it be said +that the distinction of .#easure and .ain etc=,
resu#ts- from +the difference of- .#ace, +we say- not so, on account
of the se#f bein< in a## bodies=
$radesat1 on account of .articu#ar #oca#ity or environment, from +difference
of- .#aceC Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC "a1 not so, the ar<ument cannot standC
Antarbhavat1 on account of the se#f bein< in a## bodies=
An ob0ection to Sutra 42 is raised and refuted= This Sutra consists of two
.arts, viG=, an ob0ection and its re.#y= The ob0ection .ortion is H$radesaditi chetI
and the re.#y .ortion is H"a antarbhavat=I
The "aiyayikas and others try to <et over the difficu#ty shown in the .revious
Sutra by <ivin< the fo##owin< ar<ument= Thou<h each sou# is a##&.ervadin<, yet,
confusion of resu#ts of actions wi## not occur if we take its connection with the
mind to take .#ace in that .art of it which is #imited by its body=
Even this cannot stand= This a#so is not .ossib#e on account of its bein< within
a##= Because, as bein< e@ua##y infinite a## se#fs are within a## bodies= Every sou# is a##.ervadin<
and therefore .ermeates a## bodies= There is nothin< to fi> that a
.articu#ar body be#on<s to a .articu#ar sou#=
'oreover, on account of the doctrine of #imitation due to difference of .#ace,
it wou#d fo##ow that sometimes two se#fs en0oyin< the same .#easure or .ain may
effect their fruition by one and the same way, as it may ha..en that the unseen
.rinci.#e of two se#fs occu.ies the same .#ace=
urther, from the doctrine that the unseen .rinci.#es occu.y fi>ed .#aces it
wou#d fo##ow that no en0oyment of heaven can take .#ace, because the Adrishta is
effected in definite .#aces such as, e=<=, the body of a Brahmana and the
en0oyment of heaven is bound to a definite different .#ace=
There cannot be more than one a##&.ervadin< entity= If there were many a##.ervadin<
entities they wou#d #imit each other and therefore cease to be a##.ervadin<
or infinite=
Therefore there is on#y one Atman and not many= The (edanta doctrine of
one Atman is the on#y fau#t#ess doctrine= The on#y doctrine not o.en to any
ob0ections is the doctrine of the unity of the se#f= The .#ura#ity of se#fs in (edanta
is on#y a .roduct of Avidya, nescience or i<norance and not a rea#ity=
Thus ends the Third $ada +Section ,- of the Second Adhyaya +!ha.ter II- of
the Brahmasutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
SE!TIO" 3
Introduction
In the Third $ada or Section it has been shown that ether and other e#ements
are .roduced from Brahman by reconci#in< the a..arent#y contradictory te>ts of
the Srutis that treat of their ori<in= It has been shown that a conf#ict of the (edic
.assa<es as to the ori<ination of the ether, etc=, does not e>ist= The same is now
done in this Section with re<ard to the vita# airs or $ranas, and senses= The te>ts
that dea# with the ori<in of the $ranas and senses are taken u. for discussion= This
Section estab#ishes that the vita# airs and the senses derive their ori<in from
Brahman=
Syno.sis
This Section +$ada- I( of !ha.ter II is devoted to the discussion of the
creation of the senses, the chief $rana= It estab#ishes that they ori<inate from
Brahman=
Adhikarana *1 +Sutras *&3- teaches that the $ranas +senses- ori<inate from
Brahman=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutras 4&5- dec#ares that the senses are e#even in number=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutra 7- teaches that the senses are of minute siGe +Anu-
and not a##&.ervadin<=
Adhikarana I(1 +Sutra 9- intimates that the chief $rana is a#so .roduced from
Brahman=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutras 6&*2- informs us that the chief $rana is a .rinci.#e
distinct from air in <enera# and from $ranas +senses- discussed above=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutra *,- teaches that the chief $rana is minute +Anu- and
not a##&.ervadin<=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutras *3&*5- teaches that the or<ans are su.erintended
and <uided in their actions by s.ecia# deities= The senses are connected
.ermanent#y with and are subservient to the individua# sou#= %ence the individua#
sou# and not the .residin< deities is their master=
Adhikarana (III1 +Sutras *7&*6- informs us that or<ans are inde.endent
.rinci.#es and not mere modes of functions of the chief $rana= $rana is not the
resu#tant of the combined functions of a## the e#even senses= A#thou<h $rana is
different from the senses and therefore not inc#uded in their number of e#even, yet
it is #ike them, an instrument of action, as it has a s.ecific and e>traordinary
function of su..ortin< and nourishin< the body, sustainin< #ife, and su..ortin< the
senses=
Adhikarana IK1 +Sutras 28&22- dec#ares that the creation of names and forms
+the "amaru.avyakarana- is the work not of the individua# sou# but of the Lord=
#esh ori<inates from earth= So a#so is the case of the two other e#ements=
On account of .re.onderance of a .articu#ar e#ement in them the <ross
e#ements are so named after it= As for instance, the <ross water is .roduced from
the mi>ture of a## the five .rimary e#ements but as the share constituted by the
e#ement water .re.onderates in the com.osition of the <ross water, it is named
water=
$ranot.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&3-
The $ranas have their ori<in from Brahman
Tatha .ranah II=3=* +278-
Thus the vita# airs +are .roduced from Brahman-=
Tatha1 thus, #ikewise, simi#ar#y, #ike the creation of the five .rima# e#ements
as stated in the .revious sectionC $ranah1 the $ranas, the or<ans==
The creation of the $ranas or senses is now described=
The $ranas are divided into two c#asses, name#y $ranas in a strict sense and
$ranas in a meta.horica# sense= The e#even senses, si<ht, hearin<, etc=, are ca##ed
$ranas in a secondary meanin<= The five $ranas, $rana, A.ana, (yana, Samana
and ?dana are the .rinci.a# $ranas= Amon< these, the author first takes u. the
e#even senses which are ca##ed $ranas in a secondary sense=
$urva.akshin1 The $ranas have no ori<in for they are eterna# #ike the /ivas
and e>isted even before creation=
Siddhantin1 The $ranas have ori<in=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says1 The cha.ters which treat of the
ori<in of thin<s do not record an ori<in of the vita# airs, e=<=, JIt sent forth fireJ,
etc=, +!hh= ?.= (I=2=,-= Jrom that Se#f s.ran< etherJ, etc=, +Tait= ?.= II=*-= It is
said c#ear#y in some .#aces that the vita# airs were not .roduced= JThis was indeed
non&e>istence in the be<innin<= They say what was that nonbein<L Those Rishis
indeed were the nonbein< in the be<innin<= They say who are those RishisL The
$ranas +or<ans- are indeed the RishisJ +Sat= Br= (I=*=*=*-= This shows that the
$ranas +or<ans- are eterna# and not created=
This Sutra refutes the above view and says that the $ranas are .roduced 0ust
#ike ether from Brahman= The word HTatha +thus or #ikewise-I does not refer to the
.recedin< to.ic of the #ast section which is the .#ura#ity of sou#s but to the creation
of ether, etc=, treated in the #ast section= Sruti te>ts direct#y dec#are their
ori<ination= Jrom that +Brahman- are .roduced the vita# air, mind and a## the
or<ansJ +'un= ?.= II=*=,-= JAs sma## s.arks come forth from fire, thus do a## vita#
airs come forth from that BrahmanJ +Bri= ?.= II=*=28-= JThe seven vita# airs a#so
s.rin< from %imJ +'un= ?.= II=*=9-= J%e sent forth the vita# airC from the vita# air,
Sraddha, ether, air, #i<ht, water, earth, sense, mind, foodJ +$ras= ?.= (I=3-=
Therefore, the senses are created=
If the creation of the $rana is not stated in some .#aces, that wi## not #essen
the force of the .assa<es about such creation= J"a hi kvachidasravanamanyatra
srutam nivarayitumutsahateJC JTatte0oIsri0atJC JEtasma00ayate $ranahJ=
The circumstance of a thin< not bein< stated in some .#aces has no .ower to
inva#idate what is stated about it in other .#aces=
Therefore, an account of e@ua#ity of scri.tura# statements, it is .ro.er to
maintain that the $ranas a#so are .roduced in the same way as ether and so on=
:aunyasambhavat II=3=2 +27*-
On account of the im.ossibi#ity of a secondary +ori<in of the
$ranas-=
:auni1 secondary senseC Asambhavat1 on account of im.ossibi#ity, as it is
im.ossib#e, bein< im.ossib#e=
A .#ausib#e ob0ection to Sutra * is refuted=
The $urva.akshin says1 The Sata.atha Brahmana s.eaks of the e>istence of
the $ranas +or<ans- before creation= The te>ts which describe their creation s.eak
in a secondary sense on#y=
This Sutra refutes it= The statement as to the ori<in of the $ranas cannot be
taken in a secondary sense because therefrom the abandonment of a <enera#
assertion wou#d resu#t= JBy the know#ed<e of one, everythin< e#se is known=J
JBhat is that throu<h which when it is known everythin< e#se becomes knownLJ
+'un= ?.= I=*=,-= Therefore the $ranas are .roduced from Brahman=
The creation of everythin< from Brahman has been reiterated in Sruti= There
is no Sruti which contradicts it= J)ato va imani bhutani 0ayante & from which
ori<inate a## these thin<sJ +Tait= Bhri<uva##i I-= In the face of the e>.ress
statement in Srutis that a## thin<s are created from Brahman, it is absurd to
su..ose the $ranas +senses- are the so#e e>ce.tions=
The reference to the e>istence of the $ranas +or<ans- before creation in the
Sata.atha Brahmana .ertains to %iranya<arbha= %iranya<arbha is !osmic $rana=
It is not reso#ved in .artia# disso#ution of the universe= Even %iranya<arbha is
reso#ved in com.#ete disso#ution +'aha.ra#aya-=
Tat.rakcchrutescha II=3=, +272-
On account of that +word which indicates ori<in- bein< mentioned
first +in connection with $ranas-=
Tat1 thatC $rak1 firstC Sruteh1 from Sruti, on account of the Sruti te>t bein<
mentionedC !ha1 and, a#so=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 2 is <iven=
A further reason is <iven in this Sutra to indicate that the $ranas +or<ans-
have taken their ori<in from Brahman=
urther, because of the use of the word H/ayateI +is born- in res.ect of $ranas
e>istin< .rior to Akasa or ether, etc=, it is c#ear that the $ranas +or<ans- have
ori<inated from Brahman=
The scri.tura# statement about the ori<in of the $ranas is to be taken in its
#itera# or .rimary sense on#y= The te>t referred to is Jrom that +Brahman- are
.roduced the $rana +vita# air-, mind and a## the or<ans, ether, air, water, fire and
earth=J +'un= ?.= II=*=,-= %ere the word H/ayateI +is born- occurs at the very
be<innin< of the thin<s enumerated= If the word is inter.reted in its .rimary sense
with reference to ether, etc=, it must be a## the more so inter.reted with reference
to the $ranas, mind and or<ans which are mentioned ear#ier=
The secondary sense is not acce.tab#e because the Sruti .#aces the $ranas
+or<ans- .rior to Akasa, air, etc= The word +/ayate- occurs first, then the words
si<nifyin< $rana and the senses, and, #ast of a##, come Akasa, air, etc= "ow that
the word H/ayateI is acce.ted in its .rimary sense with res.ect to Akasa, etc=, why
shou#d it be taken in a secondary sense, in connection with $ranas +or<ans- which
the Sruti has .#aced .rior to Akasa, etc=L
It wou#d be absurd to decide that a word enumerated once on#y in one
cha.ter and one sentence and connected with many other words, has in some
cases to be taken in its .rimary sense and others in a secondary sense, because
such a decision wou#d im.#y want of uniformity= The word H/ayateI which comes in
the end must be connected with the $ranas, etc=, mentioned in the ear#ier .art of
the sentence=
Tat.urvakatvadvachah II=3=3 +27,-
Because s.eech is .receded by that, +viG=, fire and the other
e#ements-=
Another ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 2 is <iven=
The !hhando<ya ?.anishad dec#ares Jor, tru#y, my chi#d, mind consists of
earth +i=e=, food-, $rana of water, (ak of s.eech of fireJ +(I=4=3-= This te>t c#ear#y
indicates that the or<ans, etc=, are .roducts of the e#ements= The e#ements in their
turn ori<inate from Brahman= Therefore the or<ans +$ranas- are a#so .roducts of
Brahman= As the $ranas +or<ans- are the .roducts of the e#ements, they are not
se.arate#y mentioned in the Sruti .assa<es which treat of the ori<in of thin<s=
By the statement in the Sruti of the direct causation of the e#ements it is
su<<ested that the $ranas +senses- have Brahman for their immediate cause=
'oreover, the .assa<e conc#udes by sayin< that the entire wor#d is the
creation of Brahman, and is the form of Brahman and is ensou#ed by Brahman=
Therefore it is an estab#ished conc#usion that the $ranas a#so are effects of
Brahman= The $ranas +or<ans- have an ori<in 0ust #ike the e#ements ether, etc=,
and are not eterna#=
Sa.ta<atyadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras 4&5-
The number of the or<ans
Sa.ta <aterviseshitatvaccha II=3=4 +273-
The $ranas +or<ans- are seven on account of this bein< understood
+from scri.tura# .assa<es- and of the s.ecification +of those seven-=
Sa.ta1 sevenC :ateh1 from the movement, bein< so known +from the
scri.tura# .assa<es-C (iseshitatvat1 on account of the s.ecificationC !ha1 and=
The number of the $ranas +senses- is now discussed=
The number of the or<ans is ascertained in this and the ne>t Sutra= A doubt
arises here owin< to the conf#ictin< nature of the scri.tura# .assa<es= In one .#ace
seven $ranas are mentioned JThe seven $ranas +or<ans- s.rin< from %imJ +'un=
?.= II=*=9-= In another .#ace ei<ht $ranas are mentioned as bein< :rahas JEi<ht
:rahas there are and ei<ht Ati<rahasJ +Bri= ?.= III=2=*-= In another .#ace nine
JSeven are the $ranas of the head, two the #ower onesJ +Tait= Samhita (=,=2=4-=
Sometimes ten J"ine $ranas indeed are in man, the nave# is the tenthJ +Tait=
Samhita (=,=2=,-= Sometimes e#even JTen are these $ranas in man, and Atman is
the e#eventhJ +Bri= ?.= III=6=3-= Sometimes twe#ve JA## touches have their centre in
the skinJ +Bri= ?.= II=3=**-= Sometimes thirteen JThe eye and what can be seenJ
+$rasna ?.= I(=9-= Thus the scri.tura# .assa<es disa<ree about the number of the
$ranas +or<ans-=
This Sutra <ives the view of the $urva.akshin or the o..onent= %ere the
$urva.akshin maintains that the $ranas are in rea#ity seven in number, because it
is stated to be so in some scri.tura# te>ts such as JThe seven $ranas +or<ans-
s.ran< from %imJ +'un= ?.= II=*=9-= These seven $ranas are moreover s.ecified in
Tait= Samhita (=*=7=*, JSeven indeed are the $ranas in the head=J
Ei<ht or nine or<ans are enumerated in some te>ts but these are on#y
modifications of the inner or<an= %ence there is no contradiction in the Sruti te>ts
if we take the number as seven=
To this ar<umentation of the $urva.akshin the ne>t Sutra <ives a suitab#e
re.#y=
%astadayastu sthiteIto naivam II=3=5 +274-
But +there are a#so in addition to the seven $ranas mentioned-
the hands and rest= This bein< a sett#ed matter, therefore +we must-
not +conc#ude- thus +viG=, that there are seven $ranas on#y-=
%astadayah1 hands and the restC Tu1 butC Sthite1 bein< determined, bein<
a fact, whi#e abidin< in the bodyC Atah1 thereforeC "a1 notC Evam1 thus, so, #ike
this=
Sutra 4 is refuted and the actua# number of the $ranas +senses- is
ascertained=
The word HtuI +but- refutes the view of the .revious Sutra= Sutra 5 is the
Siddhanta Sutra=
The number seven is not correct=
In addition to the seven $ranas scri.ture mentions other $ranas a#so, such as
the hands, etc= JThe hand is one :raha +or<an- and that is seiGed by work as the
Ati<rahaC for with the hands one does workJ +Bri= ?.= III=2=9-, and simi#ar
.assa<es, Jten are the senses in a man and mind with these com.#etes the
number e#evenJ +Bri= ?.= III=6=3-, indicate that the hands etc=, are additiona#
or<ans= Therefore, four other or<ans viG=, hands, feet, anus and the or<an of
<eneration have to be added to the seven or<ans a#ready mentioned, viG=, eyes,
nose, ears, ton<ue, touch +skin-, s.eech, and mind, the inner or<an= The inte##ect,
e<oism, !hitta or memory are not se.arate or<ans= They are on#y modifications of
the mind=
Therefore, the number of or<ans is in a## e#even= This is the number that is
fi>ed= They are, the five or<ans of know#ed<e +/nana&Indriyas-, the five or<ans of
action +;arma&Indriyas- and the inner or<an, mind=
To unite a## the diverse activities of the or<ans, it is necessary that there
shou#d be an or<an which must e>ist as a unifyin< a<ent with the memory of the
.ast and the .resent to<ether with the antici.ation of the future, because without
such an or<an the activities of the or<ans wou#d be unharmonised and discordant=
This unifyin< or<an is the inner or<an or the 'anas +mind-= This one inner or<an
assumes four names such as mind, inte##ect, e<oism and !hitta, accordin< to the
functions it .erforms +(rittibheda-=
In the .assa<e J"ine $ranas indeed are in man, the nave# is the tenthJ, the
e>.ression Jten $ranasJ is used to denote the different o.enin<s of the human
body, not the difference of nature of the $ranas= Because no $rana is known that
bears the name of nave#= As the nave# is one of the s.ecia# abodes of the chief
$rana, it is here enumerated as tenth $rana=
There are on#y e#even $ranas= This conc#usion is confirmed by one of the
scri.tura# .assa<es, JTen are these $ranas in man and Atman is the e#eventh=J By
the word Atman we have to understand the interna# or<an on account of its ru#in<
over the or<ans=
$rananutvadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutra 7-
The or<ans are minute in siGe
Anavascha II=3=7 +275-
And +they are- minute=
Anavah1 minuteC !ha1 and, a#so=
The nature and siGe of senses is now ascertained=
The author now considers the @uestion of the nature and siGe of the senses=
Are these senses a##&.ervadin< or are they minuteL The $urva.akshin says that
the senses are a##&.ervadin<, because we can hear sounds at a distance and see
ob0ects far off= The Siddhanta view however is that senses are atomic=
The word HchaI has the force of certainty= It means that the senses are not a##.ervadin<
but atomic= This Sutra refutes the doctrine of the Sankhyas who
maintain that the senses are a##&.ervadin<=
The or<ans are minute= 'inute does not mean atomic, but subt#e and #imited
in siGe=
The or<ans must be subt#eC for, if they are <ross we cou#d see them when
they <o out of the body at the moment of death, as a snake comes out of its ho#e=
%ad they been a##&.ervadin< #ike the ether, there wou#d have been no movement
.ossib#e on their .art, and the te>ts which s.eak of their .assin< out of body and
<oin< and comin< a#on< with the sou# at death and birth wou#d be contradicted=
The sou# cannot have them as his essence=
It cannot be said that even if they are a##&.ervadin< they can have a
.articu#ar mode or function within the body, because it is that .articu#ar mode or
function which we ca## the sense or the instrument= 'oreover, we do not .erceive
throu<h the senses what is ha..enin< throu<hout the wor#d= If they were a##.ervadin<
we wi## certain#y .erceive throu<h them what is ha..enin< throu<hout
the wor#d=
Therefore the senses are a## subt#e and finite, i=e=, of #imited siGe=
$ranasraishthyadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra 9-
The chief $rana has a#so an ori<in from Brahman
Sreshthascha II=3=9 +277-
And the best +i=e=, the chief vita# air or $rana is a#so
.roduced-=
Sreshthah1 the best, the hi<hest, the chief $rana +vita# force or #ifeener<y-C
!ha1 and, a#so=
The chief $rana is bein< characterised now=
The chief $rana has a#so an ori<in= It is an effect of Brahman=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says1 Jrom this +Brahman- is .roduced
the vita# force or $ranaJ +'un= ?.= II=*=,-= A<ain we have JBy its own #aw the one
was breathin< without windC there was nothin< different from that or hi<her than
thatJ +Ri< (eda (III=7=*7-= %ere the words Hwas breathin<I which denote the
.ro.er function of breath show that breath or $rana must have e>isted before the
creation= Therefore, it may be conc#uded that $rana was not created= There seems
to be a contradiction with reference to its ori<ination=
This Sutra refutes the above view and dec#ares that even the chief $rana is
.roduced from Brahman=
The words Jwas breathin<J are @ua#ified by the addition Jwithout windJ and
so do not intimate that $rana e>isted before creation=
'oreover scri.tura# .assa<es such as J%e is without breath, without mind,
.ureJ +'un= ?.= II=*=2- dec#are c#ear#y that Brahman is without any @ua#ifications
such as $rana and so on= Therefore the words Jwas breathin<J have mere#y the
.ur.ose of statin< the e>istence of the cause= They intimate that Brahman, the
cause e>isted before creation as is known from the te>ts #ike JE>istence a#one was
there before thisJ +!hh= ?.= (I=2=*-=
In the Sruti .assa<e JAnidavatamJ, the word HavataI shows that what is
referred to is somethin< which is anterior to $rana= Anit, therefore refers to
Brahman=
The term Jthe bestJ denotes the chief vita# air +'ukhya $rana- accordin< to
the dec#aration of scri.ture, JBreath indeed is the o#dest and the bestJ +!hh= ?.=
(=*=*-= The breath is the o#dest or the chief because it be<ins its function from the
moment when the chi#d is conceived= The senses of hearin<, etc=, be<in to function
on#y when their s.ecia# seats, viG=, the ears, etc=, are formed= They are, therefore,
not the o#dest= It is ca##ed the o#dest or the chief on account of its su.erior
@ua#ities and on account of the .assa<e JBe sha## not be ab#e to #ive without theeJ
+Bri= ?.= (I=*=*,-= The chief $rana is ca##ed the best, because it is the cause of the
maintenance of the body=
(ayukriyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras 6&*2-
The chief $rana is different from air and sense functions
"a vayukriye .ritha<u.adesat II=3=6 +279-
+The chief $rana is- neither air nor function, on account of its
bein< mentioned se.arate#y=
"a1 notC (ayukriye1 air or functionC $rithak1 se.arate, se.arate#yC
?.adesat1 because of the teachin<, on account of its bein< mentioned=
+$ritha<u.adesat1 because of the se.arate mention=-
The nature of the chief $rana is discussed in this Sutra=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent maintains that there is no se.arate
.rinci.#e ca##ed $rana, and that the $rana is accordin< to Sruti nothin< but air= or
Sruti says, JBreath is airJC that air assumin< five forms is $rana, A.ana, (yana,
?dana, Samana= Or it may be considered as the combined function of a## or<ans=
/ust as e#even birds shut u. in one ca<e may move the ca<e by the combination of
their efforts, so a#so the e#even $ranas which abide in one body functionin<
to<ether .roduce one common function ca##ed $rana= This is the view of the
Sankhyas= The Sankhyas teach JThe five airs, $ranas, etc=, are the common
function of the or<ans +instruments-=J Therefore, there is no se.arate .rinci.#e
ca##ed $rana=
This Sutra refutes these views and says that the $rana is neither air nor
function of or<ans, for it is mentioned se.arate#y from air and the sense functions=
JBreath indeed is the fourth foot of Brahman= That foot shines and warms as the
#i<ht ca##ed airJ +!hh= ?.= III=*9=3-= %ere it is distin<uished from air= Each sense
and its function are identica#=
A<ain, other .assa<es a#so, in which the $rana is mentioned se.arate#y from
air and the or<ans are here to be considered, e=<=, Jrom %im is born the $rana,
mind and a## or<ans of sense, ether, air, etc=J +'un= ?.= II=*=,-= This indicates that
$rana is not a function of any or<an because, in that case, it wou#d not have been
se.arated from the or<ans=
It is not .ossib#e that a## the or<ans to<ether shou#d have one function and
that that function shou#d be the $rana, because each or<an has its own s.ecia#
function and the a<<re<ate of them has no active .ower of its own= $rana cannot
be said to be the resu#tant of the 0oint functionin< of the senses, as the functions
are diverse=
The .assa<e JBreath +$rana- is airJ is a#so correct, because the effect is on#y
the cause in another form= The $rana is on#y air that functions within the body=
The air .assin< into the Adhyatma state, dividin< itse#f fivefo#d and thus abidin< in
a s.ecia#ised condition is ca##ed $rana=
The ana#o<y of the birds in a ca<e is not to the .oint, because they a## have
the same kind of activity which is favourab#e to the motion of the ca<e= But the
functionin< of the senses are not of one kind but different from one another= They
are a#so of a distinct nature from that of $rana= $rana is @uite dissimi#ar to
hearin<, etc= %ence, they +the or<ans- cannot constitute #ife= Therefore, $rana is a
se.arate entity=
'oreover, if the vita# breath were the mere function of or<ans it cou#d not be
<#orified as the HbestI and s.eech, etc=, cou#d not be re.resented as subordinate to
$rana= %ence the $rana is different from air and the functions of the or<ans=
!hakshuradivattu tatsahasishtyadibhyah II=3=*8 +279-
But +the $rana is subordinate to the sou#-, #ike eyes, etc=, on
account of +its- bein< tau<ht with them +the eyes, etc=- and for
other reasons=
!hakshuradivat1 #ike the eyes and the restC Tu1 butC Tatsaha1 a#on< with
themC Sishtyadibhyah1 on account of +its- bein< tau<ht, because of the scri.tura#
instructions and other reasons=
The characteristics of $rana are continued=
The $urva.akshin says1 The $rana a#so must be considered to be inde.endent
in this body #ike the individua# sou#, as scri.ture dec#ares it to be the best and the
or<ans such as s.eech, etc=, to be subordinate to it= (arious .owers are attributed
to it in scri.tura# .assa<es= It is said that when s.eech and the other or<ans are
as#ee. the $rana a#one is awakeC that the $rana a#one is not reached by deathC
that the $rana is the absorber, it absorbs s.eech, etc=, that the $rana <uards the
other senses +$ranas- as a mother <uards her sons= %ence it fo##ows that the
$rana is inde.endent #ike the individua# sou#=
This Sutra refutes this and says that the $rana is subordinate to the sou#=
The words HtuI +but- sets aside the inde.endence of the $rana= It removes the
doubt=
The word HAdiI etc=, indicates that the word H$ranaI is a#so used in the sense of
sense or<ans= The $rana is enumerated a#on< with the senses in order to indicate
that it is not inde.endent=
The $rana subserves the sou# #ike the senses, because it is described with
them= The chief $rana is not inde.endent of the /iva, but is, #ike the senses, a
means of his bein< ;arta +doer- and Bhokta +en0oyer-= The sou# is the ;in<= $rana
is his minister= The senses are his sub0ects= $rana is described a#on< with the
senses= It abides in the body #ike the senses= urther, it is Achetana +non&sentient-
#ike them= It is com.osed of .arts= These are the other reasons for refutin< the
inde.endence of $rana= Therefore it de.ends on the sou# and serves the sou# #ike
the senses=
$rana is #ike the eyes, etc=, one of the too#s or instruments of the individua#
sou# thou<h it stands foremost amon< them, because it is .#aced in the same
cate<ory with the eye and the other senses in a mutua# conversation amon<st
them described in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad (I=*=7&*3= Thin<s havin< simi#ar
attributes are a#ways <rou.ed and tau<ht to<ether, e=<=, the Brihatsaman and the
Rathantarasaman= %ence it is subordinate to the sou#=
Akaranatvaccha na doshastatha hi darsayati II=3=** +298-
And on account of +its- not bein< an instrument the ob0ection is
not +va#id-C because thus +scri.ture- dec#ares=
Akaranatvat1 on account of +its- not bein< an instrumentC !ha1 and, a#soC
"a1 notC Doshah1 defect, ob0ection, fau#tC Tatha1 thus, soC %i1 as, becauseC
Darsayati1 teaches, scri.ture shows, dec#ares=
An ob0ection a<ainst Sutra *8 is refuted=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says1 if the $rana is subordinate to the
sou# #ike the or<ans, then it must stand in the re#ation of an instrument to the sou#
#ike the or<ans= Be must assume another sense&ob0ect ana#o<ous to co#our= But
there is no twe#fth sense&ob0ect= There are on#y e#even functions and e#even
or<ans= There is no room for a twe#fth or<an when there is no twe#fth senseob0ect=
The word H!haI +and- has the force of HbutI here, and is used to remove the
doubt raised above=
This Sutra refutes the above ob0ection= $rana is not an instrument= Scri.ture
dec#ares that the chief $rana has a s.ecific function which cannot be#on< to the
other or<ans= The body and a## the senses subsist by means of the chief $rana=
The scri.tura# .assa<es say1 JThen $rana as the best said to the or<ans1 Be not
deceived= I a#one, dividin< myse#f five&fo#d, su..ort this body and kee. itJ +$ras=
?.= II=,-= Another .assa<e, viG=, JBith $rana <uardin< the #ower nestJ +Bri= ?.=
I(=,=*2-, shows that the <uardin< of the body de.ends u.on the $rana=
A<ain, two other .assa<es show that the nourishin< of the body de.ends on
$rana Jrom whatever #imb $rana <oes away that #imb withersJ +Bri= ?.= I=,=*6-=
JBhat we eat and drink, with it su..orts the other or<ansJ +Bri= ?.= *=,=*9-= And
another .assa<e dec#ares that the sou#Is de.artin< and stayin< de.ends on $rana=
JBhat is it by whose de.arture I sha## de.art, and by whose stayin< I sha## stayL &
the created $ranaJ +$ras= ?.= (I=,&3-=
A## these te>ts show that the function of the $rana is nourishin< and u.kee.
of the body= $rana .rotects the body from disso#ution= The stren<th of the body
and the senses a#so de.ends u.on $rana= $rana su..orts the body and ener<ises
it with a## the senses= This is its s.ecific function=
$rana is of the <reatest he#. to the sou# by bein< the su..ort of a## other
senses= "ot on#y does it su..ort the senses but it is the or<anisin< #ife of the body
and hence of the <reatest im.ortance to the /iva or the individua# sou#=
$rana has no function #ike the ordinary sense= Therefore it cannot be sty#ed as
Indriya or or<an= %ence it is e>c#uded from the #ist of e#even senses=
The chief $rana is a#so an instrument of the sou#= The senses #ike the eye,
ear, etc=, are as if officia#s of the /iva and he#. him in his en0oyment and activity
but the chief $rana is his .rime minister= It assists him in his hi<hest functions and
in the attainment of a## his desires=
This is not the on#y function of $rana= There are other functions a#so= The
ne>t Sutra describes the other functions=
$anchavrittirmanovat vya.adisyate II=3=*2 +29*-
It is tau<ht as havin< a fivefo#d function #ike the mind=
$anchavrittih1 havin< fivefo#d functionC 'anovat1 #ike the mindC
(ya.adisyate1 is described, it is tau<ht, it is desi<nated=
The descri.tion of the characteristics of the chief $rana is continued=
$rasna ?.anishad +II=,- dec#ares JI a#one, dividin< myse#f fivefo#d, su..ort
this body and .rotect it=J
/ust as the mind in re#ation to the five senses has five modes, even so $rana
has five modes, viG=, $rana, A.ana, (yana, ?dana and Samana= $rana does the
function of res.irationC A.ana, evacuationC Samana, di<estion, assimi#ation of
foodC (yana, circu#ation of b#ood +aidin< feats of stren<th-C and ?dana,
de<#utition= ?dana he#.s the sou# to .ass out of the body at the time of death= In
this res.ect $rana resemb#es the inner or<an which thou<h one has a five&fo#d
as.ect as mind, inte##ect, e<o, !hitta and memory=
/ust as the mind bein< endowed with severa# functions such as desire,
contem.#ation, faith, vo#ition, fee#in<, knowin<, etc=, serves the individua# sou#, so
a#so the chief $rana does <ood to the individua# sou# bein< vested with the five
functions=
The functions of the mind, accordin< to Ra0a )o<a of $atan0a#i 'aharshi, are
ri<ht know#ed<e, error, ima<ination, s#umber and remembrance= Or the Sutra may
@uote the means as an ana#o<ous instance mere#y with reference to the .#ura#ity
and not the five&fo#dness of its functions=
The $ranaIs subordinate .osition with re<ard to the sou# fo##ows from its
havin< five functions #ike the mind=
Sreshthanutvadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutra *,-
The minuteness of the chief $rana
Anuscha II=3=*, +292-
And it +chief $rana- is minute=
Anuh1 minuteC !ha1 and=
The descri.tion of the characteristics of the chief $rana is continued=
The chief $rana is a#so minute #ike the senses= %ere a#so we have to
understand by minuteness that the chief $rana is subt#e and of #imited siGe, not
that it is of atomic siGe, because by means of its five functions it .ervades the
who#e body=
$rana is subt#e because it cannot be seen when it <oes out of the body= It is
#imited or finite, because the scri.ture s.eaks of its .assin< out, <oin< and
comin<= %ad it been a##&.ervadin<, there cou#d have been no movement on its
.art=
Therefore $rana is a#so finite or #imited=
It may be ob0ected that it is a##&.ervadin< accordin< to the te>t J%e is e@ua#
to a <nat, e@ua# to a mos@uito, e@ua# to an e#e.hant, e@ua# to these three wor#ds,
e@ua# to this universeJ +Bri= ?.= I=,=22-= But the a##&.ervadin<ness of which this
te>t s.eaks is with res.ect to %iranya<arbha, the cosmic $rana, the $rana of the
macrocosm= It is a##&.ervadin< in its universa# as.ectC in its individua# as.ect it is
#imited=
The statements of e@ua#ity Je@ua# to a <natJ, etc=, dec#are the #imited siGe of
the $rana which abides within every #ivin< bein<=
/yotiradyadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras *3&*5-
The .residin< deities of the or<ans
/yotiradyadhishthanam tu tadamananat II=3=*3 +29,-
But there is the .residin< over by ire and others +over the
or<ans-, because of such statement in Sruti=
/yotiradyadhishthanam1 .residin< over by ire and othersC Tu1 butC
Tadamananat1 because of such statement in Sruti, on account of the scri.tures
teachin< that=
"ow fo##ows a discussion on the de.endence of the or<ans or the .residin<
deities=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds that the $ranas +senses- act from their own .ower= If
we admit that the $ranas act on#y under the <uidance of the .residin< deities, it
wou#d fo##ow that those <uidin< deities are en0oyers of the fruits of the actions and
the individua# sou# wou#d thus cease to be the en0oyer=
The word HtuI +but- is used in order to remove the doubt= It e>c#udes the
$urva.aksha=
The $ranas and senses function not because of their own .otency but
because of the .ower of the deities .residin< over them=
$ranas, i=e=, the senses, are under the <uidance of the deities such as ire
and others .residin< over them= Sruti a#so states so= Aitareya Aranyaka +I=2=3-
dec#ares, Jire havin< become s.eech entered the mouth=J The senses are inert=
They cannot move by themse#ves=
The assertion that the $ranas bein< endowed with the ca.abi#ity of .roducin<
their effects act from their own .ower is unfounded, as we see that some thin<s
which .ossess the ca.abi#ity of motion such as cars actua##y move on#y if dra<<ed
by bu##s and the #ike=
Therefore the $ranas and the senses are de.endent on the .residin< deities=
$ranavata sabdat II=3=*4 +293-
+The <ods are not the en0oyers, but the sou#, because the or<ans
are connected- with the one +i=e=, the sou#- .ossessin< them +a thin<
we know- from the scri.tures=
$ranavata1 with the one .ossessin< the $ranas +or<ans-C Sabdat1 from the
scri.tures=
rom the .recedin< Sutra a doubt may arise, that the <ods, who <uide the
senses may be the en0oyersC this doubt is removed by this Sutra=
H$ranaI here is a synonym for Indriya or sense=
The senses are connected with the sou#= This is described by the Sruti=
Thou<h the <ods <uide the senses, thou<h they are the .residin< deities of the
or<ans, they cannot become Bhoktas or en0oyers= The individua# sou# is the
master= The senses are his servants= The senses function for subservin< the
interest of the sou#= The individua# sou# is the Lord of the a<<re<ate of the
instruments of action= The /iva a#one rea#ises that he sees, hears, etc=
The scri.tures dec#are JThen where there is the eye, enterin< this o.enin< &
the cavity of the eye & it is there to serve the individua# sou#, the eye itse#f is the
instrument of seein<=J J%e who knows HLet me sme## thisI he is the Se#f, the nose
is the instrument of sme##in<J +!hh= ?.= (III=*2=3- This c#ear#y shows that the sou#
is the en0oyer but not the <ods= The or<ans are connected with the individua# sou#
on#y=
The individua# sou# c#aims and fee#s the eye to be his own= The eye is to serve
him by .resentin< him with the ob0ects of si<ht= Simi#ar#y the other senses a#so
are the servants of the same master, the individua# sou#= %ence the individua# sou#
and not the .residin< deities is the master or Lord of the senses and the rea#
en0oyer=
The sou# is ca##ed $ranavat because the $ranas +or<ans- be#on< to it= The sou#
ru#es the senses in order to accom.#ish its ob0ects of en0oyment= The <ods ru#e the
senses by mere#y <ivin< their activities= The individua# sou# ru#es the senses in
order to en0oy .#easurab#e e>.eriences=
'oreover there are many <ods in the body= A .articu#ar or<an is .resided
over by a .articu#ar deity= The .#ura#ity of <ods <uidin< the or<ans renders it
im.ossib#e that they shou#d be en0oyers in their body= There is and can be on#y
one Bhokta or en0oyer= Otherwise remembrance or reco<nition of identity wou#d
be im.ossib#e=
Therefore the senses are for the en0oyment of the sou# and not the <ods
thou<h they are .resided and directed by them=
Tasya cha nityatvat II=3=*5 +294-
And on account of its +sou#Is- .ermanence +in the body it is the
en0oyer, and not the <ods-=
Tasya1 itsC !ha1 andC "ityatvat1 on account of .ermanence=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *4 is <iven=
The individua# sou# dwe##s .ermanent#y in this body as the en0oyer, as it can
be affected by <ood and evi# and can e>.erience .#easure and .ain= It is the /iva
a#one who has such .ermanent connection with the senses in the body= Therefore,
the /iva, and not the <uidin< deities is their master= The body is the resu#t of the
sou#Is .ast actions= The sou# on#y can e>.erience or en0oy in the body which is the
.roduct of its $rarabdha ;arma= Others, e=<=, the <ods cannot en0oy in this body=
The <ods who have <reat <#ory and .ower cannot be en0oyers in the #ow
human body= They have e>a#ted status= They wou#d treat with contem.t such #ow
en0oyments as can be e>.erienced throu<h the human body=
They cannot .ossib#y enter in this wretched body into the condition of
en0oyers= Scri.ture a#so says JOn#y what is <ood a..roaches himC veri#y evi# does
not a..roach the DevasJ +Bri= ?.= I=4=28-=
The or<ans are .ermanent#y connected with the embodied sou# on#y= Bhen
the sou# .asses out, the $ranas +or<ans- fo##ow it= This we see from .assa<es such
as the fo##owin< JBhen the sou# .asses out, the $rana fo##owsC when the $rana
de.arts, a## other or<ans fo##owJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=2-=
The sou# is the master and is therefore the en0oyer, a#thou<h there are
.residin< <ods over the or<ans= The <ods are connected with the or<ans on#y, not
with the state of the sou# as en0oyer=
Indriyadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras *7&*6-
The or<ans are inde.endent .rinci.#es and not functions of the chief $rana
Ta Indriyani tadvya.adesadanyatra sreshthat II=3=*7 +295-
They +the other $ranas- are senses, on account of bein< so
desi<nated +by the scri.tures-, with the e>ce.tion of the best +the
chief $rana-=
Ta1 theyC Indriyani1 the or<ansC Tadvya.adesat1 because desi<nated as
suchC Sreshthat anyatra1 e>ce.t the chief, other than the chief $rana which is
the hi<hest= +Anyatra1 e#sewhere, e>ce.tC Sreshthat1 than the best or the chief
$rana=-
The distinction between the chief $rana and other $ranas +the or<ans- is now
.ointed out=
"ow there arises another doubt viG=, whether the or<ans such as eyes, ears,
etc=, are functions or modes of the chief $rana or inde.endent entities=
The $urva.akshin or the ob0ector maintains that they are mere functions on
account of scri.tura# statement= The scri.ture says, JThis is the <reatest amon<st
us +the or<ans-= Be## #et us a## assume his form= Thereu.on they a## assumed his
form= Therefore they are ca##ed by this name of $ranaJ +Bri= ?.= I=4=2*-=
The Sutra refutes this and says that the e#even or<ans are not functions or
modes of the chief $rana= They be#on< to a se.arate cate<ory= They are shown to
be different in scri.tura# .assa<es #ike Jrom %im are born $rana, mind, and a##
or<ansJ +'un= ?.= II=*=,-= In this and other .assa<es $rana and the sense or<ans
are mentioned se.arate#y= The te>t of the Brihadaranyaka must be taken in a
secondary sense=
Therefore it cannot certain#y be said that 0ust as the chief $rana has five
modes the senses a#so are its modes, because the Sruti describes the senses as
se.arate= The senses are distinct inde.endent .rinci.#es= The senses and the mind
are described as bein< e#even in number=
Bhedasruteh II=3=*9 +297-
+On account of the- scri.tura# statement of difference=
Bhedasruteh1 on account of the scri.tura# statement of difference=
An ar<ument in favour of Sutra *7 is <iven=
The $rana is everywhere s.oken of as different from the or<ans= In
Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad +I=,=2- the or<ans are dea#t with in one section= After
conc#udin< it, the $rana is dea#t with se.arate#y in the same section= This c#ear#y
indicates that they do not be#on< to the same cate<ory=
Other .assa<es a#so referrin< to that difference may be @uoted, as for
instance, J%e made mind, s.eech and breath for himse#fJ +Bri= ?.= I=4=,-=
In the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad +I=,=2- it is stated that the <ods in their
stru<<#e with the Asuras, i=e=, the evi# forces found that the senses such as the
s.eech, the nose, the eye, the ear, and the mind were vitiated by the Asuras= So
they took the he#. of the chief $rana= The Asuras were not ab#e to vitiate the chief
$rana= The <ods became victorious over the Asuras= %ere the chief $rana is
s.oken of as different from and su.erior to a## the senses= or reference vide,
JThen, the <ods a..ea#ed to the chief $rana, the chief vita# force which is su.erior
to the sensesJ +Bri= ?.= I=,=7-=
Therefore the or<ans are inde.endent .rinci.#es, and not modes or functions
of the chief $rana=
(ai#akshanyaccha II= 3=*6 +299-
And on account of the difference of characteristics=
(ai#akshanyat1 on account of difference of characteristicsC !ha1 and=
An ar<ument in favour of Sutra *7 is <iven=
There is, moreover, a difference of characteristics between the chief $rana
and the senses= The or<ans do not function in dee. s#ee., whereas the $rana
does= The chief $rana a#one is not reached by death, whi#e the other $ranas are=
The stayin< and de.artin< of the chief $rana, not that of the sense or<ans is the
cause of the maintenance and the disso#ution of the body=
The sense or<ans are the cause of the .erce.tion of the sense&ob0ects, not
the chief $rana= The or<ans <et tired, but not the chief $rana= The #oss of
individua# or<ans does not cause death, but the .assin< out of $rana causes death
of the body=
Thus there are many differences distin<uishin< the $rana from the senses=
This a#so indicates that the senses are different from the $rana=
The Sruti which s.eaks, JThe senses assumed the form of $ranaJ, is to be
taken in a secondary sense= The word H$ranaI is a..#ied to the sense or<ans in a
secondary sense= It means that their functionin< de.ends u.on $rana= It means
that the or<ans fo##ow the $rana 0ust as the servants fo##ow their master= The chief
$rana is the ru#er or the master or the teacher of the or<ans= The Sruti describes
$rana as su.erior to the or<ans +Sreshtha-=
Therefore the or<ans are inde.endent .rinci.#es and not modes of the chief
$rana=
Sam0namurtik#ri.tyadhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutras 28&22-
The creation of names and forms is by the Lord and not by the individua# sou#
Sam0namurtik#ri.tistu trivritkurvata u.adesat II=3=28 +296-
But the creation of names and forms is by %im who does the
tri.artite +creation-, for so the scri.tures teach=
Sam0namurtik#ri.tih1 the creation of name and formC Tu1 butC
Trivritkurvatah1 of %im who does the tri.artite creation, of %is who made the
e#ements tri.#eC ?.adesat1 on account of scri.tura# teachin<, as Sruti has stated
so= +Sam0na1 nameC 'urtih1 formC ;#ri.tih1 creationC Trivrit1 tri.artite,
com.oundC ;urvatah1 of the !reator=-
The Sruti dec#ares1 JThat Deity thou<ht, #et me now enter those three deities
+fire, earth, and water- with this #ivin< se#f +/ivatma- and #et me then evo#ve
names and formsC #et me make each of these three tri.artiteJ +!hh= ?.= (I=,=2-=
%ere the doubt arises whether the a<ent in that evo#ution of names and
forms is the /iva or the individua# sou# or the Su.reme Lord=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent maintains the former a#ternative on
account of the <#orification contained in the words Jwith this #ivin< se#f=J
The word HtuI +but-, discards the $urva.aksha= This Sutra refutes it and says1
The individua# sou# has not the .ower to create the <ross wor#d= The entire
creation of the wor#d can sure#y be the work of the Su.reme Lord on#y who
created fire, water and earth= The word H/ivaI in the .assa<e is syntactica##y
re#ated with HentranceI and not with the creation of names and forms=
That the Su.reme Lord is %e who evo#ves the names and forms is
acknow#ed<ed by a## the ?.anishads, as we see from such .assa<es as J%e who is
ca##ed ether is the evo#ver of a## names and formsJ +!hh= ?.= (III=*3-=
urther, the ne>t sentence of that te>t, HThen that Deity said, JLet me make
each of these three e#ements tri.artiteJ +!hh= ?.= (I=,=,-, c#ear#y indicates that
the Su.reme Lord a#one creates names and forms, the <ross e#ements and this
universe=
The Lord dwe##s in everythin< and directs the entire creation= %e is the inner
director, in the .roduction of .ots, etc=, by the .otter=
'amsadi bhaumam yathasabdamitarayoscha II=3=2* +268-
#esh, etc=, ori<inates from earth accordin< to the scri.tura#
statement and +so a#so- in the case of the other +e#ements, viG=,
fire and water-=
'amsadi1 f#esh and the restC Bhaumam1 are effects of earthC
)athasabdam1 as Sruti has said so, as dec#ared by the scri.tureC Itarayoh1 of
the other two, name#y fire and waterC !ha1 a#so, and=
Tri.artite earth, when assimi#ated by man, forms f#esh, etc= or the te>t says
Jood +earth- when eaten becomes three&fo#dC its <rossest .ortion becomes
faeces, its midd#e .ortion f#esh, its subt#est .ortion mindJ +!hh= ?.= (I=4=*-= So
a#so we have to #earn from the te>t the effects of the two other e#ements, viG=, fire
and water= Out of the consumed water, the <ross .ortion <oes out as urine, the
medium .ortion becomes the b#ood and the subt#e .ortion becomes $rana= Out of
the assimi#ated fire, the <ross .ortion bui#ds the bones, the medium .ortion
becomes the marrow and the subt#e .ortion becomes s.eech=
(aiseshyattu tadvadastadvadah II=3=22 +26*-
But on account of the .re.onderance +of a .articu#ar e#ement in
them the <ross e#ements- are so named +after it-=
(aiseshyat1 on account of the .re.onderanceC Tu1 butC Tadvadah1 that
s.ecia# name=
Sutra 2* is am.#ified here=
%ere now an ob0ection is raised= If a## the <ross e#ements contain the three
fine e#ements, then why there is such distinction as JThis is fire, this is water, this
is earthLJ And, a<ain, why is it said that amon< the e#ements of the human body,
f#esh etc=, is the effect of the food that is eatenC b#ood, etc=, the effect of the water
that is drunkC bone etc=, the effect of the fire eatenL
The word HtuI +but-, removes the ob0ection=
This Sutra refutes the ob0ection=
Even in each e#ement, where the other two e#ements have combined, it is
ca##ed so because it is the .redominant .ortion=
A#thou<h a## thin<s are tri.artite, yet we observe in different .#aces a
.re.onderance of different e#ements= %eat .re.onderates in fire, water in a## that
is #i@uid, food in earth= As the fine e#ements are not found in e@ua# .ro.ortion in
each of the <ross e#ements, they are named after that fine e#ement which
.re.onderates in their constitution=
Thus the com.ound fire is ca##ed fire because of the .re.onderance of .ure
fire in it= Simi#ar#y the Devas are ca##ed fiery, because their bodies are made of
substances in which fire .re.onderates=
The re.etition HTadvadahI & Hthat s.ecia# nameI indicates the termination of
the !ha.ter=
Thus ends the ourth $ada +Section 3- of the Second Adhyaya +!ha.ter II- of
the Brahmasutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
%ere ends !ha.ter II
Brahma Sutras
by
Swami Sivananda
The Divine Life Society
Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh, India
TABLE O !O"TE"TS
!%A$TER III & SAD%A"A AD%)A)A
Section * +Sutras 262&,*9-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# Tadantara.rati.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&7-
# ;ritatyayadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras 9&**-
# Anishtadikaryadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras *2&2*-
# Sabhavya.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra 22-
# "atichiradhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutra 2,-
# Anyadhisthitadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras 23&27-
Section 2 +Sutras ,*6&,46-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# Sandhyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&5-
# Tadabhavadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras 7&9-
# ;armanusmritisabdavidhyadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutra 6-
# 'u<dheIrdhasam.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra *8-
# ?bhaya#in<adhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras **&2*-
# $rakritaitavattvadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras 22&,8-
# $aradhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras ,*&,7-
# $ha#adhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras ,9&3*-
Section , +Sutras ,58&328-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# Sarvavedanta.ratyayadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&3-
# ?.asamharadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra 4-
# Anyathatvadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras 5&9-
# (ya.tyadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra 6-
# Sarvabhedadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutra *8-
# Anandadyadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras **&*,-
# Adhyanadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras *3&*4-
# Atma<rihityadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras *5&*7-
# ;aryakhyanadhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutra *9-
# Samanadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutra *6-
# Sambandhadhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutras 28&22-
# Sambhrityadhikaranam1 To.ic *2 +Sutra 2,-
# $urushavidyadhikaranam1 To.ic *, +Sutra 23-
# (edhadyadhikaranam1 To.ic *3 +Sutra 24-
# %anyadhikaranam1 To.ic *4 +Sutra 25-
# Sam.arayadhikaranam1 To.ic *5 +Sutras 27&29-
# :aterarthavattvadhikaranam1 To.ic *7 +Sutras 26&,8-
# Aniyamadhikaranam1 To.ic *9 +Sutra ,*-
# )avadadhikaradhikaranam1 To.ic *6 +Sutra ,2-
# Aksharadhyadhikaranam1 To.ic 28 +Sutra ,,-
# Iyadadhikaranam1 To.ic 2* +Sutra ,3-
# Antaratvadhikaranam1 To.ic 22 +Sutras ,4&,5-
# (yatiharadhikaranam1 To.ic 2, +Sutra ,7-
# Satyadyadhikaranam1 To.ic 23 +Sutra ,9-
# ;amadyadhikaranam1 To.ic 24 +Sutra ,6-
# Adaradhikaranam1 To.ic 25 +Sutras 38&3*-
# Tannirdharanadhikaranam1 To.ic 27 +Sutra 32-
# $radanadhikaranam1 To.ic 29 +Sutra 3,-
# Lin<abhuyastvadhikaranam1 To.ic 26 +Sutras 33&42-
# Aikatmyadhikaranam1 To.ic ,8 +Sutras 4,&43-
# An<avabaddhadhikaranam1 To.ic ,* +Sutras 44&45-
# Bhuma0yayastvadhikaranam1 To.ic ,2 +Sutra 47-
# Sabdadibhedadhikaranam1 To.ic ,, +Sutra 49-
# (ika#.adhikaranam1 To.ic ,3 +Sutra 46-
# ;amyadhikaranam1 To.ic ,4 +Sutra 58-
# )athasrayabhavadhikaranam1 To.ic ,5 +Sutras 5*&55-
Section 3 +Sutras ,5*&377-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# $urusharthadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutra *&*7-
# $aramarsadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras *9&28-
# Stutimatradhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras 2*&22-
# $ari.#avadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutras 2,&23-
# A<nindhanadyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutra 24-
# Sarva.ekshadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras 25&27-
# Sarvannanumatyadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras 29&,*-
# Ashramakarmadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras ,2&,4-
# (idhuradhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutras ,5&,6-
# Tadbhutadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutra 38-
# Adhikaradhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutras 3*&32-
# Bahiradhikaranam1 To.ic *2 +Sutra 3,-
# Svamyadhikaranam1 To.ic *, +Sutras 33&35-
# Sahakaryantaravidhyadhikaranam1 To.ic *3 +Sutras 37&36-
# Anavishkaradhikarnam1 To.ic *4 +Sutra 48-
# Aihikadhikaranam1 To.ic *5 +Sutra 4*-
# 'ukti.ha#adhikaranam1 To.ic *7 +Sutra 42-
SE!TIO" *
Introduction
"ow in the Third !ha.ter are bein< determined those Sadhanas or .ractices
which are the means of attainin< the hi<hest Brahman or the Infinite= In the irst
and Second $adas of this !ha.ter are bein< tau<ht two thin<s, viG=, a stron<
yearnin< or burnin< desire +'umukshutva- to rea#ise Brahman or the fina#
emanci.ation and an e@ua##y stron< dis<ust +(aira<ya- towards a## ob0ects other
than BrahmanC because these are the two fundamenta# thin<s amon< a##
Sadhanas=
In order to induce (aira<ya or dis.assion, the Sutras show in the first $ada
the im.erfections of a## mundane e>istences and this they base on the
$ancha<nividya or the doctrine of five fires of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad in which
is tau<ht how the sou# .asses after death from one condition to another=
The first $ada teaches the <reat doctrine of reincarnation, the de.arture of
the sou# from the .hysica# body, its 0ourney to the !handra#oka on the third .#ane
and its comin< back to the earth= This is done in order to create (aira<ya or
indifference to sensua# en0oyments herein and hereafter= In the Second $ada are
described a## the <#orious attributes of the Su.reme Brahman, %is Omniscience,
Omni.otence, Love#iness, etc=, in order to attract the sou# towards %im, so that %e
may be the so#e ob0ect of @uest=
Syno.sis
Adhikarana I1 +Sutras *&7- teaches that the sou#, at the disso#ution of the
body, de.arts, accom.anied by the subt#e materia# e#ements +Bhuta Sukshma-, as
we## as by the Indriyas and $ranas= The subt#e e#ements serve as an abode to the
$ranas attached to the sou#=
Sutra 71 Those who do sacrifice become in !handra#oka the food of the <ods
which means that they contribute to the en0oyment of the <ods by their .resence
and service to them=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutras 9&**- shows that the sou#s after en0oyin< the fruits of
their meritorious deeds in the !handra#oka descend to the earth with a remainder
+Anusaya- of their works which determines the nature of the new body or the
character of the new #ife=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutras *2&2*- discusses the fate after death of those evi#
doers whom their evi# deeds do not entit#e to .ass to the !handra#oka=
Adhikaranas I(, (, and (I1 +Sutras 22C 2,C and 23 to 27- teach that the
subt#e bodies of the sou#s descendin< from the !handra#oka throu<h the ether, air,
etc=, do not become identica# with ether, air, etc=, but on#y #ive thereC that they
descend in a short time= On enterin< into a corn or a .#ant the sou# remains
mere#y in contact with it which is a#ready animated by another sou#= The sou# after
havin< entered into a corn or a .#ant, <ets connected with him who eats the corn
or fruit of the .#ant and .erforms the act of co.u#ation= The sou# remains with him
ti## he enters into the motherAs womb with the semina# f#uid in0ected= The sou#
u#timate#y enters the motherAs womb and is brou<ht forth as a chi#d=
Tadantara.rati.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&7-
The sou# at the time of transmi<ration does take with it subt#e .arts of the
e#ements
Tadantara.rati.attau ramhati sam.arishvaktah
.rasnaniru.anabhya III=*=* +262-
In order to obtain another body +the sou#- <oes enve#o.ed +by
subt#e e#ements- +as a..ears from- the @uestion and e>.#anation +in
the scri.ture, !hhando<ya-=
Tadantara.rati.attau1 for the .ur.ose of obtainin< a fresh body +Tat1
that, i=e= a bodyC Antara1 different, anotherC $rati&.attau1 in obtainin<-C
Ramhati1 <oes, de.arts, Sam.arishvaktah1 enve#o.ed +by subt#e e#ements-C
$rasna1 from @uestionC "iru.anabhyam1 aid for e>.#anations=
In the Second !ha.ter a## ob0ections raised a<ainst the (edantic view of
Brahman on the <round of Sruti and reasonin< have been refuted= It has been
shown a#so that a## other views are incorrect and devoid of foundation and the
a##e<ed mutua# contradictions of (edic te>ts do not e>ist= urther it has been
shown that a## the entities different from the individua# sou# such as $rana, etc=,
s.rin< from Brahman for the en0oyment of the sou#=
In this !ha.ter the manner in which the sou# trave#s after death to the
different re<ions with its ad0uncts, the different states of the sou# and the nature
of Brahman, the se.arateness or non&se.arateness of the (idyas +kinds of
?.asana-C the @uestion whether the @ua#ities of Brahman have to be cumu#ated or
not, the attainment of the <oa# by ri<ht know#ed<e +Samya<darsana-, the
diversities of the means of ri<ht know#ed<e and the absence of certain ru#es as to
'oksha which is the fruit of .erfect know#ed<e are discussed to create dis.assion=
The /iva +individua# sou#- a#on< with the $ranas, the mind and the senses
#eaves his former body and obtains a new body= %e takes with himse#f, Avidya,
virtues and vicious actions and the im.ressions #eft by his .revious births=
%ere the @uestion arises whether the sou# is enve#o.ed or not by subt#e .arts
of the e#ements as the seed for the future body in his transmi<ration= The
$urva.akshin or the o..onent says & It is not so enve#o.ed, because the subt#e
.arts of the e#ements are easi#y avai#ab#e everywhere= This Sutra refutes this view
and says that the sou# does take with it subt#e .arts of the e#ements which are the
seeds of the new body= %ow do we know thisL rom the @uestion and answer that
occurs in the scri.tures= The @uestion is JDo you know why in the fifth ob#ation
water is ca##ed manLJ +!hh= ?.= (=,=,-= The answer is <iven in the who#e .assa<e
which, after e>.#ainin< how the five ob#ations in the form of Sraddha, Soma, rain,
food and seed are offered in the five fires, viG=, the heaven#y wor#d, $ar0anya +rain
:od-, the earth, man and woman, conc#udes Jor this reason is water, in the fifth
ob#ation, ca##ed manJ= :o throu<h the section $ancha<nividya in !hh= ?.= (= .arts
,&*8= %ence we understand that the sou# <oes enve#o.ed by water= Thou<h the
e#ements are avai#ab#e everywhere, yet the seeds for a future body cannot be
easi#y .rocured anywhere= The or<ans, etc=, which <o with the sou# cannot
accom.any it without a materia# body=
/ust as a cater.i##ar takes ho#d of another ob0ect before it #eaves its ho#d of an
ob0ect, so a#so the sou# has the vision of the body to come before it #eaves the
.resent body= %ence the view of the Sankhyas that the Se#f and the or<ans are
both a##&.ervadin< and when obtainin< a new body on#y be<in to function in it on
account of ;armaC the view of the Bauddhas that the sou# a#one without the
or<ans be<ins to function in a new body, new senses bein< formed #ike the new
bodyC the view of the (aiseshikas that the mind a#one <oes to the new bodyC and
the view of the Di<ambara /ains that the sou# on#y f#ies away from the o#d body
and a#i<hts in the new one 0ust as a .arrot f#ies from one tree to another are not
correct and are o..osin< to the (edas= The sou# <oes from the body accom.anied
by the mind, $rana, the senses and the Sukshmabhutas or subt#e e#ements=
An ob0ection can be raised that water on#y accom.anies the sou# and not any
other e#ement= %ow can it be said then that the sou# <oes enve#o.ed by the subt#e
.arts of a## e#ements= To this ob0ection the ne>t Sutra <ives the re.#y=
Tryatmakatvattu bhuyastvat III=*=2 +26,-
On account of water consistin< of three +e#ements- +the sou# is
enve#o.ed by a## these e#ements and not mere#y water-C but +water
a#one is mentioned in the te>t- on account of its .re.onderance +in
the human body-=
Tryatmakatvattu1 on account of +water- consistin< of three e#ementsC Tu1
butC Bhuyastvat1 on account of the .re.onderance +of water-=
The water which enve#o.s the sou# is threefo#d= It denotes a## the other
e#ements by im.#ication= The te>t s.ecifies water, because it .re.onderates in the
human body= In a## animated bodies #i@uid substances such as 0uices, b#ood and
the #ike .re.onderate=
The word HtuI +but-, removes the ob0ection raised above= Bater stands for a##
the e#ements because it is rea##y a combination of water, fire and earth accordin<
to the tri.artite creation of the <ross e#ements= Therefore a## the three e#ements
accom.any the sou#= "o body can be formed by water a#one= urther #i@uid matter
is .redominant in the causa# state of the body, i=e=, semen and menstrua# b#ood=
'oreover f#uid .ortion is .redominant in Soma, mi#k, butter and the #ike which are
necessary for ;arma, which is an efficient cause for the bui#din< of the future
body=
$rana<atescha III=*=, +263-
And because of the <oin< out of the $ranas +the sense or<ans-
with the sou#, the e#ements a#so accom.any the sou#=
$rana1 of the $ranas +the sense or<ans-C :ateh1 because of the <oin< outC
!ha1 and=
A further reason is <iven to show that the subt#e essences of the e#ements
accom.any the sou# at the disso#ution of the body= The Sruti has stated that the
$ranas and senses de.art a#on< with the individua# sou# at the disso#ution of the
body= JBhen he thus de.arts the chief $rana de.arts after him, and when the
chief $rana thus de.arts a## the other $ranas de.art after itJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=2-=
They cannot stay without the basis or substratum or su..ort of the e#ements=
Therefore it fo##ows that the individua# sou# de.arts attended by the subt#e
essences of the e#ements at the disso#ution of the body= The subt#e e#ements form
the base for the movin< of $ranas= The <oin< of the $ranas is not .ossib#e without
a base= The $ranas cannot either move or abide anywhere without such a base=
This is observed in #ivin< bein<s=
There can be en0oyment on#y when the $rana <oes to another body= Bhen
the sou# de.arts the chief $rana a#so fo##ows= Bhen the chief $rana de.arts a## the
other $ranas and or<ans a#so fo##ow= The essences of e#ements are the vehic#e of
$ranas= Bhere the e#ements are, there the or<ans and $ranas are= They are never
se.arated=
A<nyadi<atisruteriti chet na bhaktatvat III=*=3 +264-
If it be said +that the $ranas or the or<ans do not fo##ow the
sou#- on account of the scri.tura# statements as to enterin< into
A<ni, etc=, +we say- not so, on account of its bein< so said in a
secondary sense +or meta.horica# nature of these statements-=
A<nyadi1 A<ni and othersC :ati1 enterin<C Sruteh1 on account of the
scri.turesC Iti1 as thusC !het1 ifC "a1 not so +it cannot be acce.ted-C Bhaktatvat1
on account of its bein< said in a secondary sense=
The $urva.akshin or the ob0ector denies that at the time when a new body is
obtained the $ranas <o with the sou#, because the scri.ture s.eaks of their <oin<
to A<ni, etc= This Sutra refutes this view=
The te>t which says that $ranas on death <o to A<ni and other <ods says so
in a fi<urative and secondary sense 0ust as when it says that the hair <oes to the
trees= The te>t means on#y that the $ranas obtain the <race of A<ni and other
<ods=
The enterin< of s.eech, etc=, into A<ni is meta.horica#= A#thou<h the te>t says
that the hairs of the body enter into the shrubs and the hairs of the head into the
trees= It does not mean that the hairs actua##y f#y away from the body and enter
into trees and shrubs=
The scri.tura# te>ts c#ear#y say JBhen the sou# de.arts, the $rana fo##ows=
Bhen the $rana de.arts, a## the or<ans fo##owJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=2=-
urther the sou# cou#d not <o at a## if the $rana cou#d not fo##ow it= The sou#
cou#d not enter into the new body without $rana= There cou#d be no en0oyment in
the new body without the $ranas <oin< to this body=
The .assa<e meta.horica##y e>.resses that A<ni and other deities who act as
<uides of the $ranas and the senses and coo.erate with them, sto. their
coo.eration at the time of death= The $ranas and the senses conse@uent#y #ose
their res.ective functions and are su..osed to be immersed in the <uidin< deities=
The $ranas and the senses remain at that time @uite ino.erative, waitin< for
accom.anyin< the de.artin< sou#=
The enterin< of s.eech into fire, etc=, means on#y that at the time of death,
these senses and $ranas cease to .erform their functions and not that they are
abso#ute#y #ost to the sou#= The conc#usion, therefore, is that the $ranas and the
senses do accom.any the sou# at the time of death=
$rathameIsravanaditi chet na ta eva hi u.a.atteh III=*=4 +265-
If it be ob0ected on the <round of water not bein< mentioned in
the first of the ob#ations, we say not so, because that +water- on#y
is veri#y meant by the word JSraddhaJ because that is the most
a..ro.riate meanin< of the word in that .assa<e=
$rathame1 in the first of the five ob#ations described in the !hhando<ya
SrutiC Asravanat1 on account of not bein< mentionedC Iti1 thusC !het1 ifC "a1
notC Ta eva1 that on#y, i=e=, waterC %i1 becauseC ?.a.atteh1 because of fitness=
The $urva.akshin raises an ob0ection1 %ow can it be ascertained that Hin the
fifth ob#ation water is ca##ed manI as there is no meanin< of water in the first
ob#ationL On that a#tar the <ods offer Sraddha as ob#ation +!hh= ?.= (=3=2-=
The Siddhantin <ives his answer1 In the case of the first fire the word
Sraddha is to be taken in the sense of HwaterI= BhyL Because of a..ro.riateness=
Then on#y there is harmony in the be<innin<, midd#e and end of the .assa<e and
the synthetica# unity of the who#e .assa<e is not disturbed= Otherwise the @uestion
and answer wou#d not a<ree and so the unity of the who#e .assa<e wou#d be
destroyed=
aith by itse#f cannot be .hysica##y taken out and offered as an ob#ation=
Therefore the word Sraddha must be taken to mean HwaterI= Bater is ca##ed
Sraddha in the Sruti te>ts= JSraddha va a.aha & Sraddha indeed is waterJ +Tait=
Sam= I=5=9=*-= urther it is the Sraddha +faith- which #eads to sacrifice which #eads
to rain=
It is the other four offerin<s Soma, rain, food and seed that are described to
be the effects of Sraddha= It is Sraddha which modifies itse#f into these four=
Therefore it must be a substance be#on<in< to the same cate<ory as these four,
because the cause cannot be different from its effect= An effect is on#y a
modification of the cause= Therefore it is reasonab#e to inter.ret Sraddha to mean
water here=
Asrutatvaditi chet na ishtadikarinam .ratiteh III=*=5 +267-
If it be said that on account of +the sou#- not bein< stated in
the Sruti +the sou# does not de.art enve#o.ed by water, etc=- +we
say- not so, because it is understood +from the scri.tures- that the
/ivas who .erform sacrifices and other <ood works +a#one <o to
heaven-=
Asrutatvat1 on account of this not bein< stated in the SrutiC Iti1 thisC !het1
ifC "a1 notC Ishtadikarinam1 in reference to those who .erform sacrificesC
$ratiteh1 on account of bein< understood=
An ob0ection is raised that in the !hhando<ya ?.anishad +(=,=,- there is
mention of water on#y but no reference to the sou# +/iva-= This ob0ection cannot
stand= The .assa<e refers to the .ersons .erformin< sacrifices, i=e=, the
.erformers of Ishta +sacrifice- and $urta +di<<in< tanks, bui#din< tem.#es, etc=-
and Dana +charity-, <oin< by the .ath of smoke +Dhumamar<a or Dakshinayana
$ath to the wor#d of moon- !hh= ?.= (=*8=,=
To those .ersons who have .erformed Ishtis, etc=, water is su..#ied in the
form of materia#s used in the A<nihotra, the Darsa.urnamasa and other sacrifices,
viG=, sour mi#k, mi#k, curd, etc= The materia#s #ike mi#k, curds, etc=, that are offered
as ob#ations in sacrifices assume a subt#e form ca##ed A.urva and attach
themse#ves to the sacrificer= The /ivas thus <o enve#o.ed by water which is
su..#ied by the materia#s that are offered as ob#ations in sacrifices= The water
formin< the ob#ations assumes the subt#e form of A.urva, enve#o.s the sou#s and
#eads them to the heaven to receive their reward=
Another ob0ection is raised now by the $urva.akshin= %e says Jthat is the
food of the <ods= The <ods do eat itJ +!hh= ?.= (=*8=3=- J%avin< reached the
moon they become food and then the Devas feed on them thereJ +Bri= ?.=
(I=2=*5-= If they are eaten by <ods as by ti<ers, how cou#d they en0oy the fruit of
their actionsL The fo##owin< Sutra <ives a suitab#e answer= The .erformers of
sacrifices obtain the name of HSomara0aI when they reach !handra#oka= This
technica# name HSomara0aI is a..#ied here to the sou#=
Bhaktam vanatmavittvat tatha hi darsayati III=*=7 +269-
But +the sou#sI bein< the food of the <ods in heaven is used- in
a secondary or meta.horica# sense, on account of their not knowin<
the Se#f because the Sruti dec#ares #ike that=
Bhaktam1 'eta.horica#C (a1 but, orC Anatmavittvat1 on account of their
not knowin< the Se#fC Tatha1 soC %i1 becauseC Darsayati1 +Sruti- dec#ares,
shows=
JThe sou# becomes the food of <odsJ has to be understood in a meta.horica#
or secondary sense and not #itera##y= Otherwise the statement of scri.tures such as
J%e who is desirous of heaven must .erform sacrificeJ is meanin<#ess= If the
Devas were to eat the sou#s why shou#d men then e>ert themse#ves to <o there
and why shou#d they .erform sacrifices #ike /yotistoma and the restL ood is the
cause of en0oyment= HEatin<I is the re0oicin< of the <ods with the .erformers of
sacrifices= The sacrifices are ob0ects of en0oyment to the <ods 0ust as wives,
chi#dren and catt#e are to men= It is not actua# eatin< #ike the chewin< and
swa##owin< of sweetmeats= The <ods do not eat in the ordinary way= The scri.ture
says JThe <ods do not eat or drink= They are satisfied by seein< the nectar=J
Those who .erform sacrifices re0oice #ike servants of a kin<, a#thou<h they
are subordinate to the <ods= They <ive en0oyment to the <ods and re0oice with
them= Those who do not know the Se#f are ob0ects of en0oyment for the <ods= This
is known from te>ts #ike J"ow, if a man worshi.s another deity, thinkin< the deity
is one and he is another, he does not know= %e is #ike a beast for the DevasJ +Bri=
?.= I=3=*8-= That means he in this #ife .ro.itiates the <ods by means of ob#ations
and other works, serves them #ike a beast and does so in the other wor#d a#so,
de.endin< on them #ike a beast and en0oys the fruits of his works as assi<ned by
them= They +the .erformers of such sacrifices- become serviceab#e com.anions to
the <ods= They en0oy the com.anionshi. of the <ods= So they are said to be the
food of the <ods in the fi<urative or meta.horica# sense= They contribute to the
en0oyment of the <ods by their .resence and service in that wor#d= Therefore it is
@uite c#ear that the sou# <oes enve#o.ed with the subt#e essence of e#ements when
it <oes to other s.heres for en0oyin< the fruits of his <ood deeds= %e en0oys in the
!handra#oka and returns to the earth at the end of his store of merit=
;ritatyayadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras 9&**-
The sou#s descendin< from heaven have a remnant of ;arma which determines
their birth
;ritatyayeInusayavan drishtasmritibhyam
yathetamanevam cha III=*=9 +266-
On the e>haustion of <ood work the sou# returns to the earth with
a remainder of the ;armas, as can be understood from direct statement
in Sruti and Smriti, by the same route throu<h which he ascended
after death and different#y too=
;rita1 of what is done, of the ;armaC Atyaye1 at the end, at the
e>haustionC Anusayavan1 with a remainder of the ;armaC Drishtasmritibhyam1
as can be understood from direct statement in Sruti and SmritiC )atha itam1 by
the way he wentC Anevam1 different#yC !ha1 and=
A fresh to.ic is discussed here= This Adhikarana teaches the mode of return
from heaven= The @uestion is raised whether the sou#s, after havin< en0oyed the
fruits of a## their works, return to the earth with any remnant of ;arma
+;armasesha- or not= The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says that there is no
remnant of ;arma= BhyL On account of the s.ecification J)avat sam.atamJ= The
Sruti says J%avin< dwe#t there ti## their work is e>hausted, they return a<ain the
way they went byJ +!hh= ?.= (=*8=4-= This indicates that a## their karma is
com.#ete#y e>hausted there and there is nothin< #eft=
This view is wron<= The ri<ht view is that the sou#s return to the earth by the
force of some unen0oyed remnant or Anusaya of ;arma= Bhen the tota#ity of
works which he#.ed the sou#s to <o to the !handra#oka for en0oyment of the fruits
of <ood deeds is e>hausted, then the body made u. of water which had ori<inated
there for the sake of en0oyment is disso#ved by the fire of sorrow s.rin<in< from
the thou<ht that the en0oyment comes to an end, 0ust as hai#stones me#t by
contact with the rays of the sun, 0ust as <hee me#ts by contact with the fire= Then
the sou#s come down with a remainder yet #eft=
This is .roved by Sruti and Smriti as we##= The Sruti says JThose whose
conduct, durin< the .revious #ife, has been <ood, .resent#y obtain <ood birth, such
as the birth of a Brahmin, a ;shatriya or a (aisyaC those whose conduct has been
bad .resent#y obtain some evi# birth such as that of a do< or a .i<J +!hh= ?.=
(=*8=7-=
The Smriti says JThe members of the different castes and of the different
orders of #ife who are en<a<ed in the works .rescribed for them, after #eavin< this
wor#d and en0oyin< the fruits of their works in the other wor#d, are born a<ain
owin< to the unen0oyed .ortion of their rewards, in distin<uished castes and
fami#ies, with s.ecia# beauty, #on<evity, know#ed<e, conduct, .ro.erty, comfort
and inte##i<enceJ= %ence the sou# is born with residua# ;arma=
Bhat is such Anusaya +residua# work- of ;arma which #eads to hi<her or
#ower birthL Of what kind is that remainderL Some say that thereby we have to
understand a remainder of the works which had been .erformed in the .revious
birth to obtain heaven and whose fruits have for the <reater .art been en0oyed=
That residue mi<ht be com.ared to the remainder of oi# which sticks to the inside
of a vesse# .revious#y fi##ed with oi# even after it has been em.tied or to a courtier
of a kin< who #oses his Durbar robe and therefore comes out with his shoes and
umbre##a a#one= These ana#o<ies are obvious#y wron<, because when a virtuous
deed #eads the sou# to heaven, we cannot assume that a .ortion of it brin<s him
down to the earth= This wou#d contradict the te>t which dec#ares c#ear#y that
heaven a#one is the fruit of meritorious acts and no residue continues to e>ist=
'oreover the scri.tura# .assa<e distin<uishes remainders of a different kind,
viG=, Hthose whose conduct has been <oodC those whose conduct has been badI=
The #atter cannot be a .ortion of the virtuous deed which #eads the sou# to the
heaven= Therefore the Anusaya is the residue or remnant of some other store of
;armas bearin< fruit= After the fruits of the meritorious acts have com.#ete#y been
en0oyed in heaven, the remainin< other set of works +<ood and bad- whose fruits
are to be en0oyed in this wor#d forms the Anusaya with which the sou#s come to
the earth=
Another view is that after death the entire store of ;armas about to bear fruit
fructifies= Therefore the sou#s come to the earth without any Anusaya or residue of
;arma= This is wron<= This is untenab#e= Some of those ;armas can be en0oyed
on#y in one kind of birth and some in another= They cannot combine in one birth=
It cannot be said that one .ortion ceases to bear fruit= There is no such cessation
save by $rayaschitta or e>.iation= If a## ;armas bear fruit after death, there wi## be
no cause for rebirth after #ife in heaven or he## or in anima# bodies, because in
these there is no means of virtue or vice= 'oreover some ca.ita# sins #ike the
ki##in< of a Brahmin invo#ve many births=
%ow then can the tota#ity of ;armas #ead to one birth a#oneL The scri.ture is
the so#e source of virtue and vice= Simi#ar#y the ;ariri Ishti, a sacrifice offered by
those who are desirous of rain, causes rain= Therefore you cannot ascribe it to the
fructification of .ast acts after death= Therefore the view that death manifests a##
actions, that a## events are due to the fructification of com.#ete store of ;armas
after death is entire#y incorrect and base#ess=
The $urva.akshin or the ob0ector ar<ues that 0ust as a #am. shows a##
ob0ects, so a#so death e>hausts a## ;armas= This ana#o<y is not correct= Because a
#am., a#thou<h e@ua##y distant from a bi< and a very sma## ob0ect, may manifest
on#y the bi< one and not the sma## ob0ect= So death e>cites the o.eration of the
stron<er actions on#y, not the weaker ones, a#thou<h there is e@ua# o..ortunity for
both sets of works for fructification= Therefore the view that a## actions are
manifested by death cannot be u.he#d, because it is contradicted by Sruti, Smriti
and reason=
)ou need not be afraid that if any ;armas are #eft in store there wi## be no
sa#vation, because know#ed<e of Se#f wi## annihi#ate a## ;armas= Therefore it is an
estab#ished conc#usion that the sou#s descend to the earth from heaven with a
remainder of works +Anusaya-=
By what way does it descendL They return by the same way that they went
by, but with some difference= rom the e>.ression Jas they cameJ and from the
fact of Hether and smokeI it is conc#uded that they descend by the way they went
to the heaven +!hh= ?.= (=*8=4-= That there is some difference too is known from
ni<ht, etc=, not bein< mentioned and from the c#oud, etc=, bein< added +!hh= ?.=
(=*8=5-= %e descends by the route by which he went to a certain sta<e and then
by a different route= The word HRamaniyacharanaI means works which are
Ramaniya or <ood= H;a.uyacharanaI means evi# acts= The word H)avat sam.atamI
does not mean the e>haustion of a## ;armas, but the e>haustion of the works that
took the sou# to heaven and which is e>hausted in heaven by en0oyment=
!haranaditi chet na u.a#akshanartheti karshna0inih III=*=6 +,88-
If it be ob0ected that on account of conduct +the assum.tion of
the remnant of ;arma, Anusaya is not necessary for rebirth on earth-,
+we say- not so +because the word HconductI is used- to si<nify
indirect#y +the remainder-= So ;arshna0ini thinks=
!haranat1 on account of conductC Iti1 thus, soC !het1 ifC "a1 not soC
?.a#akshanartha1 to si<nify secondari#y, indirect#y, meant to im.#y or connoteC
Iti1 thusC ;arshna0inih1 ;arshna0ini thinks, ho#ds, says=
An ob0ection is raised with reference to the residua# ;arma, Anusaya, stated
in the .recedin< Sutra and is refuted=
The $urva.akshin or the ob0ector says in the te>t cited +!hh= ?.= (=*8=7=-
Jthose whose conduct has been <oodJ etc=, <et a <ood birth=
The @ua#ity of the new birth de.ends on H!haranaI or conduct, not on Anusaya
or remainder of work= H!haranaI and HAnusayaI are different thin<s because
H!haranaI is the same as !haritra, Achara, Si#a & a## of which mean conduct, whi#e
Anusaya means remainder of work=
Scri.ture a#so says that action and conduct are different thin<s JAccordin< as
he acts and accordin< as he conducts himse#f so wi## he beJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=4-=
The ob0ection is without force= This Sutra refutes this and says that the term
HconductI is meant to denote the remainder of the works +<ood ;armas- after
en0oyment in the other wor#d= !onduct stands for ;arma which de.ends on <ood
conduct= This is the o.inion of the sa<e ;arshna0ini= This is secondary im.#ication
of the term=
Anarthakyamiti chet na tada.ekshatvat III=*=*8 +,8*-
If it be said +by such inter.retation of the word HconductI &
<ood conduct wou#d become- .ur.ose#ess, +we say- not so, on account
of +;arma- bein< de.endent on that +<ood conduct-=
Anarthakyam1 .ur.ose#ess, use#ess, irre#evancyC Iti1 thus, asC !het1 ifC
"a1 not soC Tat1 that +conduct-C A.ekshatvat1 on account of de.endence on
that=
A further ob0ection with reference to the word H!harana & conductI is raised
and refuted in this Sutra=
The $urva.akshin or the ob0ector says that may be, but why shou#d we <ive
u. that meanin< which the word H!haranaI direct#y conveys viG=, HconductI and
take u. the mere#y connotative meanin< Hresidue of ;armaI= Then <ood conduct
wou#d be .ur.ose#ess in manIs #ife, as it has no resu#t of its own, not bein< a cause
of the @ua#ity of new birth= !onduct which is the direct meanin< of the word may
have for its fruit either a <ood or an evi# birth accordin< as it is <ood or bad= Some
fruit wi## have to be a##owed to it in any case for otherwise it wou#d be .ur.ose#ess=
This Sutra refutes this= The Sutra denies this view on the <round that on#y
those who are of <ood conduct are entit#ed to .erform (edic sacrifices= This
ob0ection is without force on account of the de.endence on it= It cannot stand= The
Smriti says, J%im who is devoid of <ood conduct the (edas do not .urify=J %e,
whose conduct is not <ood, does not attain re#i<ious merit by mere .erformance of
sacrifices= !onduct enhances the fruit of ;arma +Atisaya-= :ood conduct is an aid
or au>i#iary to ;arma= Therefore it has a .ur.ose= Bhen the sacrifice be<ins to
.roduce its fruit, the conduct which has reference to the sacrifice wi## ori<inate in
the fruit some addition= It is, therefore, the view of ;arshna0ini that the residue of
works on#y which is the indirect meanin< of the term H!haranaI or conduct and not
0ust conduct is the cause of the new birth= If a man is ab#e to run by means of his
feet he wi## certain#y not cree. on his knees= If a man cannot run on his #e<s, can
he run on his kneesL
Sukritadushkrite eveti tu baadarih III=*=** +,82-
But conduct +!harana- means mere#y <ood and evi# worksC thus the
sa<e Baadari thinks=
Sukrita1 <ood or ri<hteous deedsC Dushkrite1 +and- bad or unri<hteous
deedsC Eva1 on#y, mere#yC Iti1 thusC Tu1 butC Baadarih1 +Sa<e- Baadari=
urther discussion on the meanin< of the word H!haranaI is made here= The
Sutra says that there is no difference between conduct and ;arma= Accordin< to
the sa<e Baadari the .hrases HRamaniyacharanaI and H;a.uyacharanaI mean <ood
and evi# works=
!harana means the same as Anusthana or ;arma +work-= The root H!harI +to
wa#k, to conduct onese#f- is used in the <enera# sense of actin<= $eo.#e say in
common .ar#ance of a man who does sacrifices= JThat man wa#ks in
ri<hteousness=J The term Achara a#so denotes on#y a kind of re#i<ious duty= A
sacrifice is a meritorious act +Dharma-= Achara is a#so Dharma= Bhen ;arma and
!harana are se.arate#y described it is as when you s.eak of Brahmanas and
$arivra0akas, i=e=, Sannyasis= Thou<h !harana and ;arma are one, yet they are
s.oken of sometimes as different on the ma>im of J;uru&$andavas=J Thou<h the
$andavas were a#so ;urus, yet in the .hrase ;urus and $andavas the word ;uru is
used in a narrower sense= Thus Hmen of <ood conduct or characterI means those
whose actions are .raiseworthy1 Hmen of evi# conduct or evi# !haranaI are those
whose actions are to be censured= !onduct is used in the <enera# sense of action=
As !harana is ;arma on#y, it is estab#ished, therefore, that those who <o to
heaven have remainder of ;arma +Anusaya- as the cause of a new birth on earth=
Eva & on#y1 The force of this word in this Sutra is to indicate that this is the
o.inion of the author of the Sutras=
Tu & HbutI is used to indicate s.ecia#ity, oneIs own conc#usion and to add
em.hasis=
Anishtadikaryadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras *2&2*-
The fate after death of those sou#s whose deeds do not entit#e them to .ass u. to
!handra#oka
Anishtadikarinama.i cha srutam III=*=*2 +,8,-
The Sruti dec#ares that the non&.erformers of sacrifices, etc=,
a#so +<o to the wor#d of moon-=
Anishtadikarinam1 of those who do not .erform sacrifices etc=C A.i1 evenC
!ha1 a#soC Srutam1 is dec#ared by the Sruti=
The movement of .ersons doin< evi# deeds is now described= This Sutra is
that of $urva.akshin=
It has been said that those who do sacrifices, etc=, <o to the !handra#oka=
The @uestion now arises whether those .ersons a#so who do not .erform sacrifices
<o to the s.here of moon or not=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent maintains that even they <o to heaven
thou<h they do not en0oy anythin< there #ike those who .erform sacrifices,
because they too are in need of the fifth ob#ation for a new birth= 'oreover the
Sruti dec#ares1 JA## who de.art from this wor#d <o to the s.here of moonJ +;au=
?.= I=2-= The word Ha##I shows that it is a universa# .ro.osition without any
@ua#ifications= Since a## who .erish must <o to the wor#d of moon, it fo##ows that
the sinners a#so <o there=
Siddhantin1 The sinners do not <o to the s.here of moon= They <o to
)ama#oka or the wor#d of .unishment= This is said in the fo##owin< Sutra=
Samyamane tvanubhuyetareshamarohavarohau
tad<atidarsanat III=*=*, +,83-
But of others, +i=e=, those who have not .erformed sacrifices,
etc=- the ascent is to the abode of )ama and after havin< e>.erienced
+the resu#ts of their evi# deeds- they come down to the earthC as
such a course is dec#ared by the Sruti=
Samyamane1 in the abode of )amaC Tu1 butC Anubhuya1 havin<
e>.eriencedC Itaresham1 of others +of those who do not .erform sacrifices-C
Arohavarohau1 the ascent and descentC Tat1 of themC :ati1 +about their-
coursesC Darsanat1 as can be understood from the Sruti=
Descri.tion of the movement of .ersons who have done evi# deeds is
continued= This Sutra refutes the view of the .revious Sutra= This is the Siddhanta
Sutra=
Sinners suffer in )ama#oka and return to this earth= )ama says to "achiketas1
HThe way to the hereafter never rises before an i<norant .erson who is de#uded by
wea#th= This is the wor#d & he thinks & there is no otherC thus he fa##s a<ain and
a<ain under my swayI +;atha ?.= I=2=5-=
Tu +but, discards the $urva.aksha= It is not true that a## .ersons <o to
!handra#oka= The ascent to the s.here of moon or !handra#oka is on#y for the
en0oyment of the fruits of <ood works= It is neither without a s.ecia# .ur.ose nor
for the mere .ur.ose of subse@uent descent= %ence those who have done evi#
actions do not <o there= Those who .erform sacrifices rise to the !handra#oka not
any other .ersons=
Aroha&Avarohau1 Ascent and descent, i=e=, comin< to wor#d#y e>istence
+ascent- and <oin< to sti## nether re<ions +descent-= This is the inter.retation of Sri
'adhvacharya=
Smaranti cha III=*=*3 +,84-
The Smritis a#so dec#are thus=
Smaranti1 the Srutis dec#areC !ha1 a#so=
Descri.tion of the 0ourney of .ersons doin< evi# deeds is continued in the
Sutra=
The Smritis a#so dec#are the same fate of the sinners= The Smritis a#so dec#are
that the evi# doers come within the c#utches of )ama= 'anu, (yasa and others say
that those who do evi# deeds <o to he## and suffer there= In the Bha<avata it is
said JThe sinners are @uick#y carried to the abode of )ama by the .ath of sinners,
on which they trave# with <reat .ains, constant#y risin< and fa##in<, tired and
swoonin<=J 'anu and (yasa dec#are that in the !hitisamyamana evi# deeds are
re@uited under the ru#e of )ama=
A.i cha sa.ta III=*=*4 +,85-
'oreover there are seven +he##s-=
A.i cha1 a#so, moreoverC Sa.ta1 the seven +he##s-=
$articu#ars of the abode of )ama are <iven= Smriti mentions seven he##s which
serve as .#aces of torture for the evi# doers= The tem.orary he##s are Raurava,
'aharaurava, (ahni, (aitarani and ;umbhika= The two eterna# he##s are Tamisra
+darkness- and Andhatamisra +b#indin< darkness-=
Tatra.i cha tadvya.arat avirodhah III=*=*5 +,87-
And on account of his +)amaIs- contro# even there +in those
he##s- is no contradiction=
Tatra1 there +in those he##s-C A.i1 a#so, evenC !ha1 andC Tadvya.arat1 on
account of his +)amaIs- contro#C Avirodhah1 no contradiction=
The same to.ic continues in this Sutra= The $urva.akshin or the ob0ector
says1 Accordin< to the Sruti the evi#doers under<o .unishment from the hands of
)ama= %ow is this .ossib#e in the seven he##s ca##ed Raurava, etc=, which are
su.erintended by !hitra<u.ta and othersL This Sutra refutes the ob0ection=
There is no contradiction as the same )ama is the chief ru#er in those seven
he##s a#so= !hitra<u.ta and others are on#y su.erintendents and #ieutenants
em.#oyed by )ama= They are a## under )amaIs <overnment or suGerainty=
!hitra<u.ta and others are directed by )ama=
(idyakarmanoriti tu .rakritatvat III=*=*7 +,89-
But +the reference is to the two roads- of know#ed<e and work,
those two bein< under discussion=
(idyakarmanoh1 of know#ed<e and workC Iti1 thusC Tu1 but, on#yC
$rakritatvat1 on account of these bein< the sub0ect under discussion=
But the sinners never <o to heaven because the to.ic re#atin< to the two
.aths in the !hhando<ya ?.anishad is confined to men of know#ed<e and men of
work= It has no reference to evi#&doers= The different 0ourneys of the de.arted
sou#s to the other wor#d throu<h the two roads or .aths described in the
$ancha<nividya of !hhando<ya ?.anishad are the resu#ts of know#ed<e
+meditation- and re#i<ious sacrifices accordin< as they were .ractised in #ifeC
because these two are the sub0ects under discussion=
The Sruti says that those who do not <o by means of (idya a#on< the .ath of
Devayana to Brahma#oka or by means of ;arma a#on< the .ath of $itriyana to
!handra#oka are born often in #ow bodies and die often= If you say that evi#&doers
a#so <o to !handra#oka that wor#d wi## <et overfu##= But you may re.#y that there
wi## be sou#s <oin< out from there to the earth= But then the Sruti te>t c#ear#y says
that the evi#&doers do not <o there=
The evi#doers <o to the third .#ace and not to heaven= The Sruti .assa<e says
J"ow those who <o a#on< neither of these ways become those sma## creatures
continua##y returnin< of whom it may be said HLive and dieI= Theirs is a third .#ace=
Therefore the wor#d never becomes fu##J +!hh= ?.= (=*8=9-=
The word HbutI in the Sutra refutes a doubt that arises from a te>t from
;aushitaki ?.anishad, HThat a## de.arted <o to the !handra#okaI= The word Ha##I has
to be taken as referrin< on#y to those who are @ua#ified, who have .erformed <ood
deeds= A## e#i<ib#e sou#s on#y <o to !handra#oka= It does not inc#ude evi# doers or
sinners=
The word HbutI sets aside the view .ro.ounded by the ob0ector= If the sinners
do not <o to the wor#d of moon or !handra#oka, then no new body can be
.roduced in their case1 because there is no fifth ob#ation .ossib#e in their case and
the fifth ob#ation de.ends on oneIs <oin< to the s.here of moon= Therefore a##
must <o to the !handra#oka in order to <et a new body= This ob0ection is answered
by the ne>t Sutra=
"a tritiye tatho.a#abdheh III=*=*9 +,86-
"ot in +the case of- a third .#ace, as it is thus dec#ared in the
scri.tures=
"a1 notC Tritiye1 in the thirdC Tatha1 so thusC ?.a#abdheh1 it bein<
.erceived or seen to be=
The fifth ob#ation is not necessary in the case of those who <o to the third
.#ace, because it is thus dec#ared in the scri.tures=
The ru#e about the five ob#ations does not a..#y in the case of evi#doers or
sinners because they are born without the ob#ations= The Sruti says, JLive and die=
That is the third .#ace=J That is to say these sma## creatures +f#ies, worms, etc=,-
are continua##y bein< born and are dyin<= The sinners are ca##ed sma## creatures
because they assume the bodies of insects, <nats etc= Their .#ace is ca##ed the
third .#ace, because it is neither the Brahma#oka nor the !handra#oka= %ence the
heaven wor#d never becomes fu##, because these sinners never <o there=
'oreover, in the .assa<e, JIn the fifth ob#ation water is ca##ed manJ the water
becomes the body of a man on#y, not of an insect or moth etc= The word HmanI
a..#ies to the human s.ecies on#y=
SmaryateI.i cha #oke III=*=*6 +,*8-
And +moreover the- Smritis have recorded a#so +that- in this
wor#d +there had been cases of birth without the course of five
ob#ations-=
Smaryate1 is stated in SmritisC A.i1 a#soC !ha1 andC Loke1 in the wor#d=
The ar<ument commenced in Sutra *7 to refute the ob0ections raised in Sutra
*2, is continued=
There are, moreover, traditions, a.art from the (edas that certain .ersons
#ike Drona, Dhrishtadyumna, Sita, Drau.adi and others were not born in the
ordinary way from motherIs womb= In their cases there was wantin< the fifth
ob#ation which is made to the woman= In the case of Dhrishtadyumna and others,
even two of the ob#ations, viG=, the one offered into woman and the one offered
into man, were absent= Drona had no mother= Dhrishtadyumna had neither father
nor mother= %ence in many other cases a#so, .rocreation or birth may be
su..osed to take .#ace inde.endent#y of ob#ations= The fema#e crane conceives
without a ma#e=
The five ob#ations are not abso#ute#y necessary for a future birth= The ru#e
about the five ob#ations is not universa#= It a..#ies on#y to those who do sacrifices=
Therefore the sinners need not <o to heaven=
The five ob#ations have nothin< to do with the third way, i=e=, die and be born
in #ow bodies= They refer on#y to human births in the case of sou#s who ascend and
then descend= In the case of others embodiment may take .#ace in a manner
other than throu<h wombs=
By the .artic#e H!haI +and- the Sutrakara shows that the observation of the
wor#d is a#so one corroborated by Smriti=
Darsanaccha III=*=28 +,**-
A#so on account of observation=
Darsanat1 on account of observationC !ha1 a#so, and=
The ar<ument commenced in Sutra *7 is continued=
It is a#so observed that of the four c#asses of or<anic bein<s, name#y
vivi.arous anima#s, ovi.arous anima#s, anima#s s.rin<in< from heat and moisture
and bein<s s.rin<in< from <erms +.#ants- & the #ast two c#asses are .roduced
without se>ua# intercourse, so that in their case the number of ob#ations is of no
conse@uence=
The $urva.akshin or the ob0ector says, JThe Sruti .assa<e s.eaks on#y of
three c#asses of bein<s1 That which s.rin<s from an e<< +Anda0a-, that which
s.rin<s from a #ivin< bein< +/iva0a- and that which s.rin<s from a <erm +?dbhi0a-J
+!hh= ?.= (I=,=*-= %ow then can it be maintained that there are four c#assesL The
fo##owin< Sutra <ives a re.#y to his ob0ection=
Tritiyasabdavarodhah samsoka0asya III=*=2* +,*2-
The third term +i=e= .#ant #ife- inc#udes that which s.rin<s from
heat and moisture=
Tritiya sabda1 the third termC Avarodhah1 inc#usionC Samsoka0asya1 of
that which s.rin<s from heat and moisture=
The two c#asses s.rin< from earth or water, from somethin< stab#e= They both
<erminate1 one from the earth and the other from water= It makes no difference
because that which s.rin<s from moisture is inc#uded in the .#ace of .#ant #ife
+?dbhi00a-= There is simi#arity between Sveda0a and ?dbhi00a= %ence there is no
contradiction= Those which are born of sweat are ca##ed Sveda0a= Sveda0a and
?dbhi00a are not born of wombs= The word ?dbhi00a #itera##y means born by
burstin< throu<h= The .#ants burst throu<h the earth= The sweatborn burst
throu<h the water= Thus the ori<in of both is simi#ar, for both are born by burstin<
throu<h=
Thus the evi#&doers do not <o to heaven= On#y those who .erform sacrifices
<o to heaven= This is the sett#ed conc#usion=
Sabhavya.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra 22-
The sou# on its descent from the !handra#oka does not become identified with
ether, etc=, but attains a simi#arity of nature
Tatsabhavya.attiru.a.atteh III=*=22 +,*,-
+The sou# when comin< down from the s.here of moon- attains
simi#arity of nature with them, +i=e=, with ether, air, etc=,- as
this on#y is .ossib#e=
Tatsabhavya.attih1 attainment of a simi#arity of nature with themC
?.a.atteh1 bein< reasonab#e=
The way of descent of the individua# sou# from the s.here of the moon is now
discussed= The Sruti dec#ares, JThey return a<ain the way they went, to the ether,
from the ether to the air= Then the sacrificer havin< become air becomes smoke,
havin< become smoke he becomes mist, havin< become mist, he becomes a
c#oud, havin< become a c#oud he rains downJ +!hh= ?.= (=*8=4 O 5-=
"ow a @uestion arises whether the sou# actua##y becomes identica# with ether,
etc=, or sim.#y resemb#es them=
This Sutra says that the sou#s do not attain identity with them, because it is
im.ossib#e= It is not .ossib#e that one thin< shou#d become another in the #itera#
sense of the word= One substance cannot become another= If the sou#s become
identica# with ether, they cou#d no #on<er descend throu<h air= The sou#s become
on#y #ike ether, air, etc= They assume a subt#e form #ike ether, come under the
inf#uence or .ower of air and <et mi>ed with or connected with smoke etc= The
attainin< to the state of bein< smoke, etc=, is but movin< a#on< with them when
they are in motion, sto..in< whi#e they sto., enterin< into them and becomin< as
#i<ht as they are= Therefore the .assa<e means that the sou#s become simi#ar to
Akasa, air, etc=, but not identica#=
"atichiradhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutra 2,-
It takes on#y a short time for the descent of the sou#
"atichirena viseshat III=*=2, +,*3-
+The sou# .asses throu<h the sta<es of its descent- in a not very
#on< timeC on account of the s.ecia# statement=
"a1 notC Atichirena1 in a very #on< timeC (iseshat1 because of s.ecia#
statement of Sruti=
The discussion on the sou#Is way of descent is continued= "e>t arises the
@uestion, does the sou# in its descent throu<h ether down to rain, stay at each
sta<e for a very #on< time, or .asses throu<h it @uick#yL The $urva.akshin or the
o..onent says1 HThere bein< nothin< to define the time of his stay, it remains
indefinite#y #on< at each sta<e=I This view is set aside by this Sutra= This Sutra
says that the sou# .asses throu<h them @uick#y= This is inferred from the
circumstance of the te>t makin< a s.ecia# statement=
The Sruti says, H%avin< become a c#oud he rains down= Then he is born as
rice and corn, herbs and trees, sesamum and beans= rom thence the esca.e is
beset with many difficu#ties= or whoever the .ersons may be that eat the food,
and be<et offs.rin<, he henceforth becomes #ike unto themI +!hh= ?.= (=*8=4-=
The sou#Is 0ourney, throu<h the sta<es of the ether, the air, the va.our or
smoke, the mist, the c#oud and the rain, takes a shorter time than his .assin<
throu<h the sta<es of corn, semen, foetus, which takes a much #on<er time or
hard sufferin<, as there is the s.ecia# statement in Sruti, that after its entrance
into a corn the esca.e is beset with much <reater difficu#ty and .ain=
The Sruti says JThe sou#s enter into riceJ and adds Jfrom thence the esca.e is
beset with more difficu#ty and .ain=J There is a hint here that the esca.e from the
.revious states or ear#ier sta<es is easy and .#easant and attained @uick#y=
J%e who has be<un to descend wi## enter the motherIs body +womb- before a
year .asses since startin<, thou<h wanderin< throu<h different .#acesJ +"aradiya
$urana-=
Anyadhisthitadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras 23&27-
Bhen the sou#s enter into .#ants, etc=, they on#y c#in< to them and do not
themse#ves become those s.ecies
Anyadhishthiteshu .urvavadabhi#.at III=*=23 +,*4-
+The descendin< sou# enters- into +.#ants- animated other
+sou#s-, as in the .revious cases, on account of scri.tura#
dec#aration=
Anyadhishthiteshu1 into what is .ossessed or occu.ied by anotherC
$urvavat1 #ike the .revious casesC Abhi#a.at1 on account of the scri.tura#
statement=
The discussion on the way of descent of the individua# sou# is continued=
In the descri.tion of the sou#Is descent, it is said then they are born as rice
and corn, herbs and beans= "ow a doubt arises, are these sou#s descendin< with a
remnant of their ;armas, themse#ves born as rice, corn, etc=, or do they mere#y
c#in< to those .#ants, etc=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds that they are born as rice, corn, etc=, and en0oy their
.#easures and .ains on account of the remainder of works sti## attachin< to them
and do not mere#y c#in< to them= The condition of a .#ant may be a .#ace of
en0oyment of the fruits of actions= Sacrifices which entai# ki##in< of anima#s may
#ead to un.#easant resu#ts= %ence the word HbornI is to be taken #itera##y=
This Sutra refutes this view= The sou#s are mere#y connected with rice and
.#ants which are a#ready animated by other sou#s and do not en0oy there .#easures
and .ains as in .revious cases= As the sou#s becomin< air, smoke, was decided to
mean on#y that they become connected with them, so here a#so their becomin<
rice, etc=, mere#y means that they become connected with those .#ants= Because
in these sta<es there is no reference to their ;arma, 0ust as in the ear#ier sta<es of
ether etc= They enter these .#ants inde.endent#y of their ;arma= They do not
en0oy .#easure and .ain whi#e they abide there= The sou#s use the rice and .#ants
as their ha#tin< station without bein< identified with it, as it is e>.ress#y stated in
Sruti to be a .assin< sta<e, #ike the .revious sta<es of ether, air etc= They do not
#ose their identity= The sou#s are not born there for the .ur.ose of retributive
en0oyment= Bhere rea# birth takes .#ace and e>.erience of .#easure and .ain
commences, the fruits of actions be<in, the te>t refers to the o.eration of ;arma
as in JThose whose conduct has been <ood wi## @uick#y attain a <ood birthJ +!hh=
?.= (=*8=7-=
urther if the word HbornI is taken in its #itera# sense, then the sou#s which
have descended into the rice .#ants and are animatin< them wou#d have to #eave
them when they are rea.ed, husked, cooked and eaten= Bhen a body is destroyed
the sou# that animates it abandons it=
Therefore the descendin< sou#s are mere#y outward#y connected with the
.#ants animated by other sou#s= They abide ti## they attain the o..ortunity for a
new birth=
Asuddhamiti chet na sabdat III=*=24 +,*5-
If it be said that +sacrificia# work is- unho#y, +we say- not so,
on account of scri.tura# authority=
Asuddham1 unho#yC Iti1 so, thusC !het1 ifC "a1 no, not so, +the ob0ection
cannot stand-C Sabdat1 on account of the word, on account of the scri.tura#
authority=
An ob0ection to Sutra 23 is raised and refuted=
An ob0ection may be raised that the sacrificia# work, such as the /yotistoma
sacrifice and the #ike where anima#s are ki##ed is unho#y= Therefore its resu#t may
cause the sacrificer to be actua##y born as a corn or a .#ant as .ena#ty for his crue#
action= Such ob0ection is <round#ess, because the ki##in< of anima#s in sacrifices
causes no demerit as it is sanctioned by the scri.tures=
The sacrifices are not im.ure or sinfu# because the scri.tures dec#are them to
be meritorious= The scri.tures a#one can te## us what is Dharma and what is
Adharma, what is ho#y and what is unho#y= Our know#ed<e of what is duty and the
contrary of duty de.ends entire#y on Sastras, because these are Atindriya, i=e=,
beyond sense .erce.tion and there is in the case of ri<ht and wron< an entire
want of bindin< ru#es as to .#ace, time and occasion= Bhat in one .#ace, at one
time on one occasion is .erformed as a ri<ht action, is a wron< action in another
.#ace, at another time, on another occasion= Therefore no one can know without a
scri.ture, what is either ri<ht or wron<= "o doubt the scri.ture says that one must
not cause in0ury +'a himsyat sarva bhutani & #et not any anima# be in0ured
+ki##ed-= That is the <enera# ru#e= HLet him offer an anima# sacred to A<nistomaI is
an e>ce.tion= :enera# ru#e and e>ce.tion have different s.heres of a..#ication=
They have different sco.es sett#ed by usa<e, and so there is no conf#ict between
them=
Therefore we conc#ude that the sou#s become enc#osed in .#ants when
scri.ture says that the descendin< sou#s from the !handra#oka become .#ants=
They are .erfect#y unconscious in these sta<es=
Retah si<yo<oItha III=*=25 +,*7-
Then +the sou# <ets- connected with him who .erforms the act of
<eneration=
Retah1 one who e0ects the semina# f#uidC )o<a1 connection withC Atha1
then afterwards=
The discussion on the way of descent of the sou# is continued= Bhat becomes
of the sou# after its c#in<in< to the .#ants is now mentioned=
!hhando<ya te>t +(=*8=5=- dec#ares Jor whoever eats the food and .erforms
the act of <eneration, that a<ain he +the sou#- becomesJ= %ere a<ain the sou#Is
Hbecomin<I, i=e=, he who .erforms the act of <eneration cannot be taken in its
#itera# sense, because a man is ab#e to .rocreate when he attains .uberty= Be
have to understand that the sou# <ets connected with one who .erforms the act of
<eneration= Be a<ain infer from this that the sou#Is becomin< a .#ant mere#y
means its enterin< into connection with the .#ant and not actua# birth as such=
The sou# after havin< entered into a corn or a .#ant becomes connected to
him who eats the corn or the fruit and .erforms the act of co.u#ation= In every
sta<e of its .assa<e it retains its distinctive identity from the bodies with which it
may be connected=
Bhenever one eats the food, whenever one .erforms the act of coition, the
descendin< sou# becomes a<ain that food and that semen= The sou# remains in him
in co.u#ation on#y ti## he enters into the motherIs womb, with the semen in0ected=
%e has a touch with the semina# f#uid created by eatin< such <rain and u#timate#y
attains a body in wombs= The sou# does not rea##y take the form of and become
identica# with its .rocreator, because one thin< cannot take the form of another
thin<= If it were to become #itera##y the .rocreator, then there wou#d be no
.ossibi#ity of the sou#Is <ettin< another body=
)oneh sariram III=*=27 +,*9-
rom the womb a +new- body +s.rin<s-=
)oneh1 from the wombC Sariram1 the body=
The discussion on the nature of the descent of the sou# is conc#uded here=
After havin< .assed throu<h the various .recedin< sta<es, the sou# at #ast
enters into the womb of the mother= %e attains a fu##y deve#o.ed human body in
the womb of the mother which is fit for e>.eriencin< the fruits of the remainder of
works= The fami#y in which it is to be born is re<u#ated by the nature of this
remainder as mentioned in !hh= ?.= (=*8=7= JOf these, those whose conduct here
has been <ood wi## @uick#y attain some <ood birth, the birth of a Brahmana, or a
;shatriya or a (aisya= But those whose conduct here has been bad wi## @uick#y
attain an evi# birth, the birth of a do<, or a !handa#aJ=
Thus it has been c#ear#y shown that the sou# becomes .#ant, etc=, in the same
sense as it becomes ether, etc=
The who#e ob0ect of teachin< this #aw of incarnation is that you shou#d rea#ise
that the Atman or the Abso#ute a#one is the %i<hest B#iss= This Atman a#one must
be your so#e ob0ect of @uest= )ou shou#d <et dis<usted with this wor#d of .ain and
sorrow and deve#o. dis.assion and discrimination and try earnest#y to attain the
Eterna# B#iss of the Abso#ute=
O i<norant manD O foo#ish manD O miserab#e manD O de#uded sou#D Bake u.
from your #on< s#umber of i<norance= O.en your eyes= Deve#o. the four means of
sa#vation and attain the <oa# of #ife, the summum bonum, ri<ht now in this very
birth= !ome out of this ca<e of f#esh= )ou have been #on< im.risoned in this
.risonhouse of body for time immemoria#= )ou have been dwe##in< in the womb
a<ain and a<ain= !ut the knot of Avidya and soar hi<h in the rea#ms of Eterna#
B#iss=
Thus ends the irst $ada +Section *- of the Third Adhyaya +!ha.ter III- of the
Brahma Sutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
SE!TIO" 2
Introduction
In the .recedin< $ada or Section the .assa<e of the sou# to different s.heres
and its return has been e>.#ained in order to create dis.assion or dis<ust in .eo.#e
who .erform sacrifices to obtain heaven= If they have a c#ear understandin< of the
fate of the sou# they wi## natura##y deve#o. (aira<ya and wi## strive to attain
'oksha or the fina# emanci.ation=
This section starts with the e>.#anation of the sou#Is different states, viG=,
wakin<, dream, dee. s#ee.= The three states of the sou# wi## be shown to be
mere#y i##usory and the identity of the individua# sou# and the Su.reme Sou# wi## be
estab#ished=
A know#ed<e of the three states, viG=, wakin<, dreamin< and dee. s#ee., is
very necessary for the students of (edanta= It wi## he#. them to understand the
nature of the fourth state, viG=, Turiya or the state of su.erconsciousness= or a
student of (edanta, the wakin< state is as much unrea# as the dream state= The
state of dee. s#ee. intimates that the nature of the Su.reme Sou# is B#iss and that
Brahman is one without a second, and that the wor#d is unrea#= (edantins make a
study of the four states very carefu##y= They do not i<nore dream and dee. s#ee.
states whereas the scientists draw their conc#usions from the e>.eriences of the
wakin< state on#y= %ence, their know#ed<e is #imited, .artia# and incorrect=
In the #ast section the wakin< state of the sou# has been fu##y dea#t with= "ow
its dream state is taken u. for discussion=
In order to make the students understand the true si<nificance of the 'aha&
(akya or the <reat sentence of the ?.anishad JTat Tvam Asi & Thou art ThatJ, this
section e>.#ains the true nature of JThatJ and JThouJ=
Syno.sis
This Section starts with the e>.#anation of the states of dream, dee. s#ee.
and so on= Then it discusses the twofo#d nature of Brahman, one immanent and
the other transcendent= Last#y it dea#s with the re#ation of Brahman to the
individua# sou# as we## as to the wor#d=
Adhikarana I1 +Sutras *&5- treats of the sou# in the dreamin< state= The vision
in dreams is of a wonderfu# character= Accordin< to Sri Sankara the three first
Sutras discuss the @uestion whether the creative activity, attributed to the /iva or
the individua# sou# in some Sruti te>ts .roduces ob0ects as rea# as those by which
the sou# in the wakin< state is surrounded or not=
Sutra , says that the creations of the dreamin< sou# are mere J'ayaJ or
i##usion as they do not fu##y e>hibit the nature or character of rea# ob0ects, as they
are wantin< in the rea#ity of the wakin< state=
Sutra 3 intimates that dreams, a#thou<h mere 'aya, yet have a .ro.hetic
@ua#ity= Some dreams are indicative of future <ood or bad=
Sutras 4 and 5 say that the sou#, a#thou<h it is identica# with the Lord, is not
ab#e to .roduce in dreams a rea# creation, because its know#ed<e and .ower are
obscured by its connection with the <ross body= The ru#ershi. is hidden by
i<norance in the /iva state= It is not .ossib#e for the individua# sou# to dream a
<ood or a bad dream accordin< to his own choice as he in his .resent state of
bonda<e is i<norant of the future=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutras 7&9- teaches that the sou# abides within Brahman in
the heart in the state of dee. s#ee.=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutra 6- <ives reasons to assume that the sou# awakenin<
from s#ee. is the same that went to s#ee.= Bhat has been .art#y done by a .erson
before <oin< to s#ee. is finished after he wakes u.= %e has a#so a sense of se#fidentity=
%e has memory of .ast events= %e has memory in the sha.e of HI am the
.erson who had <one to s#ee. and who have now awakened=I
Adhikarana I(1 +Sutra *8- e>.#ains the nature of a swoon= It intimates that
swoon is ha#f death and ha#f dee. s#ee., a mi>ture of these two states=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutras **&2*- intimate the nature of Su.reme Brahman in
which the individua# sou# is mer<ed in the state of dee. s#ee.=
Sutra ** dec#ares that Brahman is devoid of distinctive attributes
+"irvisesha-= Brahman with attributes is on#y for the sake of ?.asana or .ious
worshi. of devotees= It is not its rea# nature=
Sutra *2 dec#ares that every form due to #imitin< ad0unct is denied of
Brahman= In every .assa<e of Sruti identity is affirmed= The Su.reme Truth is
Oneness= Se.arateness is for devotion= There is on#y one Infinite form#ess essence
or $rinci.#e in rea#ity=
Sutra *, says that the who#e universe characterised by en0oyers, thin<s to be
en0oyed and a ru#er has Brahman for its true nature=
Sutra *3 says that the assum.tion of diversity or .#ura#ity is ob0ectionab#e=
Brahman is destitute of a## forms=
Sutra *4 says Brahman a..ears to have forms, as it were= This is due to its
connection with its unrea# #imitin< ad0uncts, 0ust as the #i<ht of the sun a..ears
strai<ht or crooked, as it were, accordin< to the nature of the thin< it i##umines=
Sutra *5 says that the Sruti +Brihadaranyaka- e>.ress#y dec#ares that
Brahman is one uniform mass of consciousness or inte##i<ence and has neither
inside nor outside=
Sutra *7 says the other scri.tura# .assa<es and the Smriti a#so teach that
Brahman is without attributes=
Sutra *9 dec#ares that 0ust as the one #uminous sun when enterin< into
re#ation to many different waters is himse#f rendered mu#tiform by his #imitin<
ad0uncts, so a#so the one ?nborn Brahman=
Sutra *61 %ere the $urva.akshin ob0ects= There is no simi#arity of the two
thin<s com.ared as in the case of Brahman any second thin< is not a..rehended
or e>.erienced #ike water= Brahman is form#ess and a##&.ervadin<= It is not a
materia# thin<= Sun has a form= It is a materia# thin<= Bater is different from the
sun and is at a distance from the sun= %ence the sun may be ref#ected in the
water=
Sutra 281 The ob0ection raised in Sutra *6 is refuted= The simi#arity is on#y in
.oint of the .artici.ation in the distortion and contortion, in increase and decrease
of the ima<e ref#ected= Brahman .artici.ates as it were in the attributes and states
of the body and other #imitin< ad0uncts with which it abides= Two thin<s are
com.ared with reference to some .articu#ar .oints or features on#y=
Sutra 2* says the scri.tures dec#are that the Atman is within the ?.adhis or
#imitin< ad0uncts=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutras 22&,8- teaches that the c#ause Jneti, neti & not this,
not thisJ in Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad II=,=5 denies the <ross and subt#e forms of
Brahman <iven in Bri= ?.= II=,=* and not Brahman itse#f=
Sutras 2,&25 further dwe## on Brahman bein< in rea#ity devoid of a##
distinctive attributes which are entire#y due to the #imitin< ad0uncts or ?.adhis=
Sutras 27&291 e>.ress the views of the Bhedabhedavadins= They say there is
difference as we## as non&difference between the individua# sou# and Brahman= The
se.arateness and oneness is #ike a ser.ent in @uiescence and motion=
Sutra 261 This Sutra refutes the view of the Bhedabhedavadins and
estab#ishes the fina# truth which has been dec#ared in Sutra 24 viG=, that the
difference is mere#y i##usory due to fictitious #imitin< ad0uncts and identity or nondifference
is the rea#ity=
Sutra ,81 Sutra 26 is confirmed= The Sruti in fact e>.ress#y denies
se.arateness=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutras ,*&,7- e>.#ains that Brahman is one without a
second and e>.ressions which a..arent#y im.#y somethin< e#se as e>istin< are
on#y meta.horica#=
Brahman is com.ared to a brid<e or a bank or causeway not to indicate that
%e connects the wor#d with somethin< e#se beyond %im but to show that %e is the
.rotector of the wor#ds and is a#so #ike a causeway, the su..ort of the individua#s
whi#e crossin< over this ocean of #ife=
%e is conceived to be symbo#ised and #ocated in a #imited s.ace for faci#ity of
meditation on the .art of those who are not very inte##i<ent=
Adhikarana (III1 +Sutras ,9&3*- intimates that the fruit of actions is not as
/aimini thinks, the inde.endent resu#t of actions actin< throu<h A.urva, but is
dis.ensed by the Lord= The Lord who is a##&.ervadin< is the bestower of fruits of
actions, accordin< to merits and demerits=
Sandhyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&5-
The sou# in the dream state
Sandhye srishtiraha hi III=2=* +,*6-
In the intermediate sta<e +between wakin< and dee. s#ee.- there
is +a rea#- creationC because +the Sruti- says so=
Sandhye1 in the intermediate sta<e +between wakin< and dee. s#ee., i=e=,
in the dream state-C Srishtih1 +there is rea#- creationC Aha1 +Sruti- says soC %i1
because=
The state of dream is now considered=
Sutras * and 2 are $urva.aksha Sutras and set out the view that what we
see in dreams are true creations because of the word HSri0ateI +creates-=
The word HSandhyaI means dream= It is ca##ed HSandhyaI or the intermediate
state because it is midway between wakin< +/a<rat- and the dee. s#ee. state
+Sushu.ti-= That .#ace is ca##ed the intermediate state or .#ace because it #ies
there where the two wor#ds or e#se the .#ace of wakin< and the .#ace of dee. s#ee.
0oin=
Scri.ture dec#ares, Jwhen he fa##s as#ee., there are no chariots, in that state,
no horses, no roads, but he himse#f creates chariots, horses and roads, etc=J +Bri=
?.= I(=,=6&*8-= %ere a doubt arises whether the creation which takes .#ace in
dreams is a rea# one +$aramarthika- #ike the creation seen in the wakin< state or
whether it is i##usory +'aya-=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds that in the dreamin< state there is a rea# creation=
In that intermediate state or dream the creation must be rea#, because
scri.ture which is authoritative dec#ares it to be so, J%e +the individua# sou#-
creates chariots, horses, roads,J etc= Be, moreover, infer this from the conc#udin<
c#ause, J%e indeed is the creatorJ +Bri= ?.= I(=,=*8-=
urther there is no difference between the e>.erience of the wakin< state and
that of the dream state= Atman in dream <ets .#easure by <oin< in a car, hearin<
music, seein< .#easure&si<hts and eatin< sum.tuous food even as in the wakin<
state=
%ence the creation of the dream state is rea# and ori<inates from the Lord
%imse#f, 0ust as ether, etc=, s.ran< from %im=
"irmataram chaike .utradayascha III=2=2 +,28-
And some +the fo##owers of one Sakha, name#y, the ;athakas-
+state that the Su.reme Lord is the- !reatorC sons, etc=, +bein< the
#ove#y thin<s which %e creates-=
"irmataram1 !reator, the sha.er, the bui#der, the makerC !ha1 and,
moreoverC Eke1 some +fo##owers of the .articu#ar Sakhas of the (edas-C
$utradayah1 sons, etc=C !ha1 and, a#so=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent <ives a further ar<ument to show that the
creation even in dreams is by the Lord %imse#f= J%e who is awake in us whi#e we
are as#ee., sha.in< one #ove#y thin< after another, that is BrahmanJ +;atha ?.=
II=2= 9-=
H;amaI +#ove#y thin<s- in this .assa<e means sons, etc=, that are so ca##ed
because they are be#oved= The term H;amaI does not denote mere desires= It is
used in this sense in the .revious .assa<e a#so, such as JAsk for a## ;amas
accordin< to thy wishJ +;atha ?.= I=*=24-= That the word ;ama there means sons,
etc=, we infer from ;atha ?.= I=*=2,, where we find these ;amas described as
sons and <randsons, etc=
Even in dreams the Lord %imse#f creates 0ust as in the case of the wakin<
state= Therefore the wor#d of dreams is a#so rea#=
The scri.ture dec#ares JThis is the same as the .#ace of wakin<, for what he
sees whi#e awake the same he sees whi#e as#ee.J +Bri= ?.= I(=,=*3-= %ence the
wor#d of dreams is rea#=
To this we re.#y as fo##ows=
'ayamatram tu kartsnyenanabhivyaktasvaru.atvat III=2=, +,2*-
But it +viG=, the dream wor#d- is mere i##usion on account of its
nature not manifestin< itse#f with the tota#ity +of the attributes of
rea#ity-=
'ayamatram1 mere i##usionC Tu1 butC ;artsnyena1 entire#y, fu##yC
Anabhivyaktasvaru.atvat1 on account of its nature bein< unmanifested=
The thesis adduced in Sutras * and 2 is now criticised=
The word HtuI +but-, discards the view e>.ressed by the two .revious Sutras=
The wor#d of dreams is not rea#= It is mere i##usion= There is not a .artic#e of rea#ity
in it= The nature of the dreamwor#d does not a<ree entire#y with that of the wakin<
wor#d with res.ect to time, .#ace, cause and the circumstance of non&refutation=
%ence the dream wor#d is not rea# #ike the wakin< wor#d=
In the first .#ace there is in a dream no s.ace for chariots and the #ike,
because those ob0ects cannot .ossib#y find room in the #imited confines of the
body= If you say that the sou# <oes out and en0oys ob0ects, how can it <o
hundreds of mi#es and return within a few minutesL
In a dream the sou# does not #eave the bodyC because if it did, then one who
dreams of havin< <one to London wou#d find himse#f there on wakin<, whi#e he
went to s#ee. in Bombay= But as a matter of fact, he awakes in Bombay on#y=
urther whi#e a man ima<ines himse#f in his dream <oin< in his body to
another .#ace, the by&standers see the very same body #yin< on the cot=
'oreover a dreamin< .erson does not see in his dream other .#aces such as
they rea##y are= But if he in seein< them did actua##y <o about, they wou#d a..ear
to him #ike the thin<s he sees in his wakin< state=
Sruti dec#ares that the dream is within the body, JBut when he moves about
in dream, he moves about accordin< to his .#easure within his own bodyJ +Bri= ?.=
II=*=*9-=
In the second .#ace we notice that dreams are in conf#ict with the conditions
of time= One man who is s#ee.in< at ni<ht dreams that it is day= Another man #ives
durin< a dream which #asts for ten minutes on#y, throu<h fifty years= One man
sees at ni<ht an ec#i.se of the sun in his dream=
In the third .#ace, the senses which a#one can brin< the sensation of si<ht
etc=, are not functionin< in dream= The or<ans are drawn inward and the dreamin<
.erson has no eyes to see chariots and other thin<s= %ow can he <et in the
twink#in< of an eye materia#s for makin< chariots and the #ikeL
In the fourth .#ace the chariots etc=, disa..ear on wakin<= The chariots etc=,
disa..ear even in the course of the dream= The dream itse#f refutes what it
creates, as its end contradicts its be<innin<= The chariot is sudden#y transferred
into a man, and a man into a tree=
Scri.ture itse#f c#ear#y says that the chariots, etc=, of a dream have no rea#
e>istence= JThere are no chariots in that state, no horses, no roads, etc=J
%ence the visions in a dream are mere i##usion=
The ar<ument that the dream wor#d is rea#, because it is a#so a creation of the
Su.reme Lord #ike this wakin< wor#d is not true, because the dream wor#d is not
the creation of the Lord, but of the individua# sou#= The Sruti dec#ares JBhen he
dreams he himse#f .uts the .hysica# body aside and himse#f creates a dream body
in its .#aceJ +Bri= ?.= I(=,=6=- This .assa<e of the Sruti c#ear#y .roves that it is the
individua# sou# who creates the dream wor#d and not the Lord=
Suchakascha hi sruterachakshate cha tadvidah III=2=3 +,22-
But +thou<h the dream wor#d is an i##usion-, yet it is indicative
+of the future-, for +so we find- in the Sruti, the dream e>.erts
a#so dec#are this=
Suchaka1 Indicative, su<<estiveC !ha1 moreover, andC %i1 because, as forC
Sruteh1 from the SrutiC Achakshate1 say, affirmC !ha1 a#soC Tadvidah1
dreame>.erts, those who know the secrets of dream=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra , is <iven=
The word HTadvidI or e>.ert means those who know how to inter.ret dreams
such as (yasa, Brihas.ati, and the rest=
Be## then, as dreams are mere i##usion, they do not contain a .artic#e of
rea#ityL "ot so we re.#y1 because dreams are .ro.hetic of future <ood and bad
fortune= or scri.ture says JBhen a man en<a<ed in some sacrifice undertaken for
a s.ecia# wish sees in his dreams a woman, he may infer success from that dreamvisionJ
+!hh= ?.= (=2=9-= Other scri.tura# .assa<es dec#are that certain dreams
indicate s.eedy death, e=<=, JIf he sees a b#ack man with b#ack teeth, that man
wi## ki## him=J
Those who understand the science of dreams maintain that Jto dream of
ridin< on an e#e.hant and the #ike is #ucky whi#e it is un#ucky to dream of ridin< on
a donkey=J JBhatever a Brahmin or a <od, a bu## or a kin< may te## a .erson in
dream, wi## doubt#ess .rove true=J
Sometimes one <ets 'antras in dream= Lord Siva tau<ht (isvamitra in dream
the 'antra ca##ed Ramaraksha= (isvamitra e>act#y wrote it out in the mornin<,
when he awoke from s#ee.=
In a## these cases the thin< indicated may be rea#= The indicatin< dream
however, remains unrea# as it is refuted by the wakin< state= The doctrine that the
dream itse#f is mere i##usion thus remains uncontradicted=
The word HcreationI in dream in the first Sutra is used in a secondary and
fi<urative sense= The sou#Is <ood and bad deeds brin< about .#easure and .ain
en0oyed durin< dream, by means of dream&e>.eriences= In the wakin< state the
#i<ht of the sou# o.erates a#on< with the #i<ht of the sun to brin< about
e>.eriences= The dream state is referred to, to show the se#f&activity of the sou#
even after the senses are shut off and there is no o.eration of e>terna# #i<ht= It is
this fact that is the .rimary teachin<= The reference to creation in dreams is
secondary=
The wor#d of dreams is not rea# in the same sense as the wor#d consistin< of
ether is rea#= Be must remember that the so&ca##ed rea# creation with its ether,
air, etc=, is not abso#ute#y rea#= The wor#d of ether, etc=, vanishes into nothin<
when the individua# sou# rea#ises its identity with the Su.reme Sou#=
The dream&creation, however, is stu#tified every day= That the dream is mere
i##usion has therefore to be understood very c#ear#y and decisive#y=
$arabhidhyanattu tirohitam tato hyasya
bandhavi.aryayau III=2=4 +,2,-
But by the meditation on the Su.reme Lord, that which is hidden
+by i<norance, viG=, the e@ua#ity of the Lord and the sou# becomes
manifest-, because from him +the Lord- are its +the sou#Is- bonda<e
and freedom=
$arabhidhyanat1 by meditation on the Su.reme LordC Tu1 butC Tirohitam1
that which is hiddenC Tatah1 from %im+the Lord-C %i1 forC Asya1 his, of the
individua# sou#= Bandhavi.aryayau1 bonda<e and its o..osite, i=e=, freedom=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent says1 The individua# sou# is a .art +Amsa-
of the Su.reme Sou#, 0ust as a s.ark is a .art of the fire= /ust as fire and s.ark
have in common the .owers of burnin< and <ivin< #i<ht, so a#so the individua# sou#
and the Lord have in common the .owers of know#ed<e and ru#ershi.= Therefore
the individua# sou# may by means of his #ordshi. create in the dreamin< state
chariots and the #ike at wi## +Sanka#.a- #ike the Lord=
This Sutra refutes it and says that the sou# now is different from the Lord on
account of Avidya or i<norance= The ru#ershi. is hidden by i<norance in the /iva
state= It becomes manifest on#y when in the state of meditation on the Lord= This
i<norance is dis.e##ed by the know#ed<e, JI am BrahmanJ, 0ust as throu<h the
action of a stron< medicine the .ower of si<ht of the b#ind man becomes manifest=
The Sruti dec#ares Jwhen that :od is known a## fetters fa## offC sufferin<s are
destroyed and birth and death cease= rom meditatin< on %im there arises on the
disso#ution of the body, a third state, that of universa# Lordshi.C he who is a#one is
satisfiedJ +Svet= ?.= I=**-= Ti## the know#ed<e dawns the individua# sou# cannot
create at wi## anythin< rea#=
Lordshi. does not come to man s.ontaneous#y= It does not on its own accord
revea# itse#f to a## men, as the bonda<e and freedom of the individua# sou# come
from the Lord= That means1 from know#ed<e of LordIs true nature, i=e=, from
rea#isation of :od freedom comesC from i<norance of %is true nature comes
bonda<e= Ti## such rea#isation comes, where is then any .ower of creationL
Dehayo<adva soI.i III=2=5 +,23-
And that +viG=, the concea#ment of the sou#Is ru#ershi.- a#so
+resu#ts- from its connection with the body=
Dehayo<at1 from its connection with the bodyC (a1 and, orC Sah1 that +the
concea#ment of the sou#Is ru#ershi.-C A.i1 a#so=
Sutra 4 is am.#ified here=
Such hidin< of .ower is due to embodiment of the sou#= The state of
concea#ment of the sou#Is know#ed<e and Lordshi. is due to its bein< 0oined to a
body, i=e=, to a body, sense&or<ans, mind, inte##ect, sense&ob0ects, sensations,
etc=, on account of i<norance= /ust as fire is hidden in wood or ashes, the
know#ed<e and .ower of the sou# are hidden, thou<h the /iva is rea##y the
Su.reme Lord= %ence the sou# does not itse#f create= If it can, it wi## never create
un.#easant dreams= "o one ever wishes for somethin< un.#easant to himse#f=
The sou#Is know#ed<e and Lordshi. remain hidden as #on< as he erroneous#y
thinks himse#f as the body, etc=, as #on< as he is under the wron< notion of not
bein< distinct from those #imitin< ad0uncts=
Sruti dec#ares that the sou# is non&different from the Lord= JIt is True, it is the
Se#f, Thou art That, O SvetaketuDJ But its know#ed<e and .ower are obscured by
its connection with the body=
Thou<h the dream&.henomena are #ike wakin< .henomena in their havin<
re#ative rea#ity= The Sruti itse#f dec#ares that they do not rea##y e>ist= As the
dreams are due to (asanas ac@uired durin< the wakin< state, the simi#arity
between the dream state and the wakin< state is dec#ared=
rom a## this it fo##ows that dreams are mere i##usion= They are fa#se=
Tadabhavadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras 7&9-
The sou# in dream#ess s#ee.
Tadabhavo nadishu tat sruteh atmani cha III=2=7 +,24-
The absence of that +i=e=, of dreams, i=e=, dream#ess s#ee.-
takes .#ace in the nerves +"adis or .sychic currents- and in the
se#f, as it is known from the Sruti or scri.tura# statement=
Tadabhavah1 absence of that +dreamin<- i=e=, dee. s#ee.C "adishu1 in the
nerves +.sychic currents-C Tat sruteh1 as it is known from the SrutisC Atmani1 in
the se#fC !ha1 and, a#so= +Tat1 about it=-
The state of dream#ess dee. s#ee. is now discussed=
The state of dream has been discussed= Be are now <oin< to en@uire into the
state of dee. s#ee. +Sushu.ti-=
(arious Sruti te>ts describe the sou# as restin< in dee. s#ee. in nerves
+"adis-, in $rana, in the heart, in itse#f, in Brahman or the Abso#ute=
In different Sruti .assa<es dee. s#ee. is said to take .#ace under different
conditions=
JBhen a man is as#ee. re.osin< and at .erfect rest so that he sees no
dreams, then he has entered into these "adis +nerves-J +!hh= ?.= (III=5=,-= In
another .#ace it is said with reference to the "adis, JThrou<h them he moves forth
and rests in the re<ion of the heartJ +Bri= ?.= II=*=*6-= In another .#ace it is said
JIn these the .erson is when s#ee.in<, he sees no dream= Then he becomes one
with the $rana a#oneJ +;au= ?.= I(=*6-= In another .#ace it is said JThat ether
which is within the heart in that he re.osesJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=22-= In !hhando<ya
?.anishad it is said, JThen he becomes united with that which is, he is <one to his
se#fJ +!hh= ?.= (I=9=*-= In Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad it is said JEmbraced by the
hi<hest Se#f he knows nothin< that is without, nothin< that is withinJ +Bri= ?.=
I(=,=2*-= JBhen this bein< fu## of consciousness is as#ee.=== #ies in the ether, i=e=,
the rea# se#f which is in the heartJ +Bri= ?.= II=*=*7-=
%ere the doubt arises whether the "adis, etc=, mentioned in the above
.assa<es are inde.endent from each other and constitute various .#aces for the
sou# in the state of dee. s#ee. or if they stand in mutua# re#ation so as to refer to
one .#ace on#y=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent ho#ds the former views on account of the
various .#aces mentioned servin< one and the same .ur.ose= Thin<s which serve
the same .ur.ose, e=<=, rice and bar#ey do not de.end on each other= As a## the
words which stand for the .#aces enumerated are in the same case, viG=, the
#ocative case in the te>ts, they are coordinate and therefore a#ternatives= If mutua#
re#ation was meant then different case&endin<s wou#d be used by the Sruti= %ence
we conc#ude that in the state of dee. s#ee. the sou# o.tiona##y <oes to any one of
those .#aces, either the "adis, or that which is, the $rana, the heart, etc=
The Sutra refutes the view of the $urva.akshin and says that they are to be
taken as standin< in mutua# re#ation indicatin< the same .#ace= The view that the
sou# <oes to one or another of these is not correct= The truth is that the sou# <oes
throu<h the nerves to the re<ion of the heart and there rests in Brahman=
There is no a#ternative here= The assertion made above that we are
com.e##ed to a##ow o.tion because the "adis, etc=, serve one and the same
.ur.ose is without foundation= The authority of the Srutis is weakened if we a##ow
o.tion between two statements of the Sruti= If you reco<nise one a#ternative, the
authority of the other a#ternative is denied=
urther the same case is used where thin<s serve different .ur.oses and
have to be combined= Be say, e=<=, Jhe s#ee.s in the .a#ace, he s#ee.s on a cot=J
Be have to combine the two #ocatives into one as J%e s#ee.s on a cot in the
.a#ace=J Even so the different statements have to be combined into one= JThe sou#
<oes throu<h the "adis to the re<ion of the heart and then rests in Brahman=J /ust
as a man <oes a#on< the :an<a to the sea so a#so the sou# <oes throu<h the "adis
to Brahman= So he attains Svaru.a=
Scri.ture mentions on#y three .#aces of dee. s#ee., viG=, the "adis, the
.ericardium and Brahman= Amon< these three a<ain Brahman a#one is the #astin<
.#ace of dee. s#ee.= The "adis and the .ericardium, are mere roads #eadin< to it=
The H$uritatI or .ericardium is the coverin< which surrounds the #otus of the heart=
In dee. s#ee. the individua# sou# rests in Brahman, but there is a thin vei# of
i<norance between him and the Su.reme Sou#= %ence he has no direct know#ed<e
of his identity with the Su.reme Sou#, as in "irvika#.a Samadhi or su.erconscious
state= The Sruti dec#ares J%e becomes united with the True, he is <one to his own
+Se#f-J +!hh= ?.= (I=9-=
In the ;aushitaki ?.anishad +I(=*6- the three .#aces are mentioned to<ether1
JIn these the .erson is when s#ee.in< he sees no dreams= Then he becomes one
with the $rana +Brahman- a#oneJ=
Therefore Brahman is the restin< .#ace of the sou# in dee. s#ee.=
Atah .rabodhoIsmat III=2=9 +,25-
%ence the wakin< from that +viG=, Brahman-=
Atah1 henceC $rabodhah1 wakin<C Asmat1 from this +i=e=, Brahman-=
The mode of wakin< from dee. s#ee. is now described=
Therefore wakin< is comin< from that state of union with Brahman or Atman=
Brahman is the .#ace of re.ose of dee. s#ee.= That is the reason why the
Sruti te>ts which treat of dee. s#ee. invariab#y teach that in the wakin< state the
individua# sou# returns to wakin< consciousness from Brahman= The Sruti dec#ares
JIn the same manner, my chi#d, a## these creatures when they have come back
from the True do not know that they have come back from the TrueJ +!hh= ?.=
(I=*8=2-= This Sruti .assa<e c#ear#y intimates that the /iva or the individua# sou#
returns from the True or Brahman to the wakin< state and that the /iva rests or
mer<es himse#f in Brahman and not in the "adis, %ita, etc=, durin< dee. s#ee.= But
he does not rea#ise his identity with Brahman in dee. s#ee. as he is enve#o.ed by
the evi# of i<norance=
Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad a#so dec#ares JBhen the time comes for the
answer to the @uestion Hwhence did he come backILJ +II=*=*5-C the te>t says, JAs
sma## s.arks come forth from fire, thus a## $ranas come forth from that Se#fJ
+II=*=28-=
If there were o.tiona# .#aces, to which the sou# may resort, in dee. s#ee., the
Sruti wou#d teach us that it awakes sometimes from the "adis, sometimes from
the .ericardium +$uritat-, sometimes from the Se#f +Brahman-=
or this reason a#so Brahman is the .#ace of dee. s#ee.= The "adis are on#y
the <ateway to Brahman=
;armanusmritisabdavidhyadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutra 6-
The same sou# returns from dee. s#ee.
Sa eva tu karmanusmritisabdavidhibhyah III=2=6 +,27-
But the same +sou# returns from Brahman after dee. s#ee.- on
account of work, remembrance, scri.tura# te>t and .rece.t=
Sah eva1 the se#fsame sou# +which went to s#ee.-C Tu1 butC
;armanusmritisabdavidhibhyah1 on account of ;arma or work, memory,
scri.tura# authority and .rece.tC +Sah1 heC Eva1 on#y, and no other-C ;arma1
activity, on account of his finishin< the action #eft unfinishedC Anusmriti1
remembrance, on account of memory of identityC Sabda1 from the SrutiC
(idhibhyah1 from the commandments=
%ere we have to en@uire whether the sou# when awakin< from dee. s#ee. is
the same which entered into union with Brahman or another one=
The word HtuI +but- removes the doubt=
If another se#f arose from s#ee., the consciousness of .ersona# identity
+Atmanusmarana- e>.ressed in the words JI am the same as I was beforeJ wou#d
not be .ossib#e=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent ho#ds that there is no fi>ed ru#e on this
.oint= There can be no ru#e that the same sou# arises from Brahman= Bhen a dro.
of water is .oured into a bi< basin of water, it becomes one with the #atter= Bhen
we a<ain take out a dro. it wi## be difficu#t to mana<e that it shou#d be the very
same dro.= It is hard to .ick it out a<ain= Even so when the individua# sou# has
mer<ed in Brahman in dee. s#ee. it is difficu#t to say that the se#f&same /iva arises
from Brahman after dee. s#ee.= %ence some other sou# arises after dee. s#ee.
from Brahman=
This Sutra refutes this and says that the same sou# which in the state of dee.
s#ee. entered Brahman a<ain arises from Brahman, after dee. s#ee., not any
other for the fo##owin< reasons=
The .erson who wakes from s#ee. must be the same because what has been
.art#y done by a .erson before <oin< to s#ee. is finished after he wakes u.= 'en
finish in the mornin< what they had #eft incom.#ete on the day before= It is not
.ossib#e that one man shou#d .roceed to com.#ete a work ha#f done by another
man= If it were not the same sou#, then the #atter wou#d find no interest in
com.#etin< the work which has been .art#y done by another= In the case of
sacrifices occu.yin< more than one day, there wou#d be severa# sacrifices= %ence it
wou#d be doubtfu# to whom the fruit of the sacrifice as .romised by the (eda
be#on<s= This wou#d brin< stu#tification of the sacred te>t= Therefore it is @uite
c#ear that it is one and the same man who finishes on the #atter day the work
be<un on the former=
%e has a#so a sense of se#f&identity= %e e>.eriences identity of .ersona#ity
before and after s#ee., for if s#ee. #eads to #iberation by union with Brahman, s#ee.
wi## become the means of #iberation= Then scri.tura# instructions wou#d be use#ess
to attain sa#vation= If the .erson who <oes to s#ee. is different from the .erson
who rises after s#ee., then the commandments of the scri.tures with reference to
work or know#ed<e wou#d be meanin<#ess or use#ess=
The .erson risin< from s#ee. is the same who went to s#ee.= If it is not so he
cou#d not remember what he had seen, etc=, on the day before, because what one
man sees another cannot remember= %e has memory of .ast events= One cannot
remember what another fe#t= %e has memory or reco##ection in the sha.e of JI am
the .erson who had <one to s#ee. and who have now awakened=J
The Sruti te>ts dec#are that the same .erson rises a<ain= J%e hastens back
a<ain as he came to the .#ace from which he started, to be awakeJ +Bri= ?.=
I(=,=*5-= JA## these creatures <o day after day into Brahman and yet do not
discover %imJ +!hh= ?.= (III=,=2-= JBhatever these creatures are here whether a
ti<er, or a #ion, or a wo#f, or a boar, or a worm, or a mid<e or a <nat, or a
mos@uito, that they become a<ainJ +!hh= ?.= (I=*8=2-= These and simi#ar te>ts
which a..ear in the cha.ters which dea# with s#ee.in< and wakin< have a .ro.er
sense on#y if the se#f&same sou# rises a<ain=
'oreover, if it is not the same sou#, ;arma and Avidya wi## have no .ur.ose=
Therefore from a## this it fo##ows that the .erson risin< from s#ee. is the same
that went to s#ee.=
The case of the dro. of water is not @uite ana#o<ous, because a dro. of water
mer<es in the basin of water without any ad0uncts= Therefore it is #ost for ever but
the individua# sou# mer<es in Brahman with its ad0uncts +viG=, body, mind,
inte##ect, $rana, sense-= So the same /iva rises a<ain from Brahman on account of
the force of ;arma and desire=
Bhen the individua# sou# enters Brahman in dee. s#ee., he enters #ike a .ot
fu## of sa#t water with covered mouth .#un<ed into the :an<a= Bhen he awakens
from s#ee. it is the same .ot taken out of the river with the same water in it=
Simi#ar#y the individua# sou# enve#o.ed by his desires <oes to s#ee. and for the
time bein< .uts off a## sense&activities and <oes to the restin< .#ace name#y, the
Su.reme Brahman and a<ain comes out of it in order to <et further e>.eriences=
%e does not become identica# with Brahman #ike the .erson who has obtained
#iberation= Thus we hear that the same sou# which had <one to s#ee. awakes a<ain
into the same body=
%ence it is an estab#ished fact that the same sou# awakes from dee. s#ee.=
'u<dheIrdhasam.attyadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra *8-
The nature of swoon
'u<dheIrddhasam.attih .ariseshat III=2=*8 +,29-
In a swoon +in him who is sense#ess- there is ha#f union on
account of this remainin< +as the on#y a#ternative #eft, as the on#y
.ossib#e hy.othesis-=
'u<dhe1 in a swoonC Ardhasam.attih1 .artia# attainment of the state of
dee. s#ee. or deathC $ariseshat1 on account of the remainin<, because of e>cess,
as it is a state in addition to a## others=
The state of a swoon is now discussed=
The $urva.akshin says, JThere are on#y three states of a sou# whi#e #ivin< in
the body, viG=, wakin<, dreamin< and dee. s#ee.= The sou#Is .assin< out of the
body is the fourth state or death= The state of swoon cannot be taken as a fifth
state= A fifth state is known neither from Sruti nor Smriti=J
Bhat is swoon thenL Is it a se.arate state of the sou# or is it on#y one of
these statesL
It cannot be wakin<, because he does not .erceive e>terna# ob0ects, by the
senses=
'ay this case be simi#ar to that of the arrow&makerL /ust as the man workin<
in the .re.aration of an arrow, a#thou<h awake, is so absorbed in his work that he
.erceives nothin< e#se, so a#so the man who is stunned by a b#ow may be awake
but may not .erceive anythin< e#se as his mind is concentrated on the sensation
of .ain caused by the b#ow of a stick=
"o, we re.#y= The case is different owin< to the absence of consciousness= The
arrow maker says, JI was not conscious of anythin< but the arrow for such a
#en<th of time=J The man who returns to consciousness from a swoon says, JI was
conscious of nothin<= I was shut u. in b#ind darkness for such a #en<th of time=J A
man who is wakin< kee.s his body strai<ht or u.ri<ht but the body of a swoonin<
.erson fa##s .rostrate on the <round= Therefore a man in a swoon is not awake=
%e is not dreamin<, because he is tota##y unconscious=
It is not dee. s#ee. because there is ha..iness in dee. s#ee. whereas there is
no ha..iness in the state of swoon=
%e is not dead a#so, because he continues to breathe and his body is warm=
Bhen a man has become sense#ess and when .eo.#e are in doubt whether he is
a#ive or dead, they touch the re<ion of his heart in order to find out whether there
is warmth in his body or not= They .#ace their hands to his nostri#s to find out
whether there is breathin< or not= If they do not .erceive warmth or breath they
come to the conc#usion that he is dead and take his body to the crematorium to
burn it= If there are warmth and breathin< they conc#ude that he is not dead= They
s.rink#e co#d water on his face so that he may come back to consciousness=
The man who has swooned away is not dead, because he comes back to
consciousness after some time=
Let us then say that a man who has swooned #ies in dee. s#ee. as he is
unconscious and at the same time not dead= "o, we re.#y= This is a#so not .ossib#e
owin< to the different characteristics of the two states=
A man who has swooned does sometimes not breathe for a #on< time= %is
body shakes or tremb#es= %is face is dreadfu#= %is eyes are starin< wide o.en= But
a s#ee.in< man #ooks ca#m, .eacefu# and ha..y=
%e draws his breath at re<u#ar interva#s= %is eyes are c#osed= %is body does
not tremb#e= A s#ee.in< man may be waked by a <ent#e strokin< with the hand= %e
who is #yin< in a state of swoon cannot be wakened even by a b#ow with a stick=
Swoon is due to e>terna# causes such as b#ow on the head with a stick, etc=, whi#e
s#ee. is due to fati<ue or weariness=
Swoon is on#y ha#f&union= The man in the state of swoon be#on<s with one
ha#f to the side of dee. s#ee., with the other ha#f to the side of the other state,
i=e=, death= It is on#y ha#f s#ee.= Be do not mean by this that he ha#f en0oys
Brahman= Be mean that it .art#y resemb#es s#ee.= It is ha#f death, a state a#most
borderin< u.on death= In fact it is the door to death= If there is a remnant of
;arma he returns to consciousness= E#se, he dies=
The man in the state of swoon be#on<s with one ha#f to the side of dee.
s#ee., with the other ha#f to the side of the other state, i=e=, death=
Those who know Brahman say that swoon is ha#f&union= In a swoon the
.erson .artia##y attains the state of dee. s#ee. as there is no consciousness in that
state and he returns to consciousness and .artia##y the state of death as he
e>.eriences .ain and misery which are e>.ressed throu<h distortion of face and
#imbs=
The ob0ection that no fifth state is common#y acknow#ed<ed is without much
wei<ht, because as that state occurs occasiona##y on#y it may not be <enera##y
known= A## the same it is known from ordinary e>.erience as we## as from the
science of Ayurveda= It is a se.arate state, thou<h it ha..ens occasiona##y= As it is
a mi>ture of the two states, viG=, dee. s#ee. and death it is not considered as a
fifth state=
?bhaya#in<adhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras **&2*-
The nature of Brahman
"a sthanatoI.i .arasyobhaya#in<am sarvatra hi III=2=** +,26-
"ot on account of +difference of- .#ace a#so two&fo#d
characteristics can be#on< to the %i<hestC for everywhere +scri.ture
teaches It to be without any difference-=
"a1 notC Sthanatah1 on account of +difference of- .#aceC A.i1 evenC
$arasya1 of the %i<hest +i=e=, Brahman-C ?bhaya#in<am1 two&fo#d
characteristicsC Sarvatra1 everywhereC %i1 because=
The Sutrakara now .roceeds to dea# with the nature of Brahman=
In the scri.tures we find two kinds of descri.tion about Brahman= Some te>ts
describe it as @ua#ified, i=e=, with attributes and some as un@ua#ified +without
attributes-= Jrom whom a## activities, a## desires, a## odours and a## tastes
.roceedJ +!hh= ?.= III=*3=2-= This te>t s.eaks of attributes= A<ain, JIt is neither
coarse nor fine, neither short nor #on<, neither redness nor moistureJ etc= +Bri= ?.=
III=9=9-= This te>t s.eaks of Brahman without attributes=
Are we to assume that both are true of Brahman accordin< as it is or is not
connected with #imitin< ad0uncts or ?.adhis or have we to assume on#y one of
them as true and the other fa#seL and if so, which is trueL and why it is trueL
This Sutra says that the %i<hest Brahman cannot by itse#f .ossess doub#e
characteristics= In the case of Brahman you cannot say that it has two as.ects,
viG=, with form and attributes, and without form and attributes, i=e=, with ?.adhis
+#imitin< ad0uncts- and without ?.adhis, because It is described everywhere as
bein< "ir<una +without attributes-=
Both cannot be .redicated of one and the same Brahman because it is a<ainst
e>.erience= One and the same thin< cannot have two contradictory natures at the
same time= Brahman cannot at the same time have form and be form#ess=
The redness of a f#ower ref#ected in a crysta# does not chan<e the nature of
the crysta# which is co#our#ess= Even so the mere connection of a thin< with
another does not chan<e its nature= It is an a#to<ether erroneous notion to im.ute
redness to the crysta#= The redness of the crysta# is unrea#= A thin< cannot chan<e
its rea# nature= !han<es of its rea# nature means annihi#ation= Simi#ar#y in the case
of Brahman, its connection with the #imitin< ad0uncts #ike earth, etc=, is due to
i<norance= An ?.adhi cannot affect the nature of Brahman, such ?.adhi bein<
mere#y due to Avidya or nescience= The essentia# character of a thin< must a#ways
remain the same whatever may be the conditions im.osed on it= If however it
a..ears to be a#tered it is sure#y due to i<norance=
Therefore we have to acce.t that Brahman is without attributes, because a##
Sruti te>ts whose aim is to re.resent the nature of Brahman such as JIt is without
sound, without touch, without form, without decayJ +;atha ?.= I=,=*4- teach that
It is free from a## attributes=
Brahman with attributes is on#y for the sake of ?.asana or .ious worshi. of
devoteesC it is not Its rea# nature=
"a bhedaditi chenna .ratyekamatadvachanat III=2=*2 +,,8-
If it be said that it is not so on account of difference +bein<
tau<ht in the scri.tures-, we re.#y that it is not so, because with
reference to each +such form-, the Sruti dec#ares the o..osite of
that=
"a1 not soC Bhedat1 on account of difference +bein< tau<ht in the
scri.tures-C Iti1 thus, as, so, thisC !het1 ifC "a1 not soC $ratyekam1 with
reference to eachC Atadvachanat1 because of the dec#aration of o..osite of that=
+Atad1 absence of thatC (achanat1 on account of the statement=-
An ob0ection to the .recedin< Sutra is raised and refuted=
This Sutra consists of two .arts name#y an ob0ection and its re.#y= The
ob0ection .ortion is JBhedat iti chetJ and the re.#y .ortion is J"a
.ratyekamatadvachanatJ=
The $urva.akshin says, JThe various (idyas teach different forms of
Brahman= It is said to have four feet +!hh= ?.= III=*9=2-C to consist of si>teen
.arts or ;a#as +$ras= ?.= (I=*-C to be characterised by dwarfishness +;atha ?.=
(=,-C to have the three wor#ds for its body +Bri= ?.= I=,=22-C to be named
(aisvanara +!hh= ?.= (=**=2-, etc= %ence we must admit that Brahman is a#so
@ua#ified=J
This Sutra refutes it and dec#ares that every such form due to #imitin< ad0unct
is denied of Brahman in te>ts #ike JThis bri<ht, immorta# bein< who is in this earth
and that bri<ht immorta# cor.orea# bein< in the body are but the se#fJ +Bri= ?.=
II=4=*-= Such te>ts c#ear#y indicate that the same se#f is .resent in a## #imitin<
ad0uncts #ike earth, etc= Therefore there is on#y oneness= It, therefore cannot be
maintained that the conce.tion of Brahman with various forms is tau<ht by the
(edas=
In every .assa<e identity is a#so affirmed= The Su.reme Truth is oneness=
Se.arateness is for devotion= The Sruti dec#ares that the form is not true and that
there is on#y one form#ess essence or .rinci.#e in rea#ity=
A.i chaivameke III=2=*, +,,*-
'oreover some +teach- thus=
A.i1 a#soC !ha1 moreover, andC Evam1 thusC Eke1 some=
A further ar<ument is <iven in su..ort of Sutra **=
Some Sakhas or recensions of the (edas direct#y teach that the manifo#dness
is not true= They .ass a critica# remark on those who see difference, J%e <oes
from death to death who sees difference, as it were, in itJ +;atha ?.= I=3=**-= JBy
the mind a#one it is to be .erceived= There is no diversity in It= %e who .erceives
therein any diversity <oes from death to deathJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=*6-=
Others a#so JBy knowin< the en0oyer, the en0oyed, and the ru#er, everythin<
has been dec#ared to be three&fo#d and this is BrahmanJ +Svet= ?.= I=*2-, say that
the entire wor#d characterised by en0oyers, thin<s to be en0oyed and a ru#er has
Brahman for its true nature=
Aru.avadeva hi tat.radhanatvat III=2=*3 +,,2-
(eri#y Brahman is on#y form#ess on account of that bein< the main
.ur.ort +of a## te>ts about Brahman-=
Aru.avat1 without form, form#essC Eva1 on#y, indeed, decided#yC %i1 veri#y,
certain#y, becauseC Tat.radhanatvat1 on account of that bein< the main .ur.ort
of scri.ture= +Tat1 of thatC $radhanatvat1 on account of bein< the chief thin<=-
A further ar<ument is <iven in su..ort of Sutra **=
Be must definite#y assert that Brahman is form#ess and so on= BhyL On
account of this bein< the main .ur.ort of scri.tures= The scri.tures dec#are,JIt is
neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor #on<J +Bri= ?.= III=9=9-= JThat which is
without sound, without form, without decayJ +;atha ?.= I=,=*4-= J%e who is ca##ed
ether is the revea#er of a## names and forms= That within which names and forms
are, that is BrahmanJ +!hh= ?.= (III=*3=*-= JThat heaven#y $erson is without body,
%e is both within and without, not .roducedJ +'un= ?.= II=*=2-= JThat Brahman is
without cause, and without anythin< inside or outside, this se#f is Brahman,
Omni.resent and OmniscientJ +Bri= ?.= II=4=*6-=
These te>ts aim at teachin< Brahman, describe It as form#ess= If Brahman be
understood to have a form then the scri.tura# .assa<es which describe it as
form#ess wou#d become meanin<#ess= The scri.tures have a .ur.ort a## throu<hout=
On the contrary, the other .assa<es which refer to a Brahman @ua#ified by form do
not aim at settin< forth the nature of Brahman but rather at en0oyin< the worshi.
of Brahman=
Therefore Brahman is form#ess=
As #on< as those #atter te>ts do not contradict those of the former c#ass they
are to be acce.ted as they standC where, however, contradictions occur, the te>ts
whose main .ur.ort is Brahman must be viewed as havin< <reater force than
those of the other kind= This is the reason for our decidin< that, a#thou<h there are
two different c#asses of scri.tura# te>ts, Brahman must be he#d to be a#to<ether
form#ess, not at the same time of an o..osite nature= The main Sruti te>ts dec#are
Brahman to be form#ess=
The co#our and forms are the .roducts of the e#ements and Brahman is far
above the inf#uence of and different from the e#ements= %ence %e is ca##ed the
co#our#ess or form#ess= 'ateria# co#our and form cannot be found in %im when %e
is far above the subt#e materia# cause as we## as above its .residin< deity=
$rakasavacchavaiyarthyat III=2=*4 +,,,-
And as #i<ht +assumes forms as it were by its contact with thin<s
.ossessin< form, so does Brahman take form in connection with ?.adhis
or #imitin< ad0uncts-, because +te>ts which ascribe form to Brahman-
are not meanin<#ess=
$rakasavat1 #ike the #i<htC !ha1 and, moreoverC Avaiyarthyat1 because of
not bein< meanin<#ess=
A further ar<ument is <iven in su..ort of Sutra **=
The word H!haI +and- is em.#oyed to remove the doubt raised above=
If Brahman is form#ess then a## the scri.tura# te>ts which treat of Brahman
with form wou#d be meanin<#ess, and su.erf#uous= Then a## ?.asanas of Brahman
with form wou#d be use#ess= %ow can the worshi. of such a fa#se Brahman #ead to
Brahma#okaL
This Sutra e>.#ains that they a#so have a .ur.ose= The #i<ht of the sun has no
form but it a..ears to be <reat or sma## accordin< to the ho#e throu<h which it
enters a room and yet has the force of dis.e##in< the darkness in the room=
Simi#ar#y Brahman which is without a form a..ears to have a form due to #imitin<
ad0uncts #ike earth, body, etc= /ust as the #i<ht of the sun comes in contact with a
fin<er or some other #imitin< ad0unct and accordin< as the #atter is strai<ht or
bent, itse#f becomes strai<ht or bent as it were, so a#so Brahman assumes, as it
were, the form of the earth, and the #imitin< ad0uncts with which it comes into
contact= The worshi. of such an i##usory Brahman can he#. one to attain
Brahma#oka which is a#so i##usory from the view&.oint of the Abso#ute=
Therefore these te>ts are not meanin<#ess= They have certain#y a .ur.ort= A##
.arts of the (eda are e@ua##y authoritative and therefore must a## be assumed to
have a meanin< or .ur.ose=
This, however, does not contradict the tenet maintained above, viG=, that
Brahman thou<h connected with #imitin< ad0uncts does not .ossess doub#e
characteristics, because what is mere#y due to a #imitin< ad0unct cannot constitute
an attribute of a substance= urther the #imitin< ad0uncts are a## due to i<norance=
Aha cha tanmatram III=2=*5 +,,3-
And +the Sruti- dec#ares +that Brahman is- that +i=e=,
inte##i<ence- on#y=
Aha1 +the Sruti- dec#aresC !ha1 and, moreoverC Tanmatram1 that +i=e=,
inte##i<ent- on#y=
The force of the word H'atraI in Tanmatra is to denote e>c#usiveness=
Scri.ture dec#ares that Brahman consists of inte##i<ence= JAs a #um. of sa#t
has neither inside nor outside, but is a#to<ether a mass of sa#tish taste, thus
indeed has that Se#f neither inside nor outside but is a#to<ether a mass of
know#ed<eJ +Bri= ?.= I(=,=*,-= $ure inte##i<ence constitutes its nature= /ust as a
#um. of sa#t has neither inside nor outside but one and the same sa#tish taste, not
any other taste, so a#so Brahman has neither inside nor outside any characteristic
form but inte##i<ence=
Darsayati chatho a.i smaryate III=2=*7 +,,4-
+The scri.ture- a#so shows +this and- it is #ikewise stated in
Smriti=
Darsayati1 +the scri.ture or Sruti- showsC !ha1 and, a#soC Atho1 thus,
moreoverC A.i1 a#soC Smaryate1 the Smritis dec#are or state=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra ** is continued=
That Brahman is without any attributes is a#so .roved by those scri.tura#
te>ts a#so which e>.ress#y deny that It .ossesses any other characteristics, e=<=,
J"ow, therefore, the descri.tion of BrahmanC not this, not this +neti, neti-J +Bri=
?.= II=,=5-= There is no other and more a..ro.riate descri.tion than this Jnot this,
not thisJ=
;eno.anishad +I=3- dec#ares JIt is different from the known, It is a#so above
the unknownJ= Taittiriya ?.anishad +II=6- says Jrom whence a## s.eech, with the
mind, turns away unab#e to reach itJ=
The Sruti te>t which treats of the conversation between Bahva and (ashka#i
has a simi#ar .ur.ort= (ashka#i @uestioned Bahva about the nature of Brahman=
Bahva e>.#ained it to (ashka#i by si#ence= Bahva said to (ashka#i JLearn Brahman,
O friendJ and became si#ent= Then on a second and third @uestion he re.#ied JI am
teachin< you indeed, but you do not understand= That Brahman is Si#ence=J
If Brahman has form, there is no necessity to deny everythin< and say J"ot
this, not this=J
The same teachin< is conveyed by those Smriti te>ts which deny of Brahman
a## other characteristics, e=<=, JI wi## .roc#aim that which is the ob0ect of
know#ed<e, knowin< which one attains immorta#ityC the %i<hest Brahman without
either be<innin< or end, which cannot be said either to be or not to beJ +:ita
KIII=*2-= JIt is unmanifest, unthinkab#e, and without modification, thus It is
s.oken ofJ +:ita II= 24-=
Of a simi#ar .ur.ose is another Smriti te>t= Lord %ari instructed "arada JThe
cause, O "arada, of your seein< 'e endowed with the @ua#ities of a## bein<s is the
'aya thrown out by 'eC do not co<nise 'e as bein< such in rea#ity=J
Ata eva cho.ama suryakadivat III=2=*9 +,,5-
or this very reason +we have with res.ect to Brahman-
com.arisons #ike the ima<es of the sun and the #ike=
Ata eva1 for this very reasonC thereforeC !ha1 a#so, andC ?.ama1
com.arisonC Suryakadivat1 #ike the ima<es of the sun and the #ike=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra ** is continued=
That Brahman is form#ess is further estab#ished from the simi#es used with
res.ect to It= As Brahman is of the nature of inte##i<ence, devoid of a## difference,
transcendin< s.eech and mind, as %e is form#ess, homo<eneous and as %e is
described on#y by denyin< of %im a## other characteristics, the scri.tures com.are
%is forms to the ima<es of the sun ref#ected in the water and the #ike, meanin<
thereby that these forms are unrea# bein< due on#y to #imitin< ad0uncts= JAs the
one #uminous sun enters into re#ation to many different waters is himse#f rendered
mu#tiform by his #imitin< ad0unctsC so a#so the one unborn Brahman a..ears
different in different bodies=J
Ambuvada<rahanattu na tathatvam III=2=*6 +,,7-
But there is no simi#arity +of the two thin<s com.ared since- +in
the case of Brahman any second thin<- is not a..rehended or
e>.erienced #ike water=
Ambuvat1 #ike waterC A<rahanat1 in the absence of .erce.tion, because of
non&acce.tance, because it cannot be acce.ted, not bein< e>.eriencedC Tu1 butC
"a1 not, noC Tathatvam1 that nature, simi#arity=
An ob0ection to the .recedin< Sutra is raised by the $urva.akshin=
An ob0ection is raised by the $urva.akshin that the simi#arity s.oken of in the
.recedin< Sutra is not a..ro.riate or correct= In the above i##ustration the sun is
seen to be se.arate from the water= Sun has a form= It is a materia# thin<= Bater
is different from the sun and is at a distance from the sun= %ence the sun may be
ref#ected in the water= But Brahman is form#ess and a##&.ervadin<=
It is not a materia# thin<= A## are identica# with it= There are no #imitin<
ad0uncts different from it and occu.yin< a different .#ace, that can catch its
ref#ection= It is not seen to be se.arate from the ?.adhis or #imitin< ad0uncts=
Brahman is a##&.ervadin<= So no ob0ect can be at a distance from %im= The
sun is ref#ected in water because of its distance from water= But there can be no
such distance between Brahman and any ob0ect= %ence ref#ection in this
connection is a meanin<#ess term=
Therefore the instances are not .ara##e#= The com.arison is defective=
The ne>t Sutra removes the ob0ection=
(riddhihrasabhaktvamantarbhavadubhayasaman0asyadevam
III=2=28 +,,9-
As +the hi<hest Brahman- is inside +its #imitin< ad0uncts- It
.artici.ates in their increase and decreaseC owin< to the
a..ro.riateness +thus resu#tin<- of the two +thin<s com.ared-, it is
thus, +i=e=, the com.arison ho#ds <ood-=
(riddhihrasabhaktvam1 .artici.atin< in the increase and decreaseC
Antarbhavat1 on account of its bein< insideC ?bhaya& saman0asyat1 on account
of the a..ro.riateness in the two casesC Evam1 thus= +(riddhi1 increaseC %rasa1
decreaseC ?bhaya1 towards bothC Saman0asyat1 because of the 0ustness,
a..ro.riateness=-
The ob0ection raised in the .recedin< Sutra is refuted=
The com.arison with the ref#ection of the sun shou#d not be taken on a##
fours= Bhenever two thin<s are com.ared they are so on#y with reference to some
.articu#ar .oint or feature they have in common= Entire e@ua#ity of the two can
never be demonstrated= If it cou#d be shown, there wou#d be an end of that
.articu#ar re#ation which <ives rise to the com.arison= E>act simi#itude in a## .oints
wou#d mean abso#ute identity=
The simi#arity is on#y in .oint of the .artici.ation in the distortion and
contortion in increase and decrease of the ima<e or ref#ection= The ref#ected ima<e
of the sun di#ates when the surface of the water e>.andsC it contracts when the
water shrinksC it tremb#es when the water is a<itatedC it divides itse#f when the
water is divided= It thus .artici.ates in a## the attributes and conditions of the
waterC whi#e the rea# sun remains a## the time the same=
Even so Brahman a#thou<h in rea#ity uniform and never chan<in<,
.artici.ates as it were in the attributes and states of the body and the other
#imitin< ad0uncts within which It abides= It <rows with them as it were, decreases
with them as it were and so on= As the two thin<s com.ared .ossess certain
common features, no ob0ection can be made to the com.arison= The com.arison is
certain#y not defective on account of the above simi#arity in the two cases=
Darsanaccha III=2=2* +,,6-
And on account of the dec#aration of scri.ture=
Darsanat1 as it is found to be so, because it is seen, on account of
scri.tura# dec#arationC !ha1 and, a#so=
A further reason is <iven to refute the ob0ection raised in Sutra *6=
The scri.ture moreover dec#ares that the Su.reme Brahman enters into the
body and other #imitin< ad0uncts= J%e made bodies with two feet, %e made bodies
with four feet= That %i<hest Brahman first entered the bodies as a bird= %e is
ca##ed the $urusha on account of %is dwe##in< in a## bodiesJ +Bri= ?.= II=4=*9-=
J%avin< entered into them with this #urin< individua# se#fJ +!hh= ?.= (I=,=2-= or a##
these reasons the com.arison set forth in Sutra *9 is not defective=
Therefore it is estab#ished that Brahman is form#ess, homo<eneous, of the
nature of inte##i<ence, and without any difference=
Scri.ture dec#ares that devout meditations on Brahman with form have
resu#ts of their own viG=, either the wardin< off of ca#amities, or the <ainin< of
.ower, or e#se re#ease by successive ste.s +;rama 'ukti or .ro<ressive
emanci.ation-=
$rakritaitavattvadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras 22&,8-
The "eti&neti te>t e>.#ained
$rakrtaitavattvam hi .ratishedhati
tato braviti cha bhuyah III=2=22 +,38-
Bhat has been mentioned u. to this is denied +by the words Jnot
this, not thisJ and the Sruti- says somethin< more than that
+afterwards-=
$rakritaitavattvam1 what bas been mentioned u. to thisC %i1 because,
forC $ratishedhati1 deniesC Tatah1 then that, over and above thatC Braviti1
dec#aresC !ha1 andC Bhuyah1 somethin< more= +$rakrita1 mentioned first,
.revious#y statedC Etavattvam1 this much=-
In this <rou. of Sutras a#so the Sutrakara e>.ounds the "irvisesha +form#ess-
Brahman=
The Sruti dec#ares JThere are two forms of Brahman, <ross and subt#e, the
materia# and the immateria#, the morta# and the immorta#, the #imited and the
un#imited, Sat and TyatJ +Bri= ?.= II=,=*-=
After describin< the two forms of Brahman, the <ross consistin< of earth,
water and fire, and the subt#e, consistin< of air and ether, the Sruti dec#ares fina##y
J"ow, therefore, the descri.tion of BrahmanC not this, not thisJ +Bri= ?.= II=,= 5-=
There arises a doubt whether the doub#e denia# in Jnot this, not thisJ ne<ates
both the wor#d and Brahman, or on#y one of them=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent maintains that both are denied and
conse@uent#y Brahman which is fa#se, cannot be the substratum for a universe
which is a#so fa#se= It #eads us to Sunyavada= If one on#y is denied it is .ro.er that
Brahman is denied, because It is not seen and therefore Its e>istence is doubtfu#
and not the universe because we e>.erience it=
This Sutra refutes this view of the $urva.akshin= It is im.ossib#e that the
.hrase J"ot so, not soJ shou#d ne<ative both, as that wou#d im.#y the doctrine of a
<enera# void= The words J"eti, "etiJ cannot be said to deny Brahman as we## as its
havin< form, because that wou#d be Sunyavada=
The Sruti affirms Brahman= Bhat is the <ood of teachin< Brahman and sayin<
that it is non&e>istentL Bhy smear yourse#f with mud and then wash itL So
Brahman is beyond s.eech and mind and is eterna#, .ure and free= It is a mass of
consciousness= Therefore the Sruti denies that Brahman has form but not
Brahman itse#f=
Bhat has been described ti## now, viG=, the two forms of Brahman1 <ross and
subt#e, is denied by the words, Jnot this, not thisJ=
Brahman cannot be denied, because that wou#d contradict the introductory
.hrase of the !ha.ter= JSha## I te## you BrahmanLJ +Bri= ?.= II=*=*-, wou#d show
disre<ard of the threat conveyed in Tait= ?.= II=5= J%e who knows the Brahman as
non&e>istin< becomes himse#f non&e>istin<,J wou#d be o..osed to definite
assertions such as J%e isJ J%e is to be a..rehendedJ +;atha ?.= II=5=*,-C and
wou#d certain#y invo#ve a stu#tification of the who#e (edanta=
The .hrase that Brahman transcends a## s.eech and thou<ht does certain#y
not mean to say that Brahman does not e>ist, because after the Sruti has
estab#ished the e>istence of Brahman in such te>ts as J%e who knows Brahman
obtains the %i<hestJ, JTruth, ;now#ed<e, Infinity is BrahmanJ= It cannot be
su..osed a## at once to teach its non&e>istence= Because the common sayin< is
JBetter than bathin< it is not to touch dirt at a##=J The Sruti te>t Jrom whence a##
s.eech with the mind turns away unab#e to reach itJ +Tait= ?.= II=3-, must
therefore be viewed as intimatin< Brahman=
J"ot so, not soJ ne<atives the entire a<<re<ate of effects su.erim.osed on
Brahman, but not Brahman which is the basis for a## fictitious su.erim.ositions= It
denies of Brahman the #imited form, materia# as we## as immateria# which in the
.recedin< .art of the cha.ter is described with reference to the <ods as we## as the
body, and a#so the second form which is .roduced by the first, is characterised by
menta# im.ressions, forms the essence of that which is immateria#, is denoted by
the term $urusha=
The doub#e re.etition of the ne<ation may either serve the .ur.ose of
furnishin< s.ecia# denia# of the materia# as we## as the immateria# form of
BrahmanC or the first Hnot soI may ne<ative the a<<re<ate of materia# e#ements,
whi#e the second denies the a<<re<ate of menta# im.ressions= Or e#se the
re.etition may be an em.hatic one, intimatin< that whatever can be thou<ht is not
Brahman=
The Sruti denies that Brahman has form but not Brahman itse#f= It interdicts
by two ne<ations the <ross and the subt#e bodies= Or it interdicts Bhutas
+e#ements- and (asanas= Or the re.etition is for statin< the denia# of a## simi#ar
assum.tions= So the denia# denies the wor#d as su.erim.osed on Brahman and
does not deny Brahman itse#f=
After the ne<ation of "eti "eti, the Sruti <oes on to describe in .ositive terms
the further attributes of this Brahman & %is name bein< the True of the true
+Satyasya Satyam-= 'oreover after makin< such a denia#, it affirms the e>istence
of somethin< hi<her & Anyat $aramastiC Satyasya Satyam & The Truth of Truth=
This intimates that Brahman a#one is the one rea#ity that e>ists and is the
substratum of the wor#d which is i##usory=
H"eti "etiI denies the so&muchness of Brahman, as was described in the
.recedin< Sutras= It says that the materia# and immateria# is not the who#e of
Brahman= It is somethin< more than that= The word HItiI refers to what has been
mentioned immediate#y before, i=e=, the two forms of Brahman, the sub0ect matter
of the discussion= %ence it cannot refer to Brahman itse#f which is not the chief
to.ic of the .recedin< te>ts=
The ob0ection viG=, Brahman is not e>.erienced and therefore it is Brahman
that is denied, has no force= It cannot stand, because the ob0ect of the Sruti is to
teach about somethin< which is not ordinari#y e>.erienced by us= Otherwise its
teachin< wou#d be su.erf#uous=
Be, therefore, decide that the c#ause Jnot so, not soJ, ne<atives not
abso#ute#y everythin<, but on#y everythin< but Brahman=
Tadavyaktamaha hi III=2=2, +,3*-
That +Brahman- is not manifest, for +so the scri.ture- says=
Tat1 that +i=e=, Brahman-C Avyaktam1 is not manifestC Aha1 +so the
scri.ture- saysC %i1 for, because=
The character of Brahman is discussed=
This is a $urva.aksha Sutra=
Brahman is beyond the senses, so the Sruti dec#ares= If Brahman e>ists, then
why is It not a..rehended by the senses or the mindL Because It is e>treme#y
subt#e and is the witness of whatever is a..rehended i=e=, sub0ect in the
a..rehension= The individua# sou#s are enve#o.ed by i<norance= %ence they are
not ab#e to .erceive Brahman= The Sruti dec#ares JBrahman is not a..rehended by
the eye, nor by the s.eech, nor by the other senses, nor by .enance, nor by <ood
worksJ +'un= ?.= III=*-= JThat Se#f is to be described by no, noD %e is
incom.rehensib#e, for %e cannot be com.rehendedJ +Bri= ?.= III=6=25-= JThat
which cannot be seen nor a..rehendedJ +'un= ?.= I=*=5-=
JBhen in that which is invisib#e, incor.orea#, undefined, unsu..ortedJ +Tait=
?.= II=7-= Simi#ar statements are made in Smriti .assa<es, e=<=, J%e is ca##ed
unevo#ved, not to be fathomed by thou<ht, unchan<eab#e=J
A.i cha samradhane .ratyakshanumanabhyam III=2=23 +,32-
And moreover +Brahman is e>.erienced- in devout meditation +as we
know- from the Sruti and Smriti=
A.i cha1 and moreoverC Samradhane1 in devout meditationC
$ratyakshanumanabhyam1 from the Sruti and the Smriti=
The discussion on the characteristic of Brahman is continued=
The word HA.iI sets aside the $urva.aksha= It is used in a de.recative sense=
The above $urva.aksha is not even worthy of consideration=
Brahman is e>ceedin<#y subt#e= %ence %e cannot be seen by the .hysica#
eyes= %e is beyond the senses= But )o<is beho#d %im in their .urified minds= If
Brahman is not manifest, then we can never know %im and therefore there wi## be
no freedom=
This Sutra dec#ares that Brahman is not known on#y to those whose heart is
not .urified, but those who are endowed with a .ure heart rea#ise Brahman in the
state of Samadhi when i<norance is annihi#ated=
This is vouched for by Srutis as we## as Smritis= JThe Se#f&e>istent created the
senses with out&<oin< tendencies= Therefore man beho#ds the e>terna# universe
but not the interna# Se#f= Some wise man, however, with his eyes c#osed and
wishin< for immorta#ity beho#ds the Se#f withinJ +;atha ?.= I(=*-= JBhen a manIs
mind has become .urified by the serene #i<ht of know#ed<e, then he sees %im,
meditatin< on %im as without .artsJ +'un= ?.= III=*=9-=
The Smriti a#so says the same thin< J%e who is seen as #i<ht by the )o<ins
meditatin< on %im s#ee.#ess#y, with sus.ended breath, with contented minds and
subdued senses, etc=, reverence be to %imJ and Jthe )o<ins see %im, the au<ust,
eterna# oneDJ
$rakasadivacchavaiseshyam .rakasascha
karmanyabhyasat III=2=24 +,3,-
And as in the case of +.hysica#- #i<ht and the #ike, there is no
difference, so a#so between Brahman and Its manifestation in
activityC on account of the re.eated instruction +of the Sruti to
that effect-=
$rakasadivat1 #ike #i<ht and the #ikeC !ha1 a#so, andC Avaiseshyam1
simi#arity, non&difference, non&distinctionC $rakasah1 BrahmanC !ha1 andC
;armani1 in workC Abhyasat1 on account of re.eated mention +in the Sruti-=
The discussion on the character of Brahman is continued=
The identity of /iva and Brahman is e>.#ained= /ust as #i<ht, ether, the sun,
etc=, a..ear differentiated as it were, throu<h their ob0ects such as fin<ers,
vesse#s, water, etc=, which form the #imitin< ad0uncts whi#e in rea#ity they .reserve
their essentia# non&difference, so a#so the distinction of different se#ves is due to
#imitin< ad0uncts on#y, whi#e the unity of a## se#ves is natura# and ori<ina#= Throu<h
i<norance the individua# sou# thinks he is different from Brahman, but in rea#ity he
is identica# with Brahman=
As in the case of #i<ht, etc=, the se#f&#uminous Brahman a..ears diverse in
meditation and other acts= This is c#ear from the Sruti sayin< JTat Tvam AsiJ nine
times=
The (edanta te>ts insist a<ain and a<ain on the doctrine of the non&difference
of the individua# sou# and the Su.reme Sou#= The identity of the individua# sou#
with the Su.reme Sou# is known from re.eated instruction of the Sruti in te>ts #ike
JThat Thou art & Tat Tvam AsiJ, JI am Brahman & Aham Brahma AsmiJ which deny
difference=
AtoInantena tatha hi #in<am III=2=25 +,33-
Therefore +the individua# sou# becomes one- with the InfiniteC
for thus the +scri.ture- indicates=
Atah1 hence, thereforeC Anantena1 with the InfiniteC Tatha1 thusC %i1
because, forC Lin<am1 the indication +of the scri.tures-=
The resu#t of rea#isation of Brahman is stated here=
By the rea#isation of Brahman the meditator becomes identica# with the
Infinite= I<norance with a## its #imitin< ad0uncts vanishes when one attains Brahma
/nana= There is indication to that effect in Sruti, J%e who knows the hi<hest
Brahman becomes Brahman %imse#fJ +'un= ?.= III=2=6-= JBein< Brahman he <oes
to BrahmanJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=5-= If the difference were rea#, then one cou#d not
become Brahman %imse#f= Difference is on#y i##usory or unrea#= /iva is on#y a mere
shadow or ref#ection= %e is mere a..earance= /ust as the ref#ection of the sun in
the water <ets absorbed in the sun itse#f when the water dries u., so a#so the
ref#ected /iva <ets absorbed in Brahman when i<norance is destroyed by the dawn
of ;now#ed<e of Brahman=
?bhayavya.adesattvahikunda#avat III=2=27 +,34-
But on account of both +i=e=, difference and non&difference-
bein< tau<ht +by the Sruti-, +the re#ation of the hi<hest Brahman to
the individua# sou# has to be viewed- #ike that of the snake to its
coi#s=
?bhayavya.adesat1 on account of both bein< tau<htC Tu1 butC
Ahikunda#avat1 #ike that between a ser.ent and its coi#s= +?bhaya1 bothC
(ya.adesat1 on account of the dec#aration of the scri.tureC Ahi1 ser.entC
;unda#avat1 #ike the coi#s=-
The discussion on the characteristic of Brahman is resumed=
Sutras 27 and 29 e>.ress the views of the Bhedabhedavadins= Sutra 26 <ives
the rea# view=
%avin< estab#ished the identity of the individua# sou# and Brahman the
Sutrakara or the author mentions a different view of the same matter= %e now
.roceeds to en@uire into the doctrine of difference and non&difference=
Some scri.tura# te>ts refer to the Su.reme Sou# and the individua# sou# as
distinct entities1 JTwo birds of beautifu# .#uma<e, etc=J +'un= ?.= III=*=*-= This
te>t s.eaks of difference between the /iva and Brahman=
In some other te>ts the Su.reme Sou# is re.resented as the ob0ect of
a..roach and as the ru#er of the individua# sou#= JThen he sees him meditatin< on
him as without .artsJ +'un= ?.= III=*=9-= J%e <oes to the Divine $erson who is
<reater than the <reatJ +'un= ?.= III=2=9-= JBho ru#es a## bein<s within=J
In other te>ts a<ain the two are s.oken of as non&different= JThou art ThatJ
+!hh= ?.= (I=9=7-= JI am BrahmanJ +Bri= ?.= I=3=*8-= JThis is thy Se#f who is within
a##J +Bri= ?.= III=3=*-= J%e is thy Se#f, the ru#er within, the immorta#J +Bri= ?.=
III=7=*4-=
As thus difference and non&difference are e@ua##y vouched for by the Sruti
te>ts, the acce.tation of abso#ute non&difference wou#d render futi#e a## those te>ts
which s.eak of difference= Therefore we have to take that their re#ation is one of
difference and non&difference, as between a ser.ent and its coi#s= As a ser.ent it is
one non&different, but if we #ook at the coi#s, hood, erect .osture, and so on, there
is difference=
Even so there is difference as we## as non&difference between the individua#
sou# and Brahman= The difference between them .rior to emanci.ation is rea#= The
/iva becomes identica# with Brahman on#y when his i<norance is destroyed by the
dawn of know#ed<e of Brahman=
Their se.arateness and oneness is #ike a ser.ent in @uiescence and motion=
$rakasasrayavadva te0astvat III=2=29 +,35-
Or #ike +the re#ation of- #i<ht and its substratum, on account of
both bein< #uminous=
$rakasasrayavat1 #ike #i<ht and its substratumC (a1 orC Te0astvat1 on
account of both bein< #uminous=
The re#ation between Brahman and the individua# sou# a#so is discussed=
Or e#se the re#ation of the two may be viewed as fo##ows= Another i##ustration
is <iven to estab#ish the theory of difference and non&difference= /ust as the #i<ht
of the sun and its substratum, i=e=, the sun itse#f, are not abso#ute#y different,
because they both consist of fire and yet are s.oken of as different, so a#so the
individua# sou# and the Su.reme Sou# +Brahman-=
The #i<ht and the sun are both #uminous= %ence they are non&different= They
are different owin< to their varyin< e>tensity= Simi#ar#y is the re#ation between the
individua# sou# and the Su.reme Sou# one of difference and non&difference= The
former is #imited and the #atter is a##&.ervadin<=
$urvavadva III=2=26 +,37-
Or +the re#ation between the two, i=e=, /iva and Brahman is- as
+<iven- before=
$urvavat1 as beforeC (a1 or=
Or it may be as stated in Sutra 24= This #ast is the rea# view, because if the
individua# sou# is another state of Brahman or a ray of Brahman, such inherent
#imitation wi## never disa..ear= The Sruti affirms identity and states the feature of
diversity which is due to Avidya=
The two .revious Sutras e>.ress the view of Bhedabhedavadins who maintain
the doctrine of difference and non&difference=
This Sutra refutes the view of Bhedabhedavadins and estab#ishes the fina#
truth which has been dec#ared in Sutra 24, viG=, that the difference is mere#y
i##usory, and identity or non&difference is the rea#ity=
If the bonda<e of the sou# is due to Avidya or i<norance on#y, fina# #iberation
is .ossib#e= But if the sou# is rea##y bound, whether the sou# be re<arded as a
certain condition or state of the Su.reme Sou# or Brahman, as stated in Sutra 27,
or as a .art of the Su.reme Sou#, as e>.ressed in Sutra 29 & its rea# bonda<e
cannot be destroyed= Thus the scri.tura# doctrine of fina# #iberation becomes
.ur.ose#ess and absurd=
If the difference is rea# it can never come to an end= A## the scri.tura#
instructions with re<ard to the fina# emanci.ation wi## be meanin<#ess= Bonda<e is
on#y the idea of se.arateness= If se.arateness is rea# there can be no fina# re#ease
at a##= But if the difference is due to nescience or i<norance, then know#ed<e of
Brahman or Brahma&/nana can annihi#ate it= Then the Su.reme Rea#ity or
Brahman, the non&difference may be rea#ised=
It cannot be said that the Sruti e@ua##y teaches difference and non&difference=
The Sruti aims at estab#ishin< non&difference on#y= It mere#y refers to difference as
somethin< known from other sources of know#ed<e, viG=, .erce.tion, etc=
%ence the views e>.ressed in Sutras 27 and 29 are not certain#y correct= The
view <iven in Sutra 24 a#one is correct=
The conc#usion is that the sou# is not different from the Su.reme Sou# or
Brahman as e>.#ained in Sutra 24=
$ratishedhaccha III=2=,8 +,39-
And on account of the denia#=
$ratishedhat1 on account of denia#C !ha1 and, moreover=
Sutra 26 is confirmed=
The Sruti in fact e>.ress#y denies se.arateness=
The conc#usion arrived at above is confirmed by the fact of scri.ture
e>.ress#y denyin< that there e>ists any inte##i<ent bein< a.art from Brahman or
the Su.reme Sou#= JThere is no other Seer but %e & "anyatoIsti DrashtaJ +Bri= ?.=
III=7=2,-=
The same conc#usion fo##ows from those .assa<es which deny the e>istence of
a wor#d a.art from Brahman, and thus #eave Brahman a#one remainin<, viG=, J"ow
then the teachin< & not this, not thisJ +Bri= ?.= II=,=5-= JThat Brahman is without
cause and without effect, without anythin< inside or outsideJ +Bri= ?.= II=4=*6-=
It is now an estab#ished fact that there is no other entity but Brahman=
Therefore there is on#y one Brahman without any difference at a##=
$aradhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras ,*&,7-
Brahman is one without a second
$aramatah setunmanasambandhabhedavya.adesebhyah
III=2=,* +,36-
+There is somethin<- Su.erior to this +Brahman- on account of
terms denotin< a bank, measure, connection and difference +used with
res.ect to It-=
$aram1 <reaterC Atah1 for this, than this +Brahman-C
Setunmanasambandhabhedavya.adesebhyah1 on account of terms denotin<
a brid<e, measure, connection and difference= +Setu1 a brid<eC ?nmana1
dimensionsC Sambandha1 re#ationC Bheda1 differenceC (ya.adesebhyah1 from
the dec#arations=-
It may be said that there must be somethin< hi<her than Brahman because
Brahman is described as a brid<e, or as #imited or as attained by man or as
different from man=
There arises now the doubt on account of the conf#ictin< nature of various
scri.tura# statements whether somethin< e>ists beyond Brahman or not=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds that some entity must be admitted a.art from
Brahman, because Brahman is s.oken of as bein< a bank, as havin< siGe, as bein<
connected, as bein< se.arated= As a bank it is s.oken of in the .assa<e JThe Se#f
is a bank, a boundaryJ +!hh= ?.= (III=3=*-= The term bank intimates that there
e>ists somethin< a.art from Brahman, 0ust as there e>ists somethin< different
from an ordinary bank= The same conc#usion is confirmed by the words J%avin<
.assed the bankJ +!hh= ?.= (III=3=2-= In ordinary #ife a man after havin< crossed a
bank, reaches some .#ace which is not a bank, #et us say a forest= So we must
understand that a man after havin< crossed, i=e=, .assed beyond Brahman,
reaches somethin< which is not Brahman=
As havin< siGe Brahman is s.oken of in the fo##owin< .assa<es JThis Brahman
has four feet +@uarters-, ei<ht hoofs, si>teen .artsJ +!hh= ?.= III=*9=2-= "ow it is
we## known from ordinary e>.erience that wherever an ob0ect, e=<=, a coin has a
definite #imited siGe, there e>ists somethin< different from that ob0ect= Therefore
we must assume that there a#so e>ists somethin< different from Brahman=
Brahman is dec#ared to be connected in the fo##owin< .assa<es= JThen he is
united with the TrueJ +!hh= ?.= (I=9=*-= JThe embodied se#f is embraced by the
Su.reme Se#fJ +Bri= ?.= I(=,=2*-= Be observe that non&measured thin<s are
connected with the thin<s measured, e=<=, men with a town= Scri.ture dec#ares
that the individua# sou#s are in the state of dee. s#ee. connected with Brahman=
Therefore we conc#ude that beyond Brahman there is somethin< unmeasured=
The same conc#usion is confirmed by those te>ts which state difference= J"ow
that <o#den .erson who is seen within the sun=J The te>t refers to a Lord residin<
in the sun and then mentions a Lord residin< in the eye distinct from the former1
J"ow the .erson who is seen within the eye=J
The Sruti dec#ares JThe Atman is to be seenJ etc= There is a seer and there is
the seen= There is difference=
A## these indicate that Brahman is not one without a second, and that there
e>ists somethin< different from Brahman=
Samanyattu III=2=,2 +,48-
But +Brahman is ca##ed a bank etc=- on account of simi#arity=
Samanyat1 on account of simi#arityC Tu1 but=
The ob0ection raised in the .recedin< Sutra is refuted here=
The word HtuI +but- removes the doubt= It sets aside the .revious#y
estab#ished conc#usion=
There can e>ist nothin< different from Brahman= Brahman is ca##ed the bank,
etc=, because %e resemb#es it in a certain res.ect= %e is the su..ort of a## whi#e
crossin< over this ocean of the wor#d, 0ust as a bank is a <reat .rotection or he#.
in crossin< a cana#=
There can e>ist nothin< different from Brahman as we are not ab#e to observe
a .roof for such e>istence= A## thin<s .roceed from Brahman= The Sruti says that
by knowin< Brahman everythin< wi## be known= %ow then can there be any other
entityL Brid<e or bank means #ike a brid<e or bank=
Brahman is ca##ed a bank on account of simi#arity, not because there e>ists
somethin< beyond %im= If the mere fact of Brahman bein< ca##ed a bank im.#ied
the e>istence of somethin< beyond %im as in the case of an ordinary bank, we
shou#d a#so be forced to conc#ude that Brahman is made of earth and stones= This
wou#d <o a<ainst the scri.tura# doctrine that Brahman is not somethin< .roduced=
Brahman is ca##ed a bank because it resemb#es a bank in certain res.ects=
/ust as a bank dams back the water and makes the boundary of ad0acent fie#ds, so
a#so Brahman su..orts the wor#d and its boundaries=
In the c#ause @uoted above J%avin< .assed that bankJ the verb Hto .assI
cannot be taken in the sense of H<oin< beyondI but must rather mean Hto reach
fu##yI= J%avin< .assed the bankJ means Jhavin< attained Brahman fu##yJ and not
havin< crossed it 0ust as we say of a student Jhe has .assed in the <rammarJ
meanin< thereby that he has fu##y mastered it=
Buddhyarthah .adavat III=2=,, +,4*-
+The statement as to Brahman havin< siGe- is for the sake of easy
com.rehension +i=e=, ?.asana or devout meditation-C 0ust #ike +four-
feet=
Buddhyarthah1 for the sake of easy com.rehensionC $adavat1 0ust #ike
+four- feet=
The statements as to the siGe of Brahman JBrahman has four feet,J JIt has
si>teen di<its,J etc=, are meant for the sake of ?.asana or devout meditation,
because it is difficu#t to understand the Infinite, most subt#e, a##&.ervadin<
Brahman= In order to faci#itate .ious meditation on the .art of #ess inte##i<ent
.eo.#e four feet etc=, are ascribed to Brahman=
The descri.tion of Brahman as havin< a #imited form +Shodasaka#a, *5 .arts-
is for the sake of meditation 0ust as $adas, i=e=, s.eech etc=, are described in
res.ect of mind=
/ust as mind conceived as the .ersona# manifestation of Brahman is ima<ined
to have the or<an of s.eech, nose, eyes and ears as its four feet, so a#so Brahman
is ima<ined as havin< siGe, etc=, for faci#ity of meditation but not in rea#ity=
J$ractise meditation, takin< the mind as Brahman,J & this is the form of
worshi. with the aid of the constituents of the individua# sou# & JThis Brahman is of
four feet, name#y, the s.eech as a foot, the chief vita# ener<y as a foot, the eyes
as a foot, and the ears as a footJ +!hh= ?.= III=*9=*&2-=
Sthanaviseshat .rakasadivat III=2=,3 +,42-
+The statements concernin< connection and difference with res.ect
to Brahman- are due to s.ecia# .#aces1 as in the case of #i<ht and
the #ike=
Sthanaviseshat1 on account of s.ecia# .#acesC $rakasavat1 #ike #i<ht and
the #ike=
Sutra ,, is further confirmed=
The statements re<ardin< connection and difference are made with a view to
difference of .#ace= The statements re<ardin< difference are made with reference
to #imitin< ad0uncts +Buddhi, etc=- on#y and not to any difference in the nature of
Brahman=
Bhen the co<nition of difference which is .roduced by BrahmanIs connection
with different .#aces i=e=, with the Buddhi and the other #imitin< ad0uncts, ceases
owin< to the cessation of those #imitin< ad0uncts themse#ves, connection with the
Su.reme Se#f is meta.horica##y said to take .#aceC but that is done with a view to
the #imitin< ad0uncts on#y, not with a view to any #imitation on the .art of
Brahman=
This is simi#ar to the case of #i<ht and the #ike= The #i<ht of the sun a#so is
differentiated by its connection with #imitin< ad0uncts= The #i<ht is said to be
divided on account of these ad0uncts= It is said to enter into connection or union
when the ad0uncts are removed=
Be see two moons on account of an eye&disease= Be see on#y one when the
disease is removed=
Li<ht is rea##y one but we s.eak of #i<ht inside a room and #i<ht outside it= The
distinction is due to #imitin< ad0uncts= The #i<ht inside the room may be said to be
united with the #i<ht in <enera# when the room is destroyed=
Other e>am.#es of the effect of #imitin< ad0uncts are furnished by the ether
enterin< into connection with the eyes of need#es and the #ike=
?.a.attescha III=2=,4 +,4,-
And it is reasonab#e=
?.a.atteh1 as it becomes reasonab#eC !ha1 a#so, and=
urther on#y such a connection as described above is .ossib#e= Because
scri.tura# .assa<es such as J%e is <one to his se#fJ +!hh= ?.= (I=9=*- dec#are that
the connection of the sou# with the Su.reme Sou# is one of essentia# nature= The
essentia# nature of a thin< is im.erishab#e= %ence the connection cannot be #ike
that of the inhabitants with the town=
The connection can on#y be e>.#ained with reference to an observation owin<
to i<norance of the true nature of the sou#=
Simi#ar#y the difference referred to by scri.ture cannot be rea# but due to
i<norance, because many te>ts dec#are that there e>ists on#y one Brahman=
Scri.ture teaches that the one ether is made manifo#d as it were by its
connection with different .#aces= JThe ether which is outside man is the ether
which is inside man, and the ether within the heartJ +!hh= ?.= III=*2=7-=
%ence connection and difference are not to be taken as rea#, but on#y
meta.horica##y=
Tathanya.ratishedhat III=2=,5 +,43-
Simi#ar#y on account of the e>.ress denia# of a## other thin<s
+there is nothin< but Brahman-=
Tatha1 simi#ar#yC Anya.ratishedhat1 on account of the e>.ress denia# of
a## other thin<s= +Anya1 any other, of the otherC $ratishedhat1 owin< to the
denia#, or .rohibition or ne<ation=-
urther the Sruti denies e>.ress#y that there is any other entity besides
Brahman= +Brahmaivedam SarvamC Atmaivedam Sarvam-= Brahman is described
as the innermost of a##=
%avin< thus refuted the ar<uments of the $urva.akshin, the author or
Sutrakara in conc#usion stren<thens his view by a further reason=
A <reat number of (edic .assa<es distinct#y deny the e>istence of anythin<
e#se besides Brahman= J%e indeed is be#owC I am be#owC the Se#f is be#owJ etc=
+!hh= ?.= (II=24=*=2-= JBhosoever #ooks for anythin< e#sewhere than in the Se#f
was abandoned by everythin<J +Bri= ?.= II=3=5-= JBrahman a#one is a## thisJ +'un=
?.= II=2=**-= JThe Se#f is a## thisJ +!hh= ?.= (II=24=2-= JIn it there is no diversityJ
+Bri= ?.= I(=3=*6-= J%e to whom there is nothin< su.erior, from whom there is
nothin< differentJ +Svet= ?.= III=6-= JThis is the Brahman without cause and
without effect, without anythin< inside or outsideJ +Bri= ?.= II=4=*6-= That there is
no other se#f within the %i<hest Se#f fo##ows from that scri.tura# .assa<e which
teaches Brahman to be within everythin< +Bri= ?.= II=4=*6-=
Therefore Brahman is one without a second=
Anena sarva<atatvamayamasabdadibhyah III=2=,7 +,44-
By this the Omni.resence +of Brahman is estab#ished- in
accordance with the scri.tura# statements re<ardin< +BrahmanIs-
e>tent=
Anena1 by thisC Sarva<atatvam1 a##&.ervadin<nessC Ayama1 +re<ardin<
BrahmanIs- e>tentC Sabdadibhyah1 from scri.tura# statements=
By the re0ectin< of the takin< of the descri.tion as brid<e or bank etc=, in
their actua# sense, it is c#ear that Brahman has a##&.ervadin<ness= Such
Omni.resence is c#ear a#so from such words as Ayama= If you take the descri.tion
as brid<e etc=, in their actua# sense but not in the fi<urative sense, Brahman wi##
become #imited, and conse@uent#y not eterna#= But the Sruti and Smriti describe
Brahman as un#imited and a##&.ervasive= The word Ayama means .ervasive= The
a##&.ervadin<ness of Brahman fo##ows from the very fact that it is one without a
second=
That Brahman is Omni.resent fo##ows from the te>ts .roc#aimin< its e>tent=
JAs #ar<e as this ether is, so #ar<e is that ether within the heartJ +!hh= ?.=
(III=*=,-= JLike the ether, he is Omni.resent and eterna#=J J%e is <reater than the
sky, <reater than the etherJ +Sat= Br= K=5=,=2-= J%e is eterna#, Omni.resent, firm,
immovab#eJ +:ita= II=23-=
$ha#adhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras ,9&3*-
The Lord is the <iver of the fruits of actions
$ha#amata u.a.atteh III=2=,9 +,45-
rom %im +the Lord- are the fruits of actions, for that is
reasonab#e=
$ha#am1 the fruitC Atah1 from %im on#yC ?.a.atteh1 for that is reasonab#e=
Another characteristic of Brahman is estab#ished=
The 'imamsakas ho#d that the ;arma +work- and not the Lord <ives the
fruits of oneIs actions=
The Sutra refutes it and dec#ares that the fruits of oneIs work viG=, .ain,
.#easure and a mi>ture of the two, come on#y from the Lord=
The Lord of a## who knows a## the differences of .#ace and time a#one is
ca.ab#e of bestowin< fruits in accordance with the merit of the a<ents= ;arma is
insentient and short&#ived= It ceases to e>ist as soon as it is done= It cannot
therefore bestow the fruits of actions at a future date accordin< to oneIs merit=
%ow can fruit which is .ositive resu#t from such non&e>istenceL
)ou cannot say that ;arma died after <eneratin< the fruit which attaches
itse#f to the doer in due time, because it is ca##ed fruit on#y when it is en0oyed=
)ou cannot say a#so that ;arma <enerates A.urva which <ives fruit= A.urva is
Achetana +non&sentient-= It cannot act un#ess moved by some inte##i<ent bein<= It
cannot, therefore, bestow rewards and .unishments= urther there is no .roof
whatever for the e>istence of such an A.urva=
Therefore the fruits of actions come to men from Isvara or the Lord on#y, who
is Eterna#, Omni.otent, Omniscient, A##&com.assionate=
Srutatvaccha III=2=,6 +,47-
And because the Sruti so teaches=
Srutatvat1 because the Sruti so teaches, from the dec#aration of the Sruti
to that effectC !ha1 a#so, and=
The .recedin< Sutra is stren<thened on the su..ort of Sruti=
The Sruti a#so dec#ares that the fruits of actions come from the Lord= JThis
indeed is the <reat, unborn Se#f, the <iver of food, and the <iver of wea#th +the
fruit of oneIs work-J +Bri= ?.= I(=3=23-=
Dharmam /aiminirata eva III=2=38 +,49-
/aimini thinks for the same reasons +viG=, scri.tura# authority
and reasonin<, on the same <round as stated in Sutras ,9 and ,6- that
re#i<ious merit +is what brin<s about the fruits of actions-=
Dharmam1 .ractice of re#i<ious duties, re#i<ious meritsC /aiminih1 the sa<e
/aiminiC Ata eva1 for the same reasons=
An ob0ection is raised to Sutras ,9 and ,6=
The view of the Sutras ,9 and ,6 is bein< criticised=
/aimini says that Dharma <ives fruits of actions as Sruti and reason su..ort
such a view=
Scri.ture, /aimini ar<ues, .roc#aims in0unctions such as the fo##owin< one J%e
who is desirous of the heaven#y wor#d is to sacrificeJ= It is admitted that every
scri.tura# in0unction has an ob0ect= Therefore it is reasonab#e to think that the
scri.ture itse#f brin<s about the fruit or the resu#t, i=e=, the attainment of the
heaven#y wor#d= If this were not so, nobody wou#d .erform sacrifices and thereby
scri.tura# in0unctions wou#d be rendered .ur.ose#ess=
But it may be ob0ected that an action cannot .roduce a resu#t at a future time
as it is destroyed=
/aimini says1 A deed cannot .roduce resu#t at some future time, un#ess before
.assin< away, it <ives birth to some unseen resu#t= Be, therefore, assume that
there e>ists some e>traordinary .rinci.#e ca##ed A.urva which is .roduced by the
;arma before it is destroyed= The resu#t is .roduced at some future time on
account of this A.urva=
This hy.othesis removes a## difficu#ties= But on the contrary it is im.ossib#e
that the Lord shou#d effect the fruits of ;armas= Because one uniform cause
+Isvara- cannot cause variety of effects= %e wi## have .artia#ity and crue#tyC and
;arma wi## become .ur.ose#ess, i=e=, if the deed itse#f cannot brin< about its own
fruit, it wou#d be use#ess to .erform it at a##=
or a## these reasons the resu#t s.rin<s from the action on#y, whether
meritorious or non&meritorious= +This is the view of /aimini-=
$urvam Baadarayano hetuvya.adesat III=2=3* +,46-
But Baadarayana thinks the former +i=e=, the Lord to be the cause
of the fruits of action- on account of %is bein< dec#ared to be the
cause +of the actions themse#ves-=
$urvam1 the former, i= e=, the Lord as the <iver of the fruits of actionsC Tu1
butC Baadarayanah1 Baadarayana, the framer of the Sutras +ho#ds-C
%etuvya.adesat1 on account of %is bein< dec#ared the cause +of the actions
themse#ves-=
The view of /aimini e>.ressed in Sutra 38 is refuted by citin< a contrary one=
The word HTuI +but- refutes the view of Sutra 38= It sets aside the view of the
fruit bein< .roduced either by the mere action or the mere A.urva=
The sa<e Baadarayana ho#ds the former, i=e=, the Lord is the Dis.enser of the
fruit of actions= The Sruti c#ear#y states that a## rewards whether heaven or union
with the Lord come from %im, J%e takes one to a .urer wor#d by virtue of oneIs
.iety & $unyena .unyam #okam nayatiJ= A#so ;atha ?.anishad +I=2=2,- dec#ares
J%e <ives %imse#f away to whomsoever %e chooses & )amevaisha vrinute tena
#abhyahJ=
Baadarayana says that the Lord bestows the fruits of deeds because Sruti
says that the Lord induces the doin< of actions and <ives the fruits thereof= As the
Lord acts accordin< to the variety of ;armas, he can .roduce and <ive a variety of
resu#ts and has no .artia#ity and crue#ty, and ;arma wi## not become .ur.ose#ess=
The Lord is the causa# a<ent with reference to a## actions whether <ood or
evi#= ;aushitaki ?.anishad +III=9- dec#ares J%e makes him whom %e wishes to #ead
u. from these wor#ds do a <ood deed and the same makes him whom %e wishes
to #ead down from these wor#ds do a bad deed=J
The same is said in Bha<avad :ita +(II=2*&22-, JBhichever divine form a
devotee wishes to worshi. with faith, to that form I render his faith steady=
%o#din< that faith he strives to .ro.itiate the deity and obtains from it the benefits
he desires, as ordained by 'e=J
'oreover a## (edanta te>ts dec#are that the Lord is the on#y cause of a##
creations= The Lord creates a## bein<s in forms and conditions corres.ondin< to
and retributive of their former ;armas= %ence the Lord is the cause of a## fruits of
actions= As the Lord has re<ard for the merit and demerit of the sou#s, the
ob0ections raised above that a uniform cause is inca.ab#e of .roducin< various
effects, etc=, are without any foundation=
To sum u., the nature of the Su.reme Brahman has been described=
Brahman has been shown to be form#ess, se#f&#uminous and without difference= It
has been estab#ished throu<h J"eti&"etiJ Jnot this, not thisJ doctrine that Brahman
is one without a second= It has been conc#usive#y .roved that the Lord is the
Dis.enser of the fruits of ;armas of the .eo.#e=
Thus ends the Second $ada +Section II- of the Third Adhyaya +!ha.ter III- of
the Brahma Sutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
SE!TIO" ,
Introduction
In the .revious Section +$ada 2- it has been shown that the /iva +Tvam $ada
of the Tat&Tvam&Asi 'ahavakya- is identica# with Brahman +Tat $ada of Tat&Tvam&
Asi 'ahavakya-= Brahman has been shown to be Ekarasa +of homo<eneous or
unchan<in< nature-= Be have e>.#ained the nature of the ob0ect of co<nition, i=e=,
Brahman=
The author of the Brahma Sutras now sets himse#f to ascertain the end and
aim of the (idyas +meditations of ?.asanas- as .rescribed in the Srutis=
The Srutis .rescribe various kinds of (idyas or meditations to enab#e the
as.irant to attain the know#ed<e of identity= It is e>treme#y difficu#t or rather
im.ossib#e for the ordinary man to have a com.rehensive understandin< of the
Infinite, which is transcendent, e>treme#y subt#e and beyond the reach of the
senses and <ross undisci.#ined inte##ect= Therefore the Srutis or the sacred
scri.tures .rescribe easy methods of Sa<una meditation for a..roachin< the
Infinite or the Abso#ute= They .resent various symbo#s of Brahman +$ratikas- such
as (aisvanara or (irat, Sun, Akasa, ood, $rana and mind for the neo.hyte or the
be<inner to contem.#ate on= These symbo#s are .ro.s for the mind to #ean u.on in
the be<innin<= The <ross mind is rendered subt#e, shar. and one&.ointed by such
Sa<una forms of meditation=
These different methods of a..roachin< the Im.ersona# Abso#ute are known
as (idyas or ?.asanas=
This Section discusses these various (idyas by means of which the /iva or the
individua# sou# attains Brahman or the Su.reme Sou#= Simi#ar (idyas are described
different#y in different recensions of the (edas= "ow the @uestion arises natura##y
whether these simi#ar (idyas are one and the same or different, whether simi#ar
(idyas have to be combined into a sin<#e ?.asana or meditation or to be taken
se.arate#y= It is decided here which (idyas are the same and have to be combined
into one and which (idyas are different des.ite certain simi#ar features=
The aim and ob0ect of a## (idyas is the attainment of Brahman or the
Im.erishab#e= Brahman a#one is the on#y #ivin< Rea#ity= Brahman a#one is Truth=
Brahman is Sat or E>istence Abso#ute= %ence it may be advanta<eous and he#.fu#
to combine the .articu#ars of the same (idya mentioned in different recensions or
Sakhas as they have been found hi<h#y efficacious and immense#y beneficia# by
the fo##owers of those Sakhas=
%e who meditates on Brahman as mind as is tau<ht in the Taittiriya
?.anishad, Bhri<u (a##i, must co##ate a## the attributes of the mind not on#y from
his own .articu#ar (edic Sakha, but from other Sakhas a#so where meditation on
Brahman in the form of mind is tau<ht= In meditatin< on Brahman as mind, he
must not brin< to<ether attributes not be#on<in< to mind such as those of food,
thou<h Brahman is tau<ht to be meditated u.on as food a#so= In fact on#y those
attributes are to be su..#ied from other Sakhas which are tau<ht about the
.articu#ar ob0ect of meditation, and not any attribute in <enera#=
In this Section Sri (yasa the framer of the Brahma Sutras conc#udes that
most of the (idyas .rescribed in the Srutis have for their ob0ect the know#ed<e of
Brahman or Brahma&/nana= They differ on#y in form but not in substance= Their
fina# <oa# is the attainment of ever#astin< .eace, eterna# b#iss and immorta#ity= One
meditation or ?.asana or (idya is as <ood as another for attainin< the fina#
emanci.ation=
Sruti teaches us to meditate on Brahman either direct#y or throu<h the
medium of some $ratikas or symbo#s, such as the sun, Akasa, food, mind, $rana,
the $urusha residin< in the eye, the em.ty s.ace +Daharakasa- within the heart,
Om or $ranava and the #ike=
)ou wi## have to search Brahman and adore %im in and throu<h the symbo#s,
but these symbo#s must not usur. %is .#ace= )ou must concentrate and fi> the
mind on these symbo#s and think of %is attributes such as Omni.otence,
Omniscience, Omni.resence, Sat&!hit&Ananda, .urity, .erfection, freedom, etc=
The (idyas a..ear to be different on#y from the view&.oint of difference in the
symbo#s but the <oa# everywhere is the same= Remember this .oint a#ways= Bear
this in mind constant#y=
Some attributes of Brahman are found common in some of the (idyas= )ou
shou#d not consider yourse#f as a distinct entity from Brahman= This is a
fundamenta# or vita# .oint=
In a## the (idyas three thin<s are common= The fina# <oa# is the attainment of
eterna# b#iss and immorta#ity, throu<h the rea#isation of Brahman with or without
the aid of the symbo#s or $ratikas= The attributes which are found in common in a##
the (idyas such as b#issfu#ness, .urity, .erfection, know#ed<e, immorta#ity,
Abso#ute reedom or ;aiva#ya, Abso#ute Inde.endence, eterna# satisfaction and
the #ike must be invariab#y associated with the conce.tion of Brahman= The
meditator must think himse#f identica# with Brahman and must worshi. Brahman
as his Immorta# Atman=
Syno.sis
Adhikaranas I and II1 +Sutras *&3C 4- are concerned with the @uestion
whether those (idyas which are met with in identica# or simi#ar form in more than
one sacred te>t, are to be considered as constitutin< severa# (idyas or one (idya
on#y= The (idyas with identica# or simi#ar form met with in the scri.tures or in
different recensions of the scri.tures, are one (idya= $articu#ars of identica# (idyas
mentioned in different .#aces or Sakhas are to be combined with one meditation=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutras 5&9- discusses the case of (idyas which are se.arate
on account of different sub0ect&matter, a#thou<h in other res.ects there are
simi#arities= The e>am.#es se#ected are the ?d<itha (idyas of the !hhando<ya
?.anishad +I=*=,- and the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad +I=,=*-= A#thou<h they
indicate certain simi#arities such as bearin< the same name and the ?d<itha bein<
in both identified with $rana & yet they are to be he#d a.art, because the sub0ect
of the !hhando<ya (idya is not the who#e ?d<itha but on#y the sacred sy##ab#e O'
whi#e Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad re.resents the who#e ?d<itha as the ob0ect of
meditation=
Adhikarana I(1 +Sutra 6-= In the .assa<e, JLet one meditate on the sy##ab#e
HO'I +of- the ?d<ithaJ +!hh= ?.= I=*=*-, the Omkara and the ?d<itha stand in the
re#ation of one s.ecifyin< the other= The meanin< is JLet one meditate on that
Omkara whichJ etc=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutra *8- intimates that there shou#d be no mistake in the
identity of the $rana (idya as tau<ht in !hhando<ya, Brihadaranyaka and
;aushitaki= It determines the unity of the $rana&(idyas and the conse@uent
com.rehension of the different @ua#ities of the $rana, which are mentioned in the
different te>ts within one meditation=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutras **&*,- intimates that the essentia# and una#terab#e
attributes of Brahman such as B#iss and know#ed<e are to be taken into account
everywhere whi#e those which admit of increase and decrease as for instance the
attribute of havin< 0oy for its head, mentioned in the Taittiriya ?.anishad are
confined to s.ecia# meditations=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutras *3&*4- teaches that the ob0ect of ;atha ?.anishad
+III=*8, **- is one on#y, viG=, to indicate that the Su.reme Se#f is hi<her than
everythin<, so that the .assa<e forms one (idya on#y=
Adhikarana (III1 +Sutras *5&*7- intimates that the Se#f referred to in Aitareya
Aranyaka +II=3=*=*- is not a #ower form of the se#f +Sutratman or %iranya<arbha-,
but the Su.reme Se#f=
Adhikarana IK1 +Sutra *9- discusses a minor .oint connected with the $ranasamvada=
Rinsin< the mouth is not en0oined in the $rana&(idya, but on#y thinkin<
the water as the dress of $rana=
Adhikarana K1 +Sutra *6- dec#ares that the (idyas in the same Sakha which
are identica# or simi#ar have to be combined, for they are one=
Adhikarana KI1 +Sutras 28&22-= In Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad +(=4-, Brahman
is re.resented first as abidin< in the s.here of the sun and then as abidin< within
the ri<ht eye= The names JAharJ and JAhamJ of the Su.reme Brahman abidin< in
the sun and in the ri<ht eye res.ective#y cannot be combined, as these are two
se.arate (idyas=
Adhikarana KII1 +Sutra 2,-= Attributes of Brahman mentioned in Ranayaniya&
;hi#a are not to be taken into consideration in other Brahma&(idyas, e=<=, the
Sandi#ya (idya, as the former is an inde.endent (idya owin< to the difference of
BrahmanIs abode=
Adhikarana KIII1 +Sutra 23- .oints out that the $urusha&(idya of !hhando<ya
is @uite different from the $urusha&(idya of Taittiriya thou<h they .ass by the
same name=
Adhikarana KI(1 +Sutra 24- decides that certain detached 'antras #ike J$ierce
the who#e body of the enemyJ etc=, and sacrifices mentioned at the be<innin< of
certain ?.anishads & as for instance, a Brahmana about the 'ahavrata ceremony
at the be<innin< of the Aitareya&Aranyaka, do, notwithstandin< their .osition
which seems to connect them with the Brahma&(idya, not be#on< to the #atter, as
they show unmistakab#e si<ns of bein< connected with sacrificia# acts=
Adhikarana K(1 +Sutra 25- treats of the .assa<e statin< that the man dyin< in
the .ossession of true know#ed<e shakes off a## his <ood and evi# deeds and
affirms that a statement made in some of those .assa<es, on#y to the effect that
the <ood and evi# deeds .ass over to the friends and enemies of the deceased, is
va#id for a## the .assa<es=
Adhikarana K(I1 +Sutras 27&29- decides that the shakin< of the <ood and evi#
deeds takes .#ace not as the ;aushitaki ?.anishad states on the road to
Brahma#oka or the wor#d of Brahman but at the moment of the sou#Is de.arture
from the body=
Adhikarana K(II1 +Sutras 26&,8- intimates that the knower of the Sa<una
Brahman a#one <oes by the .ath of the <ods after death and not the knower of the
"ir<una Brahman= The sou# of him who knows the "ir<una Brahman becomes one
with it without movin< to any other .#ace=
Adhikarana K(III1 +Sutra ,*- decides that the road of the <ods is fo##owed not
on#y by those who know the (idyas which s.ecia##y mention the <oin< on that road
but a## who are ac@uainted with the Sa<una (idyas of Brahman=
Adhikarana KIK1 +Sutra ,2- decides that, a#thou<h the <enera# effect of true
know#ed<e is re#ease from a## forms of body, yet even .erfected sou#s may be
reborn for the fu#fi#ment of some divine mission=
Adhikarana KK1 +Sutra ,,- teaches that the ne<ative attributes of Brahman
mentioned in some (idyas such as its bein< not <ross, not subt#e, etc=, are to be
combined in a## meditations on Brahman=
Adhikarana KKI1 +Sutra ,3- determines that ;atho.anishad +III=*-, and
'undaka +III=*-, constitute one (idya on#y, because both .assa<es refer to the
hi<hest Brahman=
Adhikarana KKII1 +Sutras ,4&,5- maintains that the two .assa<es +Bri= ?.=
III=3 and III=4-, constitute one (idya on#y, the ob0ect of know#ed<e bein< in both
cases Brahman viewed as the Inner Se#f of a##=
Adhikarana KKIII1 +Sutra ,7- decides that the .assa<e in Aitareya Aranyaka
+II=2=3=5- constitutes not one but two meditations= The Sruti en0oins reci.roca#
meditation and not mere#y one way=
Adhikarana KKI(1 +Sutra ,9- determines that the (idyas of the True +Satya
Brahman- contained in Bri= ?.= +(=3=* and (=4=2- is one on#y=
Adhikarana KK(1 +Sutra ,6- decides that the attributes mentioned in !hh= ?.=
+(III=*=*- and Bri= ?.= +I(=3=,2- are to be combined on account of a number of
common features in both the te>ts=
Adhikarana KK(I1 +Sutras 38&3*- maintains that $rana<nihotra need not be
observed on days of fast=
Adhikarana KK(II1 +Sutra 32- decides that those meditations which are
connected with certain sacrifices are not .arts of them and therefore not
inse.arab#y connected with them=
Adhikarana KK(III1 +Sutra 3,- teaches that in a Bri= ?.= .assa<e and a simi#ar
!hh= ?.= .assa<e, meditations on (ayu and $rana are to be ke.t se.arate in s.ite
of the essentia# oneness of these two=
Adhikarana KKIK1 +Sutras 33&42- decides that the fire&a#tars made of mind
etc=, which are mentioned in the A<nirahasya of the Brihadaranyaka are not .art
of the sacrificia# act, but constitute a se.arate (idya=
Adhikarana KKK1 +Sutras 4,&43- determines that the se#f is a se.arate entity
distinct from the body=
Adhikarana KKKI1 +Sutras 44&45- decides that ?.asanas or meditations
connected with sacrificia# acts, e=<=, the ?d<itha ?.asana, are va#id for a## Sakhas=
Adhikarana KKKII1 +Sutra 47- decides that the (aisvanara ?.asana of !hh=
?.= +(=**- is one entire ?.asana= (aisvanara A<ni is to be meditated u.on as a
who#e, not in his sin<#e .arts=
Adhikarana KKKIII1 +Sutra 49- decides that various (idyas #ike the Sandi#ya&
(idya, Dahara&(idya and so on, are to be ke.t se.arate and not combined into
one entire ?.asana=
Adhikarana KKKI(1 +Sutra 46- teaches that those meditations on Brahman for
which the te>ts assi<n one and the same fruit, are o.tiona#, there bein< no reason
for their bein< cumu#ated=
Any one (idya shou#d be se#ected accordin< to oneIs choice=
Adhikarana KKK(1 +Sutra 58- decides that those meditations on the other
hand which refer to s.ecia# desires may or may not be combined accordin< to
choice or #ikin<=
Adhikarana KKK(I1 +Sutras 5*&55- decides that meditations connected with
members of sacrificia# acts, such as the ?d<itha may or may not be combined
accordin< to #ikin<=
Sarvavedanta.ratyayadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&3-
The (idyas havin< identica# or the same form found in scri.tures constitute one
(idya
Sarvavedanta.ratyayam chodanadyaviseshat III=,=* +,58-
+The (idyas or the ?.asanas- described in the various (edanta
te>ts +are not different, are identica#- on account of the nondifference
of in0unction, etc=, +i=e=, connection, form and name-=
Sarvavedanta.ratyayam1 e>.osition of Brahman in a## the (edanta te>tsC
!hodanadyaviseshat1 as there is no difference in the in0unctions, etc=, +i=e=,
connection, form and name-= +Sarva1 a##C (eda1 the (edasC Anta1 the sett#ed
conc#usionC $ratyayam1 the know#ed<e, rea#isationC !hodanadi1 or the in0unction
and othersC Aviseshat1 as there is no difference=-
!an Srutis dec#are different ?.asanas in res.ect of one entityL If we say that
one Sruti is correct and others are incorrect, disbe#ief in Srutis as a who#e wi##
fo##ow= The Srutis which dec#are the nature of Brahman are not commands= They
on#y state so#id facts=
The author of the Sutras now .roceeds to discuss whether the ?.asana
+devotiona#- Srutis are diver<ent and se.arate or not= Scri.tures teach that #ike
;arma, ?.asanas have various resu#ts= Some of them have visib#e resu#ts, others
unseen resu#ts= Some ?.asanas create true know#ed<e and #ead to ;ramamukti or
<radua# #iberation or re#ease by successive ste.s= Bith a view to those
meditations, therefore, we may raise the @uestion whether the individua# (edantate>ts
teach different ?.asanas of Brahman or not=
There are many e>.ositions of Brahman in Sruti= In some Sruti %e is
described as (aisvanara, in another %e is described as $rana and so forth= "ow a
doubt may arise as to whether these e>.ositions are different or they a## aim at
one and the same thin<=
This Sutra removes the doubt= The e>.ositions in a## the Srutis are the same=
They a## .oint to one and the same .ur.ose of worshi. of Brahman, thou<h in
different forms fitted to the ca.acity of the meditator, because there is no
difference in the in0unctions about meditation= A## the in0unctions intimate that
Brahman is to be meditated u.on= %ence the ob0ect of those e>.ositions and of
meditation is one and the same=
The ?.asanas of $rana are described in one way in the Brihadaranyaka
?.anishad and in a different way in the !hhando<ya ?.anishad= "ow a doubt
arises whether such ?.asanas described different#y in different Sakhas of the
(edas are different or the same=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent maintains that they are different owin< to
the difference in form= This Sutra refutes it and dec#ares that such meditations are
one and the same owin< to the non&difference as re<ards in0unctions, connection,
name and form of these in different Sakhas=
Thus, as the A<nihotra thou<h described in different Sakhas is yet one, the
same kind of human activity bein< en0oined in a## by means of the words J%e is to
offerJ, so the in0unction met with in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad +(I=*=*=-= J%e
who knows the o#dest and the bestJ, etc=, is the same as that which occurs in the
te>t of !hhando<ya J%e who knows the first and the bestJ +!hh= ?.= (=*=*-= The
$rana&(idya in a## the Sakhas is one and the same= There is non&difference as
re<ards the fruit of the ?.asana in both te>ts= J%e who knows it to be such
becomes the first and best amon< his .eo.#eJ +Bri= ?.= (I=*=*-= $rana is the ob0ect
of meditation in both te>ts= The name of the meditation in both te>ts is $rana&
(idya= $rana is described in both te>ts as the o#dest and the <reatest= Therefore
the two (idyas are not different, as there is no difference in a## res.ects= The two
(idyas are one and the same= The same is true of Dahara&(idya, $ancha<ni&(idya
or the know#ed<e of the five fires, (aisvanara&(idya or the know#ed<e of the
(aisvanara, Sandi#ya&(idya, etc=, described in various Sakhas=
Bhedanneti chennaikasyama.i III=,=2 +,5*-
If it be said that the (idyas are se.arate on account of
difference +in minor .oints-, we deny that, since even in the same
(idyas +there may be such minor differences-=
Bhedat1 on account of differenceC "a1 notC Iti1 as, so, thisC !het1 ifC "a1
no, notC Ekasyam1 in the one and the same +(idya-C A.i1 a#so, even=
An ob0ection to the .recedin< Sutra is raised and refuted=
The Sutra consists of two .arts name#y an ob0ection and its re.#y= The
ob0ection is JBhedanneti chetJ= The re.#y is J"aikasyama.iJ=
If you say that difference e>ists, we say that it is not so, because such
differences can e>ist even in the same ?.asana or (idya=
Doubt#ess the (a0asaneyins refer to a si>th A<ni when referrin< to $ancha<ni
(idya or the doctrine of five fires JThe fire becomes his fireJ +Bri= ?.= (I=2=23-, but
the !hhando<yas do not= JBut he who knows these five firesJ +!hh= ?.= (=*8=*8-=
But this wi## not make them se.arate= The !hhando<yas a#so can add it if they
#ike= Thus the (idya as stated in the two Srutis Brihadaranyaka and !hhando<ya,
is identica#=
The .resence or absence of a si>th fire cannot make a difference as re<ards
form, because the Shodasi vesse# may or may not be taken in the same Atiratra
sacrifice= The name Jfive firesJ is no ob0ection a<ainst this increase of number,
because the number five is not a fundamenta# .art of the in0unction= Differences
#ike this are found in different cha.ters even in the same Sakha and in the same
(idya, and yet the (idya described in these different cha.ters is reco<nised by a##
as one=
The !hhando<ya ?.anishad a#so actua##y mentions a si>th fire, viG=, in the
.assa<e (=6=2 JBhen he has de.arted his friends carry him, as a..ointed, to the
fire=J
Therefore it is @uite c#ear that the (idyas of the same c#ass are one and not
different notwithstandin< these differences in different Sakhas=
The $urva.akshin says1 Then a<ain in the conversation between the $ranas,
the !hhando<yas mention in addition to the most im.ortant $rana four other
$ranas viG=, s.eech, the eye, the ear and the mind, whi#e the (a0asaneyins
mention a fifth one a#so= JSeed indeed is <eneration= %e who knows that becomes
rich in offs.rin< and catt#eJ +Bri= ?.= (I=*=5-=
Be re.#y1 nothin< stands in the way of some additiona# @ua#ification bein<
inc#uded in the (idya concernin< the co##o@uy of the $ranas= The addition or
omission of some .articu#ar @ua#ification is not ab#e to create difference in the
ob0ect of know#ed<e and thereby in the know#ed<e itse#f, because the ob0ects of
know#ed<e may differ .art#y, yet their <reater .art and at the same time the
knowin< .erson are understood to be the same=
Therefore the (idya a#so remains the same=
Svadhyayasya tathatvena hi samachareIdhikaraccha
savavaccha tanniyamah III=,=, +,52-
+The rite of carryin< fire on the head is connected- with the
study of the (eda +of the Atharvanikas-, because in the Samachara +it
is mentioned- as bein< such= And +this a#so fo##ows- from its bein< a
@ua#ification +for the students of the Atharva (eda- as in the case
with the +seven- ob#ations +viG=, Saurya etc=-=
Svadhyayasya1 of the study of the (edasC Tathatvena1 on account of
bein< suchC %i1 becauseC Samachare1 in the book named Samachara containin<
the ru#es for the .erformance of (edic ritesC Adhikarat1 on account of the
@ua#ificationC !ha1 andC Savavat1 as in the case of the seven ob#ations +viG=,
Saurya, etc=-C !ha1 and, a#soC Tanniyamah1 that ru#e=
An ob0ection based on a statement of the 'undaka ?.anishad is e>.#ained
and refuted=
A further ob0ection is raised= In the 'undaka ?.anishad which dea#s with the
know#ed<e of Brahman, the carryin< of fire on the head by the student +Sirovrata-
is mentioned= The $urva.akshin or the o..onent maintains that the (idyas of the
Atharvanikas are different from a## other (idyas on account of this .articu#ar
ceremony which is .ractised by the fo##owers of the Atharva (eda=
This Sutra refutes this and says that the rite of carryin< fire on the head is an
attribute not of the (idya, but mere#y of the study of the (eda on the .art of the
Atharvanikas= So it is described in the book Samachara which treats of (edic
observances=
At the c#ose of the ?.anishad moreover we have the fo##owin< sentence, JA
man who has not .erformed the rite +carryin< fire on the head- does not read
thisJ +'un= ?.= III=2=**-= This c#ear#y intimates that it is connected with the study
of the ?.anishad and not with the (idya=
The Sutra adds another i##ustrative instance in the words Jas in the case of
the #ibations there is #imitation of thatJ= The rite of carryin< the fire is associated
on#y with the study of that .articu#ar (eda and not others, #ike the seven ob#ations
from the Saurya #ibation u. to the Sataudana #ibation, which are not connected
with the fires tau<ht in the other (edas, but on#y with those of Atharva (eda= The
command is to those studyin< the 'undaka ?.anishad 0ust as the command to
.erform the seven Savas is to them= The carryin< of a fire&.ot on their head wi##
not make the (idya different=
Therefore there is unity of (idya in a## cases= The doctrine of the unity of the
(idyas thus remains unshaken=
Darsayati cha III=,=3 +,5,-
+The scri.ture- a#so instructs +thus-=
Darsayati1 +Sruti- shows, instructsC !ha1 a#so=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra * is <iven=
The (eda a#so dec#ares the identity of the (idyas, because a## (edanta te>ts
re.resent the ob0ect of know#ed<e, as one, e=<=, ;atha ?.anishad +I=2=*4-, JThat
word which a## the (edas dec#areJC Aitareya Aranyaka +III=2=,=*2- J%im on#y the
Bahvrichas consider in the <reat hymn, the Adhvaryus in the sacrificia# fire, the
!hhando<yas in the 'ahavrata ceremony=J
To .rove the unity of the (idyas some other instances may be @uoted=
;atho.anishad +I=5=2- mentions as one of the LordIs @ua#ities that %e causes fear=
"ow this very same @ua#ity is referred to in the Tait= ?.= II=71 Jor if he makes but
the sma##est distinction in the Se#f, there is fear for him= But that fear is on#y for
him who knows a difference and does not know oneness=J
The Im.ersona# Abso#ute is the one .ur.ort of a## the (edanta te>ts= %ence a##
(idyas which .ertain to It must a#so be one= The meditation on the Sa<una
Brahman as (aisvanara, who is re.resented as e>tendin< from heaven to the
earth in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad is referred to in the !hhando<ya
?.anishad, JBut he who adores that (aisvanara Se#f as e>tendin< from heaven to
the earthJ +!hh= ?.= (=*9=*-= This c#ear#y indicates that a## (aisvanara (idyas are
one=
"ir<una Brahman is one and not many= Sa<una Brahman a#so is one and not
many= %ence .articu#ar (idyas which .ertain to either Sa<una Brahman or "ir<una
Brahman are a#so one and not many= This a#so fo##ows from the same hymns and
the #ike en0oined in the one .#ace bein< em.#oyed in other .#aces for the .ur.ose
of devout meditation or ?.asana=
The same ru#e a..#ies to other (idyas a#so besides the (aisvanara (idya=
Therefore, (idyas are not many, thou<h they are different#y described in different
Sakhas= A## (edantic te>ts intimate identica# devout meditations= Thus the unity of
(idyas is estab#ished=
?.asamharadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra 4-
$articu#ars of identica# (idyas mentioned in different Sakhas or .#aces are to be
combined into one meditation
?.asamharoIrthabhedadvidhiseshavatsamane cha III=,=4 +,53-
And in the ?.asanas of the same c#ass +mentioned in different
Sakhas- a combination +of a## the .articu#ars mentioned in a## Sakhas
is to be made- as there is no difference in the ob0ect of meditation,
0ust as +a combination of- a## subsidiary rites of a main sacrifice
+mentioned in different Sakhas is made-=
?.asamharah1 combinationC Arthabhedat1 as there is no difference in the
ob0ect of meditationC (idhiseshavat1 #ike the subsidiary rites of a main sacrificeC
Samane1 in the ?.asanas of the same c#ass, in the case of e@ua#ity, the forms of
meditation bein< the same in effectC !ha1 a#so, and= +Artha1 .ur.oseC Abheda1
non&differenceC (idhi1 in0unctions, of the duties en0oined by the scri.tures=-
A deduction is made from the four .recedin< Sutras= This Sutra states the
.ractica# outcome of the discussion carried on in the first four Sutras=
The (idyas described in different Sakhas wi## have to be combined in the
?.asana, because their ob0ect is one and the fruit a#so is the same, 0ust as in the
case of (idhiseshas=
The .articu#ars that are mentioned in other Sakhas than oneIs own are a#so
efficacious= Therefore one wi## have to combine a## these, 0ust as one does in the
case of subsidiary rites #ike A<nihotra connected with a main sacrifice, mentioned
in severa# Sakhas=
Anyathatvadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras 5&9-
Those (idyas with different sub0ect&matter are se.arate,even if there may be
some simi#arities
Anyathatvam sabdaditi chennaviseshat III=,=5 +,54-
If it be said +that the ?d<itha (idya of the Brihadaranyaka
?.anishad and that of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad- are different on
account of +difference in- te>tsC we deny this on the <round of their
non&difference +as re<ards essentia#s-=
Anyathatvam1 there is differenceC Sabdat1 on account of +difference in-
te>tsC Iti1 soC !het1 ifC "a1 notC Aviseshat1 on account of non&difference +as
re<ards essentia#s-=
This Sutra re.resents the view of the $urva.akshin or the o..onent= The
o..onent tries to estab#ish that the two (idyas are one=
The Sutra consists of two .arts name#y, a su..osed ob0ection to the
ob0ectorIs view and its refutation by the ob0ector to stren<then his case= The
su..osed ob0ection is JAnyathatvam sabdaditi chetJ and the re.#y is J"aviseshatJ=
It is said in the (a0asaneyaka +I=,=*-, JThe Devas said, HBe##, #et us defeat
the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the ?d<ithaDI They said to s.eech1 Hsin<
for us=I The s.eech said HyesI=J
The s.eech and the other $ranas were .ierced by the Asuras with evi#= They
were not ab#e to do what was e>.ected from them= Thereu.on the Devas
a..ointed the !hief $rana, and said to the breath in the mouth Hsin< for usI= The
breath said HyesI and san<=
There is a simi#ar story in !hhando<ya ?.anishad I=2= The Devas took the
?d<itha= They thou<ht they wou#d overcome the Asuras with it= The other $ranas
were .ierced with evi# and thus van@uished by the Asuras= Thereu.on the Devas
went to the !hief $rana= JThen comes the !hief $rana= On that they meditated as
?d<itha=J
Both these .assa<es <#orify the chief $rana= %ence it fo##ows that they both
are in0unctions of a meditation on the $rana= A doubt arises now whether the two
(idyas are se.arate (idyas or one (idya on#y=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds that the two (idyas have to be considered as one= It
may be ob0ected that they cannot be one on account of the difference in te>ts=
The (a0asaneyins re.resent the chief vita# air as the .roducer of the ?d<itha, JDo
thou sin< out for usJC whi#e the !hhando<yas s.eak of it as itse#f bein< the
?d<itha, JOn that they meditated as ?d<ithaJ= %ow can this diver<ence be
reconci#ed with the assum.tion of the unity of the (idyasL
But this is not acce.tab#e because there is unity as re<ards a <reat many
.oints= Both te>ts re#ate that the Devas and the Asuras were fi<htin<C both at first
<#orify s.eech and the other $ranas in their re#ation to the ?d<itha and thereu.on
findin< fau#t with them .ass on to the chief $ranaC both te## how throu<h the
stren<th of the #atter, the Asuras were van@uished=
The difference .ointed out, is not im.ortant enou<h to brin< about a
se.aration of the two (idyas=
The te>t of the (a0asaneyaka a#so coordinates the chief $rana and the
?d<itha in the c#ause, J%e is ?d<ithaJ +Bri= ?.= I=,=2,-= Be therefore have to
assume that in the !hhando<ya a#so the chief $rana has secondari#y to be #ooked
u.on as the .roducer of the ?d<itha=
The two te>ts thus constitute one (idya on#y= There is unity of (idyas on the
<rounds <iven in Sutra III=,=*=
"a va .rakaranabhedat.arovariyastvadivat III=,=7 +,55-
Or rather there is no +unity of the (idyas- owin< to the
difference of sub0ect matter even as +the meditation on the ?d<itha-
as the hi<hest and <reatest +i=e=, Brahman- +is different from the
meditation on the ?d<itha as abidin< in the eye etc=-=
"a1 notC (a1 certain#yC $rakaranabhedat1 on account of difference in
sub0ect matterC $arovariyastvadivat1 even as +the meditation on the ?d<itha-
as the hi<hest and <reat +Brahman- +is different-=
The ob0ection raised in the .recedin< Sutra is refuted=
The Sutra refutes the former view and estab#ishes that the two (idyas, in
s.ite of simi#arity in many .oints, are different owin< to difference in sub0ect
matter=
In the !hhando<ya, Omkara is said to be a #imit of ?d<itha and so such
Omkara has to be re<arded as $rana= In the other the sin<er of ?d<itha, the
?d<atri is ca##ed $rana= Therefore the two (idyas are different 0ust as the ?.asana
of ?d<itha as the Infinite and Su.reme +$arovariya- +!hh= ?.= I=6=2-= JThis is
indeed the hi<hest and <reatestJ is different from the ?.asana of ?d<itha as
<o#den in form and as bein< in the eye and in the sun +!hh= ?.= I=5-=
In the !hhando<ya on#y a .art of the ?d<itha +hymn-, the sy##ab#e O' is
meditated u.on as $rana JLet one meditate on the sy##ab#e O' of the ?d<ithaJ
+!hh= ?.= I=*=*-= But in the Brihadaranyaka the who#e ?d<itha hymn is meditated
u.on as $rana +I=,=2-= %ence the two (idyas cannot be one owin< to this
difference in the ob0ect of meditation=
The s.ecia# features of different (idyas are not to be combined even when
the (idyas be#on< to one and the same SakhaC much #ess then when they be#on<
to different Sakhas=
Sam0nataschet taduktamasti tu tada.i III=,=9 +,57-
If it be said +that the (idyas are one- on account of +the
identity of- nameC +we re.#y that- that is e>.#ained +a#ready-C
moreover that +identity of name- is +found in the case of admitted#y
se.arate (idyas-=
Sam0natah1 on account of the name +bein< same-C !het1 ifC Tat1 thatC
?ktam1 has a#ready been answeredC Asti1 is, e>istsC Tu1 butC Tat1 thatC A.i1
even, a#so=
An ar<ument a<ainst the .recedin< Sutra is refuted=
The word HtuI +but-, removes the doubt raised above=
)ou cannot ca## them identica# mere#y because they have the same name= The
sub0ect matter differs= This has a#ready been estab#ished in the #ast Sutra= or
instance A<nihotra and Darsa.urnamasa are se.arate and yet have the same
name, viG=, ;athaka as they are described in the book ca##ed ;athaka= Even the
?d<itha (idya of !hh= ?.= I=5 and !hh= ?.= I=6=2 are different (idyas=
(ya.tyadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra 6-
It is a..ro.riate to s.ecia#ise O' by the term H?d<ithaI
(ya.tescha saman0asam III=,=6 +,59-
And because +O'- e>tends +over the who#e of the (edas-, +to
s.ecia#ise it by the term H?d<ithaI- is a..ro.riate=
(ya.teh1 because +O'- e>tends +over the who#e of the (edas-C !ha1 andC
Saman0asam1 is a..ro.riate, consistent, 0ustifiab#e=
Sutra 7 is e#aborated here=
In the Sruti HOmityetadaksharamud<ithamu.asitaI, the use of the word
?d<itha as (iseshana, i=e=, ad0ective of O' is a..ro.riate, because O' by itse#f is
.ervasive in a## Srutis and shou#d not be understood here in its <enera# sense=
In the .assa<e JLet a man meditate on the sy##ab#e O' as the ?d<ithaJ, the
two words HOmkaraI and H?d<ithaI, are .#aced in coordination= The @uestion then
arises whether the re#ation in which the ideas conveyed by these two words stand
to each other is the re#ation of su.erim.osition +Adhyasa- or sub#ation +A.avada-
or unity +Ekatva- or s.ecification +(iseshana-=
The word HandI stands here in .#ace of HbutI and is meant to discard the three
other a#ternatives= The fourth is to be ado.ted= The fourth and correct view is that
the one is (iseshana +an ad0ective- to the other as in the words "i#a&?t.a#a +b#ue
#otus-= The .assa<e means that ?d<itha is the (iseshana of Omkara= The
a..ro.riate view of the !hhando<ya .assa<e is to take the word ?d<itha as
s.ecia#isin< the term HOmkaraI=
Sarvabhedadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutra *8-
?nity of the $rana&(idya
Sarvabhedadanyatreme III=,=*8 +,56-
On account of the non&difference +of the (idya- everywhere +i=e=,
in a## the te>ts of the different Sakhas where the $rana&(idya
occurs- these @ua#ities +mentioned in two of them are to be inserted-
in the other .#aces +e=<=, the ;aushitaki ?.anishad-=
Sarvabhedat1 on account of non&difference everywhereC Anyatra1 in the
other .#acesC Ime1 these +@ua#ities are to be inserted-=
A concrete instance on the <enera# .rinci.#e of Sutra 4 is cited=
In the co##o@uy of the $ranas recorded by the (a0asaneyins and the
!hhando<yas, the $rana which is endowed with various @ua#ities such as bein< the
best and so on, is re.resented as the ob0ect of meditation= (arious @ua#ities such
as bein< the richest and the #ike are ascribed to s.eech and the other or<ans=
These #atter @ua#ities are in the end attributed to the $rana a#so= JIf I am the
richest thou art the richest=J
"ow in other Sakhas a#so, as e=<=, that of the ;aushitakins the set of @ua#ities
such as bein< the best and so on is attributed to the $rana +;atha ?.= II=*3-= But
the set of attributes, viG=, bein< the richest and so on is not mentioned=
The @uestion is whether they are to be inserted in the ;aushitaki a#so, where
they are not mentioned=
This Sutra dec#ares that they have to be inserted, as the (idya is the same in
a## the three ?.anishads= Attributes be#on<in< to one and the same (idya or
sub0ect have to be combined wherever that (idya occurs a#thou<h they may not
be e>.ress#y stated=
Anandadyadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras **&*,-
Attributes #ike B#iss, etc=, of Brahman have to be combined into one meditation
Anandadayah .radhanasya III=,=** +,78-
B#iss and other attributes +which de.ict the true nature- of the
$rinci.a# or the Su.reme Se#f, i=e=, Brahman +have to be combined
from a## .#aces in the meditation on Brahman-=
Anandadayah1 B#iss and other attributesC $radhanasya1 of the $rinci.a#
i=e=, the Su.reme Se#f or Brahman=
Brahman is described as B#iss, ;now#ed<e, a##&.ervadin<, the Se#f of a##, true,
etc=, in different te>ts of different Sakhas= A## the attributes are not mentioned in
a## .#aces=
"ow the @uestion arises whether they have to be combined in the meditation
on Brahman or not= This Sutra says that they have to be combined, as the ob0ect
of meditation +Brahman- is one and the same in a## Sakhas and therefore the
(idya is one= The reason for this conc#usion is the one <iven in Sutra *8=
The @ua#ities attributed to Brahman in any one .#ace have to be combined
whenever Brahman is s.oken of=
$riyasirastvadya.ra.tiru.achaya.achayau hi bhede III=,=*2 +,7*-
+Nua#ities #ike- 0oy bein< %is head, etc=, are not to be taken
everywhere, +bein< sub0ect to- increase and decrease +are .ossib#e
on#y- if there is difference +and not in Brahman in which there is
non&difference-=
$riyasirastvadi1 @ua#ities #ike 0oy bein< %is head, etc=C A.ra.tih1 are not to
be taken everywhereC ?.achaya.achayau1 increase and decreaseC %i1 becauseC
Bhede1 +are .ossib#e- in difference= +?.achaya1 increaseC A.achaya1 decrease=-
The discussion commenced in Sutra ** is continued, statin< here as to which
of the attributes are not to be cu##ed and combined to<ether in every form of
meditation=
J'oreJ and J#essJ wi## a..#y on#y if there is differentiation= %ence the
descri.tions of $riyasiras, etc=, wi## not a..#y to Brahman= The descri.tion of
$riyasiras +attributes #ike 0oy bein< %is head, etc=- in the Taittiriya ?.anishad are
not Dharmas of Brahman but the Dharmas of the Anandamaya&kosa or the b#issfu#
sheath= The descri.tions are <iven to turn the mind towards Brahman= Differences
of hi<her and #ower in :unas can come in ?.asanas of Sa<una Brahman but have
no a..#ication to "ir<una Brahman=
The attributes of havin< 0oy for %is head and such other attributes are not
acce.tab#e in every form of meditation on Brahman because attributin< #imbs to
Brahman wou#d render %im #iab#e to f#uctuation=
Attributes #ike 0oy bein< %is head and so on mentioned in the Taittiriya
?.anishad are not to be taken and combined in other .#aces where the ?.asana of
Brahman is en0oined because the successive terms, J/oy is Its headJ, Jsatisfaction
is its ri<ht armJ, J<reat satisfaction is its #eft armJ, Jb#iss is %is trunkJ, JBrahman
is %is tai#, %is su..ortJ +II=4-, indicate @ua#ities which have increase and decrease
with re<ard to each other and to other en0oyers +individua# sou#s or /ivas- and
therefore can e>ist where there is difference=
"ow for hi<her and #ower de<rees there is room on#y where there is .#ura#ity
or difference but Brahman is without a## .#ura#ity or difference, as we know from
many scri.tura# .assa<es= +One on#y, without a second-= Therefore these
attributes cannot constitute the nature of Brahman= They are to be confined to the
te>ts which .rescribe them and not taken to other .#aces=
'oreover, these @ua#ities are attributed to the Su.reme Brahman mere#y as
means of fi>in< oneIs mind, not as themse#ves bein< ob0ects of meditation= rom
this it fo##ows that they are not va#id everywhere= The attributes mentioned in any
one are not va#id for others=
The case is simi#ar to that of two wives ministerin< to one kin<C one with a
fan, the other with an umbre##a= %ere a#so the ob0ect of their ministrations is one,
but the acts of ministration themse#ves are distinct= They have each their own
.articu#ar attributes= Simi#ar is the case under discussion a#so=
Nua#ities in which #ower and hi<her de<rees can be distin<uished be#on< to
the @ua#ified Brahman on#y in which there is .#ura#ity, not to the Su.reme "ir<una
Brahman which is above a## @ua#ifications= Such attributes as havin< true desires
+Sat&;ama- and the #ike which are mentioned in some .articu#ar .#ace have no
va#idity for other meditations on Brahman=
Itare tvarthasamanyat III=,=*, +,72-
But other attributes +#ike B#iss, etc=, are to be combined- on
account of identity of .ur.ort=
Itare1 other attributesC Tu1 butC Arthasamanyat1 because of common
.ur.ort, on account of identity of .ur.ort= +Artha1 resu#t, ob0ect, .ur.ortC
Samanyat1 on account of the e@ua#ity or sameness=-
The .revious discussion is continued=
But attributes #ike B#iss, know#ed<e, a##&.ervadin<ness, etc=, which describe
the nature of Brahman, are to be combined as the ob0ect of such descri.tions is
the same, as they direct#y re#ate to Brahman and as they are inherent attributes of
Brahman, as their .ur.ort is the one indivisib#e, unconditioned Brahman=
These attributes which scri.ture sets for the .ur.ose of teachin< the true
nature of Brahman are to be viewed as va#id for a## .assa<es which refer to
Brahman, because their .ur.ort, i=e=, the Brahman whose nature is to be tau<ht is
one= These attributes are mentioned with a view to know#ed<e of Brahman on#y,
and not for ?.asana=
Adhyanadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras *3&*4-
;atha ?.= I=,=*8&** teaches mere#y that the Se#f is hi<her than everythin< e#se
Adhyanaya .rayo0anabhavat III=,=*3 +,7,-
+The .assa<e in ;atha ?.anishad I=,=*8 te##s about the Se#f on#y
as the hi<hest- for the sake of .ious meditation, as there is no use
+of the know#ed<e of the ob0ects bein< hi<her than the senses and so
on-=
Adhyanaya1 for the sake of meditationC $rayo0anabhavat1 as there is no
use, as there is no other necessity= +$rayo0ana1 of any other .ur.oseC Abhavat1
on account of the absence=-
The .revious discussion is continued=
Be read in the ;athaka +I=,=*8&**-, J%i<her than the senses are the ob0ects,
hi<her than the ob0ects there is the mind,J etc=, Jhi<her than the Atman there is
nothin<, this is the <oa#, the hi<hest road=J
%ere the doubt arises whether the .ur.ort of the .assa<e is to intimate that
each of the thin<s successive#y enumerated is hi<her than the .recedin< one, or
on#y that the Atman is hi<her than a## of them=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent ho#ds the former a#ternative because the
te>t e>.ress#y dec#ares the ob0ects to be hi<her than the senses, the mind hi<her
than the ob0ects and so on= %e maintains that these sentences are se.arate and
not one as referrin< to the Atman a#one= Therefore the .ur.ose of the te>t is to
teach that the ob0ects are su.erior to the senses and so on=
This Sutra refutes it and dec#ares that it is one sentence and means that the
Atman is su.erior to a## these=
The ob0ect of the Sruti is not to say that each #ater cate<ory is hi<her than
the former, because there is no s.iritua# <ain or any usefu# .ur.ose in such a
dec#aration= The aim is to dec#are that Brahman is hi<her than a##, as such
know#ed<e #eads to 'oksha=
The Atman a#one is to be known, because the ;now#ed<e <ives freedom or
the fina# re#ease= The scri.ture a#so says J%e who has .erceived that, is freed from
the 0aws of deathJ +;atha ?.= I=,=*4-=
urther, the te>t intimates hi<hest reverence for the Atman by dec#arin< that
nothin< is hi<her than the Atman and that %e is the hi<hest <oa# and thereby
shows that the who#e series of ob0ects is enumerated on#y for the .ur.ose of
<ivin< information about the Atman= This information is <iven for the sake of
meditation on the Atman which resu#ts in the know#ed<e of it=
Atmasabdaccha III=,=*4 +,73-
And on account of the word Atman=
Atmasabdat1 on account of the word HAtmaIC !ha1 and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *3 is <iven=
The above conc#usion is confirmed by the fact that the sub0ect of discussion is
ca##ed the Se#f or Atman= JThat Se#f is hidden in a## bein<s and does not shine
forth, but it is seen by subt#e seers throu<h their shar. and subt#e inte##ectJ +;atha
?.= I=,=2-= rom this we conc#ude that the te>t wishes to re.resent the other
thin<s enumerated as the non&Se#f=
JA wise man shou#d kee. down s.eech and mindJ +;atha ?.= I=,=*,-= This
.assa<e en0oins .ious meditation as a means of the ;now#ed<e of the Su.reme
Se#f= It thus fo##ows that the Sruti indicates various e>ce##ences in the case of the
Atman on#y and not in that of the other thin<s enumerated=
The te>t J%e reaches the end of his 0ourney and that is the hi<hest .#ace of
(ishnuJ su<<ests the @uestion as to who is the end of the 0ourney and we
therefore conc#ude that the enumeration of the senses, ob0ects, etc=, has mere#y
the .ur.ose of teachin< the hi<hest .#ace of (ishnu and not of teachin< anythin<
about the re#ation of the senses, ob0ects and so on=
But the enumeration of the senses is not a#to<ether use#ess= It enab#es the
as.irant to turn the out<oin< mind towards the Inner Se#f or the Atman= This
subt#e Atman cannot be attained without abstraction, intros.ection and .rofound
meditation=
Atma<rihityadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras *5&*7-
The Se#f mentioned in Ait= ?.= I=*= is the Su.reme Se#f and the attributes of the
Se#f <iven e#sewhere shou#d be combined with this meditation
Atma<rihitiritaravaduttarat III=,=*5 +,74-
+In the Aitareya ?.anishad I=*=- the Su.reme Se#f is meant, as in
other te>ts +dea#in< with creation- because of the subse@uent
@ua#ification=
Atma<rihitih1 the Su.reme Se#f is meantC Itaravat1 as in other te>ts
+dea#in< with creation-C ?ttarat1 because of the subse@uent @ua#ification=
Be read in the Aitareya ?.anishad J(eri#y in the be<innin< a## this was the
Se#f, one on#yC there was nothin< e#se whatsoeverJ +I=*-= %ere the doubt arises
whether the term JSe#fJ denotes the Su.reme Se#f or some other bein< such as
%iranya<arbha=
It refers to the Su.reme Se#f, even as the word JSe#fJ in other te>ts which
treat of creation refers to It, and not to %iranya<arbha= Jrom the Se#f ether was
.roducedJ +Tait= ?.= II=*-= BhyL Because in the subse@uent te>t of the Aitareya
we have JIt thou<ht sha## I send forth wor#dsL It sent forth these wor#dsJ +Ait= ?.=
I=*=2-= This @ua#ification, viG=, that JIt thou<htJ before creation is a..#ied to
Brahman in the .rimary sense in other Sruti .assa<es= %ence we conc#ude from
this that the Se#f refers to the Su.reme Se#f or $ara Brahman and not to
%iranya<arbha, or any other Bein<=
Anvayaditi chet syadavadharanat III=,=*7 +,75-
If it be said that because of the conte>t +the Su.reme Se#f is
not meant- +we re.#y that- it is so +i=e=, the Su.reme Se#f is meant-
on account of the definite statement +that the Atman a#one e>isted in
the be<innin<-=
Anvayat1 because of connection, because of the conte>tC Iti1 this, soC !het1
ifC Syat1 it mi<ht be soC Avadharanat1 on account of the definite statement=
An ob0ection to Sutra *5 is raised and refuted=
The Sutra consists of two .arts name#y an ob0ection and its re.#y= The
ob0ection is HAnvayaditi chetI the re.#y is HSyad&avadharanatI=
The reference is to $ara Brahman or the %i<hest Se#f= The word JAsitJ shows
that the reference is to $ara Brahman a#one, because %e a#one e>isted before a##
creation= The Lokasrishti or creation of the wor#d is on#y after the 'ahabhutasrishti
or creation of the five <reat e#ements=
The $urva.akshin says1 JIn the Aitareya ?.anishad +I=*-, it is stated that
Brahman created the four wor#ds= But it is said in the Taittiriya and other te>ts
that Brahman created ether, air, fire, water and earth, the five e#ements= It is on#y
%iranya<arbha that creates the wor#d with the aid of the e#ements created by the
%i<hest Se#f= %ence the Se#f in the Aitareya ?.anishad cannot mean the Su.reme
Se#f but on#y %iranya<arbha or the ;arya&Brahman=J
This Sutra refutes it and dec#ares that on account of the statement J(eri#y, in
the be<innin< a## this was the Se#f, one on#yJ +Ait= ?.= I=*=- which intimates that
there was one on#y without a second, it can on#y refer to the %i<hest Se#f or $ara
Brahman and not to %iranya<arbha, the ;arya&Brahman= The %i<hest Se#f created
the four wor#ds after creatin< the e#ements as described in other Sakhas= The
attributes of $ara Brahman or the %i<hest Se#f which are mentioned in other
.#aces are to be combined in the Aitareyaka meditation=
;aryakhyanadhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutra *9-
On#y thinkin< of water to be the dress of $rana is en0oined in the $rana&(idya
;aryakhyanada.urvam III=,=*9 +,77-
On account of +the rinsin< of the mouth with water referred to in
the $rana (idya- bein< a reiteration of an act +a#ready ordained by
the Smriti-, what has not been so ordained e#sewhere +is here
en0oined by the Sruti-=
;aryakhyanat1 on account of bein< a statement of an act +a#ready en0oined
by the Smriti-C A.urvam1 which has not been so en0oined e#sewhere=
In re<ard to $rana ?.asana, Achamana is ordained on#y as reiteration of what
is stated e#sewhere= Bhat is ordained is on#y meditation on water as coverin<
food= Bhat is en0oined in $rana (idya ?.asana of !hhando<ya ?.anishad is not
the Achamana, as such= Achamana is en0oined by the Smritis and is common to
a##= Bhat is ordained is Ana<natatchintana i=e=, meditatin< that the food is covered
by water=
In the !hhando<ya ?.anishad +(=2=2- and the Brihadaranyaka +(I=*=*3-
there is a reference to the rinsin< of the mouth with water before and after mea#,
thinkin< that thereby that $rana is dressed=
These te>ts intimate two thin<s, rinsin< of the mouth and meditation on the
breath as dressed= A doubt arises whether the te>ts en0oin both these matters or
on#y the rinsin< of the mouth, or on#y the meditation on breath as dressed=
This Sutra states that the act of rinsin< the mouth is a#ready ordained on
every one by the Smriti and the act of thinkin< the water as the dress of $rana is
a#one en0oined by the Sruti= The act of rinsin< the mouth is not a new one and
therefor re@uires no (edic in0unction=
Samanadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutra *6-
(idyas of the same Sakha which are identica# shou#d be combined, in meditation
Samana evam chabhedat III=,=*6 +,79-
In the same +Sakha a#so- it is thus +i=e=, there is unity of
(idya,- owin< to non&difference +of the ob0ect of meditation-=
Samana1 in the same SakhaC Evam1 every, +it is- #ike thisC !ha1 and, a#soC
Abhedat1 owin< to non&difference=
A coro##ary to Sutra 4 is .roved=
In the A<nirahasya in the (a0asaneyi Sakha there is a (idya ca##ed Sandi#ya
(idya, in which occurs the .assa<e JLet him meditate on the Se#f which consists of
mind, which has the $rana for its body, and #i<ht for its formJ +Sat= Br= 'adhy=
*8=5=,=2-= A<ain, in the Brihadaranyaka +(=*8=5- which be#on<s to the same
Sakha we have JThat .erson consistin< of mind, whose bein< is #i<ht, is within the
heart, sma## #ike a <rain of rice or bar#ey= %e is the ru#er of a##, the Lord of a## & %e
ru#es a## this whatsoever e>ists=J
A doubt here .resents itse#f whether these two .assa<es are to be taken as
one (idya in which the .articu#ars mentioned in either te>t are to be combined or
not= Are they one (idya or different (idyasL
This Sutra dec#ares that, they are one (idya, as the ob0ect of meditation
+?.asya- is the same in both= The ob0ect of meditation in both is the Se#f
consistin< of mind= The combinin< of the .articu#ars of a simi#ar (idya in the same
Sakha is the same as in the case of such (idyas which occur in different Sakhas=
A#thou<h the two .assa<es be#on< to one and the same Sakha, they yet constitute
the (idya on#y and their .articu#ars have to be combined into one who#e= The
former directs worshi., by means of such (idya= The #atter <ives its :unas
+features-=
Thou<h there is some difference in minor detai#s, the two descri.tions of the
Sandi#ya (idya in the two Srutis are .ractica##y the same= So, a .articu#ar .oint
mentioned in one Sruti in connection with the Sandi#ya (idya has to be
incor.orated with the other, if it be not mentioned in the #atter=
Therefore the Sandi#ya (idya is one=
Sambandhadhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutras 28&22-
The names HAharI and HAhamI of Brahman occurrin< in Bri= ?.= (=4=*&2 cannot be
combined
Sambandhadevamanyatra.i III=,=28 +,76-
Thus in other cases a#so, on account of the connection +of
.articu#ars with one and the same (idya-=
Sambandhat1 on account of the connectionC Evam1 thus, #ike thisC
Anyatra1 in other casesC A.i1 a#so=
An inference on the ana#o<y of the .recedin< Sutra is drawn by way of
ob0ection=
This Sutra is a $urva.aksha Sutra= It sets forth the view of the o..onent=
Be read in the Brihadaranyaka +(=4=*&2-, JSatya +the truth- is Brahman=
That which is Satya is that Sun & the bein< who is in that orb and the bein< who is
in the ri<ht eyeJ= This <ives the abode of the Satya Brahman with res.ect to the
<ods and the body= The te>t teaches the two secret names of the Satya Brahman
in connection with these abodes= JIts secret name is HAharI with reference to the
<ods, and its secret name is HAhamI with reference to the body=J
A doubt here arises whether these two secret names are both to be a..#ied to
the Deva&abode of Brahman as we## as to its bodi#y abode, or on#y one name to
each=
"ow on the ana#o<y of the Sandi#ya (idya, the .articu#ars must be combined
as the ob0ect of meditation, viG=, the Satya Brahman is one= Therefore both the
names HAharI and HAhamI have to be combined with res.ect to Satya Brahman=
Both the secret names e@ua##y be#on< to the Aditya as we## as to the .erson
within the eye=
"a va viseshat III=,=2* +,98-
Rather not +so- on account of the difference +of .#ace-=
"a1 not, not soC (a1 or, butC (iseshat1 because of difference= +"a va1
rather not=-
The conc#usion arrived at in the .recedin< Sutra is set aside= This is the
Siddhanta Sutra=
This Sutra refutes the view of the .revious Sutra= As the so#ar orb and the
eye&ba## are too distant and distant abodes for the worshi. of Brahman, the two
si<nificant names HAharI and HAhamI referred to in the .revious Sutra, shou#d not
both be em.#oyed in the same form of meditation= Each name refers to a different
#ocus of ?.asana=
Thou<h the (idya is one, sti## on account of difference in .#aces the ob0ect of
meditation becomes different= Therefore there are different names= %ence these
cannot be e>chan<ed or combined=
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent raises an ob0ection= %e says1 The .erson
within the orb of the sun and the .erson within the eye are one on#y, because the
te>t teaches that both are abodes of the one true Brahman=
True, we re.#y, but as each secret name is tau<ht on#y with reference to the
one Brahman and conditioned by a .articu#ar state, the name a..#ies to Brahman
on#y in so far as it is in that state= %ere is an ana#o<y= The teacher a#ways remains
the teacherC yet those kinds of services which the .u.i# has to do to the teacher
when sittin< have not to be done when he stands and vice versa=
The com.arison <iven by the o..onent is not we## chosen as the duties of the
disci.#e towards his teacher de.end on the #atterIs character as teacher and that is
not chan<ed by his bein< either in the vi##a<e or in the forest=
Therefore, the two secret names HAharI and HAhamI have to be he#d a.art=
They cannot be combined=
Darsayati cha III=,=22 +,9*-
+The scri.ture- a#so dec#ares +that-=
Darsayati1 +Sruti- shows, indicates, dec#aresC !ha1 a#so, and=
An additiona# ar<ument is <iven to refute Sutra 28=
The scri.ture distinct#y states that the attributes are not to be combined, but
ke.t a.artC because it com.ares the two .ersons, the .erson in the sun and the
.erson within the eye= If it wanted the .articu#ars to be combined, it wou#d not
make such a com.arison=
The conc#usion, therefore, is that the two secret names are to be ke.t a.art=
Sambhrityadhikaranam1 To.ic *2 +Sutra 2,-
Attributes of Brahman occurrin< in the Ranayaniya ;hi#a constitute an inde.endent
(idya
Sambhritidyuvya.tya.i chatah III=,=2, +,92-
or the same reason +as in the .revious Sutra- the su..ortin< +of
the wor#d- and .ervadin< the sky +attributed to Brahman in the
Ranayaniya ;hi#a- a#so +are not to be inc#uded in other (idyas or
?.asanas of Brahman-=
Sambhriti1 su..ortin< the wor#dC Dyuvya.ti1 .ervadin< the skyC A.i1 a#soC
!ha1 andC Atah1 for the same reason +as in the .revious Sutra-= +Dyu1 the sky,
a## the s.ace, heaven-=
A restriction to Sutra 4 is made=
In a su..#ementary te>t of the Ranayaniyas we meet with a .assa<e, JThe
.owers, which were co##ected to<ether, were .receded by BrahmanC the .ree>istent
Brahman in the be<innin< .ervaded the who#e sky=J
"ow these two @ua#ities HSambhritiI and HDyuvya.tiI are not to be inserted or
inc#uded in the Sandi#ya (idya and other (idyas for the same reason as is <iven in
the #ast Sutra, viG=, difference of abode= In the Sandi#ya (idya, Brahman is said to
have its abode in the heart J%e is the Se#f within the heartJ +!hh= ?.= III=*3=,-=
The same statement is made in the Dahara&(idya JThere is the .a#ace, the sma##
#otus of the heart, and in it that sma## etherJ +(III=*=*-= In the ?.akosa#a&(idya,
a<ain, Brahman is said to abide within the eye JThat .erson that is seen in the
eyeJ +I(=*4=*-=
urther these @ua#ities and those mentioned in other (idyas #ike the Sandi#ya
(idya are of such a nature as to e>c#ude each other and are not su<<estive of
each other= The mere fact of certain (idyas bein< connected with Brahman does
not constitute their unity= It is an estab#ished fact that Brahman, a#thou<h one
on#y, is owin< to the .#ura#ity of its .owers meditated u.on in many ways, as
shown under Sutra 7=
The conc#usion, therefore, is that the attributes of ho#din< to<ether its .owers
+Sambhriti and Dyuvya.ti- are not to be inserted in the Sandi#ya and simi#ar
(idyas, and that the ?.asana referred to in this Sutra is an inde.endent (idya by
itse#f= The Sandi#ya (idya refers to the worshi. of Atman in the heart and the
?.akosa#a&(idya refers to the worshi. of the Atman in the eye, whereas the above
attributes re#ate to the macrocosm=
$urushavidyadhikaranam1 To.ic *, +Sutra 23-
The $urusha (idya in the !hhando<ya and the Taittiriya are not to be combined
$urushavidyayamiva chetareshamanamnanat III=,=23 +,9,-
And +as the @ua#ities- as +mentioned- in the $urusha&(idya +of
the !hhando<ya- are not mentioned +in that- of the others +i=e=, in
the Taittiriya- +the two $urusha&(idyas are not oneC are not to be
combined-=
$arushavidyayamiva1 as in the $urusha&(idya +of the !hhando<ya-C !ha1
andC Itaresham1 of the othersC Anamnanat1 because of not bein< mentioned +in
the Taittiriya-=
The $urusha (idya of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad and that of the Taittiriya
?.anishad are now e>amined=
In the Rahasya&Brahmana of the Tandins and the $ain<ins +the !hhando<ya-
there is a (idya treatin< of man in which man is identified with the sacrifice, the
three .eriods of his #ife with the three #ibations J'an is the sacrificeJ=
In the Taittiriya Aranyaka +K=53- a#so occurs a simi#ar (idya Jor him who
knows thus the se#f of the sacrifice is the sacrificer, faith +Sraddha- is the wife of
the sacrificer,J etc=
The doubt here arises whether the two (idyas are one, whether the
.articu#ars of the man&sacrifice <iven in the !hhando<ya are to be inserted in the
Taittiriya or not=
The fundamenta# attribute referred to is that man is identified with sacrifice in
both= This Sutra dec#ares that in s.ite of this, the two (idyas are not one, because
the detai#s differ= The characteristics of the $urusha&)a0na of the !hhando<yas are
not reco<nised in the Taittiriya te>t= The Taittiriya e>hibits an identification of man
with the sacrifice in which the wife, the sacrificer, the (eda, the (edi, the
sacrificia# <rass, the .ost, the butter, the sacrificia# anima#, the .riest etc=, are
mentioned in succession= These .articu#ars are not mentioned in the !hhando<ya=
The two te>ts a<ree in identification of the Avabhritha ceremony with death=
There are <reater number of dissimi#arities= The Taittiriya does not re.resent man
as the sacrifice as the !hhando<ya does=
'oreover the resu#t of the (idya in the Taittiriya is the attainment of the
<reatness of Brahman1 J%e obtains the <reatness of BrahmanJ= The resu#t of the
(idya in !hhando<ya is #on< #ife, J%e who knows this #ives on to a hundred and
si>teen years=J
Therefore, the two (idyas are se.arate= JThe .articu#ars cannot be combined
in the two .#aces= The .articu#ars mentioned in the $urusha&(idya of !hhando<ya,
such as formu#as of .rayer, 'antras and so on are not to be combined with the
Taittiriya te>t of the (idya=
(edhadyadhikaranam1 To.ic *3 +Sutra 24-
?nconnected 'antras and sacrifices mentioned in certain ?.anishads do not
be#on< to Brahma&(idya
(edhadyarthabhedat III=,=24 +,93-
Because the matter +of certain 'antras- such as .iercin< and so
on is different +from the matter of the a..ro>imate (idyas-, +the
former are not to be combined with the #atter-=
(edhadi1 .iercin< etc=C Arthabhedat1 because they have a different
meanin<=
!ertain e>.ressions occurrin< at the be<innin< of an ?.anishad of the
Atharva&(eda are taken u. for discussion=
At the be<innin< of the ?.anishad of the Atharvanikas we have J$ierce the
who#e +body of the enemy-, .ierce his heart, crush his veins, crush his headJ etc=
At the be<innin< of the ?.anishad of the Tandins we have the 'antra JO :od
SavitaD .roduce the sacrificeJ= At the be<innin< of ;athas and the Taittiriyaka we
have J'ay 'itra be .ro.itious to us and (aruna etc=J At the be<innin< of that of
the ;aushitakins we have JBrahman indeed is the A<nistoma, Brahman is that
dayC throu<h Brahman they .ass into Brahman, Immorta#ity, those reach who
observe that day=J
The @uestion is whether these 'antras and the sacrifices referred to in the
Brahmanas in c#ose .ro>imity to the ?.anishads are to be combined with the
(idyas .rescribed by these ?.anishads=
The o..onent ho#ds that they are to be combined, because the te>t e>hibits
them in .ro>imity to the ?.anishad&.ortions of the Brahmanas whose chief
contents are formed by the (idyas= In the case of 'antras we can a#ways ima<ine
some meanin< which connects them with the (idyas= The first 'antra @uoted
<#orifies the heart, because the heart is often re.resented in the (idyas as abode
of meditation= Therefore 'antras which <#orify the heart may constitute
subordinate members of those (idyas=
This Sutra dec#ares that they are not to be combined because their meanin<
is different, as they indicate acts of a sacrifice and so have no association or
re#ationshi. with the (idyas=
The 'antras mi<ht be so em.#oyed if their who#e contents were <#orification
of the heart, but this is not the case= The 'antra first @uoted c#ear#y e>.resses
enmity to somebody and is therefore not to be connected with the (idyas of the
?.anishads, but with some ceremony meant to destroy oneIs enemy=
Other 'antras are subordinate to certain sacrificia# actions= They cannot,
because they occur in the ?.anishads, be connected with the (idyas on the
<round of mere .ro>imity=
or this reason the mentioned 'antras and acts are not on the <round of
mere te>tua# co##ocation to be viewed as su..#ementary to the (idyas of the
?.anishads=
%anyadhikaranam1 To.ic *4 +Sutra 25-
The statement that the <ood and evi# deeds of a .erson <o res.ective#y to his
friends and enemies is true for te>ts that mention discardin< of such actions by
him
%anau tu.ayanasabdaseshatvat
kusacchandastutyu.a<anavattaduktam III=,=25 +,94-
But where on#y the <ettin< rid +of the <ood and evi#- is
mentioned +the obtainin< of this <ood and evi# by others has to be
added- because the statement about acce.tance is su..#ementary +to
the statement about the <ettin< rid of- as in the case of the ;usas,
metres, .raise and hymns or recitations= This +i=e=, the reason for
this- has been stated +by /aimini in $urvamimamsa-=
%anau1 where on#y the <ettin< rid +of <ood and evi#- is mentionedC Tu1 butC
?.ayanasabdaseshatvat1 on account of the word Hacce.tanceI bein<
su..#ementary to the word H<ettin< ridIC ;usacchandastutyu.a<anavat1 #ike
;usa&sticks, metres, .raises and hymnsC Tat1 thatC ?ktam1 has been stated +by
/aimini-= +?.ayana1 acce.tanceC Sabda1 on account of the statement of the
wordC Seshatvat1 on account of bein< su..#ementary to=-
%ere is a discussion on the shakin< off of virtues and vices by the re#eased
sou# at death and their acce.tance by his friends and enemies=
/aimini has said that statements with res.ect to ;usas, metres, .raises and
hymns have to be com.#eted from other te>ts= It is said in the ;aushitaki Sruti
that ;usa sticks are to be co##ected from trees without any s.ecification as to what
sort of treeC but in the Satyayana branch it is said that the ;usas are of the
?dumbara tree= This #atter e>.ression is to be acce.ted as com.#ementary to the
former e>.ression of the ;aushitaki Sruti= The first Sruti wi## have to be com.#eted
in the #i<ht of the other=
There is in a Sruti an in0unction to say a .rayer com.osed in metre without
any s.ecification of the kind of metre, but in another .#ace there is mention of the
Deva&metre to be em.#oyed in such a case= Therefore the Deva&metre is to be
understood in the .revious case a#so=
There is instruction in one Sruti to utter .raises for the sacrificia# vesse#
HShodasiI without s.ecifyin< the time as to when it shou#d be .erformedC but in
another Sruti it is tau<ht to be .erformed when the sun has risen= %ere the #atter
instruction is to be acce.ted as su..#ementary to the former=
As re<ards the hymn it is not definite#y stated which of the four .riests is to
0oin in the sin<in< of the .rayer in a sacrificeC but this doubt has been c#eared u.
by a .articu#ar te>t which says that the Adhvaryu wi## not 0oin in the sin<in<=
$uttin< the two statements to<ether, the conc#usion is that a## the .riests e>ce.t
the Adhvaryu wi## 0oin=
This .rinci.#e is here a..#ied to the effects of the actions of a #iberated sa<e
in connection with the (idyas mentioned in the ?.anishads= In the te>t of the
Tandins we find Jshakes off a## evi# as a horse shakes his hair, and shakin< off the
body as the moon frees herse#f from the mouth of Rahu, I obtain the uncreated
wor#d of BrahmanJ +!hh= ?.= (III=*,-= A<ain in 'undaka ?.anishad +III=*=,- we
read JThen knowin< shakin< off <ood and evi#, he reaches the hi<hest oneness,
free from .assion=J These Srutis are si#ent on the .oint as to who acce.ts his <ood
and evi# deeds=
In the Satyayana branch of Sruti it is said J%is sons obtain his inheritance, his
friends the <ood, his enemies the evi# he has done=J In the ;aushitaki ?.anishad
+I=3- we find J%e shakes off his <ood and his bad deeds= %is be#oved re#ations
obtain the <ood, his unbe#oved re#atives the evi# he has done=J
This Sutra dec#ares that the obtainin< of the <ood and evi# by his friends and
enemies has to be inserted or necessari#y added in the !hhando<ya te>t and
'undaka te>t accordin< to /aiminiIs .rinci.#e e>.#ained above=
The $urva.akshin raises another ob0ection= %e ar<ues that the verb HDhuI in
the te>t of the !hhando<ya and ;aushitaki may be inter.reted as Htremb#in<I and
not as H<ettin< rid ofI= It wou#d mean therefore that <ood and evi# sti## c#in< to a
.erson who attains ;now#ed<e, a#thou<h their effects are retarded on account of
the ;now#ed<e=
This Sutra dec#ares that such a meanin< is incorrect, because the subse@uent
.ortion of the te>t indicates that others obtain the <ood and evi#= This is certain#y
not .ossib#e un#ess the .erson who attains ;now#ed<e abandons them=
:ood and evi# deeds cannot be said to Htremb#eI in the #itera# sense of the
word #ike f#a<s in the wind, as they are not of a substantia# nature= Thou<h HDhuI
in H(idhuyaI may be said to si<nify Hshakin<I and not Hcastin< offI, yet as others are
described as takin< the #iberated sa<eIs merits and sins, it means Hcastin< offI=
Sam.arayadhikaranam1 To.ic *5 +Sutras 27&29-
The shakin< off of <ood and evi# by the man of ;now#ed<e occurs on#y at the time
of his death
Sam.araye tarttavyabhavattathahyanye III=,=27 +,95-
+%e who attains know#ed<e <ets rid of his <ood and evi# deeds- at
the time of death, there bein< nothin< to be attained +by him on the
way to Brahma#oka throu<h those works-C for thus others +dec#are in
their sacred te>ts-=
Sam.araye1 at the time of deathC Tarttavyabhavat1 there bein< nothin<
to be attainedC Tatha1 in this way, soC %i1 because, forC Anye1 others=
This Sutra decides when the individua# sou# shakes off his <ood and evi#
deeds=
The @uestion now arises as to when the individua# sou# <ets rid of his <ood
and evi# deeds= In the ;aushitaki ?.anishad +I=3- we find J%e comes to the river
(ira0a and crosses it by the mind a#one, and there he shakes off <ood and evi#=J
On the stren<th of this te>t the $urva.akshin or the o..onent maintains that the
<ood and evi# deeds are discarded on his way to Brahma#oka and not at the time
of de.artin< from the body=
This Sutra refutes it and dec#ares that the #iberated sa<e frees himse#f from
the effects of <ood and evi# works at the time of death throu<h the stren<th of his
know#ed<e=
Thou<h the ;aushitaki Sruti refers to the discardin< of <ood and evi# on the
Devayana way or the way to Brahma#oka, after crossin< the (ira0a river, the <ood
and evi# deeds are cast off at death, because there is nothin< to be attained
throu<h them after death, there remainin< nothin< to be en0oyed by him throu<h
his <ood and evi# works= The <ood and evi# works are no #on<er of any use to him
and not fit to be retained by him thereafter=
The Sanchita ;arma or accumu#ated works are destroyed as soon as one
attains know#ed<e of Brahman= $rarabdha is destroyed at death= So he is freed
from the effects of a## his merits and sins at the time of death=
As the resu#ts of his <ood and evi# deeds are contrary to the resu#t of
know#ed<e, they are destroyed by the .ower of the #atter= The moment of their
destruction is that moment in which he sets out towards the fruit of his
know#ed<e, i=e=, the wor#d of Brahman=
'oreover it is not .ossib#e to cast off the effects of <ood and evi# deeds on
the way to Brahma#oka because the sou# has no <ross body and so it cannot take
recourse to any .ractice that can destroy them=
urther one cannot cross the river (ira0a un#ess he is freed from a## <ood and
evi#=
The Sruti dec#ares Jshakin< off a## evi# as a horse shakes off his hairsJ +!hh=
?.= (III=*,=*-=
Therefore the sett#ed conc#usion is that a## <ood and evi# works are cast off at
the time of death=
!hhandata ubhayavirodhat III=,=29 +,97-
+The inter.retation that the individua# sou# .ractisin< )ama
"iyama- accordin< to his #ikin< +discards <ood and evi# works whi#e
#ivin< is reasonab#e- on account of there bein< harmony in that case
between the two +viG=, cause and effect, as we## as between the
!hhando<ya and another Sruti-=
!hhandatah1 accordin< to his #ikin<C ?bhayanirodhat1 on account of there
bein< harmony between the two= +?bhaya1 of eitherC there bein< no
contradiction=-
The view is correct because vo#untary .erformance of )ama, "iyma, etc=, to
<et rid of ;arma is .ossib#e on#y before death, and because it is o..osed to a##
te>ts= The above view is in a<reement or unison with a## Srutis=
If the sou# frees himse#f from his <ood and evi# deeds on the way after havin<
de.arted from the body and havin< entered on the way of the <ods +Devayana-,
we #and ourse#ves in im.ossibi#ities, because after the body has been #eft behind,
he cannot .ractise accordin< to his #ikin< se#f&restraint and .ursuit of know#ed<e
which can effect destruction of his <ood and evi# deeds= Therefore there cannot be
annihi#ation of his <ood and evi# works=
It does not certain#y stand to reason that the effect is de#ayed ti## some time
after death when the cause is there a#ready= Bhen there is a body it is not
.ossib#e to attain Brahma#oka= There is no difficu#ty in discardin< <ood and evi#=
:aterarthavattvadhikaranam1 To.ic *7 +Sutras 26&,8-
The knower of Sa<una Brahman a#one <oes a#on< Devayana, and not the knower
of "ir<una Brahman
:aterarthavattvamubhayathanyatha hi virodhah III=,=26 +,99-
+The sou#Is- 0ourney +a#on< the .ath of the <ods, Devayana- is
a..#icab#e in a two&fo#d manner, otherwise there wou#d be
contradiction +of scri.ture-=
:ateh1 of the 0ourney of the sou# +after death-, a#on< the .ath of the <odsC
Arthavatvam1 uti#ityC ?bhayatha1 in two waysC Anyatha1 otherwiseC %i1 for,
certain#yC (irodhah1 contradiction=
%ere is a side issue of Sutra 27=
In some scri.tura# te>ts the dead manIs <oin< on the .ath of the <ods is
mentioned in connection with his freein< himse#f from <ood and evi#= In other te>ts
it is not mentioned= The doubt now arises whether the two thin<s <o to<ether in
a## cases or on#y in certain cases=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds that the two are to be connected in a## cases, 0ust as
the manIs freein< himse#f from his <ood and evi# works is a#ways fo##owed by their
.assin< over to his friends and enemies=
This Sutra dec#ares that the worshi..er of Sa<una Brahman on#y takes
0ourney after death a#on< the Devayana= The <oin< on that .ath has a sense in the
case of Sa<una ?.asana on#y and not in worshi..ers of "ir<una Brahman=
Brahma#oka is #ocated e#sewhere in s.ace= The Sa<una ?.asaka has to move and
attain that abode= There is actua# <oin< throu<h which another .#ace is reached=
Therefore, the 0ourney has a meanin< in his case on#y= The $rana of "ir<una
?.asaka is absorbed in Brahman= %e is one with the Infinite or the Abso#ute=
Bhere wi## he moveL The #iberated sa<e who is free from a## desires and e<oism
does not <o to another .#ace= %e does not move= The Su.reme Brahman is not to
be reached by the #iberated sa<e= %e need not trans.ort himse#f to another
#oca#ity= There is no meanin< at a## in 0ourney for such a sa<e who is absorbed in
"ir<una Brahman= %is i<norance is destroyed by the dawn of know#ed<e of
Brahman= %e becomes identica# with the Su.reme Se#f= If there is 0ourney for him
a#so, then it wou#d contradict Sruti te>ts #ike JShakin< off <ood and evi#, free from
.assions, he reaches the %i<hest Se#f, or $ara&BrahmanJ +'un= ?.= III=*=,-=
%ow can the #iberated sa<e who has become one with the Su.reme Brahman
who is second#ess, who is a##&.ervadin<, who is Infinite, who is without motion, <o
to another .#ace by DevayanaL %e has a#ready attained his <oa# or union with
Brahman= The 0ourney a#on< the Devayana is meanin<#ess for him=
Therefore, he who has rea#ised the Sa<una Brahman, he who worshi.s
Sa<una Brahman a#one <oes by the Devayana=
?.a.annasta##akshanartho.a#abdher#okavat III=,=,8 +,96-
+The two&fo#d view taken above- is 0ustified because we observe a
.ur.ose characterised thereby +i=e=, a .ur.ose of the <oin<- as in
ordinary #ife=
?.a.annah1 is reasonab#eC Ta##akshanartho.a#abdheh1 for the
characteristics which render such 0ourney .ossib#e are seenC Lokavat1 as is seen
in the wor#d, as is the ordinary e>.erience= +Tat1 thatC Lakshana1 mark,
characteristic featuresC Artha1 ob0ectC ?.a#abdheh1 bein< known, on account of
the obtainin<=-
The .revious discussion is continued=
The meditations on Sa<una or @ua#ified Brahman, such as the $aryankavidya
of the ;aushitaki ?.anishad, there is a reason for the manIs .roceedin< on the
.ath of the <ods +Devayana-C because the te>t mentions certain resu#ts which can
be attained on#y by the man <oin< to different .#aces, such as his mountin< a
couch, his ho#din< conversation with Brahman seated on a couch, his e>.eriencin<
various odours and so on=
On the contrary <oin< on the .ath of the <ods has nothin< to do with .erfect
know#ed<e= "o .ur.ose is served by such a 0ourney in the case of a #iberated sa<e
or "ir<una ?.asaka in whom i<norance has been destroyed by the dawn of
know#ed<e of Brahman or the Im.erishab#e= %e has attained oneness or unity with
the Su.reme Se#f= A## his desires have been fu#fi##ed= A## his ;armas have been
destroyed= %e is on#y waitin< for the disso#ution of the body=
The destruction is simi#ar to what is observed in ordinary #ife= If we wish to
reach some vi##a<e we have to .roceed on a .ath #eadin< there, but no movin< on
a .ath is needed when we want to attain freedom from a disease=
Aniyamadhikaranam1 To.ic *9 +Sutra ,*-
The .assa<e of the sou# by Devayana a..#ies e@ua##y to a## (idyas of Sa<una
Brahman
Aniyamah sarvasamavirodhah sabdanumanabhyam III=,=,* +,68-
There is no restriction +as to the <oin< on the .ath of the <ods
for any (idya-= There is no contradiction as is seen from the Sruti
and Smriti=
Aniyamah1 +there is- no restrictionC Sarvasam1 of a##C Avirodhah1 there is
no contradictionC Sabdanumanabhyam1 as is seen from Sruti and Smriti=
+Sabdah1 the word, i=e=, the revea#ed scri.ture or SrutiC Anumana1 inference or
Smriti=-
The 0ourney of the sou# who knows Brahman is continued=
Be have shown that the <oin< on the .ath of the <ods is va#id on#y for the
(idyas of Sa<una Brahman, not for the know#ed<e of "ir<una Brahman which is
devoid of a## @ua#ities=
"ow we observe that the <oin< on the .ath of the <ods to Brahma#oka is
mentioned on#y in some of the @ua#ified (idyas such as the $aryanka (idya, the
$ancha<ni (idya, the ?.akosa#a (idya, the Dahara (idya, but it is not mentioned
or e>.ress#y stated in others such as the 'adhu (idya, the Sandi#ya (idya, the
Shodasaka#a (idya, the (aisvanara (idya=
The doubt now arises whether the <oin< on the .ath of the <ods is to be
connected with those (idyas in which it is actua##y mentioned or <enera##y with a##
(idyas of that kind=
This Sutra dec#ares that a## worshi..ers of the Sa<una Brahman, whatever
their (idyas may be, <o after death by this .ath= This is seen from the Sruti and
Smriti= JThose who meditate thus throu<h $ancha<ni (idya and a#so those who
understand other (idyas and a#so those who meditate in the forest with faith and
austerities, on Sa<una Brahman throu<h any other (idya .roceed on the .ath of
the <odsJ +!hh= ?.= (=*8=*=-C +Bri= ?.= (I=2=*4-=
Bha<avad :ita a#so dec#ares, JLi<ht and darkness, these are thou<ht to be
the wor#dIs ever#astin< .athsC by the one he <oes who does not return, by the
other he returns a<ainJ +(III=25-=
The term JThe TrueJ in the .assa<e JThose who in the forest, with faith,
worshi. the TrueJ, i=e=, Brahman, is often em.#oyed to denote Brahman=
Thus it is @uite c#ear that the <oin< on the .ath of <ods is not confined to
those (idyas in which it is actua##y mentioned or e>.ress#y stated=
)avadadhikaradhikaranam1 To.ic *6 +Sutra ,2-
$erfected sou#s may take a cor.orea# e>istence for divine mission
)avadadhikaramavasthitiradhikarikanam III=,=,2 +,6*-
Of those who have a mission to fu#fi# +there is cor.orea#-
e>istence, so #on< as the mission is not fu#fi##ed=
)avadadhikaram1 so #on< as the mission is not fu#fi##edC Avasthitih1 +there
is cor.orea#- e>istenceC Adhikarikanam1 of those who have a mission in #ife to
fu#fi#= +)avad1 as #on< asC Adhikaram1 mission, .ur.ose to be fu#fi##ed=-
A .#ausib#e ob0ection to Sutra ,* is refuted=
The $urva.akshin says Rishi A.antaratamas, a teacher of the (edas was by
the order of (ishnu, born on this earth as (yasa or ;rishna Dvai.ayana= Simi#ar#y
(asishtha, the son of BrahmaIs mind havin< .arted from former body in
conse@uence of the curse of "imi, was on the order of Brahma, a<ain .rocreated
by 'itra and (aruna= Bhri<u and other sons of BrahmaIs mind were a<ain born at
the sacrifice of (aruna= Sanatkumara a#so, who #ikewise was a son of BrahmaIs
mind, was in conse@uence of a boon bein< <ranted to Rudra, born a<ain as
Skanda= Daksha, "arada and other Rishis were born a<ain= It is stated that some
assumed a new body after the o#d body had .erished, some assumed throu<h
their su.ernatura# .owers various new bodies whi#e the o#d body remained intact
a## the whi#e=
"ow these Rishis had know#ed<e of Brahman or the Abso#ute and yet they
had to be reborn= If this is the case what is the use of such know#ed<e of
BrahmanL The know#ed<e of Brahman may either be or not be the cause of fina#
emanci.ation or freedom=
The Sutra refutes it and dec#ares that ordinari#y a .erson is not reborn after
attainin< know#ed<e of the Abso#ute= But the case of those who have a divine
mission to fu#fi# is different= They may have one or more births ti## their mission is
fu#fi##ed, after which they are not born a<ain= They are entrusted with the offices
conducive to the subsistence of the wor#d such as the .romu#<ation of the (edas
and the #ike= They assume new bodies of their own free wi## and not as the resu#t
of ;arma= They .ass from one body to another, as if from one house into another
in order to accom.#ish the duties of their offices= They .reserve a## the true
memory of their identity= They create for themse#ves, throu<h their .ower over
the materia# of the body and the sense or<ans, new bodies and occu.y them
either a## at once or in succession=
Smriti te##s us that Su#abha, a woman who had know#ed<e of Brahman,
wanted to enter into discussion with /anaka= She #eft her own body, entered into
that of /anaka, carried on a discussion with him and a<ain returned into her own
body=
JTat Tvam AsiJ +That thou art- does not mean JTat Tvam 'rito BhavishyasiJ
+they wi## become That after death-= It cannot be inter.reted to mean JThou wi#t
be that after thou hast dead=J Another te>t dec#ares that the fruit of ;now#ed<e
viG=, union with Brahman s.rin<s u. at the moment when the com.#ete know#ed<e
of Brahman is attained= The Rishi (amadeva saw and understood it sin<in<, JI was
'anu, I was the sun=J
But they never come under the sway of Avidya or nescience even thou<h
they may be born= The case is simi#ar to that of a #iberated sa<e= A /ivanmukta
continues his .hysica# e>istence even after attainin< Brahma /nana or ;now#ed<e
of the Abso#ute as #on< as the $rarabdha ;arma #asts= The divine mission of these
Rishis #ike Sri (yasa, (asishtha, A.antaratamas, can be com.ared to the
$rarabdha ;arma of /ivanmuktas=
or a## these reasons it is estab#ished that those who are endowed with true
and .erfect know#ed<e attain in a## cases fina# emanci.ation=
Aksharadhyadhikaranam1 To.ic 28 +Sutra ,,-
The ne<ative attributes of Brahman mentioned in various te>ts are to be combined
in a## meditations on Brahman
Aksharadhiyam tvavarodhah
samanyatadbhavabhyamau.asadavattaduktam III=,=,, +,62-
But the conce.tions of the +ne<ative- attributes of the
Im.erishab#e +Brahman- are to be combined +from different te>ts where
the Im.erishab#e Brahman is dea#t with, as they form one (idya-,
because of the simi#arity +of definin< the Im.erishab#e Brahman
throu<h denia#s- and the ob0ect +the Im.erishab#e Brahman- bein< the
same, as in the case of the ?.asad +offerin<s-= This has been
e>.#ained +by /aimini in the $urvamimamsa-=
Aksharadhiyam1 of the meditation of ne<ative attributes be#on<in< to the
Im.erishab#eC Tu1 but, indeedC Avarodhah1 combinationC
Samanyatadbhavabhyam1 because of the simi#arity +of denyin< Brahman
throu<h denia#s- and the ob0ect +viG=, Im.erishab#e Brahman- bein< the sameC
Au.asadavat1 as in the case of the ?.asad +offerin<- #ike the hymn or the 'antra
in connection with the ?.asada riteC Tat1 thatC ?ktam1 has been e>.#ained +by
/aimini in the $urvamimamsa-=
The ne<ative attributes of the Im.erishab#e are now e>amined, as the
.ositive attributes were e>amined in Sutra ** of this section=
Be read in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad, JO :ar<iD The Brahmanas or the
knowers of Brahman ca## this Akshara or the Im.erishab#e= It is neither <ross nor
subt#e, neither short nor #on<J +Bri= ?.= III=9=9-= A<ain the 'undaka says, JThe
Su.reme ;now#ed<e is that by which the Im.erishab#e +Akshara- is attained=J
JThat which is im.erceivab#e, un<ras.ab#e, which has no fami#y and no casteJ etc=
+'un= ?.= I=*=4&5-= In other .#aces a#so the hi<hest Brahman, under the name of
Akshara is described as that of which a## @ua#ities are to be denied=
A doubt arises now as to whether the ne<ative @ua#ities in the above two
te>ts are to be combined so as to form one (idya or they are to be treated as two
se.arate (idyas=
The $urva.akshin maintains that each denia# is va#id on#y for that .assa<e in
which the te>t actua##y e>hibits it, and not for other .#aces= These ne<ative
attributes do not direct#y indicate or s.ecify the nature of Brahman #ike the
.ositive attributes, B#iss, $eace, ;now#ed<e, Truth, $urity, $erfection, Eternity, etc=
%ence the .rinci.#e stated in Sutra III=,=** does not a..#y here, because no
.ur.ose is rea##y served or <ained by such a combination=
This Sutra refutes this and dec#ares that such denia#s are to be combined
because the method of teachin< Brahman throu<h denia# is the same and the
ob0ect of instruction is a#so the same, viG=, the Im.erishab#e Brahman +Akshara-=
The ru#e of Sutra III=,=** a..#ies here a#so= In Sutra III=,=** .ositive attributes of
Brahman were discussed= %ere we are concerned with ne<ative attributes which
teach Brahman by an indirect method= The case is simi#ar to the ?.asad offerin<s=
The 'antras for <ivin< these offerin<s are found on#y in the Sama (eda= But the
.riests of the )a0ur (eda use this 'antra <iven in the other (eda= The hymns
which occur in the Sama (eda are recited by the Adhvaryu after the time of the
)a0ur (eda= This .rinci.#e has been estab#ished by /aimini in $urvamimamsa
+III=,= 6-=
Simi#ar#y the ne<ative attributes have to be combined here a#so in the
meditation on the Im.erishab#e Brahman +Akshara-=
The conce.tion of the ne<ative attributes of the Indestructib#e +Akshara- as
stated in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad is to be retained in the meditations on the
Indestructib#e everywhere +i=e=, in every Akshara (idya- because the same
Akshara is reco<nised in every Akshara (idya and a#so because those ne<ative
attributes are .resu..osed to be inc#uded amon< %is essentia# attributes=
Iyadadhikaranam1 To.ic 2* +Sutra ,3-
'undaka III=*=* and ;atha I=,=* constitute one (idya
Iyadamananat III=, ,3 +,6,-
Because +the same thin<- is described as such and such=
Iyat1 so much on#y, this muchC Amananat1 on account of bein< mentioned
in the scri.ture=
Be read in the 'undaka ?.anishad JTwo birds of beautifu# .#uma<e,
inse.arab#e friends, c#in< to the same tree= One of them eats the sweet and bitter
fruits there of, the other #ooks on without eatin<J +'un= ?.= III=*=*-= The same
'antra is found in the te>t of Svetasvatara ?.anishad +I(=5-=
A<ain we have, JThere are the two en0oyin< the fruits of their <ood deeds,
entered into the cave, dwe##in< on the hi<hest summit= Those who know Brahman
ca## them shade and #i<ht, #ikewise those househo#ders who .erform the
Trinachiketa sacrificeJ +;atha ?.= I=,=*-=
The doubt here arises, do we have in these two te>ts two different (idyas or
one on#yL
The $urva.akshin or the o..onent maintains that these are two (idyas,
because there are different ob0ects of meditation= The 'undaka te>t dec#ares that
on#y one eats the fruit, whi#e the other does not= ;atha te>t says that both of
them en0oy the fruits of their <ood actions= So the ob0ect of meditation is not the
same= As the ob0ects of know#ed<e differ in character, the (idyas themse#ves must
be #ooked u.on as se.arate=
This Sutra refutes it and dec#ares that they form one (idya, because both
describe the same Lord as e>istin< thus and thus, i=e= in the form of the individua#
sou#= The .ur.ose or aim of the two Sruti .assa<es is to teach about the %i<hest
Se#f or $ara Brahman and show the identity of the /iva and $ara Brahman=
As the word Dvau, i=e=, two is used in the two Srutis we must rea#ise that
they refer to the same (idya= Thou<h the 'undaka te>t says that one bird +the
individua# sou#- eats the fruits of actions and the other bird #ooks on without eatin<
and thou<h the #atter .assa<e refers to the two as eatin< fruits, the (idyas are the
same as they refer to the same entity= /ust as when in a <rou. one carries an
umbre##a we say umbre##a&ho#ders <o, even so the $ara Brahman a#so is described
as eatin< fruits= The conte>t refers c#ear#y to the eterna# and Su.reme Brahman
+Aksharam brahma yat .aram-=
The ;atha ?.anishad te>t intimates the same hi<hest Brahman which is
above a## desires= As it is mentioned to<ether with the en0oyin< individua# sou#, it
is itse#f meta.horica##y s.oken of as en0oyin<, 0ust as we s.eak of the Hmen with
the umbre##aI a#thou<h on#y one out of severa# carries an umbre##a= A## this has
been e>.#ained at #en<th under I=2=**=
Therefore, the (idyas are one on#y, as the ob0ect of meditation or ;now#ed<e
is one=
Antaratvadhikaranam1 To.ic 22 +Sutras ,4&,5-
Brihadaranyaka III=3=* and III=4=* constitute one (idya
Antara bhuta<ramavatsvatmanah III=,=,4 +,63-
As the Se#f is within a##, as in the case of the a<<re<ate of the
e#ements, +there is oneness of (idya-=
Antara1 as bein< innermost of a##, inside, the status of bein< the inmostC
Bhuta<ramavat1 as in the case of the a<<re<ate of the e#ementsC Svatmanah1
of oneIs own se#f=
Two .assa<es from the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad are taken u. for
discussion to show that they re#ate to the same (idya=
In the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad ?shasta @uestions )a0nava#kya, JE>.#ain to
me the Brahman which is .resent to intuition, not hidden & this Atman or Se#f
which is within a##J +Bri= ?.= III=3=*-= )a0nava#kya re.#ies, JThat which breathes
throu<h $rana is your se#f, that is within a##=J
In the same ?.anishad )a0nava#kya <ives an answer to the same @uestion
.ut by ;aho#a, JThat which transcends hun<er and thirst, <rief and de#usion, decay
and death, knowin< this very se#fJ etc= +Bri= ?.= III=4=*-=
The $urva.akshin maintains that these two are se.arate (idyas, because the
re.#ies <iven bein< different, the ob0ects referred to must a#so be different=
This Sutra refutes this and dec#ares that the ob0ect is one, the %i<hest Se#f or
$ara Brahman, because it is im.ossib#e to conceive two se#ves bein<
simu#taneous#y innermost of a## in the same body=
Atman a#one is tau<ht in the two te>ts as bein< u#timate#y immanent 0ust as
Atman is a#so tau<ht as bein< immanent in the e#ements= The two .assa<es refer
on#y to one (idya, because there cou#d be on#y one Atman, who is Sarvantara,
i=e=, u#timate#y immanent= Amon< the e#ements water is immanent in earth, fire in
water and so on= But none has u#timate immanency= Even so there is on#y one
u#timate immanent entity=
Re#ative#y one e#ement can be inside the other= But none of the five e#ements
which constitute this .hysica# body can be tru#y the innermost of a##= Simi#ar#y two
se#ves cannot be simu#taneous#y the innermost of a## in the same body= Even so
one se#f a#one can be the innermost of a##=
Therefore, the same se#f is tau<ht in both the re.#ies of )a0nava#kya=
In both the cases the sub0ect&matter of the @uestion and the answer is
Brahman= This is em.hasised by the sa<e )a0nava#kya himse#f, when he re.eats
JThat sou# of thine is the innermost sou# of individua#s=J The different e>.ositions
of )a0nava#kya refer to the one and the same ob0ect of worshi., viG=, Brahman=
As both te>ts e@ua##y dec#are the se#f to be within a##, they must be taken as
constitutin< one (idya on#y= In both .assa<es @uestion and answer e@ua##y refer to
a Se#f which is within everythin<= or in one body, there cannot be two se#ves,
each of which is inside everythin< e#se= One Se#f on#y may be within everythin<=
Be read in the Svetasvatara ?.anishad J%e is the one :od, hidden in a## bein<s,
a##&.ervadin<, the Se#f within a## bein<s=J As this 'antra records that one Se#f #ives
within the a<<re<ate of a## bein<s, the same ho#ds <ood with re<ard to the two
.assa<es of the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad=
As the ob0ect of ;now#ed<e or the ob0ect of worshi. is one, the (idya a#so is
one on#y=
Anyatha bhedanu.a.attiriti chenno.adesantaravat III=,=,5 +,64-
If it be said +that the two (idyas are se.arate, for- otherwise
the re.etition cannot be accounted for, we re.#y not soC +it is- #ike
+the re.etition- in another instruction +in the !hhando<ya-=
Anyatha1 otherwiseC Bhedanu.a.attih1 the re.etition cannot be
accounted for, no 0ustification for the variety in the wordin< of the two re.#iesC Iti1
so, thisC !het1 ifC "a1 no, not soC ?.adesantaravat1 as wi## be seen from other
teachin<s, as in the teachin< of another (idya, mode of meditation, name#y the
Satya (idya in the !hhando<ya= +Bheda1 differenceC Anu.a.attih1 not
obtainin<=-
The o..onent says that un#ess the se.arateness of the two (idyas be
admitted, the se.aration of the two statements cannot be accounted for= %e
remarks that un#ess the two te>ts refer to two different se#ves the re.etition of the
same sub0ect wou#d be meanin<#ess=
This Sutra says that it is not so= The re.etition has a definite .ur.ose or aim=
It he#.s the as.irant to com.rehend the sub0ects more c#ear#y and dee.#y from
different view .oints= The re.etition does not 0ustify us to take that two different
se#ves are tau<ht here= In !hhando<ya ?.anishad the instruction conveyed in the
words JThat is the Se#f, Thou art That +Tat Tvam Asi-, O SvetaketuJ, is re.eated
nine times, and yet the one (idya is not thereby s.#it into many= Simi#ar#y is this
case a#so=
The introductory and conc#udin< c#auses indicate that a## those .assa<es have
the same sense= There a#so the ?.akrama +be<innin<- is the same= So is the
conc#usion +?.asamhara-= It says, JEverythin< e#se is .erishab#e, Everythin< e#se
is of evi#=J
In the ear#ier Brahmana, Atman is tau<ht as bein< se.arate from the body
and the senses= In the #ater Brahmana, Atman is tau<ht as not havin< hun<er, etc=
But the (idya is the same=
The former section dec#ares the e>istence of the Su.reme Se#f which is
neither cause nor effect, whi#e the #atter @ua#ifies it as that which transcends a##
the re#ative attributes of the Samsara state, such as hun<er, thirst and so on= The
second answer te##s somethin< s.ecia# about the Se#f=
The two sections, therefore, form one (idya on#y=
(yatiharadhikaranam1 To.ic 2, +Sutra ,7-
The Sruti .rescribes reci.roca# meditation in Ait= Ar= II=2=3=5
(yatiharo vishimsanti hitaravat III=,=,7 +,65-
There is e>chan<e +of meditation-, because the te>ts distin<uish
+two meditations-C as in other cases=
(yatiharah1 e>chan<eC reci.rocity +of meditation-C (isimshanti1 +the
scri.tures- e>.#ain c#ear#y, distin<uishC %i1 because, forC Itaravat1 as in other
cases=
The Aitareya Aranyaka says with reference to the .erson in the sun, JBhat I
am, that %e isC what %e is, that am IJ +Ait= Ar= II=2=3=5-=
A doubt arises here whether the meditation is to be of a reci.roca# nature, a
doub#e one by means of e>chan<e, i=e=, identifyin< the worshi..er with the bein<
in the sun, and then inverse#y, identifyin< the bein< in the sun with the
worshi..erC or on#y in the former manner=
The $urva.akshin maintains that the meditation is to be .ractised in the
former manner on#y and not in the reverse way a#so= %e ar<ues that the sou#
wou#d be e>a#ted by the former meditation and the Lord be #owered by the #atter
oneD There is a meanin< in the first kind of meditation but the second kind of
meditation is meanin<#ess=
The .resent Sutra refutes this view and dec#ares that the meditation is to be
.ractised in both ways because such a statement wou#d be .ur.ort#ess= E>chan<e,
or reverse meditation is e>.ress#y recorded in the Sruti for the .ur.ose of
meditation, 0ust as other @ua#ities of the Se#f such as its bein< the se#f of a##,
Satyasanka#.a, etc=, are recorded for the same .ur.ose= or both te>ts make the
distinctive doub#e enunciation JI am ThouJ and JThou art I=J "ow the doub#e
enunciation has a sense on#y if a twofo#d meditation is to be based u.on itC
otherwise it wou#d be devoid of meanin<C since one statement wou#d be a## that is
needed=
This wi## not in any way #ower Brahman= Even in that way, on#y the unity of
the Se#f is meditated u.on= Brahman who is bodi#ess can be adored or meditated
even as havin< a form= The doub#e statement is mere#y meant to confirm the
oneness of the Se#f= It <ives force or em.hasis to the identity=
Therefore, a twofo#d meditation has to be admitted, not a sin<#e one= This
confirms the unity of the Se#f= The doub#e re#ation enounced in the Sruti te>t has
to be meditated u.on, and is to be transformed to other (idyas a#so which treat of
the same sub0ect=
Satyadyadhikaranam1 To.ic 23 +Sutra ,9-
Brihadaranyaka (=3=* and (=4=, treat of one (idya about Satya Brahman
Saiva hi satyadayah III=,=,9 +,67-
The same +Satya (idya is tau<ht in both .#aces-, because
+attributes #ike- Satya etc=, +are seen in both .#aces-=
Sa eva1 the same +Satya (idya-C %i1 becauseC Satyadayah1 +attributes
#ike- Satya etc=
Be read in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad J%e who knows this <reat,
<#orious, first born +Bein<- as the Satya Brahman, con@uers these wor#dsJ +(=3=*-=
A<ain we read JThat which is Satya is that Sun the bein< who is in that orb and
the bein< who is in the ri<ht eye=== he destroys evi#sJ +(=4=,-=
"ow a doubt arises whether these two Satya (idyas are one or different=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds that the (idyas are twoC because the te>t dec#ares
two different resu#ts, one in the ear#ier .assa<e J%e con@uers these
wor#dsJ+(=3=*-, the other one #ater on J%e destroys evi# and #eaves itJ +(=4=,-=
The Sutra dec#ares that they are one, because the second te>t refers to the
Satya of the ear#ier te>t, JThat which is Satya,J etc=
In rea#ity there is on#y one resu#t in both cases= The statement of a second
resu#t mere#y has the .ur.ose of <#orifyin< the new instruction <iven about Satya
or the True, viG=, that its secret names are HAharI and HAhamI=
Therefore, the conc#usion is that the te>t records on#y one (idya of the True
+Satyam-, distin<uished by such and such detai#s and that hence a## the @ua#ities
mentioned such as Truth and so on are to be com.rehended in one act of
meditation=
Some commentators think that the above Sutra refers not to the @uestion
whether Bri= ?.= (=3,* and (=4=, form one (idya or one meditation but to the
@uestion whether the Brihadaranyaka te>t about the .ersons in the sun and in the
eye and the simi#ar !hhando<ya te>t +I=5=5-, J"ow that <o#den .erson who is seen
within the sunJ etc= constitute one (idya or not=
They come to the conc#usion that they constitute one (idya and that hence
truth and the other @ua#ities mentioned in the Brihadaranyaka are to be combined
with the !hhando<ya te>t a#so=
But this inter.retation of the Sutra is ob0ectionab#e, because the !hhando<ya
(idya refers to the ?d<itha and is thus connected with sacrificia# rites= The marks
of this association are seen in the be<innin<, the midd#e and the end of the (idya=
Be read at the be<innin<, JThe Rik is the earth, the Saman is fireJ, in the midd#e,
JRik and Saman are his 0oints, and therefore he is the ?d<itha,J and in the end,
J%e who knows this sin<s as a SamanJ +!hh= ?.= I=5=*-=
In the Brihadaranyaka, on the contrary, there is veri#y, nothin< to connect
the (idya with the sacrificia# rites= As the sub0ect matter is different, the (idyas
are se.arate and the detai#s of the two (idyas are to be he#d se.arate=
;amadyadhikaranam1 To.ic 24 +Sutra ,6-
Attributes mentioned in !hh= ?.= (III=*=* and Bri= ?.= I(=3=22 are to be combined
on account of severa# common features in both te>ts
;amaditaratra tatra chayatanadibhyah III=,=,6 +,69-
+Nua#ities #ike true- desire etc=, +mentioned in the !hhando<ya
?.anishad are to be inserted- in the other +i=e=, in the
Brihadaranyaka- and +those mentioned- in the other +i=e=, in the
Brihadaranyaka are a#so to be inserted in the !hhando<ya- on account
of the abode, etc=, +bein< the same in both-=
;amadi1 +Satyasanka#.adi- +True- desire etc=C Itaratra1 in the other,
e#sewhere, in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishadC Tatra1 there, in the !hhando<ya
?.anishadC !ha1 a#soC Ayatanadibhyah1 on account of the abode etc=
Dahara (idya of the !hhando<ya and the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishads is now
discussed=
In the !hhando<ya ?.anishad +(III=*=*- we read, JThere is this city of
Brahman and in it the .a#ace, the sma## #otus and in it the sma## etherC that is the
Se#f=J Be read in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad +I(=3=22- JThat <reat unborn se#f
who consists of ;now#ed<e, who is surrounded by the $ranas #ies in the ether that
is within the heart=J
A doubt here arises whether the two constitute one (idya and therefore the
.articu#ars are to be combined or not=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that they form one (idya and the @ua#ities
mentioned in each are to be combined in the other, because many .oints are
common in both=
JBishes and so on,J i=e=, JThe @ua#ity of havin< true wishes and so on=J The
word H;amaI stands for HSatyakamaI 0ust as .eo.#e occasiona##y say Datta for
Devadatta and Bhama for Satyabhama= This @ua#ity and the other @ua#ities which
the !hhando<ya attributes to the ether within the heart, have to be combined with
the Brihadaranyaka .assa<e, and vice versa, i=e=, the @ua#ities mentioned in the
Brihadaranyaka such as bein< the ru#er of a##, have a#so to be ascribed to the Se#f
free from sin, described in the !hhando<ya=
The reason for this is that the two .assa<es e>hibit a number of common
features= !ommon to both is the heart re<arded as abode= !ommon a<ain is the
Lord as ob0ect of know#ed<e or meditation= !ommon a#so is the Lord bein<
re<arded as a bank .reventin< these wor#ds from bein< confounded= And there are
severa# other .oints a#so=
But an ob0ection is raised= There are a#so differences= In the !hhando<ya the
attributes are ascribed to the ether within the heart, whi#e in the Brihadaranyaka
they are attributed to Brahman abidin< in the ether= This ob0ection has no force= It
cannot certain#y stand= Be have shown under I=,=*3 that the term ether in the
!hhando<ya desi<nates Brahman=
There is, however, one difference between the two te>ts= The !hhando<ya
treats of Sa<una Brahman whi#e the Brihadaranyaka treats of "ir<una Brahman or
the Su.reme Brahman destitute of a## @ua#ities= )a0nava#kya says to /anaka Jor
that .erson is not attached to anythin<= That Se#f is to be described by "o, "o, &
neti, netiJ +Bri= ?.= I(=,=*3-=
But as the @ua#ified Brahman is fundamenta##y one with the un@ua#ified
Brahman we must conc#ude that the Sutra teaches the combination of the @ua#ities
for <#orifyin< Brahman and not for the .ur.ose of devout meditation or ?.asana=
Adaradhikaranam1 To.ic 25 +Sutras 38&3*-
$rana<nihotra need not be observed on days of fast
Adarada#o.ah III=,=38 +,66-
On account of the res.ect shown +to the $rana<nihotra by the
Sruti- there can be no omission +of this act- +even when the eatin<
of food is omitted-=
Adarat1 on account of the res.ect shownC A#o.ah1 there can be no
omission=
This Sutra <ives the view of the $urva.akshin or the o..onent=
Because there is #ovin< em.hasis on $rana<nihotra in /aba#a Sruti, such
$rana<nihotra shou#d not be omitted=
In the (aisvanara (idya of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad, the worshi..er is
asked first before he takes his mea#s to offer food to each of the $ranas, sayin<
JTo $rana I offer thisJ= The Sruti attaches much im.ortance to this $rana<nihotra=
The Sruti en0oins that food must be offered to the $ranas even before entertainin<
<uests=
"ow the @uestion is whether the $rana<nihotra is to be observed even on
days of fastin<=
The Sutra dec#ares that there shou#d be no omission of it even on days of
fastin<, as the Sruti attaches much im.ortance to it= The /aba#a Sruti says it must
be observed even on days of fastin< by si..in< at #east a few dro.s of water=
To this $urva.aksha the ne>t Sutra <ives a re.#y=
?.asthiteItastadvachanat III=,=3* +388-
Bhen eatin< is takin< .#ace +the $rana<nihotra has to be
.erformed- from that +i=e=, the food first eaten-, for so +the Sruti-
dec#ares=
?.asthite1 bein< .resent, bein< near, when food is servedC Atah1 from
that, on that accountC Tadvachanat1 for so +the Sruti- dec#ares=
This Sutra refutes the view e>.ressed in the #ast Sutra, and dec#ares that
$rana<nihotra, need not be .erformed on fastin< days, because the Sruti
e>.ress#y dec#ares, JTherefore the first food which comes is meant for %oma= And
he who offers that first ob#ation shou#d offer it to $rana, sayin< SvahaJ +!hh= ?.=
*6=*-=
The first .ortion of the food shou#d be offered to the $ranas on those days
when it is taken= The Sruti <ives im.ortance to this on#y and not that it shou#d be
observed even on days of fastin<=
Tannirdharanadhikaranam1 To.ic 27 +Sutra 32-
?.asanas mentioned in connection with sacrifices are not their .arts, but se.arate
Tannirdharananiyamastaddrishteh
.ritha<<hya.ratibandhah .ha#am III=,=32 +38*-
There is no ru#e about the invio#abi#ity of that +i=e=, ?.asanas
connected with certain sacrifices- that is seen +from the Sruti
itse#f-C for a se.arate fruit +be#on<s to the ?.asanas-, viG=, non
obstruction +of the resu#ts of the sacrifice-=
Tannirdharananiyamah1 no ru#e, about the invio#abi#ity of thatC
Taddrishtih1 that bein< seen +from the Sruti-C $rithak1 se.arateC %i1 becauseC
A.ratibandhah1 non&obstructionC $ha#am1 fruit, reward, resu#t=
This Sutra states that a meditation or ?.asana .rescribed in connection with
a ceremonia# rite is not com.u#sory=
Be have the direction to make a certain ?.asana as an An<a +e#ement or
#imit- of ;arma +;arman<avabaddho.asti-= Is it an indis.ensab#e e#ementL "o= If it
is .erformed there wi## be <reater fruit= Even if it is not done the ;arma wi## be
com.#ete= This is c#ear from the !hhando<ya ?.anishad=
Be now enter into an en@uiry whether certain ?.asanas mentioned with
some sacrifices are .art of those sacrifices and therefore inse.arab#e and
.ermanent#y connected with them=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that ?.asanas do not constitute a .art of the
sacrifice, because there is no ru#e as to their inse.arabi#ity= The Sruti e>.ress#y
dec#ares that the sacrifice can be done with or without the ?.asanas= JThe
i<norant man, as we## as the wise man may both en<a<e in the ?d<itha worshi.C
both .erform the sacrificeJ +!hh= ?.= I=*=*8-= This shows that the ?d<itha worshi.
may be .erformed, the meditation or ?.asana .art bein< #eft out= That which is
.erformed with meditation, faith and know#ed<e becomes a## the more effective=
There is no fi>ed ru#e for com.u#sory .erformance of ?d<itha meditation and
the #ike in ceremonia#s, because .erformance of the meditation on HO'I is #eft
o.tiona# to the .erformer and a#so because the fruit in each case is @uite distinct,
if the .erformance of the rite is not in any way obstructed, because it is c#ear that
the meditation is sure to .roduce its own effect inde.endent#y of the rite but the
rite is #iab#e to interru.tion and obstruction= If, however, the meditation and the
rite be con0oined, fruit becomes doub#y effective=
The !hhando<ya Sruti +I=*=*8- indicates that the rite can be done even
without meditation or ?.asana and that to .erform the rite with meditation is to
make it more effective= %ence the ?d<itha meditation and a## others .erformed in
connection with ceremonia# rite +;arman<a ?.asana-, are not com.u#sory and are
to be done by those on#y who wish to attain <reater fruits=
The ori<ina# sacrifice brin<s its own rewards but the ?.asana increases its
resu#ts= Therefore, the ?.asana does not constitute a .art of the sacrifice=
Therefore, it may or may not be done accordin< to the sweet wi## of the sacrificer=
The ?.asana .revents any obstruction to the resu#ts of the sacrifice= This
does not make it a .art of the ceremonia# rite= The rewards of the sacrifice may be
de#ayed on account of the intervention of an evi# ;arma of the sacrificer= The
?.asana annihi#ates the effect of this evi# deed and hastens the attainment of the
fruits of the sacrifice= That is a##= The sacrifice does not re#y u.on the ?.asana for
its rewards=
Therefore, the ?.asana does not form a .art of the sacrifice and is, therefore,
o.tiona#=
$radanadhikaranam1 To.ic 29 +Sutra 3,-
'editations on (ayu and $rana are to be ke.t se.arate notwithstandin< the
essentia# oneness of these two
$radanavadeva taduktam III=,=3, +382-
As in the case of the offerin<s +(ayu and $rana must be he#d
a.art-= This has been e>.#ained +in the $urvamimamsa Sutra-=
$radanavat1 as in the case of the offerin<s of the H$radana, ob#ationIC Eva1
e>act#yC Tat1 thatC ?ktam1 has been stated=
The section of the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad which be<ins J(oice he#d, I
sha## s.eakJ +Bri= ?.= I=4=2*- determines $rana to be the best amom< the or<ans
of the body and (ayu to be the best amon< the Devas=
In the !hhando<ya ?.anishad (ayu is said to be the <enera# absorber of the
Devas, J(ayu indeed is the absorberJ +I(=,=*-C $rana is said to be the <enera#
absorber of the or<ans of the body, JBreath indeed is the absorberJ +I(=,=,-=
In the Samvar<a (idya of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad, meditation on $rana
with reference to the body and on (ayu with reference to the <ods is .rescribed=
'any Sruti te>ts say that $rana and (avu are one in essence= Therefore, the
$urva.akshin maintains that the two meditations can be combined and that (ayu
and $rana are non&se.arate because in their true nature they do not differ= And as
their true nature does not differ they must not be meditated u.on se.arate#y= In
some .#aces we have even a direct identification of the two, JBhat $rana is that is
(ayu & )ah .ranah sa vayuh=J
The .resent Sutra refutes the above view and dec#ares that they are to be
ke.t a.art des.ite the non&difference in nature of $rana and (ayu, because their
functions on account of their different abodes are different= A#thou<h there may be
non&difference of true nature, yet there may be difference of condition <ivin< rise
to difference of instruction, and throu<h the #atter to difference of meditation=
The Sutra com.ares the case under discussion to a .ara##e# one from the
;armakanda by means of the c#ause Jas in the case of the offerin<sJ=
As an i##ustration we may take $radhana where $urodasa +ob#ations- is <iven
se.arate#y to Ra0a Indra +the Ru#er-, Adhira0a Indra +the monarch or the overru#er-,
and Svara0a Indra +the soverei<n or the se#f&ru#er- accordin< to his different
ca.acities, thou<h Indra is essentia##y one, thou<h he is one <od=
%ence, thou<h the (idya is one from the Adhyatmic .oint of view, there is
se.arateness from the Adhidaivata .oint of view= So the meditations on $rana and
(ayu have to be ke.t a.art= This .rinci.#e is estab#ished by /aimini, in
$urvamimamsa +Sankarsha a#ias Devata ;anda-=
Lin<abhuyastvadhikaranam1 To.ic 26 +Sutras 33&42-
The fires in A<nirahasya of the Brihadaranyaka are not .art of the sacrificia# act,
but form an inde.endent (idya
Lin<abhuyastvat taddhi ba#iyastada.i III=,=33 +38,-
On account of the ma0ority of indicatory marks +the fires of the
mind, s.eech, etc=, in the A<nirahasya of the (a0asaneyins do not
form .art of the sacrifice-, for it +the indicatory mark- is stron<er
+than the conte>t or the <enera# sub0ect matter-= This a#so +has been
e>.#ained in the $urvamimamsa Sutras by /aimini-=
Lin<abhuyastvat1 because of an abundance of distin<uishin< marksC Tat1
that, the distin<uishin< markC %i1 becauseC Ba#iyah1 is stron<erC Tat1 thatC A.i1
a#so=
In the A<nirahasya of the (a0asaneyins +Sata.atha Brahmana- certain fires
named after mind, s.eech, eyes, etc=, are mentioned=
A doubt arises whether these form .art of the sacrifice mentioned therein or
form an inde.endent (idya=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that in s.ite of the .rima facie view which arises
from the conte>t, these form a se.arate (idya because there are many indicatory
marks to show that these fires form an inde.endent (idya=
The indicatory marks are of <reater force than the conte>t or the #eadin<
sub0ect matter +$rakarana-= This has been e>.#ained in the $urvamimamsa
+III=,=*3-=
The reference in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad takes a manIs a<e to be one
hundred years, i=e=, ,5,888 days and describes each dayIs menta#ity as an
A<nichayana or fire sacrifice= The .assa<e occurs in a .ortion re#atin< to ;arma or
ceremonia# action= If you say that such a meditation is an An<a or e#ement in the
ceremonia# because it occurs in a .assa<e re#atin< to ;arma, we say that the
ma0ority of indicatory marks is otherwise, e=<=, the Sruti says that such !hayana
<oes on even in s#ee.= A s.ecific reason <iven in a .assa<e has a <reater wei<ht
or force than mere conte>t=
$urvavika#.ah .rakaranat syat kriyamanasavat III=,=34 +383-
+The fires s.oken of in the .revious Sutra are- a#ternative forms
of the one mentioned first, +i=e=, the actua# sacrificia# fire- on
account of the conte>tC +they- ou<ht to be .art of the sacrifice #ike
the ima<inary drink or the 'anasa&cu.=
$urvavika#.ah1 an a#ternative form of the a#ready mentioned firstC
$rakaranat1 on account of the conte>t, as can be understood from the sub0ect
matter of the cha.terC Syat1 there may be, ou<ht to beC ;riyamanasavat1
ceremonia# act, #ike the act of meditation, #ike the ima<inary drink, as in the case
of menta# o.eration in the soma&sacrifice=
An ob0ection is raised to the .recedin< Sutra=
The $urva.akshin raises a fresh ob0ection= On the tenth day of the Soma
sacrifice a Soma drink is offered to $ra0a.ati wherein the earth is re<arded as the
cu. and the sea as the Soma= This is a menta# act on#y, and yet it forms a .art of
the sacrifice=
The same then ho#ds <ood with re<ard to the @uasi&a<nis made of mind and
so on thou<h these fires are menta#, i=e=, ima<inary, yet they form .art of the
sacrifice and not an inde.endent (idya, because of the conte>t= They are an
a#ternate form of the actua# fire mentioned first=
)ou may say that it is on#y Arthavada and that a mere Arthavada cannot
override the conte>t and that such meditation is .art of the ;arma as is the case
in the Dasaratra ;arma=
Atidesascha III=,=35 +384-
And on account of the e>tension +of the attributes of the actua#
fire to these ima<inary fires-=
Atidesat1 on account of the e>tension +of the attributes ofI the first to these
fires-C !ha1 and=
Ob0ection to Sutra 33 is continued by .resentin< another ar<ument in su..ort
of Sutra 34=
The $urva.akshin <ives another reason to su..ort his view= The Sruti in that
.assa<e ascribes a## the attributes of the actua# fire to these ima<inary fires=
Therefore, they are .art of the sacrifice=
(idyaiva tu nirdharanat III=,=37 +385-
But +the fires- rather constitute the (idya, because +the Sruti-
asserts it=
(idya1 (idya, form of meditation or worshi., ;now#ed<eC Eva1 a#one,
indeedC Tu1 veri#y, undoubted#y, butC "irdharanat1 because the Sruti asserts it=
Ob0ections raised in Sutras 34 and 35 are now refuted=
The word HTuI +but- sets aside the $urva.aksha= It refutes the o..onent=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that the fires form an inde.endent (idya, because
the te>t asserts that JThey are bui#t of know#ed<e +(idya- on#yJ, and that JBy
know#ed<e they are bui#t for him who thus knowsJ=
Darsanaccha III=, 39 +387-
And because +in the te>t indicatory marks of that are- seen=
Darsanat1 it bein< seen in the scri.tures, because it is c#ear#y stated in
Sruti, because +of the indicatory marks- seenC !ha1 and=
The indicatory marks are those referred to in Sutra 33= In fact the interna#
indications show that it is a (idya and not a ;arman<a=
Srutyadiba#iyastvaccha na badhah III=,=36 +389-
+The view that the A<nis or fires constitute an inde.endent
(idya- cannot be refuted, owin< to the <reater force of the Sruti
etc=
Srutyadiba#iyastvat1 on account of the <reater force of the Sruti etc=C
!ha1 andC "a1 no, cannotC Badhah1 refutation=
Ob0ections raised in Sutras 34 and 35 are further refuted=
There is no ne<ation of this view on the basis of the conte>t, because of the
<reater stren<th of Sruti, etc=
Our o..onent has no ri<ht to determine on the <round of $rakarana that the
A<nis are subordinate to the sacrificia# action and so to set aside our view
accordin< to which they are inde.endent= or we know from the $urvamimamsa
that direct enunciation +Sruti-, indicatory mark +Lin<a- and syntactica# connection
+(akya- are of <reater force than #eadin< sub0ect matter +$rakarana- and a## those
three means of .roof are seen to confirm our view of the A<nis bein< inde.endent=
'ere conte>t is of no force a<ainst e>.ress Sruti, Lin<a, etc= The Sruti used
the word HEvaI where there is an im.erative tense, etc=, used, a mere ?.adesa can
be treated as an Arthavada, because there is a#so an e>.ress command= Bhere
there is no such indication, an ?.adesa must be treated as a (idhi= Therefore what
we have here is an inde.endent (idya and not a ;arman<a=
The Sruti direct#y says, JA## these fires are kind#ed with know#ed<e a#one= The
indicatory mark is this=J A## bein<s kind#e these fires for him, even when he is
as#ee.= This continuity of the fire shows that they are menta# ones= An actua#
sacrifice is not continued durin< s#ee.= The syntactica# connections JThrou<h
meditation a#one these fires of the worshi..er are kind#ed=J These three are more
forcib#e than mere conte>t=
Anubandhadibhyah .ra0nantara.rithaktvavat
drishtascha taduktam III=,=48 +386-
On account of the connection and so on +the fires bui#t of mind,
etc=, form an inde.endent (idya-, in the same way as other (idyas
+#ike Sandi#ya (idya- are se.arateC and it is seen +that in s.ite of
the conte>t a sacrifice is treated as inde.endent-= This has been
e>.#ained +in the $urvamimamsa Sutras by /aimini-=
Anubandhadibhyah1 from the connection and so onC
$ra0nantara.rithaktvavat1 even as the other (idyas are se.arateC Drishtah1 +it
is- seenC !ha1 andC Tat1 thatC ?ktam1 is stated +in the $urvamimamsa by
/aimini-=
The ar<ument in refutation of Sutras 34 and 35 is continued=
This Sutra <ives additiona# reasons in su..ort of the view set forth in Sutra
37=
Inde.endence has, a<ainst the <enera# sub0ect matter, to be assumed for the
fire&a#tars bui#t of mind and so on, because the te>t connects the constituent
members of the sacrificia# action with activities of the mind= The te>t connects for
the .ur.ose of Sam.ad ?.asana +meditations based on resemb#ance- .arts of a
sacrifice with menta# activities, e=<=, JThese fires are started menta##y, the a#tars
are set u. menta##y, the cu.s are taken menta##y, the ?d<atris are .raised
menta##y, the %otris are recited menta##y, everythin< connected with this sacrifice
is done menta##y=J This is .ossib#e on#y if there is a shar. difference between
thin<s which resemb#e each other=
The Sruti mentions in re<ard to such menta# worshi. a## the <reatness of a
;arman<a= Therefore Atidesa +simi#arity- a..#ies even on the footin< of the
conte>t referrin< to an inde.endent (idya which is se.arate from a ;arman<a=
The fires constitute an inde.endent (idya, 0ust as the Sandi#ya (idya, Dahara
(idya, form se.arate (idyas, a#thou<h mentioned a#on< with sacrificia# acts=
A simi#ar thin< is seen in Aveshti bein< done as an inde.endent ceremony in
the Ra0asuya sacrifice= It is observed in the sacrificia# .ortion of the (edas, that
thou<h the sacrifice Aveshti is mentioned a#on< with the Ra0asuya sacrifice, it is
yet considered as an inde.endent sacrifice by /aimini in the $urvamimamsa
Sutras=
"a samanyada.yu.a#abdhermrityuvanna hi
#oka.attih III=,=4* +3*8-
In s.ite of the resemb#ance +of the fires to the ima<inary drink,
they do- not +constitute .art of the sacrificia# act- because it is
seen +from the reasons <iven, and on the <round of Sruti that they
form an inde.endent (idya- as in the case of deathC for the wor#d
does not become +fire, because it resemb#es fire in some .oints-=
"a1 notC Samanyada.i1 in s.ite of the resemb#ance, because of
commonness, on the <round of their resemb#ance to sacrificia# fireC ?.a#abdheh1
for it is seenC 'rityuvat1 0ust as in the case of deathC "a hi #oka.attih1 for the
wor#d does not become +fire on account of certain resemb#ances-=
The ar<ument in refutation of Sutras 34 and 35 is continued=
Thou<h bein< a menta# act, there is an e#ement of simi#arity, it is not a
;arman<a because it is stated to have a se.arate fruit= This is c#ear from the
i##ustrations re#atin< to 'rityu and describin< the earth as fire=
The resemb#ance cited by the $urva.akshin has no force= It cannot certain#y
stand because on account of the reasons a#ready <iven, viG=, the Sruti, indicatory
mark, etc=, the fires in @uestion subserve the .ur.ose of man on#y, and not the
.ur.ose of some sacrificia# action=
'ere resemb#ance can hard#y 0ustify the contrary view= Anythin< indeed may
resemb#e anythin< in some .oint or otherC but in s.ite of that there remains the
individua# dissimi#arity of each thin< from a## other thin<s=
The case is ana#o<ous to that of HdeathI= The resemb#ance cited is #ike the
common e.ithet HdeathI a..#ied to fire and the bein< in the sun= JThe bein< in that
orb is death indeedJ +Sat= Br= K=4=2=,-= Jire indeed is deathJ +Tait= Samh=
(=*=*8=,-= This resemb#ance cannot make fire and the bein< in the same one=
A<ain we have JThis wor#d is a fire indeed, O :autama, the sun is its fue#J
etc=, +!hh= ?.= (=3=*-= %ere it does not fo##ow from the simi#arity of fue# and so on
that the wor#d does not actua##y become fire=
Thus a#so in our case= %ence from the fact that the 'anaschita A<ni +fire- is a
menta# act #ike the 'anasa<raha which is a ;arman<a, you cannot on that <round
of such simi#arity a#one ar<ue that it a#so is a ;arman<a=
$arena cha sabdasya tadvidhyam
bhuyastvattvanubandhah III=,=42 +3**-
And from the subse@uent +Brahmana- the fact of the te>t +under
discussion- bein< such +i=e=, en0oinin< an inde.endent (idya- +is
known-= But the connection +of the fancifu# A<nis or ima<inary fires
with the actua# fire is- on account of the abundance +of the
attributes of the #atter that are ima<ined in these fires-=
$arena1 from the subse@uent +Brahmana-, by the subse@uent e>.ression,
by the statements immediate#y fo##owin<C !ha1 andC Sabdasya1 of Sruti, of the
te>t, of the wordC Tadvidhyam1 the fact of bein< suchC Bhuyastvat1 because of
abundanceC Tu1 butC Anubandhah1 connection=
In a subse@uent Brahmana we have JBy know#ed<e they ascend there where
a## wishes are attained= Those ski##ed in words do not <o there, nor those who
destitute of know#ed<e do .enanceJ= This verse de.reciates mere works and
.raises (idya or know#ed<e= A former Brahmana a#so viG=, the one be<innin<
JBhere that orb #eadsJ +Sat= Br= K=4=2=2,- conc#udes with a statement of the fruit
of know#ed<e JImmorta# becomes he whose se#f is deathJ and thereby shows that
works are not the chief thin<= %ence we conc#ude that the in0unction of the Sruti is
that the fires constitute an inde.endent (idya=
The connection of the fires with the actua# fire is not because they constitute
.art of the sacrifice but because many of the attributes of the rea# fire are
ima<ined in the fires of the (idya, in the A<nis bui#t of mind= The statement of the
fires bui#t of mind a#on< with the ordinary sacrificia# fire is due to an abundance of
common matters with the #atter=
A## this estab#ishes the conc#usion that the fire&a#tars bui#t of mind and so on
constitute an inde.endent (idya=
Aikatmyadhikaranam1 To.ic ,8 +Sutras 4,&43-
Atman is an entity distinct from the body
Eka atmanah sarire bhavat III=,=4, +3*2-
Some +maintain the non&e>istence- of a se.arate se#f +besides the
body- on account of the e>istence +of the se#f- where a body is
+on#y-=
Eka1 some +maintain the non&e>istence-C Atmanah1 of a se.arate se#f
+besides the body-C Sarire1 in the bodyC Bhavat1 because of e>istence=
In this to.ic the e>istence of an Atman a.art from the body is taken u. for
discussion= ?n#ess there is a sou# a.art from the body there is no use of the
scri.ture teachin< #iberation= "or can there be any sco.e for ethica# commands
which are the means of attainment of heaven or for the teachin< that the sou# is
Brahman=
There must be a sou# a.art from the body who can en0oy the fruits of the
?.asana or (idyas, otherwise of what avai# is ?.asanaL If there is no sou# a##
?.asanas become use#ess=
At .resent we wi## .rove the e>istence of a sou# different from the body in
order to estab#ish thereby the @ua#ification of the se#f for bonda<e and re#ease= or
if there were no se#ves different from the body, there wou#d be no room for
in0unction that have the other wor#d for their resu#t, nor cou#d it be tau<ht of
anybody that Brahman is his Se#f=
This Sutra <ives the view of the !harvakas or Lokayatikas +materia#ists- who
deny the e>istence of an Atman different from the body= They say that
consciousness is a mere materia# .roduct and that the body is the sou#= They
dec#are that consciousness is seen to e>ist on#y when there is a body and that it is
nowhere e>.erienced inde.endent of the body= Therefore consciousness is on#y an
attribute or @ua#ity of the body= There is no se.arate se#f or sou# in this body=
They say man is on#y a body= !onsciousness is the @ua#ity of the body=
!onsciousness is #ike the into>icatin< @ua#ity which arises when certain materia#s
are mi>ed in certain .ro.ortions= "o sin<#e materia# has the into>icatin< effect=
A#thou<h consciousness is not observed in earth, and the other e>terna#
e#ements, either sin<#e or combined, yet it may a..ear in them when transformed
into the sha.e of a body= !onsciousness s.rin<s from them= "o sou# is found after
the body dies and that hence as both are .resent or absent to<ether,
consciousness is on#y an attribute of the body 0ust as #i<ht and heat are attributes
of fire=
As #ife, movements, consciousness, remembrances and so on, which are
re<arded as @ua#ities of the Atman by those who maintain that there is an
inde.endent Atman a.art from the body, are observed on#y within the bodies and
not outside the bodies, and as an abode of those attributes different from the
body cannot be .roved, it fo##ows that they must be attributes of the body on#y=
Therefore, the Se#f is not different from the body=
The ne>t Sutra <ives a re.#y to this conc#usion of the !harvakas or
Lokayatikas +materia#ists-=
(yatirekastadbhavabhavitvanna tu.a#abdhivat III=,=43 +3*,-
But not +so-C a se#f or sou# se.arate +from the body does e>ist-,
because +!onsciousness- does not e>ist even when there is the body
+after death-, as in the case of co<nition or .erce.tive
consciousness=
(yatirekah1 se.arationC Tadbhavabhavitvat1 for +consciousness- does
not e>ist even when there is the bodyC "a1 not +so-C Tu1 butC ?.a#abdhivat1 as
in the case of know#ed<e or co<nition=
The statement in the .recedin< Sutra is refuted=
The sou# is se.arate because even when the body e>ists the sou# <oes away=
They are se.arate 0ust as sub0ect and ob0ect are se.arate=
The view e>.ressed by the o..onent in the .revious Sutra is certain#y wron<,
because the Atma&Dharma such as !haitanya +consciousness-, etc=, are not found
after death, thou<h the body e>ists= !onsciousness cannot be an attribute of the
body, because we do not find consciousness in a body after a .erson dies=
This consciousness is an attribute of somethin< which is different from the
body and which abides in the body=
The sub0ect and the ob0ect cannot .ossib#y be identica#= ire cannot burn
itse#f= The acrobat cannot stand u.on his own shou#der= !an form sense formL !an
sound hear soundL "o= !onsciousness is eterna#, as it is of the same identica#
@ua#ity a#ways= !an you say that consciousness is a @ua#ity of the #i<ht, because
#i<ht is necessary to see formsL Even so consciousness is not a @ua#ity of the body=
'oreover consciousness functions in dreams even without the aid of the body=
The !harvakas acce.t that the co<niser is different from the thin< co<nised=
So the e>.eriencer of this body, he who co<nises this body must be different from
the body= %e who co<nises this body is the Se#f=
Therefore, consciousness is an attribute of this Se#f, rather its very essence of
nature=
As consciousness constitutes the character of the Se#f, the Se#f must be
distinct from the body= That consciousness is .ermanent fo##ows from the
uniformity of its character and we, therefore, may conc#ude that the conscious Se#f
is .ermanent a#so= That consciousness is the nature of the Se#f, that it is
.ermanent, fo##ows from the fact that the Se#f, a#thou<h connected with a different
state, reco<nises itse#f as the conscious a<ent a reco<nition e>.ressed in
0ud<ments such as JI saw thisJ and from the fact of remembrance and so on bein<
.ossib#e=
Therefore, the view that the Se#f is somethin< se.arate from the body is free
from a## ob0ections=
An<avabaddhadhikaranam1 To.ic ,* +Sutras 44&45-
?.asanas connected with sacrificia# acts, i=e=, ?d<itha ?.asana are va#id for a##
schoo#s
An<avabaddhastu na sakhasu hi .rativedam III=,=44 +3*3-
But +the ?.asanas or meditations connected with .arts- +of
sacrificia# acts are- not +restricted- to +.articu#ar- Sakhas,
accordin< to the (eda +to which they be#on<-, +but to a## its Sakhas
because the same ?.asana is described in a##-=
An<avabaddhah1 +?.asanas- connected .arts +of sacrificia# acts-C Tu1 butC
"a1 notC Sakhasu1 to +.articu#ar- SakhasC %i1 becauseC $rativedam1 in each
(eda, accordin< to the (eda=
There is no ru#e that the An<avabaddha +;arman<a- ?.asana in each Sruti
Sakha is se.arate and shou#d be confined to it a#one=
The above said intervenin< or occasiona# discussion is over= "ow we .ursue
the main theme= In ?d<itha, etc=, various ;arman<a ?.asanas are tau<ht= rom
this you cou#d not say that each ?.asana in each Sruti Sakha is different, on
account of the .ro>imity of te>t and the difference in Svaras or sounds= A## such
?.asanas may be taken to<ether, because the ?d<itha Sruti is more .owerfu# than
mere .ro>imity of conte>t or diversity of Svara=
There are certain ?.asanas mentioned in connection with sacrificia# acts, as
for e>am.#e the meditation on HO'I which is connected with the ?d<itha as $rana,
or the meditation on the ?d<itha as the earth and so on= JLet a man meditate on
the sy##ab#e HO'I as the ?d<ithaJ +!hh= ?.= I=*=*-= JLet a man meditate on the fivefo#d
Saman as the five wor#dsJ +!hh= ?.= II=2=*-=
A doubt here arises whether the meditations or (idyas are en0oined with
reference to the ?d<itha and so on as be#on<in< to a certain Sakha on#y or as
be#on<in< to a## Sakhas= The doubt arises because the ?d<itha and so on are
chanted different#y in different Sakhas, because the accents, etc=, differ=
Therefore, they may be considered different=
%ere the $urva.akshin ho#ds that the (idyas are en0oined on#y with reference
to the ?d<itha and so on which be#on< to the .articu#ar Sakha to which the (idya
be#on<s= BhyL Because of .ro>imity=
The .resent Sutra refutes the view that they are so restricted, because the
te>t s.eaks of these ?.asanas in <enera# and so they are a## one in a## the
branches=
The word HtuI +but- discards the .rima facie view or the view of the
$urva.akshin= The ?.asanas are not restricted to their own Sakhas accordin< to
the (eda to which they be#on< but are va#id for a## Sakhas, because the direct
statements of the te>t about the ?d<itha and so on enounce no s.ecification=
Direct statement has <reater force or wei<ht than .ro>imity=
There is no reason why the (idya shou#d not be of <enera# reference= Be,
therefore, conc#ude that, a#thou<h the Sakhas differ as to accents and the #ike, the
(idyas mentioned refer to the ?d<itha and so on be#on<in< to a## Sakhas, because
the te>t s.eaks on#y of the ?d<itha and so on in <enera#=
'antradivadvavirodhah III=,=45 +3*4-
Or e#se, there is no contradiction +here-, as in the case of
'antras and the #ike=
'antradivat1 #ike 'antras, etc=C (a1 or e#seC Avirodhah1 there is no
contradiction=
The discussion commenced in Sutra ,, is continued=
/ust as 'antras, etc=, mentioned in on#y one Sakha, are used in another
Sakha, with res.ect to that .articu#ar rite, so a#so the ?.asanas connected with
.articu#ar rites in one Sakha of the (eda can be a..#ied to the other Sakhas=
As for e>am.#e the 'antra J;utarurasiJ +thou art the <rindin< stone-,
.rescribed in one Branch of the (edas for takin< stone to <rind rice, is acce.tab#e
in that rite everywhereC even so the ?.asana +meditation- .rescribed in one
Branch of the (edas may be transferred or a..#ied to other Sakhas or Branches
without a..rehendin< any im.ro.riety=
Be find that 'antra and :una and ;arma in one Sakha are taken into
another Sakha, 0ust as the members of sacrificia# actions on which certain (idyas
rest are va#id everywhere, so the (idyas themse#ves a#so which rest on those
members are va#id for a## Sakhas and (edas=
Bhuma0yayastvadhikaranam1 To.ic ,2 +Sutra 47-
(aisvanara ?.asana is one entire ?.asana
Bhumnah kratuva00yayastvam tatha hi darsayati III=,=47 +3*5-
Im.ortance +is <iven to the meditation- on the entire form +of
(aisvanara- as in the case of sacrificeC for thus +the Sruti- shows=
Bhumnah1 on the entire formC ;ratuvat1 as in the case of sacrificeC
/yayastvam1 .rominence, .re&eminence, im.ortanceC Tatha1 soC %i1 because,
for, asC Darsayati1 +the Sruti- shows=
The (aisvanara (idya is discussed here=
In the !hhando<ya ?.anishad +(=**= 9- there is the (aisvanara (idya, the
meditation on the cosmic form of the Lord= The meditator shou#d think that %is
head is the heaven, %is eye the sun and so on= Different fruits are mentioned for
each .art of the ?.asana= or e>am.#e, the fruit of meditatin< on %is head as the
heaven is J%e eats food, beho#ds his be#oved ones and has (edic <#ory in his
houseJ +!hh= ?.= (=*2=2-=
"ow a doubt arises whether the Sruti here s.eaks of one ?.asana on the
entire cosmic form or ?.asana of each .art of (aisvanara=
The .resent Sutra says that the Sruti s.eaks of one ?.asana on the who#e
form of (aisvanara or the cosmic form of the Lord=
The Sruti <ives su.eriority to the meditation on (aisvanara as a who#e, as in
the case of ;ratu or sacrifice= Thou<h the Sruti dec#ares fruits for ?.asana or
worshi. of each .art of (aisvanara, yet it em.hasises the worshi. of the entire
(aisvanara with the universe as %is body, 0ust as in sacrifices #ike Darsa&
$urnamasa a## the An<as have to be combined=
The se.arate fruits mentioned for meditation on .arts of (aisvanara must be
combined into one who#e with meditation=
The te>t informs us that si> Rishis, $rakinasa#a, ?dda#aka, etc=, bein< unab#e
to reach a firm foundation in the ;now#ed<e of (aisvanara, went to the ;in<
Asva.ati ;aikeyaC <oes on to mention the ob0ect of each RishiIs meditation, viG=,
the sky and so onC determines that the sky and so on are on#y the head and so on
of (aisvanara= Asva.ati said JThat is but the head of the se#f,J and re0ects a##
meditations on (aisvanara in his .artia# form= %e said J)our head wou#d have
fa##en if you had not come to meJ +!hh= ?.= (=*2=2-= As this te>t discoura<es
.artia# worshi. of (aisvanara, it is @uite c#ear that it recommends the entire
?.asana on the who#e (aisvanara=
'oreover the section be<ins thus1 Jwhich is our own se#f, which is BrahmanJ
+!hh= ?.= (=**=*-= This indicates that the entire Brahman is the ob0ect of
meditation= It ends thus Jof that (aisvanara Se#f Sute0as is the headJ etc= +!hh=
?.= (=*9=2-= This c#ear#y intimates that on#y the entire ?.asana is intended=
or a## these reasons, the view accordin< to which the te>t en0oins a
meditation on the entire (aisvanara on#y is correct=
Sabdadibhedadhikaranam1 To.ic ,, +Sutra 49-
(arious (idyas #ike the Sandi#ya (idya, Dahara (idya and so on are to be ke.t
se.arate and not combined into one entire ?.asana
"ana sabdadibhedat III=,=49 +3*7-
+The (idyas are- se.arate, on account of the difference of words
and the #ike=
"ana1 different, variousC Sabdadibhedat1 on account of difference of
names of words, etc= +Bhedat1 due to variety=-
In the .revious Sutra we have arrived at the conc#usion that a meditation on
(aisvanara as a who#e is the .re&eminent meanin< of the te>t, a#thou<h s.ecia#
fruits are stated for meditations on .arts such as Sute0as and so on=
The $urva.akshin fo##ows this #ine of ar<ument and says that we must
combine a## the different (idyas #ike Sandi#ya (idya, Dahara (idya, Satya (idya,
and so on into one com.osite meditation or more <enera# meditation on the Lord,
as the ob0ect of meditation is the one Lord=
The .resent Sutra refutes this and dec#ares that the (idyas are se.arate,
a#thou<h the ob0ect of meditation is on the one Lord, on account of the difference
of words and the #ike= or the te>t e>hibits a difference of words such as J%e
knows=J
JLet him meditateJ, JLet him form the ideaJ +!hh= ?.= III=*3=*-= This
difference of terms is acknow#ed<ed as a reason or test of difference of acts,
accordin< to $urvamimamsa Sutras, II=2=*=
JAnd the #ikeJ or Jetc=J refers to other reasons #ike the difference in @ua#ities=
The Lord indeed is the on#y ob0ect of meditation, but accordin< to its <enera#
.ur.ort each .assa<e teaches different @ua#ities of the Lord= A#thou<h one and the
same $rana is the ob0ect of meditation in the other series of .assa<es, yet one of
his @ua#ities has to be meditated u.on in one .#ace and another in another .#ace=
rom difference of connection there thus fo##ows difference of in0unction and from
the #atter we a..rehend the se.arateness of the (idyas=
Thou<h the ob0ect of meditation is the one Lord, yet %e is different on
account of the difference in @ua#ities that are ima<ined in different ?.asanas=
urther it is not .ossib#e at a## to combine a## the various (idyas into one=
Therefore, the different (idyas are to be ke.t se.arate and not combined into
one com.osite or <enera# meditation=
Thou<h the (idya +what is to be known- is one, each ?.asana which is
described by such words as ?.asita, etc=, is different= In each ?.asana certain
s.ecia# attributes of the Lord and certain s.ecia# resu#ts are stated=
The forms of meditation such as the Sandi#ya (idya, the Satya (idya, the
Dahara (idya, the (aisvanara (idya, are different owin< to difference of names
and .rocesses, the directory words and the attributes, yet, each of them teaches
the worshi. of the same LordC but under a .articu#ar as.ect meditations have
been .rescribed in various names and forms so as to suit different meditators=
The Sutra, therefore, ri<ht#y dec#ares the se.arateness of the (idyas=
(ika#.adhikaranam1 To.ic ,3 +Sutra 46-
Any one of the (idyas shou#d be se#ected accordin< to oneIs own o.tion or choice
(ika#.oIvisishta.ha#atvat III=,=46 +3*9-
There is o.tion +with res.ect to the severa# (idyas-, because the
resu#t +of a## the (idyas- is the same=
(ika#.ah1 o.tionC (isishta.ha#atvat1 on account of +a## (idyas- havin< the
same resu#t=
The most im.ortant (idyas are1 Sandi#ya (idya, Bhuma (idya, Sat (idya,
Dahara (idya, ?.akosa#a (idya, (aisvanara (idya, ?d<itha (idya, Anandamaya
(idya, Akshara (idya=
One may fo##ow any (idya accordin< to his o.tion, and stick to it ti## he
reaches the <oa#, as the resu#t of a## (idyas or the <oa# is the same, name#y the
rea#isation of Se#f or Brahman= If we ado.t many, the mind wi## <et distracted and
the s.iritua# .ro<ress wi## be retarded= Bhen the Brahman is rea#ised throu<h one
meditation, a second meditation wou#d be .ur.ose#ess=
Therefore, one must se#ect one .articu#ar (idya and stick to it and remain
intent on it ti## the fruit of the (idya is attained throu<h the intuition of the ob0ect
of meditation=
;amyadhikaranam1 To.ic ,4 +Sutra 58-
(idyas yie#din< .articu#ar desires may or may not be combined accordin< to oneIs
#ikin<
;amyastu yathakamam samucchiyeranna va
.urvahetvabhavat III=,=58 +3*6-
But (idyas for .articu#ar desires may be combined or not
accordin< to oneIs desires on account of the absence of the .revious
reason +mentioned in the .revious Sutra-=
;amyah1 (idyas ado.ted for some sensuous desiresC Tu1 butC
)athakamam1 accordin< to oneIs desire or #ikin<C Samucchiyeran1 may be
combinedC "a1 notC (a1 orC $urva1 the formerC %etu1 reasonC Abhavat1 on
account of the absence of=
This Sutra shows an e>ce.tion to the .revious Sutra that more (idyas than
one may be combined where the ob0ect is other than the rea#isation of Brahman=
In the .revious Sutra it was stated that any one of the (idyas about Brahman
shou#d be taken u., and that more than one at a time shou#d not be taken u.,
because each (idya was @uite sufficient to take to the <oa# or Se#f&rea#isation and
more than one (idya wou#d .roduce distraction of the mind=
Be have on the other hand, (idyas connected with .articu#ar desires, e=<=,
J%e who knows that the wind is the chi#d of the re<ions never wee.s for his sonsJ
+!hh= ?.= III=*4=2-= J%e who meditates on name as Brahman, wa#ks at wi## as far
as name reachesJ +!hh= ?.= (II=*=4-=
The @uestion arises whether one is to restrict onese#f to on#y one of these
(idyas or can take u. more than one at a time=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that one can .ractise more than one (idya or not
accordin< to oneIs #ikin<, as the resu#ts are different un#ike that of the Brahma&
(idyas= %e may .ractise more than one (idya or not, on account of the absence of
the former reason, i=e=, because there is not the reason for o.tion which was
stated in the .recedin< Sutra=
)athasrayabhavadhikaranam1 To.ic ,5 +Sutras 5*&55-
'editations connected with members of sacrificia# acts may or may not be
combined accordin< to oneIs #ikin<
An<eshu yathasrayabhavah III=,=5* +328-
Bith re<ard +to meditations- connected with members +of
sacrificia# acts- it is as with +the members- with which they are
connected=
An<eshu1 with re<ard +to meditations- connected with members +of
sacrificia# acts-C )athasrayabhavah1 it is as with +members- with which they are
connected=
Of the si> Sutras which are contained in this Adhikarana, the first four Sutras
are $urva.aksha Sutras and the #ast two Sutras are Siddhanta Sutras=
Different instructions connected with a sacrifice are stated in the different
(edas= The scri.tures say that a## these members mentioned in the different (edas
are to be combined for the due .erformance of the .rinci.a# one=
The @uestion now is, which is the ru#e to be fo##owed with re<ard to the
meditations or ?.asanas connected with these members=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that the same ru#e which a..#ies to the members
a..#ies a#so to the ?.asanas connected with them= It is accordin< to the abodes=
As the abidin< .#aces of those meditations, viG=, the Stotra and so on are
combined for the .erformance of the sacrifice, so those meditations or ?.asanas
a#soC for a meditation is sub0ect to what it rests on= A## these ?.asanas are to be
combined=
/ust as the Stotras, etc=, are combined when .erformin< ;armas, so a#so the
?.asanas which are An<as of ;arma +An<avabaddha ?.asana- shou#d be
combined=
Sishtescha III=,=52 +32*-
And from the in0unction of the Sruti=
Sishteh1 from the in0unction of the SrutiC !ha1 and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of the ob0ection raised in Sutra 5* is adduced=
That is because the ?.asanas de.end on the Stotras=
As the Stotra and the other members of the sacrifice on which the
meditations under discussion rest are tau<ht in the three (edas, so a#so are the
meditations restin< on them= /ust as the members are scattered in the different
(edas, so a#so are the meditations connected with them= There is no difference as
re<ards the in0unction of the Sruti with reference to these meditations=
There is no difference between the members of a sacrificia# act and the
meditations referrin< to them=
Samaharat III=,=5, +322-
On account of the rectification=
Samaharat1 on account of the rectification=
A further reason is <iven by the o..onent= Another ar<ument in su..ort of
Sutra 5* is adduced=
There is a#so indication in the Sruti about such combination= Such
combination is seen when the ?d<atri .erforms the %autra ;arma described in
another (eda for removin< the effects of error in the dischar<e of his function=
!hhando<ya ?.anishad dec#ares JBhat is ?d<itha is O' or $ranava and what
is O' is ?d<itha= This meditation on the oneness of the ?d<itha and O' mends
the ?d<itha defi#ed by any mistake committed even on the .art of the %otri, the
hymn&recitin< .riest in recitation of the ?d<ithaJ +!hh= ?.= I=4=4-=
%ere it is said that the mistakes committed by the ?d<atri or chantin< .riest
of the Sama (eda are rectified by the recitation of the %otri or invokin< .riest of
the Ri<veda= This indicates that thou<h the meditations are <iven in the different
(edas they are yet inter#inked= %ence a## of them have to be observed=
The .assa<e Jrom the seat of the %otri, he sets ri<ht any mistake committed
in the ?d<ithaJ +!hh= ?.= I=4=4-, dec#ares that owin< to the force of the meditation
on the unity of $ranava and ?d<itha, the %otri rectifies any mistake he may
commit in his work, by means of the work of the %otri=
"ow, as a meditation mentioned in one (eda is connected with what is
mentioned in another (eda, in the same manner as a thin< mentioned in another
(eda, the above .assa<e su<<ests the conc#usion that a## meditations on members
of sacrificia# acts, in whatever (eda they may be mentioned & have to be
combined=
A thin< be#on<in< to the Ri<veda, viG=, $ranava is, accordin< to the
!hhando<ya te>t, connected with the Sama (eda meditation on the ?d<itha=
%ence meditations a#so which be#on< to different (edas may be combinedC
because there is no difference between them and thin<s as far as connection is
concerned=
:unasadharanyasrutescha III=,=53 +32,-
And from the Sruti dec#arin< HO'I which is a common feature +of
the ?d<itha (idya- to be common to a## the (edas=
:unasadharanyasruteh1 from the Sruti dec#arin< the feature of HO'I as
bein< common to a## the (edasC !ha1 and=
Another ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 5* is adduced=
urther $ranava +Omkara- is common to a## the ?.asanas and #inks them u.=
It is found in Sruti that O' is the common .ro.erty of a## the (edas=
Therefore, it is an inse.arab#e concomitant of the sacrificia# rites, .rescribed in the
(edas= %ence the (idyas a#so, bein< de.endent on O', are concomitants of the
sacrificia# rites= !hhando<ya ?.anishad dec#ares JThrou<h this +HO'I- the (edic
(idya .roceeds= Bith O' the Adhvaryu <ives orders, with O' the %otri recites,
with O' the ?d<atri sin<sJ +!hh= ?.= I=*=6-= This is stated with reference to O',
which is common to a## the (edas and a## the ?.asanas in them= This indicates that
as the abode of a## (idyas, viG=, O', is common, so the (idyas that rest in it are
common a#so= Therefore, a## of them are to be observed=
"a va tatsahabhavasruteh III=,=54 +323-
+The meditations connected with members of the sacrificia# acts
are- rather not +to be combined- as the Sruti does not state their
<oin< to<ether=
"a1 notC (a1 ratherC Tatsahabhavasruteh1 their corre#ation not bein<
mentioned by the Sruti= +Tat1 theirC Sahabhava1 about bein< to<etherC Asruteh1
because there is no such in0unction in Sruti-=
The words H"a vaI Hrather notI discard the $urva.aksha= This Sutra refutes the
contention raised in Sutras 5*&53=
This and the fo##owin< Sutra <ive the conc#usion=
There is no Sruti commandin< such combination of the ;arman<a ?.asanas=
"o Sruti refers to such com.u#sory combination of the ?.asanas= So they can be
done sin<#y or in combination as we #ike=
There is no bindin< ru#e that the (idyas, de.endin< on the $ranava or on any
.art of a sacrificia# rite, is a necessary concomitant of the sacrifice= It may be
dis.ensed with or retained at the o.tion of the .erformer= But there is this
difference= If (idyas be associated with the rites <reater <ood wi## accrue=
Thou<h the utterance of the $ranava or the ?d<itha hymn has been en0oined
by the Sruti to be necessary for the sacrificia# .erformance, yet Sruti does not
insist that the (idya +meditation- .ortion of the .erformance is a necessary
ad0unct to the mind= It is not abso#ute#y necessary for the fu#fi#ment of e>terna#
sacrifices= A sacrifice may be .erformed even without the (idya +meditation-
mere#y by utterance of 'antras, sin<in< of the ?d<itha hymns, .ourin< of the
c#arified butter into the sacred fire and the #ike e>terna# rites, in order to attain
.articu#ar desired ob0ects, but the (idya or meditation on Brahman #eads to
rea#isation of Brahman=
The ru#e for combinin< the instructions re<ardin< sacrifices that are scattered
in a## the (edas cannot be a..#ied with re<ard to the meditations +?.asanas-
connected with them= If the instructions re<ardin< the sacrifices are not combined,
the sacrifice wi## itse#f fai#= But it is not the case if the ?.asanas are not .ractised,
because ?.asanas on#y increase the fruits of the sacrifice +(ide III=,=32-=
?.asanas are not inse.arab#e from the sacrifice=
Therefore, ?.asanas +(idyas, meditations- may or may not be .ractised=
Darsanaccha III=,=55 +324-
And because the Sruti +scri.ture- says so +shows it-=
Darsanat1 because the Sruti says so, shows it from SrutiC !ha1 and, a#so=
This Sutra is adduced in su..ort of Sutra 54=
This may a#so be inferred from Sruti=
!hhando<ya ?.anishad dec#ares JThe Brahmana +su.erintendin< chief .riest-
who .ossesses such know#ed<e saves the sacrifice, the sacrificer and a## the
.riests, 0ust as the horse saves the horsemanJ +!hh= ?.= I(=*7=*8-=
This shows that the scri.tures do not intend that a## the meditations shou#d
<o to<ether= or, if a## meditations were to be combined, a## .riests wou#d know
them a## and the te>t cou#d not s.ecia##y announce that the Brahmana, chief
su.erintendin< .riest, .ossessin< a certain know#ed<e thereby saves the others=
The meditations, therefore, accordin< to oneIs #ikin< may or may not be
combined=
Thus ends the Third $ada +Section ,- of the Third Adhyaya +!ha.ter III- of
the Brahma Sutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
SE!TIO" 3
Introduction
In the #ast Section the (idyas or ?.asanas +meditations- which are the means
to the know#ed<e of Brahman were discussed=
In this Section the Sutrakara enters into an en@uiry whether the know#ed<e
of Brahman is connected with ritua#istic work throu<h one who is entit#ed to
.erform the works or is an inde.endent means to accom.#ish the .ur.ose of man=
Sri Baadarayana, the Sutrakara, be<ins by statin< the fina# view in the first
Sutra, JThenceJ etc= %e is of o.inion that throu<h the inde.endent ;now#ed<e of
Brahman en0oined in the (edanta&te>ts the .ur.ose of man is effected=
In the .resent Section it wi## be shown that ;now#ed<e of Brahman is
inde.endent of ;arma and that is not subordinate to sacrificia# acts=
Baadarayana estab#ishes that the attainment of the fina# emanci.ation is the
direct resu#t of Brahma (idya of know#ed<e of Brahman, that works or sacrifices
are on#y indirect aids to contem.#atin< by .urifyin< the heart, that ;arma does not
direct#y #ead to the fina# beatitude, that the seeker of Brahman may even do away
with ;arma and may attain freedom so#e#y by contem.#ation on Brahman and that
even in that case he shou#d not abandon the duties en0oined by the scri.tures=
Syno.sis
Adhikarana I1 +Sutras *&*7- .roves that the know#ed<e of Brahman is not
;ratvartha, i=e=, subordinate to action +sacrificia# acts- but inde.endent=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutras *9&28- confirms this conc#usion that Sannyasa is
.rescribed by the scri.tures, that the state of the $ravra0ins is en0oined by the
sacred #aw and that for them Brahma (idya on#y is .rescribed, and not action=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutras 2*&22- determines that certain c#auses formin< .art
of (idyas are not mere <#orificatory .assa<es +Srutis or Arthavadas- but
themse#ves en0oin the meditation=
Adhikarana I(1 +Sutras 2,&23- The stories recorded in the ?.anishads are not
to be used as subordinate members of acts= They do not serve the .ur.ose of
$ari.#avas and do not form .art of the ritua#istic acts= They are meant to <#orify
the (idya tau<ht in them= They have the .ur.ose of <#orifyin< as Arthavadas the
in0unctions with which they are connected=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutra 24- or a## these reasons the Sannyasin need not
observe ritua#istic acts as know#ed<e serves their .ur.ose= They re@uire no actions
but on#y know#ed<e=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutras 25&27- "everthe#ess the actions en0oined by scri.ture
such as sacrifices, conduct of certain kinds, etc=, are usefu# as they are indirect
means of know#ed<e=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutras 29&,*- !ertain re#a>ations a##owed by scri.ture of
the #aws re<ardin< food, are meant on#y for cases of e>treme need= Restrictions as
re<ards food may be abandoned on#y when #ife is in dan<er=
Adhikarana (III1 +Sutras ,2&,4- The duties of the Ashramas are to be
.erformed by even one who does not strive after #iberation or who is not desirous
of know#ed<e=
Adhikarana IK1 +Sutras ,5&,6- Those who stand midway between two
Ashramas are a#so entit#ed to know#ed<e= Those a#so who owin< to .overty and so
on, are Anasramins, have c#aims to (idya=
Adhikarana K1 +Sutra 38- A Sannyasi who has taken the vow of #ife&#on<
ce#ibacy cannot revoke his vow= %e cannot revert back to his former sta<es of #ife=
Adhikarana KI1 +Sutras 3*&32- E>.iation of the fa## of an ?rdhvareta, of one
who trans<resses the vow of #ife&#on< ce#ibacy=
Adhikarana KII1 +Sutra 3,- E>c#usion of the fa##en ?rdhvaretas or #ife&#on<
ce#ibate= %e must be shunned by Society=
Adhikarana KIII1 +Sutras 33&35- Those meditations which are connected with
subordinate members of the sacrifice are the business of the .riest, not of the
)a0amana or sacrificer=
Adhikarana K#(1 +Sutras 37&36- Bri= ?.= III=4=* en0oins 'auna or meditation
as a third in addition to Ba#ya +chi#d&#ike state- and $anditya +scho#arshi. or
erudition-=
Adhikarana K(1 +Sutra 48- By Ba#ya or chi#d&#ike state is to be understood a
chi#d&#ike innocent state of mind, bein< free from .assion, an<er, etc=
Adhikarana K(I1 +Sutra 4*- intimates that the fruition of know#ed<e may take
.#ace even in this #ife if there be no obstruction to it +the means ado.ted-=
Adhikarana K(II1 +Sutra 42- dec#ares that there is no difference in #iberation,
i=e=, in the rea#isation of Brahman= It is of one kind in a## cases=
$urusharthadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutra *&*7-
;now#ed<e of Brahman is inde.endent of sacrificia# acts
$urusharthoItah sabdaditi baadarayanah III=3=* +325-
rom this +Brahma (idya or Brahma /nana resu#ts- the .ur.ose or
the chief ob0ect of .ursuit of man, because the scri.tures state soC
thus +ho#ds- the sa<e Baadarayana=
$urusharthah1 .ur.ose of man, ob0ect of human .ursuit, here the chief
ob0ect, i=e=, sa#vationC Atah1 from this, from Brahma (idyaC Sabdat1 from the
scri.tures, because the scri.tures state so, from SrutiC Iti1 so thus +says-, this is
the o.inion ofC Baadarayanah1 the sa<e Baadarayana, +ho#ds-=
The resu#t or fruit of Brahma (idya is stated=
The Sutrakara Sri (yasa now .roceeds to show that Brahma /nana #eads not
to ;arma, but to the attainment of the hi<hest $urushartha, i=e=, 'oksha or the
fina# emanci.ation= That is BaadarayanaIs teachin<=
The four $urusharthas are1 Dharma +dischar<e of re#i<ious duty-, Artha
+ac@uisition of wea#th, wor#d#y .ros.erity-, ;ama +en0oyment-, and 'oksha
+sa#vation-= ;now#ed<e of Brahman is not mere#y connected with sacrificia# acts by
affordin< to the a<ent a certain @ua#ification= It definite#y .aves the way for the
attainment of the fina# re#ease or freedom from births and deaths=
Bhence is this knownL rom the scri.ture=
Baadarayana bases his ar<uments on the Sruti te>ts, such as JThe knower of
Atman <oes beyond <rief & Tarati sokamatmavitJ +!hh= ?.= III=3=*-= J%e who
knows the hi<hest Brahman becomes even Brahman &
BrahmavitPQRbrahmaivaPQRbhavatiJ +'un=PQR?.=PQRIII=2=6-= J%e who knows
Brahman attains the %i<hest & Brahmavida.noti $aramJ +Tait= ?.= II=*-=
Jor him who has a teacher there is de#ay on#y so #on< as he is not de#iveredC
then he wi## be .erfectJ +!hh= ?.= (I=*3=2-= J%e who has searched out and
understood the Se#f which is free from sin, etc=, obtains a## wor#ds and a## desiresJ
+!hh= ?.= (III=7=*-= JThe Atman is to be seenJ etc=, u. to JThus far <oes
immorta#ityJ +Bri= ?.= I(=4=5&*4-=
These and simi#ar te>ts em.hatica##y dec#are that ;now#ed<e of Brahman
effects the hi<hest .ur.ose of man or Su.reme $urushartha=
A<ainst this the $urva.akshin raises his ob0ection as fo##ows= %ere /aimini
comes forward with his fo##owin< ob0ections=
Seshatvat.urusharthavado yathanyeshviti 0aiminih III=3=2 +327-
Because +the se#f- is su..#ementary +to sacrificia# acts-, +the
fruits of the ;now#ed<e of the Se#f- are mere .raise of the a<ent, as
in other casesC thus /aimini o.ines=
Seshatvat1 because of bein< su..#ementary +to sacrificia# acts-C
$ususharthavadah1 are mere .raise or the a<entC )atha1 asC Anyeshu1 in
other casesC Iti1 thus +says-C /aiminih1 /aimini +ho#ds-=
Sutras 2 to 7 are $urva.aksha Sutras and Sutras 9 to *7 are Siddhanta
Sutras=
/aimini thinks that the Sruti te>ts mere#y .raise the doer of ;arma and that
Brahma0nana is on#y an accessory of ;arma +;arman<a-=
%e is of the o.inion that the (edas mere#y .rescribe works to attain certain
.ur.oses inc#udin< emanci.ation= %e ho#ds that the know#ed<e of Brahman has no
inde.endent fruit of its own because it stands in a subordinate re#ation to
sacrificia# action= This re#ation is meditated by the Se#f, the ob0ect of know#ed<e,
which is the a<ent in a## works and, therefore, itse#f stands in a subordinate
re#ation to action= The a<ent becomes @ua#ified for actions, the fruit of which wi##
on#y a..ear after death by knowin< that his se#f wi## survive the body=
A man undertakes a sacrificia# act on#y when he is conscious that he is
different from the body and that after death he wi## <o to heaven when he wi##
en0oy the fruits of his sacrifice=
The @ua#ification the se#f thus ac@uires is simi#ar to that which the rice&<rains
ac@uire by bein< s.rink#ed with waterC because they become fit to be used in the
sacrifice, on#y throu<h this #atter act of ceremonia# .urification=
As the know#ed<e of the Se#f has no inde.endent .osition, it cannot have an
inde.endent fruit of its own= Therefore the .assa<es which state such fruits cannot
be taken as in0unctions of fruits, but mere#y as Arthavadas +or <#orificatory
.assa<es-, #ike other Arthavadas re#atin< to the substance +Dravya- or to the
.urification of the substance +Samskara- or to subordinate acts themse#ves
+;arma-, makin< some additiona# statement about the fruits of the sacrificia#
actions to which the know#ed<e of the Se#f is au>i#iary=
/aimini maintains that the statement that the reward of Brahma /nana is the
hi<hest <ood does not mean that such know#ed<e of the Se#f by itse#f yie#ds any
rea# fruit but the statement is on#y an e>hortation to the .erformance of the
sacrifices= %e says that the know#ed<e of the se#f is usefu# on#y so far as it
.roduces in the .erformer a be#ief in his e>tramundane e>istence to enab#e him to
en0oy the rewards of his sacrifices= The statement that it yie#ds any fruit by itse#f is
on#y an e>hortation to .urification of the sacrificer= The .urification of the
sacrificer is a necessary concomitant factor #ike other materia# re@uisites of a
sacrificeC because without this .urification he wou#d not be assured of his
survivin< the body and en0oyin< the fruit of his sacrifices in a hi<her wor#d after
death=
Acharadarsanat III=3=, +329-
Because we find +from the scri.tures such- conduct +of men of
rea#isation-=
Acharadarsanat1 because of the conduct found +from the scri.tures-=
The ob0ection raised in Sutra 2 is stren<thened=
/anaka the kin< of the (idehas .erformed a sacrifice in which <ifts were free#y
distributed +Bri= ?.= III=*=*-= JSirs, I am <oin< to .erform a sacrificeJ +!hh= ?.=
(=**=4-= These and simi#ar .assa<es indicate that those who know Brahman are
connected with sacrificia# action=
/anaka and Asva.ati were knowers of Brahman= If they had attained the fina#
emanci.ation by know#ed<e of Brahman there was no necessity for them to
.erform sacrifices= If mere know#ed<e cou#d effect the .ur.ose of man, why shou#d
they .erform sacrifices troub#esome in many res.ectsL If a man wou#d find honey
in the Arka tree why shou#d he <o to the forestL But the two te>ts intimate that
they did .erform sacrifices=
This .roves that one attains the fina# emanci.ation throu<h sacrifices or
works a#one and not throu<h the know#ed<e of Brahman, as the (edantins
maintain=
Tacchruteh III=3=3 +326-
Because scri.ture direct#y dec#ares that +viG=, that know#ed<e of
Brahman stands in a subordinate re#ation to sacrificia# acts=-
Tat1 that, that know#ed<e is subsidiary and su..#ementary to sacrificeC
Sruteh1 from Sruti, because the scri.tures direct#y dec#are=
The Sruti a#so says that (idya is an An<a of ;arma=
If one does ;arma with know#ed<e there wi## be <reater efficiency= JBhat a
man does with know#ed<e, faith and meditation is more .owerfu#J +!hh= ?.=
I=*=*8-= This te>t c#ear#y indicates that know#ed<e is a .art of the sacrificia# act=
This .assa<e direct#y states that know#ed<e is subordinate to work and from this it
fo##ows that mere know#ed<e cannot effect the .ur.ose of man=
Samanvarambhanat III=3=4 +3,8-
Because the two +know#ed<e and work- <o to<ether +with the
de.artin< sou# to <ive fruits of actions-=
Samanvarambhanat1 because of the accom.anyin< to<ether, as they
0oint#y fo##ow the sacrificer to .roduce their effects on account of their takin< ho#d
to<ether or bein< to<ether=
The ob0ection be<un in Sutra 2 is continued=
Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad says JThe de.artin< sou# is fo##owed by know#ed<e
and workJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=2-= This .assa<e indicates that know#ed<e and work <o
to<ether with the sou# and be<in to<ether to manifest their fruits= Therefore, it
fo##ows that know#ed<e is not inde.endent= It is not ab#e to .roduce any such
effect inde.endent#y= It is conc#uded that know#ed<e is not inde.endent of works
or sacrificia# acts=
Tadvato vidhanat III=3=5 +3,*-
Because +the scri.tures- en0oin +works- for such +on#y who
understand the .ur.ort of the (edas-=
Tadvatah1 for such +as know the .ur.ort of the (edas-C (idhanat1 because
+the scri.tures- en0oin +work-=
The ob0ection, be<un in the Sutra 2, is continued=
urther ;arma is en0oined for one who recites and studies the (edas= J%e
who has #earnt i=e=, read the (edas from a fami#y of teachers, accordin< to the
sacred in0unction in the #eisure time #eft from the duties to be .erformed for the
:uruC who after havin< received his dischar<e has sett#ed in his own house,
studyin< his sacred te>ts in some sacred s.otJ +!hh= ?.= (III=*4=7-= Such
.assa<es a#so indicate that those who know the .ur.ort of the who#e (eda are
@ua#ified for sacrificia# acts and that hence know#ed<e does not inde.endent#y
.roduce any resu#t=
"iyamaccha III=3=7 +3,2-
And on account of .rescribed ru#es=
"iyamat1 on account of .rescribed ru#es, because of com.u#sory in0unctionC
!ha1 a#so, and=
The ar<ument be<un in Sutra 2 is conc#uded here=
Doin< ;arma is a "iyama or #ife&#on< commandment= J$erformin< works here
+i=e=, in this #ife-, #et a man wish to #ive a hundred yearsJ +Isa= ?.= 2-= JA<nihotra
is a sacrifice #astin< u. to o#d a<e and deathC for throu<h o#d a<e one is freed from
it or throu<h deathJ +Sat= Br= KII=3=*=*-= rom such definite ru#es a#so it fo##ows
that ;now#ed<e is mere#y su..#ementary to works, or stands in a subordinate
re#ation to work=
The Sutrakara +Sri (yasa- u.ho#ds his view in the fo##owin< Sutra a<ainst a##
those ob0ections=
Adhiko.adesaattu baadarayanasyaivam taddarsanat III=3=9 +3,,-
But because +the scri.tures- teach +the Su.reme Se#f to be- other
+than the a<ent-, BaadarayanaIs view is correct +or va#id- for that
is seen thus +in scri.tura# .assa<es-=
Adhiko.adesat1 because +the sri.tures- teach +the Su.reme Se#f to be-
somethin< over and aboveC Tu1 butC Baadarayanasya1 of BaadarayanaC Evam1
thus, such +is the o.inion-C Taddarsanat1 for that is seen +from the scri.tures-=
+Adhika1 Su.reme Bein<, more differentC ?.adesat1 from the statement in Sruti,
owin< to the teachin< about=-
Ob0ections raised in Sutras 2 to 7 are now bein< refuted one by one= This
Sutra refutes Sutra 2=
Sutras 2&7 <ive the view of the 'imamsakas which is refuted in Sutras 9&*7=
The Sruti dec#ares Isvara as hi<her than the individua# sou#= So
BaadarayanaIs doctrine as stated in Sutra * is correct= The Sruti shows this= The
rea# nature of the sou# is divinity=
The word HtuI +but- discards the $urva.aksha= The (edanta te>ts do not teach
the #imited se#f which is the a<ent= Bhat the (edanta te>ts rea##y teach as the
ob0ect of ;now#ed<e is somethin< different from the embodied se#f, viG=, the nontransmi<ratin<
Lord who is free from a## attributes of transmi<ratin< e>istence
such as a<ency and the #ike and distin<uished by freedom from sin and so on, the
Su.reme Se#f=
The know#ed<e of such a se#f does not on#y not .romote action but rather
.uts an end to a## actions= %ence the view of the revered Baadarayana which was
stated in Sutra * remains va#id and cannot be shaken by fa##acious reasonin<
about the subordination of know#ed<e to action and the #ike=
That the (edanta te>ts teach the Su.reme Se#f is c#ear from such te>ts as the
fo##owin<1 J%e who .erceives a## and knows a##J +'un= ?.= I=*=6-= Jrom terror of it
the wind b#ows, from terror the sun risesJ +Tait= ?.= II=9-= JIt is a <reat terror, a
raised thunderbo#tJ +;atha ?.= II=5=2-= JBy the command of that Im.erishab#e
one, O :ar<iJ +Bri= ?.= III=9=6-= JIt thou<ht, may I be many, may I <row forth= It
sent forth fireJ +!hh= (I=2=,-=
Tu#yam tu darsanam III=3=6 +3,3-
But the dec#arations of the Sruti e@ua##y su..ort both views=
Tu#yam1 the same, simi#ar, e@ua#C Tu1 butC Darsanam1 dec#aration of the
Sruti=
This Sutra refutes the view e>.ressed in Sutra ,= It is a re.#y to the third
Sutra=
There are e@ua# Srutis which show that (idya is not ;arman<a= The Sruti
shows that (idya is not ;arman<a=
The word HtuI +but- is used in order to remove the idea that (idya is
subordinate to ;arma= There is e@ua# authority in the scri.tures from the
.ro.osition that (idya is not subordinate to ;arma, that for one who has attained
know#ed<e there is no work= Thus there are scri.tura# .assa<es such as1 knowin<
this the Rishis descended from ;avasa said1 Jor what .ur.ose shou#d we study
the (edas, for what .ur.ose shou#d we sacrificeL ;nowin< this indeed the ancient
ones did not offer the A<nihotraJ, and Jwhen Brahmanas know that se#f and have
risen above the desire for sons, wea#th and wor#ds, they wander about as
mendicantsJ +Bri= ?.= III=4-=
Thus the sa<es ca##ed ;avaseyas did not care for ;arma, nor did )a0nava#kya,
who abandonin< a## ;armas went to forest= JThis much indeed is the means of
Immorta#ity, my dear, sayin< this )a0nava#kya #eft homeJ +Bri= ?.= I(=4=*4-= Thus
we find e>am.#es of eminent men devoted to (idya, renouncin< a## ceremonia#
actions= Therefore, scri.tura# te>ts are not a## one&sided, in favour of ;armas, but
there are .assa<es to the contrary a#so= The e>am.#es of .ersons #ike /anaka and
others indicate that these men fo##owed ;arma as an e>am.#e to mankind, so that
the socia# order may be .reserved= Their work was characterised by nonattachment
and therefore it was .ractica##y no work at a##= %ence the ar<ument of
the 'imamsakas is weak=
There are indeed found in Srutis instances of sacrifices bein< .erformed by
en#i<htened sou#s #ike /anaka, but there are a#so dec#arations of e@ua# wei<ht to
the effect that .erformance of sacrifices is @uite use#ess and redundant for the
en#i<htened, i=e=, those who have known Brahman=
So it cannot be asserted on the stren<th of the instances of /anaka and
others #ike him, that know#ed<e is to be considered as secondary to the sacrifice=
Bith reference to the indicatory si<n as to the de.endence of know#ed<e to
work, which is im.#ied in the .assa<e JSirs, I am <oin< to .erform a sacrificeJ we
say, that it be#on<s to a section which treats of (aisvanara=
"ow the te>ts may dec#are that a (idya of Brahman as #imited by ad0uncts is
accom.anied by worksC but a## the same the (idya does not stand in a subordinate
re#ation to works as the #eadin< sub0ect matter and the other means of .roof are
absent=
The author or Sutrakara +Baadarayana- ne>t answers the ob0ection raised in
the Sutra 3=
Asarvatriki III=3=*8 +3,4-
+The scri.tura# dec#aration referred to in Sutra 3- is not of
universa# a..#ication=
Asarvatriki1 not universa#, not a..#icab#e everywhere=
The refutation of the ob0ections is continued= This Sutra s.ecia##y refutes
Sutra 3=
The statement of the Sruti referred to in Sutra 3 to the effect that the
combination of meditation and sacrifice makes the sacrifice effective is not
a..#icab#e everywhere= The above&mentioned statement of the Sruti does not refer
to meditations in <enera#, but on#y to the ?d<itha (idya which forms the sub0ect
matter of the discourse concerned=
The dec#aration of the Sruti that ;now#ed<e increases the fruit of the sacrifice
does not refer to a## know#ed<e +a## (idyas-, as it is connected on#y with the
?d<itha +?d<itha (idya- which is the to.ic of the section JLet a man meditate on
the sy##ab#e O' as the ?d<itha=J
The te>t says that if this ?d<itha (idya is recited by a .erson with know#ed<e,
then it is more fruitfu# than if it is recited without such (idya=
Therefore, (idya is not an au>i#iary to work in every instance=
The author ne>t answers the ob0ection raised in III=3=4=
(ibha<ah satavat III=3=** +3,5-
There is division of know#ed<e and work as in the case of a
hundred +divided between two .ersons-=
(ibha<ah1 +there is- division of know#ed<e and workC Satavat1 as in the
case of a hundred +divided between two .ersons-=
This Sutra s.ecia##y refutes Sutra 4=
Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad dec#ares JThe de.artin< sou# is fo##owed by (idya
+;now#ed<e- and ;arma +work- and .ast e>.eriencesJ +I(=3=2-= %ere we have to
take know#ed<e and work in a distributive sense= It means the know#ed<e fo##ows
one and work another= /ust as when we say, J:ive Rs= *88 to Rama and ;rishnaJ
it means J:ive Rs= 48 to Rama and Rs= 48 to ;rishnaJ, the above .assa<e means
that the (idya re#ates to the sou#s seekin< emanci.ation and ;arma to other sou#s=
There is no combination of the two=
The te>t @uoted refers on#y to know#ed<e and work which concern the sou#
that transmi<rates but not the sou# which is about to obtain fina# re#ease= Because
the .assa<e, JThus does the man who desires to transmi<rateJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=5-
indicates that the .revious te>t refers to the sou# that transmi<rates= The Sruti
dec#ares of the sou# who is about to be re#eased, JBut the man who never desires
never transmi<ratesJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=5-=
The ne>t Sutra refutes the Sutra 5=
Adhyayanamatravatah III=3=*2 +3,7-
+The scri.tures en0oin work- on those who have mere#y read the
(edas=
Adhyayanamatravatah1 of one who has mere#y read the (edas=
This Sutra s.ecia##y refutes Sutra 5=
%e who has read the (edas and known about the sacrifices is entit#ed to do
sacrifice= But no work is .rescribed for one who has know#ed<e of Brahman
+Brahma /nana-=
"aviseshat III=3=*, +3,9-
There bein< no s.ecification +the ru#e does- not +s.ecia##y a..#y
to him who knows, i= e=, a /nani-=
"a1 not, com.u#sion does not a..#yC Aviseshat1 on account of the absence
of any s.ecification, because there is no s.ecia# mention=
This Sutra s.ecia##y refutes Sutra 7=
The Sruti J;urvannevehaJ J.erformin< works here #et a man #iveJ etc=, of the
Isavasya ?.anishad does not s.ecia##y a..#y to a Brahma /nani= It is <enera# in its
terms= There is no s.ecia# mention in it that it is a..#icab#e to a /nani a#so= It is not
bindin< on a /nani when there is no s.ecification=
The Sruti of the Isavasya does not #ay down any such restrictive ru#e that
even the i##umined sa<e must .erform ;arma throu<hout his #ife= Bhy soL
Aviseshat= Because there is no s.ecification= A## that it says is JLet one .erform
;armas throu<hout his #ifeJ= There is nothin< to show to which c#ass of .eo.#e,
that .articu#ar ru#e is addressed= On the other hand there are e>.ress te>ts of the
Srutis which show that immorta#ity is not to be obtained by ;armas, but by
know#ed<e a#one=
'ahanarayana ?.anishad of the Tait= Ar= K=4 dec#ares J"ot by ;armas
+sacrifices-, not by .ro<eny, nor by wea#th can one obtain immorta#ity= It is by
renunciation a#one that some <reat sou#ed bein<s have obtained immorta#ity=J
The a..arent conf#ict in the two Sruti te>ts is to be reconci#ed by <ivin< them
different sco.es= One is addressed to ;arma&nishtha&devotees, the other to the
/nana&nishtha&devotees=
StutayeInumatirva III=3=*3 +3,6-
Or rather the .ermission +to do work- is for the <#orification
+of know#ed<e-=
Stutaye1 for the .ur.ose of <#orification +of know#ed<e-C Anumatih1
.ermissionC (a1 or, rather=
This Sutra a#so refutes Sutra 7=
The .assa<e J.erformin< works hereJ may be treated in another way a#so=
The in0unction to do work for the knowers of Brahman or the i##umined sa<es is for
eu#o<isin< this know#ed<e= A Brahma /nani or knower of the Se#f may work a## his
#ife but he wi## not be bound by its effects, on account of the .ower of know#ed<e=
;now#ed<e nu##ifies the effect of ;arma= J"o work c#in<s to the man=J This c#ear#y
<#orifies ;now#ed<e=
;amakarena chaike III=3=*4 +338-
And some accordin< to their own #ikin< +have abandoned a##
works-=
;amakarena1 accordin< to their own #ikin<C !ha1 andC Eke1 some=
The ar<ument in refutation of /aiminiIs views is continued=
In Sutra , it was stated that /anaka and others .erformed sacrifices even
after attainin< know#ed<e of Brahman= This Sutra says that some have abandoned
a## works accordin< to their own #ikin<= Some may #ike to work to set an e>am.#e
to others after attainin< know#ed<e, whi#e others may abandon a## works= There is
no com.u#sion on the knowers of Brahman or #iberated sa<es as re<ards work=
A scri.tura# te>t of the (a0asaneyins runs as fo##ows1 J;nowin< this the
.eo.#e of o#d did not wish for offs.rin<= Bhat sha## we do with offs.rin<, they said,
we who have this se#f and this wor#dJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=22-= rom this it fo##ows that
know#ed<e is not subordinate to action and that the scri.tura# statements as to the
fruit of know#ed<e cannot be taken in any but their true sense=
?.amardam cha III=3=*5 +33*-
And +scri.ture teaches that the- destruction +of a##
@ua#ifications for work resu#ts from know#ed<e-=
?.amardam1 com.#ete destruction, .uttin< an end to a## actionsC !ha1
and=
The .revious ar<ument is continued=
urther, such know#ed<e brin<s the rea#isation that everythin< is Atman or
Brahman= %ow then can the knower actL
A<ain, far from bein< a .art of work, know#ed<e .uts an end to a## works, a##
ob#i<atory duties= 'undaka ?.anishad dec#ares, JBrahman in both %is su.erior and
inferior as.ects bein< rea#ised, the knot of the heart +e<oism, etc=- is cut down, a##
doubts are dis.e##ed and works are destroyedJ +'un= ?.= II=2=6-=
;now#ed<e of Brahman annihi#ates a## i<norance and its effects #ike a<ent,
deed and fruit, JBut when to the ;nower of Brahman everythin< has become the
Se#f, then what shou#d one see and throu<h whatLJ +Bri= ?.= I(=4=*4-= The
know#ed<e of Brahman is anta<onistic to a## actions= %ence it cannot be subsidiary
to work= It is inde.endent=
?rdhvaretassu cha sabde hi III=3=*7 +332-
And +know#ed<e be#on<s- to those who observe .er.etua# ce#ibacy,
because in scri.ture +that sta<e of #ife is mentioned-=
?rdhvaretassu1 to those who observe .er.etua# ce#ibacy, in those sta<es
of #ife where the se>ua# ener<y has an u.ward f#owC !ha1 andC Sabde1 in the
SrutiC %i1 because=
The .revious ar<ument is continued=
urther the Sruti dec#ares /nana in re#ation to Sannyasins= ;now#ed<e is said
to be in Sannyasins= They have not to do any ;armas= Such Sannyasa can be
taken even without <oin< throu<h the househo#derIs #ife=
Scri.ture shows that know#ed<e is va#id a#so for the sta<es of #ife for which
.er.etua# ce#ibacy is .rescribed= "ow in their case know#ed<e cannot be
subordinate to work, because work is absent, because the works .rescribed by
(edas such as the A<nihotra are not .erformed by men who have reached those
sta<es= To a Sannyasin there is no work .rescribed e>ce.t en@uiry of Brahman
and meditation on the Su.reme Se#f= So how can know#ed<e be subordinate to
workL
Be find from the Sruti te>ts that there is a sta<e of #ife ca##ed Sannyasa=
JThere are three branches of dutyJ +!hh= ?.= II=2,=*-= JThose who in the forest
.ractise faith and austerityJ +!hh= ?.= (=*8=*-= JThose who .ractise .enance and
faith in the forestJ +'un= ?.= I=*8=**-= JBishin< for that wor#d on#y, mendicants
renounce their homes and wander forthJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=22-= JLet him wander forth
at once from the state of studentshi.=J JA## these attain to the wor#ds of the
virtuousC but on#y one who is fina##y estab#ished in Brahman, attains immorta#ity=J
+!hh= ?.= II=2,= *&2-=
Everyone can take to this #ife, without bein< a househo#der etc= This indicates
the inde.endence of know#ed<e=
Thus, the theory of /aimini that ;now#ed<e is subordinate to ;arma has no
#e<s to stand u.on, and has been refuted=
$aramarsadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutras *9&28-
Sannyasa is .rescribed by the scri.tures
$aramarsam 0aiminirachodana cha.avadati hi III=3=*9 +33,-
/aimini +considers that scri.tura# te>ts mentionin< those sta<es
of #ife in which ce#ibacy is ob#i<atory, contain- a reference +on#y
to those sta<esC they are not in0unctionsC because other +scri.tura#
te>ts- condemn +those sta<es-=
$aramarsam1 a .assin< a##usion, mere referenceC /aiminih1 /aiminiC
Achodana1 there is no c#ear in0unctionC !ha1 andC A.avadati1 condemnsC %i1
because, c#ear#y, certain#y=
An ob0ection to Sutra *7 is raised=
/aimini says that in the te>t @uoted in the #ast Sutra +!hh= ?.= II=2,=*-, there
is no word indicatin< that Sannyasa is en0oined on man= It is a mere reference
on#y but not an in0unction=
The Brihadaranyaka te>t @uoted in the #ast Sutra dec#ares that some .ersons
do #ike Sannyasa= Sruti here makes a statement of fact= It does not en0oin
Sannyasa=
Thus there is no direct Sruti for Sannyasa thou<h there are Smritis and
Achara +usa<e-= But if we say that there is no Sruti for the househo#derIs #ife, he
+/aimini- wou#d re.#y that ;armas #ike A<nihotra are en0oined by Sruti=
urther, the te>t here <#orifies steadfastness in Brahman= JBut on#y one who
is firm#y estab#ished in Brahman attains Immorta#ity=J Sacrifice, study, charity,
austerity, studentshi. and #ife&#on< continence bestow the fruit of obtainin<
heaven= But Immorta#ity is attained on#y by one who is firm#y estab#ished in
Brahman=
'oreover, there are other Sruti .assa<es which condemn Sannyasa= J%avin<
brou<ht to your teacher his .ro.er reward, do not cut off the #ine of chi#drenJ
+Tait= ?.= I=**=*-= JTo him who is without a son this wor#d does not be#on<C a##
beasts even know thatJ +Tait= Br= (II=*,=*2-=
Anushtheyam baadarayanah samyasruteh III=3=*6 +333-
Baadarayana +ho#ds that Sannyasa- a#so must be <one throu<h,
because the scri.tura# te>t +@uoted- refers e@ua##y to a## the four
Ashramas or sta<es of #ife=
Anushtheyam1 shou#d be .ractisedC Baadarayanah1 Baadarayana, the
author of the SutrasC Samyasruteh1 for the scri.tura# te>t refers e@ua##y to a## the
four Ashramas=
The ob0ection raised in Sutra *9 is refuted=
In the te>t @uoted sacrifice refers to the househo#derIs #ife, austerity to
(ana.rastha, studentshi. to Brahmacharya, and one who is firm#y estab#ished in
Brahman to Sannyasa= So the te>t refers e@ua##y to a## the four sta<es of #ife= The
te>t that re#ates to the first three sta<es refers to what is en0oined e#sewhere= So
a#so does the te>t that re#ates to Sannyasa=
Therefore, Sannyasa a#so is en0oined and must be <one throu<h by a##=
Baadarayana ho#ds that Sannyasa is an a..ro.riate Ashrama #ike :rihastha
Ashrama +househo#derIs #ife-, because both are referred to in Sruti= The word
Ta.as refers to a different Ashrama in which the .redominant factor is Ta.as=
(idhirva dharanavat III=3=28 +334-
Or rather +there is an- in0unction +in this te>t- as in the case
of carryin< +of the sacrificia# wood-=
(idhih1 in0unctionC (a1 or ratherC Dharanavat1 as in the case of carryin<
+of the sacrificia# wood-=
The ar<ument commenced in Sutra *6 to refute the ob0ection raised in Sutra
*9 is continued=
This Sutra now tries to estab#ish that there is an in0unction about Sannyasa in
the !hhando<ya te>t @uoted= The .assa<e is rather to be understood as containin<
an in0unction, not a mere reference=
The case is ana#o<ous to that of Hcarryin<I= There is a scri.tura# te>t re#atin<
to the A<nihotra which forms .art of the 'aha.itriya0na which is .erformed for the
manes= JLet him a..roach carryin< the sacrificia# wood be#ow the #ad#e ho#din< the
offerin<C for above he carries it to the <ods=J /aimini inter.rets the #ast c#ause as
an in0unction a#thou<h there is no word in it to that effect, for such an in0unction is
nowhere e#se to be found in the scri.tures= o##owin< this ar<ument, this Sutra
dec#ares that there is an in0unction as re<ards Sannyasa and not a mere reference
in !hh= ?.= II=2,=*, as it is not en0oined anywhere e#se=
Even if in the Sruti there is on#y Anuvada +dec#aration- of other Ashramas,
the $urvamimamsika ru#es show that we must infer a (idhi +in0unction- of
Sannyasa from the .ortion1 JBrahmasamsthoImritatvametiJ, because there is no
other se.arate in0unction 0ust as there is no command that the Samit shou#d be
ke.t on the u..er .ortion of the Sruk and yet the $urvamimamsa says that such
command shou#d be inferred=
In the .resent case a#so the same ru#e of construction shou#d be a..#ied=
urther, even if there is on#y a dec#aration and not an in0unction as re<ards the
other Ashramas, we must infer an in0unction about Sannyasa as it has been
s.ecia##y <#orified=
urther there are Sruti .assa<es which direct#y en0oin Sannyasa, JOr e#se he
may wander forth from the studentIs #ife, or from the house, or from the forestJ
+/aba#a ?.anishad 3-= %ence the e>istence of Sannyasa Ashrama is undeniab#e=
The word Ta.as in the Sruti refers to (ana.rastha whereas the s.ecia#ity of
Sannyasa is contro# of the senses +Indriya Samyama-= The Sruti differentiates
Sannyasa and says that those be#on<in< to the other three Ashramas <o to the
$unya Lokas whereas the Sannyasin attains Amritatva +Immorta#ity-=
/aimini himse#f says that even <#orification must be in a com.#imentary
re#ation to an in0unction= In the te>t, steadfast devotion to Brahma is em.#oyed=
%ence it has an in0unctive va#ue= JBrahma SamsthaJ means meditatin< a#ways on
Brahman= It is a state of bein< <rounded in Brahman to the e>c#usion of a## other
activities= In the case of other Ashramas1 that is not .ossib#e as they have their
own ;armas= But it is .ossib#e to Sannyasins as they have abandoned ;armas=
Their Sama +serenity- and Dama +se#f&restraint- he#. them towards it and are not
obstac#es=
Sannyasa is not .rescribed on#y for those who are b#ind, #ame, etc=, and who
are, therefore, not fit for .erformin< ritua#s= Sannyasa is a means for the
rea#isation of Brahman= It must be taken in a re<u#ar .rescribed manner= The Sruti
dec#ares, JThe wanderin< mendicant, with oran<e&co#oured robe, shaven, wife#ess,
.ure, <ui#e#ess, #ivin< on a#ms, acce.tin< no <ifts, @ua#ifies himse#f for the
rea#isation of BrahmanJ +/aba#i Sruti-=
Therefore, Sannyasa is .rescribed by the scri.tures= As know#ed<e is en0oined
on Sannyasins, it is inde.endent of works=
Stutimatradhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras 2*&22-
Scri.tura# te>ts as in !hh= ?.= I=*=,= which refer to (idyas are not mere .raises
but themse#ves en0oin the meditations
Stutimatramu.adanaditi chenna.urvatvat III=3=2* +335-
If it be said that +te>ts such as the one about the ?d<itha are-
mere <#orifications on account of their reference +to .arts of
sacrifices-, +we say- not so, on account of the newness +of what they
teach, if viewed as in0unctions-=
Stutimatram1 mere .raiseC ?.adanat1 on account of their reference +to
.arts of sacrificia# acts-C Iti1 thus, soC !het1 ifC "a1 not soC A.urvatvat1 on
account of its newness= +Iti chet1 if it be said-=
This Sutra consists ot two .arts, name#y an ob0ection and its re.#y= The
ob0ection .ortion is1 HStutimatramu.adanaditi chetI, and the re.#y .ortion is1 H"a
a.urvatvatI=
JThat ?d<itha +O'- is the best of a## essences, the hi<hest, ho#din< the
hi<hest .#ace, the ei<hthJ +!hh= ?.= I=*=,-= JThis earth is the Rik, the fire is
SamanJ +!hh= ?.= I=5=*-= JThis wor#d in truth is that .i#ed u. fire&a#tarJ +Sat= Br=
K=*=2=2-= JThat hymn is tru#y that earthJ +Ait= Ar= II=*=2=*-=
A doubt arises whether these .assa<es are meant to <#orify the ?d<itha or to
en0oin devout meditations=
The $urva.akshin maintains that these are mere .raise and no in0unction to
meditate on HO'I and so on= These .assa<es are ana#o<ous to .assa<es such as
JThis earth is the #ad#eJ= JThe sun is the tortoise=J JThe heaven#y wor#d is the
AhavaniyaJ which sim.#y <#orify the #ad#e and so on=
The #atter ha#f of the .resent Sutra refutes the view of the o..onent=
In the Sruti .assa<e JThat ?d<itha +O'- is the best essence of the essencesJ
etc=, the descri.tion is not mere .raise but is a (idhi, and it te##s us somethin<
which is new=
The ana#o<y is incorrect= :#orificatory .assa<es are of use in so far as
enterin< into a com.#imentary re#ation to in0unctive .assa<es, but the .assa<es
under discussion are not ca.ab#e of enterin< into such a re#ation to the ?d<itha
and so on which are en0oined in a#to<ether different .#aces of the (edas and wou#d
be .ur.ose#ess as far as the <#orification is concerned= $assa<es such as JThis
earth is the #ad#eJ are not ana#o<ous because they stand in .ro>imity to in0unctive
.assa<es, and so they can be taken as .raise=
Therefore, the te>ts such as those under discussion have an in0unctive
.ur.ose= On account of the newness, these are not mere .raise but an in0unction=
Bhavasabdaccha III=3=22 +337-
And there bein< words e>.ressive of in0unction=
Bhavasabaat1 from words indicative of e>istence of in0unction in SrutiC
!ha1 and, a#so, moreover=
The ar<ument commenced in Sutra 2* is conc#uded=
JLet one meditate on O' or the ?d<ithaJ +!hh= ?.= I=*=*-= Be have a very
c#ear in0unction to meditate on O' in this .assa<e= On the face of this we cannot
inter.ret the te>t @uoted in the #ast Sutra as mere .raise of O'= The e>.ression
JThis is the best of a## the essencesJ in the .assa<e cited under the .recedin<
Sutra is not a mere <#orificatory e>.ression, but it amounts to an in0unction for the
?d<itha meditation=
$ari.#avadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutras 2,&23-
The stories mentioned in the ?.anishads do not serve the .ur.ose of $ari.#avas
and so do not form .art of the ritua#istic acts= They are meant to eu#ois<e the
(idya tau<ht in them
$ari.#avartha iti chenna viseshitatvat III=3=2, +339-
If it be said +that the stories to#d in the ?.anishads- are for
the .ur.ose of $ari.#ava +on#y, we say- not so, because +certain
stories above- are s.ecified +by the Sruti for this .ur.ose-=
$ari.#avarthah1 for the .ur.ose of $ari.#avasC Iti1 soC !het1 ifC "a1 not
soC (iseshitatvat1 because of s.ecification, on account of +certain stories a#one-
bein< s.ecified= +Iti chet1 if it be said=-
The .ur.ose of narration of stories in the ?.anishads is stated in this Sutra
and in the ne>t one=
This Sutra consists of two .arts name#y, an ob0ection and its re.#y= The
ob0ection .ortion is H$ari.#avartha iti chetI= And the re.#y is1 H"a viseshitatvatI=
In the Asvamedha sacrifice the .riest recites stories to the kin< who .erforms
the Asvamedha sacrifice, and his re#atives at interva#s durin< the .erformance of
the sacrifice= These are known as $ari.#avas and form .art of the ritua#istic acts=
The @uestion is whether the stories of the ?.anishads such as those re#atin<
to )a0nava#kya and 'aitreyi +Bri= ?.= I(=4=*-, $ratardana +;au= ?.= III=*-,
/anasruti +!hh= ?.= I(=*=*-, and so on a#so serve this .ur.ose in which case they
become .art of the rites, and the who#e of /nana ;anda becomes subordinate to
;arma ;anda=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds that those stories of the ?.anishads serve the
.ur.ose of $ari.#ava, because they are stories #ike others and because the te##in<
of stories is en0oined for the $ari.#ava= rom this it fo##ows that the ?.anishadic
stories and (edanta te>ts do not chief#y aim at know#ed<e, because #ike 'antras
they stand in a com.#imentary re#ation to sacrificia# acts=
Tatha chaikavakyato.abandhat III=3=23 +336-
And so +they are meant to i##ustrate the nearest (idyas-, bein<
connected as one coherent who#e=
Tatha1 so, simi#ar#yC !ha1 andC Ekavakyato.abandhat1 bein< connected
as one who#e= +Ekavakya1 unity cf construction or of statements or that of senseC
?.abandhat1 because of connection=-
The discussion commenced in Sutra 2, is conc#uded here=
Therefore, it is for the .ur.ose of .raise of (idya because on#y then there
wou#d be unity of idea in the conte>t= On#y such a view wi## #ead to harmony of the
conte>t=
The stories of the ?.anishads are to be re<arded as essentia# .arts of Brahma
(idya= They are introduced on#y to faci#itate an inte##i<ent <rou.in< of the sub0ect=
The stories are intended to introduce the (idyas= The story form creates more
attention and interest on the .art of the as.irant= Their ob0ect is to make it c#ear
to our understandin< in a concrete form, the (idyas tau<ht in other .ortions of the
?.anishads in the abstract=
Bhy do we say soL Ekavakyato.abandhat= Because of their syntactica#
connection with the (idyas tau<ht in the succeedin< .assa<es=
Thus in the story be<innin< with J)a0nava#kya had two wivesJ, etc=, we find
immediate#y fo##owin< in that very section, the (idya tau<ht about the Atman in
these words JThe Atman is veri#y to be seen, to be heard of, to be meditated
u.on=J As these stories are immediate#y .receded or succeeded by instructions
about Brahman, we infer that they are meant to <#orify the (idyas and are not
$ari.#ava stories= The stories are to#d in order to faci#itate the understandin< of
these abstruse sub0ects and they are eminent#y fitted to subserve that .ur.ose=
A<nindhanadyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4
Sannyasins need not observe ritua#istic acts, as Brahma (idya or know#ed<e
serves their .ur.ose
Ata eva cha<nindhanadyana.eksha III=3=24 +348-
And, therefore, there is no necessity of the #i<htin< of the fire
and so on=
Ata eva1 therefore, on#y, for this reason on#yC !ha1 and, a#soC A<ni1 fireC
Indhanadi1 fire&wood, and so on, kind#in< fire and .erformin< sacrifices, etc=C
Ana.eksha1 no need, has not to be de.ended u.on= +A<ni&indhanadiana.eksha1
no necessity of #i<htin< fires, etc=-
This Sutra states that the seeker of Brahman may dis.ense with sacrificia#
rites=
Brahma (idya has no need for fire, fire&wood, etc= It is by itse#f the cause of
emanci.ation=
In Sutra III=3=* it was stated that the know#ed<e of Brahman resu#ts in the
attainment of the hi<hest $urushartha or <oa# of #ife= The e>.ression JAta EvaJ +for
this reason a#one- must be viewed as takin< u. Sutra III=3=* because thus a
satisfactory sense is estab#ished= or this very same reason, i=e=, because
know#ed<e serves the .ur.ose of Sannyasins, the #i<htin< of the sacrificia# fire and
simi#ar works which are en0oined on the househo#ders, etc=, need not be observed
by them=
Thus the Sutrakara sums u. the resu#t of this first Adhikarana, intendin< to
make some further remarks=
As a Sannyasin, devoted to the meditation on Brahman is stated in Sruti to
attain immorta#ity and not any of the rewards arisin< from sacrificia# rites, he is
not re@uired to have recourse to sacrificia# works to be .erformed with fire, firewood
and so on= !hhando<ya ?.anishad dec#ares, JBrahmasamsthoIamritatvameti
& One devoted to Brahman attains Immorta#ityJ +!hh= ?.= II=2,=*-=
The theory or doctrine that know#ed<e and work must be combined in order
to .roduce 'ukti or sa#vation is hereby set aside= Brahma (idya or ;now#ed<e of
Brahman is sufficient for that .ur.ose=
Sarva.ekshadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras 25&27-
Borks .rescribed by the scri.tures are means to the attainment of know#ed<e
Sarva.eksha cha ya0nadi sruterasvavat III=3=25 +34*-
And there is the necessity of a## works because the scri.tures
.rescribe sacrifices, etc=, +as means to the attainment of know#ed<e-
even as the horse +is used to draw a chariot, and not for .#ou<hin<-=
Sarva.eksha1 there is the necessity of a## worksC !ha1 andC
)a0nadisruteh1 for the scri.tures .rescribe sacrifices, etc=, +as means to
know#ed<e-C Asvavat1 #ike a horse, as in the case of the horse=
The Sutra says that sacrificia# works and the #ike are necessary for ori<ination
of know#ed<e of Brahman=
Be may conc#ude from the .revious Sutra that works are a#to<ether use#ess=
This Sutra says that a## these works are usefu# for ori<ination of know#ed<e=
Even the scri.tures .rescribe them as they serve an indirect means to the
attainment of know#ed<e= Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad dec#ares, JBrahmanas seek
to know Brahman by the study of the (edas, by scri.tures, <ifts, .enance and
renunciationJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=22-= Simi#ar#y the .assa<e, Jwhat .eo.#e ca## sacrifice
that is rea##y BrahmacharyaJ +!hh= ?.= (III=4=*-, by connectin< sacrifices and so
on with Brahmacharya which is a means of know#ed<e, intimates that sacrifices,
etc=, a#so are means of know#ed<e= A<ain the .assa<e JThat word which a## the
(edas record, which a## .enances .roc#aim, desirin< which men #ive as re#i<ious
students, that word I te## thee brief#y, it is O'J +;atha ?.= I=2=*4-, #ikewise
intimates that the works en0oined on the Ashramas are means of know#ed<e=
Bhen know#ed<e once is attained re@uires no he#. from e>terna# works for
the .roduction of this resu#t name#y, Liberation= The case is ana#o<ous to a horse,
whose he#. is re@uired unti# the .#ace of destination is reached but it may be
dis.ensed with after the 0ourney has been accom.#ished=
Bhen Atma&/nana is attained it does not need any other accessory to brin<
about sa#vation, but ;arma is needed for Atma&/nana= /ust as a horse is not used
to dra< a .#ou<h but is used to dra< a car, so the Ashrama ;armas are not needed
for the fruition of /nana but are needed for /nana=
The fina# emanci.ation resu#ts on#y from know#ed<e of Brahman and not from
work= Bork .urifies the mind and know#ed<e dawns in a .ure mind=
%ence works are usefu# as they are an indirect means to know#ed<e=
If know#ed<e be ori<inated by sacrifices, <ifts, .enance and fastin<, what is
the necessity of other @ua#ifications #ike Sama +serenity- and Dama +se#frestraint-L
To this the author re.#ies in the ne>t Sutra=
Samadamadyu.etah syat tatha.i tu tadvidhestadan<ataya
teshamavasyanushtheyatvat III=3=27 +342-
But a## the same +even thou<h there is no in0unction to do
sacrificia# acts to attain know#ed<e in the Brihadaranyaka te>t- one
must .ossess serenity, se#f&contro# and the #ike, as these are
en0oined as au>i#iaries to know#ed<e and therefore have necessari#y
to be .ractised=
Samadamadyu.etah syat1 one must .ossess serenity, se#f&contro# and the
#ikeC Tatha.i1 sti##, a## the same, even if it be soC Tu1 veri#yC Tadvidheh1 as they
are en0oinedC Tadan<ataya1 on account of their bein< a .art, as he#.s to
know#ed<eC Tesham1 theirC Avasyanushtheyatvat1 because it bein< necessary
to be .ractised= +Avasya1 necessari#yC Anushtheyatvat1 because they must be
.ractised=-
Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad dec#ares, JThe Brahmanas seek to know Brahman
throu<h the study of the (edas, sacrifices, charity,J etc= +Bri= ?.= I(=3=22-= In this
.assa<e there is no word to indicate that sacrifice is en0oined on one who wants to
know Brahman=
So the $urva.akshin maintains that there is no necessity at a## for work for
one who as.ires after know#ed<e=
This .resent Sutra says that even shou#d this be so= The seeker for
know#ed<e must .ossess ca#mness of mind, must subdue his senses and so onC
because a## this is en0oined as a means of know#ed<e in the fo##owin< scri.tura#
.assa<e, JThere he who knows this, havin< become ca#m, subdued, satisfied,
.atient and co##ected sees Se#f in Se#fJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=2,-=
Bhat is en0oined must necessari#y be carried out= The introductory word
HthereforeI +Tasmat- which e>.resses the .raise of the sub0ect under discussion
makes us understand that the .assa<e has an in0unctive character, because if
there were no in0unction, the .raise wou#d be meanin<#ess=
urther the 'adhyandina Sruti uses the word J.asyetJ #et him see and not Hhe
seesI= %ence ca#mness of mind, etc=, are re@uired even if sacrifices, etc=, shou#d
not be re@uired=
As these @ua#ities are en0oined, they are necessari#y to be .ractised= Sama,
Dama etc=, are .ro>imate or direct means of know#ed<e +Antaran<a&Sadhana-=
)a0nas or sacrifices, etc=, are remote or indirect means of know#ed<e +Bahiran<a&
Sadhana-=
The word HAdiI +and the rest- mentioned in the Sutra, indicates that the
as.irant after Brahma (idya must .ossess a## these @ua#ifications of truthfu#ness,
<enerosity, asceticism, ce#ibacy, indifference to wor#d#y ob0ects, to#erance,
endurance, faith, e@ui#ibrium, com.assion etc=
Sarvannanumatyadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras 29&,*-
ood&restrictions may be <iven u. on#y when #ife is in dan<er
Sarvannanumatischa .ranatyaye taddarsanat III=3=29 +34,-
On#y when #ife is in dan<er +there is- .ermission to take a##
food +i=e=, take food indiscriminate#y- because the Sruti dec#ares
that=
Sarvannanumatih1 .ermission to take a## sorts of foodC !ha1 on#yC
$ranatyaye1 when #ife is in dan<erC Taddarsanat1 because the Sruti dec#ares
that=
This and the subse@uent three Sutras indicate what kind of food is to be
taken=
!hhando<ya ?.anishad dec#ares, Jor one who knows this, there is nothin<
that is not foodJ +!hh= ?.= (=2=*-= The @uestion is if such Sarvannanumati
+descri.tion of a## as his food- is a (idhi or (idhyan<a or a Sruti +.raise-=
The $urva.akshin maintains that it is en0oined on one who meditates on
$rana on account of the newness of the statement= It has an in0unctive va#ue, as
such statement is not found anywhere e#se=
The Sutra refutes it and dec#ares that it is not an in0unction, but on#y a
statement of fact= Be are not 0ustified in assumin< an in0unction, where the idea
of an in0unction does not arise= It is not (idhi or in0unction as no mandatory words
are found= !an a man eat and di<est a## thin<sL "o= $rohibited food may be eaten
on#y when #ife is in dan<er, when one is dyin< of hun<er as was done by the sa<e
!hakrayana +?shasti- when he was dyin< for want of food= Sruti dec#ares this=
Sa<e ?shasti was dyin< of hun<er on account of famine= %e ate the beans
ha#f&eaten by a kee.er of e#e.hants but refused to drink what had been offered by
the #atter on the <round of its bein< a mere #eavin<= The sa<e 0ustified his conduct
by sayin<, JI wou#d not have #ived, if I had not eaten the beans, but water I can
do without at .resent= I can drink water wherever I #ike=J
rom this it fo##ows, that the .assa<e Jor one who knows thisJ etc=, is an
Arthavada=
Abadhatccha III=3=26 +343-
And because +thus- +the scri.tura# statements with res.ect to
food- are not contradicted=
Abadhat1 becausc of a non&contradiction, as there is no contrary statement
anywhere in SrutiC !ha1 and, a#so, moreover, on account of non&sub#ation=
The to.ic commenced in Sutra 29 is continued=
And thus those scri.tura# .assa<es which distin<uish #awfu# and un#awfu# food
such as JBhen the food is .ure the who#e nature becomes .ureJ +!hh= ?.=
(II=25=2- are non&sub#ated= The statement of the !hhando<ya ?.anishad wi## not
be contradicted on#y if the e>.#anation <iven is taken, and not otherwise=
On#y then other Srutis wi## have unhindered a..#ications= On#y in this view wi##
the Sruti JBhen the food is .ure the mind becomes .ureJ have a..#ication=
!#ean food shou#d <enera##y be taken as there is no contrary statement
anywhere in Sruti to the .urifyin< effect of c#ean food= There is nowhere any
.assa<e in Sruti, contradictin< the .assa<e of the !hhando<ya Sruti which
dec#ares that c#ean food makes our nature .ure=
?n#awfu# food as a <enera# ru#e c#o<s the understandin< and obstructs the
c#ear works of the inte##ect= But in the case of the sa<e, whose heart is a#ways
.ure and inte##ect keen, the takin< of such food does not obstruct the workin< of
his brain, and his know#ed<e remains as .ure as ever=
A.i cha smaryate III=3=,8 +344-
And moreover the Smritis say so=
A.i1 a#soC !ha1 moreoverC Smaryate1 the Smriti says so, it is seen in the
Smritis, it is .rescribed by Smriti=
The .revious to.ic is continued=
Smriti a#so states that when #ife is in dan<er both he who has know#ed<e and
he who has not can take any food= J%e who eats food .rocured from anywhere
when #ife is in dan<er, is not tainted by sin, as a #otus #eaf is not wetted by water=J
On the contrary many .assa<es teach that un#awfu# food is to be avoided=
JThe Brahmana must .ermanent#y fore<o into>icatin< #i@uorJ= JLet them .our
boi#in< s.irits down the throat of a Brahmana who drinks s.iritsJ= JS.irit&drinkin<
worms <row in the mouth of the s.irit&drinkin< man, because he en0oys what is
un#awfu#=J
rom this it is inferred that <enera##y c#ean food is to be taken e>ce.t in the
case of e>treme starvation or in times of distress on#y=
Bhen the ?.anishad says that the sa<e may eat a## kinds of food, it must be
inter.reted as meanin< that he may eat a## kinds of food, in times of distress on#y=
The te>t of the ?.anishad shou#d not be construed as an in0unction in favour of
eatin< un#awfu# food=
SabdaschatoIkamakare III=3=,* +345-
And hence the scri.ture .rohibitin< #icense=
Sabdah1 the scri.tura# .assa<eC !ha1 andC Atah1 henceC Akamakare1 to
.revent undue #icense, .rohibitin< #icense, as to non&.roceedin< accordin< to
#ikin<=
The .revious to.ic is discussed and conc#uded here=
There are scri.tura# .assa<es which .rohibit one from doin< everythin< 0ust
as he .#eases, which forbid man to take undue #iberty in the matter of food and
drink= JTherefore a Brahmana must not drink #i@uorJ +;athaka Sam=-= $erfect
s.iritua# disci.#ine is abso#ute#y necessary for contro##in< the mind and the senses
and attainin< know#ed<e or Se#f&rea#isation= Such Sruti te>ts are meant for this
disci.#ine=
Therefore, it is estab#ished that the Sruti does not en0oin on one who
meditates on $rana to take a## kinds of food indiscriminate#y=
As there is Sruti which forbids #icense in food and drink, the Sruti referred to
above in Sutra 29 is an Arthavada=
The .ermission to take a## kinds of food is confined to times of distress on#y
when oneIs #ife is in dan<er= One must strict#y observe the in0unctions of the
scri.tures in ordinary times=
Ashramakarmadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutras ,2&,4-
The duties of Ashrama are to be .erformed by even one who is not desirous of
sa#vation
(ihitatvacchasramakarma.i III=3=,2 +347-
And the duties of the Ashramas +are to be .erformed a#so by him
who does not desire emanci.ation- because they are en0oined +on him
by the scri.tures-=
(ihitatvat1 because they are en0oinedC !ha1 andC Ashrama& karma1
duties of the Ashrama, or order of #ifeC A.i1 a#so=
This and the subse@uent three Sutras show who are re@uired to .erform
sacrifices and do other .rescribed duties=
?nder Sutra 25 it has been .roved that the works en0oined on the Ashramas
are means to know#ed<e= The @uestion arises now, why shou#d one who does not
desire know#ed<e or fina# re#ease do these worksL
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that since these duties are en0oined on a## who are
in these Aramas or orders of #ife, viG=, student&#ife, househo#derIs #ife, and hermit
#ife, one shou#d observe them=
In the case of a man who kee.s to the Ashramas but does not seek
#iberation, the "ityakarmas or the .ermanent ob#i<atory duties are indis.ensab#e=
The Sruti says J)ava00ivam a<nihotram 0uhoti & as #on< as his #ife #asts, one is to
offer the A<nihotra=J
Sahakaritvena cha III=3=,, +349-
And +the duties are to be .erformed a#so- as a means to
know#ed<e=
Sahakaritvena1 as, an au>i#iary, on account of coo.erativeness, as means
to know#ed<eC !ha1 and=
The to.ic commenced in Sutra ,2 is continued=
The duties or works are he#.fu# in .roducin< know#ed<e but not its fruit, viG=,
emanci.ation= In the former case the connection between ;arma and fruit is
inse.arab#e +"itya&Samyo<a-, but in the #atter case it is se.arab#e +Anitya&
Samyo<a-= Sa#vation or 'oksha is attainab#e on#y throu<h know#ed<e of Brahman
or Brahma&/nana=
Borks +;armas- are an aid to (idya or know#ed<e of Se#f= Those who are
desirous of emanci.ation shou#d a#so .erform re#i<ious rites as a he#. to
en#i<htenment= Brahma (idya is inde.endent in .roducin< its resu#ts= ;arma is
mere#y the handmaid and coo.erator of (idya= Borks are means for the
ori<ination of know#ed<e=
Sarvatha.i ta evobhaya#in<at III=3=,3 +346-
In a## cases the same duties +have to be .erformed-, because of
the twofo#d indicatory marks=
Sarvatha1 in a## cases, in every res.ect, under any circumstanceC A.i1 a#soC
Ta eva1 the same duties +have to be .erformed-C ?bhaya#in<at1 because of the
twofo#d inferentia# si<ns= +Ta1 they, the sacrificia# worksC Eva1 certain#y=-
The .revious to.ic is continued=
The word HA.iI in the Sutra has the force of HindeedI, HevenI= The words
HSarvatha A.iI are e@ua# to HSarvatha EvaI=
The @uestion arises whether the works .erformed as en0oined on the
Ashramas, and those done as au>i#iaries to know#ed<e are of two different kinds=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that in either case, whether viewed as duties
incumbent on the Ashramas or as coo.eratin< with know#ed<e, the very same
A<nihotra and other duties have to be .erformed, as is seen from the Sruti and
the Smriti te>ts=
Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad dec#ares, J%im the Brahmanas seek to know
throu<h the study of the (edas, sacrifices etc=J +Bri= ?.= I(=3=22-= This te>t
indicates that sacrifices etc=, en0oined in ;armakanda for different .ur.oses are to
be .erformed as means to know#ed<e a#so=
The Smriti a#so says the same thin<, J%e who .erforms ob#i<atory works
without aimin< at the fruit of workJ etc= +:ita (I=*-= Those very ob#i<atory duties
subserve the ori<ination of know#ed<e a#so=
'oreover the Smriti .assa<e J%e who is @ua#ified by that forty&ei<hty
.urificationsJ etc=, refers to the .urifications re@uired for (edic works, with a view
to the ori<ination of know#ed<e in him who has under<one these .urifications=
In every res.ect, whether viewed as duties incumbent on a househo#der or as
.ractices au>i#iary to know#ed<e or i##umination, the sacrificia# works, .rescribed to
be .erformed, are reco<nised to be the same and not different, because they are
indis.ensab#e re@uisites for both orders of #ife, as .ermanent duties for a
househo#der and as au>i#iary aids to meditation for a Sannyasi=
The Sutrakara, therefore, ri<ht#y em.hasises the non&difference of the works=
Anabhibhavam cha darsayati III=3=,4 +358-
And the scri.ture a#so dec#ares +that he who is endowed with
Brahmacharya- is not over.owered +by .assion, an<er, etc=-=
Anabhibhavam1 not bein< over.oweredC !ha1 andC Darsayati1 the
scri.ture shows, the Srutis dec#are=
The .revious to.ic is conc#uded here=
This Sutra .oints out a further indicatory mark stren<thenin< the conc#usion
that works coo.erate towards know#ed<e= Scri.ture a#so dec#ares that he who is
endowed with such means as Brahmacharya, etc== is not over.owered by such
aff#ictions as .assion, an<er and the #ike= Jor that Se#f does not .erish which one
attains by BrahmacharyaJ +!hh= ?.= (III=4=,-= This .assa<e indicates that #ike
work, Brahmacharya, etc=, are a#so means to know#ed<e= %e who is endowed with
ce#ibacy is not overcome by an<er, .assion, 0ea#ousy, hatred= %is mind is ever
.eacefu#= As his mind is not a<itated, he is ab#e to .ractise dee. and constant
meditation which #eads to the attainment of know#ed<e=
It is thus a sett#ed conc#usion that works are ob#i<atory on the Ashramas and
are a#so means to know#ed<e=
(idhuradhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutras ,5&,6-
Those who stand midway between two Ashramas a#so are @ua#ified for know#ed<e
Antara cha.i tu taddrishteh III=3=,5 +35*-
And +.ersons standin<- in between +two Ashramas- are a#so
+@ua#ified for know#ed<e-, for that is seen +in scri.ture-=
Antara1 +.ersons standin<- in between +two Ashramas-C !ha1 andC A.i tu1
a#soC Taddrishteh1 such cases bein< seen, +as it is seen in Sruti, because it is so
seen-=
Bidowers who have not married a<ain, .ersons who are too .oor to marry
and those who are forced by circumstances not to enter into wed#ock and have not
renounced the wor#d come under the .urview of Sutras ,5&,6=
The word HtuI is em.#oyed in order to refute the $urva.aksha that ;arma is
necessary for the ori<ination of know#ed<e of Brahman= The force of the word HchaI
is to show certainty=
A doubt arises whether .ersons in want who do not .ossess means, etc=, and,
therefore, are not ab#e to enter into one or the other of the Ashramas, or who
stand midway between two Ashramas as for e>am.#e, a widower, are @ua#ified for
know#ed<e or not=
The $urva.akshin maintains that they are not @ua#ified, as they cannot
.erform the works of any Ashrama which are means to know#ed<e=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that they are entit#ed, because such cases are
seen from the scri.tures= Scri.tura# .assa<es dec#are that .ersons of that c#ass
such as Raikva and :ar<i, the dau<hter of (achaknavi had the know#ed<e of
Brahman +!hh= ?.= I(=* and Bri= ?.= III=5=9-=
(idura, a man who had no wife, did not ado.t the (ana.rastha Ashrama, and
who had no Ashrama, was e>.ert in Brahma (idya= %e had know#ed<e of
Brahman=
Antara +who stand outside- are those .ersons who do not be#on< to any order
or Ashrama and conse@uent#y do not .erform the duties of any Ashrama= They are
born in this #ife with discrimination and dis.assion owin< to the .erformance of
such duties in their .revious birth= Their minds have been .urified by truth,
.enance, .rayers, etc=, .erformed in their .ast #ives= If a man has du#y dischar<ed
the duties of his Ashrama in .revious birth, but owin< to some obstac#es or
$ratibandhas Brahma&/nana did not arise in him in that #ife, and he dies before the
dawn of know#ed<e, then he is born in the .resent #ife ri.e for know#ed<e= Brahma&
/nana manifests in him in a## its <#ory by mere contact with a sa<e= Therefore such
a man does not .erform any ;armas or rather does not stand in any need of
.erformin< any duties of Ashramas=
A.i cha smaryate III=3=,7 +352-
This is stated in Smriti a#so=
A.i1 a#so, tooC !ha1 moreover, andC Smaryate1 is stated in Smriti, the
Smriti records such cases=
The .revious to.ic is continued=
'oreover, it is stated a#so in Smriti that .ersons, not be#on<in< to any one of
the four .rescribed orders of #ife, ac@uire Brahma&/nana=
It is recorded in the Itihasas +'ahabharata- a#so how Samvarta and others
who .aid no re<ard to the duties incumbent on the Ashramas went naked and
afterwards became <reat )o<ins or saints= The <reat Bhishma is a#so an instance
in .oint=
'anu Samhita dec#ares JThere is no doubt that a Brahmana attains fina#
success on#y by .ractice of continuous#y re.eatin< the /a.a= It matters #itt#e
whether he .erforms other .rescribed duties or not= One who is friend#y to a##, is
rea##y a BrahmanaJ +II=97-=
But the instances @uoted from scri.ture and Smriti furnish mere#y indicatory
marks= Bhat then is the fina# conc#usionL That conc#usion is stated in the ne>t
Sutra=
(iseshanu<rahascha III=3=,9 +35,-
And the .romotion +of know#ed<e is bestowed on them- throu<h
s.ecia# acts=
(isesha1 s.ecia#C Anu<rahah1 favourC !ha1 and= +(iseshanu& <rahah1
s.ecia# advanta<e, advanta<e or favour accruin< from e>traordinary <ood works
done in the .revious #ife=-
The .revious to.ic is continued=
'oreover know#ed<e of Brahman may be attained by the s.ecia# <race of the
<ods due to /a.a, fastin< and worshi. of <ods= Or it may be that Ashrama ;armas
mi<ht have been done in .revious births=
A widower who is not a househo#der in the .ro.er sense of the term, can
attain know#ed<e of Brahman throu<h s.ecia# acts #ike /a.a, fastin<, .rayer, which
are not o..osed to the condition of those who do not be#on< to any Ashrama=
The Smriti says JBy mere .rayer no doubt the Brahmana .erfects himse#f=
'ay he .erform other works or not, the kind&hearted one is ca##ed BrahmanaJ
+'anu Samhita II=97-=
This .assa<e indicates that where the works of the Ashramas are not
.ossib#e, .rayer @ua#ifies for know#ed<e=
Smriti a#so dec#ares J$erfected by many births he fina##y <oes to the hi<hest
stateJ +Bha<avad :ita (I=34-= This .assa<e intimates that the a<<re<ate of the
different meritorious works .erformed in .revious births .romotes know#ed<e=
Therefore, there is no contradiction in admittin< @ua#ification for know#ed<e
on the .art of widowers and the #ike=
Atastvitara00yayo #in<accha III=3=,6 +353-
Better than this is the other +state of be#on<in< to an Ashrama-
on account of the indicatory marks +in the Sruti and the Smriti-=
Atah1 from this, than this, than the intermediate state mentioned aboveC
Tu1 butC Itarat1 the other, the state be#on<in< to a .rescribed order of #ifeC
/yayah1 better, su.eriorC Lin<at1 because of the indicatory marks, from such
indications in the scri.ture, from indication, si<ns, inferencesC !ha1 and=
The .revious to.ic is conc#uded here=
The word HtuI +but- is em.#oyed in order to remove the doubt= The word HchaI
+and- is used in the sense of e>c#usion=
Thou<h it is .ossib#e for one who stands between two Ashramas to attain
know#ed<e, yet it is a better means to know#ed<e to be#on< to some Ashrama= %e
who be#on<s to an Ashrama has better means of attainin< know#ed<e of the Se#f or
Brahman, because the faci#ities are <reater in the #atter condition=
This is confirmed by the Sruti and Smriti JThe Brahmanas seek to know
Brahman throu<h sacrificesJ etc= +Bri= ?.= I(=3=22-= JOn that .ath <oes whoever
knows Brahman and who has done ho#y works as .rescribed for the Ashramas and
obtained s.#endourJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=6-= Smriti dec#ares, JLet not a Brahmana stay
for a day outside the AshramaC havin< stayed outside for a year he <oes to utter
ruin=J
Tadbhutadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutra 38-
%e who has taken Sannyasa cannot revert back to his former sta<es of #ife
Tadbhutasya tu natadbhavo 0aiminera.i
niyamatadru.abhavebhyah III=3=38 +354-
But for one who has become that +i=e= entered the hi<hest
Ashrama, i=e=, Sannyasa- there is no revertin< +to the .recedin<
ones- on account of restrictions .rohibitin< such reversion or
descendin< to a #ower order= /aimini a#so +is of this o.inion-=
Tadbhutasya1 of one who has become that, for one who has attained that
+hi<hest Ashrama-C Tu1 butC "a1 noC Atadbhavah1 #a.se from that sta<e, fa##in<
away from thatC /aimineh1 accordin< to /aimini, of /aimini +is this o.inion-C A.i1
a#so, evenC "iyamatadru.abhavebhyah1 on account of the restrictions
.rohibitin< such reversion= +"iyamat1 because of the strict ru#eC
Atadru.dbhavebhyah1 because there is no statement .ermittin< it, and because
it is a<ainst customC Abhavebhyah1 because of the absence of that=-
The @uestion whether one who has taken Sannyasa can <o back to the
.revious Ashrama is now considered=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that he cannot <o back to the .revious Ashrama=
This is the o.inion of /aimini a#so=
There are no words in the Sruti a##owin< such a descent= The Sruti e>.ress#y
forbids it, J%e is to <o to the forest, he is not to return from thereJ=
It is a#so a<ainst a..roved custom or usa<e=
The ?.anishad dec#ares J%avin< been dismissed by the teacher he is to fo##ow
one of the four Ashramas accordin< to ru#e, u. to re#ease from the bodyJ +!hh=
?.= II=2,=*-= There are te>ts which teach of the ascent to hi<her Ashramas=
J%avin< com.#eted the Brahmacharya state he is to become a househo#der= %e
may wander forth from the Brahmacharya state,J but there are no te>ts which
treat of the descent to #ower Ashramas=
Dharma is what is en0oined for each and not what each is ca.ab#e of doin<=
Scri.ture dec#ares, JOnce returnin< to the forest, one shou#d never return to
househo#d #ife=J A Sannyasi shou#d not stir u. the househo#d fire a<ain after havin<
once renounced it=J
Therefore, one cannot <o back from Sannyasa=
Adhikaradhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutras 3*&32-
E>.iation for one who has broken the vow of Sannyasa
"a chadhikarikama.i .atananumanattadayo<at III=3=3* +355-
And there is no fitness for e>.iation in the case of a "aishthika
Brahmacharin +who is immora#-, because a fa## +in his case- is
inferred from the Smriti and because of the inefficacy +in his case-
of the e>.iatory ceremony=
"a1 notC !ha1 andC Adhikarikam1 +e>.iation- mentioned in the cha.ter
that dea#s with the @ua#ificationC A.i1 a#so, evenC $atananumanat1 because of a
fa## +in his case- is inferred from the SmritiC Tadayo<at1 because of its +of the
e>.iatory ceremony- inefficiency in his case=
The .revious discussion is continued=
The .resent Sutra e>.resses the view of the $urva.akshin=
The o..onent maintains that there is no e>.iation for such trans<ression in
the case of a "aishthika Brahmacharin who has taken the vow of #ife&#on<
ce#ibacy, because no such e>.iatory ceremony is mentioned with res.ect to him=
The e>.iatory ceremony which is mentioned in $urvamimamsa (I=9=22, refers to
ordinary Brahmacharins and not to "aishthika Brahmacharins=
Smriti dec#ares that such sins cannot be e>.iated by him any more than a
head once cut off can a<ain be fi>ed to the body, J%e who havin< once entered on
the duties of a "aishthika a<ain #a.ses from them, for him a s#ayer of the Se#f, I
see no e>.iation which mi<ht make him c#ean a<ainJ +A<neya K(I=4=2,-=
urther the e>.iatory ceremony referred to in $urvamimamsa is not
efficacious in his case, because he wi## have to #i<ht sacrificia# fire and therefore
have to marry= In that case he wi## cease to be a "aishthika Brahmacharin
thereafter=
But the ?.akurvana +i=e=, who is a Brahmacharin for a certain .eriod on#y,
not for #ife, one who is a Brahmacharin ti## marria<e- about whose sin Smriti
makes no simi#ar dec#aration, may .urify himse#f by the ceremony mentioned= If
he is immora# there is e>.iation=
?.a.urvama.i tveke bhavamasanavattaduktam III=3=32 +357-
But some +consider the sin- a minor one +and therefore c#aim- the
e>istence +of e>.iation for the "aishthika Brahmacharin a#so-C as in
the case of eatin< +of un#awfu# food-= This has been e>.#ained +in
the $urvamimamsa-=
?.a.urvam1 +?.a.urvaka&.atakam, ?.a.atakam- a minor sinC A.i tu1
but, howeverC Eke1 some +say-C Bhavam1 .ossibi#ity of e>.iationC Asanavat1 as
in the eatin< +.rohibited food-C Tat1 thisC ?ktam1 is e>.#ained +in
$urvamimamsa-=
The .revious discussion is continued=
Some teachers, however, are of o.inion that the trans<ression of the vow of
chastity, even on the .art of a "aishthika is a minor sin, not a ma0or one
e>ce.tin< cases where the wife of the teacher is concerned and so can be e>.iated
by .ro.er ceremonies 0ust as ordinary Brahmacharins who take .rohibited food
such as honey, wine, f#esh, are a<ain .urified by e>.iatory ceremonies= They .#ead
that that sin is not anywhere enumerated amon< the dead#y ones +'aha.ataka-
such as vio#atin< a teacherIs bed and so on= They c#aim the e>.iatory ceremony to
be va#id for the "aishthika as we## as the ?.akurvana= Both are Brahmacharins
and have committed the same offence=
It is on#y se>ua# intercourse with the wife of the :uru or s.iritua# .rece.tor
that is a 'aha.ataka +ma0or sin-= That ?.a.ataka, a minor sin is an e>.iab#e sin
has been e>.#ained in the $urvamimamsa of /aimini in !ha.= I=,=9=
The Smriti .assa<e which dec#ares that there is no e>.iation for the
"aishthika must be e>.#ained as aimin< at the ori<ination of serious effort on the
.art of "aishthika Brahmacharins= It .uts him in mind of the serious res.onsibi#ity
on his .art so that he may be ever a#ert and vi<i#ant and stru<<#e hard in
maintainin< strict unbroken Brahmacharya and thus achievin< the <oa# or
summum bonum of #ife, i=e=, Se#f&rea#isation=
Simi#ar#y in the case of the hermit and the Sannyasin= The Smriti does
.rescribe the .urificatory ceremony for both the hermit +(ana.rastha- and the
mendicant +Sannyasi-= Bhen the hermit has broken his vows, under<oes the
;ricchra&.enance for twe#ve ni<hts and then cu#tivates a .#ace which is fu## of trees
and <rass= The Sannyasi a#so .roceeds #ike the hermit, with the e>ce.tion of
cu#tivatin< the Soma .#ant, and under<oes the .urifications .rescribed for his
state=
Bahiradhikaranam1 To.ic *2 +Sutra 3,-
The #ife&#on< ce#ibate who fai#s to kee. u. his vow must be e>c#uded by society
Bahistubhayatha.i smriteracharaccha III=3=3, +359-
But +they are to be ke.t- outside the society in either case, on
account of the Smriti and custom=
Bahih1 outsideC Tu1 butC ?bhayatha1 in either case, whether it be a <rave
sin or a minor sinC A.i1 a#so, evenC Smriteh1 on account of the statement of the
Smriti, from the SmritiC Acharat1 from customC !ha1 and=
The .revious discussion is conc#uded here=
Bhether the #a.ses be re<arded as ma0or sins or minor sins, in either case
<ood .eo.#e +Sishtas- must shun such trans<ressors, because the Smriti and <ood
custom both condemn them=
Smriti dec#ares, Jhe who touches a Brahmana who has broken his vow and
fa##en from his order, must under<o the !handrayana .enance=J A..roved custom
a#so condemns them, because <ood men do not sacrifice, study, or attend
weddin<s with such .ersons=
Svamyadhikaranam1 To.ic *, +Sutras 33&35-
The meditations connected with the subordinate members of sacrificia# acts
+)a0nan<as- shou#d be observed by the .riest and not by the sacrificer
Svaminah .ha#asruterityatreyah III=3=33 +356-
To the sacrificer +be#on<s the a<entshi. in meditations- because
the Sruti dec#ares a fruit +for it-1 thus Atreya +ho#ds-=
Svaminah1 of the master, of the sacrificer or )a0amanaC $ha#asruteh1
from the dec#aration in Sruti of the resu#tsC Iti1 so, thusC Atreyah1 the sa<e
Atreya +ho#ds-=
This is the view of the $urva.akshin or the o..onent=
A doubt arises as to who is to observe the meditations connected with the
subordinate members of sacrificia# acts +)a0nan<as-, whether it is the sacrificer
+)a0amana- or the .riest +Ritvik-=
The o..onent, re.resented by the Sa<e Atreya, maintains that it is to be
observed by the sacrificer, as the Sruti dec#ares a s.ecia# fruit for these
meditations=
JThere is rain for him and he brin<s rain for others who thus knowin<
meditates on the five&fo#d Saman as rainJ +!hh= ?.= II=,=2-=
%ence the sacrificer on#y is the a<ent in those meditations which have a fruit=
This is the o.inion of the teacher Atreya=
Artvi0yamityaudu#omistasmai hi .arikriyate III=3=34 +378-
+They are- the duty of the Ritvik +.riest-, this is the view of
Audu#omi, because he is .aid for that +i=e=, the .erformance of the
entire sacrifice-=
Artvi0yam1 the duty of the Ritvik +.riest-C Iti1 thusC Audu#omih1 the sa<e
Audu#omi +thinks-C Tasmai1 for thatC %i1 becauseC $arikriyate1 he is .aid=
The .revious to.ic is continued=
The assertion that the meditations on subordinate members of the sacrifice
are the work of the sacrificer +)a0amana- is unfounded=
But Audu#omi says that they are to be done by the .riest +Ritvik-, because he
is en<a<ed +#itera##y bou<ht- for the sake of the ;arma= As the .riest is .aid for a##
his acts, the fruit of a## his acts, is as it were, .urchased by the )a0amana
+sacrificer-= Therefore the meditations a#so fa## within the .erformance of the work,
as they be#on< to the s.here of that to which the sacrificer is entit#ed= They have
to be observed by the .riest and not the sacrificer=
This is the view of the sa<e Audu#omi=
Srutescha III=3=35 +37*-
And because the Sruti +so- dec#ares=
Sruteh1 from the SrutiC !ha1 and=
The .revious to.ic is conc#uded here=
The Ritvik is to make the An<a ?.asana= But the fruit <oes to the )a0amana=
JBhatever b#essin< the .riests .ray for at the sacrifice, they .ray for the
<ood of the sacrificerJ +Sat= Br= I=,=, I=25-= JTherefore an ?d<atri who knows this
may say1 what wish sha## I obtain for you by my sin<in<J +!hh= ?.= I=7=9-= The
scri.tura# .assa<es a#so dec#are that the fruit of meditations in which the .riest is
the a<ent, <oes to the sacrificer=
A## this estab#ishes the conc#usion that the meditations on subordinate .arts
of the sacrifice are the work of the .riest=
Therefore, Audu#omiIs view is correct, bein< su..orted by the Sruti te>ts=
Sahakaryantaravidhyadhikaranam1 To.ic *3 +Sutras 37&36-
In Bri= ?.= III=4=* meditation is en0oined besides the chi#d&#ike state and
scho#arshi.
Sahakaryantaravidhih .akshena tritiyam
tadvato vidhyadivat III=3=37 +372-
There is the in0unction of somethin< e#se, i=e=, meditation,
coo.eration +towards know#ed<e- +which is- a third thin< +with re<ard
to Ba#ya or state of a chi#d and $anditya or scho#arshi.-, +which
in0unction is <iven- for the case +of .erfect know#ed<e not yet
havin< arisen- to him who is such +i=e=, the Sannyasin .ossessin<
know#ed<e-C as in the case of in0unctions, and the #ike=
Sahakaryantaravidhih1 a se.arate au>i#iary in0unctionC $akshena1 as an
a#ternativeC Tritiyam1 the thirdC Tadvatah1 for one who .ossesses it, +i=e=,
know#ed<e-C (idhyadivat1 0ust as in the case of in0unctions and the #ike=
This Sutra e>amines a .assa<e of the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad and
conc#udes that continuous meditation is a#so to be considered as en0oined by Sruti
for the rea#isation of Brahman= This and the fo##owin< two Sutras show that the
scri.ture en0oins the four orders of #ife=
'auna +"ididhyasa or meditation- is en0oined as an aid= The third, i=e=,
'auna is en0oined for a Sannyasi in case his sense of cosmic diversity is
.ersistent, 0ust as )a0nas are en0oined for one desirous of heaven=
JTherefore, a knower of Brahman, havin< done with scho#arshi., shou#d
remain #ike a chi#d +free from .assion, an<er, etc=-C and after havin< finished with
this state and with erudition he becomes meditative +'uni-J +Bri= ?.= III=4=*-=
A doubt arises now whether the meditative state is en0oined or not=
The $urva.akshin maintains that it is not en0oined, as there is no word
indicatin< an in0unction= Thou<h the im.erative mood occurs in re<ard to Ba#ya or
chi#d&#ike state, there is no such indication in re<ard to the 'uni= The te>t mere#y
says that he becomes a 'uni or meditative whereas it e>.ress#y en0oins JOne
shou#d remainJ etc=, with res.ect to the state of chi#d and scho#arshi.=
urther scho#arshi. refers to know#ed<e= Therefore, it inc#udes 'unishi. which
a#so refers to know#ed<e= As there is no newness +A.urva- with res.ect to
'unishi. in the te>t it has no in0unctive va#ue=
This Sutra refutes this view and dec#ares that 'unishi. or meditativeness is
en0oined in the te>t as a third re@uisite besides chi#d&#ike state and scho#arshi.=
J'uniJ means a .erson who constant#y meditates on Brahman= So constant
meditation is the third au>i#iary observance for one who is a#ready .ossessed of
$anditya +erudition- and Ba#ya +chi#d&#ike state-C and as such constant meditation
is en0oined to be observed #ike the in0unctions about sacrifice and contro# of the
senses and so on=
This Sutra refers to a .assa<e of the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad, where in
re.#y to a @uestion by one ;aho#a, the sa<e )a0nava#kya en0oins first, scho#ar#y
attainments, the chi#d&#ike sim.#icity, and then third#y, continuous meditation
coo.eratin< with the two .revious conditions, with a view to rea#isation of
Brahman= Thou<h there is no verb of im.erative or in0unctive force in the case of
this third state, there is to be inferred an in0unction to be understood #ike the
in0unctions in the other cases=
'unishi. is continuous contem.#ation on Brahman= Therefore, it is different
from scho#arshi.= It is a new thin< +A.urva-= It has not been referred to before=
%ence the te>t has in0unctive va#ue= Incessant meditation is hi<h#y beneficia# for a
Sannyasin who has not yet attained oneness or unity of Se#f and who e>.eriences
.#ura#ity on account of .ast e>.ressions or the .revai#in< force of the erroneous
idea of mu#ti.#icity=
'unihood is en0oined as somethin< he#.fu# to know#ed<e=
;ritsnabhavattu <rihino.asamharah III=3=39 +37,-
On account of his bein< a##, however, there is windin< u. with
the househo#der=
;ritsnabhavat1 on account of the househo#derIs #ife inc#udin< a##C Tu1
veri#yC :rihina1 by a househo#der, with the househo#derC ?.asamharah1 the
conc#usion, the <oa#, sa#vation, +the !ha.ter- ends= +;ritsna1 of a## +duties-C
Bhavat1 owin< to the e>istenceC :rihino.asamharah1 conc#usion with the case
of the househo#der=-
The Sruti winds u. with the househo#der as he has a## the duties= %e has to
do difficu#t sacrifices and has a#so to observe Ahimsa, se#f&contro#, etc= As the
househo#derIs #ife inc#udes duties of a## the other sta<es of #ife, the !ha.ter ends
with the enumeration of the duties of the househo#der=
The !hhando<ya ?.anishad conc#udes with the househo#derIs sta<e, because
of the fact that this sta<e inc#udes a## the others= J%e, the househo#der, conductin<
his #ife in this way, concentratin< a## his senses u.on the se#f, and abstainin< from
in0ury to any #ivin< bein< throu<hout his #ife, attains the wor#d of Brahma and has
not to return a<ain to this wor#dJ +!hh= ?.= (III=*4=*-=
The word HtuI is meant to #ay stress on the househo#der bein< everythin<= %e
has to do many duties be#on<in< to his own Ashrama which invo#ve a <reat
troub#e= At the same time the duties of the other Ashramas such as tenderness for
a## #ivin< creatures, restraint of the senses and study of scri.tures, and so on are
incumbent on him a#so as far as circumstances a##ow= Therefore, there is nothin<
contradictory in the !hhando<ya windin< u. with the househo#der=
The househo#derIs #ife is very im.ortant= :rihasthasrama inc#udes more or #ess
the duties of a## Ashramas= The Sruti enumerates the duties of the Brahmacharin
and then those of the househo#der and there it ends without referrin< to Sannyasa
in order to #ay stress on the #ife of the househo#der, to show its im.ortance, and
not because it is not one of the .rescribed Ashramas=
'aunavaditareshama.yu.adesat III=3=36 +373-
Because the scri.ture en0oins the other +sta<es of #ife, viG=,
Brahmacharya and (ana.rastha-, 0ust as it en0oins the state of a 'uni
+Sannyasi-=
'aunavat1 0ust as si#ence, #ike constant meditation, #ike the state of a 'uni
+Sannyasi-C Itaresham1 of the others, of the other orders of #ifeC A.i1 even, a#soC
?.adesat1 because of scri.tura# in0unction=
This Sutra states that the scri.ture en0oins the observance of the duties of a##
the orders of #ife=
/ust as the Sruti en0oins Sannyasa and househo#derIs #ife, so a#so it en0oins
the #ife of a (ana.rastha +hermit- and that of a student +Brahmacharin-= or we
have a#ready .ointed above to .assa<es such as JAusterity is the second, and to
dwe## as a student in the house of a teacher is the third=J As thus the four
Ashramas are e@ua##y tau<ht by the scri.ture, they are to be <one throu<h in
se@uence or a#ternate#y=
That the Sutra uses a .#ura# form +of the HothersI- when s.eakin< of two
orders on#y, is due to its havin< re<ard either to the different sub&c#asses of those
two or to their difficu#t duties=
Anavishkaradhikarnam1 To.ic *4 +Sutra 48-
!hi#d&#ike state means the state of innocence, bein< free from e<oism, #ust, an<er,
etc=
Anavishkurvannanvayat III=3=48 +374-
+The chi#d&#ike state means- without manifestin< himse#f,
accordin< to the conte>t=
Anavishkurvan1 without manifestin< himse#fC Ananvayat1 accordin< to the
conte>t=
This Sutra says that the .erversity of a chi#d is not meant by the word
HBa#yenaI +by the chi#d&#ike state-, in the .assa<e of the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad
@uoted under Sutra 37=
In the .assa<e of the Brihadaranyaka @uoted in the Sutra 37, the chi#d&#ike
state is en0oined on an as.irant after know#ed<e= JTherefore, a Brahmana after he
has done with #earnin< shou#d remain #ike a chi#d=J Bhat is e>act#y meant by thisL
Does it mean to be #ike a chi#d without any idea of .urity and im.urity, free#y
attendin< to the ca##s of nature without any res.ect of .#ace, etc=, behavin<,
ta#kin< and eatin<, accordin< to oneIs #ikin< and doin< whatever one #ikes, or does
it mean inward .urity, i=e=, absence of cunnin<ness, arro<ance, sense of e<oism,
force of the sensua# .assions and so on as in the case of a chi#dL
The .resent Sutra says it is the #atter and not the former, because that is
detrimenta# to know#ed<e= It means that one shou#d be free from <ui#e, .ride,
e<oism, etc= %e shou#d not manifest the undesirab#e evi# traits= %e shou#d not
manifest by a dis.#ay of know#ed<e, #earnin< and virtuousness= /ust as a chi#d
whose sensua# .owers have not yet deve#o.ed themse#ves does not attem.t to
make a dis.#ay of himse#f before others, he must not .ub#ish and .roc#aim his
#earnin<, wisdom and <oodness= Such meanin< on#y is a..ro.riate to the conte>t,
.urity and innocence bein< he#.fu# to know#ed<e=
Then on#y the .assa<e has a connection with the entire cha.ter on the
<round of coo.eratin< towards the .rinci.a# matter, name#y, the rea#isation of
Brahman= Bein< free from ostentation is necessary, because on#y then there wi##
be Anvaya or concordance of doctrine=
The Smriti writers have said, J%e whom nobody knows either as nob#e or
i<nob#e, as i<norant or #earned, as we## as we##&conducted or i##&conducted, he is a
Brahmana= Nuiet#y devoted to his duty, #et the wise man .ass throu<h #ife
unknown, #et him ste. on this earth as if he were b#ind, unconscious, deaf=J
Another Smriti .assa<e is JBith hidden nature, hidden conduct,J and so on=
Aihikadhikaranam1 To.ic *5 +Sutra 4*-
The time of the ori<ination of know#ed<e when Brahma (idya is .ractised
Aihikama.ya.rastuta.ratibandhe taddarsanat III=3=4* +375-
In this #ife +the ori<ination of know#ed<e takes .#ace- if there
be no obstruction to it +the means ado.ted-, because it is so seen
from the scri.tures=
Aihikam1 in this #ifeC A.i1 evenC A.rastuta.ratibandhe1 in the absence of
an obstruction to it +the means ado.ted-C Taddarsanat1 as it is seen in Sruti=
+A.rastuta1 not bein< .resentC $ratibandhe1 obstructionC Tat1 thatC Darsanat1
bein< dec#ared by the scri.tures=-
This Sutra states whether the conse@uence of Brahma (idya, which is the
rea#isation of Brahman, is .ossib#e in this #ife or wi## wait ti## death=
Be<innin< from Sutra 25 of the .resent $ada +Section- we have discussed the
various means of know#ed<e=
The @uestion now is whether know#ed<e that resu#ts from these means comes
in this #ife or in the #ife to come=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that know#ed<e may come in this #ife on#y if there
is no obstruction to its manifestation from e>traneous causes= Bhen the fruition of
know#ed<e is about to take .#ace, it is hindered by the fruit of some other .owerfu#
work +;arma-, which is a#so about to mature= Bhen such an obstruction takes
.#ace, then know#ed<e comes in the ne>t #ife=
That is the reason why the scri.ture a#so dec#ares that it is difficu#t to know
the Se#f, J%e of whom many are not even ab#e to hear, whom many even when
they hear of him do not com.rehendC wonderfu# is a man when found who is ab#e
to teach himC wonderfu# is he who com.rehends him when tau<ht by an ab#e
teacherJ +;atha ?.= I=27-=
The :ita a#so says, JThere he recovers the characteristics be#on<in< to his
former body, and with that he a<ain strives for .erfection, O /oy of the ;urusJ
+!ha.= (I=3,-= JThe )o<in strivin< with assiduity, .urified from sin, <radua##y
<ainin< .erfection, throu<h manifo#d births, then reaches the Su.reme :oa#J
+!ha.= (I=34-=
urther scri.ture re#ates that (amadeva a#ready became Brahman in his
motherIs womb and thus shows that know#ed<e may s.rin< u. in a #ater form of
e>istence throu<h means .rocured in a former oneC because a chi#d in a womb
cannot .ossib#y .rocure such means in its .resent state=
It, therefore, is an estab#ished conc#usion that know#ed<e ori<inates either in
the .resent or in a future #ife, in de.endence on the evanescence of obstac#es=
'ukti.ha#adhikaranam1 To.ic *7 +Sutra 42-
Liberation is a state without difference= It is on#y one
Evam mukti.ha#aniyamastadavasthavadhritestadavasthavadhriteh
III=3=42 +377-
"o such definite ru#e e>ists with res.ect to emanci.ation, the
fruit +of know#ed<e-, because the Sruti asserts that state +to be
immutab#e-=
Evam1 thus, #ike thisC 'ukti.ha#aniyamah1 there is no ru#e with res.ect to
the fina# emanci.ation, the fruit +of know#ed<e-C Tadavasthavadhriteh1 on
account of the assertions by the Sruti as to that condition= +'ukti1 sa#vationC
$ha#a1 fruitC Aniyamah1 there is no ru#eC Tat1 thatC Avastha1 conditionC
Avadhriteh1 because the Sruti has ascertained so=-
In the .revious Sutra it was seen that know#ed<e may resu#t in this #ife or the
ne>t accordin< to the absence or .resence of obstructions and the intensity of the
means ado.ted=
Simi#ar#y a doubt may arise that there may be some ru#e with res.ect to the
fina# emanci.ation a#so, which is the fruit of know#ed<e= A doubt may arise
whether sa#vation can be de#ayed after know#ed<e, and whether there are de<rees
of know#ed<e accordin< to the @ua#ification of the as.irant, whether there e>ists a
simi#ar definite difference with re<ard to the fruit characterised as fina# re#ease,
owin< to the su.erior or inferior @ua#ification of the .ersons knowin<=
This Sutra dec#ares that no such ru#e e>ists with re<ard to re#ease= Because
a## (edanta te>ts assert the state of fina# re#ease to be of one kind on#y= The state
of fina# re#ease is nothin< but Brahman and Brahman cannot be connected with
different forms since many scri.tura# .assa<es assert it to have one nature on#y=
JThe knower of Brahman becomes Brahman=J There can be no variety in it,
as Brahman is without @ua#ities=
There is no such diver<ence in the fruit of 'ukti, because of the affirmation of
its identica# nature= There may be differences in the .otency of the Sadhana
#eadin< to know#ed<e or Brahma (idya= Brahma (idya itse#f is of the same nature,
thou<h it may come ear#y or #ate owin< to the .ower of the Sadhana= There is no
difference in the nature of 'ukti +#iberation- which is attained by Brahma (idya=
There wou#d be difference of resu#ts in ;armas and ?.asanas +Sa<una (idyas- but
"ir<una (idya is but one and its resu#t viG=, 'ukti is identica# in a## cases=
Difference is .ossib#e on#y when there are @ua#ities as in the case of the
Sa<una Brahman= There may be difference in the e>.eriences accordin< to
difference in (idyas but with re<ard to "ir<una Brahman it can be one on#y and
not many=
The means of know#ed<e may, .erha.s, accordin< to their individua# stren<th,
im.art a hi<her or #ower de<ree to their resu#t, viG=, know#ed<e, but not to the
resu#t of know#ed<e, viG=, Liberation= Because #iberation is not somethin< which is
to be brou<ht about, but somethin< whose nature is .ermanent#y estab#ished, and
is reached throu<h know#ed<e=
;now#ed<e cannot admit of #ower or hi<her de<ree because it is in its own
nature hi<h on#y and wou#d not be know#ed<e at a## if it were #ow= A#thou<h
know#ed<e may differ in so far as it ori<inates after a #on< or short time, it is
im.ossib#e that #iberation shou#d be distin<uished by a hi<her or #ower de<ree=
rom the absence of difference of know#ed<e a#so there fo##ows absence of definite
distinction on the .art of the resu#t of know#ed<e, viG=, Liberation=
There cannot be any de#ay in the attainment of emanci.ation after know#ed<e
has dawned, because know#ed<e of Brahman itse#f is emanci.ation=
The re.etition of the c#ause, JTadavasthavadhritehJ Jbecause the Sruti
asserts that stateJ indicates that the !ha.ter ends here=
Thus ends the ourth $ada +Section 3- of the Third Adhyaya +!ha.ter III- of
the Brahma Sutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
%ere ends !ha.ter III
Brahma Sutras
by
Swami Sivananda
The Divine Life Society
Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh, India
TABLE O !O"TE"TS
!%A$TER I( & $%ALA AD%)A)A
Section * +Sutras 379&365-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# Avrittyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&2-
# Atmatvo.asanadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra ,-
# $ratikadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutra 3-
# Brahmadrishtyadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra 4-
# Adityadimatyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutra 5-
# Asinadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras 7&*8-
# Eka<ratadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutra **-
# A.rayanadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutra *2-
# Tadadhi<amadhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutra *,-
# Itarasams#eshadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutra *3-
# Anarabdhadhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutra *4-
# A<nihotradyadhikaranam1 To.ic *2 +Sutras *5&*7-
# (idya0nanasadhanadhikaranam1 To.ic *, +Sutra *9-
# Itaraksha.anadhikaranam1 To.ic *3 +Sutra *6-
Section 2 +Sutras 367&4*7-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# (a<adhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&2-
# 'anoIdhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra ,-
# Adhyakshadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras 3&5-
# Asrityu.akramadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra 7-
# Samsaravya.adesadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras 9&**-
# $ratishedhadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras *2&*3-
# (a<adi#ayadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutra *4-
# Avibha<adhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutra *5-
# TadokoIdhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutra *7-
# Rasmyadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutras *9&*6-
# Dakshinayanadhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutras 28&2*-
Section , +Sutras 4*9&4,,-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# Archiradyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutra *-
# (ayvadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra 2-
# Tadidadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutra ,-
# Ativahikadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutras 3&5-
# ;aryadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras 7&*3-
# A.ratika#ambanadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras *4&*5-
Section 3 +Sutras 4,3&444-
# Introduction and Syno.sis
# Sam.adyavirbhavadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&,-
# Avibha<ena drishtatvadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra 3-
# Brahmadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras 4&7-
# Sanka#.adhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutras 9&6-
# Abhavadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras *8&*3-
# $radi.adhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras *4&*5-
# /a<advya.aradhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras *7&22-
SE!TIO" *
Introduction
In the Third !ha.ter, the Sadhanas or the means of know#ed<e re#atin< to
$ara (idya +hi<her know#ed<e- and A.ara (idya +#ower know#ed<e- were
discussed= The ourth !ha.ter treats of $ha#a or the Su.reme B#iss of attainment
of Brahman= Other to.ics a#so are dea#t with in it= In the be<innin<, however, a
se.arate discussion concerned with the means of know#ed<e is dea#t with in a few
Adhikaranas= The remainder of the .revious discussion about Sadhanas is
continued in the be<innin<= As the main to.ic of this !ha.ter is that of the resu#ts
or fruits of Brahma (idya, it is ca##ed $ha#a Adhyaya=
Syno.sis
Adhikarana I1 +Sutras *&2- The meditation on the Atman en0oined by
scri.ture is not an act to be accom.#ished once on#y, but is to be re.eated a<ain
and a<ain ti## know#ed<e is attained=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutra ,- The meditator en<a<ed in meditation on Brahman is
to view or com.rehend It as identica# with his own se#f=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutra 3- In $ratiko.asanas where symbo#s of Brahman are
used for meditation as for instance J'ano Brahmetyu.asitaJ, the meditator is not
to consider the $ratika or symbo# as identica# with him=
Adhikarana I(1 +Sutra 4- In the $ratiko.asanas, the $ratikas or symbo#s are
to be viewed as Brahman and not in the reverse way=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutra 5- In meditations on the members of sacrificia# acts, the
idea of divinity is to be su.erim.osed on the members and not vice versa= In the
e>am.#e @uoted for instance the ?d<itha is to be viewed as Aditya, not Aditya as
the ?d<itha=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutras 7&*8- One is to carry on his meditations in a sittin<
.osture= Sri Sankara maintains that the ru#e does not a..#y to those meditations
whose resu#t is Samya<&darsana but the Sutra <ives no hint to that effect=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutra **- The meditations may be carried on at any time,
and in any .#ace, if favourab#e to concentration of mind=
Adhikarana (III1 +Sutra *2- The meditations are to be continued unti# death=
Sri Sankara a<ain ho#ds that those meditations which #ead to Samya<&darsana are
e>ce.ted=
Adhikarana IK1 +Sutra *,- ;now#ed<e of Brahman frees one from the effects
of a## .ast and future evi# deeds=
Adhikarana K1 +Sutra *3- :ood deeds #ikewise cease to affect the knower of
Brahman=
Adhikarana KI1 +Sutra *4- Borks which have not be<un to yie#d resu#ts
+Anarabdhakarya- are a#one destroyed by know#ed<e and not those which have
a#ready be<un to yie#d fruits +Arabdhakarya-=
Adhikarana KII1 +Sutras *5&*7- rom the ru#e enunciated in Adhikarana K are
e>ce.ted such sacrificia# .erformances as are en0oined .ermanent#y +"itya,
ob#i<atory works-, as for instance the A<nihotra, because they .romote the
ori<ination of know#ed<e=
Adhikarana KIII1 +Sutra *9- Sacrificia# works not combined with know#ed<e or
meditations a#so he#. in the ori<ination of know#ed<e=
Adhikarana KI(1 +Sutra *6- On the e>haustion of $rarabdha work throu<h
en0oyment, the knower of Brahman attains oneness with It= The Bho<a or
en0oyment of the Sutra is, accordin< to Sankara, restricted to the .resent
e>istence of the seeker, since the com.#ete know#ed<e obtained by him destroys
the i<norance which otherwise wou#d #ead to future embodiments=
Avrittyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&2-
'editation on Brahman shou#d be continued ti## know#ed<e is attained
Avrittirasakridu.adesat I(=*=* +379-
The re.etition +of hearin<, ref#ection and meditation on Brahman
is necessary- on account of the re.eated instruction by the
scri.tures=
Avrittih1 re.etition, .ractice of meditation on Brahman +is necessary-C
Asakrit1 not on#y once, many times, re.eated#yC ?.adesat1 because of
instruction by the scri.tures=
This Sutra states that constant .ractice of meditation is necessary=
re@uent .ractice of meditation on Brahman is necessary as there is
instruction to that effect in the Sruti=
J(eri#y, the Se#f is to be seen, to be ref#ected u.on, and meditated u.onJ +Bri=
?.= II=3=4-= JThe inte##i<ent as.irant knowin< about Brahman shou#d attain
Brahma&Sakshatkara or direct Se#f&rea#isationJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=2*-= JThat is what we
must search out, that is what we must try to understandJ +!hh= ?.= (III=7=*-=
A doubt arises whether the menta# action +ref#ection and meditation- referred
to in them is to be .reformed once on#y or re.eated#y=
The $urva.akshin maintains that it is to be observed once on#y as in the case
of $raya0a offerin<s and the #ike=
JLet us then re.eat e>act#y as the scri.ture says, i=e=, #et us hear the se#f
once, #et us ref#ect on it once, #et us meditate on it once and nothin< moreJ=
The .resent Sutra refutes this view and says that hearin<, etc=, must be
re.eated ti## one attains know#ed<e of Brahman or direct Se#f&rea#isation, 0ust as
.addy is husked ti## we <et rice= There is the necessity of re.etition ti## there is
dawn of know#ed<e of Brahman= The re.etition of menta# acts of ref#ection and
meditation eventua##y #eads to direct Se#f&rea#isation= Re.etition is to be .erformed
because scri.ture <ives re.eated instruction=
Thus in the !hh= ?.= (I=9=7 the teacher re.eats nine times the sayin<, JTat
Satyam Sa Atma Tat&Tvam&Asi Svetaketo & That Truth, That Atman, That thou art,
O SvetaketuDJ %ere Svetaketu is tau<ht the mystery about Brahman nine times
before he understood it=
The ana#o<y of the $raya0a is fau#ty= It is not to the .oint at a## because there
is the Adrishta which is the resu#t <ives fruit at some .articu#ar future time in the
ne>t wor#d= But here the resu#t is direct#y rea#ised= Direct intution of the Se#f is a
visib#e resu#t to be <ained in this very #ife= Therefore, if the resu#t is not there, the
.rocess must be re.eated, ti## the resu#t is rea#ised= Such acts must be re.eated,
because they subserve a seen .ur.ose=
Bhen we s.eak of the ?.asana of the :uru or the kin< or of the wife thinkin<
about her absent husband, we do not mean a sin<#e act of service or thou<ht but
a continuous series of acts and thou<hts= Be say in ordinary #ife that a .erson is
devoted to a teacher or a kin< if he fo##ows him with a mind steadi#y set on him,
and of a wife whose husband has <one on a 0ourney we say that she thinks of him
on#y if she steadi#y remembers him with #on<in<=
In (edanta, (id +knowin<- and ?.asati +meditatin<- are used as identica#=
That Hknowin<I im.#ies re.etition fo##ows from the fact that in the (edanta te>ts
the terms Hknowin<I and Hmeditatin<I are seen to be used one in the .#ace of the
other= In some .assa<es the term Hknowin<I is used in the be<innin< and the term
Hmeditatin<I in the end1 thus, e=<=, J%e who knows what he knows is thus s.oken
of by meJ and Jteach me sir, the deity which you meditate onJ +!hh= ?.= I(=*=3C
2=2-= In other .#aces the te>t at first s.eaks of Hmeditatin<I and #ater on of
Hknowin<IC thus e=<=, JLet a man meditate on mind as BrahmanJ and J%e who
knows this shines and warms throu<h his ce#ebrity, fame and <#ory of
countenanceJ +!hh= ?.= III=*9=*, 5-=
'editation and ref#ection im.#y a re.etition of the menta# act= Bhen we say
J%e meditates on itJ the continuity of the act of remembrance of the ob0ect is
im.#ied= Simi#ar is the case with ref#ection a#so=
rom this it fo##ows that re.etition has to be .ractised there a#so, where the
te>t <ives instruction once on#y= Bhere, a<ain, the te>t <ives re.eated instruction,
re.eated .erformance of the menta# acts is direct#y intimated=
Bhen the scri.ture s.eakin< about the rice for the sacrifice says, JThe rice
shou#d be beatenJ the sacrificer understands that the in0unction means JThe rice
shou#d be beaten over and over a<ain, ti## it is free from huskJ for no sacrifice can
be .erformed with the rice with its husk on= So when the scri.ture says, JThe Se#f
must be seen throu<h hearin<, ref#ection and meditationJ it means the re.etition
of these menta# .rocesses, so #on< as the Se#f is not seen or rea#ised=
Lin<accha I(=*=2 +376-
And on account of the indicatory mark=
Lin<at1 because of the indicatory mark or si<nC !ha1 and=
The same to.ic is continued=
An indicatory mark a#so shows that re.etition is re@uired= In the Sruti there is
a teachin< of re.eated meditation= It says that one son wi## be born if there is a
sin<#e act of meditation whereas many sons wi## be born if there are many and
re.eated acts of meditation= JRef#ect u.on the rays and you wi## have many sonsJ
+!hh= ?.= I=4=2-= In the Section treatin< of meditation on the ?d<itha the te>t
re.eats the meditation on the ?d<itha viewed as the sun, because its resu#t is one
son on#y and the c#ause JRef#ect u.on his raysJ en0oins a meditation on his
manifo#d rays as #eadin< to the .ossession of many sons= This indicates that the
re.etition of meditation is somethin< we## known= Bhat ho#ds <ood in this case
ho#ds <ood for other meditations a#so=
In the case of first c#ass ty.e of as.irant with intense .urity, dis.assion,
discrimination and e>treme#y subt#e and shar. inte##ect, a sin<#e hearin< of that
<reat sentence JTat&Tvam&AsiJ 'ahavakya wi## be @uite sufficient= Re.etition
wou#d indeed be use#ess for him who is ab#e to rea#ise the true nature of Brahman
even if the 'ahavakya JTat&Tvam&AsiJ is enounced once on#y= But such advanced
sou#s are very rare= Ordinary .eo.#e who are dee.#y attached to the body and
ob0ects cannot attain rea#isation of Truth by a sin<#e enunciation of it= or such
.ersons re.etition is of use= The erroneous notion JI am the bodyJ can be
destroyed on#y throu<h constant meditation or re.eated .ractice= ;now#ed<e can
dawn on#y when there is incessant and fre@uent meditation=
Re.etition has the .ower of annihi#atin< this erroneous idea <radua##y=
'editation shou#d be continued ti## the #ast trace of body idea is destroyed= Bhen
the body consciousness is tota##y annihi#ated, Brahman shines Itse#f in a## Its
.ristine <#ory and .urity= The meditator and the meditated become one=
Individua#ity vanishes in toto=
If re.etition is not necessary the !hhando<ya ?.anishad wou#d not have
tau<ht the truth of the <reat sentence JThou art ThatJ re.eated#y=
In the Taittiriya ?.anishad III=2 we find that Bhri<u <oes severa# times to his
father (aruna and asks him a<ain and a<ain, to be tau<ht the nature of Brahman=
Bhri<u (aruni went to his father (aruna sayin<, JSir, teach me Brahman=J %e
to#d him this, viG=, food, breath, the eye, the ear, mind and s.eech= Then he said
a<ain to him JThat from whence these bein<s are born, that by which when born
they #ive, that into which they enter at their death, try to know that= That is
Brahman=J
This in0unction about re.etition is meant for those on#y who #ack in .urity and
subt#e understandin< and in whom a sin<#e enunciation is not sufficient to <ive
them the direct co<nition of Brahman=
The individua# sou# is tau<ht ste. by ste. to be subt#er than the body, etc=, ti##
it is rea#ised as .ure !haitanya= Bhen we have the know#ed<e of the ob0ect on#y,
we can have fu## know#ed<e of the affirmation about it= In the case of those who
have i<norance or doubt or wron< know#ed<e, the affirmation +Tat&Tvam&Asi-
cannot brin< on immediate rea#isation but to those who have no such obstruction
there wi## be rea#isation= %ence reiteration with reasonin< is on#y for #eadin< us to
fu## (achyartha /nana=
Be observe that men by re.eatin< a<ain and a<ain a sentence which they, on
the first hearin<, had understood im.erfect#y on#y, <radua##y rid themse#ves of a##
misconce.tions and arrive at a fu## understandin< of the true sense=
A## this estab#ishes the conc#usion that, in the case of co<nition of the
Su.reme Brahman, the instruction #eadin< to such rea#isation may be re.eated=
Atmatvo.asanadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra ,-
%e who meditates on the Su.reme Brahman must com.rehend It as identica# with
himse#f
Atmeti tu.a<acchanti <rahayanti cha I(=*=, +398-
But +the Sruti te>ts- acknow#ed<e +Brahman- as the Se#f +of the
meditator- and a#so teach other +to rea#ise It as such-=
Atmeti1 as the Se#fC Tu1 butC ?.a<acchanti1 acknow#ed<e, a..roach,
rea#iseC :rahayanti1 teach, make others com.rehend, instructC !ha1 a#so=
This Sutra .rescribes the .rocess of meditation=
A doubt arises whether Brahman is to be com.rehended by the /iva or the
individua# sou# as identica# with it or se.arate from it=
The o..onent maintains that Brahman is to be com.rehended as different
from the individua# sou# owin< to their essentia# difference, because the individua#
sou# is sub0ect to .ain, sorrow and misery, whi#e the other is not=
The .resent Sutra refutes the view that Brahman is to be com.rehended as
identica# with oneIs se#f= The individua# is essentia##y Brahman on#y= The /ivahood
is due to the #imitin< ad0unct, the interna# or<an or Antahkarana= The /ivahood is
i##usory= The /iva is in rea#ity an embodiment of b#iss= It e>.eriences .ain and
misery on account of the #imitin< ad0unct, Antahkarana=
The /aba#as acknow#ed<e it JI am indeed Thou, O Lord, and Thou art indeed
myse#f=J Other scri.tura# te>ts a#so say the same thin<, JI am Brahman1 Aham
Brahma AsmiJ +Bri= ?.= I=3=*8-= JThy se#f is this which is within a##J +Bri= ?.=
III=3=*-= J%e is thy se#f, the ru#er within, the immorta#J +Bri= ?.= III=7=,-= JThat is
the True, that is the Se#f, That thou artJ +!hh= ?.= (I=9=7-= The te>ts are to be
taken in their .rimary and not secondary sense as in JThe mind is BrahmanJ +!hh=
?.= III=*9=*-, where the te>t .resents the mind as a symbo# for meditation=
Therefore we have to meditate on Brahman as the Se#f=
)ou cannot say that these mean on#y a fee#in< or emotion of oneness, 0ust as
we re<ard an ido# as (ishnu=
In the #atter case we have on#y a sin<#e statement= But in the /aba#a Sruti we
have a doub#e affirmation, i=e=, the identity of Brahman with the individua# sou#
with Brahman= The seemin< difference between /iva and Brahman is unrea#= There
is /ivahood or Samsaritva for the individua# sou# ti## rea#isation is attained=
%ence we must fi> our minds on Brahman as bein< the Se#f=
$ratikadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutra 3-
The symbo#s of Brahman shou#d not be meditated u.on as identica# with the
meditator
"a .ratike na hi sah I(=*=3 +39*-
+The meditator is- not +to see the Se#f- in the symbo#, because
he is not +that-=
"a1 notC $ratike1 in the symbo# +such as Akasa, the sun, the mind, etc=-C
"a1 notC %i1 becauseC Sah1 he=
This and the fo##owin< two Sutras e>amine the va#ue of a $ratika or symbo# in
worshi.=
$ratikas, symbo#s, wou#d not be re<arded as one with us= The meditator
cannot re<ard them as bein< one with him, as they are se.arate from him=
!hhando<ya ?.anishad III=*9=* dec#ares JThe mind is BrahmanJ=
A doubt arises whether in such meditations where the mind is taken as a
symbo# of Brahman, the meditator is to identify himse#f with the mind, as in the
case of the meditation1 JI am Brahman & Aham Brahma AsmiJ=
The $urva.akshin maintains that he shou#d, because the mind is a .roduct of
Brahman and as such it is one with It= So the meditator, the individua# sou#, is one
with Brahman= Therefore, it fo##ows that the meditator a#so is one with the mind,
and hence he shou#d see his Se#f in the mind in this meditation a#so=
The .resent Sutra refutes this= Be must not attach to symbo#s the idea of
Brahman= Because the meditator cannot com.rehend the hetero<eneous symbo#s
as bein< of the nature of the Se#f=
Be must not re<ard $ratikas +symbo#s or ima<es- as bein< ourse#ves= They
are different from ourse#ves and cannot be re<arded as bein< identica# with
ourse#ves= "or can we say that they bein< derivatives of Brahman and Brahman
bein< one with Atman, they are a#so to be treated as one with the Atman= They
can be one with Brahman on#y if they <o above name and form and when they <o
above name and form, they wi## not be $ratikas=
Atman is Brahman on#y when freed from ;artritva +doershi.-= Two <o#d
0ewe#s cannot be identica# but both can be one with <o#d=
If the symbo# mind is rea#ised as identica# with Brahman, then it is no #on<er a
symbo#, 0ust as when we rea#ise an ornament as <o#d, it ceases to be an
ornament= If the meditatin< .erson rea#ises his identity with Brahman, then he is
no #on<er the /iva or the individua# sou#, the meditator= The distinctions of
meditator, meditation and the meditated e>ist in the be<innin< when oneness has
not been rea#ised= Bhenever there is the distinction between the meditator and
the meditated there is the .rocess of meditation= Bhere there is consciousness of
difference, diversity or .#ura#ity, the meditator is @uite distinct from the symbo#=
or these reasons the se#f is not meditated in symbo#s= The meditator is not
to see his se#f in the symbo#=
Brahmadrishtyadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra 4-
Bhen meditatin< on a symbo#, the symbo# shou#d be considered as Brahman and
not Brahman as the symbo#
Brahmadrishtirutkarshat I(=*=4 +392-
+The symbo#- is to be viewed as Brahman +and not in the reverse
way-, on account of the e>a#tation +of the symbo# thereby-=
Brahmadrishtih1 the view of Brahman, the view in the #i<ht of BrahmanC
?tkarshat1 on account of su.eriority, because of su.er&eminence=
The same discussion is continued=
In meditations on symbo#s as in JThe mind is BrahmanJ, JThe sun is
BrahmanJ, the @uestion is whether the symbo# is to be considered as Brahman, or
Brahman as the symbo#=
This Sutra dec#ares that the symbo#s, the mind, the sun, etc=, are to be
re<arded as Brahman and not in the reverse way= Because you can attain
e#evation or .ro<ress by #ookin< u.on an inferior thin< as a su.erior thin< and not
in the reverse way= As you have to beho#d Brahman in everythin< and free
yourse#f from the idea of differentiation and diversity, you have to contem.#ate on
these symbo#s as Brahman=
To view the symbo# as Brahman is @uite .ro.er, but by reversin< the order to
view Brahman in the #i<ht of the symbo# is not 0ustifiab#e, because of su.ereminence
of Brahman over the symbo#=
It wou#d not serve any .ur.ose to think of Brahman in the #i<ht of a #imited
thin<C because it wou#d be on#y to de<rade the Infinite Lord to the status of a
finite thin<= The symbo# shou#d be raised hi<her in thou<ht to the #eve# of Brahman
but Brahman shou#d not be brou<ht down to the #eve# of the symbo#=
Adityadimatyadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutra 5-
In meditation on the members of sacrificia# acts the idea of divinity is to be
su.erim.osed on the members and not in the reverse way
Adityadimatayaschan<a u.a.atteh I(=*=5 +39,-
And the ideas of the sun, etc=, are to be su.erim.osed- on the
subordinate members +of sacrificia# acts-, because +in that way a#one
the statement of the scri.tures wou#d be- consistent=
Adityadimatayah1 the idea of the sun, etc=C !ha1 andC An<a1 in a
subordinate member +of the sacrificia# acts-C ?.a.atteh1 because of consistency,
because of its reasonab#eness=
A .articu#ar instance is cited to confirm the .recedin< Sutra=
J%e who burns u. these +sun-, #et a man meditate u.on that which shines
yonder as the ?d<ithaJ +!hh= ?.= I=,=*-= JOne ou<ht to meditate u.on the Saman
as fivefo#dJ +!hh= ?.= II=2=*-= JLet a man meditate on the sevenfo#d Saman in
s.eechJ +!hh= ?.= II=9=*-= JThis earth is the Rik, fire is SamanJ +!hh= ?.= I=5=*-=
In meditations connected with sacrificia# acts as <iven in the te>ts @uoted,
how is the meditation to be .erformedL Is the sun to be viewed as the ?d<itha or
the ?d<itha as the sunL Between the ?d<itha and the sun there is nothin< to
indicate which is su.erior, as in the .revious Sutra, where Brahman bein< .reeminent,
the symbo# was viewed as Brahman=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that the members of sacrificia# acts as the ?d<itha
are to be viewed as the sun and so on, for the fruit of the sacrificia# act is
increased by so doin<= The sacrificia# work becomes successfu#= A scri.tura#
.assa<e, viG=, !hh= ?.= I=*=*8 JBhatever one .erforms with know#ed<e, faith and
?.anishad is more .owerfu#J e>.ress#y dec#ares that know#ed<e causes the
success of sacrificia# work=
If we view the ?d<itha as the sun, it under<oes a certain ceremonia#
.urification and thereby contributes to the A.urva or Adrishta, the invisib#e fruit of
the who#e sacrifice, which #eads to ;arma Samriddhi +the fu#ness of the ;arma-= If
the sun is viewed as ?d<itha in the reverse way the .urification of the sun by this
meditation wi## not contribute to the A.urva, as the sun is not a member of the
sacrificia# act=
The members of the sacrificia# acts are to be viewed as the sun, etc=, if the
dec#aration of the scri.tures that the meditations increase the resu#t of the
sacrifice is to come true=
The sun, etc=, are hi<her +?tkarsha- than ?d<itha because the sun, etc=, are
the fruits attained by ;arma= Therefore, the ru#e of ?tkarsha&buddhi referred to
above needs that we must re<ard and worshi. ?d<itha, etc=, as the sun, etc=
If you say that if we re<ard the sun, etc=, as the ?d<itha, the former bein< of
the nature of ;arma wi## <ive the fruit, that wou#d be wron< because ?.asana
itse#f is a ;arma and wi## <ive the fruit=
The ?d<itha shou#d be raised hi<her in thou<ht to the #eve# of the sun, but not
the sun brou<ht down to that of the ?d<itha=
In this way a meditator shou#d raise himse#f to the #eve# of Brahman by
thinkin< himse#f as Brahman, but shou#d not brin< Brahman down to the #eve# of
the individua# sou#=
Asinadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras 7&*8-
One is to meditate sittin<
Asinah sambhavat I(=*=7 +393-
Sittin< +a man is to meditate- on account of the .ossibi#ity=
Asinah1 sittin<C Sambhavat1 on account of the .ossibi#ity=
The .osture of the meditator whi#e en<a<ed in meditation is now discussed=
In ;arman<a ?.asanas there is no @uestion as to whether they shou#d be
done sittin< or standin< as they de.end on the .articu#ar ;arma= In .ure
rea#isation or .erfect intuition there cou#d be no such @uestion as it de.ends on
the ob0ect of rea#isation= In other ?.asanas sittin< is necessary for meditation=
The $urva.akshin here maintains that as the meditation is somethin< menta#
there can be no restriction as to the attitude of the body=
This Sutra says that one has to meditate sittin<, because it is not .ossib#e to
meditate whi#e standin< or #yin< down= Sittin< is necessary for meditation because
?.asana is the continuity of menta# state and such continuity wi## not e>ist when
one wa#ks or runs because then the mind wi## attend to the body and cannot
concentrate, or when one #ies down because then he wi## be soon over.owered by
s#ee.=
In ?.asana one has to concentrate oneIs mind on a sin<#e ob0ect= This is not
.ossib#e if one is standin< or #yin<= The mind of a standin< man is directed on
maintainin< the body in an erect .osition and therefore inca.ab#e of ref#ection on
any subt#e matter=
A sittin< .erson may easi#y avoid these severa# occurrences and is, therefore,
in a .osition to carry on his meditation= The sittin< .osture contributes that
com.osure of mind which is the sine @ua non of meditation= 'editation is to be
.ractised in a sittin< .osture, as in that case on#y meditation is .racticab#e=
Dhyanaccha I(=*=9 +394-
And on account of meditation=
Dhyanat1 on account of meditationC !ha1 and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 7 is adduced=
urther, such continuity of thou<ht is Dhyana or meditation= It can come on#y
when the #imbs are not active and the mind is ca#m=
?.asana +worshi.- bein< main#y of the nature of concentration, shou#d be
.ractised in a sittin< .osture, which is conducive to concentration= !oncentration
bein< an uninterru.ted and unintermittent current of thou<ht sent towards a
.articu#ar ob0ect, the sittin< .osture becomes indis.ensab#e=
The word H?.asanaI a#so denotes e>act#y what meditation means, that is
concentratin< on a sin<#e ob0ect with a fi>ed #ook, and without any movement of
the #imbs= This is .ossib#e on#y in a sittin< .osture=
'editation denotes a #en<thened carryin< of the same train of ideas= Be
ascribe thou<htfu#ness to those whose mind is concentrated on one and the same
ob0ect whi#e their #ook is fi>ed and their #imbs do not move= Be say that Sri
Ramakrishna is thou<htfu#= "ow such thou<htfu#ness is easy for those who sit= The
wife sits and thinks dee.#y over her husband <one in a distant 0ourney=
Dhyana or meditation is thinkin< on one sub0ect continuous#y, without the
inrush of ideas incon<ruous with the sub0ect of thou<ht= Such meditation is
.ossib#e in a sittin< .osture on#y and not whi#e #yin< down or standin< etc=
Therefore, a sittin< .osture shou#d be ado.ted both for .rayers as we## as for
meditation=
The distraction of mind is minimised when one meditates in a sittin< .osture=
Be, therefore, conc#ude herefrom a#so that meditation is the occu.ation of a
sittin< .erson=
Ach#atvam cha.ekshya I(=*=6 +395-
And with reference to immobi#ity +the scri.tures ascribe
meditativeness to the earth-=
Acha#atvam1 immobi#ity, stabi#ity, steadinessC !ha1 and, indeedC
A.ekshya1 referrin< to, aimin< at, .ointin< to=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 7 is continued=
The word HchaI has the force of HindeedI= In the !hhando<ya ?.anishad the
root HDhyanaI or meditation is em.#oyed in the sense of motion#essness=
Bith reference to the immobi#ity of the earth in ordinary eye, the scri.ture
fancies the earth as bein< en<a<ed in concentration, as if it remains fi>ed in s.ace
in the act of .ious meditation= It su<<ests that such a steady a..#ication of the
mind can be attained by meditatin< on#y in a sittin< .osture=
If the body is at rest, there is rest for the mind a#soC if the body is in motion,
i=e=, rest#ess, the mind too becomes rest#ess=
In the .assa<e, JThe earth meditates as it wereJ, meditativeness is attributed
to earth on account of its immobi#ity or steadiness= This a#so he#.s us to infer that
meditation is .ossib#e in one when he is sittin< and not whi#e standin< or wa#kin<=
Steadiness accom.anies meditation= Steadiness of body and mind is .ossib#e
on#y whi#e sittin< and not whi#e standin< or wa#kin<=
Smaranti cha I(=*=*8 +397-
The Smriti .assa<es a#so say +the same thin<-=
Smaranti1 the Smriti te>ts say, it is mentioned in the SmritisC !ha1 a#so=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 7 is conc#uded=
Authoritative authors a#so teach in their Smritis that a sittin< .osture
subserve the act of meditation, e=<=, J%avin< made a firm seat for oneIs se#f on a
.ure s.otJ +Bha<avad :ita (I=**-=
or the same reason the )o<a&Sastra teaches different .ostures, viG=,
$admasana, Siddhasana, etc=
Eka<ratadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutra **-
There is no restriction of .#ace with re<ard to meditation
)atraika<rata tatraviseshat I(=3=** +399-
Bherever concentration of mind +is attained-, there +it is to be
.ractised-, there bein< no s.ecification +as to .#ace-=
)atra1 where, whereverC Eka<rata1 concentration of mindC Tatra1 thereC
Aviseshat1 for want of any s.ecification, it not bein< s.ecifica##y mentioned, as
there is no s.ecia# direction in Sruti=
There are no s.ecific ru#es about the time or .#ace of meditation= Bhenever
and wherever the mind attains concentration, we shou#d meditate= The Sruti says
J'anoInuku#eJ & where the mind fee#s favourab#e=
Any .#ace is <ood if concentration is attained in that .#ace= The scri.tures
say, JLet a man meditate at whatever time, in whatever .#ace and facin< whatever
re<ion, he may with ease mana<e to concentrate his mind=J
But .#aces that are c#ean, free from .ebb#es, fire, dust, noises, standin<
water, and the #ike are desirab#e, as such .#aces are con<enia# to meditation=
But there are no fi>ed ru#es to .#ace, time and direction=
A.rayanadhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutra *2-
'editations shou#d be continued ti## death
Aa .rayanat tatra.i hi drishtam I(=*=*2 +396-
Ti## death +ti## one attains 'oksha- +meditations have to be
re.eated-C for then a#so it is thus seen in scri.ture=
Aa .rayanat1 ti## death, ti## 'uktiC Tatra1 there, thenC A.i1 a#so, evenC %i1
becauseC Drishtam1 is seen +in the Sruti-=
This Sutra says ?.asana +meditation, worshi.- is to be observed ti## death=
Borshi. is to be continued ti## death, ti## one <ets 'ukti, because it is found in
Sruti, that the worshi..er, continuin< so ti## death, attains the wor#d of Brahman
after death=
The first to.ic of the .resent !ha.ter has estab#ished that the meditation on
the Atman or Brahman en0oined by the scri.tures is to be re.eated ti## know#ed<e
dawns=
The @uestion is now taken u. about other meditations which are .ractised for
attainin< certain resu#ts=
The $urva.akshin maintains that such meditations can be sto..ed after a
certain time= They shou#d sti## <ive fruits #ike sacrifices .erformed on#y once=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that they are to be continued u. to death,
because the Sruti and Smriti say so= JBith whatever thou<ht he .asses away from
this wor#dJ +Sat= Br= K=5=,=*-= JRememberin< whatever form of bein< he in the end
#eaves this body, into that same form he even .asses, assimi#ated its bein<J
+Bha<avad :ita (III=5-= JAt the time of death with unmoved mindJ +Bha<avad :ita
(III=*8-= JLet a man at the time of death, take refu<e with this triadJ +!hh= ?.=
III=*7=5-= JBhatever his thou<ht at the time of death with that he <oes into $rana
and the $rana united with #i<ht, to<ether with the individua# se#f, #eads on to the
wor#d as conceived at the moment of deathJ +$ras= ?.= I(=2=*8-= This a#so fo##ows
from the com.arison to the cater.i##ar +Bri= ?.= I(=3=,- or #eech= The #eech takes
ho#d of another ob0ect before it #eaves an ob0ect=
One cannot entertain such a thou<ht at the time of de.arture of $rana from
this body without .ractice for the who#e #ife=
Therefore, meditations must be .ractised u. to death=
Tadadhi<amadhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutra *,-
;now#ed<e of Brahman frees one from a## .ast and future sins
Tadadhi<ama uttara.urva<hayoras#eshavinasau
tadvya.adesat I(=*=*, +368-
On the attainment of this +viG=, Brahman- +there takes .#ace- the
non&c#in<in< and the destruction of #ater and ear#ier sinsC because
it is so dec#ared by the scri.tures=
Tadadhi<ama1 when that is rea#isedC ?ttara.urva<hayoh1 of the
subse@uent and the .revious sinsC As#eshavinasau1 non&c#in<in< and
destructionC Tadvya.adesat1 because Sruti has dec#ared so=
The resu#t of know#ed<e of Brahman or the state of /ivanmukti is now
discussed=
The su..#ement to the Third !ha.ter is finished herewith= Bith the #ast
Adhikarana the to.ics connected with the Third !ha.ter have come to an end=
rom this Adhikarana the ourth !ha.ter .ro.er be<ins= The ourth !ha.ter is the
$ha#adhyaya, i=e=, the !ha.ter re#atin< to the fruits of Brahma (idya=
The $urva.akshin maintains that emanci.ation is attained in s.ite of
know#ed<e, on#y after one has e>.erienced effects of oneIs sins committed before
en#i<htenment because the Smritis dec#are J;arma is not destroyed before it has
yie#ded its effects=J The #aw of ;arma is unre#entin<=
This Sutra says that when a .erson attains know#ed<e a## his .ast sins are
destroyed and future sins do not c#in< to him=
;arma has doubt#ess its .ower of brin<in< its effects but that .ower can be
nu##ified and overcome by know#ed<e of Brahman= $rayaschittas +e>.iatory acts-
have the .ower of c#eansin< sin= Sa<una&Brahma&(idya c#eanses a## sins= "ir<una&
Brahma&(idya .uts an end to a<ency or doershi. and destroys a## sins= %ence no
future doershi. can come to him and the effects of the entire .ast doershi. vanish
when know#ed<e dawns= Otherwise there wi## be no #iberation as ;arma is Anadi
+be<innin<#ess-= If it is said that emanci.ation is caused #ike the fruits of ;arma, it
wi## be transient and not eterna#=
urther, the resu#ts of /nana must be direct and immediate= So a## sins vanish
when one attains know#ed<e of Brahman or Se#f&rea#isation=
The scri.ture dec#ares that future sins which mi<ht be .resumed to c#in< to
the a<ent do not c#in< to him who knows= JAs water does not c#in< to #otus #eaf, so
no evi# deed c#in<s to him who knows thisJ +!hh= ?.= I(=*3=,-= Simi#ar#y scri.ture
dec#ares the destruction of .revious accumu#ated evi# deeds= JAs the fibres of the
Ishika reed when thrown into the fire are burnt, thus a## sins are burntJ +!hh= ?.=
(=23=,-= The e>tinction of works the fo##owin< .assa<e a#so dec#ares1 JThe fetter of
the heart is broken, a## doubts are so#ved, a## his works are destroyed when %e
who is hi<h and #ow is seenJ +'un= ?.= II=2=9-=
As re<ards the verses which say that no ;arma is destroyed, but by
.roducin< its effects, that ho#ds <ood in the case of ordinary men who are in
i<norance and who have no know#ed<e of Brahman= It does not ho#d <ood in the
case of those en#i<htened sa<es who have know#ed<e of Brahman=
The knower of Brahman fee#s and rea#ises thus1 JThat Brahman whose nature
it is to be at a## times neither a<ent not en0oyer, and which is thus o..osed in
bein< to the sou#Is .revious#y estab#ished state of a<ency and en0oyment that
Brahman am IC hence I neither was an a<ent, nor an en0oyer at any .revious
time, nor am I such at the .resent time, nor sha## I be such at any future time=J
In this way on#y the fina# emanci.ation is .ossib#eC for otherwise, i=e=, if the
chain of works which has been runnin< on from eternity cou#d not be cut short,
#iberation cou#d never take .#ace= Emanci.ation cannot de.end on #oca#ity, time
and s.ecia# causes, as the fruit of works isC because therefrom it wou#d fo##ow that
the fruit of know#ed<e is non&.ermanent=
Therefore, it is an estab#ished conc#usion that there resu#ts the e>tinction of a##
sins on attainin< Brahman=
Itarasams#eshadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutra *3-
Simi#ar#y <ood work does not affect the knower of Brahman
Itarasya.yevamasams#eshah .ate tu I(=*=*3 +36*-
Thus in the same way, there is non&c#in<in< of the other +i=e=,
$unya or virtue, <ood works- a#soC but at death +#iberation, i=e=,
(ideha&'ukti is certain-=
Itarasya1 of the otherC A.i1 a#soC Evam1 thus, in the same wayC
Asams#eshah1 non&c#in<in<C $ate1 at deathC Tu1 but, indeed=
Discussion on the conse@uence of Brahma /nana +the know#ed<e of Brahman-
is continued=
As in the case of sin, so merit or virtue cannot attach to the knower of
Brahman= Otherwise such merit wi## be an obstruction to #iberation= Bhen doershi.
<oes, merit must <o #ike sin= The resu#t of merit is be#ow that of /nana= 'erit and
sin have to be #eft behind= Bhen both are transcended, #iberation is sure at death=
A knower of Brahman has no idea of a<ency= %e is not touched by <ood
works a#so= %e <oes beyond virtue and vice= J%e overcomes bothJ +Bri= ?.=
I(=3=22-=
Even there where the te>t mentions evi# deeds on#y, we must consider <ood
deeds a#so to be im.#ied therein, because the resu#ts of the #atter a#so are inferior
to the resu#ts of know#ed<e=
'erit a#so is a cause of bonda<e and stands in the way of #iberation= or a
knower of Brahman a## his accumu#ated merits and demerits are destroyed= Thus
his merits and sins bein< tota##y ino.erative, his sa#vation necessari#y fo##ows at
death=
Anarabdhadhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutra *4-
Borks which have not be<un to yie#d resu#ts are a#one destroyed by know#ed<e
and not those which have a#ready be<un to bear fruits
Anarabdhakarye eva tu .urve tadavadheh I(=*=*4 +362-
But on#y those former +works- whose effects have not yet be<un
+are destroyed by know#ed<eC because the scri.ture states- that
+i=e=, the death of the body- to be the term=
Anarabdhakarye1 in the case of those works, the effects of which have not
be<un to o.erate, i=e= to yie#d fruits or resu#tsC Eva1 on#yC Tu1 butC $urve1 former
worksC Tadavadheh1 that +death- bein< the #imit, because of waitin< ti## death=
Discussion on the conse@uence of Brahma /nana is continued=
In the #ast two Adhikaranas +to.ics- it has been stated that a## the .ast works
of a knower of Brahman are destroyed= $ast works are of two kinds, viG=, Sanchita
+accumu#ated works- those which have not yet be<un to yie#d resu#ts and
$rarabdha, i=e=, those works whose effects have a#ready be<un to o.erate and
have .roduced the body throu<h which the as.irant has attained Brahma /nana or
know#ed<e of Brahman=
The $urva.akshin maintains that both these are destroyed, because the
'undaka ?.anishad says that a## his works are destroyed= J%e thereby overcomes
bothJ= This refers to a## works without any distinction, a## works whatever must be
re<arded to under<o destruction=
urther the sa<e who has attained Se#f&rea#isation is a non&doer= %e has no
idea or fee#in< of a<ency= %is idea of non&doershi. is the same with reference to
Sanchita or $rarabdha= %ence both these works are destroyed when one attains
know#ed<e of Brahman or the Su.reme Se#f=
This Sutra refutes this view and dec#ares that on#y Sanchita ;armas or
accumu#ated works whose fruits have not yet be<un to o.erate are destroyed by
know#ed<e but not the $rarabdha= $rarabdha ;armas are destroyed on#y by bein<
worked out= Those works whose effects have be<un and whose resu#ts have been
ha#f en0oyed, i=e=, those very works to which there is due the .resent state of
e>istence in which the know#ed<e of Brahman arises and not destroyed by that
know#ed<e= This view is founded on the scri.tura# .assa<e Jor him there is de#ay
on#y as #on< as he is not de#ivered from this body, and then he is one with
BrahmanJ +!hh= ?.= (I=*3=2-, which fi>es the death of the body as the term of the
statement of the attainment of fina# re#ease=
If it were not so, then there wou#d be no teachers of know#ed<e=
Therefore, the $rarabdha ;armas are not destroyed by know#ed<e=
If it is said that fire must destroy a## seeds, the re.#y is that what has be<un
to o.erate, #ike a .otterIs whee#, must have its o.eration= 'ithya /nana +the
erroneous know#ed<e of mu#ti.#icity- thou<h ne<ated by /nana, wi## .ersist for a
whi#e +Badhitanuvritti-=
Each manIs inner rea#isation cannot be denied or dis.uted by another= This
truth is dec#ared by the descri.tion of the Sthita.ra0na in the Bha<avad :ita=
The ;now#ed<e of Brahman in a knower or a sa<e cannot check the
$rarabdha ;arma, 0ust as an archer has no contro# over the arrows a#ready
dischar<ed, which comes to rest on#y when its momentum is e>hausted= The
#iberated sa<e must kee. u. this body as #on< as the momentum of $rarabdha
;armas #asts= Bhen the $rarabdha ;armas are worked out or e>hausted the body
fa##s off and he attains (ideha&'ukti or disembodied sa#vation=
The fina# discussion, therefore, is that know#ed<e effects the destruction of
those works on#y whether <ood or evi#, whose effects have not yet be<un to
o.erate=
A<nihotradyadhikaranam1 To.ic *2 +Sutras *5&*7-
$ermanent ob#i<atory works en0oined by the (edas for different Ashramas are not
to be <iven u.
A<nihotradi tu tatkaryayaiva taddarsanat I(=*=*5 +36,-
But the A<nihotra and the #ike +tend- towards the same effect,
know#ed<e +#iberation-, because that is seen from the scri.tures=
A<nihotradi1 dai#y A<nihotra, etc=, dai#y offerin< of ob#ations to the
.er.etua##y maintained fireC Tu1 butC Tatkarya1 tend towards the same resu#t as
that +know#ed<e-C Eva1 on#yC Taddarsanat1 that bein< seen from the scri.tures=
Borks of .ermanent ob#i<ation +"itya ;armas- en0oined by the (edas such as
A<nihotra tend towards the same effect, i=e=, have the same effect as know#ed<e=
Because this is dec#ared by the te>ts such as the fo##owin<, JBrahmanas seek to
know him by the study of the (edas, by sacrifices, by <iftsJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=22-=
But an ob0ection is raised as know#ed<e and works have different effects, it is
not .ossib#e that they shou#d have one and the same effect=
It is observed, we re.#y, that curd and .oison whose ordinary effects are fever
and death have for their effects satisfaction and a f#ourishin< state of the body, if
the curd is mi>ed with su<ar and the .oison taken whi#e certain 'antras are
recited= Even so works if 0oined with know#ed<e may effect fina# emanci.ation=
The $urva.akshin maintains that even ob#i<atory works +"itya ;armas- such
as A<nihotra which do not <ive any fruits but which are en0oined by the scri.tures
as a sort of disci.#ine are destroyed by the dawn of know#ed<e, 0ust as other
works done with desires, because the idea of non&a<ency of the knower of
Brahman is the same with res.ect to both=
This Sutra refutes this view and dec#ares that the re<u#ar ob#i<atory works
are not destroyed=
Ob#i<atory duties e>ercise a .urifyin< inf#uence on the heart and are he#.fu#
to the ori<ination of know#ed<e= They contribute indirect#y to know#ed<e i=e=,
#iberation= They subserve fina# emanci.ation immediate#y= Therefore, their resu#ts
.ersist ti## death=
AtoInya.i hi ekeshamubhayoh I(=*=*7 +363-
or +there is- a#so +a c#ass of <ood works- other than this,
accordin< to some= +There is a<reement- of both +teachers, /aimini
and Baadarayana- +as to the fate of those works-=
Atah1 from thisC Anya1 differentC A.i1 a#soC %i1 because, indeedC
Ekesham1 of some +Sakhas-C ?bhayoh1 of both=
There is a#so a c#ass of <ood works different from works of .ermanent
ob#i<ation +"itya ;armas #ike the dai#y A<nihotra and the #ike- which are
.erformed with a view to a fruit= The fo##owin< statement of some Sakhas is made
with reference to these1 J%is friends <et his <ood works and enemies his evi#
actions=J
Both teachers, /aimini and Baadarayana, are of the o.inion that works
.erformed for the fu#fi#ment of some s.ecia# desire do not contribute towards the
ori<ination of true know#ed<e=
(idya0nanasadhanadhikaranam1 To.ic *, +Sutra *9-
Sacrificia# works not combined with know#ed<e or meditation a#so he#. in the
ori<ination of know#ed<e
)adeva vidyayeti hi I(=3=*9 +364-
Because the te>t Jwhatever he does with know#ed<eJ intimates
this=
)adeva1 whateverC (idyaya1 with know#ed<eC Iti1 thus, this, soC %i1
because=
"itya ;armas +re<u#ar ob#i<atory works- which he#. the ori<ination of
know#ed<e are of two kinds, viG=, those combined with meditations and those
unaccom.anied by know#ed<e or meditations=
The $urva.akshin maintains that work combined with meditations he#.s the
ori<ination of know#ed<e as it is su.erior to work done without meditation=
The .resent Sutra refutes it and says that in the statement JThat a#one which
is .erformed with know#ed<e becomes more .owerfu#J +!hh= ?.= I=*=*8- the
com.arative de<ree indicates that works done without know#ed<e, not combined
with meditations are not a#to<ether use#ess, thou<h the other c#ass is more
.owerfu#=
Even ordinary A<nihotra has (irya +.ower- but A<nihotra confirmed by (idya
+?.asana- is more .otent +(iryavattara-= A<nihotra if accom.anied by know#ed<e
.ossesses a <reater ca.abi#ity of ori<inatin< know#ed<e and, therefore, is of
su.erior causa# efficiency with re<ard to the rea#isation of the se#f, whi#e the same
works if devoid of know#ed<e .ossess no such su.eriority=
Itaraksha.anadhikaranam1 To.ic *3 +Sutra *6-
After en0oyin< the fruits of $rarabdha ;arma the knower becomes one with
Brahman
Bho<enatvitare ksha.ayitva sam.adyate I(=*=*6 +365-
But havin< e>hausted by en0oyment the other two works +viG=, <ood
and evi# works, that have be<un to yie#d fruits-, he becomes one with
Brahman=
Bho<ena1 by en0oymentC Tu1 butC Itare1 of the other two works +merit and
demerit-C ;sha.ayitva1 havin< e>haustedC Sam.adyate1 becomes united with
Brahman, becomes one with Brahman, obtains, 0oins=
This Sutra conc#udes with the answer to the @uestion JBhat becomes of the
$rarabdha .ortion of the i##umined sou#Is work, which has brou<ht his .resent #ife
into e>istence=J
It has been shown that a## <ood and evi# deeds whose effects have not yet
be<un are destroyed by the .ower of know#ed<e of Brahman= JThe two others on
the other hand, i=e=, those <ood and evi# works whose effects have be<un, a man
has at first to e>haust by the fruition of their conse@uences, and then he becomes
one with Brahman=J This a..ears from scri.tura# .assa<es such as Jfor him there
is de#ay so #on< as he is not de#ivered from the body, then he wi## become one with
BrahmanJ +!hh= ?.= (I=*3=2-, and JBein< Brahman he <oes to BrahmanJ +Bri= ?.=
I(=3=5-=
The $urva.akshin ar<ues that the knower of Brahman wi## continue to see
diversity even after death, 0ust as he sees .#ura#ity whi#e #ivin<1 ana#o<ous#y to the
visua# a..earance of a doub#e moon which may continue even after it has been
co<nised as fa#se= %e does not attain oneness with Brahman even after death=
This Sutra refutes it and dec#ares that the $rarabdha works are destroyed
throu<h en0oyment= Thou<h the knower of Brahman has to remain in this wor#d as
a #iberated sa<e or /ivanmukta, yet he attains oneness with Brahman at death=
Bhen the $rarabdha ;armas are e>hausted by bein< worked out, he no
#on<er beho#ds any .#ura#ity on account of the absence of any cause #ike the
$rarabdha= %e certain#y becomes one with Brahman as a## works inc#udin<
$rarabdha are destroyed at death=
Thus Brahma /nana destroys ;armas +Sanchita- which have not be<un to
bear fruit= Those which have be<un to bear fruit +$rarabdha- must be worked out
by en0oyment= There is no esca.e even on the .art of the en#i<htened sou# from
the o.eration of the #aw of $rarabdha=
The $urva.akshin a<ain ar<ues that a new a<<re<ate of works wi## ori<inate a
new fruition= "ot so, we re.#yC the seed of a## such fruition is destroyed= Bhat on
the death of the body, cou#d ori<inate a new .eriod of fruition, is on#y a new set of
works and works de.end on fa#se know#ed<e= But such fa#se know#ed<e is tota##y
destroyed by .erfect know#ed<e of Brahman=
Bhen, therefore, the works whose effects have be<un are destroyed, the
#iberated sa<e who knows Brahman necessari#y enters into the state of .erfected
iso#ation or Abso#ute ;aiva#ya=
Thus ends the irst $ada +Section *- of the ourth !ha.ter +Adhyaya I(- of
the Brahma Sutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
SE!TIO" 2
Introduction
In the .revious Section it was shown that one attains /ivanmukti when the
Sanchita ;armas or the accumu#ated works which have not as yet be<un to bear
fruits are destroyed, and (idehamukti at death when the $rarabdha ;arma is
destroyed=
This Section is devoted to the mode of de.arture of the en#i<htened and the
unen#i<htened sou#s at the time of #eavin< the body= The .ath of the <ods, the
Devayana, by which the knower of the Sa<una Brahman trave#s after death, is
described= The Sutrakara be<ins by e>.#ainin< on the basis of scri.tura#
statements the successive ste.s by which the sou# .asses out of the body at
death= The de.arture of the sou# is the same in the case of him who .ossesses the
#ower know#ed<e and of him who is destitute of a## know#ed<e=
Syno.sis
Adhikarana I1 +Sutras *&2- At the time of death of the knower of Sa<una
Brahman, the functions of the or<ans <et mer<ed in mind=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutra ,- At the time of death of the knower of Sa<una
Brahman, the function of the mind is mer<ed in the $rana=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutras 3&5- At the time of death of the knower of Sa<una
Brahman, the function of $rana is mer<ed in the individua# sou# or /iva=
Adhikarana I(1 +Sutra 7- The mode of de.arture from the body u. to the way
is common to both a knower of Sa<una Brahman and an ordinary man= Both .ass
throu<h the same sta<es u. to the entrance of the sou# to<ether with the subt#e
e#ements and so on into the "adis=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutras 9&**- The mer<in< of fire, etc=, of death in the %i<hest
Deity is not abso#ute mer<in<= A com.#ete absor.tion of the e#ements takes .#ace
on#y when fina# emanci.ation is attained=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutras *2&*3- The $ranas of a knower of the "ir<una
Brahman do not de.art from the body at death=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutra *4- The or<ans of the knower of the "ir<una Brahman
<et mer<ed in It at death=
Adhikarana (III1 +Sutra *5- The ;a#as of the knower of the "ir<una Brahman
attain abso#ute non&distinction with Brahman at death=
Adhikarana IK1 +Sutra *7- The sou# of the knower of the Sa<una Brahman
comes to the heart at the time of death and thence <oes out throu<h the
Sushumna= The sou# of the i<norant man <oes out by means of some other "adi=
Adhikarana K1 +Sutras *9&*6- The de.artin< sou# of a knower of the Sa<una
Brahman fo##ows the rays of the sun after death which e>ist at ni<ht as we## as
durin< day, and <oes to Brahma#oka=
Adhikarana KI1 +Sutras 28&2*- The sou# of the knower of the Sa<una
Brahman <oes to Brahma#oka even if he dies durin< the outhern course of the sun
+Dakshinayana-=
(a<adhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&2-
At the time of death the functions of the or<ans are mer<ed in the mind
(an<manasi darsanacchabdacca I(=2=* +367-
S.eech is mer<ed in mind, because it is so seen, and there are
scri.tura# statements +to that effect-=
(ak1 s.eechC 'anasi1 in the mindC Darsanat1 because it is so seen or
observed, because of the scri.tura# dec#arationC Sabdat1 because of the word of
the (edas, because of the statement of the SmritiC !ha1 a#so, and=
This Sutra says that s.eech mer<es in the mind at death=
Ti## now /ivanmukti or #iberation whi#e #ivin< is described= "ow the attainment
of Brahma#oka by <oin< a#on< the .ath of <ods +Devayana- after death is <oin< to
be described=
About the .rocess of dyin< we have the fo##owin< .assa<e, JBhen a man
de.arts from here his s.eech mer<es in his mind, his mind in $rana, $rana in fire
and fire in the %i<hest DeityJ +!hh= ?.= (I=5=*-=
"ow a doubt here arises whether the or<an of s.eech as such <ets mer<ed in
the mind or on#y its function=
The $urva.akshin maintains that the or<an itse#f is mer<ed in the mind as
there is no mention in the te>t about the function of s.eech <ettin< mer<ed=
The .resent Sutra refutes this view and decides that on#y the function of the
or<an of s.eech is mer<ed in the mind=
The mer<in< is a#ways of the effect in the cause= S.eech is not an effect of
the mind= Therefore, the or<an of s.eech cannot mer<e in the mind= But (rittis
+functiona# manifestations- can mer<e in somethin< which is not its cause= or
instance, heat which is the function of fire ori<inates from fue# and e>tin<uished in
water=
Be see the manifestation of s.eech ceasin< in a dyin< man, thou<h his mind
is sti## functionin<= "one sees the or<an of s.eech bein< mer<ed in the mind=
So e>.erience a#so teaches that the function of s.eech and not the or<an
itse#f <ets mer<ed in mind=
Ata eva cha sarvanyanu I(=2=2 +369-
And for the same reason a## +sense&or<ans- fo##ow +mind, i=e=,
<et their functions mer<ed in it-=
Ata eva1 henceC !ha1 and, a#soC Sarvani1 a## +or<ans-C Anu
+Anu<acchanti-1 after +fo##ow-=
This Sutra intimates that the functions of a## the or<ans mer<e in the mind at
the time of death=
or the same reasons +<enera# e>.erience and corroborative statement of
Sruti- as stated in Sutra *, the functions of a## the other sense&or<ans fo##ow, i=e=,
<et mer<ed in the mind= JThe fire is veri#y the ?dana, for he whose #i<ht has <one
out comes to a new birth with his senses mer<ed in the mindJ +$ras= ?.= III=6-=
Like the s.eech it is observed that the eye and other senses discontinue their
functions, whi#e the mind continues to act= Because the or<ans themse#ves cannot
be absorbed, and because the te>t admits of that inter.retation we conc#ude that
the different or<ans fo##ow after, i=e=, are mer<ed in the mind on#y as far as their
functions are concerned=
'anoIdhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra ,-
The function of mind is mer<ed in $rana
Tanmanah .rana uttarat I(=2=, +366-
That mind +is mer<ed- in $rana +as is seen- from the subse@uent
c#ause +of the Sruti cited-=
Tat1 thatC 'anah1 mindC $rana1 in the $ranaC ?ttarat1 from the
subse@uent c#ause +of the Sruti-=
It has been shown that the .assa<e Js.eech is mer<ed in mindJ means a
mer<in< of the function on#y= A doubt here arises whether the subse@uent c#ause
Jmind is breathJ a#so means to intimate a mer<in< of the function on#y or of that
to which the function be#on<s=
The $urva.akshin maintains that here it is mind itse#f and not its function that
<ets mer<ed in $rana, as $rana can be said to be the materia# cause of mind= In
su..ort of his statement he @uotes the fo##owin< te>t1 J'ind consists of food,
$rana of waterJ +!hh= ?.= (I=5=4-C JBater sent forth earthJ +(I=2=3-= Bhen mind,
therefore, is mer<ed in $rana, it is the same thin< as earth bein< mer<ed in water,
for mind is food or earth, and $rana is water, causa# substance and effect bein<
non&different= %ence the Sruti here s.eaks not of the function of the mind, but of
mind itse#f <ettin< mer<ed in $rana=
This Sutra refutes this view= or the same reason it is the menta# (rittis
+functions- that <et mer<ed in $rana, because in dee. s#ee. and in a..roachin<
death, we see the menta# functions sto..in< whi#e the $rana +breath- is active=
The mind is not derived from $rana, and hence cannot mer<e in it= Breath or
$rana is not the causa# substance of mind= The re#ation of causa#ity by an indirect
.rocess does not suffice to show that mind is rea##y mer<ed in $rana= Bere it so,
then mind wou#d a#so be mer<ed in earth, earth in water, breath in water= "or is
there on the a#ternative contem.#ated any .roof of mind havin< ori<inated from
that water which has .assed over into breath=
Therefore, mind cannot itse#f be mer<ed in $rana= The function of the mind
on#y is mer<ed in $rana=
Adhyakshadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras 3&5-
The function of $rana is mer<ed in the /iva
SoIdhyakshe tadu.a<amadibhyah I(=2=3 +488-
That +$rana- is mer<ed in the ru#er +individua# sou# or /iva- on
account of the +statements as to the $ranas- comin< to it and so on=
Sah1 that +$rana-C Adhyakshe1 in the ru#er +the /iva-C
Tadu.a<amadibhyah1 on account of the +statements as to the $ranas- comin<
to it and so on=
J$rana is mer<ed in fireJ +!hh= ?.= (I=9=5-= A doubt arises now whether
accordin< to the word of the scri.ture, the function of $rana is mer<ed in fire or in
the individua# sou# which is the ru#er of the body and senses=
Accordin< to the $urva.akshin we must conc#ude that $rana is mer<ed in fire
on#y=
The .resent Sutra 0ustifies its view because statements about $ranas comin<
to the /iva, etc=, are found in scri.tura# .assa<es=
JA## the $ranas a..roach the de.artin< man at the time of deathJ +Bri= ?.=
I(=,=,9-= Another .assa<e a<ain s.ecia##y dec#ares that the $rana with its five
functions fo##ows the individua# sou#= After him thus de.artin< the $rana de.arts,
and that the other $ranas fo##ow that $rana= JAnd after the $rana thus de.artin<
a## the other $ranas de.artJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=2-=
The te>t cited in Sutra *, JBhen the man de.arts from here, his s.eech
mer<es in mind, mind in $rana, $rana in fire and fire in the %i<hest DeityJ +!hh=
?.= (I=9=5-, does not, however, contradict this view, as the fo##owin< Sutra
indicates=
Bhuteshu tacchruteh I(=2=4 +48*-
In the +subt#e- e#ements +is mer<ed- +the /iva with the $ranas-
as it is seen from the Sruti=
Bhuteshu1 in the e#ementsC Tat sruteh1 as that can be understood from
Sruti, from the Sruti te>ts to that effect, there bein< a (edic statement about that=
This Sutra am.#ifies the .revious one=
The sou# amon< with $rana rests in the subt#e e#ements +Bhuta&sukshma-=
This is c#ear from the Sruti J$ranaste0asiJ=
The sou# united with the $rana takes u. its abode within the subt#e e#ements
which accom.any fire and forms the seed of the future <ross body= This we
conc#ude from the c#ause, J$rana in heatJ= But this .assa<e intimates that the
$rana takes u. its abode and not that the sou# to<ether with the $rana takes u. its
abode=
Be re.#y, it does not matter= The .recedin< Sutra interca#ates the sou# in the
interva# between $rana and fire= Be may say short#y of a man who first trave#s
from %aridwar to Ayodhya and then from Ayodhya to Benares that he trave#s from
%aridwar to Benares= The .assa<e under discussion, therefore, means that the
sou# to<ether with the $rana abides in the e#ements associated with fire= The
$rana is first mer<ed in the individua# sou# and then the sou# with the $rana takes
its abode in the fine essence of the <ross e#ements, fire etc=, the seed of the future
body=
But how are you entit#ed to draw in the other e#ements a#so, whi#e the te>t
on#y s.eaks of thatL To this @uestion the ne>t Sutra <ives an answer=
The $rana 0oinin< the sou#, mer<ed not on#y in Te0as but at the same time in
other e#ements too= This can be understood from Sruti= It is said to mer<e on#y in
Te0as, because Te0as +fire-, is the .redominatin< factor there= JThat sou# is united
with the essence of the earth, of the water, of the air, of the Akasa, of the fireJ
+Bri= ?.= I(=3=4-=
"aikasmin darsayato hi I(=2=5 +482-
+The sou# with $rana is mer<ed- not in one e#ement on#y, for both
+the Sruti and Smriti- dec#are this +or dec#are so-=
"a1 notC Ekasmin1 in oneC Darsayatah1 +both the Sruti and Smriti- dec#are
so, both the Sruti and Smriti showC %i1 as, for, because=
Bhen the sou# #eaves one body at the time of death and <oes in from
another, it to<ether with the subt#e body abides in the subt#e essence of a## the
<ross e#ements and not in fire on#y, because a## the e#ements are needed for a
future body= The new body consists of various e#ements= This matter is dec#ared in
the @uestion and answer about the waters ca##ed man +!hh= ?.= (=,=,-= (ide
III=*=2=
Bhen the sou# attains another body he does not rest in $rana a#one, but <oes
with the subt#e .ortions of a## the e#ements= The @uestion and answer in the Sruti
show his=
A .assa<e in the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad dec#ares that the sou#Is
embodiment is due to ;arma, for the abode consistin< of :raha +Indriyas or
senses- and Ati<raha +(ishayas or ob0ects- is the effect of ;arma= %ere the subt#e
e#ements are ca##ed the abode because they are the stuff of which the new body is
made= These two views or .assa<es do not contradict each other=
Asrityu.akramadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutra 7-
The mode of de.arture from the body u. to the way is common to both the
knower of the Sa<una Brahman and an ordinary man
Samana chasrityu.akramadamritatvam chanu.oshya I(=2=7 +48,-
And common +is the mode of de.arture at the time of death for
both the knower of the Sa<una Brahman and the i<norant- u. to the
be<innin< of their waysC and the immorta#ity +of the knower of the
Sa<una Brahman is on#y re#ative- without havin< burnt +i<norance-=
Samana1 commonC !ha1 andC Asrityu.akramat1 u. to the be<innin< of
their waysC Amritatvam1 immorta#ityC !ha1 andC Anu.oshya1 without burnin<,
without disso#ution=
There is no de.arture for the knower of "ir<una Brahman= %is $ranas are
absorbed in Brahman=
The $urva.akshin maintains that the mode of de.arture from the body for the
knower of Sa<una Brahman and the i<norant or the ordinary man ou<ht to be
different, because they attain different abodes after death= The knower of Sa<una
Brahman <oes to Brahma#oka whi#e the ordinary man is reborn in this wor#d=
The .resent Sutra says that the knower of the Sa<una Brahman enters the
Sushumna "adi at death and then <oes out of the body and then enters the
Devayana or the .ath of the <ods whi#e the ordinary i<norant man enters some
other "adi and <oes by another way to have rebirth=
But the mode of de.arture at death is common to both ti## they enter on their
res.ective ways=
!hhando<ya ?.anishad (III=5=5 and ;atho.anishad II=,=*5 dec#are JThere
are a hundred and more "adis in the interior of the heart, of which on#y one #eads
from the heart to the headC by that, .ro<ressin< u.wards, the de.artin< sou#
attains immorta#ity, i=e=, emanci.ationC a## the other "adis are for the e<ress of
the ordinary .eo.#e for under<oin< bonda<e of fre@uent births and deaths=J
Samsaravya.adesadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras 9&**-
The disso#ution of fire etc=, at the time of death in the Su.reme Deity is on#y
re#ative
Tada.iteh samsaravya.adesat I(=2=9 +483-
That +fine body #asts- u. to the attainment of Brahman +throu<h
know#ed<e-, because +the scri.tures- dec#are the state of re#ative
e>istence +ti## then-=
Tat1 that, a<<re<ate of the e#ements, the sum tota# of the subt#e e#ementsC
A.iteh1 ti## the attainment of Brahman +throu<h know#ed<e-C
Samsaravya.adesat1 because +scri.tures- dec#are the state of re#ative
e>istence=
In the te>t cited in Sutra *, we have JAnd fire is mer<ed in the %i<hest
DeityJ= The meanin< is that the fire of the dyin< man to<ether with the individua#
sou#, the $rana, the a<<re<ate of the or<ans and the other e#ements is mer<ed in
Brahman=
Be now have to consider of what kind that mer<in< is=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds that it is an abso#ute absor.tion of thin<s mer<ed, as
it is .roved that those thin<s have the %i<hest Deity for their causa# mater= or it
has been estab#ished that the Deity is the causa# substance of a## thin<s, that have
an ori<in= Therefore that .assin< into the state of non&se.aration is an abso#ute
one= This is the fina# disso#ution= Everyone attains the fina# emanci.ation at death=
This Sutra says that this mer<in< is not abso#ute mer<in<= A#thou<h Brahman
is the causa# substance of those e#ements, they are at the time of death, as in the
case of dee. s#ee. and a $ra#aya of the wor#d, mer<ed in it on#y in such a way as
to continue to e>ist in a semina# condition or seed state= On#y the functions of
these e#ements are mer<ed and not the e#ements themse#ves=
Those subt#e e#ements, fire and so on, which form the abode of hearin< and
the other or<ans .ersist u. to fina# re#ease from the Samsara, which is caused by
.erfect know#ed<e, because the scri.tures dec#are that ti## then the /iva or the
individua# sou# is sub0ect to re#ative e>istence= JSome sou#s enter the womb for
embodied e>istence as or<anic bein<sC others <o into inor<anic matter, accordin<
to their work and accordin< to their know#ed<eJ +;atha ?.= II=4=7-=
Otherwise the #imitin< ad0uncts of every sou# wou#d at the time of death be
absorbed and the sou# wou#d enter into abso#ute union with Brahman= Every dyin<
.erson wi## reach Brahman= This wou#d render a## scri.tura# in0unction and
scri.tura# doctrine e@ua##y use#ess=
Bonda<e which is due to wron< know#ed<e, cannot be disso#ved but throu<h
.erfect know#ed<e +Samya< /nana-= If the mer<in< at death were abso#ute, then
there cou#d be no rebirth=
Sukshmam .ramanatascha tatho.a#abdheh I(=2=6 +484-
+This fine body- is subt#e +by nature- and siGe, because it is so
observed=
Sukshmam1 subt#eC $ramanatah1 as re<ards siGeC !ha1 andC Tatha1 thus,
soC ?.a#abdheh1 because it is e>.erienced, it bein< observed=
The e#ementary matter of fire and the other e#ements which form the
substratum of the sou#, when .assin< out of this body, must be subt#e in its nature
and e>tent= This fo##ows from the scri.tura# .assa<es, which dec#are that it .asses
out by the "adis and so on=
Its thinness renders it ca.ab#e of .assin< out throu<h the thin and subt#e "adi
and its trans.arency is the cause of its not bein< sto..ed or obstructed by any
<ross substance, and not bein< seen by the by&standers when it .asses out at
death=
"o.amardenatah I(=2=*8 +485-
Therefore, +this subt#e body is- not +destroyed- by the
destruction +of the <ross body-=
"a1 notC ?.amardena1 by the destructionC Atah1 therefore, because of this
reason=
On account of this <reat subt#ety the subt#e body is not destroyed by what
destroys the <ross body, viG=, burnin< and the #ike=
Asyaiva cho.a.atteresha ushma I(=2=** +487-
And to this +subt#e body- a#one does this +bodi#y- heat be#on<,
because this +on#y- is .ossib#e=
Asya1 of the subt#e bodyC Eva1 veri#y, certain#y, a#oneC !ha1 and, a#soC
?.a.atteh1 it bein< .ossib#e, because of .ossibi#ityC Esha1 thisC ?shma1 +bodi#y-
heat=
To that same subt#e body be#on<s the warmth which we .erceive in the #ivin<
body, by means of touch= That bodi#y heat is not fe#t in the body after death, whi#e
such @ua#ities as form, co#our and so on, continue to be .erceived= The bodi#y heat
is fe#t as #on< as there is #ife= It fo##ows from this that the heat resides in
somethin< different from the body, as ordinari#y known= The subt#e body im.arts
its own heat to the <ross body and kee.s it warm as #on< as it remains a#ive=
Scri.ture a#so says, J%e is warm if <oin< to #iveC co#d if <oin< to die=J
$ratishedhadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras *2&*3-
The $ranas of the knower of Brahman do not de.art at the time of death
$ratishedhaditi chenna sarirat I(=2=*2 +489-
If it be said +that the $ranas of one who knows Brahman do not
de.art- on account of the denia# made by the Sruti, +we say- not so,
+because the scri.ture denies the de.arture of the $ranas- from the
individua# sou# +and not from the body-=
$ratishedhat1 on account of the denia#C Iti1 soC !het1 if +if it be ar<ued-C
"a1 not so, you cannot say soC Sarirat1 from the individua# sou#=
This Sutra consists of two .arts, viG=, an ob0ection and its re.#y= The ob0ection
.ortion is H$ratishedhaditi chetI= The re.#y .ortion is H"a sariratC S.ashto
hyekeshamI=
This Sutra <ives the view of the $urva.akshin whi#e the thirteenth and
fourteenth Sutras state the Siddhanta or correct doctrine=
Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad dec#ares, JBut as to the man who does not desire,
who not desirin<, freed from desires, is satisfied in his desires, or desires the Se#f
on#y, of him, the vita# airs +$ranas- do not de.artJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=5-= rom this
e>.ress denia#, formin< .art of the hi<her know#ed<e, it fo##ows that the $ranas do
not .ass out of the body of him who knows Brahman= This Sruti .assa<e refers to
one who knows the "ir<una Brahman= It dec#ares that his $ranas do not de.art at
death=
The $urva.akshin maintains that the .assa<e @uoted does not deny the
de.arture of the $ranas from the body but from the individua# sou#= If the $ranas
do not de.art from the body there wi## be no death at a##= This is made c#ear from
the 'adhyandina recension which says Jrom him the vita# s.irits do not de.art=J
Therefore, the sou# of a knower of Brahman .asses out of the body with the
$ranas=
The ne>t Sutra refutes this view=
S.ashto hyekesham I(=2=*, +486-
or +the denia# of the sou#Is de.arture- is c#ear +in the te>ts-
of some schoo#s=
S.ashtah1 c#earC %i1 forC Ekesham1 of some Sakhas or schoo#sC the
statement of some Srutis=
The $ranas do not de.art from the body in the case of a #iberated sa<e= This
is made c#ear from the Sruti te>ts #ike1 J)a0nava#kyaJ said Artabha<a, Jwhen the
#iberated man dies, do his $ranas <o u. from him or do they notLJ J"oJ re.#ied
)a0nava#kya, Jthey mer<e in him on#yJ +Bri= ?.= III=2=**-=
If the $ranas de.art with the sou# from the body, then the sou# wi## sure#y
take a rebirth= %ence there wi## be no emanci.ation=
Therefore, the $ranas do not de.art from the body in the case of one who
knows Brahman=
Smaryate cha I(=2=*3 +4*8-
And Smriti a#so says that=
Smaryate1 the Smriti says, it is mentioned in the SmritisC !ha1 and=
In the 'ahabharata a#so it is said that those who know Brahman do not <o or
de.art= J%e who has become the Se#f of a## bein<s and has a com.#ete intuition of
a##, at his way the <ods themse#ves are .er.#e>ed, seekin< for the .ath of him who
has no .athJ +'ahabharata1 KII=278=22-=
(a<adi#ayadhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutra *4-
The $ranas +or<ans- and e#ements of the knower of the "ir<una Brahman <et
mer<ed in It at death
Tani .are tatha hyaha I(=2=*4 +4**-
Those +$ranas, e#ements- +are mer<ed- in the Su.reme Brahman, for
thus the +scri.ture- says=
Tani1 thoseC $are1 in the Su.reme BrahmanC Tatha1 thus, soC %i1 becauseC
Aha1 +the Sruti- says=
Those, i=e=, sense&or<ans denoted by the term H$ranaI and the e#ements of
him who knows the Su.reme Brahman are mer<ed when he dies in the same
Su.reme Brahman= BhyL Because scri.ture dec#ares that JThus these si>teen
.arts of this witness, the $urusha, havin< their <oa# in %im are disso#ved on
reachin< %im in %imJ +$ras= ?.= (I=4-=
But another te>t which refers to him who knows teaches that the .arts a#so
are mer<ed in somethin< different from the %i<hest Se#f= JThe fifteen .arts enter
into their e#ementsJ +'un= ?.= III=2=7-= "o, we re.#y= This #atter .assa<e is
concerned with the ordinary view of the matter= It intimates the end from a
re#ative stand&.oint, accordin< to which the who#e a<<re<ate of the .arts of him
who knows the Su.reme Brahman is mer<ed in Brahman on#y, 0ust as the i##usory
snake is mer<ed in the ro.e=
There is thus no contradiction=
Thou<h ordinari#y the senses and the e#ements mer<e in their causa#
substances, yet in the case of the /nani they mer<e in Brahman=
Avibha<adhikaranam1 To.ic 9 +Sutra *5-
The ;a#as of the knower of the "ir<una Brahman attain abso#ute non&distinction
with Brahman at death
Avibha<o vachanat I(=2=*5 +4*2-
+Abso#ute- non&distinction +with Brahman of the .arts mer<ed
takes .#ace- accordin< to the statement +of the scri.tures-=
Avibha<ah1 non&distinctionC (achanat1 on account of the statement +of
the scri.tures-=
JThus these si>teen constituents or ;a#as, viG=, e#even senses and five subt#e
e#ements, be#on<in< to the seer, i=e=, the #iberated sa<e who attains the Su.reme
Brahman #oses his distinction and disa..ears in %im= There names and forms are
destroyedC and .eo.#e s.eak of the $urusha on#y= Then he becomes .art#ess and
death#essJ +$ras= ?.= (I=4-=
The ;a#as in the case of the knower of Brahman <et abso#ute#y mer<ed in the
%i<hest Brahman= In the case of an ordinary .erson it is not so= They e>ist in a
fine .otentia# state, the cause of future birth=
Bhen .arts or ;a#as that are the effects of i<norance are disso#ved throu<h
know#ed<e it is not .ossib#e that a remainder be #eft= The .arts, therefore, <et
mer<ed abso#ute#y in Brahman= There is no chance for them for cro..in< u. a<ain=
TadokoIdhikaranam1 To.ic 6 +Sutra *7-
The sou# of the knower of the Sa<una Brahman comes to the heart at the time of
death and then <oes out throu<h the Sushumna "adi
TadokoI<ra0va#anam tat.rakasitadvaro
vidyasamarthyattacchesha<atyanusmritiyo<accha
hardanu<rihitah satadhikaya I(=2=*7 +4*,-
Bhen the sou# of a knower of the Sa<una Brahman is about to
de.art from the body, there takes .#ace- a #i<htin< u. of the front
of its +sou#Is- abode +viG=, the heart-C the door +of its e<ress-
bein< i##umined therebyC owin< to the .ower of know#ed<e and the
a..#ication of meditation to the way which is .art of that
+know#ed<e-C the sou# favoured by %im in the heart +viG=, Brahman-
+.asses u.ward- by the one that e>ceeds a hundred +i=e=, the hundred
and first "adi-=
Tadoko a<ra0va#anam1 the i##uminin< of the to. of its +sou#Is- abode +the
heart-C Tat.rakasitadvarah1 with the .assa<e i##umined by this #i<htC
(idyasamarthyat1 by the .ower of his know#ed<eC Tat
sesha<atyanusmritiyo<at1 because of the a..#ication of meditation to the way
which is .art of that know#ed<eC !ha1 andC %ardanu<rihitah1 bein< favoured by
%im who dwe##s in the heartC Satadhikaya1 by one that e>ceeds a hundred= +Tat1
of thatC Okah1 abode, the heartC A<ra0va#anam1 the fore.art or the end of the
heart bein< i##uminedC Tat1 by the Lord dwe##in< in the heartC $rakasita1
i##uminedC Dvarah1 door, the root from which the hundred and first "adi has its
ori<inC Sesha1 remainderC :ati1 .ath, the wayC Anusmritiyo<at1 because of the
a..#ication of the remembrance or constant thou<htC %arda1 the Lord who dwe##s
in the heartC Anu<rihitah1 bein< favoured by=-
The discussion about the $ara (idya +%i<her ;now#ed<e- is over= The
Sutrakara now .ursues the discussion of the A.ara (idya, i=e=, ?.asana +#ower
know#ed<e-=
It has been a#ready stated in Sutra 7 that u. to the be<innin< of the way the
de.arture of a knower of the Sa<una Brahman and an i<norant man is the same=
The .resent Sutra now describes the sou#Is enterin< on the way= The
Brihadaranyaka te>t describes the death of a .erson J%e takin< with him those
e#ements of #i<ht descends into the heartJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=*-= Then a<ain it says,
JThe .oint of his heart becomes #i<hted u., and by that #i<ht the se#f de.arts,
either throu<h the eye or throu<h the sku## or throu<h other .#aces of the bodyJ
+Bri= ?.= I(=3=2-= The sou# to<ether with the or<ans comes to the heart at the time
of death=
The @uestion arises whether the de.arture is the same for a knower of Sa<una
Brahman and an ordinary man=
The e>it of the ordinary man is different from that of the knower of Sa<una
Brahman= The former <oes out from any .art of the body at death +eye, ear, nose,
anus, etc=-= But the #atter <oes out on#y throu<h the Sushumna "adi and out of
the Brahmarandhra in the head= If he <oes out by any other way he cannot attain
the Su.reme Abode=
By virtue of know#ed<e and owin< to the a..#ication of constant thou<ht of
Brahman the .oint of the heart which is the abode of the de.artin< sou# is
i##umined and throu<h the <race of the su.reme sou# resident therein, the door of
e<ress, the mouth of the "adi #eadin< from the heart to the head as stated in
Sutra 7 is thrown o.en= The sou# .asses into the "adi numbered one hundred and
one= This "adi is the <ateway of the re#ease= The other one hundred "adis #ead to
bonda<e=
The scri.ture says in a cha.ter treatin< of the knower of Brahman dwe##in< in
the heart1 JThere are a hundred and one "adis of the heartC one of them
.enetrates the crown of the headC <oin< u. a#on< that one attains Immorta#ityC
the others serve for de.arture in different directions-J +!hh= ?.= (III=5=4-=
A#thou<h e@ua#ity for him who does know and him who does not know, the
.oint of the heart becomes shinin< and the door of e<ress thereby is #i<hted u.,
yet he who knows de.arts throu<h the sku## on#y, whi#e the others de.art from
other .#aces= Bhy soL On account of the .ower of know#ed<e= If a#so he who
knows de.arts #ike a## others, from any .#ace of the body, he wou#d be unab#e to
reach an e>a#ted s.here and then a## know#ed<e wou#d be meanin<#ess=
JAnd on account of the a..#ication of meditation on the way formin< a .art of
that=J In different (idyas there is en0oined meditation on the sou#Is trave##in< on
the way connected with the "adi that .asses throu<h the sku##, which way forms
.art of those (idyas= "ow it is .ro.er to conc#ude that he who meditates on that
way shou#d after death .roceed on it=
Therefore, he who knows bein< favoured by Brahman dwe##in< in the heart, on
which he had meditated and thus becomin< #ike it in nature de.arts by the "adi
which .asses throu<h the sku## which is the hundred and first= The sou#s of other
men .ass out by other "adis=
Rasmyadhikaranam1 To.ic *8 +Sutras *9&*6-
The sou# of one who knows Sa<una Brahman fo##ows the rays of the sun after
death and <oes to Brahma#oka
Rasmyanusari I(=2=*9 +4*3-
+The sou# of a knower of the Sa<una Brahman when he dies- fo##ows
the rays +of the sun-=
Rasmi1 the raysC Anusari1 fo##owin<=
The descri.tion of the .ro<ress of the re#eased sou# is continued=
!hhando<ya ?.anishad dec#ares JBhen he thus de.arts from this body, then
he de.arts u.wards by those very rays= By that movin< u.wards he reaches
immorta#ityJ +!hh= ?.= (III=5=4-=
rom this we understand that the sou# .assin< out by the hundred and first
"adi +Sushumna- fo##ows the rays of the sun=
A doubt here arises as to whether the sou# of one who dies by ni<ht as we## as
of him who dies by day fo##ows the rays, or the sou# of the #atter on#y=
As scri.ture mentions no difference, the Sutra teaches that the sou#s fo##ow
the rays in both cases=
"isi neti chenna sambandhasya
yavaddehabhavitvaddarsayati cha I(=2=*6 +4*4-
If it be said +that the sou# does- not +fo##ow the rays- in the
ni<ht, we say +not so- because the connection +of "adis and rays-
continues as #on< as the body #astsC the Sruti a#so dec#ares +this-=
"isi1 at ni<ht, in the ni<htC "a1 notC Iti1 soC !het1 if +if it be ob0ected-C "a1
not +the ob0ection is not va#id-C Sambandhasya1 of the re#ationC
)avaddehabhavitvat1 as #on< as the body #astsC Darsayati1 the Sruti shows or
dec#ares +this-C !ha1 and, a#so= +)avad1 as #on< asC Bhavitvat1 because of the
e>istence=-
An ob0ection to Sutra *7 is raised and refuted=
This Sutra consists of two .arts, name#y an ob0ection and its re.#y= The
ob0ection .ortion is H"isi neti chetI and the re.#y .ortion is H"a sambandhasya
yavaddehabhavitvad darsayati chaI=
It mi<ht .erha.s be said that the "adis and rays are connected durin< the
day, and so the sou# of a .erson who dies durin< the day may fo##ow those rays
but not the sou# of one who dies by ni<ht, when the connection of the "adis and
the rays broken=
But this is an erroneous notion, for the connection of rays and "adis #asts as
#on< as the body e>ists= %ence it is immateria# whether the sou# .asses out by day
or by ni<ht=
urther we observe that the rays of the sun continue to e>ist in the ni<hts of
the summer season, because we fee# their warmth and other effects= Durin< the
ni<hts of the other seasons they are difficu#t to .erceive, because then few on#y
continue to e>ist, 0ust as durin< the c#oudy days of the co#d season= The Sruti a#so
dec#ares, JEven by ni<ht the sun sheds his rays=J
Be cannot .redetermine the movement of death= If such de.arture to the
su.reme abode is denied to the .erson dyin< in the ni<ht, no one wi## take to
?.asana= The resu#t of know#ed<e cannot be made to de.end on the accident of
death by day or ni<ht=
If a<ain a man dyin< at ni<ht shou#d wait for the dawn to mount u.wards, it
mi<ht ha..en that, owin< to the action of the funera# fire etc=, his body wou#d at
the time of day&break, not be ca.ab#e of enterin< into connection with the rays=
The scri.ture moreover e>.ress#y dec#ares that he does not wait= JAs @uick#y as he
sends off the mind he <oes to the sunJ +!hh= ?.= (III=5=4-=
or a## these reasons the sou# fo##ows the rays by ni<ht as we## as by day=
Dakshinayanadhikaranam1 To.ic ** +Sutras 28&2*-
Even if the knower of the Sa<una Brahman dies in Dakshinayana, he sti## <oes to
Brahma#oka
AtaschayaneI.i dakshine I(=2=28 +4*5-
And for the same reason +the de.arted sou# fo##ows the rays- a#so
durin< the sunIs southern course=
Atah1 for this very reason, therefore, for the same reasonC !ha1 andC
Ayane1 durin< the sunIs courseC A.i1 a#so, evenC Dakshine1 in the southern=
This Sutra is a coro##ary drawn from the .recedin< Sutra=
The $urva.akshin raises an ob0ection and maintains that the sou# of the
knower of Brahman who .asses away durin< Dakshinayana or the southern course
of the sun does not fo##ow the rays to Brahma#oka= The Sruti and the Smriti
dec#are that on#y one who dies durin< ?ttarayana or the northern course of the
sun <oes to Brahma#oka=
urther it is a#so written that Bhishma waited for the northern course of the
sun to #eave the body=
This Sutra says that for the same reason as mentioned in the .revious Sutra,
i=e=, the unreasonab#eness of makin< the resu#t of know#ed<e de.end on the
accident of death ha..enin< at a .articu#ar time, the knower of Sa<una Brahman
<oes to Brahma#oka even if he dies durin< the southern course of the sun=
or the same reason, viG=, because waitin< is im.ossib#e, and because the fruit
of know#ed<e is not mere#y eventua# one, and because the time of death is not
fi>ed, a#so he who has true know#ed<e, and who dies durin< the southern course
of the sun obtains the fruit of his know#ed<e=
In the te>t JThose who know thus <o by #i<ht, from #i<ht to day, from day to
the bri<ht ha#f of the month, and from that to the si> months of the northern
course of the sunJ +!hh= ?.= (=*8=*-, the .oints in the northern course of the sun
do not refer to any division of time but to deities as wi## be shown under I(=,=3=
The Devayana .ath can be trodden by those who die in the Dakshinayana=
Bhishma waited for the ?ttarayana, because he wanted to u.ho#d an a..roved
custom and to show that he cou#d die at wi## owin< to his fatherIs boon=
)o<inah .rati cha smaryate smarte chaite I(=2=2* +4*7-
And +these times or detai#s- are recorded by Smriti with
reference to the )o<ins and these two +)o<a and Sankhya- and c#assed
as Smritis +on#y-=
)o<inah .rati1 with res.ect to the )o<iC !ha1 andC Smaryate1 the Smriti
dec#aresC Smarte1 be#on<in< to the c#ass of SmritisC !ha1 andC Ete1 these two=
The ar<ument in the two .recedin< Sutras is stren<thened here by further
e>.osition=
The $urva.akshin says1 Be have the fo##owin< Smriti te>t, JThat time
wherein <oin< )o<ins return not, and a#so that wherein <oin< forth they return,
that time sha## I dec#are to thee, O $rince of the BharatasJ +Bha<avad :ita (III= 2,&
23-= This determines s.ecia##y that to die by day and so on causes the sou# not to
return= %ow then can he who dies by ni<ht or durin< the sunIs southern course
de.art not to returnL The decision of the .revious Sutra cannot be correct=
This Sutra refutes the ob0ection and says that these detai#s as to time
mentioned in the :ita a..#y on#y to )o<is who .ractise Sadhana accordin< to )o<a
and Sankhya systems= These two are Smritis, not Srutis= Therefore, the #imitations
as to the time mentioned in them do not a..#y to those who meditate on the
Sa<una Brahman accordin< to the Sruti te>ts=
)o<a and Sankhya are mere Smritis= They are not of s.iritua# character= As it
has a different s.here of a..#ication, and is based on a s.ecia# kind of authority,
the Smriti ru#e as to the time of dyin< has no inf#uence on know#ed<e based on
scri.ture=
But an ob0ection is raised= Be have such .assa<es as Jire, #i<ht, the day, the
bri<ht ha#f of the month, the si> months of the northern .ath, smoke, ni<ht, the
dark ha#f of the month, the si> months of the southern .athJ +Bha<avad :ita (III=
23&24-, in which thou<h be#on<in< to Smriti we reco<nise the .ath of the fathers
as determined by scri.ture=
Our refutation, we re.#y, of the c#aims of Smriti a..#ies on#y to the
contradiction which may arise from the teachin< of Smriti re<ardin< the #e<itimate
time of dyin<, JI wi## te## you the time,J etc= In so far as Smriti a#so mentions A<ni
and the other divinities which #ead on the de.arted sou#, there is no contradiction
whatsoever=
Bhat a..ears to refer to time in the above .assa<e refers on#y to the deities
.residin< over the day&time and the bri<ht ha#f of the month and the ?ttarayana
and over the ni<ht time, and the dark ha#f of the month and the Dakshinayana=
Thus ends the Second $ada +Section 2- of the ourth !ha.ter +Adhyaya I(- of
the Brahma Sutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
SE!TIO" ,
Introduction
In the .revious Section the de.arture of a knower of the Sa<una Brahman by
the .ath of the <ods +Devayana- has been described= "ow the .resent Section
treats of the .ath itse#f= It describes the 0ourney of the re#eased sou# on the way to
Brahman and takes u. the thread of the story at the .oint where it was #eft in the
.recedin< Section=
Syno.sis
Adhikarana I1 +Sutra *- The .ath connected with deities be<innin< with that
of #i<ht is the on#y .ath to Brahma#oka=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutra 2- The de.artin< sou# reaches the deity of the year and
then the deity of the air=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutra ,- After reachin< the deity identified with #i<htnin< the
sou# reaches the wor#d of (aruna=
Adhikaranas I, II, III +Sutras *&,- reconci#e the different accounts <iven in
the ?.anishads as to the stations on the way which #eads the ?.asaka to Sa<una
Brahman=
Adhikarana I(1 +Sutras 3&5- Li<ht, etc=, referred to in the te>t describin< the
.ath of the <ods mean deities identified with the #i<ht, etc=, which #ead the sou#
sta<e after sta<e ti## Brahma#oka is reached=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutras 7&*3- The Brahman to which the de.arted sou#s <o by
the .ath of the <ods is the Sa<una Brahman= This is the o.inion .ro.ounded in
Sutras 7&** by Baadarayana= In Sutras *2&*3 /aimini defends the o..osite view
accordin< to which the sou# of the ?.asaka <oes to the %i<hest Brahman, not to
the ;arya Brahman +Sa<una Brahman-= /aiminiIs view is a mere $urva.aksha,
whi#e BaadariIs o.inion re.resents the Siddhanta=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutras *4&*5- On#y those who have worshi..ed the Sa<una
Brahman without a symbo# attain Brahma#oka=
Archiradyadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutra *-
The .ath connected with the deities be<innin< with that of #i<ht is the on#y .ath
that #eads to Brahma#oka
Archiradina tat.rathiteh I(=,=* +4*9-
On the .ath connected with #i<ht +the de.arted sou# of the knower
of Sa<una Brahman trave#s to Brahma#oka after death-, that bein< we##known
+from the Sruti-=
Archiradina1 by the .ath of the rays, etc=, by the rays of #i<ht and so on,
on the .ath connected with deities, be<innin< with that of #i<htC Tat.rathiteh1
that bein< we##&known +from the Sruti-=
It has been e>.#ained that u. to the be<innin< of the way the de.arture is
the same= In the #ast section it was stated that the knower of the Sa<una
Brahman trave#s to Devayana or the .ath of the <ods to Brahma#oka= But different
te>ts make different dec#arations about the way itse#f=
One .assa<e describes it as constituted by the 0unction of the "adis and rays1
JThen he mounts u.wards by 0ust those raysJ +!hh= ?.= (III=5=4-= Another
.assa<e describes it as be<innin< with #i<ht= JThey <o to the #i<ht, from #i<ht to
dayJ +!hh= ?.= (=*8=*-= Another way is described in ;aushitaki ?.anishad I=,1
J%avin< reached the .ath of the <ods, he comes to the wor#d of A<ni=J Another
way is described in Bri= ?.= (=*8=*1 JBhen the .erson <oes away from this wor#d
he comes to the wind=J Another way is described in 'un= ?.= I=2=**1 Jree from
.assion they de.art throu<h the <ate of the sun=J
A doubt here arises whether these ways are different from each other or
whether there is on#y one .ath, the .ath of the <ods of which the different te>ts
mention different .articu#ars, or <ive different descri.tions=
The $urva.akshin maintains that these te>ts refer to different .aths to
Brahma#oka=
The .resent Sutra refutes this view and dec#ares that a## the te>ts refer to one
.ath on#y and <ive on#y different .articu#ars of the same .ath, the .ath connected
with deities be<innin< with that identified with #i<ht= Bhy soL On account of its
bein< wide#y known, from the Sruti te>ts that this is the .ath for a## knowers of
Brahman=
The te>t JThose who know this +$ancha<ni (idya- and those who in the forest
meditate with faith and austerity reach the deity identified with #i<htJ +!hh= ?.=
(=*8=*-, e>.ress#y states that the .ath connected with deities be<innin< with that
of the f#ame be#on<s to a## knowers of Brahman whatever be the (idya by which
they have attained that know#ed<e=
The <oa#, viG=, Brahma#oka, is the same in a## cases= Some .art of the .ath is
reco<nised in a## te>ts= A## the fo##owin< .assa<es dec#are one and the same resu#t,
viG=, the attainment of the wor#d of Brahman= JIn these wor#ds of Brahman they
dwe## for ever and everJ +Bri= ?.= (I=2=*4-= JThere he dwe##s eterna# yearsJ +Bri=
?.= (=*8=*-= JBhatever victory, whatever <reatness be#on<s to Brahman, that
victory he <ains, that <reatness he reachesJ +;au= ?.= I=2-= There is no
0ustification to re<ard the .ath as different on account of its bein< dea#t with in
different cha.ters=
%ence we have to conc#ude that a## the te>ts refer to the same .ath but <ive
different .articu#ars which have a## to be combined for a fu## descri.tion of the
.ath=
Thou<h various Srutis refer to the .ath by such words as Archis +#i<ht-, Surya
+sun-, (ayu +wind-, etc=, yet they a## refer on#y to different .ortions of one and the
same way, viG=, Archiradi&mar<a or Devayana which #eads to Brahma#oka= Each
Sruti <ives us somethin< indicatory of the .ath and we have to combine the
diverse .articu#ars=
(ayvadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra 2-
The de.artin< sou# reaches the deity of the year and then the deity of the air
(ayumabdadaviseshaviseshabhyam I(=,=2 +4*6-
+The de.arted sou#- +of a knower of the Sa<una Brahman <oes- from
the deity of the year to the deity of the air on account of the
absence and .resence of s.ecification=
(ayum1 the deity of the airC Abdat1 from the deity of the yearC
Aviseshaviseshabhyam1 because of non&s.ecification and s.ecification, because
it is stated in <enera# in one Sruti and in detai# in another=
The descri.tion of the .ath of the <ods is continued=
The Sutra fi>es the order of the sta<es= The ;aushitaki ?.anishad describes
the .ath as fo##ows1 JThe ?.asaka or the worshi..er, havin< reached the .ath of
the <ods comes to the wor#d of A<ni +fire-, to the wor#d of (ayu +air-, to the wor#d
of (aruna, to the wor#d of Indra, to the wor#d of $ra0a.ati, and then to the wor#d of
BrahmaJ +;au= ?.= I=,-=
"ow the wor#d of A<ni means the same as #i<ht, as both terms denote
burnin<, and we, therefore, need not with re<ard to them search for the order in
which they are to be combined=
A<ain the !hhando<ya ?.anishad +(=*8=*- describes the .ath as fo##ows1
JThey reach the deity identified with the #i<ht, from him to the deity of the day,
from him to the deity of the bri<ht ha#f of the month, from him to the deities
identified with si> months of the northern .ath of the sun, from them to the deity
of the year, from him to the deity of the sun, from him to the deity of the moon,
from him to the deity of the #i<htnin<J= %ere (ayu is not mentioned in the .ath
be<innin< with #i<ht= There is absence of s.ecification=
In the Brihadaranyaka ?.anishad (ayu is mentioned before Aditya= JBhen the
.erson <oes away from this wor#d he comes to (ayu= Then (ayu makes room for
him #ike the ho#e of a whee#, and throu<h it he mounts hi<her, he comes to
Aditya=J On account of this s.ecification which shows (ayu to come before Aditya,
(ayu must be inserted between the year and Aditya= Be shou#d conc#ude that the
sou# <oes to (ayu#oka before <oin< to the sun=
The Brihadaranyaka te>t +(=*8=*- fi>es that air comes immediate#y before the
sun, because there is re<u#ar order of succession= But as re<ards air comin< after
the deity of fire there is no s.ecification but sim.#y a statement J%avin< reached
the .ath of the <ods he comes to the wor#d of A<ni, to the wor#d of (ayu=J
The (a0asaneyins in their te>t record Jrom the deities identified with the si>
months in which the sun trave#s northwards he reaches the deity identified with
the wor#d of the <odsJ +Bri= ?.= (I=2=*4-= %ere in order to maintain the immediate
succession of the deity identified with (ayu +air- and that identified with the sun
+Aditya- we must understand that the sou# .asses from the deity of the wor#d of
the <ods to the deity of air=
A<ain in the te>ts of the !hhando<ya and the Brihadaranyaka the deity of the
wor#d of the <ods is not mentioned in the former and the deity of the year in the
#atter= Both te>ts are authoritative= Both have to be inc#uded in the fu## descri.tion
of the .ath= As the year is connected with the months, the deity of the year
.recedes the deity of the wor#d of the <ods=
%ence the se@uence is Archis +rays-, Ahas +day-, Suk#a.aksha +bri<ht ha#f of
the month-, si> months when the sun trave#s to the north, year, the wor#d of the
<ods, the wor#d of (ayu, the sun, the moon, the #i<htnin<, the wor#d of (aruna,
the wor#d of Indra, the wor#d of $ra0a.ati and the wor#d of Brahma=
Tadidadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutra ,-
After reachin< the deity identified with #i<htnin<, the sou# reaches the wor#d of
(aruna
TaditoIdhi varunah sambandhat I(=,=, +428-
After +reachin<- the deity of #i<htnin< +the sou# reaches-
(aruna, on account of the connection +between the two-=
Taditah adhi1 after the deity of #i<htnin<C (arunah1 +comes- (aruna +rain
<od-C Sambandhat1 on account of connection=
The enumeration of the stations of the 0ourney is continued=
In the !hhando<ya te>t we find, Jrom the sun to the moon, from moon to
#i<htnin<=J In the ;aushitaki ?.anishad we find, Jrom (ayu +wind- to (aruna=J
!ombinin< the two te>ts we have to .#ace (aruna after #i<htnin<, on account of
the connection between the two +#i<htnin< and (aruna-= The broad #i<htnin<s
dance forth from the womb of the c#ouds with the sound of dee. thunder and then
water fa##s down= JIt #i<htens, it thunders, it wi## rainJ +!hh= ?.= (II=**=*-= (aruna
is the <od of rain and #i<htnin< .recedes rain= So after #i<htnin< comes (aruna=
After (aruna come Indra and $ra0a.ati for there is no other .#ace for them=
The ;aushitaki te>t a#so .uts them there=
The com.#ete enumeration of the sta<es of the .ath of the <ods is as fo##ows1
first the deity of fire, then the deity of the day, the deity of the bri<ht ha#f of the
month, the deities of the si> months when the sun trave#s to the north, the deity
of the year, the deity of the wor#d of <ods, the deity of the air, the sun, the moon,
the deity of #i<htnin<, the wor#d of (aruna, the wor#d of Indra, the wor#d of
$ra0a.ati, and fina##y Brahma#oka=
Ativahikadhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutras 3&5-
Li<ht, etc=, referred to in the te>t describin< the .ath of the <ods mean deities
identified with #i<ht, etc=, who conduct the sou# sta<e after sta<e ti## Brahma#oka is
reached
Ativahikasta##in<at I(=,=3 +42*-
+These are- deities conductin< the sou# +on the .ath of the
<ods-, on account of indicatory marks to that effect=
Ativahikah1 conductors, deities conductin< the de.arted sou#C Tad&#in<at1
on account of indicatory marks to that effect=
The descri.tion of the .ath of the <ods is continued=
Bith re<ard to those be<innin< with #i<ht a doubt arises whether they are
marks of the road, or .#aces of en0oyment, or conductors of the trave##in< sou#s=
The $urva.akshin says1 Li<ht and so on are marks of the road, because the
instruction has that character= In ordinary #ife a man who wishes to <o to a vi##a<e
or a town is to#d J:o from here to that hi##, from there to a banyan tree, from that
tree to a river, from that to a vi##a<e, after that you wi## reach the town=J So here
a#so the te>t says, Jrom #i<ht to day, from day to the wa>in< ha#f of the month,J
etc=
Or e#se #i<ht and so on may be viewed as .#aces of en0oyment= Because the
te>t connects A<ni and so on with the Jwor#dJ J%e comes to the wor#d of A<ni=J
"ow the term Jwor#dJ denotes .#aces of en0oyment of #ivin< bein<s, as when we
say Jthe wor#d of menJ, Jthe wor#d of fathersJ, Jthe wor#d of <odsJ=
Therefore, #i<ht and the rest are not conductors= urther they cannot be
conductors as they are without inte##i<ence= In ordinary #ife, inte##i<ent men on#y
are a..ointed by the kin< to conduct trave##ers over difficu#t roads=
The .resent Sutra refutes this= They must be the conductors= They receive the
de.arted sou#s and conduct them on their way to Brahma#oka= That conductors
are meant here and not marks or .#aces of en0oyment is indicated by the te>t of
the !hhando<ya which ends thus, Jrom the moon to the #i<htnin<= Then a bein<
who is not a man #eads them to BrahmanJ +!hh= ?.= I(=*4=4C (=*8=*-= This te>t
shows that un#ike the .revious <uides or conductors who were more or #ess
human, this .articu#ar <uide or conductor is not a human in nature & JAmanavaJ=
?bhayavyamohat tatsiddheh I(=,=4 +422-
+That deities or divine <uides are meant in these te>ts, they are
.ersona# conductors- is estab#ished, because both +i=e=, the .ath and
the trave##er- become unconscious=
?bhaya1 both +the .ath and the trave##er-C (yamohat1 because of
unconsciousnessC Tat&siddheh1 that is estab#ished=
This Sutra is an ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 3=
The de.arted sou#s are not ca.ab#e of <uidin< themse#ves as their or<ans are
withdrawn in the mind= The #i<ht, etc=, are without inte##i<ence= %ence they are
e@ua##y inca.ab#e and cannot <uide the sou#s= %ence it fo##ows that the .articu#ar
inte##i<ent deities identified with the #i<ht, etc=, <uide the sou#s to Brahma#oka= In
ordinary #ife a#so drunken or sense#ess .eo.#e fo##ow a road as commanded by
others=
A<ain #i<ht and the rest cannot be taken for marks of the .ath or road,
because they are not a#ways .resent=
urther the de.arted sou#s cannot en0oy as their or<ans are withdrawn into
the mind= %ence #i<ht and the rest cannot be wor#ds where they en0oy=
A#thou<h the wanderers or the de.arted sou#s do not en0oy anythin<, the word
Jwor#dJ may be e>.#ained on the <round that those wor#ds are .#aces of
en0oyment for other bein<s dwe##in< there=
The conc#usion, therefore, is that he who has reached the wor#d of A<ni is #ed
on by A<ni and he who has reached the wor#d ru#ed by (ayu is #ed by (ayu=
(aidyutenaiva tatastacchruteh I(=,=5 +42,-
rom thence +the sou#s are #ed or <uided- by the very same
+su.erhuman- .erson who comes to #i<htnin<, that bein< known from the
Sruti=
(aidyutena1 by the +su.erhuman- <uide connected with #i<htnin<, by the
su.erhuman bein< who takes his char<e from the <od of #i<htnin<C Eva1 a#one,
on#y, indeedC Tatah1 from thenceC Tat sruteh1 that bein< known from the Sruti,
as Sruti states so, because of the (edic te>t=
The discussion on the 0ourney is continued=
Jrom thence, i=e=, after they have come to the #i<htnin< they <o to the wor#d
of Brahman, bein< #ed throu<h the wor#ds of (aruna and the rest by the .erson,
not a man +Amanava&.urusha- who fo##ows immediate#y after the #i<htnin<= Bhen
they have reached the .#ace of #i<htnin<, a .erson, not a man, #eads them to the
wor#d of BrahmanJ +Bri= ?.= (I=2=*4-=
(aruna and the rest on#y favour the sou#s either by not obstructin< or he#.in<
them in some way=
Therefore, it is we## estab#ished that #i<ht and so on are the <ods who act as
conductors or <uards=
;aryadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras 7&*3-
The de.arted sou#s <o by the .ath of <ods to Sa<una Brahman
;aryam baadarirasya <atyu.a.atteh I(=,=7 +423-
To the ;arya Brahman or %iranya<arbha or Sa<una Brahman +the
de.arted sou#s are #ed-C +thus o.ines- the sa<e Baadari on account of
the .ossibi#ity of its bein< the <oa# +of their 0ourney-=
;aryam1 the re#ative Brahman or %iranya<arbhaC Baadarih1 the sa<e
Baadari +ho#ds-C Asya1 hisC :ati&u.a.atteh1 on account of the .ossibi#ity of
bein< the <oa#=
A discussion is now taken u. whether the sou# is conducted to the "ir<una
Brahman or the Sa<una Brahman=
In the .revious Sutra the way was discussed=
"ow from this Sutra onwards the discussion is about the <oa# reached=
The !hhando<ya te>t dec#ares, JThen a bein< who is not a man +Amanava
$urusha- #eads them to BrahmanJ +!hh= ?.= (=*8=*-=
A doubt arises whether the Brahman is the Sa<una Brahman or the Su.reme
"ir<una Brahman= The o.inion of the teacher Baadari is that the .erson, who is
not a man, #eads them to the #ower @ua#ified, effected Brahman +Sa<una or ;arya
Brahman-C because it is .ossib#e to <o to that= Because Sa<una Brahman which
occu.ies a definite .#ace, which has a s.ecia# abode and which is finite can be the
<oa# of a 0ourney= But it is not .ossib#e with res.ect to the "ir<una Brahman which
is Infinite and a##&.ervadin<= Bith the %i<hest "ir<una Brahman on the other
hand, we cannot connect the ideas of one who <oes, or ob0ect of <oin< or act of
<oin<C because that Brahman is .resent everywhere and is the inner Se#f of a##=
(iseshitatvaccha I(=,=9 +424-
And on account of the @ua#ification +with res.ect to this Brahman
in another te>t-=
(iseshitatvat1 because of bein< s.ecified in Sruti, on account of the
@ua#ificationC !ha1 and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 7 is adduced=
Because the word Brahman is @ua#ified by the word H#okamI=
J%e #eads them to the wor#ds of BrahmanC in these wor#ds of Brahman they
#ive for ever and everJ +Bri= ?.= (I=2=*4-= The .#ura# number is not .ossib#e with
res.ect to the Su.reme Infinite Brahman which may abide in different conditions=
Sami.yattu tadvya.adesah I(=,=6 +425-
But on account of the nearness +of the Sa<una Brahman to the
Su.reme Brahman it is- desi<nated as that +Su.reme Brahman-=
Sami.yat1 because of the nearness or .ro>imityC Tu1 butC Tad1 thatC
(ya.adesah1 desi<nation=
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra 7 is continued=
The word HtuI +but- sets aside any doubt that may arise on account of the
word HBrahmaI bein< used for the Sa<una Brahman in the !hhando<ya te>t=
This Sutra says that this desi<nation is on account of the .ro>imity of the
Sa<una Brahman to the su.reme Brahman or the Abso#ute=
The manifested Brahman a#so can be ca##ed Brahman as it is in the c#osest
.ro>imity to the ?nmanifested $ara Brahman= The $ara Brahman assumes
abso#ute#y .ure #imitin< ad0uncts such as mind, etc=, to become an ob0ect of
devotion and meditation, i=e=, the #ower Brahman or ;arya Brahman or Sa<una
Brahman=
;aryatyaye tadadhyakshena sahatah
.aramabhidhanat I(=,=*8 +427-
On the disso#ution of the Brahma#oka +the sou#s attain- a#on<
with the ru#er of that wor#d what is hi<her than that +i=e=, the
Su.reme Brahman- on account of the dec#aration of the Sruti=
;aryatyaye1 on the disso#ution of the Brahma#oka +;arya1 of the effect,
i=e=, the universe, the re#ative Sa<una Brahman-C Tad1 of thatC Adhyakshena1
with the ru#er&.resident, i=e=, %iranya<arbha or the four&faced BrahmaC Saha1
withC Atah.aram1 hi<her than that, i=e=, the Su.reme BrahmanC Abhidhanat1 on
account of the dec#aration of the Sruti=
The individua# sou#Is fina# absor.tion in the $ara Brahman or the Abso#ute is
now stated=
The $urva.akshin says1 If the sou#s who <o by the .ath of the <ods reach the
Sa<una Brahman, then how can statements #ike, JThey who .roceed on that .ath
do not return to the #ife of manJ +!hh= ?.= I(=*4=5-C Jor them there is no return
hereJ +Bri= ?.= (I=2=*4-C J'ovin< u.wards by that a man reaches immorta#ityJ
+!hh= ?.= (III=5=4-, be made with res.ect to them, as there is no .ermanency
anywhere a.art from the %i<hest BrahmanL
The Sutra dec#ares that at the disso#ution of Brahma#oka the sou#s, which by
that time have attained know#ed<e, a#on< with the Sa<una Brahman attain what is
hi<her than the Sa<una Brahman, i=e=, $ara Brahman or the .ure hi<hest .#ace of
(ishnu= This is ca##ed ;ramamukti or successive +.ro<ressive- #iberation or re#ease
by successive ste.s= So the Sruti te>ts dec#are=
Smritescha I(=,=** +429-
And on account of the Smriti +te>ts su..ortin< this view-=
Smriteh1 on account of the statement of the Smriti, as Smriti a<rees with
the view, accordin< to the SmritiC !ha1 and=
An ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *8 is adduced=
The view e>.ressed in the .recedin< Sutra is corroborated by Smriti a#so,
JBhen the $ra#aya has come and when the first .erson +%iranya<arbha- comes to
%is end, then they a##, to<ether with Brahman, with .urified minds enter the
hi<hest .#ace=J
The above are the Siddhanta Sutras= The fina# conc#usion +Siddhanta-,
therefore is that the <oin< of the sou#s of which scri.ture s.eaks, has for its <oa#
the ;arya Brahman or Sa<una Brahman=
The $urva.aksha is stated in Sutras *2&*3=
$aram 0aiminirmukhyatvat I(=,=*2 +426-
To the hi<hest +Brahman- +the sou#s are #ed-C /aimini o.ines, on
account of that bein< the .rimary meanin< +of the word HBrahmanI-=
$aram1 the Su.reme +Brahman-C /aiminih1 the sa<e /aimini +o.ines or
ho#ds-C 'ukhyatvat1 on account of that bein< the .rimary meanin< +of the word
HBrahmanI-=
Sutras *2&*3 <ive a .rima facie view of the matter= An ob0ection to Sutra 7 is
adduced by .resentin< an o..osite view=
/aimini is of o.inion that the word HBrahmanI in the !hhando<ya te>t J%e
#eads them to BrahmanJ refers to the %i<hest Brahman, as that is the .rimary
meanin< of the word=
Darsanaccha I(=,=*, +4,8-
And because the Sruti dec#ares that=
Darsanat1 on account of the Sruti te>tsC !ha1 and, a#so=
An ar<ument in su..ort of /aimini is adduced=
The te>t J:oin< u.wards by that he reaches immorta#ityJ +!hh= ?.= (III=5=5-
+;atha ?.= II=5=*5- dec#ares that immorta#ity is attained by <oin<= But immorta#ity
is .ossib#e on#y in the Su.reme Brahman, not in the Sa<una Brahman, because
the #atter is transitory= So scri.ture says, JBhere one sees somethin< e#se, that is
#itt#e, that is morta#J +!hh= ?.= (III=23=*-=
Accordin< to the te>t of the ;atho.anishad a#so the <oin< of the sou# is
towards the su.reme Brahman= The sou# which .asses out of the body by the
Sushumna "adi reaches immorta#ity= This can be attained on#y in the Su.reme
Brahman=
"a cha karye .rati.attyabhisandhih I(=,=*3 +4,*-
And the desire to attain Brahman cannot be with res.ect to the
Sa<una Brahman=
"a1 notC !ha1 andC ;arye1 in the Sa<una BrahmanC $rati.atti1 rea#isation
of BrahmanC Abhisandhih1 desire= +$rati.atti&abhisandhih1 the desire to attain
or rea#ise Brahman=-
The ar<ument in su..ort of Sutra *2 is continued=
JI enter the ha## of $ra0a.ati, the houseJ +!hh= ?.= (III=*3=*-, cannot have
the #ower or Sa<una Brahman for its ob0ect= This desire to enter the Hha##I or the
HhouseI cannot be with res.ect to the Sa<una Brahman= It is a..ro.riate with
re<ard to the %i<hest Brahman +$ara Brahman-= Because the immediate#y
.recedin< .assa<e intimates JAnd that within which these +names and forms- are
contained is Brahman=J The .assa<e JI am the <#ory of the BrahmanasJ re.resents
Jthe sou# as the se#f of a##J= H:#oryI is the name of the su.reme Brahman= JThere is
no #ikeness of him whose name is <reat <#oryJ +(a0asaneya Samhita1 KKKII=,-=
%ere the Su.reme Brahman is referred to=
Sutras *2&*3 <ive the view of the $urva.akshin a<ainst what has been said in
Sutras 7&**= The ar<uments of Sutras *2&*3 are refuted thus1
The Brahman attained by those who <o by the .ath of the <ods +Devayana-
cannot be the Su.reme Brahman +"ir<una Brahman-= They attain on#y the Sa<una
Brahman= $ara Brahman is a##&.ervadin<= %e is the Inner Se#f of a##= %e cannot be
attained as %e is the Innermost Se#f of everyone=
Be do not <o to what is a#ready reached= Ordinary e>.erience rather te##s us
that a .erson <oes to somethin< different from him= /ourney or attainment is
.ossib#e on#y where there is difference, where the attainer is different from the
attained=
The Su.reme Brahman cannot be assumed to .ossess any differences
de.endin< on time, or s.ace or anythin< e#se and cannot, therefore, become the
ob0ect of <oin<=
In the rea#isation of the Su.reme Brahman the vei# of i<norance is removed
and the seeker knows his essentia# divine nature= %e rea#ises his identity with the
Su.reme Brahman= Bhen the i<norance is removed Brahman manifests itse#f=
That is a##= There is no <oin< or attainin< in such a rea#isation=
But the attainment of Brahman s.oken of in the te>ts connected with the
.ath of the <ods is not mere#y the remova# of i<norance but actua#=
The .assa<e JI enter the ha## of $ra0a.ati, the houseJ, can be se.arated from
what .recedes and be connected with the Sa<una Brahman=
The fact that !hh= ?.= (III=*3=* says JI am the <#ory of the Brahmanas, of
the kin<sJ cannot make it refer to the "ir<una Brahman, because the Sa<una
Brahman can a#so be said to be the se#f of a##, as we find in te>ts #ike J%e, to
whom a## works, a## desires be#on<J +!hh= ?.= III=*3=2-=
The reference to the 0ourney to Brahman which be#on<s to the rea#m of
re#ative or @ua#ified know#ed<e in a cha.ter which dea#s with the %i<hest
;now#ed<e is on#y by way of <#orification of the #atter=
or a## these reasons the view of Baadari as set forth in Sutras 7&** is the
correct one=
A.ratika#ambanadhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras *4&*5-
On#y those who have taken recourse to the worshi. of Brahman without a symbo#
attain Brahma#oka
A.ratika#ambanannayatiti baadarayana
ubhayathadoshattatkratuscha I(=,=*4 +4,2-
Baadarayana ho#ds that +the su.erhuman bein<- #eads +to
Brahma#oka on#y- those who do not take recourse to a symbo# of
Brahman in their meditationC there bein< no fau#t in the twofo#d
re#ation +resu#tin< from this o.inion- and +it bein< construed on the
doctrine- as is the meditation on that +i=e=, Brahman- so does one
become=
A.ratika#ambanat1 those who do not have recourse to the symbo#s for the
meditation of BrahmanC "ayati1 +the su.erhuman bein<- #eads or takesC Iti
Baadarayanah1 so says BaadarayanaC ?bhayatha1 both waysC Adoshat1 there
bein< no defectsC Tat&kratuh1 as is the meditation on that, +so does one
become-C !ha1 and=
The discussion commenced is Sutra 5, whether the sou# is taken to the
Su.reme Brahman or the Sa<una Brahman is conc#uded in this and the fo##owin<
Sutra=
A doubt here arises whether a## worshi..ers of the Sa<una Brahman <o to
Brahma#oka bein< #ed by the su.erhuman bein< mentioned in !hh= ?.= I(=*4=4 or
on#y some of themL
The $urva.akshin maintains that a## <o to Brahma#oka whatever may be their
?.asana=
This Sutra dec#ares that on#y those worshi..ers of the Sa<una Brahman who
do not take recourse to any symbo# in their meditation on Brahman <o there= This
is the o.inion of the teacher Baadarayana= This, however, does not contradict
what is said in III=,=,* if we understand that by Ha##I is meant a## those
worshi..ers who do not take recourse to any symbo# in their meditation on
Brahman=
On#y Brahma ?.asakas are taken by the Amanava $urusha to the
Brahma#oka= The form of meditation <overns the resu#t= In the case of symbo#s
#ike the Sa#a<rama stone, there is no fee#in< that it itse#f is Brahman= "o doubt in
the case of $ancha<ni&(idya, the Sruti says that the worshi..er is #ed to
Brahma#oka= But we cannot e>tend the resu#t to the worshi..ers of e>terna#
symbo#s where there is no direct scri.tura# statement, we have to understand that
on#y those who meditate on Brahman <o to Brahma#oka, not others=
%e whose meditation is fi>ed on Brahman reaches Brahma#oka= This view is
su..orted by Sruti and Smriti= JIn whatever form they meditate on %im, that they
become themse#ves=J In the case of symbo#s on the other hand, the meditation is
not fi>ed on Brahman, the symbo# bein< the chief e#ement in the meditation=
%ence the worshi..er does not attain Brahma#oka=
(isesham cha darsayati I(=,=*5 +4,,-
And the scri.ture dec#ares a difference +in the case of
meditation on symbo#s-=
(isesham1 differenceC !ha1 andC Darsayati1 the scri.ture dec#ares=
An ar<ument in su..ort of the conc#usion arrived at by Baadarayana, is
adduced here=
Bith reference to meditations on symbo#s such as name and so on, that occur
in !hhando<ya ?.anishadic te>ts, the Sruti s.eaks of different resu#ts accordin< to
difference in the symbo#s= JOne who meditates u.on name as Brahman becomes
inde.endent so far as name reachesJ +!hh= ?.= (II=*=4-= JOne who meditates
u.on s.eech as Brahman becomes inde.endent so far as s.eech reachesJ +!hh=
?.= (II=2=2-=
"ow the distinction of rewards is .ossib#e because the meditations de.end on
symbo#s, whi#e there cou#d be no such difference in resu#ts, if they de.end on the
one non&different Brahman=
%ence it is @uite c#ear that those who use symbo#s for their meditation cannot
have the same reward as others= They cannot <o to Brahma#oka #ike those who
meditate on the Sa<una Brahman=
Thus ends the Third $ada +Section ,- of the ourth !ha.ter +Adhyaya I(- of
the Brahma Sutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy=
SE!TIO" 3
Introduction
The attainment of Brahma#oka by the worshi..ers of the Sa<una Brahman
has been treated in the #ast Section= This Section dea#s with the rea#isation of the
%i<hest Brahman by its worshi..ers=
Syno.sis
Adhikarana I1 +Sutras *&,- the re#eased sou# does not ac@uire anythin< new
but mere#y manifests itse#f in its true nature=
Adhikarana II1 +Sutra 3- determines that re#ation in which the re#eased sou#
stands to Brahman is that of Avibha<a, non&se.aration=
Adhikarana III1 +Sutras 4&7- discuss the characteristics of the sou# that has
attained the "ir<una Brahman= Accordin< to /aimini the re#eased sou#, when
manifestin< itse#f in its true nature, .ossesses the attributes which in !hh= ?.=
(III=7=* and other .#aces are ascribed to Brahman, such as A.ahata.a.matva
+freedom from sin-, Satyasanka#.atva +true vo#ition- and Aisvarya +Omniscience-
etc=
Accordin< to Audu#omi the on#y characteristics of the re#eased sou# is
!haitanya or .ure inte##i<ence=
Accordin< to Baadarayana the two views can be combined= The two views
describe the re#eased sou# from two different stand.oints, viG=, re#ative and
transcendenta# and so there is no contradiction between the two=
Adhikarana I(1 +Sutras 9&6- The sou# which has attained the Sa<una
Brahman effects its desires be mere wi##=
Adhikarana (1 +Sutras *8&*3- A re#eased sou# which has attained Brahma#oka
can e>ist with or without a body accordin< to its #ikin<=
Adhikarana (I1 +Sutras *4&*5- The re#eased sou# which has attained the
Sa<una Brahman can animate severa# bodies at the same time=
Adhikarana (II1 +Sutras *7&22- The re#eased sou# which has attained
Brahma#oka has a## the #ord#y .owers e>ce.t the .ower of creation, etc= There is
no return to this wor#d for these re#eased sou#s=
Sam.adyavirbhavadhikaranam1 To.ic * +Sutras *&,-
The #iberated sou# does not ac@uire anythin< new but on#y manifests its essentia#
or true nature
Sam.adyavirbhavah svena sabdat I(=3=* +4,3-
+Bhen the /iva or the individua# sou#- has attained +the hi<hest
#i<ht- there is manifestation +of its own rea# nature- as we infer
from the word HownI=
Sam.adya1 havin< attainedC Avirbhavah1 there is manifestationC Svena
sabdat1 from the word HownI= +Svena1 by oneIs ownC Sabdat1 inferred from the
word=-
The !hhando<ya te>t says J"ow this serene and ha..y bein<, after havin<
risen out of this body and havin< attained the hi<hest #i<ht, manifests itse#f by its
own natureJ +!hh= ?.= (II=*2=,-=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds that the /iva or the individua# sou# which has freed
itse#f from identification with the three bodies attains emanci.ation after rea#isin<
Brahman= Re#ease a#so is a fruit #ike other fruits, e=<=, Svar<a or heaven=
'anifestation means as much as ori<ination= Liberation was not a .re&e>istent
thin<= It is somethin< that is new#y ac@uired #ike heaven, as the word HreachesI in
the te>t c#ear#y indicates= Therefore emanci.ation is somethin< new that is
ac@uired by the individua# sou#= If the manifestation took .#ace on#y throu<h the
se#fIs own nature, it wou#d a#ready a..ear in the se#fIs former states, because a
thin<Is own nature is never absent in it=
The .resent Sutra refutes this view and says that the word HownI indicates
that emanci.ation was a .re&e>istent thin<= The individua# sou# manifests its own,
essentia# divine nature which was so #on< covered by i<norance +Avidya-= This is
his attainment of the fina# beatitude or re#ease= It is certain#y nothin< that is new#y
ac@uired=
'uktah .rati0nanat I(=3=2 +4,4-
+The se#f whose true nature has manifested itse#f is- re#easedC
accordin< to the .romise +made by scri.ture-=
'uktah1 the #iberated one, re#eased, freedC $rati0nanat1 accordin< to the
.romise=
The .revious Sutra is further e#ucidated=
Emanci.ation is a cessation of a## bonda<e and not the accession of
somethin< new, 0ust as hea#th is mere#y the remova# of i##ness and not a new
ac@uisition=
If re#ease is nothin< new that is ac@uired by the individua# sou#, then what is
its difference from bonda<eL The /iva was stained in the state of bonda<e by the
three states, i=e=, the state of wakin<, dreamin< and dream#ess s#ee.= Accordin< to
!hhando<ya ?.anishad (III= 6&**, JIt is b#indJ JIt wee.s as it wereJ JIt <oes to
utter annihi#ationJ= It ima<ines itse#f to be finite= It identifies itse#f with the i##usory
vehic#es or ?.adhis and e>.eriences .#easure, .ain, 0oy and sorrow= After Se#frea#isation
it rea#ises its true nature which is abso#ute b#iss= It is freed from a##
erroneous notions and misconce.tions= It is freed from Avidya or i<norance and its
effects= It is .erfect, free, inde.endent= This is the difference=
Annihi#ation of i<norance is sa#vation= Eradication of a## erroneous notions or
misconce.tions is #iberation= Destruction of the vei# of i<norance, that se.arates
the individua# sou# from the Su.reme Sou# is emanci.ation or the fina# beatitude=
But how is it known that in its .resent condition the sou# is re#easedL On
account of the .romise made in the scri.tures, says the Sutra=
The !hhando<ya ?.anishad says, JI wi## e>.#ain It to you furtherJ +!hh= ?.=
(III=6=,C (III=*8=3C (III=**=,-= %ere the Sruti .ro.oses to e>.ound that Se#f which
is free from a## im.erfections= It be<ins thus, JThe Se#f which is free from sinJ
+!hh= ?.= (III=7=*-= JIt bein< without the body, is not touched by .#easure and
.ainJ +!hh= ?.= (III=*2=*-, and conc#udes JBy his own nature he manifests
himse#f= That is the hi<hest .erson= The serene bein< rises above its body, reaches
the hi<hest #i<ht and a..ears in its own true natureJ +!hh= ?.= (III=*2=,-=
Atma .rakaranat I(=3=, +4,5-
+The #i<ht into which the individua# sou# enters is- the Su.reme
Se#fC owin< to the sub0ect matter of the cha.ter=
Atma1 the Su.reme Se#fC $rakaranat1 on account of the sub0ect matter of
the discourse or conte>t=
This Sutra says that the individua# sou# recovers his own Se#f +the Su.reme
Se#f- as stated in Sutra *=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds1 %ow can the sou# be ca##ed J#iberatedJ considerin<
that the c#ause J+havin< entered into- the hi<hest #i<htJ s.eaks of it as within the
s.here of what is a mere effectL Because the word H#i<htI in common .ar#ance
denotes .hysica# #i<ht= "o one who has not transcended beyond the s.here of
effects can be #iberated, as whatever is an effect is tainted with evi#=
Be re.#y1 this ob0ection is without force= It cannot standC for in the .assa<e
referred to in the !hh= ?.= (III=,=3 the word H#i<htI denotes the Se#f Su.reme, in
accordance with the sub0ect matter of the !ha.ter and not any .hysica# #i<ht=
The word H/yotihI +#i<ht- in the .assa<e refers to the Atma which is described
as sin#ess, undecayin< and death#ess +)a Atma a.ahata.a.ma vi0aro vimrityuh &
!hh= ?.= (III=7=*-=
Be, therefore, may not a## at once .ass over to .hysica# #i<ht incurrin<
thereby the fau#t of abandonin< the to.ic under discussion and introducin< a new
one=
The word H#i<htI is a#so used to denote the Se#f in the te>ts #ike JThe <ods
meditate on the immorta# Li<ht of a## #i<hts as #on<evityJ +Bri= ?.= I(=3=*5-= Be
have discussed this in detai# under I=,=38=
Avibha<ena drishtatvadhikaranam1 To.ic 2 +Sutra 3-
The re#eased sou# remains inse.arab#e from the Su.reme Sou#
Avibha<ena drishtatvat I(=3=3 +4,7-
+The /iva in the state of re#ease e>ists- as inse.arab#e +from
Brahman-, because it is so seen from the scri.tures=
Avibha<ena1 as inse.arab#eC Drishtatvat1 for it is so seen from the
scri.tures=
A doubt arises whether the individua# sou# in the state of emanci.ation e>ists
as different from Brahman or as one with and inse.arab#e from It=
The .resent Sutra dec#ares that it e>ists as inse.arab#e from Brahman,
because the Sruti te>ts dec#are so= JThou art That, Tat Tvam AsiJ +!hh= ?.=
(I=9=7-= JAham Brahma Asmi, I am BrahmanJ +Bri= ?.= I=3=*8-= JBhere he sees
nothin< e#seJ +!hh= ?.= (II=23=*-= JBein< but Brahman, he is mer<ed in BrahmanJ
+Bri= ?.= I(=3=5-= A## these Sruti .assa<es dec#are that the emanci.ated sou# is
identica# with Brahman=
Such .assa<es as J/ust as .ure water .oured into .ure water remains the
same, thus O :autama, is the se#f of a thinker who knowsJ +;atha ?.= II=3=*4-,
whose ob0ect is to describe the nature of the re#eased sou#, dec#are that there is
non&se.aration on#y= The same fo##ows from the com.arison of the sou# enterin<
Brahman to rivers fa##in< into the sea=
$assa<es which s.eak of difference have to be e>.#ained in a secondary
sense, e>.ressin< non&se.aration or unity=
Brahmadhikaranam1 To.ic , +Sutras 4&7-
!haracteristics of the sou# that has attained the "ir<una Brahman
Brahmena 0aiminiru.anyasadibhyah I(=3=4 +4,9-
+The re#eased sou# e>ists- as .ossessed of +the attributes of-
BrahmanC +thus- /aimini +o.ines- on account of the reference etc=
Brahmena1 as .ossessed of the attributes of BrahmanC /aiminih1 /aimini
+ho#ds-C ?.anyasadibhyah1 on account of the reference etc=
The view of the sa<e /aimini is stated in this connection=
It has been stated that the re#eased sou# attains Brahman= Brahman has two
as.ects, viG=, one the unconditioned as.ect as .ure consciousness and the other
as described in the !hhando<ya ?.anishad (III=7=*1 JThe Atman which is free
from evi#, undecayin<, undyin<, free from sorrow, hun<er and thirst, with true
desires +Satyakama- and true vo#itions +Satyasanka#.a-=J
A doubt arises now, which as.ect does the re#eased sou# attainL /aimini
maintains that the #iberated sou# attains the conditioned as.ect= BhyL Because
this is known from reference to the nature of the se#f as bein< such in the te>t
cited= The @ua#ities of Omniscience and Omni.otence are mentioned= %ence
/aimini o.ines that the re#eased sou# attains the conditioned as.ect of Brahman=
!hititanmatrena tadatmakatvadityaudu#omih I(=3=5 +4,6-
+The re#eased sou# e>ists- so#e#y as .ure consciousness or
Inte##i<ence, that bein< its true nature or essenceC thus Audu#omi
+thinks-=
!hititanmatrena1 so#e#y as .ure consciousness +Tanmatrena1 so#e#y-C
Tadatmakatvat1 that bein< its true nature or essenceC Iti1 thus, soC Audu#omih1
Audu#omi +thinks-=
The view of sa<e Audu#omi is stated in this connection=
This Sutra <ives another view about the state of emanci.ation= This is the
view of the sa<e Audu#omi= Audu#omi says that it is the rea#isation of the sou#Is
essentia# nature as .ure !haitanya +know#ed<e, consciousness or inte##i<ence-=
The sou# is so#e#y of the nature of $ure !onsciousness= It e>ists as such in the
state of re#ease=
This conc#usion wi## a#so a<ree with other scri.tura# te>ts such as Bri= ?.=
I(=4=*,1 JThus this Se#f has neither inside nor outside, but is a#to<ether a mass of
know#ed<eJ=
A#thou<h the te>t enumerates different @ua#ities such as freedom from sin,
etc=, these @ua#ities rest on#y on fancifu# conce.tions due to difference of wordsC
because what the te>t intimates is on#y absence in <enera# of a## @ua#ities such as
sin and the rest=
Evama.yu.anyasat .urvabhavadavirodham
baadarayanah I(=3=7 +438-
Thus a#so, on account of the e>istence of the former @ua#ities
admitted owin< to reference and so on, there is no contradiction
+between the two-C +so thinks- Baadarayana=
Evam1 thusC A.i1 evenC ?.anyasat1 on account of referenceC
$urvabhavat1 owin< to attribution of .ro.erties mentioned beforeC Avirodham1
there is no contradictionC Baadarayanah1 Baadarayana +thinks-=
The authorIs own view is now stated=
Baadarayana reconci#es both and says that the affirmation of the divine
attributes of Omniscience and Omni.otence is from the .oint of view of :odIs
nature when the sou# is bound, whi#e the affirmation of the sou#Is nature as .ure
know#ed<e is from the .oint of view of its re#eased state=
A#thou<h it is admitted that inte##i<ence constitutes the true nature of the
Se#f, a#so the former nature, i=e=, #ord#y .ower #ike that of Brahman, which is
intimated by reference and the rest is with a view to the wor#d of a..earances not
re0ected= %ence there is no contradiction= This is the o.inion of the teacher
Baadarayana=
Sanka#.adhikaranam1 To.ic 3 +Sutras 9&6-
The sou# which has attained the Sa<una Brahman effects its desire by mere wi##
Sanka#.adeva tu tacchruteh I(=3=9 +43*-
But by mere wi## +the #iberated sou#s attain their .ur.ose-,
because scri.tures say so=
Sanka#.at1 by the e>ercise of wi##C Eva1 on#yC Tu1 butC Tat&sruteh1
because Sruti says so=
The .owers and .rivi#e<es which a #iberated sou# ac@uires are stated here=
In the meditation on Brahman within the heart we read as fo##ows1 JIf he
desires the wor#d of the fathers +$itri#oka- by his mere wi## they come to himJ
+!hh= ?.= (III=2=*-=
A doubt here arises whether the wi## a#one is the cause to <et the resu#t, or
the wi## combined with some other o.erative cause=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds that a#thou<h scri.ture says Jby his mere wi##J some
other cause must be su..osed to coo.erate as in ordinary #ife= Because, as in
ordinary e>.erience the meetin< with oneIs father is caused by oneIs wi##, and in
addition by the act of <oin< and so on, so it wi## be with the case of the #iberated
sou# a#so=
This Sutra says that by mere wi## the resu#t comes, because the Sruti so
dec#ares= If any other cause were re@uired, the direct scri.tura# statements Jby his
wi## on#yJ wou#d thereby be contradicted=
The wi## of the #iberated sou# is different from the wi## of ordinary men= It has
the .ower of .roducin< resu#ts without any o.erative cause=
Ata eva chananyadhi.atih I(=3=6 +432-
And for this very same reason +the re#eased sou# is- without
another Lord=
Ata eva1 for the very reason, therefore, soC !ha1 andC Ananyadhi.atih1
without any other Lord=
The .revious to.ic is continued=
or the very same reason, i=e=, owin< to the fact of the wi## of the re#eased
.erson bein< a##&.owerfu#, he who knows has no other Lord over himse#f= Because
not even an ordinary .erson when formin< wishes, wi##, if he can he#. it, wish
himse#f to be sub0ect to another master= Even in this wor#d no one cou#d wi##in<#y
have master to #ord over him= Scri.ture a#so dec#ares that a re#eased sou# is
master of himse#f= Jor them there is freedom from a## wor#dsJ +!hh= ?.= (III=*=5-=
Abhavadhikaranam1 To.ic 4 +Sutras *8&*3-
A #iberated sou# who has attained Brahma#oka can e>ist with or without a body
accordin< to his #ikin<
Abhavam baadariraha hyevam I(=3=*8 +43,-
There is absence +of body and or<ans, in the case of the
#iberated sou#s- +asserts- Baadari, for thus scri.ture says=
Abhavam1 absence +of body and or<ans-C Baadarih1 the sa<e Baadari
+asserts-C Aha1 +the Sruti- saysC %i1 becauseC Evam1 thus=
There fo##ows a discussion whether the #iberated sou# .ossesses a body or
not=
The .assa<e JBy his mere wi## the fathers riseJ shows that the #iberated sou#
.ossesses a mind, whereby he wi##s= A doubt arises whether he .ossesses a body
and the or<ans=
The teacher Baadari says that he does not, because the scri.ture dec#ares so,
JAnd it is by means of the mind that he sees the desires and re0oicesJ +!hh= ?.=
(III=*2=4-= This c#ear#y indicates that he .ossesses on#y the mind and not the
or<ans, etc= There are neither body nor sense&or<ans in the state of emanci.ation=
Bhavam 0aiminirvika#.amananat I(=3=** +433-
/aimini +asserts that the #iberated sou#- .ossesses +a body and
the or<ans- because the scri.tures dec#are +the ca.acity on the .art
of such a sou# to assume- various forms=
Bhavam1 e>istenceC /aiminih1 /aimini +ho#ds-C (ika#.a& mananat1
because the scri.ture dec#ares +the ca.acity to assume- divine forms= +(ika#.a1
o.tion, diversity in manifestationC Amananat1 from statement in Sruti=-
A contrary view to Sutra *8 is adduced=
The teacher /aimini is of the o.inion that the #iberated sou# .ossesses a body
and or<ans as we## as a mind= the !hhando<ya ?.anishad dec#ares J%e bein< one
becomes three, five, seven, nineJ +!hh= ?.= (II=25=2-= This te>t says that a
#iberated sou# can assume more than one form= This indicates that the re#eased
sou# .ossesses besides the mind, a body and the or<ans=
Dvadasahavadubhayavidham baadarayanoItah I(=3=*2 +434-
or this reason Baadarayana o.ines that the re#eased .erson is of
both kinds as in the case of the twe#ve daysI sacrifice=
Dvadasahavat1 #ike the twe#ve daysI sacrificeC ?bhayavidham1 +is- of
both kindsC Baadarayanah1 Baadarayana +thinks-C Atah1 so, therefore, from
this, from this very reason=
A decision is <iven on the conf#ictin< views noted above=
Baadarayana affirms from the twofo#d dec#arations of the two scri.tures that
a #iberated sou# who has attained Brahma#oka can e>ist both ways, with or without
a body, accordin< to his #ikin<= It is #ike the twe#ve daysI sacrifice, which is ca##ed a
Satra as we## as an Ahina sacrifice=
Tanvabhave sandhyavadu.a.atteh I(=3=*, +435-
In the absence of a body +the fu#fi#ment of desires is .ossib#e-
as in dreams, as this is reasonab#e=
Tanvabhave1 in the absence of a bodyC Sandhyavad1 0ust as in dreams
+which stand midway between wakin< and dee. s#ee.-C ?.a.atteh1 this bein<
reasonab#e=
An inference is drawn from the conc#usion arrived at in Sutra *2=
Bhen there is no body or sense&or<ans, the wished for ob0ects are
e>.erienced by the #iberated sou#s 0ust as embodied .ersons e>.erience 0oy in
dreams=
Bhave 0a<radvat I(=3=*3 +437-
Bhen the body e>ists +the fu#fi#ment of desires is- as in the
wakin< state=
Bhave1 when the body e>istsC /a<radvat1 0ust as in the wakin< state=
Bhen there are the body and sense&or<ans, the wished for ob0ects are
e>.erienced by the #iberated sou#s, 0ust as embodied .ersons e>.erience 0oys in
the wakin< state=
$radi.adhikaranam1 To.ic 5 +Sutras *4&*5-
The #iberated sou# which has attained the Sa<una Brahman can animate severa#
bodies at the same time
$radi.avadavesastatha hi darsayati I(=3=*4 +439-
The enterin< +of the re#eased sou# into severa# bodies- #ike +the
mu#ti.#ication of- the f#ame of a #am. because thus the scri.ture
dec#ares=
$radi.avat1 #ike the f#ame of a #am.C Avesah1 enterin<, animatin<C Tatha1
thus, soC %i1 becauseC Darsayati1 the scri.ture shows +or dec#ares-=
This Sutra shows the .ossibi#ity of the #iberated sou# of simu#taneous#y
.ossessin< severa# bodies other than his own=
In Sutra ** it has been shown that a re#eased sou# can assume many bodies
at the same time for en0oyment=
A doubt arises whether the bodies which the re#eased create for themse#ves
when renderin< themse#ves threefo#d and so on are sou##ess #ike wooden fi<ures or
animated by sou#s #ike the bodies of men=
The $urva.akshin maintains that as neither the sou# nor the mind can be
divided, they are 0oined with one body on#y, whi#e other bodies are sou##ess= Other
bodies are #ife#ess .u..ets= En0oyment is .ossib#e on#y in that body in which the
sou# and mind e>ist=
This Sutra refutes this view and says, JLike the f#ame of a #am. in their
enterin<J i=e=, 0ust as the one f#ame of a #am. can enter into different wicks #i<hted
from it, the re#eased sou#, a#thou<h one on#y, mu#ti.#ies itse#f throu<h its #ord#y
.ower and enters into a## these bodies= It creates bodies with interna# or<ans
corres.ondin< to the ori<ina# interna# or<ans and bein< #imited by these divides
itse#f as many= Therefore, a## the created bodies have a sou# which renders
en0oyment throu<h a## of these bodies .ossib#e= Scri.ture dec#ares that in this way
one may become many= J%e is onefo#d, he is threefo#d, fivefo#d, sevenfo#dJ +!hh=
?.= (II=5=2-=
The )o<a Sastras a#so make the same affirmation=
Sva.yayasam.attyoranyatara.ekshamavishkritam
hi I(=3=*5 +436-
+The dec#aration of absence of a## co<nition is made- havin< in
view either of the two states, viG=, dee. s#ee. and abso#ute union
+with Brahman-, for this is made c#ear +by the scri.tures-=
Sva.yayasam.attyoh1 of dee. s#ee. and abso#ute union +with Brahman-C
Anyatara.eksham1 havin< in view either of these twoC Avishkritam1 this is
made c#ear +by the Sruti-C %i1 because= +Sva.yaya1 dee. s#ee.C Anyatara1
either, any of the twoC A.eksham1 with reference to, with re<ard to=-
The ran<e of know#ed<e of the #iberated sou# is now discussed=
The $urva.akshin ho#ds1 %ow can #ord#y .ower, enab#in< the re#eased sou# to
enter into severa# bodies and en0oy be admitted if we consider the different
scri.tura# te>ts which dec#are that the sou# in that state has not any s.ecific
co<nitionL e=<=, JBhat shou#d one know and throu<h whatLJ +Bri= ?.= II=3=*3-=
JBut there is not the second thin< se.arate from it which it can knowJ +Bri= ?.=
I(=,=,8-= JIt becomes #ike water, one, witness and without a secondJ +Bri= ?.=
I(=,=,2-=
This Sutra says that these te>ts refer either to the state of dee. s#ee. or to
that of fina# re#ease in which the sou# attains abso#ute union with the "ir<una
Brahman=
Those .assa<es on the other hand, which describe #ord#y .ower refer to an
a#to<ether different condition which #ike the heaven#y wor#d, is an abode where
know#ed<e of Sa<una Brahman .roduces its resu#ts=
Be have been discussin< in the .revious Sutras about one who has not
attained abso#ute union with "ir<una Brahman but on#y Brahma#oka= There is
co<nition in Brahma#oka= There is en0oyment a#so in heaven= The difference
between heaven and Brahma#oka is that one does not return to this wor#d from
Brahma#oka whereas one returns to this universe from heaven when the resu#ts of
his virtuous deeds have been e>hausted=
/a<advya.aradhikaranam1 To.ic 7 +Sutras *7&22-
The #iberated sou# which has attained Brahma#oka has a## the #ord#y .owers e>ce.t
the .ower of creation
/a<advya.aravar0am .rakaranadasannihitattvaccha I(=3=*7 +448-
+The #iberated sou# attains a## #ord#y .owers- e>ce.t the .ower
of creation, etc=, on account of +the Lord bein<- the sub0ect matter
+of a## te>ts where creation, etc=, are referred to- and +the
#iberated sou#s- not bein< mentioned +in that connection-=
/a<advya.aravar0am1 e>ce.t the .ower of creation, etc=, $rakaranat1
+on account of the Lord bein<- the sub0ect matter, because of the <enera# to.ic of
the cha.terC Asannihitattvat1 on account of +#iberated sou#s- not bein<
mentioned on account of non&.ro>imityC !ha1 and= +/a<at1 wor#dC (ya.ara1
creation etc=C (ar0am1 e>ce.ted=-
The #imitations of the re#eased sou#sI .ower are stated here=
A doubt here .resents itse#f whether those who throu<h meditation on the
Sa<una Brahman enter Brahma#oka .ossess un#imited #ord#y .ower or .ower
#imited to some e>tent=
The $urva.akshin maintains that their .owers must be un#imited, because we
meet with te>ts such as JThey can roam at wi## in a## the wor#dsJ +!hh= ?.=
(II=24=2C (III=*=5-= J%e obtains se#f&#ordshi.J +Tait= Sam= I=5=2-= JTo him a## the
<ods offer worshi.J +Tait= Sam= I=4=,-= Jor him there is freedom in a## wor#dsJ
+!hh= ?.= (III=*=5-=
This Sutra says that the #iberated sou#s attain a## #ord#y .owers such as
Anima, renderin< onese#f to atomic siGe, etc=, e>ce.t the .ower of creation, etc=
!reation, .reservation and destruction, on the other hand can be#on< to the
ever#astin<#y .erfect Lord on#y= Bhy soL Because the Lord is the sub0ect matter of
a## the te>ts dea#in< with creation, etc=, whi#e the re#eased sou#s are not mentioned
at a## in this connection=
urther, this wou#d #ead to many Isvaras= If they have the .ower of creation
of the universe they may not be of one mind= There may be conf#ict of wi##s with
res.ect to creation, etc= One may desire to create, and another to destroy= Such
conf#icts can on#y be avoided by assumin< that the wishes of one shou#d conform
to those of another and from this it fo##ows that a## other sou#s de.end on the
%i<hest Lord=
%ence the .owers of the re#eased sou#s are not abso#ute but #imited and are
de.endent on the wi## of the Lord=
$ratyaksho.adesaditi
chennadhikarikamanda#asthokteh I(=3=*9 +44*-
If it be said that the #iberated sou# attains abso#ute .owers on
account of direct teachin< of the scri.tures, we say noC because the
scri.tures dec#are that the #iberated sou# attains %im who entrusts
the sun, etc=, with their offices and abides in those s.heres=
$ratyaksho.adesat1 on account of direct teachin<C Iti1 so, thusC !het1 ifC
+Iti chet1 if it be said-C "a1 notC Adhikarikamanda#a& sthokteh1 because the
scri.ture dec#ares that the sou# attains %im who entrusts the sun, etc=, with their
offices and abodes in those s.heres= +Adhikarika1 the master of a wor#d, a wor#dru#erC
'anda#astha1 e>istin< in s.heres, i=e=, those abidin< in the s.heres, of
those entrusted with the s.ecia# functionsC ?kteh1 as it is c#ear#y stated in Sruti=-
An ob0ection to Sutra *7 is raised and refuted=
This Sutra consists of two .arts, name#y an ob0ection and its re.#y= The
ob0ection .ortion is, J$ratyaksho.adesatJC the re.#y .ortion is
J"adhikarikamanda#asthoktehJ=
J%e becomes the Lord of himse#f & A.noti svara0yamJ +Tait= ?.= I=5-= rom
the direct teachin< of the Sruti the $urva.akshin maintains that the #imited sou#
attains abso#ute .owers=
This .resent Sutra refutes this and says that his .owers de.end on the Lord,
because the te>t cited further on says, J%e attains the Lord of the mind, the Lord
who dwe##s in s.heres #ike the sun, etc=, and entrusts the sun, etc=, with offices=J
Therefore, it is @uite c#ear from this #atter .art of the te>t that the #iberated
sou# obtains its .owers from the Lord and de.ends on %im= %ence its .owers are
not un#imited= %e attains .owers as the <ift of the Su.reme Lord who is in the sun,
etc=, and who bestows the function of contro##in< the orb of the sun, on the sun<od=
(ikaravarti cha tatha hi sthitimaha I(=3=*6 +442-
And +there is a form of the Su.reme Lord- which is beyond a##
created thin<s +because, so the scri.ture dec#ares- +%is- e>istence
+in a two&fo#d form unmanifest and manifest-=
(ikaravarti1 which is beyond a## effected thin<s, becomes inca.ab#e of
transformation by birth, decay, death, etc=C !ha1 andC Tatha1 soC %i1 becauseC
Sthitim1 status, condition, e>istenceC Aha1 +Sruti- dec#ares=
The descri.tion of the status of the #iberated sou# is continued=
Accordin< to scri.ture, there is a#so an interna# form of the Su.reme Lord,
which does not abide in effects= %e is not on#y the ru#in< sou# of the s.heres of the
sun and so on which #ie within the s.here of what is effected=
The te>t dec#ares this abidin< in a two&fo#d form as fo##ows1 JSuch is the
<reatness of itC <reater than that is the $urushaC one foot of %im is a## bein<sC %is
other three feet are what is immorta# in heavenJ +!hh= ?.= III=*2=5-=
This te>t intimates that the %i<hest Lord abides in two forms, the
transcendenta# and the re#ative=
%e who meditates on the Lord in %is re#ative as.ect does not attain the
transcendenta# as.ect= %e who worshi.s the Lord as havin< form cannot attain the
form#ess Brahman, because of the #aw of .ro.ortion of fruit to desire= The Sruti
dec#ares JAs one meditates u.on That, so he becomes=J
As the meditator on the re#ative as.ects of the Lord is unab#e to com.rehend
it fu##y, he attains on#y #imited .owers and not un#imited .owers #ike the Lord
%imse#f=
Darsayataschaivam .ratyakshanumane I(=3=28 +44,-
And thus .erce.tion and inference show=
Darsayatah1 they both showC !ha1 andC Evam1 thusC $ratyakshaanumane1
$ratyaksha and Anumana, .erce.tion and inference=
This Sutra dec#ares that the transcendenta# as.ect of the Lord is estab#ished
by both the Sruti and Smriti= Sruti and Smriti both dec#are that the hi<hest #i<ht
does not abide within effected thin<, JThe sun does not shine there, nor the moon
and the stars, nor these #i<htnin<s and much #ess this fireJ +'un= ?.= II=2=*8-=
JThe sun does not i##umine it, nor the moon, nor fireJ +Bha<avad :ita, K(=5-=
Bho<amatrasamya#in<accha I(=3=2* +443-
And because of the indications +in the scri.tures- of e@ua#ity
+of the #iberated sou# with the Lord- on#y with res.ect to en0oyment=
Bho<amatra1 with res.ect to en0oyment on#yC Samya1 e@ua#ityC Lin<at1
from the indication of SrutiC !ha1 a#so, and=
That the .owers of the #iberated sou# are not un#imited is a#so known from the
indication in the Sruti that the e@ua#ity of these sou#s with the Lord is on#y with
re<ard to en0oyment and not with res.ect to creation, etc=
JAs a## bein<s honour that Deity, so do a## bein<s honour him who knows
thatJ +Bri= ?.= I=4=28-= JThrou<h it he attains identity with the Deity, or #ives in the
same wor#d with itJ +Bri= ?.= I=4=2,-=
A## these te>ts describe e@ua#ity on#y with re<ard to en0oyment= They do not
mention anythin< with reference to creation, etc=
Anavrittih sabdadanavrittih sabdat I(=3=22 +444-
+There is- no return +for these #iberated sou#s-, on account of
the scri.tura# statement +to that effect-=
Anavrittih1 no returnC Sabdat1 on account of the scri.tura# statement=
The discussion on the .rivi#e<es of the #iberated sou# is conc#uded here=
The $urva.akshin maintains1 If the .owers of the #iberated sou#s are #imited,
then they too wi## come to an end #ike a## #imited morta# bein<s= Therefore, the
#iberated sou#s wi## have to return to this wor#d from Brahma#oka=
This Sutra refutes this and says that those who <o to Brahma#oka by the .ath
of the <ods do not return from there= Because scri.tura# .assa<es teach that they
do not so return= J:oin< u. by that way, one reaches immorta#ityJ +!hh= ?.=
(III=5=5-= JThose who .roceed on that .ath do not return to the #ife of manJ +!hh=
?.= I(=*4=5-= J%e reaches the wor#d of Brahman and does not returnJ +!hh= ?.=
(II=*4=*-= JThey no more return to this wor#dJ +Bri= ?.= (I=2=*4-=
The re.etition of the words J"o returnJ, etc=, indicates that the book is
finished=
Thus ends the ourth $ada +Section 3- of the ourth !ha.ter +Adhyaya I(- of
the Brahma Sutras or the (edanta $hi#oso.hy of Sri Baadarayana or Sri (eda&
(yasa or Sri ;rishna&Dvai.ayana, the Avatara of Lord Sri %ari= 'ay %is b#essin<s
be u.on you a##=
%ARI O' TAT SAT
Sri Sad<uru $aramatmane "amah
Om Sri (edavyasaya "amah
Om $urnamadah $urnamidam $urnat $urnamudachyate,
$urnasya $urnamadaya $urnamevavasishyate=
Om Santih Santih SantihD