Then therefore enquiry into Brahman.

A COMPLETE TRANSLATION

S. SUBBA RAU, m.a.

Madras:

PRINTED BT THOMPSON AND CO.,

AT THE “MINERVA” PRESS,

33, POPHAM’S BROADWAY,

THIS LITTLE VOLUME 18, AS A TOKEN OF HIGHEST ESTEEM,

MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY S. SUBBA RAU, m.a.,

A DEVOTED DISCIPLE OF RAGHAVENDRACHARYA.

PREFACE

In offering to the learned world this little volume of translation of a great work, great by intent, not by extent, I feel constrained to acknowledge my presumptuousness. The only circumstance that has forced me to undertake the task is the request and advice of a friend whom I cannot otherwise satisfy. The brevity of the original defies all attempts at giving a classical rendering and doing justice to the deeply significant syllables in the Acharya’s Bhashya. If the translation should, so far as it goes, be found to convey faithfully the ideas of the commentator, I should feel gratified as having discharged my humble duty.

The work was undertaken and carried through the Press under several disadvantages, and it is hoped that the enlightened readers will kindly overlook the imperfections and accept the humble tribute of a devout heart.

I am very much indebted to Rao Bahadur M. Rangacharya, M.A., who kindly encouraged the publication, and also read a few pages of proof and gave me very useful instructions. Next I have to express my sincere thanks – giving to Mr. Navaratnam Rama Rao, b.a., b.i., who was kind enough to read through the greater portion of the manuscripts for the press and made valuable suggestions; to Mr. K. Kuppuswami Shastri, b.a., who with indefatigable zeal wrote to dictation the whole of the translation; and to other friends that often assisted me in reading the proofs. Lastly I owe a tribute of gratitude to Mr. M. Rama Rao, District Forest Officer, North Salem, for the warm interest he has shown in my: undertaking and the encouragement he has given me.

Salem,

August 12, 1904.

CONTENTS:

Introduction

VEDANTA-SUTRAS WITH THE COMMENTARY BY MADHWACHARYA.

ADHYAYA I.

Pada I

Pada II

Pada III

Pada IV

ADHYAYA II.

Pada I

Pada II

Pada III

Pada IV

ADHYAYA III.

Pada I

Pada II

Pada III

Pada IV

ADHYAYA IV.

Pada I

Pada II

Pada III

Pada IV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

Aitareya Aranyaka A. A.

Aitareya Upanishad тоже A. A.

Atharvana Upanishad Ath. U.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bri. U. or Bri. or Br. U.

The Bhagavad-Gita do Gita or B. G.

Chandogya do Ch.

Ishavasya do Isa.

Kaushitaki do Kau.

Kathaka do Kath. or Kath. U.

Maha Narayana do Mn.

Mandukya do Man.

Rigveda Samhita Rv.

Shatapatha Brahmana S. Br.

Shat-prashna Pr.pr.

Shvetashvatara Upanishad Sv. or. Sv. U.

Taittiriya Aranyaka T. A.

Taittiriya Brahmana T. B.

Taittiriya Samhita T.S.

Taittiriya Upanishad Tait. or T. U.

Talavakara do Tal.

INTRODUCTION

Shriman Madhwacharya is one of the famous commentators on the Brahma-Sutras or Vedanta-Sutras. He represents the Dwaita or dualistic system of thought in its most comprehensive phase, founded on the orthodox literature of India. This system is reviewed in the Sarvadarshana Sangraha as Purnapragna-Darshana. The Acharya is also known as Anandateertha and Purnapragna, and among his followers many other expressions synonymous with these are frequently used to denote him.

In the recent awakening of the world to a careful research into the philosophical systems of India, both native and foreign scholars have done a great deal to place before the English-knowing readers the different schools of teaching that are to this day flourishing in the country. Circumstances have, however, been favourable to draw their attention only to a few particular systems, while there is yet a large number worthy of careful investigation. Of these latter an important one is that taught by Shriman Madhwacharya.

Among the native scholars he is acknowledged as great a teacher of the Vedanta philosophy as any that rose on the land of Bharata, provided that the Vedanta Doctrine does not mean the Doctrine of Absolute Identity. The community of Shri Madhwa’s followers is comparatively small; but the system taught by him deserves to be studied and appreciated in a scientific spirit; for it at once admits the absolute authority of the Vedas and all other orthodox testimony on the one hand, and, on the other, seeks to base belief on a consistent construction of the texts according with the sound principles of Logic.

The most important work expected of a Vedantic teacher is a commentary on the Sutras of Shri Badarayana. Next he has to give us his own commentaries on the famous Upanishads. The present volume is a popular rendering in English of Shri Madhwa’s Bhashya or commentary on the Sutras.

Generally an elaborate introduction comparing the other systems may be expected to be found at the beginning of such a publication as this. But for various reasons it is desirable that the work of comparison is undertaken by the readers themselves who will generally happen to be men of culture. The object of this translation is simply to draw the attention of the thoughtful world to the original itself and to some small extent to facilitate its study. There is a particular reason too for not giving an elaborate view of the several systems side by side. The Bhashya is limited in extent and written in the plainest style, so that everyone can afford to patiently study the work as a whole and get at the meaning of the author. When this is done, the comparison which each learned reader is able to institute will please him most.

However, the concise nature of the Bhashya may at times try the inquiring mind; and this necessitates the presenting of a clear view of the fundamental positions of the system itself, that the reader may with pleasure stop to devote some thought to the deep intent of the brief sentences which interpret the Sutras of Shri Badarayana. Any desire to have a scholarly understanding of the Sutras and the Bhashya cannot be satisfied unless and until the tastefully brilliant commentaries of Shri Jayatheertha Swami are studied and digested. In the following brief survey of the work the tenor of the commentaries also will be slightly indicated.

Before the summary is given, a few general remarks may be made as suggested by the very views adopted by the Acharya.

It cannot be doubted that the six well known systems of philosophy had grown up at least before the decline of Buddhism, if their existence earlier than Buddha’s time could not be granted. Most schools that grew up after Buddha, apparently taking their stand on the authority of the Vedas, have sought to recognise a distinction, sometimes irreconcilable, between the teachings of the Upanishads and those of the earlier portions of the revealed literature. But Tradition and the spirit of the genuine Puranas and Itihasas are against such separation or distinction between the two portions of the Vedas, which cannot but savour of heterodoxy, as the Nyaya and some other systems have been remarked to do.

In the true Aryan point of view, the Vedic rites and observances alone can be called orthodoxy, however changed they may have become in process of time; then if it is necessary to inculcate the belief in the one Supreme Being, or to give a consistent view of the hierarchy of the gods, it is necessary to be taught in the manner most agreeable to the active religion of the ancient seers. Such is the real purpose, if it has any, of Shri Badarayana’s work. It has to explain to the world on the basis of facts and reasoning furnished and warranted by the sacred literature, a system which should at once give full credit to the teachings of the oldest authorities and propound theories that can at least with an equal strength and probability be opposed to any other claiming to render a satisfactory explanation of the nature of Brahman or God. The philosophy so taught has become most agreeable to common sense and has been found to pay the highest regard to the real foundations of the human understanding. On this latter feature rests the intrinsic value of Shri Badarayana’s system. Then it is but natural that we expect Shri Madhwacharya to tell us only what Shri Badarayana’s work means.

When the whole body of the Upanishads is in the view of the orthodox as strictly revealed literature as the Mantras or Brahmanas, the distinction which a modern scholar may for his own reasons draw between them as older or later production is of no great consequence to one that endeavours to know what Shri Badarayana intends to teach to be the sense of the Vedas. Nor does such a distinction compel us to admit that the Vedas do not form a consistent whole. There is nothing in the nature of things that prevents them from collectively fulfilling one main purpose, while they severally differ in their significance. So are the different parts of the Veda. If Mantras are hymns to the gods and Brahmanas explain them in relation to their application in sacrifices, the Upanishads explain both of them and show how everything described or enjoined in them tends to the knowledge of the Almighty Ruler of the Universe. This view alone, it should be noted, can give a real clue to the perpetuation of the primitive habits, customs and beliefs of the race which History has shown to outlive the destructive influence of time and circumstances.

Admitting the Vedas in their different parts to be the production of different ages, there is still nothing against seeing a continuity of spirit and purpose running through all the three divisions of the Vedas. For when an earlier portion was with scrupulous care handed down along with its traditional interpretation, the later generation found it necessary to reduce that traditional interpretation also to the same form as the original was in for the benefit of subsequent generations, whose disadvantages might have been easily foreseen from the changing circumstances of their own experience. Similarly the genuine Puranas and Itihasas must have had their origin in the necessity of giving a popular expression to the traditional teaching, the exposition being only in a simpler or a more familiar language of later times. It is also possible to trace some foreign ideas or topics that have found introduction into the ancient literature through the interference of mischievous hands. We should remember that when it is not possible to deny the continuity of traditions, it is not fair to hold that the different parts of the Vedas must be heterogeneous in their nature and that an attempt to give a consistent view of the whole is merely the cleverness of the interpreter.

The purely orthodox view is that the Vedas are meant to describe not only the eternal principles of the universe, but also everything that forms part of the changing world. This they must do in order to show the permanent relation that subsists between the eternal and phenomenal existences. According to this view an enquiry into the Vedic Brahman concerns not the Upanishads alone, but concerns all the Samhitas, Brahmanas, all the extant and lost portions of the sacred lore. In order to emphasize this view taken by the author of the Brahma-Sutras, the Acharya has indicated the line of interpretation by commenting upon the first forty Suktas of the Rik-Samhita, a considerable portion of the Aitareya Aranyaka, and the Shrutis known as the Mahanamni employed in sacrifices. Only on recognizing this comprehensive scope, the first and essential characteristic of a Sutra composition, viz., of being universally applicable, is possible to realize fully in the Brahma-Sutras. While there is nothing to limit the scope of these, the other Sutras expressly deal with only a limited number of Sakhas towards some definite purpose.

Now one of the main features of Shri Madhwa’s Bhashya is that it is a standing refutation of the aforesaid distinction made by some other teachers between the different parts of the Vedas. This point will be made clearer when we speak of the Bhashya itself.

Many have thought that the Vedanta-Sutras are a supplement to Gaimini’s Mimamsa, and have brought into vogue the term Uttara-Mimamsa to denote the former. But the Acharya quotes numerous passages to show that the work of Gaimini is in no way connected with that of Shri Badarayana; whereas the Karma-Mimamsa may be looked upon as the elaborate treatment of a particular function of the Vedas recognised by the Brahma-Sutras. Tradition and the available authorities distinctly point to the fact that Gaimini as well as Badari, Audulomi, Kasakritsna, Karshnagini, Asmarathya, Paila, Vaishampayana, Sumantu, and Bharadwaja amongst others were all Badarayana Vyasa’s pupils. The Bhashya clearly points out how the great Vyasa in mentioning the views of his pupils intends to draw the attention of the later thinkers to this fact. On the other hand, we are told that this Brahma-Mimamsa is to be considered as the continuation of the Deva-Mimamsa of which the beginning and the closing Sutras were composed by Shri Vedavyasa Himself, and the intermediate portion was under His instruction filled up by the sage Paila.

Even the results of modern researches cannot support the supposition that the general principles made use of in the Purva-Mimamsa are purely Gaimini’s own. For modern Scholars think that the work of systematizing the Vedic teaching must have been going on long before a Vyasa or a Gaimini could give the present shape to the various opinions held on the several topics. On this supposition their work may be compared to that of Panini, who did not invent the principles of Grammar. Next, the Puranas which are older than all the extent Bhashyas, agree in placing Shri Badarayana at the head of these sages whose preceptor He was. They state that these Sutras furnished the model to other thinkers who had grown up under His care and received lessons from Him. The mistake that the Brahma-Sutras presuppose the principles laid down in Gaimini’s work had its origin in, and has been perpetuated by, the nature of education which most authors of the extant commentaries had received early in life. The course of their studies first gave them an insight into Gaimini’s work and then their attention was drawn to the system of Badarayana. Naturally their very understanding was tinged with the notions of their youthful study and they fell to illustrating or realising the Vedantic positions with the help of the analogies drawn from the Mimamsa of their earlier acquaintance.

It might appear that the conciseness in this work as well as in Gaimini’s is at the entire sacrifice of clearness. In the first place, clearness is relative to the student and the circumstances in which he is placed with regard to the work. Unlike the other Sutra works, the Brahma-Sutras have to deal with an extensive field of the old literature and with the ever expanding world of thought. But the genuine merit of this composition is perceived without any great difficulty when we begin to test the power of the words in the Sutras with the references collected by the different Bhashyakaras.

The claim of these Sutras to be termed the Sutras is discussed at some length in the Bhashya and their typical character is frequently pointed out in the commentaries on the Bhashya. The obscurity or the enigmatical character of the Sutra often arises from the forced interpretation which a commentator is pleased to put upon it. Allowance should, however, be made for the obsolete senses of the terms, and the antiquated character of the language used in the Sutras, before the interpretation in the modernized speech is pronounced to be a forced one. The orthodox Aryan should be highly satisfied to find that Shri Madhwacharya has, if he has not taught a strange philosophy, at least nobly endeavored to interpret the mind of Shri Badarayana and to show that Badarayana’s theory and discussions are rigidly consistent and that every Adhikarana, every Sutra is meant to examine and substantiate the theory, while nothing is said out of the way.

Tradition runs thus: — “A year after he became a Sanyasin, Shri Madhwa went to worship Shri Badarayana in His hermitage on the slopes of the Himalayas. The ancient sage was gracious enough to initiate Madhwa into the depths of philosophy and commanded him to expound to the world His own meaning of the Sutras and Vedas.” Whatever view may be taken of this account, one thing surely it signifies, namely, that the Acharya’s Bhashyas purpose to tell the world only of the views and system of Shri Veda Vyasa, necessarily in the light of the authoritative works of which He is the author.

Now it may be remarked that the Brahma-Sutras do not, as generally supposed, interpret and systematize the teaching of the Jnanakanda alone; but they propound general rules and doctrines necessary for understanding how every sentence, word and syllable convey some excellent attribute of Brahman. Frequently authorities are quoted to show that this is the real purport of all the Vedantic disquisition. So to the followers of Shri Madhvacharya, the phrase Vedanta-Sutras means the Sutras which guide the enquiry about the true conclusion of all the Vedas, the term Vedanta meaning the conclusion of the Vedas, not meaning the Upanishads as commonly understood. In his Bhashya too, the Acharya is seen generally to take up texts for interpretation or reconciliation from the same well-known Upanishads as are drawn upon by other commentators. But on a closer study it becomes evident that the selfsame texts are often taken up for giving a different interpretation and refuting that of others. They are only intended as typical, while an equally large number of works and Vedic portions other than the Upanishads is quoted in the brief space into which the Acharya has compressed his pregnant thoughts. From the numerous texts quoted from all the Mandalas of the Rik-Samhita, it would appear that only for the sake of making his work intelligible to the later generations he has refrained from drawing upon still older literature. As one endeavoring to expound the views of Shri Vedavyasa, he has felt it a necessity to freely quote from the genuine Puranas, Itihasas, and Tantras which admittedly interpret the Vedas, these having come down to us only in part. In most cases the Acharya interprets the Vedic texts in the Bhashya and supplements them in the words of the Puranas, etc., but rarely in his own words. By this means he has secured a double advantage; the accurate, simple and concise exposition of the Puranas has saved him a good deal of space and labor, while the Puranic passages furnish an additional authoritativeness to the Acharya’s exposition from the subtle reasoning which they often present in support of the simple Vedic statements.

In the work now offered to the public the Acharya intends to give only the chief import of the Sutras in the style required by the definition of a Bhashya. Here and there he throws some passing hints at the inaccuracy of other interpretations, the significance of which (hints) is fully and very ably explained in the commentaries of Shri Jayateertha. But the justification of his own views the Bhashyakara has reserved for another work called the “Anuvyakhyana” which is also equal in extent to the Bhashya. The Anuvyakhyana has a great commentary known as the Nyaya-Sudha whose merits are acknowledged in the world of Pandits and scholars. Another great, work of a still later time devoted to the justification of the Acharya’s Bhashya may be mentioned. This was written by Shri Vyasa Raja, the renowned scholar and ascetic who has given his name to one of the important Madhwa mutts in Southern India. The work is commonly known as “Chandrika” and purports to be a gloss on Shri Jayateertha’s commentary on the Sutra-Bhashya. These two great works are just mentioned here that the learned world may turn their attention to them; for, without a proper study of the original as expounded in these masterpieces, it is not possible to get our mind disabused of certain wrong notions regarding the merit of the Acharya’s works and teaching.

In two small works, the Acharya briefly describes the categories of his philosophical religion, a clear view of which may be had from the following scheme.

REALITY.

I. Independent.

II. Dependent.

I. Independent Reality is the glorious Vishnu of all powers, who is but ONE.

II. Dependent Reality:

A. Bhava, that which exists (positive).

B. Abhava, Non-existence (negative).

B. Non-existence.

Antecedent.

Subsequent.

Absolute.

A. Bhava (positive)

(a) Chetana (Ego).

(b) A-Chetana (Non-Ego).

(a) Chetana (Ego):

Those assailed by misery.

Eternally free from misery (Lakshmi).

The released (in heaven).

Those in Samsara (the embodied existence.)

Eligible for release (heaven).

Deva (the Gods). Rishi (Sages). Pitri (Fathers). Pa (Emperors). Nara (Men).

Ineligible for heavenly bliss.

Those who are fit for Tamas.

Those who are eternally in Samsara.

Those that have fallen into Tamas.

Those yet in the embodied existence.

(b) A-Chetana (Non-Ego):

Nitya. Nityanitya.

(Eternally unchanged, the Vedas),

(Eternal principles with modified or changing aspects).

A-Nitya (Destructible).

Puranas, &c.

Time.

Prakriti (matter).

Asamsrishta (Subject to minimum modification).

Buddhi. Manas. 10 Organs. 5 Objects of the senses.5 Bhutas (Gross Elements),

Samsrishta (wholly modified)

Brahmanda (the gross Universe and all the things in it)

With the above table, it may be interesting to compare the general course of the teaching of the Sutras as the Acharya helps us to understand.

I. An inquiry into the Vedas is necessary to be made for the purpose of knowing Brahman (the Supreme Being); for final beatitude has to be obtained only through His grace. Who is Brahman? It is He who is the absolute creator, etc., of the Universe. How can we know Him? There is but one means of knowing Him, viz., the Shastras; and there is but one Supreme Being (Vishnu) who can be the Cause of the Universe described by the Vedas; when they are logically construed and understood in their most comprehensive sense, such must be the conclusion. The Vedas being the only means of knowing Brahman, it is perfectly reasonable and consistent to start with the position that He is not unspeakable, that is, the Vedas can directly convey Him. Starting with such premises, it is necessary to see how He forms the one topic of all the Shastras and what they have all to tell us collectively and severally. When anything is apprehended by the senses, a concept is formed; similarly, the Vedas can become a means of knowing Brahman, when they produce a concept of Brahman. Then the Vedas must all be studied and thoroughly understood before a concept is completely and accurately formed. This is the deep intent of the Sutra (III.iii-i), which lays down that Brahman is that which is the object of the knowledge obtained by a conclusive understanding of all the Vedas. It is admitted that sentences and words convey some attribute or attributes. Therefore all classes of Vedic words or sounds are to be understood as conveying (connoting) some excellent attributes of the Lord. The result of the research into the meaning and connotation of all classes of terms is that a concept of Brahman is produced, as possessing every kind of absolutely perfect excellence. The First Adhyaya is therefore mainly occupied with interpreting typical words and propounding general rules for the purpose.

II. Next it is indispensable to consider the objections which may interfere with our concept of Brahman and to show they are not real and they can imply no defect in Him. To this purpose the Second Adhyaya is devoted.

III. When the mind of the inquirer is thus reassured as to the accuracy of the concept and the reality of the object implied in the mental act, there arises the natural desire for its realization. The means to this end are discussed in the Third Adhyaya. To withdraw the heart completely from, all worldly objects, the pains of recurring birth and death are treated of in the first pada. To engender devotion to the Imperishable Lord, His greatness is pointed out in the second pada. The third pada discusses the rules of meditation which enables the contemplates to see the Lord directly. The fourth pada tells us of the power of the knowledge which results from directly seeing Him.

IV. The Fourth Adhyaya describes how the bondage of Karma is dissolved, how the gods occupying certain celestial ranks obtain Moksha, while others in the human body depart from it, what path they travel and what they reach, and what eternal blessings the released souls enjoy in the kingdom of heaven and how long they enjoy them. This is a bare sketch of the subject matter of the four Adhyayas and this, it is hoped, will facilitate the grasping of the summary that follows and of the general sense of the text as well.

Badarayana’s sutras are divided into four Adhyayas or Chapters, each Adhyaya being subdivided into four Padas or parts. The sutras in each Pada fall into certain groups called Adhikaranas, and each Adhikarana has a separate question to discuss. Thus the work consists of 4 Adhyayas, 16 Padas, 223 Adhikaranas and 564 sutras, The Adhyayas are respectively named (1) ‘The Samanvaya’, that which construes the Vedas to produce the concept of Brahman, (2) ‘The Avirodha’ that which proves the futility of objections, (3) ‘The Sadhana’, that which describes the means of seeing Brahman, and (4) The Phala’ that which describes the results of seeing Him.

In the first sutra it is pointed out that through the Grace of Brahman the highest good is to be obtained by man. Thereupon the curiosity of the eligible is kindled thus: ‘If Brahman can dispense gifts which cannot be obtained from any other person, of what description is He? To answer this query the first Adhyaya proceeds. Here the innumerable Vedic sounds or words which are not synonymous are so interpreted as to describe the Lord and His attributes in their special and comprehensive derivative sense; thus the Adhyaya is devoted to establishing that the Lord is most exalted and absolutely perfect in every excellent quality. The second Adhyaya is devoted to removing the doubt that may arise as to the supremacy and all the powerful glory of the Lord from the objections and reasoning’s against the views propounded in the first Adhyaya. Here it is shown that the reasoning, &c., so urged are only specious and that the Lord is therefore absolutely destitute of all defects. When the Lord is thus definitely known to be, naturally arises the question how to secure His grace. The third Adhyaya answers it Here it is established that the person who understands the glory of the Lord and sets his heart upon Him alone, and meditates on Him withdrawing all the senses from external objects, obtains the direct knowledge of the Lord, the only means of securing His grace. The next question that rises in the mind of the inquirer is what ends of man are accomplished through the Grace of the Lord. In answer the Fourth Adhyaya states that the wise soul is released from the mundane bondage and attains to the glorious presence of the Lord whom the released are eternally rejoiced to see.” (Tattvaprakashika).

The first sutra is meant to establish that enquiry into Brahman should be made, — Brahman as revealed in the Vedas; otherwise, this work would appear purposeless, and need not have been written. The first eleven sutras which form the first five Adhikaranas are only introductory and lay down the fundamental positions necessary for all the disquisitions to be held in the rest of the work. A right understanding of these positions is essential to taking a correct view of the consistent investigation in which the work is engaged. These sutras thus bear a general relation to all the parts of the system. The relative position of the remaining sutras in the several Adhyayas and Padas is fixed by a certain logical sequence of the topics discussed. The Adhikaranas are related to each other in various ways. They may instance and answer an objection; may extend the application of a rule already propounded; may be introductory; may state an exception ordeal with an incidental question. An Adhikarana may consist of one or more sutras, and discusses some typical question or point. It has five parts (1) Subject or topic, (2) Doubt (3) Purvapaksha or the opposite view, (4) Uttara(paksha) or Siddhanta, the correct view that is established and (5) The result or the significance of the two views taken on the subject.

The following analysis of the first Adhikarana will give an idea of the logical treatment of the topics throughout the work.

Subject — “Enquiry.”

Doubt: — “Whether Enquiry should or should not be made, since there are things of both description.

Purvapaksha. — It is contended that ‘Enquiry’ should not be made, (1) for want of the thing to be enquired into, (2) for want of any purpose and (3) for want of one seeking the thing or the purpose.

Now, whatever is not Atman is unreal. If Atman is the one’s own self or another’s self, He is already known as given in one’s own unmistakable experience (introspection) or as inferred from the circumstance of self-directed activity, &c., observed in different bodies. No Paramatman distinct from the individual self can be found or admitted, there being no means of proving such an existence. Moreover the Vedantas (seem to) favour the view of the one Atman. Atman the self is quite evident to every one from the distinct and definite notion of ‘I’ which everybody possesses’, and no shadow of doubt is cast on this experience. Such a self-evident Atman cannot be the object of a serious enquiry. All the attributes of Atman being Anatman, i.e., unreal, the knowledge of self, though it exists, has not been productive of either the final release or of any other important result. Hence it is said that the enquiry is not worth making.

Even if a Brahman different from self be granted for argument’s sake, the enquiry into Him would be futile; for it cannot be said that the very knowledge of Brahman is the fruit of the enquiry, since Shruti lays it down that by means of Karma (holy acts) the individual acquires and develops knowledge. Moreover, knowledge by itself is not the thing ultimately sought after by man. Nor could it be said that by means of this knowledge alone, Brahman’s grace is obtained; for this can be secured by the performance of sacred duties such as sacrifices. This Grace of Brahman by itself is not the final beatitude sought after; nor does it lead to such a result; nor is the grace the only and necessary means thereof. For, the performance of the Soma sacrifice and drinking of Soma juice also would confer immortality on the man; and this is de clared by Shruti. Besides, it cannot be seen how Brahman’s grace is useful in obtaining Moksha which consists in casting off the unreal bondage.

Or let it be supposed that through the knowledge of Brahman and His grace, Moksha is to be obtained. But there is no one to seek it. For any one that desires Moksha cannot be admitted eligible for it; otherwise, it will have to be admitted that women, Shudras and others expressly prohibited from studying the Vedas, are eligible for the Vedic enquiry. Thus it is not possible to conceive the description of any that may seek Moksha.

Uttara or Siddhanta (Reply):

The Anatman (Non-Ego), one’s own self, or another’s self may not be the fit object of enquiry.

But that which is spoken of in the Shruti may well become the object of enquiry. For the descriptive term ‘Brahman’ in the Shruti points by its etymology to “one that is perfect in all the excellent qualities,” which interpretation is authorized by Smritis also. Thus the Vedic text and term suggest a Thing unlimited in respect of Space, Time, and qualities (excellent), quite distinct from all limited existences, souls, &c. Some hold that Brahman is destitute of all qualities, some think that He possesses only a few; some others state that He is perfect in all the excellent qualities. Thus the varying views and the intent of the Vedic statements point to One into Whom enquiry becomes necessary. His knowledge and grace and the ultimate release to be granted by Him are the fruits of this enquiry and they are fit to be pursued and gained by some at least.

The chief means of such knowledge are the study of the Vedas, reasoning out the Vedic conclusions and devout meditation, and these constitute the enquiry here premised. Karma, the discharge of pious duties, enjoined upon a person is only an auxiliary to the means of knowledge. Though the attainment of knowledge is not the main goal of man, it may be so regarded, as it is the only way to win His Grace and thereby the Moksha.

Again the mundane bondage of the soul is proved real by the unmistakable evidence of Perception, &c., and its dissolution does require, and depend upon, the Grace of God. The immortality resulting from the performance of Soma-Yaga, &c., is but a qualified one, its duration being defined in the Shruti as the period of an Indra’s Rule; hence Karma is powerless in obtaining the eternal heaven for the soul.

Though all that desire may not be eligible for the enquiry, still some are who are devoted to Vishnu (the omnipresent), who have duly studied the Vedas and possess the virtues of Sama, Dama, &c.

Therefore it is fit to conclude that the enquiry ought to be made.

Phala or effect. — The effect of the objection would be that this Shastra or System of Philosophy need not be taught at all and it is purposeless.

The effect of the reply is that this System has to teach something original towards a grand purpose not promised by any other system and as such it must be taught.

Such is the analysis carried into every other Adhikarana; and in the following summary are given the conclusions arrived at by such a treatment of all the arguments and authorities for and against the points taken up for discussion.

ADHYAYA I

PADA I

In the first Adhikarana (1), it has been said, the indispensability of enquiry into Brahman is proved. The first two words of this Sutra point out the nature of the enquirer and the purpose of the enquiry. The word Brahman should be taken in its comprehensive derivative sense, so that the object of enquiry is secured, this Brahman being different from all other known things denoted by the same term in a secondary sense. According to the Acharya, the sacred syllable uttered in reading at the commencement of the first Sutra should be regarded a part of the sentence and construed With the word Brahman which is descriptive, while the sacred syllable is a substantive, serving as the mark of the Supreme Being to be contemplated.

Adhik. II (2) defines Brahman into whom enquiry has been declared necessary as required by the Shruti ‘Tadvijignasasva’, shows that Brahman is the all-powerful Vishnu since no other is perceived to be perfect in every kind of excellence, and, if imperfect, he cannot be distinguished from other things that do not deserve to be enquired into. It is stated that Brahman (Vishnu) is the one absolute cause of all the eight states (origination, &c.) of the whole world, so that Brahman is shown to be distinct from Jiva (the soul).

Adhik. III (3) states that no other than Brahman (Vishnu) is the absolute cause, for that cause is here declared to be uniformly spoken of by the Shastra; that alone which is so declared by the Shastra can be the cause, not any other (Rudra, &c.) that may be inferred by mere reasoning or so spoken of by the Agamas which are not authoritative. The simple meaning of the Sutra is, ‘Shastra is the only means of knowing the absolute cause of the world’. To take the Sutra to mean It being the source of the Vedas’ does not serve the purpose. For the authorship of the Vedas can furnish no reason or probability for supposing in their author ability to create the world. On the other hand, the Maker of the world may properly be the source of the Vedas, too.

Adhik. IV (4) clears the doubt that some one other than Vishnu might be spoken of as the cause by the Shastra, and states that He alone is found to be the absolute cause when the whole extent of Scripture is logically construed and its true and comprehensive sense is understood.

Adhik. V (5-11) proves that Brahman is positively and directly described by Words. Otherwise, it would be impossible and contradictory to hold that the primary intention of the Shastra is to announce Brahman to be the cause of the origin, &c., of the world. Shruti lays down that Brahman most be seen, and frequently states that He is seen. And it has been shown that the only means of perceiving Brahman is the Shastra (Word). Therefore it is necessary to grant that the words primarily and directly denote Him. Even the supposition, that speech only indicates but does not mean Him, would lead to fallacious reasoning. The word Ashabda in the fifth Sutra cannot be taken in the sense of (that which is not spoken of in the Shruti. ‘For, the Sankhya does not accept the statement; but he also believes that his Pradhana is the cause spoken of in the Vedas. Nor could a Vedic follower deny this, since the Pradhana is distinctly spoken of in such Shrutis as, Ajamekam lohita Krishna Shuklam, &c’. Next it is shown that Brahman whom the Shruti require the eligible to see cannot be the limited Brahman (soul) as He is distinguished by the term Atman used in the Shruti. The word Atman too cannot be taken to mean the limited Atman, since the devotion to that Atman is stated to be the means of final release. And that Atman is required to be constantly kept in mind and to be known, but never to be neglected Again the different manifestations of that Atman, the Shruti says, merge together; so He cannot be the limited one; and it is inadmissible that the limited and the unlimited Atman’s merge together. Further it is pointed out that different parts of the Veda do not declare different Brahmans or causes of the world, but they all uniformly declare only one Brahman. Hence it cannot be supposed that some unknown branch of the unlimited Vedas might speak of another as the absolute cause of the universe. On the other hand there are Shrutis which directly speak of the Nirguna Brahma. From the above arguments presented in the seven Sutras of this Adhikarana, it is easy to see that the possibility of the enquiry under question entirely depends on the power of words to directly convey the attributes of Brahman who cannot be perceived except by means of the Word. When Badarayana’s teachings and views are properly kept in view, the propriety of the exposition of this Adhikarana will become evident. But for the proof afforded by the arguments of this Adhikarana, the fundamental positions taken up in the first four Sutras would be reduced to pure inconsistency or would at least be some unmeaning assumptions. The effect of the whole course of the arguments is presented by the Acharya in an aphoristic sentence at the end of the Adhikarana exposing the fallacy involved in the doctrine that Brahman is absolutely beyond the descriptive power of words.

Adhik. VI. Here begins the discussion about the meaning of several typical terms taken from different parts of the Shruti. This is necessitated by the general statement made in the fourth Sutra that all the Shastras, if logically construed, declare Brahman only; for a mere statement is of no value unless and until it is substantiated by an investigation into particular facts or cases. Hence the whole of the first Adhyaya is devoted to this work. There are evidently one or two incidental topics such as the eligibility of the gods for the Vedic study and observance. The Acharya therefore properly remarks that nothing else could be seen to be the subject-matter of this Adhyaya. Vedic words fall into four classes, (1) Those that by settled acceptation denote only things other than Brahman. (2) Those that denote both Brahman and other things. (3) Those that are known to denote things other than Brahman. (4) Those that admittedly denote Brahman. Each of these may again be divided as proper or non-significant names and descriptive or significant terms. Of these the words of the fourth class do not, of course, require any discussion or explanation. Those of the first class known to denote only other things are not easily grasped and so they are treated of in the fourth Pada. With regard to words denoting both, the only task is» to explain away their relation to other things and it is not so important as to be taken up at the very outset and is consequently relegated to the third Pada. Of the two sub-divisions of the first class, the significant terms are not so important as are the proper names which are directly the marks of the things denoted by them, and are therefore treated of in the second Pada. Thus it is seen that the first Pada mainly deals with terms which are the proper names of other things.

Adhik. VI (12-19) proves Anandamaya and other terms occurring in Tait. II. 5., all denote the perfect Lord only, so that no difference is seen in speaking of the Lord as the head or foot of Himself, and that all the generic terms which denote the qualified (Gunin) denote Brahman in their primary and comprehensive sense. The popular acceptation of these terms pointing to other things, it is difficult to see how they convey Brahman and His attributes; and this difficulty is removed by the reasons furnished in this Adhikarana. Thus the course or the rule is laid down as to abandoning the popular denotation of terms and interpreting them as denoting Brahman in all the similar passages of the Vedas.

It is just possible to suppose that Badarayana’s interpretation of the aforesaid terms in the passage is forced. But the arguments given in the Sutras stand thus: (12) The term Brahman is repeatedly used in apposition with the Blissful (Anandamaya). (13) The suffix ‘maya’ signifies abundance, not modification. (14) Anandamaya is stated as the cause of the activity of the world, since the perfectly Blissful alone can rule the world. (15) Also by the other terms, Annamaya, &c., Brahman only is denoted, as they are meant to describe His glory and world-wide activity briefly told in the definition of Brahman given at the commencement of the Taittiriya passage. (16) Anandamaya is not the soul; for His knowledge, it is said, leads to immortality. (17) Subsequent passages draw clear distinction between Anandamaya and souls. (18) The difference consistently stated by the Shruti cannot be refuted or abandoned by mere ingenuity of syllogistic reasoning. (19) It cannot be supposed that Anandamaya is a Samsarika or Saguna like Brahma and other souls; for in this context the Shruti explains the relation of the released souls to Anandamaya and other manifestations of the Highest Lord. From such a logical construing of the Taittiriya passage it will be seen that the only edifying sense of the passage is what Shri Badarayana has made out.

Adhik. VII. shows that the One within of whom invisibility, an attribute of Anandamaya, is predicated is also Vishnu, but not Indra and other souls. Indra and other names of the Adhidevas (presiding deities), when applied to the one within are the names of Vishnu who cannot be identified with Indra and other souls; for the difference between them is demonstrated by the attributes which cannot be admitted in any other than Vishnu, while the attributes connoted by Indra and other names are to be fully and perfectly realised in Brahman.

Adhik. VIII. shows the term Akasha used in apposition with Anandamaya and described in the Chandogya as the source of all the Bhutas or elements, &c., is also meant to denote Vishnu only; for the attributes in the subsequent sentences of the passage are appropriate to Vishnu alone. Thus it is laid down that all the terms denoting the Adhibhutas (great elements) declare Him on account of His possessing perfectly the attributes and powers of all those things and of His being the sole master and source of all their virtues or properties.

Adhik. IX. proves that for reasons similar to those propounded in the preceding Adhikarana the term Prana generally denoting some other deity is the name of Vishnu alone in the texts quoted and similar passages. Thus all the terms applied to Adhyatmika things denote Vishnu as fully possessing the attributes and powers conveyed by such terms.

Adhik. X. The term Jyotis (light) in the Agni Sukta is applied to one placed in the cave of the heart as the Ruler of all transcending our perception; but this abiding in the heart has been spoken of as the characteristic of Brahman, the Anandamaya. Now it would appear there are two, Agni and Anandamaya, independently ruling in the heart. To remove this contradiction the term Jyotis in the Agni Sukta is shown to denote Vishnu only who alone can be said to be far away from the reach of the senses and to be unlimited in His powers. Similarly all the terms admittedly naming other things in all the Suktas are to be understood as denoting Vishnu on account of His being perfect, the giver and controller of all the powers in everything.

Adhik. XI. shows that the name Gayatri in the texts under discussion declares only Vishnu, not the metre. The Jyotis spoken of in the previous Adhikarana as abiding in the heart is declared to be Gayatri, the well-known name of a metre. But on due consideration, the attributes of this Gayatri occurring in the same Suktas, &c., strictly conform to the nature of Vishnu alone. Thus we see all the terms applied to the parts of the Vedas should be taken in their comprehensive and derivative sense as declaring the excellent attributes of Vishnu.

Adhik. XII. shows that Prana mentioned in Aitareyaka is also Vishnu only, but not the Mukhyaprana or Indra or the soul for the reasons (1) that the attributes, &c., indicating Vishnu are repeated in used implying pervasion, while anything seeming to refer to Mukhyaprana or the soul could not be accepted contrary to the significance and the subject matter of the passage.

PADA II

This Pada chiefly discusses how the significant names admittedly denoting other things are to be interpreted as the names of Brahman. There is one Adhikarana devoted to Namasamanvaya (the application of a proper name), as a large number of significant terms become thereby easily explained.

Adhik. I (1-8) demonstrates that the term conveying the attribute of omnipresence which occurs in the Aditya Shruti denotes Brahman only, since He alone possesses that attribute in the unrestricted sense; but neither Aditya (the sun) nor the souls are meant. In the whole Adhikarana, the arguments advanced by the Sutras are so very clear that Badarayana’s system cannot be construed as favouring the theory of Absolute Identity. Hence under Sutra (6) the Acharya remarks that nothing should be assumed in the absence of authority, and means that the difference so emphatically established between the Lord and the soul cannot be represented as unreal. —

Adhik. II (9-10) shows it is only Brahman that is called Aditi (in Bri. U.) the consumer (destroyer) of ail, since He alone can be taken as the devourer of all things, animate and inanimate, as the one existing during Pralaya, &c. These characteristics occurring in the passage are peculiar to Brahman (Vishnu) only. Thus the absolute authorship declared in the definition of Brahman is maintained. —

Adhik. III (11-12) answers an objection to the conclusion arrived at in the preceding Adhikarana, which is, “How can the Lord be said to be the devourer of all, in as much as it is not fit to suppose that He is subject to the experience of the fruits of Karma? ” The Katha Shruti which seems to convey that the Lord enjoys the Karma Phala should also be taken in a restricted sense. It is decided that the two mentioned in the Katha Shruti are not the Lord and the soul, in which case a restricted sense might be taken but the two are the two manifestations of the Lord Himself present in the heart of men; and He is the , consumer of the Karma Phala, too. For, in Him alone, it is possible to find the attributes of being present in the cave of the heart, &c. But the Shrutis stating that the Karma Phala does not go to Him, intend that the Lord is not subject to any undesirable experience. —

Adhik. IV (13-17) shows that He who is within the eye (or sun) is Vishnu only, not Agni. It is pointed out that though Agni is present in the eye, only Vishnu, the Antaryamin is meant, since He is mentioned as the Ruler; while Agni, one of the souls, cannot be consistently supposed to be the ruler of another soul like himself.

Adhik. V (18-20) discusses the objection to the conclusion of the preceding Adhikarana, suggested by the Vajasaneya Shruti which describes an Antaryamin who dwells in Prithivi, &c., as the ruler of all and who as being the master of the physical body can be taken only as the limited soul, &c. It is decided that Vishnu is the Antaryamin spoken of in all these passages, for the characteristics of being unknown even to the presiding deities, of being absolutely independent and blissful though present in everything, of being absolutely immortal, &c., are possible to find only in Him; whereas the soul cannot be supposed to be present in everything and in all souls. Nor could He who has been declared to be different from the soul, be regarded such. On the other hand, it is possible to understand how all other things (matter and souls) can be spoken of as the body of the Lord, though He is not subject to the limitations of a physical body. —

Adhik. VI (21-23) proves that the terms connoting invisibility, &c., denote only Vishnu, not the Akshara in the Atharvana, of whom the attributes appear to be predicated — the attributes of being the object of the Highest knowledge (Para-Vidya), of being omniscient, and of golden hue which forms the very essence of the spiritual nature. It should be remembered that invisibility, &c., are meant to convey only the Lord’s unlimited nature, not the absolute invisibility, &c. From the arguments furnished in this Adhikarana, it may be seen how all the excellent qualities, positive and negative, meet in the Lord.

Adhik. VII (24-32) answers the objection that He who is invisible, &c., cannot be Vishnu who is higher than the higher Akshara, since the characteristic of omnipresence is predicated in the Chandogya of Vaishvanara, the well-known Agni; the common acceptation of the term and the circumstance of his being connected with sacrifices point only to Agni; moreover, if Vaishvanara and other terms denoting Agni be taken to denote Vishnu, the classification of the Suktas as Agni-Sukta &c., could not be made. Against this objection, it is shown that Vaishvanara under discussion is only the omnipresent Vishnu; for He alone possesses all the characteristics conveyed by the derivative term ‘Vaishvanara’, which means ‘one that is present in all the Naras (souls)’, and as the Antaryamin Vishnu possesses all the characteristics of Agni in his sacrificial, relations. He is declared by all the Vidyas and Suktas under the names of Vaishvanara, Agni, &c.; all authorities point to this sense of the passage, and the Suktas, &c., speak of Him in this style that Brahman may be contemplated with all these attributes.

PADA III

In the first and second Padas it has been shown that all the terms proper or significant denoting the various things of the world declare Vishnu only. But it may be objected that they need not be taken to denote Him alone, whereas they may signify other things as well. To answer this objection the third Pada proceeds. Here the terms which denote Brahman as well as other things, whether according to the principles laid down in the two preceding Padas or according to Shrutis which equally apply to both, or by the very nature of the words, — all the names, significant or insignificant, are shown to denote Him in their primary and comprehensive sense.

Adhik. I (1-7) shows that the abode of heaven, earth, &c., is only Brahman, but neither, Akasha nor Vayu.

Adhik II. (8-9) shows the term Bhuman meaning the perfectly blissful and used also to denote Prana describes only Vishnu who possesses all the characteristics to be found in the Chandogya passage.

Adhik. III (10-12) explains how the Imperishable (Akshara) spoken of (in Bri. V-viii-11) is Brahman only, not Shri.

Adhik. IV (13) decides that the term Sat though denoting both Brahman and Pradhana describes only Vishnu as the chief cause in the text (Ch. VI-8).

Adhik. V (14-21). The circumstance of abiding in the heart may refer to any of the three, Brahman, Akasha and the soul. Here the circumstance is shown to refer to Vishnu only.

Adhik. VI (22-23). The circumstance of being the object of earnest research seems to be said of the bliss enjoyed by the wise, whereas this has been predicated of Vishnu. Both being said to transcend the power of vision and the power of thought, either of them may be indicated by the circumstance. The Adhikarana explains why it should be taken to indicate none but Brahman. Adhik. VII (24-25) shows that the term Ishana applies to Vishnu alone though, from the common attribute of being the impeller, the Lord or Vayu may be denoted by it.

Adhik. VIII (26-33) discusses an incidental topic which is brought forward by the text (Kath. V-3) in which all the gods are said to worship Vamana seated in the middle. The worship towards an end implies mortality and the respective ranks of the gods may fall vacant; then the sacrificial acts enjoined upon man for the propitiation of such gods must stop for want of the intended gods and for the time the Vedas describing them having nothing to signify must lose their force and authoritativeness. Or if the Vedas are to be admitted eternally true, the gods described by them cannot be said to seek Moksha or to be eligible for devotion to God towards that end. To remove this difficulty the Adhikarana proceeds and indirectly it sustains the very basis of enquiry made here. Therefore it is settled that the gods are eligible for the Vedic study and enquiry. It is to be remarked that the eight Sutras of this Adhikarana discuss this one topic at length, and that, with this one result.

Adhik. IX (34-38) establishes that Shudras and others are ineligible for the study of the Vedas and for a knowledge of Brahman to be obtained by such study.

Adhik. X (39) explains the term Vajra as describing only Vishnu in the Katha text, though the term may denote the weapon of Indra by force of common acceptation, or Vishnu from the circumstance of making all tremble.

Adhik. XI (40) shows the term Jyotis (Light) in (Bri. VI-iii-7) denotes only Brahman though it may denote the Lord or the soul on account of both being of luminous (intelligent) nature and known to dwell in the heart.

Adhik. XII (41). Here Vishnu is shown to be denoted by the term Akasha occurring in the text (Ch. VIII-xiv-i), which by usage may denote either the well-known sky or Brahman.

Adhik. XIII (42) shows that the circumstance of seeing dreams is predicated of Vishnu in (Bri. VI-iii-15), though this may apply to the Lord on account of the circumstance of being unsoiled by extraneous things or to the soul from the common notion that he is the subject of dream experience.

Adhik. XIV (43). The term Brahmana in (Bri. VI-iv-23) is proved to denote Brahman only, though it may be taken to denote Brahman from the circumstance of eternal glory spoken of in the passage or to denote the four-faced Brahma from the occurrence of the word Aja in apposition with it.

PADA IV

In the first three Padas only a few words have been interpreted as declaring Vishnu to be the maker of all, to be perfectly blissful, &c.; thereby the excellence and perfection of the Lord are but partially indicated, whereas by the term Brahman in the first Sutra, He has been called the Perfect, i.e., One possessing all excellent qualities. Thus the original statement is not fully substantiated. Hence the fourth Pada has, as promised in the fourth Sutra, to explain how all the words describing the gods of several grades, the rules and method of Karma (the holy acts), time, &c., and in fact every word, syllable and letter, declare the excellent attributes of Vishnu and show that He is the absolutely perfect Being.

Adhik. I (1-9) explains how the words Avyakta, &c., which are restricted to other things by the circumstances of being inferior &c., are to be understood as declaring the excellent attributes of Vishnu.

Adhik. II (10-12). Jyotisthoma and other terms are by settled acceptation restricted to sacrificial acts, &c. If they are to be interpreted otherwise, the Vedic portions apparently describing them should cease to convey them; and then for want of authority the world might give up the performance of those sacred duties. Even the words which for the strong reasons given above are attached to sacrifices and their accessories, are interpreted as conveying the attributes of Brahman.

Adhik. III (12-14) shows the terms Panchajana &c., occurring in the texts (Bri. VI-iv-17), &c., restricted to other things by their well-known attributes or circumstances are also meant to describe the glorious attributes and powers of the Lord.

Adhik. IV (15) shows how the term Akasha, &c., accepted to denote other things from the circumstance of being born are to be understood as conveying Brahman who is the cause of all causes.

Adhik. V (16-23) is devoted to show how all the words which must be accepted to denote only things other than Brahman lest the understanding of the world should be interfered with, are also to be understood as conveying the attributes of Brahman in their comprehensive sense.

Adhik. VI (24-28) explains how the words which by reason of being in the feminine gender are known to denote the female beings such as Prakriti and their attributes, are also to be taken to declare the excellent qualities of Vishnu only.

Adhik. VII (29) shows that for similar reasons all the words like Shunya, Asat, Tuccha, &c., which may appear difficult to interpret as conveying Brahman, actually do so and declare His excellence in every respect. This is the concluding Sutra which explicitly winds up the course of interpreting the Vedic terms required by the first Sutra, promised in the fourth and begun in the twelfth. So it may be observed that Shri Badarayana does not run into unnecessary digression or take up unconnected topics.

SECOND ADHYAYA

PADA I

In the first Adhyaya it has been shown how all the Vedas describe Brahman as the cause of everything and as being perfect in every kind of excellence. Should that conclusion be contrary to reason and probability, it might not be worthy of regard in the opinion of the thoughtful. It is therefore necessary to prove that that conclusion is not open to any contradiction or objection. The second Adhyaya is intended to clear up all objections and confirm the conclusion of the first Adhyaya. The objections may be of the following description: — (1) To be opposed to reasoning; (2) To be resisted by other theories; (3) To be contradicted by other Shrutis; (4) To be contradicted by other Shrutis strengthened by special reasons. But contrariety to reasoning (i.e., inconsistency) lies at the root of all objections and the First Pada is properly devoted to rebutting this class of objections.

Adhikarana I (1-3) sets aside the contradiction of Pashupata and other Smritis which are not supported by Shruti and as such have no authoritativeness. It is fit to deal with this question of certain Smritis at the beginning of this Chapter, since Smritis are only the expression of reasoning of the different Samayas or philosophical theories, &c. The arguments proceed to the effect that the Smritis embodying theories or reasoning opposed to the teaching of the Vedas cannot be authoritative and as such cannot invalidate the conclusion of the First Adhyaya —

Adhik. II (4-5) establishes that there is no reasoning which affects the authoritativeness of the Vedas.

Adhik. III (6-7) refutes another objection to the authoritativeness of the Vedas, taken on the ground that they state what is impossible or cannot be believed in; for authoritative ness consists in being the means of accurate knowledge.

Adhik. IV (8-13) refutes an objection taken to the absolute authorship of the Lord and His being perfect in all excellences. The objection runs thus: — All positive existences cease to be during Pralaya, since they are positive effects; and there would be absolute non-existence alone left during Pralaya. Now every effect must have in the antecedent time both the material and the efficient causes. According to this general principle the antecedent non-existence itself is represented to be both the efficient and material cause, which seems to be said in Shrutis (‘only Asatwas in the beginning’, &c.,) and, it is urged there is no necessity for admitting a Supreme Lord or for attributing to Him all powers and boundless excellence. To prove that the objection is unreal these six Sutras are advanced.

Adhik. V (14) refutes the supposition that Brahman not being different from the soul of limited powers, cannot be the sole author of creation, &c., of the world. After pointing out the mere assumption on which this objection rests, it is noted that the unreality of the world or the oneness of the spiritual existence being wholly unproved, and even contradicted by admitted authorities, the other interpretation of the Sutra is untenable —

Adhik. VI (15-21) is engaged in showing the futility of contradictions or objections brought forward in respect of Brahman’s creative activity with or without materials, &c., which have a dependent or independent existence. For it is urged that it would be inconceivable to think Brahman to work without materials or to think Him perfect if He should do with them and so on. —

Adhik. VII (22-27) refutes the view that the Jiva (soul) is the creator. The view is one suggested by the Shruti that has the word Jiva and thereby seems to predicate of the soul absolute creative power. This inconsistency in the statements furnishes material for reasoning out an opposite theory. Similarly in every Adhikarana of this Pada matter is furnished for a syllogistic argument against the conclusions in the first Adhyaya. —

Adhik. VIII (28-32) sets aside some doubts as to the nature and possibility of Brahman’s activity, for instance, one of the arguments is as follows: — Suppose Brahman acts; He cannot act as a whole, for it is impossible that an all-pervading thing might do so, or if He should act by partial activity, that is also an impossibility; for Brahman has no parts —

Adhik. IX (33-34) snows the fallacy of the argument presenting the dilemma that Brahman cannot be supposed the creator, if He should not work with a purpose to be gained., or if He should have a purpose to be accomplished, He being short of that is imperfect. —

Adhik. X (35-37) answers the objection that, if Brahman is the real creator, &c., of the world, partiality, mercilessness &c. would have to be attributed to Him. Or if He is said to dispense fruits according to the Karma of the souls, His absolute independence cannot be admitted. In answer, it is pointed out that the Lord is working for the sake of the souls of limited power, whose very essence and Karma are perfectly under His control, and that His activity is the result of His overflowing blessedness —

Adhik. XI (38) concludes the course of refutation with the remark that all the powers and excellences predicated of Brahman by the Shastras do meet in Him without any contradiction.

PADA II

This is called the Samaya Pada and it is devoted to refuting the different theories opposed to the one now shown to be taught by the Vedas; thereby the Vedas are shown to be the absolute vehicle of truth. Of all the objections, as has been said, that founded upon reasoning is the primary one and as such it has been dealt with in the first Pada. Of the other three sources of doubt and contradiction, the philosophical theories that are always handed down from generation to generation, form a fruitful source and deserve earlier consideration. Hence the task of the second Pada is to refute them.

The theories based upon the apparent sanction of the Shrutis have also been dealt with in the first Pada, The remaining theories are of two classes as Haituka and Pashanda. Those propounded by Akshapada and Kanada, and the Sankhya and Yoga are called Haitukas as they seem to be supported by reasoning. Bauddha, Pashupata and others are known as Pashandas. The former are naturally regarded stronger by force of reasoning employed in them. Of these the Sankhya and Charvaka theories present the severest opposition, since they teach that un-intelligent substance independent of an all-powerful and all-wise Lord, is the cause of the world. But the theory of Charvaka’s being very week, the Sankhya is first refuted. It is of two-fold description — Nireeshwara and Sheshwara, that is, admitting no Lord and admitting one. Nireeshwara theory being the most opposed is taken up first.

Adhik. I (1-4) refutes Nireeshwara Sankhya —

Adhik. II (5) refutes the Sheshwara Sankhya —

Adhik. III (6) refutes Charvaka’s theory —

Adhik. IV (7-8) refutes a sub-division of the Sheshwara Sankhyas where the intelligent agent is admitted to be an auxiliary —

Adhik. V (9-10) refutes another theory of the Sankhyas that Purusha (the intelligent Being and Prakriti the auxiliary) conjointly produce everything. The argument advanced in favour of it is shown fallacious. In the second Sutra there is a general refutation of all the other philosophical theories. Hence it is plain that the definition of Brahman does not fail though opposed by the Sankhya and other doctrines.

Adhik. VI (11-I7) refutes the Vaisheshika theory that atoms are the cause of the world —

Adhik VII (18-25) refutes the theory that the groups of atoms appear as the various things of the world and there is no separate whole produced with parts. This is the view of the Vaibhashika and Sautrantikas among the Bauddhas and being related to the Vaisheshika theory it is refuted here. The Pashanda theories are also of two classes, Avaidika and Vaidika; the former being highly antagonistic are taken up first; even of these, Bauddha and Jaina systems deserve to be first refuted. Hence the order of the Adhikaranas —

Adhik. VIII (26-29) refutes the Bauddha theory that from Shunya (Nothing) the world proceeds —

Adhik IX (30-32) exposes the defects of the theory of the Vignanavadins according to whom ideas are the only reality —

Adhik. X (33-36) examines the doctrine of the Jainas —

Adhik XI (37-41) is directed against the Pashupata system which seems to receive support from the Vedas —

Adhik. XII (42-45) impugns the theory that Shakti (a female deity) is the absolute creator of the world. It is to be observed that the division of this Pada into Adhikaranas and the distribution of subjects to each widely differ from those of the other Bhashyakaras especially towards the end.

PADA III

Though the contradiction of reasoning or of other systems may have been set aside, still the Vedas cannot prove that Brahman is the absolute cause, &c.; for the contradictory statements in different parts show the Vedas to be no means of knowing the truth. Such an objection or the apparent inconsistency of the Vedic statements must be explained away. And to this purpose this Pada is devoted. The scriptural contradiction may relate to Adhibhuta, &c., or to Adhyatma. The latter referring to the enquirer himself comes last. The former, that is, the question of the Shrutis regarding the Adhibhuta, &c., is discussed in this Pada. It may be asked what purpose is served by the third and fourth Padas of this Adhyaya when the scriptural contradiction with regard to the soul, &c., is removed by the very explanations given in the first and second Padas. It is pointed out that when two interpretations are admitted and if one of them should impugn the authoritativeness of the Vedas, the same doubt may be cast upon the other interpretation as well. If the nature of the world is not conclusively known, it is not possible to conclude as to the true nature of its cause.

In this Pada the questions relating to the soul are discussed from Sutra 18 to the end. In the Adhikaranas III and X (Sutras 9 and 17) two points of doubt with regard to Brahman which are suggested by the way are cleared. The rest of the earlier Adhikaranas are engaged in effecting reconciliation between Shrutis that apparently make conflicting statements with regard to the origin, &c., of the Adhibhutas and Adhidevas. For convenience sake the simpler questions are first treated, the more important and lengthy ones being taken up later on. Hence the order of the Adhikaranas. ‘Adhibhuta’ means the Bhutas or the material elements both in their subtle forms as the cause and in gross forms as the effect. ‘Adhidevas’ are the deities that preside over the Bhutas.

Adhik. I (1-7) reconciles the Shrutis that differ with regard to the origin of Akasha and decides Akasha to be an originated thing. Akasha is taken up first being first in order of evolution of material elements; similarly origination is first dealt with, being the first of the states of everything that is effected —

Adhik. II (8) extends the explanation given in the preceding Adhikarana to the Shrutis speaking of the origin and eternal existence of Mukhyaprana —

Adhik. III (9) considers the doubt that Brahman also might have sprung from something else as Akasha and other things have been shown to do, and decides that it is impossible and absurd to suppose Brahman, the Sat, to be originated.

Adhik. IV to IX. reconcile the conflict between Shrutis which state Brahman as well as other things to be the cause of origin or destruction and discuss some other connected questions —

Adhik. IV (10) shows that Fire though born of Vayu is immediately sprung from Brahman —

Adhik. V (11) Similarly the Shrutis speaking of the origin of waters are shown to be conclusive statements, while those that speak of their eternal character have a secondary sense —

Adhik. VI (12) explains away the conflict between Shrutis that variously describe the immediate causes. In the absence of this explanation it would appear that the Vedas are no authority and the very system might fail for want of evidence. Here the Shruti stating Water to be the medium of Anna in its origin is reconciled with that stating the same Water to be the mediate cause of Prithivi.

In these Adhikaranas whatever has been said Of the Adhibhuta applies also to the Adhidevas, both being spoken of in the same terms.

Adhik. VII (13) clears the doubt that someone else than Brahman might be the destroyer of what He creates, and decides that by the will of the Same Brahman everything is withdrawn or destroyed. —

Adhik. VIII (14) shores that there is no real contradiction between the several Shrutis referring to the order of destruction or withdrawal of the Adhibhutas, &c., and by both the Shrutis the inverse order is meant, since this order is as much an order as that of origination. —

Adhik. IX (15-16) considers whether there is any exception to the order declared in the previous Adhikarana as some Shrutis referring to Vijnana and Manas seem to instance —

Adhik. X (17). When all things are said to be withdrawn, possibly a doubt may arise that Brahman also is withdrawn. To set aside such a doubt this Adhikarana proceeds —

Adhik. XI (18-19) reconciles the inconsistency between Shrutis which refer to the origination of the soul —

Adhik. XII (20-26) examines the various statements regarding the size and some other powers of the soul whose nature consists of intelligence, and decides the soul to be atomic in size —

Adhik. XIII (27) reconciles Shrutis regarding the individual nature of the soul capable of acquiring Yoga powers and the many forms which that soul can assume through the acquired power and God’s grace —

Adhik. XIV. (28-29) states that the soul is declared a distinct entity and the Shrutis which seem to convey identity between the Lord and the soul are only meant to express some similarity between them and the absolute dependence of the soul upon the Lord; consequently such Shrutis are to be taken in a secondary sense –

Adhik. XV (30) answers an objection suggested by the origination of the soul spoken of in Sutra (18) and countenanced by some apparently conflicting Shrutis. It is considered whether the soul is eternal or non-eternal and it is decided that the soul is eternal, being an image or reflection of the eternal Lord —

Adhik. XVI (31-32). In explaining certain conflicting statements with regard to the essential nature of souls, it is shown that their essential intelligence and other properties are dormant at first and later on become manifest according to certain laws. It is argued that the intelligent soul being admitted, it is necessary to admit the above conclusion too; for otherwise souls should be eternally experiencing a blessed state or a state of misery or a state in which happiness and misery are mixed up; there being nothing to prevent such an experience —

Adhik. XVII (33-42) discusses at length whether the soul is an active agent or not and decides that though absolutely dependent upon Brahman the soul is essentially an active entity and as such has responsibility to bear.

Adhik. XVIII. (43-50) holds a lengthy discussion about the meaning of the Shrutis that speak of the soul being an Amsha or no Amsha of the Lord. —

Adhik. XIX (51-53) reconciles the Shrutis that seem to conflict each other about the question whether the soul is or is not a reflection or image of the Lord. It should be noted that the idea of the soul being an image of the Lord is not to be understood in the ordinary sense of reflection in a mirror &c.

PADA IV

This Pada too has the task of reconciling the conflict of Shrutis; but here the Shrutis on each side receive additional force from the arguments furnished by other Shrutis and authoritative statements and therefore they deserve to be examined with special attention. Hence a different Pada. Secondly the topics presented relate to Adhyatma questions.

Adhik. I (1-3) reconciles Shrutis regarding the origination of the organs of sense (Indriya).

Adhik. II (4) Do of Manas (mind).

Adhik. III (5) Do of Vach (speech).

Adhik. IV (6-7) Do regarding the number of Pranas.

Adhik. V (8) Do regarding the size of Pranas.

Adhik. VI (9-10) Do regarding the origination of Mukhya Prana.

Adhik. VII (11-12) Do the dependence of Mukhyaprana.

Adhik. VIII (13) Do of other Pranas upon Mukhyaprana

Adhik. IX (14) Do regarding the size of Mukhyaprana

Adhik. X (15-17) discusses the question whom the organs of sense obey or belong to, the soul or the Lord.

Adhik. XI (18-20) decides that all the thirteen called Pranas are not Indriyas; but only twelve are such, while Mukhyaprana is no organ —

Adhik. XII (21) reconciles the Shrutis regarding the question whether the body where the organs of sense are imbedded is the creation of Virincha or Brahman. —

Adhik. XIII (22-23) explains the different statements regarding the material out of which that body is produced and concludes the enquiry into the objections begun in this Adhyaya.

ADHYAYA III

It has been shown in the first two Adhyayas what the nature of Brahman is, which is briefly indicated in the first Sutra. The words ‘then and enquiry’ in the first Sutra indicate the means of obtaining Moksha, which are discussed in this Adhyaya. The grace of the Lord is the chief means of release and it can be obtained only by knowing Him and seeing Him. Neither the grace of the Lord nor the knowledge of Him can be secured by force of command; for they are not in the range of human effort. Then rules may be laid down only for adopting such means as may lead to knowledge. The enquiry for knowledge consists of study, reasoning out the points of belief and deep contemplation of the thing conclusively known by these processes. Those only are fit to enter upon such an enquiry who are full of devotion to the glorious Lord. Primarily, devotion is the result of the knowledge of God’s glories; but it has to be firmly rooted in the heart which is divested of all attachment to all other things. Hence Vairagya or conquest of passions and desires is to be first ensured; nor is this simply the result of any rules that may be laid down. The only means then of turning away the mind and heart from worldly things is to clearly understand the endless turmoil’s of birth and death, &c.

PADA I

Adhik. I (1). shows that at death the soul is not liberated from the mundane bondage but goes enveloped in subtle material coats. Hence it is clear some special means are necessary for complete liberation.

Adhik. II (2) decides that all the Bhutas (elements) accompany the departing soul.

Adhik. Ill (3) clears a further doubt and establishes the preceding conclusion.

Adhik. IV (4) proves that Pranas go with the soul.

Adhik. V and VI (5 and 6) deal with certain objections to the interpretation of the text quoted in the previous Adhikaranas. —

Adhik. VII (7) establishes that Vairagya must be secured since the sacred karma can only lead to the qualified immortality in as much as the performer has not known Brahman. —

Adhik. VIII (8) shows that there is no hope of exhausting the results of karma by actual experience, since those going to Swarga return with a remnant of karma and multiply it. —

Adhik. IX (9) states that the route leading to Swarga and that of return are not the same, thereby showing that they are wrought with miseries and Vairagya is necessary to be secured. —

Adhik. X (10-12) discusses the meaning of certain Shrutis which describe the results of righteous or unrighteous conduct. —

Adhik. XI (13-15) shows that those who neglect sacrificial and other duties are also subject to the pains of going to the purgatory, & c.

Adhik. XII (16) states that there are seven regions of hell, of which the lowest ones are meant for those that suffer eternal damnation in consequence of hating Brahman, &c. —

Adhik XIII (17) shows that there is no pleasure or happiness in hell though the all-powerful Lord is present even there exercising His supreme control.

Adhik. XIV (18) refutes the view that the souls can independently work out their goal, and accordingly interprets the Shruti advanced by the Purvapakshin. —

Adhik. XV (19-23) establishes that happiness or any pleasurable sensation is absolutely absent in the lowest hell of Andhatamas. —

Adhik. XVI (24) teaches that the sacrificers do not become Dhuma die., but they only sojourn with them on their way back to the world of birth and death. —

Adhik. XVII (25) shows that the soul descending from Swarga is not delayed on its way for any long period, but in the course of a year enters the womb of the mother. Thus there is no hope of escaping from corporeal existence by delaying on the way —

Adhik. XVIII (26-27) explains that the sacrifices do not suffer miseries while they are in seeds of grain, &c., on their return from Swarga. Otherwise Vairagya as well as the duties laid down by the Shrutis might be abandoned as productive of no good. —

Adhik XIX (28) settles that the soul first enters the father before going to the mother. —

Adhik. XX (29) states that as a rule the gross body with which the soul has to experience the fruits of Karma is produced only when he is in the mother’s womb.

PADA II

The purpose of this Pada is to inculcate devotion or intense love to God. It is properly taken up after Vairagya necessary to intensify it and before the discussion of meditation whose mainstay it is. Her devotion is neither defined nor made the subject of a compulsory rule, but only the glory of the Lord is pointed out in order to engender devotion which consists of the real knowledge of the Lord’s greatness and powers and the consequent love to Him.

Adhik. I (1-4) states that the dream creations and vision are in the power of Brahman and the things seen in a dream are created out of the impressions imbedded in the mind and they are real and that they may become true indications of coming good or evil.

Adhik. II (5) states that it is by Brahman’s will the dream vision is also withdrawn, Brahman who is the cause of bondage and release. —

Adhik. III (6) states Brahman alone brings about and controls the state of wakefulness too. —

Adhik. IV (7) shows that the soul in sleep enters into the Lord who is present in the Nadis. —

Adhik. V (8) states that it is Brahman that wakes the soul from sleep.

Adhik. VI (9) concludes that all the states the soul may be in are brought about by. Brahman alone..

Adhik. VII (10) answers an incidental question what becomes of the soul falling into a swoon.

Adhik. VIII (11-13) clears the doubt caused by the Vedic statements which attribute wakefulness and other states to Vishwa, Taijasa, Pragna, to whom different places are also assigned, and shows that they are all: the forms of Brahman only, not limited by time, place, etc. —

Adhik. IX (14-17) discusses the question what Brahman essentially consists of. His form and colour; and shows that His form, colour, etc., are not the product or effect of Prakriti or non-intelligent separable matter. —

Adhik X (18) refutes the view that the soul is not an entity different from Brahman —

Adhik. XI (I9) establishes the usefulness of practising devotion to the Lord.

Adhik. XII (20-21) shows that the Lord’s dispensation is apportioned to the intensity of devotion which the souls are capable of and practise according to their capability.

Adhik. XIII (22) proves that the Lord is not only the creator, is not only of this or that power, but He is the protector, etc., of all and is the Lord of all powers. —

Adhik. XIV (23-27) establishes that the Supreme Being is always non-manifest and cannot be made manifest by the mere force of our efforts and He of His own accord reveals Himself when pleased with our devotion. Hereby it is shown that our devotional endeavours to win His grace must be as intense as possible and can never be too great. —

Adhik. XV (28-31) explains how the Supreme Being and His attributes are absolutely identical and how they can be still spoken of in different terms. This question furnishes the basis for the category of Vishesha propounded in Madhwa’s philosophy. —

Adhik. XVI (32-34) teaches that the excellent attributes of Brahman are not of the same kind as those known in the world denoted by the same terms, but that the same terms are used only to assist our understanding. —

Adhik. XVII (35-36) teaches that the bliss etc, of Brahma and other souls are only the reflection of the Lord’s bliss etc., and that the souls may still be different and of different grades and capacities. —

Adhik. XVIII (37) teaches that the form seen during meditation through the force of imagination is not Brahman; thus maintains the previous conclusion that Brahman is non-manifest.

Adhik. XIX (38) reassures us that by this non-manifest all-pervading Brahman alone the universe is created, destroyed, etc., and is in fact subject to all changes of state. Hence the necessity is shown for concentrated devotion to Him.

Adhik. XX (39-42) establishes that Brahman is the sole dispenser of the fruits of which Karma or Dharma is said to be the means.

PADA III

This treats of Upasana which means enquiry into Brahman, viz., study, investigation and reasoning, contemplation and meditation. Only the devout are fit for it and only from such means the direct knowledge of Brahman arises. Upasana is of two kinds, (1) study, etc., and (2) deep meditation. The former is the only foundation on which meditation can rise. This point forms the subject of the first Adhikarana. For only when all scripture is carefully studied and every statement is realised as consistent and reasonable, judgment becomes strong, doubts and misapprehensions are ended so that one can practise meditation with perfect concentration.

Adhik. I (1-5) proves the necessity of studying and understanding what all the Vedas mean, for there is only one taught by the Vedas acceptable to all. It is pointed out that the knowledge which every one of the eligible is fit to acquire is the result of his researches into the whole body of the Vedas, partial enquiry never leading to a complete and thorough idea. —

Adhik II (6-9) establishes that meditation requires the contemplates to collect or comprehend in one mental act all the excellent attributes of the Ford declared by all the Vedas —

Adhik. III (10) states that the power of comprehension differing in the different souls, the number of attributes meditated on together will, be what each comprehends —

Adhik. IV (11) shows that it is necessary for Brahma and other exalted souls to comprehend many attributes corresponding to their rank in the scale of eligibility and the fruit they are entitled to —

Adhik. V (12) teaches that bliss and certain other qualities of Brahman are to be contemplated by everyone seeking Moksha, as they correspond to the chief result to be attained in Moksha. —

Adhik. VI (13) points out an exception. —

Adhik. VII (14) states that the gods have according to their eligibility to contemplate an increasing number of qualities. —

Adhik. VIII (15-16) discusses the optional nature of contemplating and comprehending the attributes more or less, by the different souls; and adduces reasons for each of the alternatives. —

Adhik. IX (17) clears the doubt produced by the option discussed above, whether bliss etc., should or should not be contemplated along with ‘Atmatva’.

Adhik. X (18) teaches that all should contemplate ‘Atmatva’ the attributes connoted by the term ‘Atman’.

Adhik. XI (19) teaches the qualities of Brahman should be contemplated as those not found in the things of the world.

Adhik. XII (20-21) shows that the result corresponds to the means, i.e., the meditation practised. —

Adhik. XIII (22-23) settles a further question whether all should contemplate the qualities connoted by the term ‘Atman’.

Adhik. XIV (24) points out certain attributes are not to be contemplated by all. —

Adhik. XV (25) answers the question why the qualities declared in all the Vedas should be known by a study of all the Vedas if they be found to be given in a particular portion.

Adhik. XVI (26) excludes some other qualities as not being fit to be contemplated by all. —

Adhik. XVII (27-28) states that even the released meditate on God and thereby emphasizes the indispensableness of practising meditation as the means. —

Adhik. XVIII (29-31) discusses whether the released are bound to perform the holy acts. It is stated that they may or may not do as they please. Otherwise they cannot be said to be released and it is reasonable that what is purely the means ceases to be pursued when the end is gained. Hence it becomes clear that even in Samsara, meditation has to be chiefly practised. —

Adhik. XIX (32) declares that no one who has seen the Lord and known Him directly fails to attain Moksha (release).

Adhik. XX (33-34) proves that the eligible are graded according to their powers of meditation etc., both in life here and in their heavenly existence, and shows how this absence of equality cannot affect their blessedness in heaven. —

Adhik. XXI (35-37) decides that Mukhyaprana is at the head of all the souls and the series of the eligible in the ascending order ends with him. —

Adhik. XXII (38) establishes that Brahman is the immediate superior to and is the Lord of Mukhyaprana and that it is right to contemplate Brahman. —

Adhik. XXIII (39) answers an objection to the foregoing conclusion and interprets the Chandogya Shruti which refers to Brahman the Lord of all.

Adhik. XXIV (40-42) shows that Shri Lakshmi being eternally blessed does not come under the head of the eligible who have to practise meditation etc. as the means of obtaining release; and that out of overflowing love and devotion she also contemplates the Lord. Thus Mukhya-Prana is proved to be the highest of the eligible and there is none between him and Brahman. —

Adhik. XXVI (43) decides that it is not sufficient to adopt any one of the means but all should be followed, as Shravana, Manana, etc., have distinct functions in producing the knowledge of Brahman —

Adhik. XXVI (44) teaches how each has to perform meditation i.e., according as the preceptor permits him to do.

Adhik. XXIII (45) shows the grace of the preceptor has a greater power than all the efforts which the pupil ought to make, and therefore it should be secured by all means.

Adhik XXVIII (46-47) incidentally discusses the question whether the pupil may go to different preceptors after being initiated by one.

Adhik. XXIX (48-49) establishes that knowledge is the only means of attaining Moksha and hence meditation ought to be made for the sake of that knowledge.

Adhik. XXX (50) proves that that knowledge alone for which meditation is necessary leads to Moksha, and not the Karma.

Adhik. XXXI (51) teaches that devotion, control of passions and other virtues, contribute towards the acquisition of knowledge and therefore they ought to be secured.

Adhik. XXXII (52) establishes that the perception or the sight of Brahman is not of the same intensity in all.

Adhik. XXXIII (53) teaches that release does not result from seeing any form (manifestation) of the Lord, but only on seeing the particular form as may be intimated by the preceptor it is gained. The seeing of that particular form is called Bimbadarshana.

Adhik. XXXIV (54) explains the meaning of a particular Shruti which appears to state that devotion is the independent means of securing Moksha and shows that such a statement proceeds on account of devotion being the highest factor. It is also shown that by the term ‘devotion’ in the Shruti Brahman alone is denoted for the reason that He works through it. This indirectly confirms the position that Brahman is non-manifest.

Adhik. XXXV (55-56) discusses whether an essential aptitude is to be admitted in those eligible for meditation etc. and decides that even the state of being differently conditioned as Amsha and Amshi as in the case of Indra and Arjuna, does not make them two different things having a beginning and an end, and that Amsha and Amshi being one, the former undergoing the trials for the Karma of Amshi, the essential qualification of eligibility must be admitted.

Adhik. XXXVI (67-58) teaches that it is necessary to duly contemplate and worship the gods who depend upon the Lord’s Person.

Adhik. XXXVII (59) teaches, the quality of being Bhuman (perfect) is to be contemplated along with every other attribute of Brahman

Adhik. XXXVIII (60) shows that the idea of perfectness in contemplating every quality as Bhuman necessarily differs according to eligibility, just as the comprehension of words and sentences differs in different men, though each has a perception of the whole.

Adhik. XXXIX (61) declares that the eligible may contemplate some manifestation of Brahman other than that called Bimba which is required to be meditated on for final release.

Adhik. XL (62) discusses the question whether the Lord may or may not be worshipped for definite purposes other than Moksha and, if permissible, how to do it.

Adhik. XLI (63-66) shows that the gods have to meditate on Brahman that they rest on the particular limbs of the Divine Person from which they have sprung and those gods are to be worshipped only as such by others —

Adhik. XLII (67-68) clears a doubt with regard to the foregoing conclusion and shows that the worship and contemplation enjoined therein are to be performed by the gods and not by all.

PADA IV

Here the power of knowledge is discussed.

Adhik. I (1-9) holds a long discussion and decides that by means of knowledge not only Moksha is attained, but also everything else that may be desired by the wise —

Adhik. II (10-12) proves that all are not eligible for the knowledge of Brahman here spoken of —

Adhik. III (13) states that the highest measure of eligibility is not to be found in everybody and it is more or less according to their essential capacity or aptitude —

Adhik. IV (14-33) holds a long and exhaustive discussion whether those who have seen Brahman and obtained wisdom might become unfit for release by doing what is prohibited, whether they are bound to do what is enjoined upon man by the Vedas in the different Varnas (caste) and Ashramas, whether there is anything to be gained by observing the rules of conduct, etc., or there is anything to be lost by omitting to do duty or by doing what is prohibited —

Adhik. V (34-40) proves that the eligible alone are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, while others are not, and that this essential and natural distinction is never changed. —

Adhik. VI (41-43) teaches that the knowledge of Brahman is to be gained by those who do not aspire to the rank of the celestials or even to that of particular Rishis, who may however seek to extend their knowledge generally —

Adhik. VII (44-46) treats of the question how the soul obtains a part of the advantage of knowledge which has been produced by the agency of the gods working in him and shows that the soul becomes the receptacle of grace resulting from knowledge only by the presence of the gods in his body —

Adhik. VIII (47-48) states that the Sannyasa Ashrama is superior to that of the Grihastha (householder), since the acquisition of knowledge in that Ashrama is possible to a higher degree and with greater devotion —

Adhik. IX (49) teaches that the knowledge of Brahman leading to final release is not to be lectured out and imparted promiscuously to all and it has to be imparted to the qualified in the due manner laid down by the Shastras and custom —

Adhik. X (50) declares that in the absence of any obstruction Brahman is seen in the very life in which one has completed the course of enquiry, etc.

Adhik. XI (51) affirms in conclusion that release is assured to those who have seen Brahman, but that it is realised in some other life when all Prarabdha Karma is spent and not necessarily in the life in which Brahman is seen.

ADHYAYA IV

The results of seeing Brahman are described in this Adhyaya. Moksha, the fruit of knowledge is of four-fold description. (1) The reduction of Karma. (2) Departure from the material body. (3) The path travelled by the released. (4) The realization of eternal blessings. The four Padas of this Adhyaya respectively treat of these four aspects of Moksha. So, the first Pada tells us how the wise become freed from all the effects of Karma. Before beginning the subject proper a few Adhikaranas are devoted to the discussion of certain rules of conduct to be daily observed in connection with meditation, etc., laid down in the preceding Adhyaya.

PADA I

Adhik. I (1-2) teaches that study, etc., should be repeatedly resorted to as their performance for once cannot produce the desired effect —

Adhik. II (3) requires that everyone should contemplate Atman (Vishnu) as his Atman (Lord) and should instruct his pupils accordingly. —

Adhik. III (4) prohibits identifying symbols with Brahman —

Adhik. IV (5) teaches that Atman should be contemplated as Brahman (perfect in all excellent attributes) —

Adhik. V (6) requires that the gods should in their contemplation remember themselves to be those limbs of the Divine Person from which they have sprung —

Adhik. VI (7-11) lays down that meditation should be performed in the sitting posture keeping the body and mind in a state of perfect rest in places and times most favourable to concentration —

Adhik. VII (12) shows that meditation of Brahman must be continued to the close of life (till release)

Adhik. VIII (13-19) teaches that when Brahman is seen the previous and subsequent evil Karma becomes destroyed, while all the merit acquired by him who falls into hell is also destroyed. It is further stated that those two sets of Karmas are only such as have begun to bear their fruit; that the Akamya Karma performed before the dawn of wisdom produces knowledge, while that performed by the wise enhances the fruit of knowledge, viz., bliss in heaven. Thus it is plain all other Punya Karma too is allowed to perish in the case of the wise. But the Akamya Karma which the wise perform with devotion does not perish, which the Shruti distinctly declares. The Prarabdha Karma, good or evil, is to be exhausted by experiencing the consequences, when without further delay release is attained.

PADA II

How the wise whose Karma is destroyed by knowledge and fruition become divested of their material body is explained in this Pada. It happens in two ways. In the case of the gods their bodies fall off when they are withdrawn into their superiors. In the case of others the soul takes its departure through the Brahma Nadi. They are treated of in the order of their importance.

Adhik. I (1-2) explains that speech (Uma) enters into Mind (Rudra); and so all the gods enter in order into those by whom they are controlled —

Adhik. II (3) shows that Mind enters-into Prana —

Adhik. III (4) shows that Prana (Virincha) enters into Paramatman —

Adhik. IV (5) states that all the gods except those otherwise specified enter into all the elements —

Adhik. V (6) answers an objection to the foregoing conclusion, which is confirmed. —

Adhik. VI (7-14) argues out that Prakriti (Lakshmi) is not withdrawn into Brahman and shows that otherwise Prakriti also would have to be considered one of the eligible seeking release —

Adhik. VIII (15) shows that the gods other than Chaturmukha go to Paramatman on release —

Adhik. VIII (16) shows that all the released are under the control of the Lord’s power, i.e., they do not become absolutely independent like the Lord —

Adhik. IX (17-21) discusses and explains how the wise souls (men) depart from the body in going to heaven —

Adhik. X (22) teaches that it is necessary and useful to remember the path to be travelled and the several stages to be reached.

PADA III

This Pada describes the path travelled by the souls issuing forth through the Brahma Nadi and what they reach.

Adhik. I (1) shows that the path begins with Archis, etc. This is necessary to be distinctly known as required in the last Sutra of the preceding Pada —

Adhik. II (2) determines that the second stage reached is Vayu —

Adhik. III (3) determines that Lightning is reached after the Year. —

Adhik. IV (4-5) clears the doubt whether the Vayu mentioned in the second stage is the chief Vayu or some other and shows it is Ativahika, not the chief —

Adhik. V (6) determines that Mukhya Vayu is the last stage to be reached and from him the soul has to pass on to Brahman —

Adhik. VI (7-16) first gives the views of Badari and Gaimini which they have severally imbibed in the course of Shri Vyasa’s instruction and concludes by accepting both the views, since they apply to different cases. The wording of the Sutra (15) is transparent enough to show that Badarayana mentions always the partial views imbibed by His pupils and not the views that would be contradictory to, and inconsistent with, the unmistakable conclusions of His own given at such places.

PADA IV

This Pada discusses the questions relating to the enjoyment of bliss by those who have reached Brahman along with Chaturmukha.

Adhik. I (1) proves that the released having reached Brahman enjoy their blessings remaining for ever with Him and under His guidance. Otherwise all that has been said about Brahman as the goal would become inconsistent —

Adhik. II (2) decides that he who is spoken of in the Shruti as enjoying blessings is only the released soul. Hereby it is clearly shown that the released are really enjoying eternal blessings —

Adhik. III (3) establishes that the Supreme Light which the released are declared by the Shruti to reach is Atman (Vishnu) only —

Adhik. IV (4) shows that those who attain to Sayujya Mukti enjoy the blessings along with the Lord. Hereby it is seen that Brahman also enjoys all the blessings —

Adhik. V (5-7) discusses the possibility of enjoyment of blessings by the released and decides that the opinions of Gaimini and Audulomi are both true, viz., though the released are divested of all material body, some (obtaining the Sayujya Mukti) enjoy the blessings through the Lord’s Person, all others in their essential body consisting of knowledge (in their Spiritual body) —

Adhik. VI (8) shows that the released who have reached Brahman obtain all their blessings by mere wish, i.e., without any efforts for their realisation. Otherwise heavenly abode would not be worth seeking after —

Adhik. VII (9) shows that the released are not subject to the control of those who are inferiors to them.

Adhik. VIII (10-16) again treats of the question how the released can enjoy the blessings. Though this has been already discussed in Adhik. V. an objection is suggested by the statement in Sutra 8 that the blessings are secured by mere with. The objection may be stated thus. It may be asked whether the released may or may not have an external body. If they have, they might be subject to miseries again. If they have not, enjoyment is not possible for want of means. Further, it is not sufficient to say that some enjoy through the Lord’s Person; for even then most of them have no means of enjoying bliss; and it cannot be said that these can enjoy by means of their essential nature; for that has been found to be no means of experience when the soul remains in his purely essential nature during sleep. In reply it is pointed out that the released may of their own accord assume a body of Shuddha Satva and enjoy pure blessings. There is no misery arising from such a body, since it is Shuddha Satva and is not produced in consequence of Karma. Even if they do not assume such an external body, enjoyment is possible as in the state of dreaming. Moreover the released do not entertain Abhimana or any misapprehension in respect of the external body they assume. Further arguments will be found in the text.

Adhik. IX (17-20) determines the extent of powers and blessings which the released enjoy, discussing by the way some important questions regarding them —

Adhik. X (21-22) decides that the experience of happiness by the released is eternal and does not become increased or diminished in the course of their enjoyment. —

Adhik. XI (23) emphatically establishes in conclusion that the released never return to Samsara (mundane bondage) and hence the Moksha that has been held out as the highest end of man is worth gaining.

------------------

From the foregoing summary and remarks, it becomes evident that the Acharya’s interpretation of the Sutras diverges from that of every other commentator, not in a few important points alone, but in almost every point. The divergence is perceived greater as we better make out the significance of the numerous observations made in the course of this and other works he has written. No question in his system is considered to be satisfactorily examined until the investigation ends in appealing to some fundamental principles of logic and psychology. Numerous are, therefore, the points which require elucidation and justification by contrasting them with those of other systems. But instead of lengthening this review, the task may be done with greater propriety in connection with the special work he has intended for the purpose. However, a few words have to be said regarding the style of the Bhashya itself.

It is said that one and twenty Bhashyas had preceded that of the Acharya on the Brahma-Sutras. Nearly eight centuries ago when he wrote this Bhashya, voluminous commentaries were less required than the influence of good teaching, and the authority of the Sacred Literature had greater weight and attraction than fine writing. So he has written works which are mostly compilations of statements from the various works which the scholars of his day must have admitted as authoritative. Turning to any page, the reader will find that under each Sutra some Vedic texts and Smritis are extracted, now and then a few words of his own being added to introduce or to conclude the point of discussion. From this circumstance, the Bhashya has been pronounced to be rather concise, why, too concise to be intelligible to the ordinary student. It is true that the work is very concise; but it cannot be said that the work is not intelligible. The Shrutis quoted in the work cannot by themselves be understood and so Smritis translating them are given side by side; sometimes Smritis are first quoted, if they make the meaning of the Sutras more readily intelligible and then follow the Shrutis intended by the Sutras. If any one of moderate insight into the Sanskrit language would read only the Sutras and the Smritis, he cannot miss any of the important ideas contained in the Sutras or those which the Acharya intends to place before the student. If the enquiries of the learned minds do not apparently find satisfaction, he would teach them the power of his words. Hence it has been observed by his pupil that the Bhashya teaches the young learners in unmistakable words what savants cannot fully comprehend.

The authorities are drawn from more than a hundred works consisting of Mantras, Brahmanas, Upanishads, Itihasas, Puranas, Samhitas and Tantras, to which the quotations have been traced or referred. There are still about one hundred and fifty passages from unknown sources. At the present day it may not be possible to find some of the works named in the Bhashya or even those that may be found may have become corrupt from various causes. But this state of things does not interfere with the value of the quotations; for the whole course of exposition and reasoning shows that every statement has to receive its authoritativeness from the logical and true ideas it conveys, not from the sources to which it may be referred. This view of the Acharya is fully borne out by his treatment of the various connected questions in his Prakaranas or supplementary works. Some of the other merits and advantages of the method he has adopted have been incidentally mentioned in the earlier portion. Lastly it may be observed that the moderate extent of the work has been an incentive both to the master and the pupil in taking up the study of the Bhashya; comparatively therefore more Madhwa’s study their Sutra-Bhashya than the followers of other teachers do their own.

There is one important point to which modern scholars may be glad to have their attention drawn Recent Philological researches and the comparative study of languages have led to the belief that the Rig-Veda mostly speaks the history of the good old Aryans. Consequently the Veda Bhashyas have been denounced as not interpreting the true sense of the Vedic poets. Thus the unbroken current of tradition as to the religious and philosophical interpretation put upon the Vedas has been called into question. It is then a real difficulty to reconcile ourselves to both these positions. But the principles which, according to the Acharya, the first Adhyaya propounds can help us to find a solution. In this connection the last six Sutras of the second Pada and the Sutras 16 to 23 of the fourth Pada of this Adhyaya deserve to be made the subject of a careful and comprehensive study. Here questions are discussed how the Speech man has made or learnt to denote or speak of things in the world of perception and of every day experience has, in course of time, come to convey deeper things. In the answer the relation between the two kinds of things is made the basis of explanation, which in its turn gives a glorious insight into the progress of thought in the human mind. It is but natural that the ancient seers who from time to time taught the world made their common speech when their progressing mind required it, also the vehicle of their cogitations of a different kind, instead of inventing a new language or making a fresh literature for the purpose. Especially in ages when writing was not the means of handing down to posterity the products of their mind, it was most convenient to have the same language and literature with different exponents to serve all purposes. Accordingly Shri Madhwacharya lays down in consonance with the teaching of the Sutras that the Vedas have at least three senses and they are intended to tell us of everything in the world (vide page 94, lines 31-35).

If it is not easy to have through the Sanskrit Text a clear idea of the system that is taught, the difficulty will be found to some extent solved in this popular rendering. So, it would suffice to conclude with a rapid sketch of the cardinal points which have already been set forth in different connections. According to this system, there is but one God or Brahman identified with Vishnu who is the Absolute Being of all powers. Among the dependent existences Shri or Lakshmi is the only one that is eternally blessed witnessing the glory of God through eternity. Other Spiritual beings are many who are not all of the same kind or of the same capacity and quality; they are indeed innumerable and are said to exist in groups of infinities; they are all separate in substance from the Lord and from each other; they are all eternal. There is also the principle of unintelligent matter apparently homogeneous, but really composed of different principles in a subtle state, which, when worked up by the guiding activity of the Lord and by the necessary activity of the soul, develop into the perceptible universe. Thus, the Acharya teaches that the Lord is real, the soul is real, matter is real and the mundane bondage is also real. The soul has to work, through the grace of the Lord, for release from the real bondage which He alone can dissolve. The moral responsibility of the soul is distinctly declared by the Sutrakara, as well as the distinctness of the soul from the Lord (vide Sutras II. iii. 33 and 28). These two things being granted, the reality of the bondage and the endeavours on the part of the soul for release are sensibly conceived and taught. These truths are all made to rest on the firm ground of reasoning consistent with the three principles of evidence, Shabda, Pratyaksha and Anumana. Nothing is said to exist or denied existence in the absence of or against such evidence. A correct knowledge of all things, material and spiritual, naturally leads the eligible to a knowledge of the Gracious Narayana; such knowledge and the devotion engendered by it, are the only means of obtaining His Grace. Hence, at the close of the Tatvaviveka, the Acharya observes:

“Surely, he finds release from Samsara who understands and (contemplates) that all this limited existence is ever under the absolute control of Hari.”

***

VEDANTA-SUTRAS

With Madhwa Bhashya

The Sutra-Bhashya

ॐ

FIRST ADHYAYA

FIRST PADA

Narayana who is perfect in every kind of excellence and is destitute of defects, who is the object of knowledge and the goal of attainment, is bowed to in reverence, as also are the Preceptors; and the meaning of the Aphorisms is expounded.

In the age of Dwapara, pure knowledge became everywhere disturbed (overlaid with doubt and misapprehension), and Brahma, Rudra and the other gods having prayed for its correct declaration, the glorious Narayana became incarnated as Vyasa.

To those that desire to attain the good and to avoid the evil, but do not perceive the means therefor, He (Vyasa), for the purpose of manifesting the same restored the Vedas that had been lost (forgotten), divided them into four (Rik, Yajus, Saman and Atharvan), and these again into twenty-four, a hundred and one, a thousand and twelve (branches respectively); and for the sake of the correct understanding of their import, He composed the Aphorisms known as Brahma Sutras. It is hence declared in the Skanda, “The wisdom which had been derived from Narayana was in the Krita age perfect (as given). In the next age of Treta, it was changed a little; and in Dwapara it became wholly altered. Further, owing to the curse of the sage Gautama, wisdom became converted into false knowledge; and Brahma, Rudra and the other gods became confused in mind (out of compassion for the mortals) and sought refuge under Narayana, the faultless as the fittest to be resorted unto for refuge. Having been informed by them as to what had to be done, this Supreme Person of divine glory became incarnated in the form of a sage born of Parashara and Satyavati. Thus He, who is the Lord Hari of supreme glory, Himself gave forth the Vedas which had been lost to the world; and divided them into four, and these four again into twenty-four, a hundred and one, a thousand, and twelve branches respectively; and, for the proper understanding of their import, He composed the Brahma-Sutras or the great aphorisms which possess in full the chief requirements of Sutras or aphorisms. Those that know the characteristics of the Sutra, say that it should be concise, unambiguous, of fresh and high import, of universal application, free from repetition and inaccuracies of word and sense. Hence (as this body of aphorisms has all the essential attributes connoted by the term Sutra), the Brahma Sutra is worthy of being spoken of as the Sutra without any qualifying word; just as the name Vyasa by itself denotes Krishna (Dwaipayana) and when qualified, other individuals (also named Vyasa). And the learned understand other Sutras to be qualified aphorisms (and speak of them only as such); for a word by itself imports the thing of which it is primarily the name, and it denotes other things only when qualified. Such is the observation of those that are versed in the Vedas and possess an insight into the real significance of words. Having produced such aphorisms, wherein are declared the rules for the solution of all questions (connected with the Vedas) — the rules which form the basis of all other doctrines propounded for the interpretation of the whole body of (scriptural) words, the famous Vyasa, that is, the Supreme Person of divine glory, once more established right knowledge in Brahma, Rudra, and the other gods, in men, Fathers (Pitris) and Birds, and shines most illustriously and so on.

The word ‘then is used as being auspicious and it denotes immediate consecution (in respect of eligibility); and the word ‘therefore’ points to a reason. The Garuda Purana says accordingly — “All the aphorisms invariably begin with the (initial) words ‘then’ and ‘therefore’. What is the reason therefor? What is their import? O Knowing one, what makes them so highly important? Be pleased to explain this to me, O Brahma, so that I may rightly understand them. Thus requested by Narada, Brahma, the foremost among the wise, declared as follows. The word ‘then’ is used to denote the immediate consecution in respect of eligibility, and also to serve as an auspicious expression. And the word ‘therefore’ is used to convey a reason; or it may mean ‘through the grace of the all-pervading Lord; for it has been given out that He propels the activities of the minds of all. When the Supreme Vishnu wished to create the world, two things first came out (of Him), the sacred syllable ‘Om’ and the word ‘Atha’ (then). They are, therefore, the first in order. And thirdly was given out the word ‘Atah’ (therefore), which tells us further that He is the reason (of this enquiry). The syllable ‘A’ which, (like its soul), pervades all speech, declares the Supreme Brahman. The syllables ta’ and ‘tha’ whose presiding deity is Prana signify His pervasion and immutable essence. Hence all these are considered by the wise to be fit for being pronounced at the commencement. The great seers having thus perceived the true power and force of the words ‘atha’ and ‘atah’ use them alone in the beginning of aphorisms.”

And in the Bhagavata-Tantra, eligibility is thus described — “The eligible persons are in fact of three classes, the lowest, the middling, and the highest. Of these the lowest class comprises men of the highest order. To the middling class belong the sages and the celestial musicians (Gandharvas); and the gods are of the highest class. This is the classification based upon nature. Again there is the further classification based on merit. He is said to belong to the lowest class who is only devoted to the highest Lord and has mastered scripture; he is of the middling class who markedly unites unto these the qualifications of tranquility, &c.; and he is accounted to be of the highest class who, in addition, perceives the futility and the perishable character of all things from the four-faced Brahma down to the clump of grass, and who, thus rising above desires, resigns himself to the feet of the Lord Vishnu, and in Him sees all his works secure. Further on, this is established in the Sutras, ‘Of him who has studied all the Vedas’, and, Not without difference.” (III. 4-12-13). (To the same effect) there are the following scriptural texts also. “When he has devoted his mind to the Lord, controlled the senses, eschewed pleasures, become indifferent to hopes and fears, and perceived things as they are, he shall find the Lord within himself”. — (Bri. U. IV. 4-23). He that is fit to attain the knowledge of Brahman shall, consider well and realise the futility of the other worlds to be reached in virtue of (good) deeds, and shall subdue his desires; for the eternal world (of bliss) is not attainable by deeds (which can only yield results that are not eternal)”. “That he may know Him well, he shall dutifully seek a preceptor who is learned in scripture and devoted to the Lord”. — (Ath. U. I. 2-12). “But to him is the Lord accessible, whom He chooses out of grace, and to him the Lord reveals Himself”. — (Kath. U. II-23), “To him whose devotion to the Lord is intense and who is in due measure devoted to the preceptor as well as to the gods, — to him all the things imparted in instruction become evident and shine in his spacious mind”. — (Sv. U. vi-23). And in the Vyoma Samhita, it is said thus — “Even those of the lowest caste devoted to the Lord are eligible for initiation in respect of the knowledge of the sacred names of the Lord; while women, Shudras, and vile Brahmans are allowed to obtain knowledge from Tantra works as explained in part by others, but not from a regular study of such works. Those of the first three castes who are sincerely devoted to the Lord Hari (the purifier) are fit to acquire knowledge as given in the Vedic texts. And the women (of the celestial order) are also eligible for the study of Scripture; and they are Urvashi, Yami (the wife of Yama), Sachi and other goddesses, (as also the wives of Rishis).

As without the grace of the Lord there can be no release, and without knowing Him, His high grace cannot be obtained, (and without an enquiry into the Holy Word and meditation on Him, such knowledge cannot be obtained), the enquiry into Brahman ‘ought to be made’.

In a simple or complex sentence, that word or clause may be supplied as an ellipsis, without which (word or clause) the meaning of the sentence would be incomplete, but need not be so supplied where this can be dispensed with, such is the rule of the learned. (Brihat Samhita.)

Here among the eligible, He who knows Him thus attains to immortality. For there is no other way leading unto Him’. (T. A. iii-12). ‘I am indeed highly beloved of the wise and the wise are beloved of me’. B.G. VII-17). He, the gracious Lord is reached by him whom He chooses’. Verily, the Lord is to be seen, to be heard, to be thought about and to be contemplated’. (Bri. U. VI. 5-6). So say the Shrutis and Smritis.

By righteous deeds alone, the lowest measure of the grace of the Lord is said to be obtainable; by study and such other things, a higher measure; but by knowledge only is the full measure of the grace of the Lord (obtainable). And it is said that through the lowest measure of divine grace, one enters Svarga (the world of Indra); by the still higher grace one acquires a place in the (celestial) sphere underneath the Janaloka; and only by His perfect grace does the soul attain salvation. To hear (to study) the scripture, to reflect on the things taught therein, and to meditate thereon and to be intensely devoted to God are the only means of securing the full and direct realisation of the Lord; no other means is held to be of such primary importance. For, except by these means, no one has ever acquired that knowledge. (Naradiya Purana).

And the term Brahman primarily denotes Vishnu only: for there are Scriptural passages which run thus: “He who abiding in the sea is but slightly known by the wise who transcends perception, who is eternal, who holds sway over all beings, from whom the Great Mother of the world issued forth, and by whom the souls are brought into the world of life bound up with their actions (Karma), and imprisoned in the five elements.” — And after this, “He is the embodiment of pure wisdom, is consciously active, and is, as the wise say, the one Lord of the world.” (Mn. i). From this subsequent statement (We know Narayana, we contemplate Vasudeva), and therefore, may Vishnu impel us (towards good). (Mn. i). It is evident that Vishnu is referred to in the previous passage. But other words (names) occurring in the passage, cannot however, lead to other (deities being taken as the highest Lord). For — ‘From Him (the names of) the things of the world derive their connotation; and consequently all the names cannot be interpreted to denote (any of the deities forming part of) the world. That Lord is said to be Vishnu whom all the words (by their connotation) declare’ (Bhallaveya Shruti). ‘To Him all the rest of the world goes, (to Him) who is carefully enquired into, and bears all alone the names of all the gods’. — (Rv. X. 82-3). Here the expression ‘all alone ‘precludes other deities from being the denotation of all names (words).

In the navel of the Unborn (Vishnu), that thing is set on which all the worlds stand (Rv. X. 82-6). This is a well-known indication of Vishnu. It is not fit to give up a well-established meaning for the sake of another; for it is said in the Skanda ‘To Him is (our) obeisance made in whose navel has grown up the lotus, the prop of the worlds, as referred to in the Shruti, ‘In the navel, of the Unborn’ — to Him the glorious Vishnu who is the cause of all the states of the world and the sole author of the universe’. Another text which refers to the same subject says, ‘(He) who is far above the heavens (Shri) and farther away from the earth (Bhumi)’ and so on (Rv. X. 82-5). Again in the Shruti, Lakshmi says ‘I can make whomsoever I like, I can make the Fierce, Brahma (the four-faced), the sage, the intelligent (Rv. X.125-5); and concludes by saying ‘And my cause dwells on the waters of the sea’ (Rv. X. 125-7). Here according to the settled acceptation and the indicatory circumstances, the Fierce is Rudra, and it is Narayana (that dwells) on the waters of the sea. When there is nothing to the contrary, the accepted (meaning) is not to be abandoned. According to the aforesaid reasoning, all Scripture declares Him alone. ‘In the Vedas, in the Ramayana, in the Puranas and in the Maha Bharata, in the beginning, in the middle and at the end, yea everywhere, Vishnu is sung’ — in the three divisions of the Harivamsha. The contradiction of other works is not (to be regarded). For it is said in the Varaha Purana Now I shall create such things as would soon engender doubt and misconception among men; mighty Rudra, thou too hadst better have misleading works produced (by Dadhichi, etc.). Let the people be made to see what is not true and what is against truth. Make thyself well-known to the world and spread darkness with regard to me’. Also in the Skanda Purana cerebrating the supremacy of Siva, this is said. ‘O, Undelaying one, the moment thou skouldst, in wrath, turn thy face away from them, Brahma, Ishana and other gods would be doomed to miseries worse than those inflicted upon the basest of the base’; and in the Brahma Vaivarta Purana which seeks to exalt Brahma, it is said: ‘Neither I nor Siva nor others can lay claim to even a small fraction of His power. As the child sports with its toys, so does Achyuta with us’. And no such statement is to be found in the works declaring the supremacy of Vishnu, and so it has been said, “Now I shall create, etc.”

The Sutrakara states the characteristics of Brahman (thus): —