(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Doctrine Of Srikantha Vol II"

TEXT FLY WITHIN 
THE BOOK ONLY 



CO 

u< OU_160233>5 

CO 



OSMANIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 



Call No. VS\ . <\< \ ^ ^ "b Accession No. (^ . l 
Author C^Vv Quo A \AJSJX \ 



Tide . . 

This book should be returned on or before the date last marked below. 



PRACYAVANI RESEARCH SERIES 

VOL. XI. 

DOCTRINE OF SRIKAMHA 

VOL* II 




FIRST ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF 

Srikantha-Bhasya 

OR 

Commentary of Srikantha 



ON THE 
BARHMA-SUTRAS 



By 
Dr. (Mrs.) Roma Chaudhuri 

M,A. t D. Phil, ( Oxon ), 
Principal, Govt. Lady Brabourne College, Calcutta. 

Calcutta ApriJ, 1959 



Published by 

Dr. J. B. Chaudhuri, 

PRACYAVANI 

( Institute of Oriental Learning ) 

3, Federation Street, Calcutta : 9. 



AVAILABLE FROM : 

PRACYAVANI MANDIRA 
3, Federation St., Calcutta-9. 



DAS GUPTA &CO. 
54/3, College Street, Calcutta. 



CHAKRABORTY CHATTERJEE CO. 
15, Baukiin Chatterjee Street, Calcutta. 



CHOWKHAMBA SANSKRIT SERIES OFFICE- 
Bafcaras City. 



MOTILAL BANARSI DAS 
P. B. 75, Chowk, Banaras City. 



ORIENTAL BOOK HOUSE 
330/A, Sadashiv Peth, Poona, 



ORIENTAL BOOK AGENCY- 
15, Shukrawar, Poona. 



M^NSHIRAM MANOHARDAS 
Nai Sarak, Delhi, 



Printed by 

A;K* Banerjee, 

BANI LEKHA PRESS, 

7 B, Ram Mohan Saha Lane, 

Calcutta 6. 



Preface 

We have great pleasure in bringing out at long last English 
Translation of the famous Commentary on the Brahma-Sutras by onkantba 
vDaivacarya. The work was finished as early as 1946, but due to unavoid- 
able circumstances, it could not be published before. 

6rlkantha's Commentary on the Brahma Sutras is a very important 
work of the 6aiva Vedanta School, being the only known 6aiva Commen- 
tary on the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana. But unfortunately, no translation 
of this very important commentary exists till to-day. 

The present English Translation has been made as literal as 
possible, without sacrificing its simplicity and lucidity. Copious notes 
and annotations have been given whenever necessary. Subtitles have 
been inserted throughout for making complicated matters easily 
intelligible. 

The first volume of this work contains a detailed exposition of the 
Vedfmta doctrine of Snkantha, viz. Visista-^ivadvaitavada. It is in the 
Press ; and we hope to bring it out within a couple of months. 

We are very grateful to the Government of India for contributing 
half the cost of publication of this work. 



PRACYAVANI ^ 

3, Federation Street. > JATINDRA BIMAL CHAUDHURI 

Calcutta-9. J 



Contents 



Subject 

Preface 

Contents 

Introduction ( Panegyiic ) 



Pages 



1-2 



First Chapter ( A dhysya ) 

First Quarter ( Pada ) 
Second Quarter " 
Third Quarter 
Fourth Quarter " 



3-97 

80-108 

109-142 

143-165 



Second Chapter ( Adhyaya ) 

First Qtiaiter (Pada) 
Second Quarter ' " 
Third Quarter " 

Fourth Quarter " 



Third Chapter ( Adhyaya ) 



First Quarter ( Pada ) 
Second Quarter " 
Third Quarter " 

Fourth Quarter " 



Fourth Chapter ( Adhyaya ) 



First Quarter ( Pada ) 
Second Quarter " 
Third Quarter " 

Fourth Quarter " 
General Index 
Abbreviations 



166-191 
192-215 
216-243 
244-256 



257-271 
272-299 
300-370 
371-402 



403-321 
422-435 
436-445 
446-470 
471-479 
480 



Vice-President 

INDIA 

NEW DELHI 
25th February, I960. 



Dr. (Mrs.) Roma Chatidhuri is well-known to scholars of Indian 
phik>5ophy and religion as the authoress of "The Doctrines of Nimbarka 
and his School". It was submitted as a part of her thesis for her 
D. Phil degree at the Oxford University, I happened to be one of her 
examiners and though she was modest and unassuming, her work showed 
scholarship and insight and the Utiiveisity awarded the D. Phil degree to 
her. Now she has brought out an English translation with elaborate 
notes of Srikantba-Bhasya. 

While the systems of Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva are fairly well 
known to students of Indian thought, Nimbarka and Srikantha, are less 
well-known. The authoress has, therefore, done a notable service by her 
work. She is a scholar of wide learning at once careful and discriminating 
in judgment. I have no doubt the book will be read widely. 

Sd/ S. Radhakrishnan. 



Srikantha-Bbasya 

Introduction 

PANEGYRIC 

1. Cm. Obeisance to the 'Aham-Padartha', (>), Siva, the Highest 
Soul, who is the cause of the well-being of the worlds, (*), whose form is 
Existence, Consciousness and Bliss. 

2. Triumphant is Siva, the Highest Soul, who by His own powers 
creates the multitude of patterns constituting the whole world-illusion, ( 8 ), 
who is the sole topic of the cream of all Scriptures. ( 4 ) 

3. For your well-being, let Him, the Supreme Soul, ( 6 ), be endowed 
with all-auspicousness, He, of whom even the entire universe, consisting 
of souls and matter, is only a sub-ordinate or secondary part. ( 6 ) 

4. Obeisance to the Spiritual Precepter, called S'veta, who has 
propounded many Scriptures, ( 7 ) he who leads (men) to salvation like 
the wish-fulfilling Tree obeisance to (such) an (all-) auspicious Teacher. 



(1) i.e. Brahman. According to &MD. (P. 3.), this means Siva 
whose form is the whole universe of mind and matter. 

(2) According to 6iMD. (P 3.), this means that &iva is the cause 
of the attainment of the desired respective worlds by the Dahara- 
Worshippers and others. 

(3) The world is not really false, according to this School ; but it 
is an illusion only when we, in our ignorance, take it to be entirely 
different from and independent of &iva. &MD. (P. 5.) 

(4) i.e. the Upanisads. &MD. 

(5) "Paramatma" Para + Ma + At ma. That is, the Soul (Atma) is 
endowed with Supreme (Para) auspiciousness (Ma), &MD. (P. 5.) 

(6) The universe is sub-ordinate to 6iva because it does not exist 
for its own sake, but for the sake of the worship of 6iva. The only aim 
of the souls is to know and worship Him, while the material world affords 
the place and ingredients of such a worship. Thus, both souls and matter 
exist for 6iva's sake. 

(7) i.e. different Scriptures or Vedantas appear to be self-contradic- 
tory. But JavetacBrya has removed or explained away all these apparent 
self-contradictions and thereby made their real meanings clear. 
SMD. (P. 5.) 



2 6rikantha-Bhasya 

5. These Aphorisms of Vyasa are the eyes (so to speak) through 
which the wise see Brahman. (But) these were vitiated (or misinterpreted) 
by former teachers ; (so they are now) being purified (or rightly interpre- 
ted) by Srikantha. 

6. 6nkantha's commentary en the auspicious Aphorisms of Vyasa 
do shin forth brilliantly a commentary that is sweet, sublime in meaning, 
(and) not very lengthy. 

7. This Commentary is a great treasure to those revered men who 
are devoted to Siva, (and) who rejoice in inhaling the perfume of the essence 
of all Vedantas. 



FIRST CHAPTER (Adhyaya) 

First Quarter (Pada) 
Adhikarana 1 : The Section entitled 'Desire to Know' (Sutra 1). 

Here the treatise dealing with the Upanisads is begun. 

But what end will a man attain through this ? The end is the 
attainment of pleasure, the object of limitless love ; and, the absolute 
cessation of pain, the object of limitless hatred. 

Who is entitled to this (treatise) ? He who possesses the attributes 
of being a suppliant and the rest. (*) 

What is its subject-matter ? That which is well-known (in a general 
manner), but not very well-known (in a particular manner, and is), as such, 
a matter of doubt. 

After what should it begin ? After that which being its essential 
condition, is known to be something preceeding. Thus, for uprooting the 
spike of doubt from the minds of the readers, ^he following Aphorism has 
been set forth by the reverend Vyasa, the crest-jewel of the omniscient : 



SUTRA I. 1. 1. 
''Then, therefore* a desire to know Brahman". 

This constitutes an Adhikarana or a Section by itself. A Section 
consits of (the following five parts) viz. topic to be treated, doubt, prima 
facie or the opponent's view, determination of the correct conclusion and 
removal of inconsistencies. (") 

Meaning of the word "Atha" 

Here the word "Then" ("Atha" in the Sutra) implies 'immediate 
succession'. 

It does not mean 'what is begun', as in the text : "Then (i.e. there is 
begun) the treatise on Yoga." But the desire to know Brahman is not 



(1) An Arthin, i.e. a seeker or suppliant is one who is well-versed in 
the Scriptures and entitled to the Vedic rites and rituals. SMB. (P. 19) 

(2) Visaya, Samsaya, Ptirva-paksa, Sidhdnta-nirnaya and Samgati. 
Some here include Prayojaua in place of Samgati, or in addition to it. So 
if we want to accept this view, we may here, take "Siddhanta" and 
"Nirnaya" separately, the first meaning correct conclusion or the author's 
own view, the second Prayojana or the end that one gets (nirpiyate nitaram 
prapyata), Cf. 6MD. (Pp. 21-22) 



4 Srlkantha-Bhasya I. I. I. 

something that can be begun as a duty. It arises only when the 
object is something attractive. (*) 

Nor can it be said that in conformity with the statement, viz. "The 
word 'Cm' and the word 'Atha' these two formerly issued forth from the 
throat of Brahman ; hence both are auspicious", this word "Atha" here 
indicates auspiciousness, for it is impossible that the above desire (to know 
Brahman) can have any connection with auspiciousness here. - In fact, the 
utterance of auspicious formulae at the beginning of a treatise, as 
required by ordinary good custom, has been secured here adequetely 
through the mere sound of the word (Atha). ( f ) 

This (word "Atha") also does not refer to another view (stated 
by the author himself previously). As no such view has been stated 
before, it is impossible that this should be referred to here ( H ). Further, 
the word 'Atha' has not been used here in the sense of a variable antece- 
dent, as in the case of eating and going ( 4 ), and the like. For, it 
is intended to refer to something that is an essential and invari- 

(1) That is, a desire cannot be begun or produced at will, like an 
act done at will. A desire, being a mental state, cannot be forced it 
arises spontaneously only when its proper cause, viz. a pleasant object, is 
present. Hence, it is meaningless to say that this 'Desire' is the special 
topic of the Brahma-sutras. The fact is that the Brahma-Sutras have 
nothing to do with Jijfiasa or desire to know, but only with Brahman. 
The Vedanta is not a psychological treatise concerned with desire, but 
a metaphysical one concerned with Brahman. See Bhamati on Samkara- 
Bhasya. 1.1. 1. 

(2) The real meaning, expressed or implied, of the term 'Atha' 
is not auspiciousness. But the sound of the word 'Atha' produces auspi- 
ciousness. An effect produced by the sound of a word is quite distinct 
from the real meaning of the word. e. g. the sound of a conch-shell 
produces auspiciousness, but auspiciousness is not the meaning of the 
word 'Conch-shell'. Thus, a word involves two things sound (6ravana- 
matra) and meaning (Artha). In the case of the word 'Atha', the sound 
brings auspiciousness, while the meaning is 'immediate succession*. The 
meaning is the main thing here, but at the same time, the sound 
due to the utterance of the word produces auspiciousness incidentally cf. 
Bhamati on 6amkara-Bhasya. 1. 1. 1. 

(3) The word 'Atha' may also refer to another view stated 
before, as in the statement. "Then 1 think so." Here the thinking 
. is about the previously stated view. But here no such view has been 

stated before which can be referred to now. 

(4) Eating and going are not iwarisbfy and necessarily related, 



Meaning of "Atha" 5 

able antecedent. It indicates something previous the attainment of 
which entitles one to this investigation into Brahman and which, as such, 
is a means to it. Hence, it is proper that study of the Veda, which 
is preceded by a proper intiation at the age of eight and so on in thfe 
case of a Brahmin and the rest respectively, which is eternally under- 
taken in accordance with the injunction : 'One's own Scripture should 
be studied', which consists in a knowledge of words attained from the 
spiritual preceptor worshipped according to rules, and which results in a 
knowledge of meaning is that which precedes the investigation into 
Brahman. For, as, like religious duties, Brahman also is established only 
by the Vedas, so one who has not studied the Yedas is not fit for under- 
taking a (detailed) investigation into Brahman. 

Objection 

If it be said : In that case, an investigation into Brahman 
may very well be undertaken after a mere study (of the Vedas). 

Reply 

We reply : 

lyet there, (first), be such a study (of the Vedas). After that alone 
can an enquiry into the religious duties (Dharnia) be undertaken, as the 
latter is impossible without the former. This has been demonstrated 
by the Holy Teacher thus : "Then, therefore, a desire to know religious 
duties". (Pu. MT. Su. 1.1.1.) Thus, first, one has to study (the Vedas) 
from a spiritual preceptor ; after that this enquiry into religious duties 
can be undertaken. But, then, after what fhould this (enquiry into 
Brahman) be undertaken ? After the enquiry into the religious duties. 
Why ? Because We do not hold that there is an absolute difference 
between the treatises concerned with investigating into religious duties 
and Brahman respectively. On the contrary, our view is that these two 
form parts of the very same treatise. The treatises concerned with religious 
duties and Brahman establish, respectively, the means, viz* worshipping, 
and the end, viz. the object to be worshipped. Hence, beginning with 
the Aphorism : "Then, therefore, a desire to know religious duties" (*) 
and ending with the Aphorism : "Non-return, on account of the absence 
of texts", ( 2 ), they both constitute the very same treatise. As in the case 
of the Aphorism. "Then, therefore, the definition of the Subsidiaries" (Pu. 
MI. Su. 3.1.1.), so here, too, this Aphorism : "Then, therefore, a desire to 



for eating sometimes precedes going, sometimes not. But that which 
precedes this enquiry into Brahman does so always. 

(1) First Aphorism in Pfirva-MImamsa (2) I^ast Aphorisrti in 
Brahma-Mimajjisa. 



6 &rikantha-Bhasya ]. 1, 1. 

know Brahman" (Br. Su. 1.1.1.) refers to the remaining chapters^ 1 ) Or, as 
(the knowledge of) religions duties causes the knowledge of Brahman ; 
and also as the Scriptural texts, indicatory marks ( s ) and the rest that are 
appropriate in an investigation into the former, as well as the (modes of) 
determining and the like of the authoritativeness of Vedic injunctions, 
eulogistic texts, Smrti-texts and so on, are also equally appropriate in the 
enquiry concerning Brahman, so (because of these reasons) the enquiry 
into Brahman has to be undertaken after that into the religious duties. 
The end can never be attained without the means. The proof that (the 
knowledge of duties) is the means to the knowledge of Brahman, is 
supplied by the following holy Scriptural text : "Him the Brahmins 
desire to know through Vedic texts, sacrifice, charity, austerity, fasting" 
(Brh. 4.4.22.). It is not to be objected that if actions be the means to the 
knowledge of Brahman, then an enquiry into those (actions) only is to be 
undertaken, and these alone are to be performed why should there be 
such an attempt to undertake an enquiry into the Vedanta-texts ? For, 
the Karmas, when undertaken with no selfish desire for results, purify the 
mind through removing sins ; and (in this sense alone) are these the 
causes of the rise of knowledge. ( 8 ) The Smrti-text of the learned, 
beginning, "He who has undergone the forty purificatory ceremonies*', 



(1) It may be objected that if the twelve chapters ofthePurva- 
Mlmamsa-Sutras and the four chapters of the Brahma-Sutras form the 
very same treatise of sixteen chapters, then, why all on a sudden in the 
middle of the work, after twelve chapters, should there be an aphorism : 
"Then, therefore, an enquiry into Brahman", indicating by the word 
"then" the beginning of a new treatise ? This shows that the Brahma- 
Sutras form a separate treatise, and are not continuous with the Pfirva- 



The reply is that the mere use of the word "Atha" or "then" does not 
indicate the beginning of a new and separate treatise. In the Purva-MImamsa 
itself, which undoubtedly is the same treatise, the third chapter begins 
with an aphorism with the word "Atha". This "Atha" can never indicate 
the beginning of a new treatise which is absurd. It only serves as an 
introduction to the remaining ten chapters. In the same manner, the 
"Atha" in the present Sutra introduces the remaining four chapters of 
the entire work consisting of sixteen chapters. oMD. 

(2) Pti. ML Sil. 3.3.14. See under Br. Sfi. 3.3.25. &K.B. 

(3) That is, mere Karmas cannot bring about salvation, for that 
knowledge and meditation, too, are necessary. The Niskama-Karmas 
purify the mind and thereby help the rise of knowledge. Thus these are 
but indirect means to salvation, (See below). . \. . 



Meaning of "Atha" 7 

and ending : "He attains similarity with Brahman, as well as the same 
region with Him" (Gautama-Dharma Smrti), shoWvS that through removing 
the filth of sin, all action?, like impregnation-rites and the rest, bring 
about Samskara in the form of the purification (of the mind). 

Objection 

If it be said : 

Then, as all actions are meant for Samskara or purification, just like 
the action of sprinkling the rice-grains, so no separate special results, 
mentioned in the passage : "All these become possessors of meritorious 
worlds" (Chand. 2.23.1.), can follow from the actions incumbent on one's 
own stage of life. ( l ) 

Reply 

We reply : 

Although actions done with a definite desire for meritorious worlds 
are of a separate special kind, yet there is nothing wrong in holding 
that when actions are done by a man without any such desire, they lead 
to a Samskara in the form of the purification of the mind and the rest. 



(1) There are two kinds of action, secondary and primary. The 
secondary ones (Guna-Karmas) make one fit for the primary ones 
(Pradhana-Karmas). As the former make one fit for the latter, they are 
called Samskara-karmas ; and as the latter directly lead to the desired 
for result (Heaven etc. ), they are called Artha-Karmas. Now, it has been 
said above by the author that all Karnias, when properly performed in 
an unselfish spirit, purify the mind of the agent, and thereby make it 
fit for the knowledge of Brahman. In other words, all actions are merely 
Gu$a-Karmas and Samskara-Karmas, helping the acts of knowing and 
meditating that are Pradhana-Karmas and Artha-Karmas, directly leading 
to the result, viz. salvation. 

Now, here the Purva-paksa objection is that all Karmas cannot, 
thus, be regarded as mere secondary Satnskara ones. Some of these, viz. 
sprinkling of rice-grains etc., are, of course, mere Samskara-Karmas, as 
these themselves do not directly lead to the results in question, but only 
help the main Karmas to produce their respective results. E. G. when 
the rice-grains are sprinkled with water, this action makes these fit to be 
used in a sacrifice ; but this act of sprinkling cannot by itself lead to the 
final result, viz. Heaven etc. But there are many other Karmas, like the 
Asrama-Karmas (sacrifices etc.) which are not mere Samskara-Karmas, but 
Artha-Karmas, directly leading to their special results, viz. meritorious 
worlds etc. So, how can even these primary Karnias be taken to be mere 
Samskara- Karrnas 1 This is the Prima Facie view. 



a 6rika^tha-Bha.sya U 1. 1. 

In that case, what a man gets through knowledge, that very thing (via:, 
salvation) he gets through action (*). Just as, the sprinkling of rice*grains 
being an otherwise unknown cause of ( f ) the origin of Dasa-purna-mSsa 
sacrifice, ultimately culminates in Heaven, so (other) actions leading to 
knowledge, thereby ultimately culminate in salvation. So, being secon- 
dary actions, these are subsidiary parts ( of knowledge and mediation 
directly leading to salvation. ('). 

(1) The author replies that it is not his view that even the Sakania 
Asrama-Karmas ( sacrifices etc. ) are Sainskara-Karmas in relation to the 
main acts of knowing and meditating leading to salvation. These selfish 
actions ( sacrifices etc. ), done with a definite desire for results ( viz. sons, 
wealth, Heaven etc. ), of course, cannot purify the mind and thereby help 
the rise of knowledge. It is only the Niskama-Asrama-Karmas ( sacrifices 
etc. ), done with no selfish desires for results, that really purify the mind 
and thereby make it fit for knowledge. Hence, these Niskama-Karmas 
alone are Samskara-Karmas in relation to the main acts of knowing and 
meditating. Thus, the Sakania sacrifices etc, are Pradhana-Artha-Karmas, 
as directly leading to son, wealth, Heaven etc. But the Niskama sacri- 
fices etc. ( even the same sacrifices performed in a different spirit ) are 
Guna-Samskara-Karmas, as leading only to the purification of the mitid, 
and not to salvation directly. In the case of these Niskama-Karmas, these, 
too, finally, lead to the same result as knowledge, viz. salvation. But in 
the case of the Sakama-karmas, the results of Karmas ( viz. Heaven etc. ) 
are entirely different from those of knowledge ( viz. Salvation ). 

(2) 'Apurva-Hetu' means a condition that is known only through a 
particular, injunction, and not through anything else. cf. an 'Apfirva- 
Vidhi/ It is a Vidhi or an injunction regarding an act that can be 
known only through that injunction, and not through anything else, 
cf. the injunction : 'One should sprinkle the rice-grains.' Here, this 
act of sprinkling is known only through the above injunction, and not 
through anything else. Or, 'Apurva-Hetu' means the cause of the 
generation of a secondary kind of unseen potency in the mind. The 
sprinkling of rice-grains makes those grains fit for being used in that 
Dasapurna-masa sacrifice, and generates a secondary potency (Avantara- 
Apurva) which helps the rise of the real potency ( Pramapurva ) due to 
the performance of the sacrifice itself. Due to this real potency, gene- 
rated in the soul, the soul can enjoy the fruit of that action, viz. the 
sacrifice, even long time afterwards, e. g. in Heaven. 

(3) i. e. these actions do not directly lead to knowledge or salvation, 
but only purify the mind which helps the rise of knowledge, and know- 
ledge ending in meditation can alone. finally bring about salvation. This 



Meaning 1 O f (< Atha" $ 

Objection 

If it be said : 

Jyotistoma sacrifices and the rest, enjoined as eternal duties, are 
obligatory ( on us ). So for avoiding contradiction, these must npt be 
taken as Sarnskaras. (*) 

Reply 

We reply : 

Not so. Just as Sautramani, Brhaspati and the like, though 
enjoined by separate texts as leading to separate results, are yet (enjoined 
as) subsidiary parts of Agni-cayana, Vajapeya and the like, so (the 
above actions) are both (principal and subsidiary) on account of 
both kinds of injunction. ( 9 ) Hence, actions are to be performed till 
konwledge arises. 



is against the doctrine of Jfiana-Karma-Samuccaya, according to which 
actions, too, directly lead to salvation, together with knowledge. 

(1) It was said above that Niskama sacrifices etc. do not directly 
bring about particular results like son, wealth, Heaven etc., but 
only produce a Samskara or purification of the mind. So, these are but 
Samskara-karmas. But now the Purva-paksin objector says : How can 
the same Karmas ( sacrifices ) etc. be both Pradhana-Artha-Karmas, as 
well as Gu$a-Samskara ones ? There are definite texts which prove these 
Karmas to be primary actions, directly bringing about particular results 
like sons etc. So, these cannot be, again, taken to be mere subsidiary, 
secondary ones, leading to no particular results, for that would give 
rise to a contradiction. This is the Prima Facie view. (Cf. oMD P 40.) 

(2) The same actions may be enjoined by different text: as both 
primary ones leading to special results, as well as mere secondary ones, 
producing Sarnskaras only and not to special results. E. g. Sautramani 
and Brhaspati sacrifices are first enjoined by separate texts as directly 
leading to some special results. E. g. it is enjoined thus : 'One who 
has no wife should perform the Sautramani sacrifice'. 'One who 
desires the power of Brahman should perform the Brhaspati sacrifice*. 
So, here these two sacrifices are enjoined as Pradhana-Artha-Karmas, or 
primary actions directly leading to special results like getting a wife r 
power etc. But the same Sautramani and Brhaspati sacrifices have also 
been enjoined by other texts as subsidiary parts of some other sacri- 
fices. Cf. the injunctions : 'Having performed the Agni-Cayana, one 
should perform the Sautramani'. 'Having performed the Vajapeya> one 
should perform the Brhaspati'* Here, these two sacrifices are enjoined 
as subsidiary parts of Agni-cayana and Vajapeya. 

2 



10 Srikinlm-Bh^ya 1. 1. 1. 

Objection 

If it be said : - 

According to the Scriptural text : "They desire to know" (Brh. 4. 
4. 22.) ( l ), actions are to be performed only till the desire for knowledge 
arises 

Reply 

We reply : 

This is not a proper view, for a (mere) desire serves no purpose 
of man. ( f ) Hence, (first) there should be an enquiry into the Karmas that 
bring about a knowledge regarding Brahman ; after that, the treatise 
that brings about a knowledge of Brahman should be begun this is the 
proper view. 

Objection 

If it be said : 

How can this order of succession between (the enquiries into) Karma 
and Brahman (viz. first an enquiry into Karmas, then an enquiry into 
Brahman) be justified ? If it be said that (this can be justified) on account 
of the sameness of the agent ( 8 ) we reply : There is no sameness of the 
agent here, like that in the case of the relation between the subsidiary and 



(1) The whole text is : "Such a one the Brahmanas desire to know 
by repetition of the Vedas, by sacrifices, by offerings, by penance, by 
fasting" (Brh. 4. 22.). 

(2) The question here is : Whether Karmas lead only to a desire 
for knowledge, or to knowledge itself. The former is the view of 
6amkara, the latter of Ramanuja and Nimbarka, accepted also by 
6rlkarn;ha. These latter philosophers reject the following two extreme 
views : (i) Karmas directly produce salvation, as held by Bhaskara, 
(ii) Karmas produce a mere desire for knowledge, so its contribution 
to salvation is very small, as held by Samkara. But they accept the inter- 
mediate view that Karmas, though not directly leading to salvation, do 
directly lead to knowledge, and do not stop by producing merely a 
desire for it. 

(3) If may be urged that when the agent is the same and he has to 
perform many acts, then as all of these acts cannot be performed simultane- 
ously, these are to be performed successively. Hence, in that case, there 
mtist be a definite order of succession in which those acts are to be 
;perfonned. Now, in the case of the enquiries into Dharma and Brahman, 
tae agent is the same. Hence, here, too, there must be a definite order 
succession viz. first enquiry into Dharma, then that into Brahman 
&MD. P. 43 



Meaning of "Atha" 11 

the principal, c. g. as in the case of (the subsidiary act of) sprinkling 
clarified butter upon the fire and the main Dasapurnamasa sacrifice^) ; or 
like that in the case of the relation between the many subsideary parts of 
the same principal sacrifice^) e. g. as in the case of the five sacrificial rites ; 
or like that due to eligibility e. g. as in the case of Go-dohana( 8 ) ; or like 
that due to sameness of the fruit, as in the case of Pasu-yaga( 4 ). If ( the 

(1) Cf. Bhamati 1. 1. 1. There is a relation of immediate sequence 
between the principal sacrifice and the subsidiary rites, as these cannot be 
performed simultaneously, the agent being the same. So these are to be 
performed one after another, e. g. the principal rite like Agneya and 
subsidiary rite like Samit. These principal and subsidiary rites are 
enjoined by the same texts, undertaken during the same period, performed 
by the same eligible person (Adhikariu), and productive of the same result ; 
and so, of necessity, a sequence results between them, as the same agent 
has to perform both the subsidiary and the principal rites. But in the 
case of the enquiry into Karman and that into Brahman, the former is not 
a necessary subsidiary of the latter. The former only produces the purifica- 
tion of the mind. But one may have his mind purified from the begin- 
ning due to his past Karnias. So it is not necessary for him to enquire into 
Karmas again. This proves that the study of Karmas is not an essential pre- 
requisite or a subsidiary part of that of Brahman. So, it is not necessary 
for the same agent to undertake both these. 

(2) Cf. Bhamati. 1.1.1. It may be urged that there must also be 
sequence among the subsidiary parts of the same sacrifice, when the agent 
is the same. But here the enquiry into Dharma and that into Brahman 
are not subsidiary parts of a whole or a principal rite. So, there is no 
such necessary sequence between them. 

(3) Bhamati 1. 1. 1. It may be objected that there is a rule of 
sequence even when there is no relationship of principal and subsidiary, or 
of many subsidiaries of the same principal act, E. g. Go-dohana, or 
sprinkling of water from a milk-pail, is not a subsidiary of Dasa-purna- 
masa sacrifice ; only Ap-pranayana, or sprinkling water from a cup, is a 
subsidiary to Dasa-purnajiiasa. But those who desire cattle, sprinkle 
water from a milk-pail, and not from a cup ; and as such, Go-dahana 
comes to have a regular order of sequence with Dasa-purna-masa even 
through that of Ap-pranayaua. But there is no such relation between 
Dharma-jijnasa and Brahma-jijnasa. In the above case, a person who is 
entitled to perform Dasa-purnamasa is already entitled to Go-dohana too. 
But there is no such rule here. 

(4) Dharma-jijnasA and Brahma-jijftasa aim at different end, viz. 
Heaven and Salvation respectively. So, there cannot be any sequence 
between them, 



12 6rikafltha-Bhasya 1. I, 1. 

enquiry into Karma and that into Brahman ) be (taken to be) such (i. e. 
related as subsidary and principal, etc. as stated above), then no Scriptural 
testimony can be adduced for it( J ). Hence, this definite order of sequence 
between the investigations into Kantian and Brahman does not stand to 
reason. 

Reply 

We reply : 

If there were really no Scriptural proof, then, (of course) this 
could have been the case. (But) there are (even) texts establishing that 
the combination of action and knowledge (leads to salvation). Cf. 
"Knowledge and non-knowledge (action) he who this pair conjointly 
knows" (isa. 4. 11.), "Through this goes the knower of Brahman, the 
performer of meritorious deeds" (Brh. 4. 4. 9.), "This self can be attained 
through truth, through austerity, through knowledge, through self- 
control eternally" (Mund. 3. 1. 5.) etc. Hence, as both actions and know- 
ledge lead to the same result, viz. salvation, it is but proper that 
there should be a regular order of sequence between the investigations 
into these two. 

As the above injunction regarding the study (of the Vedas) 
refers to a knowledge of mere texts, so this desire to undertake the 
two kinds of investigation (into Dharma and Brahman) is not impossible. 
For, through the study of the Veda, together with its subsidiary parts, 
there arises only a general knowledge regarding the topic ( treated 
therein ). After that, on seeing the mutual contradictions involved 
among the texts enjoining the worship of Brahman in a gross form, 
e. g. those regarding Jyotistoma and the like, and the texts enjoining the 
worship of Brahman in a subtle form, e. g. those regarding Dahara- 
meditation and the like,. ...one aiming at the highest end (viz. salvation), 
naturally undertakes an investigation into these. Hence, such an in- 
vestigation is not without a cause( 8 ). 



(1) i. e. taking these to be related as subsidiary and principal, as 
subsidiaries of the same principal, as implying the same kind of Adhikara, 
and as producing the same fruits would be against Scriptural testimony. 
According to &MD. ( P. 44 ), even if Karma and Jfiana be taken to be 
related as subsidiary and principal, yet the investigations into these 
are not so. 

(2) i.e. a person first studies the Vedas in a general manner. But 
when he finds many apparently contradictory passages there, he naturally 
undertakes a detailed study of the Purva-MImamsa. That, finally, leads 
him to a study of the Brahma-sutras, as Karinas lead to Jnana. 



Meaning of "Atha" 13 

Objection 

If it be said : 

By the text : "The Self should be heard" etc. (Brh. 2, 4. 5. ; 
4. 5. 6.) a direct study of the Yedanta (even without a study of Ptirva- 
Mlmarnsa) has been enjoined, 

Reply 

We reply : 

Not so, for (the above text) has no enjoining force like an injunc- 
tion. Thus, the Hearing (or study) of the Vedanta is not something 
that can be enjoined as an 'Apurva-Vidlri'f 1 ). For, here this (act of 
hearing) can be known (through other sources). Thus, this can be 
known (through the following process of inference) : 



(1) A Vidhi or an injunction is of three kinds Apurva, Niyama 
and Pari-samkhya. An Apurva-Vidhi is one which enjoins an act that 
cannot be known through any other source. B. g. 'One should perform 
the Agnihotra', or 'One should sprinkle the rice-grains'. Here, the act 
of sprinkling the rice-grain cannot be known through any other source 
of knowledge. So it is an Apurva-Vidhi. 

A Niyama-Vidhi is one which enjoins an act that can be known 
through other sources of knowledge. E.g. 'One should unhusk the rice 
grains by striking them with a pestle'. Here, the very act of unhusking 
the rice-grains is not altogether unfamiliar or unknown to us. But this 
act may be done through different methods, viz. either by means of a 
pestle or by means of the finger-nails, or by means of other things. 
Now, a man may here, adopt any one of these means. But the above 
injunction definitely recommends only one means, viz. the first one, and 
not the rest. That is, here it is said that those rice-grains alone that 
have been unhusked by means of a pestle are fit to be used in a sacrifice, 
for these only enable one to get the result of the sacrifice. For, when 
those rice-grains are struck with a pestle, this act generates an 'Apurva', 
in the soul of the agent. An ' Apurva is a kind of unperceived potency 
generated in the soul through the performance of a ritual. Through this 
power generated in the soul, the soul can enjoy the fruit of that action 
even long time afterwards, e. g. after death in Heaven etc. Now, when 
the rice-grains are struck with a pestle, a kind of secondary potency 
( Avantara-Apurva ) is generated in the soul. And this secondary potency 
helps the rise of the supreme potency ( Paramapfirva ) which, ultimately, 
enables the soul to enjoy the real fruit of that sacrifice. But if the rice- 
grains are not struck thus by means of a pestle, then the secondary 
potency will not be generated ; and in its absence, the main potency also 
will not be fully manifested. So, the above act of striking the rice* 



14 6rikatttha-Biia$ya 1. K I. 

The hearing of the Vedanta is the cause of the knowledge of its 
own topics, on account of the hearing of a treatise, as in the case of 
a medical treatisef 1 ). 



grains by means of a pestle is very important from the stand-point of the 
whole sacrifice. But it is an act that may or may not be performed by 
the agent he may, at his will, resort to other methods of husking. 
In that case, this act of striking by a pestle will not be done at all 
( Ayoga ). But as this act is so very important, as shown above, an in- 
junction is necessary to prevent such a non-doing ( Ayoga-Vyavaccheda ) 
of that act. Thus, a Niyama-Vidhi is meant for preventing the non-doing 
of an essential act. This is the direct aim of the injunction. Btit 
indirectly ( Arthika ) other methods, too, are prohibited. That is, a 
Niyania-Vidhi directly enjoins a particular method for an act ( known 
through other sources, as well ) ; and indirectly prohibits other possible 
methods for that act. 

A Parisamkhya-Vidhi is one that prohibits an action with regard to 
all other objects besides those mentioned in The injunctions. E.g. 
'Five kinds of animals having five nails are edible', 'The tongue of a horse 
should be taken'. Here in the first case, it is not enjoined that those 
five kinds of animals ( viz. hare and the rest ) should be eaten, but it is 
only prohibited that other kinds of animals besides those five should not 
be eaten. Again, in the second case, it is not enjoined that the tongue 
of a horse should be taken ; but it is only prohibited that the tongue of 
other animals, like donkeys etc. should not be taken. Thus, a Pari- 
Samkhya-Vidhi is meant for preventing the doing of a wrong act ( Anya- 
yoga-vyavaccheda ). 

The distinction between a Niyama-Vidhi and a Pari-Samkhya-Vidbi 
is that the former directly enjoins a particular method of an act, while 
indirectly prohibits all other methods for it. But a Pari-samkhya- 
vidhi directly prohibits certain objects with regard to that act, or 
certain acts with regard to that object. 

(1) Here in the above injunction, the act enjoined ; viz. 'seeing', 
can be known through another source of knowledge, viz. inference. 
'The Vedantas should be heard or studied for getting a knowledge 
regarding their meanings' this is the implication of the above injunc- 
tion, and it can be known inferentially thus : 

All treatises that are heard or studied give us a knowledge regard- 
ing their meanings, like a medical treatise. 

The Vedantas are treatises. 

The Vedantas heard or studied give us a knowledge regarding their 
meanings. 

Hence, it is not an Apurva-Vidhi. 



"Atha" 15 

It eanuot be, also, enjoined as a Niyama-Vidhi, for here there is no 
other alternative means perceived to produce the same result, as in the 
ease of unhusking.(M 

Nor can it be the object of a Pari-samkhya-Vidhi. For, then, it 
follows that the Vedantas are to be 'heard' only, not read. In that case, no 
(detailed) investigation (into Brahman) being possible on the part of those 
who have not studied the Vedauta, it would become impossible for them 
to attain the suaimum bonum.( 2 ) If, on the other hand, the injunction 
about the 'hearing* of the Vedaiita be taken as a Pari-satnkhya injunction 
in the sense of implying a prohibition of the 'hearing' or study of the 
Karma-kanda, then in the absence of an investigation into (Karnias), the 
(proper) performance of actions will become impossible. In the absence of 
this, there being no purification of the mind, there will be no rise of 
knowledge.( 8 ) Hence, the above view alone stands to reason. 



(1) In the case of a Niyama-Vidhi, there must be other possible 
methods leading to the same results. But in this case, no other method 
except the 'hearing' of the Vedanta can lead to the same result, viz. 
Knowledge of Brahman. 

(2) One should, first, read the entire Veda in a general manner. 
Then alone can he study the Karma- Mlmaittsa, and after that, the Brahma- 
Mlmanisa. See above. P. 14. 

(3) Cf. &MD. P. 62. There are two kinds of Pari-samkhya-Vidhi. 
(i) Two different acts with reference to the same object. Suppose we 
say : 'Money should be spent in good things'. This implies : 'Money 
should not be spent in bad things'. Here, we have two different acts, viz. 
Spending in good things and spending in bad things, with reference to the 
same object, viz. money, and the latter act is prohibited, (ii) Same act 
with reference to two different objects. E. g. 'The tongue of a horse 
should be taken'. This implies : The tongue of a donkey should not be 
taken'. Here we have the same act, viz. 'taking', with reference to two 
different objects, viz. horse's tongue and donkey's tongue, and one (viz. the 
latter) is prohibited. 

Now, the, above injunction, too, may be taken to be a Pari-sanikhya 
in the above two senses ; and in neither case can it be supported. 

(i) We may say that here we have two different acts, viz. hearing 
(6ravana) and reading (Adhyayana), with reference to the same object, viz, 
the Vedanta. In that case, the injunction, viz. 'The Vedantas should be 
heard' should mean that 'The Vedantas should not be read*. But in that 
case the following three difficulties will arise : (a) The hearing of the 
Vedantas will not be enjoined, for, as shown above, a Parisanikhya~Vidlu 
does not enjoin that act, but prohibits other acts with regard to the same 



1$ Srlkatrtba-Bhasya-l. 1. L 

Thus, an investigation should be undertaken into the Scriptures 
or the Upanisads that establish the Highest Brahman, whose form is the 
Universe of souls and matter ; who possesseses supreme powers ; whose 
grandeur is without a peer ; who is the sole common topic of the creams 
of all Scriptures (i. e. of the Upauisads) ; whose supreme glory is 
manifested by the names (applied to Him, such as,) 'Bhava', ^iva' 
'$arva', Tasupati', 'Paramesvara'. 'Mahadeva', 'Rudra', '6ambhu' and 
so on ; and who by His sublime grace is capable of leading all the 
individual souls. His parts, to their highest ends (viz salvation) 
according to their respective merits in worshipping. 

Thus, it is established that the word "Atha" means that (such an 
investigation into Brahman is to be undertaken) after the enquiry into 
the Holy Dharma (Mlmamsa), consisting of injunctive texts leading one 
to those (actions) ; indicating the means to the modes of worshipping 
Him ; manifesting the excellence (of Brahman) as revealed in the ex- 
planatory eulogistic texts (Arthavada) ; having a shafted form consisting 
of statement of texts (6ruti) and the rest ; strengthened by the antho- 
logical treatises of the wise, containing Smrti, Itihasa and Purana 
texts that conform to its (Dharma's) own methods of proof ; contain- 
ing injunctions, prohibitions, alternative procedures, conjunction( l ), 
general rules( 8 ), special rules setting aside general rules or exceptions, 
annulment (or suspension) of rules, and treatments of subjects in connec- 
tion with others ; conducive to the ends of all men ; and leading to 
supreme knowledge. 

object. This will go against the letter of the injunction, containing such 
an injunction, (b) The reading of the Vedantas will be prohibited. 
This too, will go against the letter of the injunction, containing no such 
prohibition, (c) There will be no reading of the Vedantas, as enjoined 
by the text. "One's own Scripture should be read." 

(ii) We may say that here we have the same act, viz. hearing 
(S'ravana), with reference to two different objects, viz. Vedanta and 
Karma-kanda. In that case, the injunction, viz. 'The Vedantas should 
be heard or studied should mean that 'The Karma-Kanda should not be 
heard or studied'. Here, too, the following three difficulties will arise, 
(a) As before, (b) The 'hearing' of the Karma-Kan4a will be prohibited. 
This, too, will go against the letter of the injunction, containing no such 
injunction, (c) There will be no 'hearing' or study of the Karma-Kanda 
leading to disastrous results, as shown above. 

(1) Kar. on Panini 7.2.10. Vidhi, Nisedha, Vikalpa, Samuccaya, 
Utsarga, Apavada, Badha, Abhyuccaya* 

(2) Pan. 3. 1. 94. 



Meaning of "Brahma-Jijnasa" 17 

Meaning of the word "Atafr" 

The word "Therefore" (Atafc) implies the reason (for undertaking an 
enquiry into Brahman), viz. this (enquiry into Dharnia) mentioned 
before. As an enquiry into Dharnia is undertaken by one who has studied 
the Vedas, so after that Brahman too, the cause of limitless excellence, 
should be enquired into by him whose mind has become purified by a 
proper performance of those Dharmas, and who has come to attain 
supreme devotion together with the attributes of discrimination and 
the rest( J ), attained at that time. 

Meaning of "Brahma-jijnasa" 

The compound "Brahma-jijnasa" is to be explained as 'the desire 
for knowledge concerning Brahman.' "Having examined the worlds 
acquired by work, a Brahmin should arrive at indifference. The (world) 
that was not made cannot ( be attained ) by what is done. For the sake 
of this knowledge, let him, with fuel in hand, approach the teacher alone, 
who is versed in Scripture and devoted to Brahman." ( Mund. 1. 2. 12. ), 
and such texts form the topic treated here. 

Objection 

On the doubt as to whether Brahman is investigable or not, the 
Prima Facie view is as follows : Brahman is not investigable as there 
can be no doubt with regard to Him. Why can there no doubt ( with 
regard to Him ) ? Because the Scriptural passage "This self is Brahman" 
( Brh. 4. 4. 5. ) teaches, by the word 'this', that Brahman is the self known 
through direct perception. So how can there any vestige of doubt here ? 

Further, an investigation into anything yields a knowledge with 
regard to that object. Knowledge, again, implies limitedness or finitude 

(1) viz. the four-fold attributes which, according to 6amkara, 
must be essentially possessed by one before he ventures to undertake 
an enquiry into Brahman. Viz. discrimation between the eternal and the 
non-eternal ; aversion to enjoyment, here or hereafter ; possession of 
of self-control etc. ; and desire for salvation. See S. B. 1. 1. 1. Thus, 
the proper performance of Dharmas purify the mind and thereby 
produce the above attributes of discrimination etc., and also devotion, 
the direct cause of salvation. According to Samkara, the study of 
Dharma-Mimainsa is not an essential pre-requisite of that of Brahma- 
-MimSinsa, for one who possesses the above attributes of discrimina- 
tion etc. can at once proceed to the study of Brahman, even without a 
prior study of Karmas. But Srlkantha, like Ramanuja, Nimbarka 
etc., points out that those very attributes themselves depend on a prior 
knowledge and a proper performance of Dharma or Karmas. 
3 



18 Srikastha-Bhasya 1. 1. 1. 

of the object of knowledge. Now, does the knowledge resulting from 
such an enquiry into the Vedanta limit Brahman, or not ? If it limits 
( Brahman), then (His) limitlessness or infinity comes to an end. If it 
does not limit (Brahman), then Brahman is not properly manifested or 
known. ( For examples ) a pot is known as a limited object, viz. 'This 
is a pot'. Hence, knowledge of Brahman, too, is not possible (*). 

In the same manner, we do not see any necessity ( for such an 
enquiry into Brahman ). Salvation is not the end ( for which such an 
enquiry is to be undertaken ), for the beginning! ess earthly existence can 
not be got rid of easily. 

Reply 

To the above objections, we reply as follows : 

( This Vedanta ) treatise is something to be begun from every point 
of view. For, Brahman being an object of doubt, is a proper object ( of 
enquiry ) ; and a definite conclusion with regard to Him, too, is necessary. 
As texts like "This self is Brahman" ( Brh. 4 4, 5. ) designates this very 
empirical, Ahamkara-fettered soul as Brahman, so for that very reason, 
there is an ample scope for doubt. 'Being free from all vestiges of 
afflictions' and 'possessing supreme powers and glory, like infinite know- 
ledge, bliss and so on' these are the marks of Brahman. On the con- 
trary, 'entering into and emerging from many bodies in accordance with 
the various fruits of works resulting from the impressions of beginning- 
less ignorance, and 'suffering limitless miseries ( as a consequence )' 
these are the marks of an individual soul (Jiva). 'Why do the Scrip- 
tural texts declare an identity between these two that are mutually 
opposed ?' Why should there be not this kind doubt here ? There may 
arise still another kind of doubt. "Food is Brahman" ( Tait. 3. 2. ), "The 
mind is Brahman" ( Tait. 3. 4. ), "Consciousness is Brahman" ( Tait. 
3. 5. ), "The sun is Brahman" ( Chand. 3. 19. 1. ), "Brahman is higher 
than Narayana" and such texts designate Brahman as standing for diffe- 
rent objects. Hence, Brahman being the object of manifold doubts, viz. 
'Who exactly is Brahman etc 1 , is, of course, a fit object of investigation. 

Further, the end (for which such an enquiry into Brahman is to be 
undertaken) is the all-auspicious Salvation which one, who is entitled to it, 
attains fully through the supreme grace of 6iva, the Supreme Brahman, 
who is known from 'hearing 7 (Sravana) 'reflecting' ( Manana ) and the rest, 



(1) Knowledge means that we know all the qualities of the object 
iii question otherwise the object is not fully manifested to us. Hence 
knowledge is possible only in the case of limited objects. Thus 'know- 
ledge, has, the form : "This is a pot" and so on. But Brahman is limit- 
less, So, how can we know : "This is Brahman" ? 



Meaning of "Brahma-Jijnasa" 19 

who is won over by devotion and knowledge, who is all-merciful, who 
is the great spiritual teacher and who is the favourer of all. Such a supreme 
state of Salvation destroys all bondage, involves directly perceived infinite 
knowledge and bliss, ( and ) consists in attrib utes similar to His 
( attributes ). Thus, the study of the VedSntas has an object ( viz. Brah- 
man ) and also an end ( viz. Salvation ). 

Your view viz. 'As knowledge implies liniitedness or finitude oi 
the object of knowledge, the unlimited Brahman cannot be an object oi 
knowledge' is due to sheer ignorance. Though it is impossible that 
Brahman could be characterised as 'such and such' and should thereby 
have any limit, yet He can have a limit through only being differen- 
tiated from others by means of special characterising marks. Limita- 
tion by such special characterising marks always gives (us) a knowledge 
regarding that object, whose marks they are, as distinct from others. 
Thus, when the special characterising marks of Brahman, the object oi 
enquiry, are determined and examined by the Vedanta-texts, then it is 
known that Brahman is that which is absolutely different from every- 
thing else, belonging to the same class as or different class from (Brahman) 
and not possessing those special characterising marks (of Brahman) (*). 

Hence, beginning such a treatise regarding Brahman is indeed 
reasonable. That which is beyond all doubts, that which is of no 
necessity does not, of course, become an object of investigation to the 
wise. But Brahman, being an object of doubt as subject to wrong re- 



(1) Cf, &MD. P. 95. There are kinds of limitedness (i) that 
belonging to an object (viz. a fruit held at hand) known to be such and 
such ; (ii) that belonging to an object known, by means of certain characteris- 
ing marks, to be distinct from others. The first kind really limits the 
objects, not the second. For, in the latter case, we do not claim to 
know all the characteristics of that object, but only what it is not, 
only a few marks that enable us to distinguish it from others, E. g. in 
a battle-field, it is impossible for a man to know the King as he really 
is. But when some one tells him ' 'A King always carries a white 
umbrella', through -this special characterising mark of having a white 
umbrella spread out over the head, he can easily recognise the King in 
the midst of others. The knowledge of this quality of having a white 
umbrella on head, of course, does not give him a full knowlege of the 
King, yet it is something, as it enables him to distinguish the King 
from others. In the same manner, when we know Brahman, that does 
not limit Him, as we can never know Him fully, but know only a 
a few special marks that enable us to distinguish Him other objects. 



20 6rikantha-Bhasya 1. 1. 2. 

presentations due to wrong reasonings, is the (proper) object of the 
enquiry undertaken by the Vedanta treatise. In accordance with 
Scriptural texts like "The knower of Brahman attains the Highest" 
(Tait. 2. 1. 1.), "By knowing 6iva, one attains to supreme peace" 
(6vet. 1. 14.), "By knowing Him, the Lord, (people) become immortal" 
(Svet. 3. 7.), "One who is without any selfish desire beholds Him and 
becomes freed from sorrow when through the grace of the Lord he 
beholds the greatness of the soul" (Katfia 2. 20.), "Having made the 
soul the sacrificial wood, and the Pranava the upper sacrificial wood, and 
through the lighting of meditation alone do the wise burn off bondage" 
(Kaivalya 11.), '"'Through knowing God, one becomes free from all bonds" 
(Svet. 2. 15. ; 4. 16. ; 5. 13. ; 6. 13.), and so on, the end (for which the 
above enquiry is undertaken) is Salvation, bringing abut a severance of 
bondage to one who has become entitled to it through worshipping 
Him, this is established in this First Section. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Desire to know Brahman (1). 



Adhikarana 2 : The Section entitled : "The Origin' (Sutra 2) 

What is that characterising mark of Brahman, the object of 
enquiry here ? in reply to this question, the Holy Author of the 
Sutras begins the Second Section, indicating His special characterising 
mark, thus : 

SUTRA 1. 1. 2. 

"(Brahman is that) from whom ( arise ) the origin and the rest of 
this (world)". 

If an object is already known, then (the statement of its) 
characterising mark is meaningless ; (but) if it is not known at all, 
then also any desire for knowing its characterising mark is impossible (*), 
so how can there be any statement of His characterising mark such a 
doubt cannot be raised here. As Brahman, is known only in a general 
manner from the study of the Vedas, (one may desire to know Him 
in a more particular manner) ( s ) hence such a (statement of His special 
marks) is possible. 

The words in the Aphorism are to be disjoined thus : "From 
whom, origin and the rest, of this". The words Origin and the reat" 

(I) If one knows Brahman fully, he knows His special marks, 
too. But if he does not know Him at all, then, he, having no idea re- 
garding Him, can have no desire to know Him. (2) See above. P. 3, 5, 15. 



Brahman as Creator 21 

means the following five kinds of activities (of Brahman), viz. creation, 
maintenance and destruction (of the world), hiding (Himself from the 
individual souls) and favouring (them). 

The word "of this" means 'of the entire manifested universe, consis- 
ting of souls, and similar (to Him) in essence.' "From whom" mean 
"from Brahman" this is the construction ( J ). "From whom, verily, all 
these beings arise, by whom, they, so born, live, and to whom they 
go forth and enter desire to know that well, that is Brahman" (Tait. 3.1.), 
"The Ruler of primary matter and souls, and Lord of the qualities 
(6attva, Rajas and Tamas) ; the cause of transmigratory earthly existence, 
of salvation, of maintenance, of bondage" (6vet. 6. 16.). "Brahman is 
Truth, Knowledge, Infinite", (Tait. 2. 1.), "Obeisance to the Supreme 
Brahman, who is the Law, the Truth to the black and the tawny 
Person, who is self-controlled, possesses three eyes and has the entire 
universe as His form" (Mahanar. 12. 1.), and other texts indicate the 
topic treated here. 

Here a doubt may be raised as to whether Creatorhood and the rest 
of the world can be really taken as a characterising, special mark of 
Brahman. 

Objection 

It cannot be so taken, there being no real relation (between it and 
Brahman). Further, according to the text : "He knew that Brahman 
is Bliss" (Tait. 3. 6.), the special characterising mark of Creatorhood 
and the rest of the world belongs to Bliss. From another text : 
"Existence alone, my child ! was this in the beginning" (Chand. 6. 2. 1.), 
Existence is known to be the cause of the world. From the text : 
"Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, Infinite" (Tait 2. 1.), it is known that 
Infinite Knowledge is Brahman, the cause of the world. From another 
text : "When there is Darkness, it is neither day nor night, neither 
existence nor non-existence, -it is only Siva", it is known that the Being 
called iva, being the cause (of all), is Brahman, prior to every thing. 

Here the question is : Whether bliss and the rest (mentioned above) are 
to be taken as Brahman separately or conjointly ( s ). If, each is taken as Brah- 
man separately, then that would go against the evidence of Scriptures, and 



(1) That is, the Sfvtra means that the characterising, special mark 
of Brahman is that "(Brahman is one) from whom (arise) origin etc. of 
this (world)" 

(2) That is, are we say that Bliss, or, Existence or Knowledge is 
separately Brahman ? Or, is Brahman Bliss, Existence, Knowledge con- 
jointely ? 



22 6rikantha-Bhasya 1. 1. 2. 

lead to indeterminateness (*). Even if a definite determination be possible 
here, still then. Brahman will become many ( 8 ). If, on the other hand, 
all these are taken to be Brahman conjointly, then these being only 
qualities (viz. Bliss, Existence, Knowledge), it is impossible to identify 
these with Brahman, possessed as He is of the special knowledge regard- 
ing the means for the creation of the entire world. Further, the Scriptural 
text : "One should know Maya as Prakrti (the root material cause) (of 
the world)" (6vet. 4. 10.) attributes Creatorship to the unconscious Maya 
and this view alone stands to reason. If Brahman, who is know- 
ledge in essence, be admitted to be the cause of the world, then He 
becomes subject to changes and texts like : "Without blemishes, without 
activities, calm'" (Svet. 6. 19.) come to be contradicted. Hence, from 
every point of view, attributing Creatorship and the rest of the world 
to Brahman as a special, characterising mark is absolutely impossible. 



To the above Prima Facie view, we reply as follows : Though origin 
and the rest being connected with the world has no connection with 
Brahman, still there is nothing wrong in taking these to be His external 
marks. It is asserted here that the very same Reality, viz. 6iva, who 
possesess the qualities of omniscience and the rest and is designated by 
Eight Names (*), is Brahman, the cause of the world. Bliss and the rest 
are only His attributes. 

Six Attribute! cf Brahman 

Thus, 'Omniscience' and the rest' imply omniscience, having 
all desires eternally fulfilled, having eternal knowledge, having 
independence, having non- hidden powers, having infinite powers, 
and so on. 'Omniscience 1 means having a direct intuition of 
all objects an intuition that is eternal, immediate, independent of 
external sense-organs, and pure. This is proved by the following text : 
"He who is omniscient, all-knowing, whose 'austerity consists of 
knowledge" (Mund. 1. 1. 9.), and so on. In accordance with this text, 
Brahman, who has a special knowledge regarding the means for the 
creation of the different bodies for undergoing the fruits of the 
respective actions of all the souls, is the Cause (of the universe). 

(1) That is, here we fail to determine definitely what Brahman 
j s whether Bliss or Existence, or Knowledge, or anything else. 

(2) That is, even if we know definitely that Brahman is Bliss, 
Knowledge etc. separately, and not anything else, still then Brahman 
becomes identical with many objects which is absurd* 

(3) See below P. 25 



Six Attributes of Brahmatt 23 

'Having all desire eternally fulfilled' means, getting rid of all 
the vestiges of afflictions and being filled with unsurpassed bliss. That 
is why, it is asserted by Scripture that "Brahman is bliss" ( Tait. 3. 6. ). 
Introducing the topic thus : "Verily, other than that and inside that 
which consists of understanding, there is a self that consists of 
bliss" ( Tait. 2. 5. ), and beginning thus : "This is an investigation 
into Bliss" ( Tait. 2. 6. ), Scripture goes on to prove, through repe- 
titions, that the unsurpassable bliss of Brahman is the highest of all, thus : 
"One bliss of Brahman" ( Tait. 2. 8. ).( l ) That very ( bliss of Brahman ), 
being an attribute of the supreme Brahman and plentiful, is figuratively 
described as Brahman in the passage : "Brahman is bliss" ( Tait. 3. 6. ). 
Such a bliss-enjoying Brahman is said to have all His desires eternally 
fulfilled. Such a Supreme Bliss is enjoyed by Brahman by 
His mind, and not by external sense-organs. There is a Scriptural 
text to this effect : "( He becomes ) Brahman who has the ether for 
His body, whose soul is truth, whose pleasure is the vital-breath, whose 
mind is bliss( 8 ), abounding in tranquillity, immortal" ( Tait. 1. 6. 1, ) 

( The meaning of the above text is as follows : ) * Brahman who 
has the ether for His body, here the word 'ether' means the Ether that 
is Consciousness in essence. ( Cidambara ) and not the elemental material 
ether. Such an Ether that is Consciousness in essence is but the Supreme 
Power ( of Brahman ), viz, the Supreme Prakrti that is like an 
ocean formed of the heaps of bubbles of the universe. Brahman consists 
of such an Ether this is the meaning of the word 'Who has ether for 
His body.' That the Ether that is Consciousness in essence is nothing 
but the Supreme Prakrti is proved by the following text : "Verily, all 
these beings arise from the ether alone, go back to the ether" ( Chattel. 
1. 9. 1. ). "Verily, the ether is the cause of the universe of names and 
forms" ( Chand. 8. 14. 1. ), and so on. 

The adjective 'Whose soul is truth' means one who is existence in 
essence. 

The adjective 'Whose pleasure is the 'vital-breath' means as 
follows : The word 'vital-breath' means Prakrti or the Ether consisting 



(1) Here, gradations of bliss are mentioned. Thus, human 
bliss, bliss of the human Gandharvas, bliss of the divine Gandharvas, 
bliss of Fathers, bliss of Gods born so by birth, bliss of Gods who are 
Gods by work, bliss of Gods, bliss of Indra, bliss of Bjrhaspati, bliss of 
Prajapati and bliss of Brahman. Each succeeding bliss is a hundred 
time more than each preceeding one. 

(2) Or, who is the pleasure of the Vital-breath, and bliss of the 
Mind. 



24 Snka^tha-Bhasya 1. 1. 2, 

in Consciousness that is the substratum of all. He who finds pleasure 
in that Prakrti, His own essence, is 'One whose pleasure is the vital- 
breath.' 

The adjective 'Whose mind is bliss' means one whose bliss is in 
the mind, not in the external sense-organs. Here, too, the word 'bliss' 
stand? for Prakrti or the Ether consisting in Consciousness. There is a 
text to this effect : "Who, indeed would breathe, who would live, if 
there were not this bliss in the ether ?" ( Tait. 2. 7. ). 

The adjective 'Abounding in tranquallity' means 'who is endowed 
with 6iva-hood or all-suspiciousness'. 

The adjective 'Immortal' means 'eternally free'. 

Here, it is proved by the adjective 'Whose bliss is in the mind' 
that Brahman, who is Existence, Consciousness and Bliss in essence and 
consists in the Supreme Ether, enjoys the bliss, contained in His own 
nature, by the mind alone, without the help of the external sense-organs. 
Tins indicates that in the case of the freed souls who attain the essence 
of Brahman, the instruments through which they enjoy the unsurpassed 
bliss of their own natures is the internal-organ, independent of the 
external sense-organs. Hence Brahman, who enjoys the bliss of His own 
nature by His mind which is independent of the external sense-organs 
and consists in a pure intellectual power, has all His desires eternally 
fulfilled. The sense is that He has not to depend the slightest on 
external, mundane pleasure. 

'Having eternal knowledge' means possessing self-proved and 
unsurpassed knowledge. The knowledge, produced by the internal organ 
which is a means to the enjoyment of His own nature, is indeed eternal. 
Hence Brahman is one who has eternal knowledge. As the knowledge that 
puts an end to the mundane, transmigratory existence is eternal, trans- 
migratory existence, too, is eternally absent ( in the case of Brahman ) 
this is indicated in the ( above ) Scriptural passage by means of the 
adjective 'Abounding in tranquillity'. 

Independence* means absence of the pitiful circumstances resulting 
from servitude of others, and hence having all things, other than itself, 
under one's own control. The independence of Brahman, due to His being 
the cause of the entire universe of souls and matter, is proved by the 
following texts : "There are two unborn ones the knower and the non- 
knower, the Lord and the non-Lord" ( 6vet. 1.9.), Having known Him 
as the enjoyer, the object to be enjoyed and the guide" ( vet. 1. 12. ), 
"He who rules knowledge and ignorance is Another" ( 6 vet. 5. 1. ) and 
so on. Brahman being absolutely independent of everything, is also 
proved to be the Agent of all actions. 



Jbagnt .Names oi brahman 2$ 

'Having non-hidden powers' means possessing natural powers. 
There, is a text to this effect : "Supreme is His power, declared to be 
manifold. Natural is the working of His knowledge and power." ( 6vet. 
6. 8. ), and so on. It is proved hereby that it is but natural for Brahman 
to be thus qualified by the powers consisting in the universe of souls and 
matter, (*) He is never devoid of all distinctions. 

'Having eternal powers' means possesing unlimited powers. Brahman 
becomes the Creator and Ruler of the world through His infinite powers 
only. There is a Scriptural text to this effect : "Rudra, is one only, they 
do not admit a second" ( Svet. 3. 1. ), "The Lord and the Creator, who rules 
over all these worlds through His supreme powers of ruling and creating, 
rules over this fourth world." As Brahman possesses eternal powers, so it 
is proved that He is the 'inherent' or material cause of the limitless world. 

Eight Names of Brahman. 

The adjective 'Designated by eight names' means that the Supreme 
Brahman is designated by the following eight names, viz. Bhava, 6arva, 
Isana, Pasupati, Rudra, Ugra, Bhima and Mahadeva. Although He can 
be indicated by all names, yet He is primarily designated by the names 
Bhava and the rest which ( clearly ) manifest His supreme excellence. 
Hence, from this it does not follow that He cannot be referred to by any 
other name. 

Brahman is called 'Bhava' because He exists at all places at all times. 
As the root 'bhu' means existence, ( the name 'Bhava', ) indicate that 
Brahman is present everywhere and is existence in Essence. There is a 
Scriptural text to this effect : "Existence alone, my dear ! was this in the 
beginning, One alone, without a second" ( Chand. 6. 2. 1. ), "Brahman is 
Truth, knowledge and infinite" ( Tait. 2. 1. ), "Whose soul is truth, whose 
pleasure is the vital-breath, whose mind is bliss" ( Tait. 1. 6. ) ( 8 ) and so 
on. The statements 'The jar exists,' 'The cloth exists' and the like prove 
that Brahman, who is existence in essence, being present in all, is the 
material cause of all. ( For example ) jars and the rest are clay through 
and through, and so, they are said to have clay as their material cause. (") 
Hence, Brahman who is Existence in essence is designated by the word 
'Bhava.' 

(1) Brahman has two main powers, Cit and Acit. The former is the 
souls, the latter, matter. 

(2) See above, P. 23 

(3) The material cause is present in all the different effects that 
follow from it. E. g. an earthen jar, an earthen plate etc. are different 
in form, but the same clay is present in all. Hence, clay is taken to be 

4 



26 Snkantha-Bhasya 1. 1. 2. 

As the root 'Srr' means 'to kill', the word 'Sarva' indicates that 
Brahman is the Destroyer of all. The following Scriptural passages 
prove Brahman to be the Destroyer of everything : "Hence, obeisance 
to the Destroyer of all, the great Swallower" (Atharvasiras. 3.), "Of whom 
both Brahmins and Ksatriyas become the food" (Kattia 2. 25.), and so on. 

As Brahman is endowed with limitless and supreme lordship, so He 
is designated by the word 'Isafia', in accordance with a Scriptural 
passage. Compare "He who lords it over these world through Supreme 
powers" (Atharvasiras). 

Brahman is designated by the word 'Pasupati' with reference to 
the objects controlled by the Lord. Hence, the Scripture states : 
"Pasupati, is the Lord of these beasts, both four-footed and two-footed" 
and so on. As here the word 'beasts' (Pasu) has been used in relation to 
noose (Pasa), the use of this word 'beasts' (Pasu) is meant for implying 
both Pasu (souls) and Pasa (material world binding 'the souls ). From 
this it is known that Brahman is the Controller of both souls and 
matter f 1 ). 

Brahman is designated by the word 'Rudra' as as He puts mundane 
miseries to flight, in accordance with the Scriptural text "The knower 
of the self crosses over sorrows" ( Chand. 7. 1. 3. ). 

Brahman is designated by the word 'Ugra' as He is not conquered 
by the powers of others, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "There 
the sun does not shine, nor the moon and the stars" ( Katha 5. 15. ; 
6 vet. 6. 14. ; Mund. 2. 2. 10. ). 

Brahman is designated by the word 'Bhuna' as He, being the Con- 
troller, is an object of fear to all the souls, in accordance with the Scrip- 
tural text : "Through fear, the winds blow" ( Tait. 2. 8. 1. ) 

6iva is called 'Mahadeva' as He shines through His greatness. 
This is stated in the Atharvasiras thus : "Now, why is He called Maha- 
deva ? Giving up all states, He delights in the great glory of self-know- 
ledge that is why He is called Mahadeva." 

Thus, 6iva, known ( from the Scriptures ) to be free from all 
mundane blemishes and a repository of all auspiciousness, is, as possessed 

as their material cause (Upadana). In the same manner, all the different 
objects of the world, whatever be their mutual differences, all exist. 
Hence, Existence or Brahman is their material cause. 

(1) The term "Pasupati", if interpreted strictly, might imply that 
Brahman is only the Lord of Pasu or souls and not of matter or the physi- 
cal world. But, really speaking here the term Pasu means both Pasu 
( souls ) and Pasa ( matter ). Vide Sivarka-Mani-dlpika. 



Brahman to be known from Scriptures 27 

of the above-mentioned nature, the cause of the origin and the rest of the 
whole universe, for, such a great Being alone can possibly be both 
( the material and the efficient ) causes of the Universe. As He possesses 
such a greatness, He is called 'Brahman' ( the great Being ). That very 
Being is Siva, as possessing the attributes of bliss and the rest. Hence, 
it is but meaningless to think of bliss and the rest as standing separately 
( for Brahman ). That in the Scriptural text "One should know Prakrti 
to be Maya ( Svet. 4. 10. ), Prakrti is the Lord in essence, is proved by the 
remaining part of the text : "But Mahesvara to be the possessor of 
Maya. ( Svet. 4. 10. ). 

Brahman, possessing souls and matter in a subtle form, is the cause ; 
His effect is the gross ( universe ) consisting of souls and matter. Hence, 
it is concluded that Brahman has the special characterising mark of being 
the cause of the origin and the rest of the world. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Origin". (2) 



Adhikarana 3 : The Section entitled : "Having Scripture for its 
Source. 1 ' ( Sutra 3 ) 

An object is established through characterising marks and proofs. 
To the enquiry : What is the proof of Brahman, the Cause of the world ? 
( the author of the Aphorisms ) says : 

SUTRA 1. 1. 3. 
"On account of having Scripture as the Source." 

As "Scripture" is the "Source" i. e. the proof ( of Brahman ), so 
Brahman has Creatorship and the rest as His special characterising mark 
this is the construction ( of the Aphorism ). 

Here a doubt may be raised as to whether Brahman, the Cause of the 
world, can be known only through the Scriptures ; or through another 
source of knowledge as well. 

Objection 

This world, consisting of parts, is an effect. As it is full of varieties, 
so it must be due to a cause appropriate to it. (*) Hence, a Being en- 
dowed with omniscience and the like, must be supposed here (as its cause). 
He cannot be known through the Scripture only. So the Scripture is no 

(1) i. e. a cause that has the power of producing such an infinitely 
complex and variegated effect. 



28 Srikaritha-Bhasya 1. 1.3. 

proof with regard to Him. For, the Scripture is concerned only with 
those objects that cannot be known through any other sou rce of know- 
ledge ( l ), this is the Prima Facie view. 

Reply 
Brahman cannot be known through Inference. 

The Correct Conclusion is that Brahman, the Cause of the world, can 
be known only through the Vedanta treatise. For, that the knowledge of 
Brahman is impossible without the Vectenta treatise, is declared by the 
following Scriptural passage : "One who does not know the Vedas does not 
know Him, the Great" 

Your view, that as the world being a whole of parts is proved to be 
an effect* so a single appropriate cause is to be supposed (or inferred) here 
is false. For, it is seen that variegated gates, palaces and the like are due 
to many causes. Hence, it cannot be proved by means of inference that 
( the world is due ) to a single cause ( viz. Brahman ). ( 8 ). 

(Secondly), from the universal relation between the major and the 
middle terms, it follows that He ( viz. Brahman ) too is subject to Karmas 
and the rest. ('). 



(1) i. e. the cause of the world can be established by the following 
inference : 

All wholes of parts are due to causes. The world is a whole of part. 
Therefore, the world is due to a cause ( viz. God ). 
Now, as Brahman can be thus known through inference, Scripture 
is not necessary. 

(2) It may be said that Brahman can very well be known to be 
the sole, single cause of the world through inference, thus : 

All wholes of parts are due to single causes. 

The world is a whole of parts. 

Therefore, the world is due to a single cause. 

But here the universal major premise is wrong. For, we cannot 
assert that all wholes of parts are due to single causes. E. g. gates, palaces 
etc. are wholes of parts, yet they are due to many causes, viz. many work- 
men etc. Hence, it can never be proved by means of inference that 
Brahman is the sole, single cause of the world. 

(3) Even if the above major premise be taken to be a correct one, 
the inference would prove only a finite, imperfect being as the cause of the 
world. Thus : 

All wholes of parts ( like srates etc. ) are due to single causes ( viz. 
workmen etc. ). 



Brahman, the Source of Scriptures 29 

(Thirdly), even if from the relation between the minor and the middle 
terms, a single cause, different from the world, can be inferred, a single 
cause, endowed with the power of being (both) the efficient and the material 
cause, can never be established. (*). 

Hence, it is established that Brahman can be known only through 
the Vedanta treatise, and has only that as its proof. 



A Second Interpretation of the Aphorism. 

According to some, this Aphorism proves Brahman's omniscience 
through which alone can He become the cause of the world, as established 
by the previous Section. ( His ) omniscience follows from His being the 

The world is a whole of part. 

Therefore, the world is due to a single cause. ( viz. Brahman, 
imperfect like workmen etc. ). 

Vide also &ivakra-Mani-Dipika. Here it is said that by means of 
inference, Brahman is proved to be only an ordinary creator, possessed of a 
physical body, due and subject to. Karmas, thus : 

All efficient causes ( like potters etc. ) endowed with knowledge, 
desires and the like are endowed also with physical bodies due and subject 
to Karmas. 

Brahman is an efficient cause endowed with knowledge, desire and 
the like. 

Brahman is endowed also with a physical body due and subject 
to Karmas. 

(1) Here the minor premise that "The world is an effect" itself can 
be known only through Scripture. But even if we take it for granted, still 
then we cannot get the desired for conclusion through inference. For, it 
establishes only an efficient cause, not also a material cause. Thus : 

All wholes of parts are due to single (efficient) causes. ( viz. potters 
etc. ). 

The world is a whole of parts. 

Therefore, the world is due to a single {'efficient) cause, (viz. Brahman) 
But really Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause of the 
world. But in the world we never come across any one who is both the 
material and the efficient cause of anything. So, no universal premise is 
possible to the effect : "All wholes of parts are due to causes that are both 
material and efficient ones". Hence, we can never get the desired for 
conclusion here by inference. 



30 Srikantha-Bhasya 1.1.3. 

" ource" or the cause of the "Scriptures" or of the Vedanta. ( 4 ) As is 
the case of poetical compositions full of puns, so here, too, the double 
meaning of the Aphorism indicating ( more than one meaning ) does not 
lead to any faults, like ambiguity. ( 8 ) 

The Scriptural text : "Breathed forth by this Great Being are these 
Rg-Veda, the Yajur-Veda and the Sama-Veda, ( Brh. 2. 4. 10 ; Maitri. 
6. 32. ) and so on, indicate the topic treated here. Here a doubt may be 
raised as to whether Brahman can properly be held to be the 'Author of 
the Vedas. 

Objection 

The Prima Facie view is that it is not proper ( to regard Brahman 
as the author of the Vedas ), for that would contradict the text : "By 
means of speech which is without form and eternal" ( Rg. V. 8. 75. 6 ; 
Tait. sam. 2. 6. 11. 2. ) that proves the eternity of the word ( of Brahman, 
viz. the Scripture ). Further, if the Vedas are to be taken as the effects of 
Brahman, then, there being of a human origin or created ( Pauruseya ) 
cease to be authoritative. Hence, how can Brahman be regarded as the 
Author of the Vedas ? 

Reply 
Scriptures are Eternal 

To this objection, we reply : Brahman can properly be regarded 
as the Author of the Vedas. From the Scriptural text : "Breathed forth 
by this great Being are these the Rg-Veda, the Yajur-Veda and the Sama- 
Veda" ( Brh. 2. 14. 10 ; Maitii 6. 32. ), it is known that all the Vedas 
issue forth from Brahman, without any effort ( on His part ), as if 
breathed forth ( by Him ). It is also proved from the following text that 
the Great Lord is the Author of all lores : "The primary cause of these 



(1) The Sutra "v~>astra-yonitvat" can be interpreted in two different 
ways : 

(i) "(Brahman cannot be known through any other source ) as 
( He ) has Scripture for ( His ) source ( i. e. can be known through Scrip- 
ture alone )." 

(ii) (Brahman is omniscient) because (He) is the source of 
the Scriptures ( i. e. Scriptures issue forth from Him)." 

(2) Ordinarily, a word should stand for only one meaning, other^ 
wise we have the logical fallacy of equivocation or ambiguity. But 
when the writer or speaker himself intends to convey more than one sense 
by the same word, there is no such fault. Here the author himself wants 
to convey two different meanings by the same Aphorism, so, no logical 
fallacy of ambiguity is involved here. 



Brahman, the Source of Scriptures 31 

different eighteen lores is the Wise Being Himself with spike in His hand 
( v-Julapani or 6iva )." Prior to creation, the omniscient Supreme Lord 
creates again the Vedas, ( so long ) merged in His own self, through 
fashioning them, just as before, according to their prior compositions. 
Hence, the Vedas are of a non-human-origin or uncreated, ( Apauruseya ) 
and effects of Brahman. The words of those who are subject to (worldly 
passions like) love and hate, may be authoritative or unauthoritative. But 
the words of Brahman or Siva, who is free from the blemishes of all imperfec 
tions ; who has an unobstructed, unlimited and direct intuitive knowledge 
of all objects existing in the past, present and future ; who is self-proved ; 
who is the Supreme Lord ; who has attained the supreme ; who has all 
His desires fulfilled are always authoritative, The following Scriptural 
texts declare the Supreme Lord to be the author of all lores and the 
cause of all auspicious Smrtis : "The Lord of all the lores, the Master of 
all beings" ( Mahanar. 17. 5. ) "That God connected us with ( i. e. gave 
us ) the auspicious Smjtis" ( Mahanar. 10. 3. ). Hence as the Vedas, 
revealing all things, are themselves due to the Supreme Lord, so His 
omniscience too, is established. For, what is unknown cannot be said, f 1 ) 
Although the omniscience of the omnipresent Supreme Lord is also proved 
by the fact of His being connected with all objects, yet ( the author of the 
Aphorisms ) shows in particular, His authorship of the Vedas, the manifes- 
tors of all objects. ( 8 ) Now, lamps, though connected with colour and the 
rest by means of their rays, yet manifest only colours, not tastes and the 
rest. But such is not the case with Brahman. On the contrary, as He, 
connected with everything by means of His powers, reveals everything. (*) 

Objection 

The Supreme Lord's omniscience means (His) knowledge regarding 
all the objects mentioned in the Vedas. Hence, it follows that even the 



(1) Saying something implies a prior knowledge regarding that 
thing. Here, Scriptures being the Words of Brahman, He says or utters 
these, and, so must know these first. Now, the Vedas contain all know- 
ledge. So, Brahman, their Author, must also be all-knowing. 

(2) Brahman's omniscience can be proved by two ways : (i) He is 
connected with all things, so knows them all. (ii) He reveals the Vedas 
containing all knowledge, so is Himself all-knowing. Here, the author 
emphasises especially the second point. 

(3) One thing may be connected with another thing, but that does 
not mean that the first must manifest the second, E. g. the rays of a lamp 
are connected with i. e. fall on a lump of sugar. But these reveal only the 
white colour of sugar, not its sweet taste etc. But Brahman, connected 
with all things, reveal all of these fully. 



32 6rikautha-Bhasya 1.1.3. 

great Sages who know the meaning of the Vedas must be omniscient. 
How, can, there be any difference here ? 

Reply 
Brahman alone is Omniscient 

To the above objection, we reply : Not so. The L,ord who is the 
Author of those (Vedas) possesses more knowledge ( than what is contained 
in the Vedas only. ). It is found that Panini and the rest, the^ authors of 
grammatical treatises and the like, possess much more knowledge regard- 
ing many things than mere grammar etc. Although the Veda is the mani- 
festor of the meaning of everything, it does not manifest all things directly, 
but some only indirectly, some in a general manner, some specifically. It 
is the Supreme I v ord alone that is the wituess of all, perceives all. Thus 
there does exist a difference between the Veda and the Supreme I/ord. (*) 

Objection 

There is no fixed rule that the Supreme Lord alone is the Author of 
the Vedas. From the Scriptural text : "Verily, by becoming six Hotj* 
priests, Prajapati created all this, the Rg, Yajus and Sama". it is known 
that Hiranyagarbha and the rest, too, are the authors of those (Vedas). 

Reply 
Brahman alone is the Author of the Vedas 

To the above objection, we reply : No. For, the Vedas existed even 
prior to the origination of Hiranygarbha and the rest. It is declared by 
Scripture : "He who creates Brahma before ; who verily, delivers the Vedas 
first to him" (Svet. 6.18). He who is the creator of even Hiranyagarbha, the 
first among the gods, and He who teaches all the Vedas to him (viz. Hiranya- 
garbha ), He alone is higher than all, the Author of the Vedas, the 
Supreme Teacher. This is made clear by the following Scriptural passage : 
"He, higher than the Universe, Rudra the Great Sage, who formerly saw 
Hiranyagarbha, the first amongst the gods, being born that God connec- 
ted us with ( i, e. gave us ) the auspicious Smrts" ( Mahaflar.10.3 ). 

The meaning of the above text is as follows : During the time of crea- 
tion, "the Great Sage" or the Author of the Vedas, "Rudra" or the Supreme 
Brahman, "higher than the Universe" or higher than the universe of souls 
and matter as possessed of (the attributes) of omniscince and the rest, "saw" 

(1) An author always possesses more knowledge than what is con- 
tained in the treatises composed by him, for, a cause or a creator is naturally 
more than an effect or a created object. Now the sages know the 
Vedas only, but Brahman is the composer of the Vedas. So, the sages can 
never be as all-knowing as Brahman. 



Brahman, the Source of Scriptures 33 

"Hiranyagarbha" or Brahman, "the first" or the primary "among the gods", 
or "among Indra and the rest", being born, through, His own desire,, from 
Prkrti, the material causes, ( l ) this "seeing" implies teaching all the 
Vedas, the sources of all knowledge, ( to him ). For enlightening us as to 
the topics treated therein, this "Great Spiritual Preceptor" "Connects us 
with" (i.e. gives us ) the Smrtis, that are the causes of the cessation of all 
the great afflictions due to the bondage of earthly transmigratory existence, 
that bring about the attainment of Supreme bliss due to obaining the 
grandeur of the Supreme Immortality (*) that are, accordingly, supremely 
auspicious in form, and that are consistent with the cream of the Vedantas. 

Hence it is established that the Lord is the Author of all the Vedas. 
As the Scriptural passage : "By means of speech, which is devoid of form 
and eternal" ( Rg. V. 8. 75. 6 ; Tait. Sam. 2. 6. 11. 2. ) declares that ( the 
Vedas are ) enjoined according to their prior forms, so it does not give rise 
to any contradiction. Hence, it is not self- contradictory to hold that the 
Vedas are due to the lyord, yet eternal. (*) 

Here ends the Section entitled " Having the Scripture at the 
Source" (3). 



(1) Here, Brahman's desire for creation is the efficient cause, and 
His power or Prkrti is the material cause. 

(2) Here "Grandeur" means the great qualities of Brahman, viz. 
having all desires fulfilled etc. "Supreme Immortality" means Brahman. 
So, the whole compound means "obtaining similar qualities with Brahman" 
i. e. Salvation. 

(3) The Vedas are simply manifested and not created, anew at the time 
of each new creation. During dissolution, these do not become destroyed, 
but only merge back into Brahman ; and during creation they come to be 
revealed again. So these are eternal and their 'Creation' simply means 
'Manifestation, ' again in accordance with their old forms. So, the Vedas 
are due to Brahman, as they issue forth from Him anew each time ; yet 
they are eternal as they remain in Brahman all the time they were not 
manifested. 
5 



Adhikarana 4 : The Section entitled ''Concordance/* (Sutra 4) 

In the First Aphorism, 6iva, the Supreme Brahman, is proved to be 
the object which one desires to know. What is the special characterising 
mark ( that enables one to have ) a knowledge ( of such a 6iva )~in reply 
to this enquiry, the Second Aphorism states such a special characterising 
mark ( of Brahman ), viz. Creatorship and the rest of the world. Now 
what is the proof with regard to Him in reply to this enquiry, the Third 
Aphorism establishes that the Scripture or Vedanta is the proof with 
regard to Him and His source. A thing that is proved by something else 
always without an exception, is said to have that something as its proof. 
How can the Vedanta-texts be taken as establishing Brahman ? ( ! ) In 
reply to this enquiry, the Fourth Section is begun thus : 

SUTRA 1. 1. 4. 

"But that ( viz. Erahman ) ' has Scripture for His sole proof ), on 
account of the concordance ( of all Scriptural texts with regard to 
Brahman alone )." 

The word "That" mans Brahman, referred to above. The word "But" 
refers to all the Vedanta-texts collectively. The word "Concordance" 
means connection in respect of meaning. The Vedanta-texts, being all 
connected with the marks of meaning( 2 ), all give ( us ) a knowledge 
regarding "That", viz. ( the very sane ) Brahman, this is the meaning of 
the Aphorism. All the Vedanta-texts constitute the topic treated here. 



(1) A is taken to be the proof of B if A always proves B alone and not 
C or D. In the same manner, the Vedanta can be taken to be the proof of 
Brahman if it is shown to prove Brahman, and nothing else. So, here it 
has to be shown that all the Vedanta-texts refer to Brahman alone. 

(2) A question may be asked as to how is it possible for us to 
determine the real meaning of a text. There are certain marks that 
enable us to do so, like 'Beginning 1 ' etc. These marks are discussed in this 
Sfitra below. ( P. 39 fn. 3 ). Now, all the Vedanta-texts agree in 
possessing these marks which enable xis to know that they all mean or refer 
to Brahman alone. There are numerous apparently divergent Vedanta- 
texts. But they all agree with one another in dealing with Brahman 
alone. 



Scriptures prove Brahman alone 35 

Objection 

A doubt may be raised here as to whether it is proper to 
take the Vedanta-texts as giving ( us ) a knowledge of Brahman, or not. 

(1) First in all cases, a word can indicate an object or have a 
meaning, only when the relation between ( that word and its meaning ) 
in known ( to us ). In the absence of such a knowledge regarding the 
the relation between a word and its meaning, a man can have no idea 
about the meaning of that word. This knowledge of the relation ( between 
a word and its meaning ) depends on ( i. e. can be attained through ) the 
usage by or behaviour of elders. This usage or behaviour enables us to 
know that ( words indicate ) actions only. Thus, on hearing an elder's 
words, viz. 'Bring a cow', 'Tie a cow', and so on, ( a second ) elder, who is 
being directed thus, is impelled to action immediately after. Seeing this, 
a nearby man, who, desires to know what a word really stands forth, 
argues thus, within himself : 'This man must have, from every point of 
view, acted immediately after getting an idea regarding an action. This 
idea of an action, again, must have arisen ( in his mind ) from those words 
alone, ( spoken by the first man ). Otherwise, why should there have been 
such an impulse towards action ( on his part ) immediately after ( he ) 
heard those words ?'(*) Again, on seeing the bringing and tying of a 
cow, he ( the third man ) comes to know different kinds of actions ( as 
indicated by different kinds of words ). Thus, as words refer to actions, 
they cannot prove Brahman, the ( ever- ) established one. ( 2 ) 

(2) Moreover, secondly, the world being a particular kind of effect, a 
a particular kind of cause, viz. Brahman, can be established by inference 



(1) The first man says something to the second man, and the second 
man immediately after begins to act. A third on-looker notes it and argues 
thus within himself : An action is due to an idea about that action, and 
the idea here must be due to the words spoken to him. Thus, words lead to 
idea of action, and that, again to action. Hence, a word means an action 
with regard to an object. In this way, the third mean comes to know what 
a word means or refers to. 

(2) The Vedanta-texts consist of words, and words, as shown above, 
mean certain actions with regard to certain objects. Hence, the Vedanta- 
texts meaning as they do certain actions with regard to certain objects, 
can never refer to Brahman, the eternal, for no action is possible with 
regard to such unchangeable, eternal, ever-true Being. Actions are 
possible only with regard to those objects that are subject to changes. 
E. g. at first a cow is not tied, then it comes to be tied. Thus, 
an action always produces a change in the object of action. But Brahman 
always is, and never becomes, so no action is possible with regard to Him. 



36 6rikantha-Bhasya 1. 1. 4. 

also. So how can the Vedanta-texts, concerned with objects that cannot 
be known ( through any other source of knowledge ), be proofs ( with 
regard to Brahman ? ) (*) 

(3) Or, thirdly, the Vedanta-texts are concerned only with injunc- 
tions, and not with Brahman. If they are concerned with both, then a 
diversity or contradiction amongst texts will result. Hence, it is not 
reasonable to hold that the Vedanta-texts inform us about Brahman. 
This is the Prima Facie view. 

Keply 
All Scriptures prove Brahman 

The Correct Conclusion, however, is that it is, of course reasonable. 
For, the Vedanta-texts, being all connected with the marks of meaning, ( 2 ) 
are indeed capable of giving us a knowledge of Brahman. 

(1) First, your argument, viz. that 'As words refer to action, they 
cannot prove Brahman, the ( ever- ) established One' is wrong. For, as in 
the sentence : 'A son has been born to you', words are, indeed, found to have 
connection with established objects too. ( 8 ) A person who wishes to know 
( the meanings of words ) knows ( from his own experience ) that his own 
impulse to action is due to his knowledge regarding that action, which, 
again, must be preceeded by a knowledge regarding the object of the 
action. ( 4 ) Hence, even when he ( observes ) the behaviour of the elders, 
he knows for certain that the directive words ( of the first person ) produce 



(1) See under Su. 1. 1. 3. P 27. The Scriptures are said to be 
"Ajnata-jnapakam" or they enable us to know something which cannot be 
otherwise known. But if Brahman can be known through Inference, 
what is the use of Scriptures with regard to Him ? 

(2) All the different Vedanta-texts are in concordance or agreement 
in point of their meanings. They all mean or refer to the same Brahman ; 
and they all prove or arrive at the same Brahman. For the explanation of 
'marks of meaning' see above. P. 39 fn. (3). 

(3) Thus, here he gets an idea regarding an object, viz. son, pure 
and simple, from those words, but no idea about any action whatsoever. So 
words do refer to mere objects. 

(4) From his own case, he knows that an impulse to action is 
impossible without a prior idea of the object of that impulse. Thus, he 
first knows an object ( viz. cow ), then he has an idea regarding an action 
( viz. bringing ) with regard to that object, then he has an impulse to that 
actioja and actually performs it. 



Scriptures prove Brahman alone 37 

the knowledge of objects on the part of the ( second ) person who is being 
directed. (*) Hence, it is proved that words can indicate even established 
or already existent objects. 

y Or, what is the necessity of thus ( observing ) the usage by or 
behaviour of elders here ? For, one can get a knowledge ( of the mean- 
ing of words ) through other means no less. Thus, mothers and the like 
point out by their fingers different objects, like children, animals and 
so on, to ( their ) children, and apply those words to those objects respec- 
tively. Thus trained in various ways, these children come to know the 
meanings of all those words. Those who know nothing about poetic and 
dramatic treatises, approach a person who knows all these, separate the 
words, and thereby learn that this word has that meaning thus they 
come to know the meanings of all the words. 

Hence, as words can give us a knowledge regarding established 
objects no less, they can be proofs with regard to such objects also. Hence, 
the Vedfmta-texts do prove Brahman. 

(2) Secondly, your view, viz. 'The world being a particular kind 
of effect, a particular kind of cause, viz. Brahman, can be established 
by inference also* is not plausible. For, as it is found that chariots, 
palaces and the like having variegated forms are due to many causes, 
so it is impossible to prove by inference that the world is due to a single 
cause. From the universal relation between the major and the middle 
terms, it follows that the cause ( viz. Brahman ) is subject to Karmas 
and the rest. All these have been already said before. (*) Hence, Brah- 
man cannot be known by inference. But, we do not object to the view 
that inference too, conforming to Scripture, may be a proof with regard to 
Brahman. 

(1) From his own experiences, the prospective learner knows that 
unless there be, first, ra knowledge regarding an object, there cannot be 
any action with regard to it. From this he knows that in the case of 
the second person, acting according to the words of the first one, the 
action must involve a prior knowledge of the object of the action. Thus : 
the first person says : 'Bring a cow' and the second person at once does 
so. That means that the second person first knows what a cow is, and 
then, alone, can he bring it. Thus, words do indicate objects. Hence, 
here the third oil-looker does not conclude that the words of the first 
produce an idea of an action in the "mind of the second. On the contrary, 
he is convinced, on the analogy of his own case, that those words indi- 
cate objects first, and not actions, to the second. Thus, the words : 
'Bring a cow' first gives him the idea of a cow. 

(2) See above. Su. 1. 1. 3. P. 28. 



38 Srikantha-Bhasya 1, 1. 4. 

Objection 

Words can be authoritative proofs only with regard to those objects 
to which they really refer, and not with regard to anything else, as is 
possible in the case of perception and the rest. ( l ) What are the grounds 
prove that the Vedanta-texts refer to Brahman ?(*) 

Reply 
Seven Marks of an Intelligible Text 

We reply : ''Beginning and the rest." There is a maxim to this 
effect, viz. "tfeginning, end, repetition, novelty, result, explanation, and 
fitness or noR-co tradiction ( 8 ) these are the grounds that prove that 
( a text ) refers to ( something in particular )". Here too, it is proved for 
certain, on the ground of 'Beginning' and the rest, that the Vedanta-texts 

(1) This objection is but an elucidation of the third objection 
raised above. ( P. 36 ). The Vedanta-texts are concerned with injunc- 
tions, viz. those regarding the worship of Brahman. How can, again, 
they be concerned with Brahman Himself ? The same texts cannot refer 
to two things. Here, it may be pointed out that the same texts can 
refer to and give us a knowledge regarding two things, just as the same 
act of perception can give us a knowledge regarding two objects present 
before us. But as against this view, the Prima Facie objector points out 
above that the knowledge through words is not the same as that through 
perception etc. The eyes manifest all those near objects with which they 
are properly connected. That is why, perception can reveal more than 
one object at the same time. But words cannot reveal all those objects 
which they have no power of indicating, but only those that they 
actually mean or refer to. Thus, similies, metaphors etc. do not stand 
for the objects which those words can indicate, but only for those objects 
which they do indicate. E. g. the compound word ( Purusa-sirnha ) can 
indicate an object consisting of both a man and a lion. But it does 
actually stand for only a very brave man. Hence, the same word can- 
not stand for two different objects, as it cannot mean or refer to both 
of them at the same time. Hence, the same Scriptural texts cannot 
refer to two different topics, viz. Brahman and Karman or His worship. 
This is the Prima Facie view ( See below P. 65. ). 

(2) According to the third objection raised above, the Vedanta- 
texts are concerned with injunctions regarding the worship of Brahman. 
( See above P . 36. ). So, how can they be, again, taken to be concerned 
with Brahman ? this is the Prima Facie view. 

(3) Upakrama, Upasamhara, Abhyasa, Apurvata, Phala, Arthavada, 
Upapatti. 



Seven Marks of an Intelligible Text 39 

do refer to Brahman. The determination of the meaning ( of a text ) 
through such 'Beginning' and the rest is called the 'Hearing' or study 
( Sravana ) of the Vedanta-texts. Hence it has been said : "Suffering is 
due to ignorance, knowledge is its destroyer, 'Hearing ( or study ) of all 
the Vedanta-texts is its (*) cause. 'Hearing' ( Sravana ) means determin- 
ing, on the grounds of 'Beginning' and the rest, that the Vedic texts all 
refer to Siva, the Lord, Higher than the highest." 

Beginning and End prove, in the same manner, the fact that the 
Vedanta-texts all refer to Brahman or 6iva. This referring or meaning 
implies two things, viz. referring to His nature, as well as to His wor- 
ship. (*) The following are some examples of Beginning and tnd 
( proving that all the Vedanta-texts refer to Brahman ) : "The Existent 
alone, my dear, was this in the beginning ( Chand. 6.2.1. ) this is the 
Beginning. "That thoti art" ( Chand.6.16.3. ), This is the End. 
"Through the grace of the Lord, he beholds the greatness of the Lord" 
( Mahanar.8.3. ) this is the Beginning. "He who is the Highest is Mahes- 
vara (or the Great Lord )" ( Mahanar.10.8. ). This is the End. The 
same thing is to be found in other places as well. The following supply 
examples of Repetition. "That thou art" ( Chand.6.8.1 ; 6.9.4; 6.10.3; 
6.11.3 ; 6.12.3 ; 6.13.3 ; 6.14.3; 6.15.3 ; 6.16.3 ); "Everything, verily, is 
Rudra"( Mahanar.13.2. ). "To the Husband of Ambica, the Husband of 
Urna" ( Mahanar.13.4. ) "He who is Rudra is the Lord" ( Atharvasiras 2 ), 
"Bhur ! Bhuvas I Suvar \" ( Tait. 1.5.1 ; Mahanar.7.1 ; 7.2 ; 7.3 ; 7.5 ; 
8.1 ; 14.1. ) ; Novelty means something that is not attainable through any 
other source of knowledge except the Vedas. Result is the knowledge of 
Brahman. Explanation consists of the origination, maintenance, destruc- 
tion and the rest of the world. Fitness means absence of contradiction, 
or arriving at omniscience and the like. From all these signs or grounds, 
it is definitely known that the Vedanta-texts all refer to Brahmin. ( 8 ) 



(1) Knowledge is the destroyer of suffering. Study of the Vedanta 
is the cause of this knowledge. (2) i. e. the Vedanta-texts have a double 
purport ( Tatparyya ). They refer to Brahman Himself, as well to His 
Upasana or meditation. 

(3) Here the question may be asked as to how we can decide the 
real purport of a text. The author points out that there are certain marks, 
signs or grounds which enable us to know the purport of a text, or the 
object it refers to. Firstly and secondly, we know this from the 'Beginning' 
and the 'End' of the text. Some irrelevant topics may be mentioned in 
between these two. But the text naturally begins and conclude^ with its 
real and main topic. Thirdly, we may find "Repetition" of the text or that 
the text is repeatedly referring to the same object. Such repetitions also 



40 6rikantha-Bhasya 1. 1. 4 

(3) But, thirdly the Vedantas are connected not only with Brahman, 
but also with injunctions regarding knowledge of Brahman. This is 
known from texts like : "O ! the Self should be seen" ( Brh.2.6.5. ) and so 
on. Your view that 'If they be concerned with both, then a diversity or 
conti'adiction amongst texts will result' is wrong. Just as through the 
eye that enables us to know colour, the object, too, is known, so through 
Vedantas, concerned with injunctions ( regarding the knowledge and medi- 
tation of Brahman ), Brahman Himself is known. Hence, to say that ( the 
Vedanta-texts ) are concerned with both ( Brahman Himself, and injunc- 
tions with regard to knowledg and meditation ) involves no contradiction. (*) 



enable us to know the main topic, as, naturally the main topic is often 
repeated for the sake of clearness and emphasis. Fourthly, there is 
'Novelty'. That is, if we know that an object cannot be known through 
any other source, but only through that text, that also convinces us that 
that object must be the special topic of that text. Fifthly, the 'Result' has to 
be considered, That is, if we know that a text will result in a knowledge of 
a particular object, we at once know that that object must be the topic of 
that text. Sixthly, the 'Explanations' contained in the text, too, enable us 
to know the object it refers to. Seventhly, there is "Fitness or Non-contra- 
diction". Seventhly and finally, if the text involves no contradiction while 
dealing with an object, we know, thereby that that object is its real topic. 
Now, all these marks are present in the case of the Vedauta-texts in 
reference to Brahman. Firstly and secondly, their beginnings and ends 
all refer to Brahman. Thirdly, they repeatedly 1 refer to Brahman. Fourthly, 
we know that Brahman can neither be perceived nor inferred so He can 
he known only through the Scriptural texts. Hence, we come to know that 
all the Scriptural texts must deal with Brahman. Fifthly, we also know 
that the Vedanta-texts give us a knowledge of Brahman. Hence, they must 
be concerned with Brahman. Sixthly, the explanations contained in the 
texts, viz. the Being with which they deal is the Creator etc. of the world, 
definitely prove that that Being is none but Brahman. Seventhly, no con- 
tradictious are involved in the way these texts prove Brahman ; they, 
further, designate a Being endowed with omniscience and the rest. All 
these facts go to prove that they deal with Brahman alone, and with none 
else. 

(1) Srikantha's view is that the Vedanta-texts are concerned with 
two things (i) Brahman Himself, (ii) Injunctions ( Vidhi ) with regard 
to the knowledge and meditation of Brahman. The first is proved from 
the 'Beginnings,' 'Ends' 'Repetitions' etc of those texts. ( See above. 
P. 39. fn. (3) 

The second is proved by the above marks, as well as by the 
practical consideration, viz. if there be no injunctions regarding the 



Injunction regarding knowledge of Brahman necessary 41 

Objection 

Then, it has to be said that the knowledge of Brahman depends 
(wholly) on Scriptures, that is, it is attained only through texts designating 
Brahman. But, what then, is the necessity of injunctions with regard to 
it ( viz. knowledge of Brahman ).( l ) 

Reply 

In reply to this objection, we point out that, although ( such a 
knowledge of Brahman can be ) attained ( from the Scriptures, without 
any explicit injunction with regard to it ), yet these injunctions do not 
involve any self-contradiction, as in the case of Mantras and the rest. For 
example, though through knowing Mantras, revealing objets, deities and 
the like, one comes to have a knowledge regarding those objects and the 
rest, yet at the time of performing ( those sacrifices etc. ), it is found that 
the Prayoga-vidhi : 'This is to be remembered by means of Mantras' (*) 
enjoins 'Knowledge' once again, just the same is the case here. 

Objection 

There being no Utpatti-vidhi, Viuiyoga-vidhi and Adhikara-vidhi 
here, no Prayoga-vidhi is possible ( with regard to the Vedanta-texts.) 



knowledge and meditation of Brahman which are the means to attaining 
Him no one will resort to these and thereby attain salvation. ( S.M.D. ). 
Now, it may be thought that the same texts cannot refer to two 
objects without giving rise to self-contradiction. But here the author 
points out that that is not the case. E. g. the eye enables us to know 
colour really. But as it is in direct contact with the object itself, the 
Substratum of colour, it reveals the object, as well, to us. In the same 
manner, the Vedanta-texts, concerned with injunctions, being in direct 
contact with Brahman, reveal Him, as well, to us. So, no contradiction is 
involved here. ( cf 6 M D. ) 

(1) Through the eyes we at once know an object presented before us. 
and no injunction is necessary here viz. 'Know that object.' If the 
object be present before us and we simply look at it, we come to know it 
immediately, and so there is no scope for any further injunction here. In 
the very same manner, from the Scriptural texts, we at once come to know 
Brahman. So no injunction with regard to the knowledge of Brahman is 
necessary here This is the Prima Facie view. 

(2) A man has to study the entire Vedas first, then he can undertake 
a study of the Karma-Mnnanisa and Brahma-MImamsa. ( See under Su. 
1. 1. 1. P. 5 ) Now, when he reads the Vedas, he reads also the Mantras 
or sacred formulas contained therein ; and from these Mantras he naturally, 



42 ika*rtha-Bha$ya 1. 1. 4. 

Replf 
Four Kindt of injunction regarding Brahman, 

No such doubt can be raised here. For, here, too, Utpatti-vidhi has 
to be supplied ( l ) 'Calmness' and the rest, occurring in the same context, 
have been enjoined as auxiliary, beneficial means, so that the text "One 
should see the Self ( Brh. 4. 4. 23. ), can be appropriately taken as a 

gets a knowledge regarding the objects and the deities to which these 
Mantras refer. Still, when later on, he studies the Purva-Mimamsa for 
undertaking a particular kind of sacrifice etc, he meets with injunctions 
regarding the knowledge of those objects and deities. These injunctions 
are absolutely necessary, for he cannot perform that sacrifice properly 
unless he possesses a knowledge regarding the objects and deities etc. 
essentially involved therein. Hence, although he already knows these 
things from his prior study of the Vedas, yet he has to know them again 
from the Karma-MImamsa in accordance with Proyoga-vidhis regarding 
them. These injunctions are called Proyaga-vidhis, because they are 
injunctions regarding main sacrifices that are means to the attainment of 
the desired for result. 

An Utpatti-vidhi is an injunction regarding the means ( Karmas ) to 
the sacrifice in question. E.g. "In the case of the jyotistoma sacrifice, one 
should perform it, through the*Maha-Soma." Here, the main racrifice is 
the jyotistoma, while the Maha-soma is the means to it. 

An Adhikara-vidhi is an injunction referring to the result of that 
sacrifice. E.g. "One desirous of Heaven', should perform the jyotistoma 
sacrifice." 

A Viniyoga-vidhi is an injunction regarding some other auxiliary 
means or sacrifices benefitting the main one. E.g. "One shoud benefit the 
jyotistoma by means of DTksaniya sacrifices and the like." 

A Proyoga-vidhi is an injunction regarding the main sacrifice, 
leading, to the desired for result. E. g. "One desirous of Heaven, should 
perform the jyotistoma sacrifice." ( of. 6 M D. ) 

(1) In the case of the Vedanta-texts, too, there are Utpatti-vidhi s, 
indicating the means to the main acts enjoined. ( See fn. 2. P. 41. ) E.g. 
of the text : "O ! the Self should be seen" ( Brh. 2. 4. 5. ) where the main 
act, viz. 'Seeing', has been enjoined. Now, here, of course, there is no 
explicit mention of the means ( Karma ) to 'Seeing'. But, we must not 
think that no such special instruments for 'Seeing' need be mentioned 
here r as 'Seeing' naturally means seeing by the eyes. For, this 'Seeing' 
cannot, evidentlv, be taken as ordinary seeing by the eyes which is 
impossible with regard to the Self. The term 'Seeing' here simply 



Four Kinds of Injunction regarding Brahman 4& 

Viniyoga-vidhi. (*) As in the case of the Ratri-sattra or Night Sacri- 
fice, so here, too, an Adhikarin ( a person entitled to the study of the 
Vedanta ) can be conceived, viz. one who is desirous of salvation ; arid 
this is known from the following explanatory, eulogistic text : "By 
knowing the Lord, one becomes free from all bond" (S vet. 1. 8 ; 2. 15. etc.)( 8 ) 
Hence, finally, we get a Proyaga-vidhi ( regarding the Vedanta-texts ), 
viz. "One who is desirous of salvation and is endowed with self-control 



implies direct, undoubted knowledge, just as we have a direct, certain 
knowledge regarding the fruit, placed on our palm, that we are perceiv- 
ing, so we should strive to have a direct, absolutely certain knowledge 
regarding the Self this is the meaning of the word "Should be seen" 
here. Now, as this Seeing is not due to the instrumentality of the eyes, 
and as no means or instruments for it have been mentioned explicitly 
in the text, so we shall have to supply such means or instruments 
otherwise the above text cannot be regarded as an Utpatti-vidhi. That is, 
here we have to supply the missing or implicit means, viz, the 'Vedantas.' 
Now, the Utpatti-vidhi reads thus : "O, the Self should be seen by- 
means of the Vedantas." That is, the study ot the Vedantas is the 
means to the 'Seeing' or a direct realisation of Brahman. Thus, we get 
an Utpatti-vidhi in respect of the Vedanta-*exts as well, by supplying the 
implicit means or Karma. 

(1) Viniyoga-vidhis, too, are possible in respect of the Vedanta- 
texts. A Viniyoga-vidhi indicates the auxiliary means benefitting the 
main act enjoined. ( See fn. 2. P. 41 ). Now, in the text : "Therefore, 
having this knowledge, having become calm, subdued, quite, enduring 
and collected, one should see the Self in the Self itself" ( Brh. 4. 4. 23. ), 
Calmness etc. are mentioned in connection with the 'Seeing' of the Self. 
From this we come to know that these constitute auxiliary means, 
benefitting or helping the rise of 'Seeing'. That is, all these qualities 
of calmness etc. help one to realise Brahman. So, this is a Viniyoga- 
vidhi with regard to Him. 

(2) Adhikara-vidhis, too, are possible with regard to the Vedanta- 
texts. From the text : "Knowing the Lord, one becomes free from all 
bonds" ( 6 vet. 1. 8. etc. ;, we come to know that one who desires for salva- 
tion is entitled to study the Vedanta-texts. Here in the above text, of 
course, there is no actual injunction it is but an Arthvada or eulogy 
of the knowledge of Brahman. But there are other injunctive texts 
regarding the Adhikarin to the study of the Vedanta. of Ratri-satra-nydya. 
This- refers to Scriptural passages conveying no direct promise for 
reward. Hence, in these cases, an ArthavSda-passage promises such* 



44 ^nka^tba-Bbasya 1. 1. 4. 

aiid the like should try to attain the knowledge of self" "Being endowed 
with calmness, self-control abstention, patience and concentration, one 
should see the self in the self alone* ( l ) ( Brt. 4. 4. 23. ). 

Objection 

To hold that the knowledge regarding Brahman is something to be 
enjoined, does not stand to reason. In the text : "O ! the Self should be 
seen" ( Brh. 2.4.5. ) and the rest, it is improper to hold that the* eternal 
Brahman, the changeless, the pure self should be used in the accusative 
case-ending.( 8 ) Hence no injunction is possible here. For, origination, 
attainment, modification and reformation are all impossible here.(') If it 
be said : In the case of barley-meal, the second or the accusative case- 
ending is given up and the third or the instrumental case-ending adopted, 
in order that ( the action may be taken as directly leading to ) a separate 



rewards, In the same manner, the above Arthavada passages indicate the 
reward or result of the study of Brahman. 

(1) Finally, we have the Prayoga-vidhi here, viz. an injunction 
regarding the main act enjoined leading to the desired for result, viz. 
"One who desires salvation from bondage and is endowed with the 
qualities of calmness and the like, should strive to attain the Knowledge 
of Brahman". Here the 'Knowledge of Brahman' is the main act enjoined 
here, as the means to the desired result, viz. salvation. 

(2) i. e. should be an object of action. B. g. we say : "Sa Annam 
Bhungte'. 'He eats rice'. Here 'annam' ( rice ) is in the second or 
accusative case ending ( Karma-Karaka ). But Brahman cannot be so used 
in the accusative case, as He can never become an object of action. (See 
fn (2) just below). So, we cannot say her : 'Atmanam Pasyet', "One should 
see the Self/ 3 (3) Actions produce four kinds of results origination 
(Utpatti), modification ( Vikara ;, attainment (Prapti) and reformation or 
improvement ( Sarpskara ). E. g. from a lump of clay, a potter makes a 
clay jar here the jar originates. Milk is transformed into curd here the 
curd is a modification of milk. A man attains to or arrives at a village 
here he attains something not attained before. A gem is cleaned and 
regains its former brilliance this is reformation or purification. Hence, 
action or injunction is possible only with regard to an object that can be 
produced, modified, attained or reformed. But Brahman cannot be pro- 
duced being eternal, cannot be modified being unchangeable, cannot be 
attained being universally ever-attained, cannot be reformed being ever- 
perfect. Hence, no action or Injunction is possible with regard to 
Brahman. As such, knowledge regarding Brahman cannot be enjoined, 
of. 6. B. L 1. 4. 



Prima Facie View 45 

result. The same should be done here too ; and thus it is possible to have 
an injunction here to the effect : 'One should see by means of the Self ' 
we reply this cannot be maintained here. 

For, ( the two cases) are different. Thus, as action, resulting in reduc- 
tion to ashes, is possible with regard to barley-meal, so, although in form 
it has been expressed by an instrumental case-ending, yet in meaning it 
stands ( l ) for the accusative. But that is not possible in the case of the 
Self. Hence, the Vedantas are not concerned with injunctions regarding 
the knowledge of Brahman. 



(1) In the injunction 'One offers the barley-meal as oblation' (Saktum 
Juhoti), if the accusative 'barley-meal' (Saktum) be accepted as 
such, then the barley-meal, being thrown into the fire, would become 
reduced to ar.hes and thereby altogether useless. In that case, it cannot be 
used later on for the main sacrifice which alone can lead to the desired for 
result. Thus, if we accept the accusative form 'Saktum Juhoti', then the 
action is to be taken as a Guna and Samskfira Karma ( For explanation, 
see under Su. 1.1.1. P.8. fn.(l) ), making the barley-meal fit for the main 
sacrifice, just as in 'Vrihiu Proksati', the act of sprinkling makes the rice- 
grains fit for being used in that sacrifice. But in the above case, this, as 
shown above, is impossible, as the very act of throwing into fire will alto- 
gether destroy the barley-meal. So, to avoid this difficulty, we have used 
the instrumental case-ending here, instead of the accusative, thus : 'One 
offers oblation by means of the barley-meal' ( Saktubhifc Juhoti ) is to be 
accepted. For, as soon as we use the third case-ending in place of the 
second, the act can be taken as a Pradhana and Artha Karma ( See P.8. 
fn.(l) ), directly leading to the result in question. In this case, there is no 
harm if the barley-meal is reduced to ashes, for, now it need not again be 
used for the main sacrifice, but can, by being reduced to ashes, directly 
bring about the result. Thus, the difficulty felt here with regard to the 
above injunction regarding barley-meal may be easily removed by the 
simple device of changing the case-ending from the accusative to the ins- 
trumental. In the very same manner, the difficulty felt with regard to the 
Self can, also, equally easily be removed by the very same device of 
changing the accusative to the instrumental. That is, instead of saying : 
'One should see the Self which makes the Self an object of action ( Atma- 
nam Pasyet ), we should say : 'One should see by means of the Self (Atma- 
nH Pasyet ). So, in this way, an injunction is possible with regard to the 
Self. This is an objection raised against the above Prima Facie view. 

To this, the Prima Facie objector replies thus: The case of the 
barleymeal is quite distinct from that of the Self. In the first case, we may 
change the case-ending for avoiding the above mentioned difficulty. But 



46 rika9tha-Bha$ya 1.1.4. 



Injunctions regarding Salvation. 

Although origination and the rest, due to action, are not possible 
in the case of the Self, still an injunction is necessary here for ( the 
bringing about of ) Salvation pertaining to the agent. If it be objected : 
As ( the knowledge of Brahman ) is already attained ( by one who has 
studied the Vedas and the Piirva-Mnnaiiisa ), how can there be ( again ) 
any injunction ( with regard ) to it, such as, 'One should attain the know- 
ledge of Brahman through the Vedantas ? -We reply : Attainment 
may be either temporary or eternal. But in both cases, Niyama-vidhi and 
the rest are possible. (*) 

Object on 

But then, if the Vedantas be concerned with injunctions, then it 
is unreasonable to hold that they are, again, concerned with Brahman. 
Your view, viz. 'just as through the eye that enables us to know colour, 
the object, too, is known, so through the Vedantas, too, concerned with 
injunctions ( regarding the knowledge and meditation of Brahman ), 



really barley-meal remains, as before, an object of action ( viz. throwing 
into fire ), the only difference here is that we have to take it as an Artha 
instead of a Guna Karman. But the self can never become the object of 
any action whatsoever. So it can never be the object of any injunction. 

(1) The objection here is : If one studies the Vedanta, then He at 
once attains a knowledge regarding Brahman. So, why should one be 
again, enjoined to study the Vedanta to gain such a knowledge ? The 
reply is that, one does not read the Vedantd always, and so his know- 
ledge regarding Brahman is not eternally present in him. Hence, to 
induce him to study the Vedanta and thereby gain knowledge of Brahman, 
injunction is certainly necessary. This injunction is a Niyama-vidhi ; 
i. e. indicates one definite means through which Brahman may be known, 
viz. 'One should know the Self through the Vedanta'. 

It may be said, again, that a serious student, for getting rid of his 
ignorance regarding Brahman, may constantly read the Vedanta and 
thereby have a constant knowledge of Brahman so no injunction is 
necessary at least in his case. The reply is that here too, a Parisamkhya- 
Vidhi is possible. For, then the injunction 'One should know the Self 
through the Vedanta' will not enjoin the study of the Vedanta ( which 
is unnecessary here as the man is by himself constantly reading the 
Vedanta), but will simply prohibit the knowledge of the Self through other 
tifttttrs': 'One should not know th* Self tfcrdtigfc reft&ttitfg &&' 
above, 1. 1. 1. P. Ifc-ftfc-(l) 



Two-fold Purport of Scriptures 47 

Brahman Himself is known' ( l ) is wrong. The eyes, when connected 
with ( objects ) reveal each without any distinction. Words, however, 
cannot do so. But they can be authoritative proofs only with regard to 
those objects which they mean( 8 ). Hence, the Vedanta-texts being proofs 
with regard to Brahman, cannot be again, concerned with injunctions 
regarding the knowledge of Brahman. 

Reply 
Two-fold purport of Scriptures 

To the above objection, we reply. Not so. For, it is found that 
statements like "He performs the Samit sacrifices/* enjoin five sacrifices as 
well as the procedure for performing them thus, they are concerned with 
both these things. In the case of the Vedanta-texts, too, it Is quite 
reasonable to hold that they give ( us ) a knowledge regarding Brahman 
as well as enjoin the knowledge regarding Brahman that brings about 
salvation. 

Objection 

If Brahman be known from those Vedanta-texts themselves, then the 
injunction regarding the knowing of Brahman becomes useless for its 
purpose is served ( i. e. salvation is attained ) through that previously 
gained knowledge itself. 

Reply 
Two-fold purport of Scriptures, ( contcl. ) 

We reply : No. For, as Brahman is known only indirectly through a 
text, an injunction regarding knowledge is necessary in order that one 
may have a direct realisation of Brahman. If it be asked : What is the 
difference ( between prior knowledge due to the texts and later knowledge 
due to injunction ) ? ( we reply : ) knowledge, due to texts, cannot lead to 
direct realisation ; but only knowledge which is of the form of meditation( 8 ) 
can do so. Hence, it has been declared by Scripture : "By meditating, 
a sage attains to the cause of all beings, the Seer of all, beyond darkness," 
"Through lighting ( the fire of ) knowledge alone does the Knower burn 
oft bondage" ( Kalvalya 11. ). "Through knowing the Deity, one is free 
from all bondage" ( 6vet. 1. 8 ; 2. 15 ; 4. 16 ; 5. 13 ! 6. 13. ) "By knowing 
Him, the Lord, they become immortal" ( 6 vet. 3. 7. ) and so on. 



(1) See above. P. 40. fn. (1) 

(2) For explanation, see above, P. 39. fn. (3) 

(3) i. e. Knowing ( jfiana ) culminating in meditation ( Dhyafia 



48 ^rikitfha-Bhasya 1. 1. 4. 

Thus, in the Snirti passage : "As from the text 'Should be heard' 
(Brh.2.6.5.) ( l ), it is known that (the Self) should also be reflected ou, after 
knowing one should constantly meditate these two are the causes of 
direct realisation", it is said that 'Meditation' (Nididhyasna), the necessary 
culmination of the knowledge attained through 'Hearing' (^ravana) and 
'Reflecting' (Manana), is the cause of a direct intuition of Brahman. 
Hence, 'Knowledge' in the form of or culminating in 'Meditation/ that 
leads to salvation as its result, is enjoined by such texts as : "One should 
see the Self in the Self in itself ( Brh.4.4.23. ) "6ambhu is to be meditated 
on in the Ether". "Tranquil, let one worship It as that from which 
( everything ) originates, as that into which (everything) will be dissolved, 
as that in which ( everything ) lives" ( Chand.3.14.1. ). "Thus, O Man of 
the Ancient Yoga, worship" (Tait. 1.6.2.). Thus the texts : "The Knower 
of Brahman attains the Highest," (Tait.2.1.1.), and so on, instructs (us) 
about the meditation on the real essence of Brahman, as well as about the 
results and and the rest thereof. Otherwise, how can there be any attain- 
ing, as the fruit, of all desires with Brahman endowed with Truth and the 
rest, as well as a direct intuition regarding such a Brahman ?(') Thus, in 
the texts : "Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, Infinite" (Tait.2.1.1.), "Brahman 
is Bliss" (Tait.2.4.1.), "(He becomes) Brahman who has the ether for His 
body, whose soul is truth, whose pleasure is the vital-breadth, whose mind 
is bliss, who abounds in tranquillity, who is immortal" (Tait. 1.6.)( 8 ), "Obei- 
sance to the Supreme Brahman who is the kaw, the Truth to the black 
and twany person who is self-controlled, possesses three eyes and has the 
entire universe as His form" (Mahanar.12.1.), Brahman truth, knowledge 
and infinite in essence, finding pleasure in His own Self, free from all 
blemishes of miseries, all-auspicious in essence, black and twany being 
variegated in form as the repository of supreme powers, three-eyed is 
designated, on account of 'Beginning' and the rest proving that ( all these 
texts do ) refer to Brahman. ( 4 ) Again, in the texts : "He who knows 
Him as placed in a secret place" (Tait.2.1.1.), "Thus, O Man of the 
Ancient Yoga, worship" (Tait. 1.6.2.) and so on, His worshipping, too, is 



(1) The whole text : "O ! the Self should be heard, reflected on, 
meditated on" (Brh. 2.6.5.). 

(2) In the above Tait. 2.1.1. it is said : "The Knower of Brahman 
attains the Highest. He who knows Brahman as Truth, Knowledge, 
Infinite, Placed in a secret place and in the highest heaven, attains all 
desires together with (All-) Wise Brahman". 

(3) For explanation, see under 1.1.2. P.23. 

(4) See above, P. 39. fn. (3). 



Two-fold Purport of Scriptures 49 

enjoined. From the texts : "He attains all desires" (Tait. 2.1.1.) and so on, 
it is known that the worshippers attain all desires together with Brahman. 
Hence, one desirous of salvation, who performs his own duties in an 
unselfish spirit ; wlio avoids the forbidden selfish (Kamya) acts ; who 
has his mind purified through the performance of actions as enjoined 
by Scriptures and Smrtis ; and who is filled with a supreme devotion for 
6iva, a devotion that is due to calmness and the rest( l ) first knows the 
Supreme Brahman, called Siva, from the cream of Scriptures (viz. the 
Upanisads) ; then worships Him. Thus, injunctions regarding knowledge 
or meditation are, indeed, appropriate. Here, the word 'Siva' has been 
used for showing that the three-eyed Brahman, as the repository of 
Supreme purity and auspiciousness, is the sole object to be worshipped by 
one who desires for salvation. Hence it is declared by the Atharva-6ikha : 
"iva alone is to be meditated on, giving up every one else" (Atharva-^ikhil 
2.). Hence, that Being alone who is designated by the word '6iva' is to be 
meditated on. Otherwise, how can one get rid of earthly, transmigratory 
existence ? 'Siva' is one who is free from all the blemishes due to defects 
and is the substratum of unsurpassable auspiciousness. The following' 
text declares that Salvation results as a fruit from Knowledge : "When 
men will roll up the sky as if it were a piece of leather( 8 ) then there will 
be an end to a suffering (even) without knowing 6iva" (Svet.6.20.) ( 8 ). Here 
the text : "Siva alone is to be maditated on, rejecting every one else", 
it is prohibited that one desirous of Salvation should worship any 
one else besides 6iva. Hence, 6iva alone is the Supreme Brahman 
He alone should be worshipped and known by one who desires for salva- 
tion. Hence, as there are definite proofs ( 4 ) that the Vedantas all agree 
in referring ( to the same Brahman ), it is concluded that they are con- 
cerned with Brahman, as well as with meditation with regard to Him. 
So, here there is no contradiction. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Concordance" (4). 



(1) See above, P. 42, 43. fn. (1). 

(2) i. e. when the impossible will become possible. 

(3) Here, we have the word 'Deva' (God) instead of the word 'S i va'. 

(4) Viz. 'Beginning' and the rest. See above P. 39. fn. (3). 
7 



Adhikarana 5 : The Section entitled 'He Sees' ( Sutras 512 ) 

The stated marks of Brahman may be thought of as belonging: to 
Pradhana apprehending this, ( the Anthor ) says : 

SUTRA 1. 1. 5. 

"Because ( the Creator of the world ) sees, (Pradhana is) not ( such 
a creator % since it is non-Scriptural." 

In the Chandogya, there is a text that forms the topic ( of this Sec- 
tion ), viz. "The Existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning, 
One only, without a second. He saw ( i. e. thought ) : %et me be many, 
let me procreate 1 ( Chand. 6. 2. 3. ), and so on. Here, a doubt may be 
raised as to whether this Existent Being, described by the above Scrip- 
tural passage as prior to everything and as such the cause of the entire 
Universe, is Brahman or Pradhana. 

Prima Facie View 

Pradhana alone can be appropriately taken as the cause of the 
world, in accordance with another Scriptural text viz : "One unborn 
female, red, white, and black, who produces many creatures like herself." 
( 6 vet. 4. 5. ). From this we come to know of Prakrti of the Sarnkhyas 
that produces many creatures and consists of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, 
and indicated by the colours red and rest ( as mentioned in the text ). 
In accordance with this ( text ), in other places, too, the cause of the 
world, designated by the word 'Existent', is none but Pradhana. Being 
connected with Rajas and Sattva, it can appropriately be taken to be 
possessing the powers of action and knowledge, through which, it can 
become the cause of the world. The unconscious Pradhana alone can be 
appropriately transformed into the form of the world, and not the cons- 
cious, unchangeable L,ord, as transformation implies change on the 
part of the cause. Hence, on the ground of reason, as well as on the 
ground of Scriptural authority, the cause of the world, designated by the 
term 'Existent* is none but Pradhana. 

Reply 
Pradhana it not the cause of the Universe. 

To this, we reply : Pradhana which is 'Non-Scriptural' and can be 
known through inference ( only ), is not the cause of the world, desig- 
nated by the word 'Existent'. On the contrary, the conscious Brahman 
alone ( is such a cause ). For, Scripture states that ( the cause of the 



Pradhana is not the cause of the Universe 51 

world ) sees, thus : "He perceived (i.e. thought ) 'May I be many, may I 
procreate* ( Chand. 6. 2. 3. )". This perceiving ( or thinking ) that is an 
attribute of a conscious being is impossible on *he part of the uncons- 
cious Pradhana. 

Your view that in accordance with the Scriptural text : "Who 
produces many creatures like herself ( Svet. 4. 5. ), Prakrti of the Sam- 
khyas is the cause of the world here is wrong. In the Aphorism : "(The 
word 'unborn' does not denote (the Sainkhya Prakrti) on account of non- 
specification, as in the case of the cup" ( Br. Su. 1. 4. 8. ), we shall prove 
that Prakrti alone which has the Supreme Lord as its cause, can produce 
many creatures. 

Your view that 'Consisting, as it does of Rajas and Sattva, 
Pradhana possesses the powers of action and knowledge' is wrong. For, 
Prakrti, consisting, as it does, of three Gunas, cannot consist ( only ) 
of Rajas and Sattva as separated from Tamas. It cannot also be said 
here 'that when Tamas is over -powered, and Rajas and Sattva arise, 
( Prakrti ) can have the powers of action and knowledge. For, ( the Sam- 
khyas themselves ) admit that Prakrti is the state of equilibrium of Sattva, 
Rajas and Tamas. (*) 

Your view that 'If the unchangeable Lord is transformed into the 
form of the world, then that would cause change on His part' is due to 
sheer ignorance. We hold that the Supreme Lord, as possessing the 
powers of subtle Cit and Acit not divisible into names and forms, is the 
Cause ; while as possessing the powers of gross Cit and Acit divisible into 



(1) It was said above that, as Pradhana consists of the Gunas 
Sattva and Rajas, it can have the powers of knowledge and action, due 
to these respectively. But here the Author points out that Pradhana 
consists also of Tamas which obstructs knowledge and action. Hence, 
due to this third Guna, it cannot have the powers of knowledge and 
action. 

The Prima Facie objector may, again, point out that when Tamas 
is completely over-powered by the other two knowledge and action 
become possible on the part of Pakrti. In reply to this, the Author points 
out that the above Scriptural text unequivocally declares that at the time 
of creation, the Creator of the world thinks and acts. But at the time 
of creation, in the very beginning, Prakrti is the Samyavastha of all 
the three Gunas ; so, then, there cannot be any overpowering of Tama$ 
by the other two. 



52 Srikaiptha-Bhssya 1.1.5. 



names and forms, is the Effect( 1 ) - so we are not troubled with the above 
difficulty. ' 

Objection 

But from texts like : "The Existent aloue, my dear, was this in the 
beginning, One only, without a second' 1 ( Chand. 6. 2. 1. ), it is definitely 
ascertained that the Reality which is existence in essence is without any 
distinctions ( Nirvisesa ). So, why do you say that during its caudal state 
it possesses the Universe in a subtle form ? (*) 

Keply 
Brahman is Savisesa or an Organic Whole. 

The words "Existent alone 1 ', do not deny distinctions, but only that 
the non-existent can ever be the cause. For, from texts like : "The non- 
existent, verily, was this in the beginning ; from that, verily, the Existent 

(1) Parinfmia-vSda does not imply any change on the part of 
Brahman. For, when the world is created by Brahman by his own powers, 
this so-called creation is not a new production, not a change of Brahman, 
the cause, into an altogether new thing, the world, the effect. But creation 
implies only the manifestation of the subtle powers of Brahman into gross 
forms. Thus, before creation, the Cit and Acit powers of Brahman remain 
merged in Him and cannot be distinguished from Him. But in the 
process of creation, these powers are manifested into the form of the gross 
universe of souls and matter. Then, they came to have different names 
and forms, can be distinguished from Brahman, and are called His effect. 
Thus, the same Brahman, as possessing unmanifest powers, is the Cause ; 
and as possessing manifest powers is the Effect. 

2. There are three kinds of distinction SajStrya, Vijatiya and 
vSvagata. The distinction of one object from another object of the same 
class is called Sajatiya-bheda e. g. the distinction of one tree from another. 
The distinction of one object from another object belonging to a different 
class is called Vijatiya-bheda. e. g. the distinction of a tree from a man 
etc. The distinctions amongst the parts of the same whole are called 
Svagata-bheda. E. g-'the distinctions amongst the roots, branches, leaves, 
flowers and fruits of the same tree. Now, according to the Advaita 
School, Brahman is devoid of all these three kinds of distinction. But 
according to RSmanuja, NimbSrka etc., although Brahman can have no 
Sajstiya and Vijatiya-bhedas, yet He has Svagata-bhedas or internal 
distinctions. The Cit and the Acit as his powers are His internal 
distinctions, or before creation, the universe of souls and matter remain in 
Brahman, in a subtle form, as His iternal distinctions. 



Brahman is both Existence and Existent 53 

was bom' ( Tait. 2. 7. 1. ),(*) a misconception may arise regarding the 
causality of the Existent. Further, how does the text : "The Existent 
alone, my dear, was this in the beginning, One only, without a second' 
( Chand. 6. 2. 1. ) prove that Brahman is devoid of all distinctions ? The 
word 'was' implies a kind of activity. 'In the beginning' implies a 
particular time. 'One only' is meant for denying any other substratum. 
The words 'without a second' indicate that ( He ) is the material cause of 
the world. That is why, He must be omniscient and possessed of infinite 
powers and the rest. How can He become both ( the material and the 
efficient cause ) of the world, without possessing omniscience and infinite 
powers ? 

Brahman is Existence or Satta as well as Existent or Sattavan. 

Or, a;; the word 'Sat' implies both the root or the main word, it is not 
proper to take it to be referring only to one thing ; for, in accordance with 
the root or the main word, and as well as in accordance with the suffix 
( added to it ), it must designate two things. ( 2 ) There is a maxim of the 
wise to this effect : "The word 'Sat', proclaimed to be ( both ) a root and 
a suffix, ( stands both for ) a power ( of Siva ) and Siva Himself. The 
whole Universe consists of these two, they being Brahman in essence." 
Thus, it is established that the Supreme Lord alone, endowed with powers 
of Cit ( souls ) and Acit ( Matter ), gross and subtle, is both the Cause and 
the Eiffect, and designated by the word 'Sat.' 



( The Author ) anticipates further objections and refutes them 
thus :~- 

SUTRA 1. 1.6. 

"If it be said that the word 'Seeing' in the above Chandogya 
passage is secondary, then we reply : no, because of the term 'Self 
being applied to the cause of the world". 

(1; Of. Chanel. 6. 2. 1-2. 

(2) The word 'Sat' may stand for an attribute. That is, it may 
mean 'Satta' or the attribute of existence. Here, we take the main word 
( Prakrti ) 'Sat'. Secondly, it may stand also for an object having that 
attribute of existence. That is, it may mean "Sattavan" or an object that 
exists i. e. possesses the attribute of existence. Here, we take the main 
word with a suffix added to it. ( Pratyaya ) Hence, the word 'Sat' stands 
f-ot two things*-an attribute afcd its substratum. 



54 6rikantha-Bhasya 1. 1. 7. 

Objection. 

You proved that 'Seeing* being the attribute of a conscious being, 
cannot belong to the unconscious Pradhana, so the Supreme Brahman 
alone is designated by the word 'Existent' and is the cause of the world. 
But this ( view ) is entirely wrong. Just as, in the texts : "Those 
waters perceived" (Chand. 6. 2. 4.) "Light perceived", (Chand. 6. 2. 3.), and 
so on, perceiving is 'Secondary' ( or metaphorical ), so it is secondary in 
the case of Pradhana too. 

Reply 
Pradhana, not being Self, is not the cause of the Universe. 

We reply : "No., because of the term 'oelf'," which designates a 
conscious being, as mentioned in the text, beginning : 'The Existent 
alone, niy dear, was this in the beginning' (Chand. 6.2.1.), and ending : "He 
is the Self, that thou art" (Chand.6. 16.3.). It is not stated by Scripture 
that perceiving is secondary on the part of light and the rest. For, ( here 
perceiving really ) belongs to the sentient Supreme Lord who is their 
inner essence. 

Objection 

( Another objector says : ) Even if 'Perceiving', as mentioned in the 
(above) Scriptural text, be admitted to be secondary ( on the part of the 
Pradhana j, still, it cannot be held that Pradhana, "the Existent" ( Sat ) is 
the cause of the world, as there is the term 'Self definitely proving that 
such ( a cause ) must be a conscious being all this has been proved above. 
So the word 'Self cannot here mean the unconscious Pradhana. But the 
conscious individual soul ( Jiva ) can very well be designated, in a literal 
sense, by the word 'Self. Hence, the individual soul alone is the 
conscious cati.se of the world, and designated by the word "Existent" (Sat). 

Reply 
Jiva is not the cause of the Universe 

SUTRA 1. 1.7. 

''The individual soul cannot be meant by the term 'Self here, 
because salvation is taught of one who relies on that." 

The following text teaches (us) that one who relies on ( or is devoted 
to ) the Reality designated by the term' "Existent", (Sat) (attains) "salva- 
tion",' "For him there is delay, so long as I am not freed, then I shall 
attain (Brahman)" (Chand. 6.14.2.). 

Hence, neither Pradhana nor the individual soul is designated by the 
word 'Existent* (Sat). The Samkhyas, also, who take Pradhana to be the 



is not the cause of the Universe 55 

fcause, do not hold that one who relies on ( or is devoted to ) that ( viz. 
Pradhana ) (attains) salvation, for ( according to them Pradhana ) is to be 
abandoned. Nor can one who relies on ( or is devoted to ) the individual 
soul (attain salvation), fqr ( Scripture definitely ) prohibits this. Cf. the 
passage : "Siva alone who brings all auspiciousuess ip to be worshipped, 
giving up everyone else besides him". (Atharva-Sihka 2). 

He again, makes clear the reason for which Pradhana is to be 
rejected here. 

SUTRA 1. 1. 8. 

'And ( Pradhana cannot be denoted by the farms 'Existent*. 'Self 
and the rest ), because there is no (Scriptural) statement of its having to 
be abondoned". 

If Pradhaua, were really meant here, then (Scripture) would have 
also indicated that it is to be rejected. In the passage : "That thouart" 
(Chand.6.8.7. etc.), it (the Self) is recommended to be worshipped as a 
means to salvation^ 1 ) So the only proper view is that Pradhana is not 
( the Existent and the Self ). 

Moreover, to take (Pradhana as the cause) will give rise to contradic- 
tions. So, (the Author says : ). 

SUTRA 1. 1. 9. 

"Pradhana cannot be the cause of the world, on account of the 
contradiction of the initial proposition." 

For this reason also, Pradhana is not denoted by the word 'Existent', 
(Sat) viz. because the initial proposition, viz. that through the knowledge 
of One, there is the knowledge of all, will come to be contradicted. In the 
introductory passage : "Through which the unheard becomes heard" 
(Chand.6. 1.2.) and so on, it is said that through the knowledge of that 
Reality designated by the word 'Existent' (Sat), there is the knowledge of 
all things, sentient and non-sentient, these being its effects* If Pra- 
dhana be taken as the cause, then this will come to be contradicted, as the 
sentient cannot have Pradhana as their cause. 



(1) If Pradhana were the "Existent" and the "Self, then Scripture 
should, surely, have taught us that the Existent and the Self, as same as 
the physical Pradhana, should be given up. But there is not only no text 
recommending such a rejection of the Self ; on the contrary, there are 
definite passages enjoining the worship of the Self as the only means to 
salvation. This proves that the Self is not Pradhana. 



S6 Srifc^ttia-Bhasya 1 . . 1 . 10 

Objection 

When Pradhana, the cause, is known, then 'all this', meaning all the 
material objects, its effects, are known ; just as, if the clay is known, its 
effects, viz. pots etc (are all known) ( l ). So, what contradiction is 
involved here ? apprehending this, (the Author says : ) 

Reply 
Pradhana is not the c*use of the Universe 

SUTRA 1. 1. 10. 

"(Pradhana cannot be taken aa the cause of the world), on account 
of (the individual soul's) entrance into itself (during deep sleep)". 

For this reason also, Pradhana is not designated by the word 'Exis- 
tent' (Sat), viz. because in the text ; "Understand from me, my dear, the 
state of sleep. When this person sleeps here, as we say, my dear, then 
he comes to be united with the Existent, he has entered into his own. 
Hence they say of him : 'He sleeps 1 , for he has entered into his own*', 
(Chand. 6.8.1.), it is stated that the conscious soul, united with the 
Existent, enters into its own self. "Entrance" means dissolution. 
The dissolution of the conscious soul into the unconscious Pradhana does 
not stand to reason. Hence, Pradhana cannot be designated as the 
, 'Existent' (Sat). 

By the term 'Existent' the Supreme Lord alone is designated, and 
not Pradhana this (the Author) says thus : 



(1) In Chand. 6.1., introducing the famous discourse on 'Tatt- 
vamasi' there is a discourse on the knowledge of all through the knowledge 
of one. Here, it is said that if the material cause is known, then all its 
effects, which are but the material cause in essence, are also known. Now 
Pradhana, according to the Samkhyas themselves, is the cause of only the 
non-sentient and not of the sentient. Hence, through knowing Pradhana, 
only all the material objects can be known, but never the souls. But it is 
said in Chand, that if one knows the Self, one knows all. So, here Pra- 
dhana cannot be meant by the term 'Self, as, through knowing Pradhana 
one cannot possibly know all things. 

Now, it may be pointed cut that here 'all' simply means all 

material objects, and not the souls. In this sense, Pradhana may be 

taken to be the cause, without giving rise to any contradiction. This 
view is refuted in the next Sfttra. 



Brahmati alone is the Cause of the World 57 

SUTRA 1. 1. 11 

"Brahman alone is the cause of the Universality of kaowing (Him 
as the cause )." 

Just as in this Upanisad ( viz. the Chandogya ), the word 'Existent* 
(Sat) is universally known to be referring to the Supreme L,ord, so in other 
Scriptures no less. Cf. the passage : "The person, verily, is Rudra, exis- 
tent and great obeisance to Him, obeisance." (MahanSr. 13.2.). Hence, 
the Supreme Lord alone is denoted by the word 'Existent' ( Sat ). 

In this very Upanisad, it is clearly stated that all things originate 
from the Self. Thus, ( the Author ) says : 

SUTRA 1. 1. 12 

''(Brahman alone is the cause of the world), also because ( this is ) 
definitely stated in Scripture." 

Here, too, it is stated, beginning : "From the Self the vital breath, 
from the Self the ether/' and "From the Self all this" ( Chand. 7.26.1.). 
Hence it is proved that Brahman, being the cause of the world, is desig- 
nated by the term 'Existent* (Sat), and not Pradhana. 

Here ends the Section entitled "He sees" (5). 



Adhikarana 6 : Ihe Section entitled "That which consists of Bliss'' 
(Sutras 1316). 

Above, after proving that Brahman's characterising mark. viz. 
Creatorship and the rest of the world, can be known only through the 
Scriptures ; then apprehending that Pradhaiia of the Tantrikas may be 
taken ( as such a creator), ( the author ) showed that ( as the creator must 
be ) a conscious being, so (Pradhana) cannot be taken to be ( the creator ). 
Just as the unconscious, Pradhana, so the conscious individual soul Jiva 
too, cannot be taken to be ( the creator ) -to prove this, (the author) begins 
another Section. 

SUTRA 1. 1. 13. 

"(Brahman is) that which consists of bliss, on account of 
repetition'. 

Beginning : "From Him, verily, from this Self, the ether has 
originated*' ( Tait. 2. 1. ), and continuing : "Verily, other than and within 
8 



58 6rikafltha-BhS$ya 1. 1. 13. 

that which consists of Understanding ( VijnSna ) is the Self that con- 
sists of bliss" ( Ananda ). ( Tait. 2. 5. ), the Chapter on Bliss ( in the 
Tattirtya Upanisad ) speaks of a Self consisting of Bliss, which, as the 
cause of all things like the ether etc., is inside the sheaths of the selves 
consisting of food and the rest, and ( as such ) concealed. Here, the 
doubt is as to whether this Self consisting of Bliss is the individual soul 
or the Supreme Lord. 

Prima Facie View. 

The Prima Facie view is that it is the individual soul, as its attri- 
butes are mentioned here. Thus, the passage : "From the earth, herbs ; 
from herbs, food : from food, semen ; from semen, the person" ( Tait 2. 1.) 
designates the rive parts of the body. ( l ) Here, 'the self consisting of 
food' means the body ; 'that consisting of the vital-breath' means the 
vital-breath inside the body ; 'that consisting of mind' means the mind 
inside the vital-breath ; 'that consisting of understanding' means the 
Buddhi inside the mind ; and 'the self consisting of bliss' means the 
individual soul, the substratum of all these. The imaginning of the head 
etc. of the selves consisting of food and so on serve the purpose of 
meditation. It said that if food and the rest are worshipped as Brahman, 
then that would lead to prosperity in respect of food and the rest. If it 
be said How can the individual soul, merged as it is in the sea of 
suffering, be called 'Consisting of bliss' ( Ananda-maya ) ? We reply : 
Not so ; for the Supreme Brahman is here designated by the term 
'Bliss' ( Ananda ) in the passage : "Brahman is bliss" ( Tait. 3. 6. ), (So, 
He cannot be, again, designated by the word 'consisting of bliss') Ananda- 
maya'. As the suffix 'mayat' implies modification, His effect, the 
individual soul alone is 'that which consists of bliss' ( Anandamaya ). If 
the ever-auspicious Brahman be admitted to be 'Ananda-maya', then the 
prayer for purity, as contained in the following passage, becomes mean- 
ingless, viz. "May my (sheaths) consisting of food, consisting of vital- 
breath, consisting of mind, consisting of understanding and consisting of 
bliss, be purified" ( Mahsnar. 20-21 ). Hence, the self consisting of bliss 
is the individual soul alone, not the Supreme Lord. 



(1) viz. head, right wing, left wing, middle of the body and tail. 
Cf. Tait. 2. Here, five kinds of souls are spoken of : Anna-maya, 
Prana-mava, Mana-maya, VijnSna-maya, and Ananda-maya, or souls 
consisting of food, vital-breath, mind, understanding and bliss. Each 
succeeding one is subtler than and inside each preceding one. Further, 
each is represented as a bird, with the above five parts. E. g. in the 
first case, it is said : The PrUna is its head ; the VySna, the right wing ; 
the Apana, the left wing ; space, the body ; the earth, the tail. 



Brahman is Anandamaya 99 

Reply 

Brahman is Anandamaya. 

To this, we reply : This Self consisting of Bliss is none but the 
Supreme Lord. Why ? Because this ( word ) 'Bliss' has been repeated 
many times, as being unsurpassable, ( in reference to Brahman ). How 
do you know this ? Beginning : "This is an investigation into Bites" 
( Tait. 2. 8. ), then stating that from the bliss of a man upto that of 
Prajapati, each succeeding one is a hundred time more than each preced- 
ing one ( ] ), Scripture, goes on to declare repeatedly that the bliss of 
Brahman is unsurpassable and the highest, thus : "This is one bliss of 
Brahman" ( Tait. 2. 9. ), and so on. A transmigratory soul cannot possess 
such an unsurpassable bliss. 

To your allegation that if Brahman be Ananda-maya, then how can 
He, the ever-pure, pray for purification ? we reply : Just as the 
purification of the brilliantly manifested moon simply means a removal of 
the clouds covering it, so the purification of that ever-pure Being is 
nothing but the removal of the filth that covers Him ( 9 ). Hence, the Self 
consisting of Bliss is none but the Supreme Lord. 

Objection 

Brahman is said to be 'Bliss' (Ananda), 'that which consists of 
bliss', (Ananda-maya) is a modification of 'bliss', as the suffix 'Mayat' 
implies modification. If the Ananda-maya be taken to be Isvara or the 
Lord, then Isvara becomes some one other than Brahman (who can have 
no modification whatsoever). In that case, the Lord being subject to 
modifications, becomes non-eternal. 

Reply 

Apprehending the above objection, ( the author) replies, thus : 

SUTRA 1. 1. 14. 

"if it be objected that on account of the word ('Ananda-xnavaO 
denoting modification (Brahman is) not (denoted by this term", (we 
reply : ) No, on account of abundance". 



(1) See above P. 23. fn. (1) underfSfi. 1. 1. 2. 

(2) When the moon becomes covered by dark clouds, it itself 
does not really lose its purity or light. Still, as we fail to see it, we pray : 
'Let this dark, cloud-covered mcon be pure'. In the same manner, due 
to the filth present in our own selves, we fail to see or realise the Lord. 
That is why we pray : 'Let the Lord who consists of Bliss, be pure'. But 
this does not meau that : He Himself has become impure, cf. 6 M. D, 



60 rikant,ha-Bhasya 1. 1. 15. 

Objection 

Just as the selves consisting of food and so on are modifica- 
tions of food and the rest, so the self consisting of bliss (Ananda-maya) 
is a modification of bliss, as an earthen (Mrnmaya) jar is a modification 
of the earth. Hence, as modification is impossible on the part of the 
Supreme Lord, (the Ananda-maya) is none but the individual self. 

Reply 
Jiva is not Ananda-maya 

We reply : No, for the suffix 'Mayat* means ''abundance". In the 
cases of the selves consisting of food (Anna-Maya), vital-breath (Prana- 
maya) and mind (Mana-maya) , the suffix 'mayat' means modification 
(But) in the case of the self consisting of understanding (Vijnana-maya) 
it means abundance, i. e. the individual soul having an abundance of 
understanding. In the case of the self consisting of Bliss, too (Ananda- 
maya), it means the Supreme Lord having an abundance of Bliss. 

Apprehending the objection that as the suffix 'Mayat' is used in 
the sense of modification in that Section, it should properly be taken 
in that sense, here too (the Author) says : 

SUTRA 1. 1. 15 

"And on account of the'designation of the cause of that" 

In the Scriptural text : "For, verily, this alone causes bliss" (Tait. 
2. 7. ), the Self consisting of Bliss (Ananda-maya) is designated as the 
cause of the bliss of the individual souls. He alone who himself possesses 
abundant bliss can cause bliss to others. Hence, the Supreme Lord 
alone is the Self consisting of Bliss (Ananda-maya). 

Objection 

Although (you) say that the Supreme Lord, having abundant 
bliss, is the Self consisting of Bliss, yet (really) it is known that such 
a self is other than Brahman, for Brahman is known to be the foundation 
of this (Ananda-maya)( l ). If Brahman be different from the Supreme 
Lord, then as dependent (on the latter). He cannot be taken to be the 
cause of the world ( 9 ). Hence, the view that (the Ananda-maya) is the 
individual soul, alone stands to reason. 

(1) cf. Tait. 2/5. Here the different parts of the Self consisting 
of bliss (Ananda-maya) are described thus : "Pleasure is its head ; delight, 
the right wing ; great delight, the left wing ; bliss, the body : Brahman 
the tail, the foundation". Here, Brahman being the tail and foundation 
of Ananda-maya cannot be identical with it. 

(2) As shown above, Brahman, being the tail of the Self consis- 



A Second Alternative Interpretation 61 

Reply 

To this, (the Author) replies thus : 

Brahman is Ananda-maya 
SUTRA 1. 1. 16. 

"And the Mantra-described one (viz, Brahman) is celebrated (to be 
consisting of bliss)". 

That very one who is stated in the Mantra-text, viz. "Brahman is 
truth, knowledge and infinite" (Tait. 2. 1.) is 'celebrated' as the Self consis- 
ting of Bliss, because of possessing an abundance of bliss, in the the 
passage: "Other than and inside that is the Self consisting of bliss" 
(Tait 2. 5.), In the text : "Brahman is the tail, the foundation" (Tait. 2. 5.) 
the word 'Brahman' means the Praiiava. As this stands for the Supreme 
Lord, it can be taken as the foundation. 

A Second Alternative Interpretation of the Section. 

Here some say : Scripture declares that the Great Ether 
( ParamSkasa ), the material cause ( Prkrti ), is the self consisting of bliss, 
and not the Supreme Brahman, greater than the Universe and its 
instrumental cause, designated in the text "Truth, knowlede and infinite" 
(Tait. 2. 1.) 

The 1 Self consisting of Bliss, declared to be the material cause of the 
ether and the rest of the universe in the passage : "From this, verily, 
from this self, the ether has originated" ( Tait. 2. 1. ), is the Great Ether. 
That ( the self consisting of bliss is ) the Great Ether, is known from the 
text : "If there were not this bliss in the ether" (Tait, 2. 7. 1.). From the 
text : "Brahman is the tail, the foundation" ( Tait. 2. 5. ), Brahman is 
known to be the foundation of this bliss or the ether. Hence, in the text : 
"That is one bliss of Brahman" ( Tait. 2. 8 ) ( the word 'Brahman' means 
the ether ), it having Brahman as its substratum. Again, "He knows 
that Brahman is bliss. From bliss, verily, all these beings are born ; 
through bliss, they live, when born ; to bliss they return after death and 
enter" ( Tait. 3. 6. ), ( the ether ) is declared to be the material cause of all 
beings. Here in the text : "Brahman is bliss" bliss is designated as Brahman, 
because it is identical with Him as His attribute. ( l ) In the text : ''This is 
the knowledge of Bhrgu VsrunI, established in the highest Heaven, ( Tait. 



ting of bliss, cannot be identical with it. Now, if this Self be the 
Supreme Lord, then Brahman becomes different from Him, which is 
absurd, as the two are the same. So the Self consisting of bliss is not 
the Lord, but the Jlva. This is the Prima Facie view. 

(1) According to this Second view, the word 'Auandamaya' 
stands for the Great Ether, the primary material cause of the whole 



62 rikantha-Bhasya 1. 1. 16. 

3. 6. ), it is said that the knowledgeof Bhrgu Varuna ended with that of 
the Great Ether, consisting in sentience, a Supreme Power ( of Brahman ), 
the primary material cause of the universe, supreme bliss in essence, and 
an attribute of Brahman. Hence, the Great Power, the Great Ether, an 
attribute of Brahman and the primary material cause is designated to be 
the Self consisting of Bliss (Ananda-maya). The Supreme Brahman being 
the substance ( possessing this great Ether or Auauda-maya as His 
attribute ), is declared to be its Foundation. The self consisting of 
understanding is the individual soul worshipping Him. As the Ananda- 
maya, an attribute, and a power ( of Brahman ) is non-different from 
Brahman, the Substance, the Foundation, so the Self consisting of Bliss is 
designated as Brahman with this end in view the Author of the 
Aphorism has said "The self consisting of bliss ( is Brahman ), on account 
of repetition" ( Br. Sii. 1. 5. 13. ) 

A Third Alternative interpretation of the Section. 

Others again say : As in the Scriptural text : "On departing from 
this world, he proceeds to that self which consists of food" ( Tait. 2. 8 ). (*) 
the selves consisting of food and the rest are designated by the term 'self 
standing for a conscious being ; and also as it is known that the freed soul 
leaving the world goes to higher and higher ( places ), so these selves 
consisting of food and the rest must be, from all points of view, the five 
sentient presiding deities of the five elements, inferred from food and the 
rest, or the Persons who are the causes ( of these five elements ), viz. 
Brahma, Visiiu, Rudra, Isvara or Sadaslva, Brahman denoted by the 
word 'Supreme 6iva', who is the cause of even Sadasiva or the self 
consisting of bliss, and the substratum of the selves consisting of food and 
the rest, is described as "The foundation" ( Tait. 2. 5. ). ( He ) being non- 
different ( from Brahman ), Brahman is designated by the term 'consisting 
of bliss*. So, in every case, the Self consisting of Bliss is the Supreme 
Lord this is established. 

Here ends the Section entitled ''That which consists of Bliss'' (6). 



world. It is also designated by the word 'Ananda'. Sometimes, of course, 
it is found that the term 'Ananda' has been applied to Brahman. But in 
all those passages, the word 'Brahman' means the Great Ether. Brahman 
is the substratum, the great Ether grounded on Him ; Brahman is the 
substance, the Great fither His attribute. And, the ground and 
grounded, the substance and its attribute being identical, a word designa- 
ting the first may very well mean the second too. 

(1) The whole text is : 'He who knows this, on departing from this 
world, goes to the self consisting of food, goes to the self consisting of 
vital-breath, goes to the self consisting of mind, goes to the self consisting 
of understanding, goes to the self consisting of blisg'. ( TaiU 2. & ) 



Adhikarana 7 : The Section entitled 'Inappropriateness of the 
Other' (autras. 17-20) 

It has been established above that ( all the Scriptural texts ) are in 
concordance with regard to Brahman, the Supreme Siva (Br. Stt.l. 1.4.). 
It has, also, been proved that the .special characterising marks (of Brah- 
man), viz. Creatorhood and the rest of the world ( as mentioned in 
Br. Sxi. 1.1.3.), cannot belong to Pradhana and Jiva. (Br. Stl. 1.1.5. 
onward). Now, Why does Scripture mention Hiranyagarbha, the smn- 
total of all the Jivas, as the cause and the rest of the world ? to this (the 
Author) replies : 

SUTRA 1.1.17. 

"The other ( viz Hiranyagarhha ) (is) not (the cause of the world) 
on account of inappivpriatenesa". 

The following text of the Mahopauisad forms the topic (treated in 
this Section), viz. "Procreated from whom the procreatess (i. e. Prakrti) 
procreated creatures on earth by means of water ; who entered into herbs, 
into men, into beasts, into all beings, moving on non-moving' (Mah- 
anar,1.4.). Here, a doubt arises as to whether the Person, declared by the 
Scriptural text to be the cause of the procreatress of the world, is the 
Supreme Lord, or some one else. 

Prima Facie View 

The Prima Facie View is that He is Hiranyagarbha. Why ? Be- 
cause there are marks (to indicate him). Thus, from the following Purana 
passage, it is known that Brahman lies down on the ocean, viz, "When 
the three worlds are reduced to one ocean (*), Brahma or Narayanna, having 
a bed of serpent and nourished by the swallowing of the three worlds, lies 
down." The same mark ( of lying down on the ocean ) is mentioned by a 
text here ( i. e. in the Mahanarayana ) too thus : "Whom the wise weave 
(i. e. meditate on) as (lying on) the ocean when (the world conies to) an 
end'. (Mahanr. 1.3.)( 8 ). 

From the introductory text, "Prajapati moves about inside at the end" 
(Mahanar. 1. 1.), He (viz. Hiraijyagarbha) alone is known to be entering 
into every thing. From the concluding text too, 'The Creator created, 
just as before, the sun and the moon, Heaven and earth' (Mahanar. 5. 7.) 

(1) i. e. during Pralaya. 

(2) The real text here is : *Yadanta\i-samudre Kavayahi Vadauti', 
instead of 'Yamantafe Vayanti'. 



64 6nkanUia-Bhasya i. i. 17. 

it is known that he aloue is the cause. Hence, it is but proper to hold 
that Hiranyagarbha, established by the 'Beginning' as well as the End,0) 
also possesses the attributes mentioned in the middle (of the Section).(*) 
Moreover, the coiicl tiding portion of another text proves this : "Hirany- 
garbha has sprung forth from water" (Mahanar. 1. 12.). The phrase 'sprung 
forth from water' refers to none but Prajapati, in accordance with the text : 
"Prajapati moves about inside at the end" (Mahanar. 1.1.). Cf. also the 
texts : "Hiranyagarbha existed in the beginning". "Verily, Prajapati is 
Hiranyagarbha". Hence, Hiranyagarbha alone is established here as the 
procreator of the world and so on. 

Reply 
Hiranyagarbha is not the Creator. 

To this, we reply : Hiranyagarbha, "O her' 5 than, i. e. different from, 
the Supreme Lord is "no " the topic here ; for the attributes of the 
Supreme Lord, such as, being the cause of the procreatress of the world 
(viz Prakrti) and so on, do not fit in on his part. Beginning : "From 
whom is procreated the procreatress of the world" (Mahanar 1. 4.), the text 
continues : "There is no one who is more minute than He, He who is 
higher than the highest, greater than the great ; He who is one, unmani- 
fest, having infinite forms, the whole universe, ancient, beyond darkness" 
(Mahanar. 1. 5.). From this, it is known that He who is the cause of the 
procreatress of the world, is the best among all, and 'higher' than 'darkness' 
or Prakrti. All this is not possible on the part of Hiranyagarbha, who 
himself is included in the universe. Moreover, in the text: "Those who 
know this, immortal do they become' (Mahanar. 1. 11.), it is declared that 
immortality or salvation results from knowledge regarding Him. This, 
too, is not possible in the case of Hiranyagarbha. It is a special mark of 
the Supreme Lord that He is the cause of Salvation, in accordance 
with the text : "When men will roll up the sky as if it were a 
piece of leather,( f ) then there will be an end to suffering (even) without 
knowing 6iva (vet. 6. 20.).( 4 ) 

Your argument that (Hiranyagarbha) is established by the 
'Beginning' as well by the 'End', is not to the point. As the words 
Trajapati' and 'Creator* (Dhsta) do not fit in the case of Hiranyagarbha, 
they are not applicable to him ; but they apply only to the Lord 
of all creatures (Praja), the cause of the world, the Supreme Lord. In 



(1) See P. 39. 

(2) viz. the attributes of lying down on the ocean etc. 

(3) i. e. When impossible will become possible. 

(4) See P. 49 fn. (2) above. End of Sil 1. 1. 4. 



Hiranyagarbha is not the cause 6S 

both cases the Supreme Lord alone is referred to in the passage : 
"Sprung forth from water" (Mahanar. 1. 12.). For, in accordance with 
the texts : "Who is the Lord of the bipeds and the quadrupeds' (Svet. 4, 13.), 
"Having the colour of the sun, beyond darkness' (6vet. 3. 8.), His charcter- 
sing mark is that He is the Lord of the Universe and also beyond it. 
Hence, as (Prajapati is ) the cause and the rest of the world, the Supreme 
Lord alone is denoted by the word 'Prajapati', and not Hiranyagarbha, 

Hiranyagarbha being non-different from the Supreme Lord, can 
very well be the cause and the rest of the world apprehending this, 
(the Author) says : 

SUTRA 1. 1. 18. 

"And on account of the designation of difference, (Hiranyagarbha 
s not identical with the Lord)". 

In this Mahopanisad, the difference between the Supreme Lord 
and Hiranyagarbha, the former being the cause, latter His effect, is 
designated thus : "He, higher than the Universe, Rudra, the Great Sage, 
who formerly saw Hiranyagarbha, the first among the gods, being born'* 
(Mahanaf. 10. 3.) ( l ). 

Hence, it is established that the Lord is the Cause of the entire un- 
verse, including Hiranyagarbha. 

(The Author) deals with further objections, thus : 

SUTRA 1. 1. 19. 

"And, ( even ) on account of desire ( i. e. in spite of the fact that 
Hiranyagarbha is said to have desired to create the world ), ( his being 
the creator ) is not dependent on reasoning (i. e. does not stand to reason) 
(because it is the Lord Himself who created the world in the character 
of Hiranyagarbha )". 

In all the Scriptural texts like : "Prajapati desired : 'Let me create 
creatures' (Tait. Sam. 3. 1. L), Hiranyagarbha's desire for creating the 
world is declared. But still, "there cannot be any dependence on reaion", 
i. e. there cannot be any rational grounds, for taking him as the cause of 
the world, as his desire refers to only the intermediate creations (*). (Or, 
rather) it is the Supreme Lord alone, who as Hiranyagarbha, is respon- 

(1) See under Br. Su. 1. 1. 3., P. 32. 

(2) Brahman is the Primary Creator, as He alone is the Cause of 
of Prakrti, the root Cause of the material world. But later on, having 
created Hiranyagarbha, He delegates the creation of different objects 
to him. 

9 



. 1. 20 

siblfe for these intermediate creations (no less). This (the Author) will 
make clear in the Aphorism : "But the making of names and forms (is the 
business) of Him who renders Himself tripartite, on account of teaching" 
(Br,6fi. 2, 4. 20,). 

Objection 

In the Scriptural text : "Let me enter into these three divinities 
(viz. fire, water and food) with this living soul, and manifest name and 
form" (Chand. 6. 3. 2.), it is said that the Supreme Lord entered the 
universe as Hiranyagarbha, and thereby created names and forms. Hence, 
it must be admitted that these two (viz. Brahman and Hiranyagarbha) 
are non-different. 

Reply 
To this, ( the Author) says : 

Hiranyagarbha is not the Cause of the Universe 

SUTRA 1. 1, 20. 

"in this (I. e. in the Mahan&rayana Upanisad) ( cripture) teaches 
his (i. e. Hiranyagarbha's) connection wi h that (viz the Supreme Lord).* 

"In this" Upanisad, the Mantra portion "teaches" "his" i. e. Hiranya- 
garbha's "connection with that", i.e. connection with the Supreme Lord 
as His part, thus : "The Lord of Brahma", "the Lord of Brahman" 
( MahanSr. 17. 5. ). Hence, it is established that the Supreme Lord alone 
is the Cause of the world, Hiranyagarbha is His part. 

Here ends the Section entitled "inappropriateness of the Other" (7). 



Adhikarana8: The Section entitled "That wh ! ch is Within". 
(Sutras 2 122). 

Thus, by the arguments contained in the prior Sections, it has 
been established that the Supreme Brahman is 6iva, omniscient, eternally 
satisfied, possessing eternal knowledge, self-dependent, having non- 
hidden powers, having infinite powers ( l ), the two-fold ( material and 
efficient ) cause of the whole universe, the sole topic of all the Upani- 
sads that are in concordance ( with regard to Him alone ), self-manifest, 
possessing the whole world (as His Svagata-Bhedas or internal differences ), 

(1) For explanation, see under Su. 1. 1. 2., Pp. 22. 



Prima Facie View 67 

without a second, existence, consciousness and bliss in essence, the cause 
of the severance of the noose of transmigratory existence, and different 
from the sentient and the non-sentient. Now ( the Author ) begins this 
Section for showing the form in which He is to be conceived by His 
devotees a form that is, ( so to speak ), an antidote to ( the disease of ) 
earthly existence. 

SUTRA 1. 1. 21. 

'That which s within ( the sun ) (is no ,* but the Supra fie Lord ) 
on account of the teaching cf His qualities/' 

The following text mentioned in the Chandogya forms the topic 
treated here, viz. "Now, this Golden Person, who is seen within the sun, 
has a golden beard and golden hair, and is golden through and through, 
right to the finger-nail tips. His two eyes are like a lotus, full-blown 
by the sun", ( Chand. 1. 6. 6-7 ). A doubt may be raised here as to 
whether this Golden Person inside the sun is the Supreme Lord, or ano- 
ther Divinity. 

Prima Facie V iew 

It is not possible that the Supreme Lord, who is the substratum 
of all and present in all, should be inside the sun and golden in nature. 
Even if it be admitted that He assumes a form voluntarily ( for enabling 
the devotees to meditate on Him ), still He must be three-eyed ; but that 
is not found here, as the text : "His two eyes are like a lotus, full- 
blown by the sun," speaks of two eyes only. Or rather, as in the case 
of the souls, subject to transmigratory existence, so .in the case of the 
Supreme Lord too, ( His ) body, though assumed voluntarily, is sure 
to cause miseries on His part. If one happens to come into contact 
with fire voluntarily, still then it by nature burns (him) ( l ). Hence, 
to hold that the Supreme Lord can come to be connected with a body, 
does not stand to reason. Hence, this ( Golden person ) must be another 
Divinity, not the Supreme Lord. this is the Prima Facie view. 

(1) A may come to be connected with B, either voluntarily or 
involuntarily. But that does not change the nature of B or its effect on 
A, e. g. a man may come to touch fire either voluntarily or involuntarily. 
But in both the cases, fire burns him in exactly the same manner. In 
the same manner, whether the Lord assumes a body voluntarily or 
involuntarily does not matter at all the very fact that. He has come to 
be connected with a body proves that He too is subject to all the physical 
ailments. This is the Prima Facie View. 



68 jSrika^tha-Bhasya 1. 1. 21 

Reply 
The Golden Person is Brahman. 

But the Correct Conclusion is that He is none but the Supreme 
Lord. Why ? "(hraccount of the teaching of His qualities." Qualities 
like, lordship over all worlds and desires, freedom from all sins and so on, 
mentioned in the passages : "He alone lords it over all worlds, all desires" 
( Chand. 1. 6. 8. ) (*), "His name is High, ( because ) He has risen above 
all sins" ( Chand. 1. 6. 7. ), belong to the Supreme Lord, in accordance 
with the texts : "For, verily, Rudra is One they do not stand for a 
second, who rule all the worlds with ( their ) ruling powers' 7 , ( 6vet. 3. 2. ), 
"The One among the many who grants desires'" (Svet. 6. 13. )and so on. 

Your view viz. 'It is not possible that the Supreme Lord, who is 
the substratum of all and present in all, should be inside the sun' does 
not prove any inconsistency ( in our view ). The Supreme Lord who is 
the substratum of all and present in all, assumes a golden form for favour- 
ing the devotees, and lives inside the disc of the sun. Through His con- 
nection with a body, the Supreme Lord does not become subject to trans- 
migratory existence, like ourselves. The Holy Scripture itself proves that 
He is connected with a body, (yet) free from all sins. We depend only on 
the authority of Scriptures, but do not give any importance to reasoning. 
Even fire, when connected with an object possessing the power ( of neu- 
tralising its effect ) fails to burn it ( 2 ;. The mention of two eyes of the 
Supreme Lord in the text : "His two eyes are like a lotus, full-blown by 
the sun" ( Chand. 1.6.7.), is simply meant for indicating ( their) similarity 
to the lotus, but not for denying the third eye. Thus, when it is said 
about a Brahmin having three sons that 'His two sons are like fire', the 
use of the dual number does not deny the existence of the third son, but 
only implies the similarity of two sons to fire. The same is the case 
here. 

(The words "Lotus, full-blown by the sun" or "Kapyasam Pu^arikain" 
are to be explained as follows : ) The word 'Kapi' means one who drinks 

(1) Quotation wrong. 

(2) Mere connection of A with B does not imply that B will produce 
its appropriate effect on A. If A possesses a special power to neutralise 
the effect of B, B will fail to produce any effect on A. e.g. a piece of paper 
comes into contact with fire, and fire at once burns it. But water comes 
into contact with fire, but fire fails to burn it. In the same manner, 
when a Jiva comes to have a body, it becomes subject to all physical ail- 
ments, not so the Lord* 



The Sun is not the Golden Person 69 

(Pivati) the water ( Kam), i.e. the sun, a lotus full-blown by such a sun ( l ). 
The two eyes of the Supreme I^ord shine like such a lotus. But the third 
eye being closed is not like a full-blown lotus, but like a closed lotus this 
is the implication. 

Objection 

As from the text : "The cow-herds and the cow-herdesses saw Him, 
the Tawny Person, having a blue neck roaming forth ( through the sky ). 
He was thus seen by the whole world, and made us all happy" (Tait. 
Sam. 4-5-1), it is known that the Supreme L,ord, having a blue neck, can 
be seen by every one ; and as from the text : "The sun, with its disc illu- 
mined by its own rays, has three eyes", it is known that it ( the sun ) pos- 
sesses three eyes, the sun itself is the directly perceivable Supreme Lord, 
inside the disc of the rays. Otherwise, why should it ( the sun ) be said 
to be possessing a blue neck and three eyes ? Further, the text : "This 
sun is Brahman" ( Tait. Ar. 2. 2.) designates (the sun) as Brahman. Hence, 
the Golden Person, mentioned as within the sun (Chand. 1. 6.6.) is none 
but the sun inside the disc. 

Reply 

To this, ( the Author ) replies : 

The Sun it not the Golden Person. 

SUTRA 1. 1. 22. 

"And on account of the designation of -difference, ( the Golden 
Person is ) other than ( the sun-god )" 



(1) The phrase 'Kapyasam Pundarikam' has become famous as 
eliciting forth the first manifestation of the genius of Ramanuja. It is 
said that when Ramanuja was studying the Chandogya Upanisad with the 
commentary of ^amkara, he was struck by the wrong ( as he thought ), 
interpretation of the above, phrase as given by 6amkara. 6amkara explains 
it thus : 'Kapifr (Vanarab) asyate (upavisyate) anena, iti asam ; Kapeb asam 
(pucchadhobhagab ), Kapyasatn. Kapi means a monkey, asam means a 
tail on which one sits. Hence Kapyasam means the tail of a monkey. 
Thus, the whole phrase means 'A lotus ( red like ) the tail of a monkey.' 

But Ramanuja interprets the phrase thus : 'Kam ( Jalam ) pivati iti 
Kapifr ( Surya ) ; tena asyate ( Vikasitam kriyate ) iti kapyasam (Surya- 
kirana-prasphutitam. 'Kapi means the sun that drinks (pivati) water 
{Kam), Asam means full-blown. Hence, the whole phrase means : 'A 
Jbotus full-blown by the un.' 6rlkaotba .accepts this interpretation. 



79 6rika9t,ha-Bha$ya I. 1. 22 

The Supreme Lord, having the form of a Golden Person, is 'other 
than" this individual soul, viz. the sun ( god ), inside the disc, "on account 
of the designation of difference" in the text : "He who, dwelling in the 
sun, is ( yet ) other than the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body 
is the sun, who controls the sun from within He is your soul, the inner 
controller, the immortal" ( Brl.i. 3. 7.>. ). Here, by the word 'immortal* 
Siva has been referred to, in accordance with the text : "All these, verily, 
are the names of the immortal" (Jabala. 3. ) Prom the Jabala Upanisad 
that is concerned with eulogising 6ata-Rudra, we know that ( in the above 
text ), the difference of the Supreme Lord from the sun is designated by 
means of the attributes of unknowability and so on. Hence, the Golden 
Lord is "other than" the individual soul, viz. the sun ( god ). In the 
text : "Having a blue-neck, tawny" ( Tait-Sam. 4. 5. 1. ), it is proved that 
the blue-necked One is the Supreme Lord, inside the sun. As He is the 
soul of this ( viz, the sun ). He has been denoted by the word ( viz. 'sun' ). 

Objection 

The Person inside the sun is not the Supreme Lord, having a blue 
neck, but NarSyana. Thus, all the well-known texts assert that "Narayana, 
inside the disc of the sun, seated on the lotus-seat, is to be meditated 
on". He alone can be properly taken to have eyes like lotuses, as He is 
well-known to be 'lotus-eyed 1 . ( Pundankaksa X What is the use of this 
attempt to prove this to be otherwise ? 

Reply 
Narayana is not the Golden Person. 

We reply : Not so, For, the marks, found to be belonging to the 
Golden Person, which are really the special marks of the Supreme Lord, 
cannot properly belong to such a Narayana. Thus, the above text, forming 
the topic here, being rather doubtful, it is but proper that its real meaning 
should be ascertained by other texts about which there can be no doubt. 
In the Mahopanisad, it is said : "Verily, this sun burns this disc" 
( Mahanar. 12. 2. ). 

Thus the above Scripture first refers to the light of the disc thus : 
"He who, the light, shines forth in this disc" ( Mahanar. 12, 2. ) ; then 
goes on to mention the sun, the presiding deity of the disc, thus : "He who, 
the Person, is inside this disc, the inside the rays" ( Mahanar. 12. 2. ) ; 
then designates the Golden Person as the inner controller of the sun thus : 
"The Golden Person who is inside the sun" ( Mahanaf. 12. 2. ) , then 
designates again, the glory of that ( Person ) having the form of the sun, 
thus; ; "Verily, the sun is vigour, power, might, fame" ( Mahanaf 12, 2. ) ; 
indicates Him a& the Lord of being thus : "Tins Person x* the Lord of 



Brahman is the Ether and the Vital-breath 71 

beings" ( Mahanar. 12. 2. ) ; then, to satisfy the enquiry as to His nature, 
begins : "Everything, verily, is Rudra", ( Mahanar. 12. 2. ) and ends : 
"Obeisance, to one having golden arms, to the Lord of gold, to the husband 
of Ambika, to the husband of Uraa' ( Mahanar. 12. 2. ), Here, through the 
mention of the arms, it is implied that He is golden in form. Hence, it is 
established that the husband of Uma, having a form like gold, is inside 
the disc of the sun. Here, 'having a blue neck', 'being the husband of 
Urna' etc. are special marks, and they cannot be applied to any one other 
than the Suprene L/ord. But, 'having lotus-like eyes' is a common mark, 
and is found even in those who are not' Narayaya. e. g. we speak of 'A 
woman having lotus-like eyes', 'A man having lotus-like eyes.' Hence, a 
general mark is set aside by a special mark. ( l ) "He ( NarSyana ) is to be 
worshipped" this popular maxim is only a figurative statement. Hence, 
it is established that the Holy Supreme Lord, having a form like gold, 
having three eyes, having a blue neck, the husband of Uma', the Lord of 
all worlds and desires, absolutely free from all sins, is inside the sun, is 
denoted by the Gayatrl-mantra, and is to be worshipped by all those who 
desire for Salvation. 

Here ends the Section entitled "1 hat which is Within" ( ). 



Adhikaranas 9 and 10 : The Sections entitled "The Ether" and 
"The Vital-breath" (Sutras 2324). 

Having indicated the supremely auspicioUvS, adorable form of Siva, 
the Supreme Brahman, endowed with the attributes of omniscience and 
the rest ; having then apprehended the objection that His special marks 
may equally belong to some other things, due to conventional usage of 
terms, (the Author) begins two new Sections, thus : 

SUTRA 1. 1. 23. 

"(drahman is denoted by the word) ether, on account of His 
characteristic marks". 



(1) 'Having lotus-like eyes' may belong both to 6iva and Visnu. 
But 'having blue neck' etc. can belong only to 6iva. Hence, from this we 
come to know that the first mark, too, here belongs to 6iva, and not to 
Visnu. 



72 ^rikastka-Bhasya 1. 1. 24 

SUTRA 1. U24. 

Tor this very reason, (Brhman U denoted by the word) vital- 
breath/ 7 

In the Chandogya, there are two texts that form the topic here, viz. 
"All these beings, verily, arise from the ether alone, disappear into the 
ether" (Chand. 1.9.1.) ; "All these beings, verily, enter into the vital-breath 
alone, arise from the vital-breath". (Chand. 1. 11. 5.). Here a doubt 
arises as to whether the terms 'Vital-breath' and 'Ether', designating the 
cause of the origin and dissolution of all beings, refer to the Supreme 
Lord, or to the elemental ether and the vital-breath. 

Prima Facie View 

As from the Scriptural texts : "All these beings, verily, are born from 
the vital-breath ; when born, live through the vital-breath ; on deceasing, 
they enter into breath" (Tail. 3. 3. 1.) ; "From the ether, the air" (Tait. 2. 1.), 
it is known that the vital-breath and the ether are the causes of all beings, 
these two alone are referred to here. 

Replf 
Akaaa and Frana are not cauies of the universe. 

To this, we reply : The Supreme Lord alone is denoted by the words 
'Vital-breath' and 'Ether' "On account of His characteristic marks", such 
as, 'being the cause of all and the rest'. It- is impossible for these two to 
be the cause of all. There the text : "From the vital-breath, verily" 
(Tait. 3, 3. 1.), really implies that Brahman, Bliss in essence, is the Cause, 
and not that the vital-breath is the cause, it is but an explanatory repe- 
tition. As the ether itself is included under the elements, it, too, is indicated 
by the word 'all' ;(*) further, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "The 
ether originated from the Self" (Tait. 2. 1.), all beings arise from the 
Supreme Lord alone. Hence it is concluded that neither the elemental 
ether, nor the elemental vital-breath are causes of all beings. 

If it be asked : Why has the qualifying epithet 'elemental ether' been 
used by you above we reply : That was necessary, as there is another kind 
of ether, viz. the Supreme Ether, which is nothing but the Supreme 
Prakrti, the Cause of all things. But, then, how could you conclude that 
(the ether was) the Supreme Lord ? Because it is non-different (from the 
Lord.) (*) So, this is established, 

He'e end the Section entitled " I he Ether", and "The Vital Breath" 
( 9 and 10 ). 

(1) It haTbeen said in the text that all beings or elements arise from 
the ether. But the elemental ether is itself ore of these elements, So, the 
ether in the text cannot be the elemental ether. 

(2) See under Br. Su. 1. 1. 2. Pp. 2324, also under 1. 1. 16., P, 61. 



Adhikarana 11 : The Section entitled: "The Light" (Sutras 2528). 

It has been established above that the Supreme Brahman, the 
Husband of Uma, the lord of the whole universe, free from the blemishes of 
all faults and desires, an ocean of unsurpassable auspiciousness, 
is inside the disc of the sun. Now, it is said that He is inside other 
places too. 

SUTRA 1. 1. 25. 

"(Brahman is denoted by the word) light, on account of the 
mention of feet". 

In the Chandogya, there is a text that forms the topic treated 
here, viz. "Now the light which shines higher than this Heaven, on 
the backs of all, on the backs of everything, in the highest worlds, 
than which there are no higher that, verily, is the same light which is 
within this person" (Chand, 3. 13. 7.). Here, a doubt arises, viz. whether 
this Supreme Light, declared to be all-pervasive and Heaven, is the 
Supreme Lord, or some thing else. 

Priroa Facie View 

As the word 'Heaven' implies the sky, in the text : "Higher than 
Heaven" etc., the 'light' is proved to be the sun. Or else, as in the text : 
'That, verily, is the same light which is within this person', (the light 
is said) to be inside a person, it is but the fire within the belly. 

Reply 
Brahman is Light 

But the Correct Conlcusion is that in the text "Now, the light which 
shines higher than this Heaven" (Chand. 3. 13. 7.) and so on, the Supreme 
Light, higher than everything, is none but the Supreme Lord. For, in 
the preceding text : ' 'One foot of Him is all beings" (Chand.. 3. 12. 6., Rg. V. 
10. 90. 3.), it has been said that all beings are but one part of this 
light. This is not possible on the parts of the fire within the belly, or 
the sun, both of them being limited. 

Objection 

In the previous text : "The Gayatri, verily, is all this" ( Chand. 
3. 12. 1. ). Gayatri Is referred to as the soul of all. Hence, being in 
the same Section, the text : "One foot of Him is all beings" (Chand. 3.12.6.), 
declares that the entire universe is a part of that (Gayatri). 
10 



74 6rikantha-Bhasya 1. 1. 26. 

Reply 

To this, (the Author) replies : 

SUTRA 1. 1. 26. 

"If it be objected that on account of the mention of the Metre, 
(Brahman is) not (denoted), (then, we reply s) no, on account of the 
declaration of the application of the mind (to Brahman) thu for thus 
it is seen (in other passages too; . 

If it be objected that "On account of the mention of the IV etre 

(Gayatn)" in the previous text : "Ga"yatri, verily, is all this" (Chand. 3. 
12.1.), that alone is referred to here, not the Supreme Lord we reply : It 
is not possible that a mere Metre called Gayatn, should be the soul of all. 
But here, only the similarity of the Supreme Lord with the Gayatn has 
been propounded. Just as the GSyatri, has four feet, consisting as it 
does of four feet, each consisting of six syllables(M, so Brahman, too, has 
four feet. In the same manner, it is found that in another place too, a 
word denoting a Metre is applied even to a different object because of 
the similarity (between them). As for example, in the Samvarga-Vidya, 
beginning : "These five and the other five make ten, and that is the Krta"(*) 
(Chand. 4. 3. 8.), the text goes on to say : "That is the Viraj, the eater of 
food" (Chand. 4. 3. 8.)( 8 ). Similarly, as 'being the soul of all' is a speical 
characteristic mark of the Supreme Lord, the mere fact of occurring in the 
same section has no force ( 4 ). 

(1) Vide the verse : Indrah Sacipati/Balena Plditah/Dus'cyavano 
Vrsa/Samitsu Sasahib/. of. Sri. B. 1. 1. 26. 

(2) Krta is the name of a dice marked with four points. 

(3) The Samvarga-Vidya or the Knowledge concerning the Snatcher- 
unto-itself, taught by Raikva to Janasruti. Vide Chand. 4. 3. Here, it 
it said that the wind and the vital-breath are snatcliers-unto-themselves 
among the gods and the sense-organs respectively. The wind absorbs 
fire, the sun, -the moon and water. The vital-breath absorbs the speech, 
the eye, the ear and the mind. And the wind, together with its four 
kinds of food, viz. fire, the sun, the moon and water these five ; and the 
vital-breath, together with its four kinds of food, viz. speech, the eye, the 
ear and the mind these five, make ten, or the Krta which is called the 
Viraj. Here, the Krta has ten consituent parts, just as the Viraj Metre 
has ten syllables. 

(4) Linga (or special mark) is of a greater force than Prakarana (or 
section, topic). Vide (Pu. Mi. Su. 3. 3. 14.). Here, apparently the topic 
is Gayatn. But the special mark mentioned here, viz. 'being the soul 
of all' definitely proves that the Lord has been referred to here. 



Brafyman is the 1/ight 75 

Hence, the Ivight is none but the Supreme Lord. 

SUTRA 1. 1. 27. 

"And because the designation of the beings and the rest as 
the feet is appropriate (only if Brahman be denoted by the term 
'Gayatri'), this is so". 

The designation, viz. that ( the Gayatrl ) has four feet ; such as, 
beings, earths, body and heart, ( Bhuta, Prthivi, 6anra, Hrdaya ) does 
not fit in on the part of a Metre called Gayatn, but only on that of the 
Supreme Lord. 

Apprehending another objection, ( the Author ) refutes it thus : - 

SUTRA 1. 1. 28. 

'Is it be objected that on account of the difference of teaching* 
( Brahman is ) not ( recognized), ( we reply : ) no, on account of, there 
being no contradiction even i i both cases." 

Objection 

As in the text : "One foot of Him is all beings. The three feet of 
Him are the immortal in the Heaven" ( Chand. 3. 12. 6. ), we find a 
reference to the Heaven, it is not proper to hold that in the text about 
the light ( Chand. 3. 13. 7. ) there is any reference to the Supreme 
Lord. "On account of the difference of teaching", there arises a con- 
tradiction, and because of this, the reference (to Brahman here ) is un- 
reasonable. In the texts : "The three feet of Him are the immortal in 
the Heaven" ( Divi ) ( Chand. 3. 12. 6. ), and "Now, the light that shines 
higher than the Heaven' (Divah)" ( Chand. 3. 13. 7. ), there is a difference 
of teaching, resulting from the difference of case-endings ( l ). Hence, 
there is a contradiction here. 

Reply 
Brahman is the Light. 

We reply : "No, on account of there being no contradiction even 
in both cases", just like the expressions : 'A hawk in the top of the 
tree' ( VrksSgre ), 'A hawk above the top of the tree' (Vrksagrat Paratalj). 

(1) The object referred to in the first text is said to be in the 
Heaven ; while in the second case, it is said to be above Heaven. So, 
how can these texts refer to the same object ( viz. Supreme Lord ), as the 
same object cannot be both in and above the Heaven. This is the Prima 
Facie View. 



76 6rika$tha-Bhasya 1. 1. 29 

In both these cases, what is meant is that (the hawk) is over the tree. 
Iii the same manner, it is meant here that ( the Supreme Lord ) is over 
or higher than the Heaven. Through this mark, it is proved that the 
Supreme Lord alone is the Person mentioned in the Purusa-Sukta (*). 
For, here too, it is stated by the text : "One foot of Him is all beings" 
( Chand. 3. 12. 6. ). Hence, it is established that the Supreme Light 
covering the entire universe by its one part, and shining in the Heaven, is 
the Supreme Lord. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Light (1 1 ). 



Adhikarai;a 12 : The Section entitled "Jn^ra and the Vital-breath* 
(Sutras 29 32). 

It has been said above that the Supreme Lord, designated as an 
object to be directly worshipped in the disc of the Sun-god, is referred 
to that Section as the soul of all. Now, to prove that, as He is the Soul 
of everything, so is nothing besides Him is to be worshipped, (the Author) 
begins new a Section. 

SUTRA 1. 1. 29. 

"( Brahman is denoted by the word ) vital'breath, on account of 
belonging in that way". 

A text of the Kausitaki Upanisad forms the topic treated here. 
The following words of Indra viz. "I am the vital-breath, the intelligent 
self. Worship me as life, as immortality" ( Kausa. 3. 2. ) indicate the 
topic. Here, a doubt arises as to whether the Being indicated here as 
the object to be worshipped and as identical with the vital-breath, is 
Indra or the Supreme Lord. 

Prima Facie View 

From the text : "I am the vital-breath, the intelligent Self. Worship 
me" ( Kaus. 3. 2, ), it is known that the word Vital-breath' directly 
refers to Indra. The text : "Worship me", enjoins worship of that. 
Being. It is appropriate on his (Indra's) part to be the vital-breath as he 
is the preserver of all through rains, as well as to be an object to be 
worshipped by all as he possesses supreme glory. There is a Scriptural 



(1) The text : "One foot of Him is all beings" etc. occurs also in the 
famous Purusa-Sukta of the Rg, V. 10. 90. 3. 



Indra is not the object to be Worshipped 77 

text to this effect : "Indra, the King, who is the Lord of the world". 
Hence, Indra alone has been designated here as the object to be 
worshipped. This is the Prima Facie view. 

Reply 
Brahman is the Vital-breath 

The Correct Conclusion is that, He is the Supreme Lord. Why ? 
Beacuse His special qualities, like 'bliss', 'agelessness', 'immortality', 
'being the intelligent Self and so on, belong to the Being denoted by the 
word 'vital-breath'. Compare the text : "This vital-breath, verily, is the 
intelligent self, bliss, ageless, immortal" (Kaus. 3. 8.). That in the Scrip- 
tural text : "Indra, the king", the word 'Indra' denotes the Supreme Lord, 
is known from the context. 

Apprehending another objection, (the Author) refutes it, thus : 

SUTRA 1. 1.30 

"if it be objected that (Brahman is) not (denoted), on account of the 
self of the speaker being taught, (we reply :) because there is a 
multitude of reference to the self in if. 

Objection 

The Supreme Lord is not the object to be worshipped here. For, 
in the introductory text : "Know me alone. I killed the three-headed son 
of Tvastr, I delivered the Aruninukhas, the ascetics, to the wolves'* 
(Kaus. 3. 1.), it is taught that Indra, the well-known individual soul (Jiva), 
is to be worshipped. Hence, the concluding part (of the text, viz. Kaus. 
3. 8.) should also refer to him. 

Reply 
Indra is not the object to be worshipped 

We reply : This is not proper, For "in it", i. e. in the chapter, right 
from the beginning, there is "a nnultitude of references to the Self'*, i. e. 

a multitude of references to the qualities of the Supreme Lord. Thus, 
in the beginning, in text : "What you consider to be the most beneficial 
for mankind" (Kaus. 3. 1.), the worship of what is the most beneficial is 
mentioned. That is an attribute of the Supreme Lord, as His worship 
alone, the means to Salvation, is the most beneficial of all. In the middle, 
in the text : "He alone makes one, whom He wishes to lead up from these 
worlds, perform good deed. He alone makes one, whom He wishes to 
lead downwards from these worlds, perform evil deed" (Kaus. 3. 8.), He 
is mentioned as the director of all actions. Similarly, in the text : "As 



78 6rfkantha-Bhasya 1. 1. 31. 

of a chariot the rim of the wheel is fixed on the spokes, and the spokes 
are fixed on the naves, even so, these elements of being are fixed on the 
elements of intelligence, and the elements of intelligence are fixed on the 
vital-breath', (Kaus. 3. 8.), (the vital-breath) is said to be the substratum 
of the entire universe consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient. 
And, this is an attribute of the Supreme Lord. Hence, as there is a 
reference to a multitude of the attributes of the Supreme Lord, Indra is 
not the object to be worshipped. 

Apprehending the objection : If Indra being but an individual soul 
(JTva) is not an object to be worshipped, then why should he teach his own 
worship ? (the Author) says : 

SUTRA 1. 1, 31 

"But the instruction (given by Indra about himself) (is justifiable , 
through Scriptural insight, as in the case of Vamadeva". 

As (Indra realised) "thrdugh t criptural insight", i. e. from the 
Scriptural text : "Let me enter these three divinities (viz. fire, water, food) 
with this living soul, and manifest name and form" (Chand. 6. 3. 2.), that 
the Supreme Lord may be denoted by all words, (and) as the Supreme 
Lord was his own body, so Indra (really) taught that the Supreme Lord 
alone, denoted by the word * Indra', is the object to be worshipped. Hence 
the teaching regarding Indra is one about the Supreme Lord. ( ) An 
example is cited, "As in the case of Vamadeva". Vamadeva, too, intuiting 
that the Supreme Self was his soul, declared : "1 was Manuandthe sun" 
(Brh. 1. 4. 10.). The teaching about Indra is of the same kind. 

Or else, through directly realising the truth taught by the Vedanta 
and ( thereby ) conceiving of himself as identical with the essence of 
Brahman, Vamadeva came to attain the nature of Brahman, get rid of the 
sense of narrow egoity due to connection with the body etc., acquire the 
sense of Supreme Selfhood as identical with the universe, and ( thereby ) 
realise his presence in all, ( and that is why ) he declared himself to be 
Manu, the sun and so on constituting the universe. There is no doubt 
that the same was the case with Indra. In the text : "I am the vital- 
breath, the intelligent self" (Kaus. 3. 2.), the Supreme Brahman is referred 
to by the word "vital-breath," as He being bliss in form is the cause of the 
life of all, in accor4auce with the Scriptural text :* "The vital-breath, 

(1) The Lord is immanent in everything of the worldHe is the 
Essence, the Soul, the Cause of all. Hence, in that sense, everything may 
be cJalled the 'Lord', just as clay-jar, clay-plate etc. may be all called 'clay'. 

s, 'the -t<*ra 'Indra' is applicable to the -Lord too. -So toare the 

of4he 



Brahman is the Object to be Worshipped 79 

verily, is the intelligent Self, bliss, ageless, immortal'' ( Kaus. 3. 8. ). In 
the same manner, the assertions made in the texts : "I am Brahman" 
( Brh. 1. 4. 10. ) "Worship me" ( Kaus. 3. 2. ), are due to such a direct 
realisation of Brahman. In the same manner, Krsna and the rest 
instructed Arjuna and others. 

Apprehending another objection, ( the author ) repliis : 

SUTRA 1. 1. 32. 

'If it be objected that on account of the characteristic marks of the 
individual soul and the chief vital-breath, ( Brahman is ) not ( meant ) 
here \ ( we reply ) No, on account of the threefold ness of meditation, 
on account of being referred to ( elsewhere ), on account of ( its ) 
suitability here." 

Objection. 

There is nothing wrong in holding that ( Indra ) who, through the 
worship of Brahman, came to attain the nature of Brahman and get rid of 
the state of a transmigratory soul, taught his own self as the object to be 
worshipped, imbued as he was with this sense of universal selfhood 
through such a direct insight. ( But ) in the texts : "I slew the three- 
headed son of Tvastr" ( Kaus. 3. 1. ), "So long as the vital-breath remains 
in this body, so long does it live" ( Kaus. 3. 2. ), the characteristic marks of 
an individual soul and of the vital-breath ( respectively ) are mentioned. 
Hence, no teaching ( about the Lord ) fits in here. 

Reply 

Brahman is the Object to be worshipped. 

We reply : This cannot be maintained. For, it is but proper that 
the Supreme Lord should be denoted by the words indicating an indivi- 
dual soul ( viz. Indra ) and vital-breath, "On account of the threefoldness 
of meditation." Here, it is meant to be indicated that the Supreme Lord 
is to be worshipped in three ways, viz. in His own nature, in the form of 
the sentient, and in the form of the non-sentient. This is but proper, 
as He, as the soul of the sentient and the non-sentient, is their substratum. 
The worship of the Supreme Lord in His own nature brings about salva- 
tion without delay ; the other two, in time. Hence, it is established that 
here the worship of Indra means that of the Supreme Lord, his soul or 
essence. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Indra and the Vital-breath" (12) 
Here ends the First Quarter of the First Chapter of the Commen- 
tary on the Brahma-Mimamsa, composed by the Saiva Teacher 
Srikantha, 

( According to Srikaitfha, the First Quarter of the First Chapter 
contains 32 Sutras and 12 Adhikarans). 



FIRST CHAPf ER ( Adhyaya) 
fecond Quarter (Pada) 

Adhikarana I. The Section entitled "Celebrity Everywhere" 
(Sutra 1). 

As the Vedanta-texts denoting Brahman are infinite in number, 
so it is impossible to discuss each of these. Hence, only a few that are 
rather doubtful can be investigated into, and other similar texts ascer- 
tained by means of the same reasonings. That is why, only a few texts 
denoting Brahman have been mentioned by the Aphorisms as being in 
concordance in respect of their meanings. Of these, some that are clear 
have been discussed in the First Quarter. Some that are not very clear 
are being now discussed in the Second Quarter. 

SUTRA 1.2. 1. 

"(That which consists of mind is rahman) because of the teaching 
of what is celebrated everywhere". 

In the Chandogya, there is a text that mentions the topic treated 
here, viz. "He who consists of mind, whose body is the vital-breath, 
whose form is light, whose desire is truth (*), whose soul is the ether, 
who contains all works, who contains all desires" (Chand. 3. 14. 2.) and 
so on. Here a doubt arises as to whether the Person mentioned here 
as endowed with the attributes of 'consisting of the mind' and the rest, 
is the Supreme Lord or the indivdual scul. 

Prim a Facie View 

The Prima Facie view is that it is the individual soul. Why ? 
Because it has been mentioned jnst before. In the text : "Verily, a person 
consists of purpose, According as the purpose a person has in this 
world, so does he become on departing from here. (So) let him form 
a purpose" (Chand. 3. 14. 1.), the individual soul that roams about here 
and in other places according to its actions, has already been referred to 
before. The text ; "He who consists of mind" occurs after that. Hence, 
that which is endowed with the attributes of 'consisting of mind' and 
the rest, is the individual soul. "Consisting of mind", "having the vital- 
breath as the body" and so on are the character iatic marks of a transmi- 
gratory soul, and not of the Supreme Lord. "Having true desires" here 

(1) i. e. Whose desires all come true. 



Brahman is Manoinaya and the rest 81 

implies one who has no desire for truth (*). That, too, is to be taken 
as an attribute of a transmigratory soul. Hence, from all points of view, 
that which is endowed with the attributes of "consisting of mind and 
the rest" must be the individual soul, and not the Supreme Lord. 

Reply 
Brahman is Manomaya and the re , 

To this, we reply : The Supreme Lord alone is one endowed 
with the attributes of "consisting of mind and the rest". Why ? For, 
in the introductory text : "All this, verily, is Brahman. Tranquil, let 
one worship it as that from which (all things) emanate, into which 
(they) disappear, in which (they) breathe forth" (Chand. 3. 14. L), the 
Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Lord alone has been taught as the Cause 
of all and as the Object to be worshipped. 

The meaning of the above Scriptural text is as follows : The ori- 
gination, preservation and dissolution of all this are due to Brahman. 
All this is but Brahman, having the form of the sentient and the non- 
sentient tranquil, let one worship such a Brahman. Just as the heaps of 
foam and bubbles, having their origination from, preservation in and 
dissolution into the sea, have the form of the sea, so all things having 
their origination etc. from Brahman, the substratum of powers, have the 
form of Brahman. Nothing besides Him can be perceived. This has 
been definitely declared by the Lord Himself in the Atharvasiras: "I, 
the One, existed in the beginning, I exist ( at present ), I will exist in 
future. There is no one else besides Me" ( Atharvasiras. 1. ). After that, 
He Himself propounds in the text "I am Brahman" ( Atharvasiras. 1. ) 
that the entire Universe is His form. The reason why He should have 
the entire universe as His form is that He entered into it, as stated in 
the text : "He entered into the innermost part" ( Atharvasiras. 1. ). 
Hence, as the origination, preservation and dissolution of this world are 
invariably due to Brahman alone and to none else, so the world is noth- 
ing besides Brahman. The Wise declare : "The entire universe is but 
His power, the Great Lord ( Mahesvara ) is the substratum of powers. 
A power, truly, is of the form of the substratum of powers, and is not 
something different from that. These two ( viz. the Lord and the 
Universe ) are eternally identical in essence, like fire and its power of 
burning. That is why, a power and its substratum are always non- 
different. Hence, ( as the two )' are related as attribute and substance, 
the power of the Supreme Self is also supreme indeed. The burning 
power of fire is not found to be different ( from fire )". In the 

(1) Satya-Samkalpab Sati YathSrthe Asamkalpafo. 
11 



g2 Srikairtha-Bha$ya 1. 2. 2. 

VaytHsaijihita, there is a passage : "All the powers ( manifested 
in the form ), finally, of the earth ( l ) arise from the Reality 
iva. That is pervaded by the same Being, as the pitchers 
and the rest are all pervaded by clay ( f ). Supreme and manifold are His 
powers, of the form of knowledge and bliss. (He) shines in one as 
well as in many forms, like the light of the sun". The following 
Scriptural texts declare that the Supreme Brahman possesses natural, 
infinite powers for creating, ruling and preserving the world. Compare : 
"Supreme is His power, declared to be manifold. Natural is the operation 
of His knowledge and powers" (6vet. 6.8.), "Rudra is one only they do 
not admit a second who lords it over these worlds through His ruling 
powers" (6 vet. 3. 2.), and so on. 

In short, on the authority of Scripture, Smrti, Itihasa, Purana and 
Maxims of the Wise, the Supreme Power, (Paratna-sakti)-- of the form 
of Supreme Glory as consisting in the entire universe of souls and 
matter ; consisting in Supreme Knowledge, Bliss and Existence ; devoid of 
all limitations of space and time, and natural is the very nature and as 
well as an attribute of 6iva, the Supreme Brahman. Without this, the 
Supreme Brahman cannot be Omniscient, Omnipotent, the Cause of all, 
the Controller of all, the Object to be worshipped by all, the Favourer of all, 
the Cause of the supreme goal of all, (viz. salvation) and All-pervasive ; 
further, it will not be possible for Him to be designated by Supreme 
Names, like 'Mahadeva', *6iva', 'Rudra' and the rest. Thus, Brahman, 
having the entire universe of souls and matter as His body, can be 
designated by the word 'all*. As the word 'blue 1 not only denotes 
itself (blueness), but also the lotus which it qualifies, so the word 
universe' also denotes (not only itself, but also) Brahman. That is why, 
Brahman is denoted by the word 'all', as declared by the text : "Verily, all 
is Brahman" (Mahanar. 13. 2.), Hence, the text : "All this, verily, is 
Brahman" (Chand. 3. 14, 1.) designates Brahman as having the entire 
universe of souls aud matter as His body. Thus, as the world is Brahman 
in essence, it is not an object of hatred ; that is why, one should worship 
Brahman tranquilly. 

The same thing is declared by Purana-texts also, thus : "This world 
consisting of the mobile and the immobile is the image of the God of Gods. 



(1) The powers of Brahman are gradually manifested in the form 
of the universe of souls and matter, cf. Samkhya Doctrine of Evolution. 
First, there is the Mahat, and finally the earth. 

(2) The material cause ( viz. clay ) pervades or is present in all its 
effects ( viz. clay-pitchers etc. ). In the same manner, Brahman, the. 
material cause, is present in the whole world., the effect. 



The Jiva is not Manomaya S9 

The beasts fail to know this truth on account of their profound bondage. 
The sentient are called 'knowledge' (VidyA), the non-sentient, 'non-know- 
ledge' (Avidya). There is no doubt that the entire universe consisting of 
'knowledge' and 'non-knowledge 1 , is the form of the all-pervasive Lord of 
the universe as the universe is under His control. The term 'existent' 
is taken by the wise to mean 'the true' and 'the honest'. The term 'non- 
existent' is just the opposite this is held by the followers of the Veda. 
The entire universe which is both existent and non-existent is the body of 
the Supremely Auspicious Being. Just as the branches flourish when the 
root of a tree is watered, so His body, the world, flourishes when 
Siva is worshipped. The soul is the eighth form of 6iva, the 
Supreme Lord, and the Universe is His other all-pervading form. 
Hence the universe too has Siva for its soul. If an embodied being 
is oppressed, then (the Lord) also having eight forms, will come to be 
injured hence no doubt should be raised as regards this point. (The 
Wise) say that worshipping 6iva means doing good to all, similarly, 
favouring all, and assuring protection to all, and so on. Hence as 
Brahman has everything as His form, the statement "All this, verily is 
Brahman tranquil, let one worship Him" (Chand. 3. 14. 1.) is quite 
consistent. Hence, Brahman, alone, mentioned in the beginning as the 
object to be worshipped, is one who is endowed with the attributes of 
'consisting of mind' and the rest. These attributes of 'consisting of mind* 
and the rest are never the characteristics of the transmigratory soul. As 
He (viz. Brahman) assumes forms to be worshipped (by His devetees), He 
can have limits (in that sense). 

Your view that, as the individual soul having a purpose has been 
referred to before, 'that which consists of mind' is the individual soul, is 
wrong. For, it is impossible that in the worship of Brahman alone who 
has been taught in the beginning, the individual soul, mentioned in the 
middle, should have any place, just as in the Visvadeva sacrifice, where 
only curd is used, whey can have no place. Hence, Brahman alone is to 
be worshipped as one endowed with the attributes of 'consisting of mind* 
and the rest. 

Objection 

If Brahman alone, mentioned in the beginning, be said to be endow- 
ed with the attributes of 'consisting of mind' and the rest, the bringing 
in of the individual soul, mentioned in the middle, becomes altogether 
meaningless. 

Reply 
The Jiva is not Manomaya. 

To this. ( the Author ) replies : 



84 Srikantha-Bhasya 1. 2. 3. 

SUTRA 1. 2. 2. 

"And because of the appropriateness of the attributes intended 
to be stated." 

As the attributes of 'having true desires', 'having all desires' and so 
on, 'Intended to be stated", "are appropriate" on the part of Brahman 
alone, He alone is the object to be worshipped. The individual soul, 
mentioned in the middle, is the worshipper, as it cannot be intended ( as 
an object of worship ). 

Here ends the Section entitled "Celebrity everywhere" (1). 



Adhikarana 2 : The Section entitlsd "Inapproprlateness" 
(Sutras 38). 

It has been established above, in a general manner, that the indivi- 
dual soul is not an object to be worshipped, but is only a worshipper. 
Then, to prove that even Narayana, the material cause of Hiranyagarbha, 
the sum-total of all individual souls, is the worshipper of Brahman, higher 
than the universe, and not himself an object to be worshipped, ( the 
Author ) begins a new Section. 

SUTRA 1. 2. 3. 

"But because (the attributes of 'being the Lord of the Universe* 
and the rest) are not appropriate (on the part of Narayana), the embodied 
self (viz. Narayana) (ii) not (referred to in the text)". 

In the Mahopanisad, there is a text that forms the topic here, viz. 
"The Master of the universe, the Lord of the soul, 'eternal, auspicious, 
unchangeable, Narayana, the great object to be known" (Mahanar. 11.3.), 
and so on. Here, a doubt arises as to whether the embodied soul, denoted 
by the word 'Narayana' and endowed with the characteristic marks of 
'being the I/ord of the Universe' and the rest, is the Supreme Self or some 
one else. 

Prima Facie View 

Beginning thus : "The God with a thousand head'' (Mahanar. 11, 1.) 
the text goes on to refer repeatedly to Narayana, the embodied soul, as 
one that has a thousand heads ; further, the special characteristic marks 



Nsrayana, not the Supreme Self 85 

( of Narayana), viz. 'lying down on the sea' and so on are stated in the 
text : "Inside the ocean, the entire universe" ; further, words like 
'Acyuta', 'Hari' and the like which are but synonyms of 'Narayana' have 
been used for all these reasons Narayana alone, the embodied soul, has 
been referred to by the marks of 'being the Lord of the World'. This is 
the Prima Facie view. 

Rep!y. 

Narayana is not the Supreme Self. 

But the Correct Conclusion is that He is the great Lord Mahesvara, 
the soul of Narayana. Why ? Because the attributes of 'being the Lord of 
the Universe' and the rest that are the attributes of the Supreme Lord, 
"are not appropriate" on the part of NarSyana who is different from Him 
( viz. v!>iva ). From the texts : "To the Lord of beasts" "To the Lord of 
trees", "To the Lord of the world" ( Tail. Sam. 4. 5. ) and so on, the 
Supreme Lord alone is known to be the Lord of the entire universe. In 
the text : "Rudra, verily, is one only they do not admit a second who 
lords it over these worlds by His ruling powers" (6vet. 3. 2. ), it is denied 
that any one other than Rudra can be the Lord of the world. In the 
text : "Rudra is higher than the universe", (Svet. 3. 4.), it is declared that 
He alone is higher than the universe. Hence it stands to reason that He 
who has the characteristic marks of 'being the Lord of the Universe' and 
the rest, and is the soul of Narayana, is none but the Supreme Lord. 

Objection 

To say that the Supreme Soul is the Soul of Narayana, his Inner- 
Controller, is wrong. Having stated that "Narayana is Supreme Brahman" 
(MahanSr. 11.4.), having, then, referred to the heart-lotus of a person, 
thus : "Like a lotus" ( Mahanar. 11. 7. ), having designated the individual 
soul thus : "Inside that, a flame of fire" (Mahanar. 11.11.), the text next 
goes on to indicate Him (viz. Narayana) as the object to be worshipped 
because He is the Supreme Soul and the Inner Controller of the indivi- 
dual soul, thus : "Inside that flame abides the Supreme Soul" (Mahanar. 
11.13.), In the text "He is Brahma, He is 6iva" (Mahanar. n. 12. ), it is 
said that Brahma, Siva and the rest are but His ( Narayaua's) powers. 
Hence, Narayana alone is the Lord of the Universe, the Supreme Brahman, 
and as the Inner Controller of the individual soul is the object to be wor- 
shipped. Hence, it is wrong to say that the Supreme Lord, being His 
Narayana's ) soul, is Higher than He, and an object to be worshipped 
by Him. 

Reply 

To this, (the Author) replies : 

Brahman is. the Supreme Self 



86 6rikantba-Bhasya 1. 2. 4. 

SUTRA 1. 2. 4. 

"(The Supreme Soul or Siva, the object to be meditated on, is 
other than Narayana) also because of the designation of the object and 
the agent (i. e Siva is designated as the object to be worshipped ; 
Narayana, the worshipper)'. 

There the Supreme Lord and Narayana are respectively designated 
as an object and as an agent, i. e, as the object to be worshipped and as the 
worshipper. Why? In the text "Like a lotus" (Mahanar. 11.7.), the 
heart of NaiTiyana, referred to before, is spoken of. In the text "Inside 
the flame is the Supreme Soul" (Mahanar. 11. 13.), the Supreme Lord 
alone has been designated as the Supreme Soul, and He alone, being 
inside Narayaiia, is spoken of as the object to be worshipped. That is 
why, the Supreme Lord and Narayana have been respectively designated 
as the object, i. e. the object to be worshipped, and the agent, i. e. the 
worshipper. Hence, the Supreme Lord, other than Narayana, is the 
object to be worshipped. In the text : "He is Brahma, He is Siva" 
(Mahanar. 11. 12,), it is taught that the Supreme Lord is endowed with 
the powers, viz. Brahma, Visnu, Indra and the rest of the Universe. ( l ) 
Although here there is no explicit mention of Visnu, yet he is mentioned 
in the Kaivalya Upanisad. Thus, having referred to the heart-lotus, 
thus : "The heart-lotus, free from filth". (Kaivalya 5.), the text goes on : 
"Having worshipped the Supreme Lord, the Master, the resort of Uma, 
He who has three eyes and a blue neck, and who is tranquil, a sage 
attains the Cause of all beings, the Seer of all ; beyond darkness. He is 
Brahma, Supreme, Self-governing. He alone is Visnu, He is the Vital- 
breath, He is Time, and Fire", (Kaivalya 7). The same thing is true here 
too. The following Atharva text too, should be consulted : He who is 
Rudra, He is the Lord, Bhiir, Bhuvar; and Suvaryaft, Brahma repeated 
obeisance to Him, He who is Visnu, who is Mahesvara". (Atharvasiras 
2). Here, the non-mention of Visnu, with Brahma and Siva as a power 
(of the Lord), is due to the fact that he has been referred to in the 
introduction as the worshipper of the Supreme Lord. Hence, no contra- 
diction is involved here. 

Objection 

The person referred to in the introductory text : "The Person having 
a thousand heads (6 vet. 3. 14.), is designated as possessing the world as one 
of his parts, in the text" "One foot of Him is all beings" (Chand 3.12.6.). 
Hence, in the text "The God having a thousand heads" (Mahanar. 11. 1.) 

(1) These divinities are included in the Universe. And the 
universe is the 6akti of Brahman. Hence, these divinities are not 
independent deities, but powers of Brahman, 



Brahman is Higher than NarSyaua 87 

too, Narayana is indicated. The same Narayana is spoken of in the 
passage: "Narayana is Supreme Brahman" (Mahanar. 11. 4.). Brahman 
alone is to be worshipped by all. How can He betaken to be an worshipper 
of another ? To this the Author replies : 

SUTRA 1. 2. 5. 
"On account of a particular Scriptural Text". 

Reply 
Brahman is higher than Narayana, 

The above particular text (MahanaF. 11. 4.) really means 'Brahman 
is higher than Narayana (*). Hence, the Supreme Brahman, other than 
Narayana, is the object to be worshipped. For, the Supreme Brahman, 
being of the form of a Person having a thousand heads and so on, is the 
material cause of the world. That this Supreme Brahman has the world 
as His form, we shall designate under the Section, beginning with 
the Aphorism : "And, the material cause" (Br. Sii. 1. 4. 23.). 

(The Author) cites another reason to prove that Narayana is the 
worshipper (of Brahman). 

SUTRA 1. 2. 6. 
"And, on accouut of the Smrtis". 

The Sinrti passage : "Saying this, then, O King ! Han, the 
possessor of Supreme Yog'a, showed His supreme divine form to Partha" 
( Gita. 11.9.) shows that Narayana, the possessor of Supreme Yoga, 
meditated on the Supreme Lord. Here, there is a statement of the 
Supreme Lord addressed to Asvattharaa : "I am worshipped duly by 
Krsna who is unwearied in action. Hence, there is no one else, other 
than Krsna, who is most beneficial to me/' Hence the Supreme Brahman 
is an object to be worshipped by Narayana, different from him. 

Apprehending another kind of inconsistency, ( the Author ) disposes 
of it, thus : 

SUTRA 1. 2. 7. 

"If it be objected that on account of its occupying a small abode, 
and on account of the designation of that, (Brahman is) not (the object 
to be worshipped), (we reply :) No, because (Brahman) is to be conceived 
thus, as in the case of the ether". 

(1) 'NSray ana-par am Brahma', may be interpreted in two ways : 
(i) Narayana Param Brahma (Narayana is Supreme Brahman, (ii; 
Narayanat Param Brahma (Brahman is higher than Narayana). The 
Prima Facie objector accepts the first interpretation ; the Author of the 
Sutres, the second. 



88 6nkantha-Bhasya 1. 2. 8. 

Objection. 

As in the text : "kike the husk of a rice, it is thin, yellow, shining, 
atom-like, iiiside that flame abides the Supreme Lord" ( Mahanar. 
11.13.), He being inside this small flame of fire, and having thus, 
a small abode, is Himself designated to be small, so He cannot be 
the All-pervasive Supreme Lord. 

Reply. 
Brahman alone is to be Worshipped. 

To the above objecton, we reply : "Not so/' That designation is 
due not to the sinallness of His own nature, but only to the fact that He 
is to be worshipped ( in the heart-lotus ). For, the greatness of His 
nature is just like that of the ether, just as the ether, present inside pots 
and the rest, becomes small due to those limiting adjuncts, but remains 
great by nature, so is the case here. Hence, there is no contradiction 
here. 

Apprehending another objection, ( the Author ) refutes it thus : 
SUTRA 1. 2. 8. 

"If it be objected that (if Brahman were to dwell within the heart, 
tli en) there follows experiencing ( of pleasures and pains ), (we reply : ) 
no, on account of difference". 

Objection. 

You said above that the text : "Narayaria is the Supreme Brahman" 
( Mahanar. 11. 4. ) really means that Brahman is higher than Narayana, ( l ) 
and that such a Brahman is an object to be worshipped. The very same 
Brahman is spoken of in the passage : "The True, the Existent, the 
Supreme Brahman, the black and twany Person, Self-controlled, having 
diverse eyes" ( Mahanar. 12. 1. ). Here the adjectives, applied to Brahman, 
mean as follows : "Black and twany" ( Krsna-pingala ) means that He is 
variegated in form, endowed as He is with the Supreme Power ( Parama- 
Sakti ), viz. Uina. "Self- controlled" (IJrdhva-retali) means that His semen 
is the fire. "Having diverse eyes" ( Virupaksa ) means that He has three 
eyes. "Person" ( Purusa ) means that He lies down in the heart-lotus, 
mentioned above (2) "The True, the Existent" means that He is free from 
all errors of mind and speech such are the special characteristics of the 
Supreme Brahman. Hence, such a Being possessing as He does three 
eyes and the rest, must possess a body too, and through this, there follows 
"experiencing' 7 of physical pleasures and pains. 

(1) See above P. 87fn.(l) 

(2) Puri sete iti Purusa. See under Su. 1. 3. 13. 



Brahman is not Subject to Pleasure and Pain 89 

Reply 
Brahman is not Subject to Pleasure and Pain* 

We reply : "No, on account of difference." There does exist a 
difference between an individual soul's body because of which it 
experiences pleasures and pains, and Brahman's form. For, this latter is 
assumed at will, while the former is due to actions. Hence, the Supreme 
Lord is declared to be free from all the attributes of a transmigratory, 
earthly body in the passage : "Free from .sins, without old age, without 
death, without sorrow, without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, 
having true resolves" ( Chand. 8. 7. 1. ). This is not a transmigratory 
individual soul. Hence the forms of the Supreme Lord which are 
non-material ; free from sins, old age, death sorrows and the like ; 
assumed voluntarily in sport, and auspicious are known to 
be eternal from the passage : "The Terrible One ( Ugra ) is multiform 
through eternal parts", Hence, the Supreme Lord being different from 
the individual soul, is not subject to any defects, due to the body. Here, 
further, on account of the marks, viz. "Beginning' and the rest'X 1 ), it is but 
reasonable that Brahman, having three eyes, is the best object to be wor- 
shipped. Beginning : "More minute than the minute, greater than the 
great" (Mahanar. 8. 3., Svet. 3. 20.), and ending "He sees the Lord and His 
greatness" (Mahanar. 8. 3., 6vet. 3. 20.), the text refers to the Lord, posses- 
sed of immense greatness, as residing inside the cave of the heart of all 
creatures, and as the object seen by a person who has got rid of all sorrows 
through His grace. Again, in the text : "Seven vital-breaths arise from 
Him" (Mahanar. 8. 4.), He alone, endowed with supreme powers, is estab- 
lished as the material cause of the vital-breaths and the rest of the world. 
Then, again, in the text : "He, che Great sage Rudra, higher than the 
universe, formerly raw Hiraiiyagarbha, the first among the Gods, being 
born" (Mahanar. 10. 3.), He is referred to as higher than the universe, as 
omniscient, as the cause of Hiraiiyagarbha, the first among all effects, and 
as such, as the efficient cause. After that, in the text : "The 
ether higher than that" (Mahanar. 10. 5.), continuing : "Having attained, 
the Supreme Immortality (viz. Brahman), are freed/' (Mahanar. 10. 6,), 
He, inside the cave of the Supreme ether, is described as the object to 
be obtained by the self-controlled sages, who perform actions in an unsel- 
fish spirit and know the real meaning of the VedSntas. Then; in reply to 
the enquiry as to what is the means to attaining Him, the text begins to 
speak of the Dahara-Meditation, thus : "Dahara, free from sins (Mahanar. 
10. 7.). Here, in the text : "That which is inside it is to be worshipped" 
(Mahanar. 10. 7.), it is said in a general manner, that what is inside the 
heart-lotus is to be worshipped. Now, what exactly is that ? In reply to 

(1) See under Su. 1. 1. 4. P,. 39. 
12 



90 6rikagtka-Bhasya 1. 2. 9. 

this enquiry, the text then, describes Him to be Mahesvara, thus : "He 
who is the Supreme, is Mahesvara" (Mahanar. 10. 8.). To the enquiry : 
Of what form is He ? the text concludes by designating Him 
as having three-eyes and the rest, in the text : "The True, the 
Existent" (Mahanar. 12. 1.) and so on. Hence; it stands to reason that 
Narayana, designated in the middle of the text, should be taken as a 
mere worshipper, in accordance with the reasons set forth in the prior 
Section. (') Although every one is entitled to the worship (of Brahman), 
yet only NarSyana has been mentioned here (as the worshipper) on account 
of the super-excellence ( of such a worship by such a great soul ). As here 
the three-eyed Brahman, the object to be worshipped, is conceived to be 
non-different from Narayana, His worshipper, so there is nothing wrong 
in Holding that the description of Narayana as endowed with His qualities, 
such as, "being the Lord of the Universe" and so on, really implies 
the Supreme Lord, who is Nsrayana's Material Cause and Soul. 

Here ends the Section entitled 'fnappropriateness' (2). 



Adhikarana 3 : The Section entitled " The Eater" (Sutras 9-10) 

SUTRA 1. 2. 9. 

"The eater (is Brahman), on account of the taking (2. e. devouring) 
of the movable and the immovable". 

There is a text in the Kathopanisad that forms the topic here, 
viz. "He, to whom both the Brahmana and the Ksatriya are the food 
and death the condiment, who thus knows, where He is ?" (Katfia 2.25.). 
Here, a doubt arises as to whether the eater of the food accompanied by 
the condiment of death, i. e. of the entire universe, ccnsi sting of the 
movable and the immovable, implied by the terms 'Brahmana' and 
'Ksatriya', is the Supreme Soul, 'or some else. 

Prima Facie View 

It is unreasonable to suppose that the All-merciful Lord, who favours 
all, can be the eater of all. To take the life of another is a form of violence. 
The root cause of violence is the impulse of anger. Again, delusion is the 



(1) See Su. 1. 2, 38. See P. 126. 



Brahman is the Eater 91 

root cause of this inauspicious quality of anger. Again, Tanias is the 
cause of this delusion which is the cause of all violence. Thus, Tamas 
is the destroyer of everything. Tamas implies non-manifestation due 
to the veiling of knowledge. If Brahman be said to be the destroyer of 
all, then it would follow that He who is ever-pure, an abode of limitless 
auspiciousness and free from all earthly blemishes, is subject to ignorance, 
Tamas, delusion, anger and the rest. In that case, the attributes of 
omniscience, eternal satisfaction and the like, ascertained as His own 
special characteristics, become meaningless. Hence, some one else, other 
than Brahman, some one who is endowed with these attributes ( of 
ignorance and the rest ), must be the destroyer. 

Rcpljr 
Brahman is the Eater. 

But the Correct Conclusion is that Brahman alone is mentioned by 
Scripture as the destroyer of all. Why ? "On account of the taking of 
the movable and the immovable . The eating of the entire universe con- 
sisting of the movable and the immovable which, according to you, is 
inappropriate ( on the part of Brahman ), does, as a matter of fact, belong 
to none else but Brahman. For, the individual soul, having but limited 
powers, has no capacity to destroy all the movable and the immovable 
things. In the Atharva-^iras passage : "Obeisance to the Destroyer, to 
the Great Swallower" ( Atharvasiras 3. ), the Supreme Lord is denoted as 
the destroyer of all, and not any individual soul. From the text : "He 
who offers all these worlds as oblation' ( Rg. V. 8. 3. 16. ), it is known 
that Brahman offers the entire world as oblation to His own self-mani- 
festing fire. The individual soul being itself included under the 
objects to be offered as oblation, cannot have the power of doing so. 
When the Supreme Lord destroys the whole world, consisting of the 
movable and the immovable, besides the ether, in Himself, then there 
being no light of the sun, the moon and the rest, and no divisions of 
names and forms, everything is reduced to mere darkness, without any 
distinctions of times, like day and night, and without any conventional 
distinctions of gross and subtle, men and gods, and so on. Even then, 
only the Supreme Lord, with unobstructed manifestation, the Seer of 
all, remains. There is a Scriptural text to that effect, viz. "When 
there is darkness, there is no day, no night, no being, no non-being, 
there is 'only 6iva" ( 6vet. 4. 18. ), The phrase : "There is no being, no 
non-being" does not deny the very existence of creatures and their noose 
( viz. matter ), but only their gross forms as having distinctions of names 
and forms. 



92 Srikantha-Bhasya 1. 2. 9. 

If it be objected Even when the eternally manifested 6iva, the 
Supreme Brahman, exists, how can the world be reduced to mere dark- 
ness we reply : No, what harm is done ( on this view ) to. 6iva, the 
Seer of all ? As (during that period), the individual souls are devoid 
of names and forms and without any organs, bodies and powers, they 
cannot perceive the perceivable objects of the universe ; in the same 
manner, with their organs of knowledge covered over by filth ( mala ) 
they have no perception, as before, of even 6iva, the Self-manifested. 
Hence, such a Supreme state of Supreme Sleep, when all % knowledge 
regarding particular effects ceases, is called 'Darkness'. There is a 
Smrti passage to this effect, viz. "This existed as reduced to darkness, 
not known, not defined." ( Manu. 1.5.). Then Siva is called 'Alone', as 
He is possessed of the subtle powers of the sentient and the non-sentient, 
not subject to divisions of names and forms. Then, at the time of 
creation, He, through a mere wish independently of any material cause, 
and through manifesting His powers, creates i. e. manifests, from Himself 
all sentient and non-sentient objects, as endowed with their prior names. 
There is a Maxim of the Wise to this effect, viz. "God, who is consciousness 
in essence, manifests outside the things contained iuside ( Him ), through 
a mere wish, independently of any material, like a Yogiu." 

If it be objected that In the texts : "Know Maya to be the material 
cause, and Mahesvara as the possessor of Maya" (6vet. 4. 10. ), "From Him 
was born Virat," Maya and Purusa are respectively stated to be the 
material cause, so how can He be taken to be independent of a material 
cause ? we reply : True. But in the case of the production of a pot, 
it is found that the material cause, viz. the lump of clay, is separate from 
the body of the potter. But in the case of the Supreme Lord, the 
material causes, like Mava and the rest, are not separate from Him, for, 
the world originates from the Supreme Lord, who has the form 
of Maya and the rest. Therefore, no contradiction arises here. Hence, 
it is said that the Supreme Lord Himself, consisting of the Subtle 
Maya (Prakrti) and Purusa, non-separate from His own self, is Himself the 
material cause. There is a text to this effect in the Atharva-6ikha, viz. 

"The Lord, the object to be intensely meditated on, should be 
worshipped. The whole Universe, deities like Brahma, Visnu, Rudra 
and the rest, as well as all the elements and the sense-organs have been 
created (from Him)". 

Hence, in whom all beings are destroyed, from Him, again, do 
they arise ; in whom all these eternal beings are destroyed, in Him, 
again, i. e. in 6iva possessed of infinite powers, are they preserved. Thus, 
Siva, the destroyer of all, is denoted by the term 'Brahman'. 



Brahman, the Destroyer of All "93 

As regards your view that as destruction is a kind of violence, 
this would imply that Brahman comes to be connected with evil 
qualities like anger and the rest which are the root causes of violence 
to discuss it would be a mere waste of words ! For, the attribute of 
Tamas which is the root cause of anger and the rest, is an earthly 
attribute. The following Holy Scriptural text is a proof that the Supreme 
Lord is higher than Tamas. Compare the text, beginning : ''The Supreme 
Lord, the resort of Unia, the Master" (Kaivalya 7.), and, continuing : 
"The Seer of all, beyond darkness (Tamas)" (Kaivalya 7.). Pauranic texts 
also speak of the Supreme Lord as eternally possessing knowledge and 
the rest that put an end to delusion etc. Compare the text : "Knowledge, 
detachment, power, penance, truth, forgiveness, firmness, creatorhood, 
knowledge of self, lordship these ten imperishable (qualities) eternally 
reside in Samkara", "A youth in whom there is a full manifestation 
of unerring and pure knowledge regarding an infinite number of 
objects, He who delights in tasting the nectar of His own powers", 
and so on. In accordance with the text : "He desired : 'Let me be 
many' " (Tait. 2. 6.), it is the Supreme Lord Himself, in whom the mani- 
fested universe exists, who, desiring to create (the world), and for 
becoming many, has recourse to His own power, viz. desire, called 'Maya*. 
In accordance with the text : "He performed penance" (Tait. 2. 6.), He, 
through His penance i. e. power of knowledge, considers the materials 
for the (creation of the) respective bodies of the individual souls, in accor- 
dance with their (past) actions. Having considered these, He, through 
His power of action, grounded, on His power of desire, manifests the 
entire universe, independently of any organs, in accordance with the 
text : "He created all this" (Tait. 2.6.). In accordance with the text : 
"Having created this, He entered into that very thing" (Tait. 2. 6. ), 
having entered into the whole group of His effects, He assumes three 
different forms due to the preponderance of the three Gunas as connected 
with three powers. (*) and, thus, assumes the form of the universe. Who 
can know the greatness of such a Siva, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient ? 
Hence, the Destroyer of all is none but the Supreme Lord. 



(1) The Lord has three main Powers : Power of Desire, Power of 
Knowledge, Power of Action, due to the preponderance, respectively of 
Sattva, Rajas and Tamas Gunas, there is the preponderance, respectively 
of the Powers of Desire, Knowledge and Action. In accordance with this, 
Brahman assumes three forms respectively viz. Brahma, Visnu, Rudra cf 
6. M. D. 



94 Srikagtha-Bhasya I. Z 11. , 

SUTRA 1. 2. 10. 
"And on account of the topic." 

The Supreme Lord alone is mentioned as the topic of discussion in 
in the texts : "Knowing the great, all-pervasive Self, the wise man does 
not sorrow" (Katha. 2. 22. ). "This Soul is not attainable by instruction" 
(Katha. 2. 23.), etc. Hence, the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Lord 
is the Destroyer of all, and none else. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Eater' 7 (3). 



Adhikarana 4 : The Section entitled "The Cave". (Sutras 1112). 

To show the intimate connection of the Supreme Lord, established 
in the prior Section as endowed with the characteristic of 'being the 
destroyer of all', with the individual soul, His power, as celebrated in 
the text : "Two birds' (6vet. 4. 6., Mund. 3. 1. 1.), ( the Author ) begins 
another Section. 

SUTRA. 1. 2. 11. 

"The souls entered into the cave ( are the individual soul and the 
Supreme Soul), because that is seen." 

The following text forms the topic treated here : "There are two, 
drinking of righteousness in the world of good deeds, entered into the 
cave, in the highest upper region. Those who know Brahman speak of 
them as 'light' and 'shade', as well as those who maintain the five sacred 
fires, and those too who thrice kindle the Naciketas fire". (Katha. 3. 1.). 
Here, the text mentions two, who have entered into the world of good 
deeds, in the highest upper region, i.e. into the cave of the hearts of 
Brahmaiias and the rest ; who are experiencing the results of Karmas ; and 
who are as different as light and shade. Here a doubt arises as to whether 
these two are Buddhi and the individual soul, or the individual soul and 
the Supreme Lord. 

Prima Facie View 

These two are Buddhi and the individual soul Why ? Because from 
the phrase : "Drinking of righteousness", it is known that these two are 
enjoyers. The Supreme Lord cannot be an enjoyer, in accordance with 



The two entered into the Cave are Brahman and Jiva 95 

the text : "The other looks on without eating." (Svet. 4. 6. ). That 
Buddhi and the individual soul are enj overs is indeed a well-known fact. 
Moreover, as both the individual soul and the Supreme Lord are con- 
scious beings, they cannot be as different as shade and light. But as 
Buddhi is a non- sentient object, there does exist a difference between it 
and the individual soul. Heuce, these two are Buddhi and the .indivi- 
dual soul. 

Reply 
The two entered into the 'cave' are Brahman and Jiva. 

To the above, we reply, these two entered into the cave, are the in- 
dividual soul and the Supreme Lord. For, "that is seen''. That is, in 
the text : "Him, who is difficult to see, who has entered into the hidden, 
who is hidden in the cave, who dwells in the abyss, the ancient one" 
(Katha. 2. 12.), it is asserted that these two alone enter into the cave. 
Your view that the Supreme Lord cannot be an enjoyer, too, is wrong. 
For, in the text : "Whose pleasure is the vital-breath, whose bliss is the 
mind" (Tait. 1. 6.) (*), it is asserted that even Brahman, who finds pleasure 
in His own self, enjoys the bliss of His own nature, and of His own mind 
only. There is a Purina text to this effect, viz. "An youth who delights 
in tasting the nectar of His own powers, a bee tasting the honey of infinite 
and supreme bliss," and so on. 

It is a well-known fact that the individual soul experiences the 
results of its own actions. Thus, although both these ( viz. the individual 
soul and the Supreme Lord ), are asserted by Scripture, in a 
general manner, to be enjoyers, yet as the enjoyers are not the same, 
so a difference between their enjoyments, too, should be admitted here, 
just as in the statement : 'The king and his servant are eating food,' the 
food, is, undoubtedly, different in two cases. ( s ) Your view that there is 
no difference between these two, is wrong. Although in accordance with 
the Scriptural text : "The eternal among the eternal, the conscious 
among the conscious" ( 6 vet. 6. 13. ), there is a similarity between the 

(1) See under Br. Su. 1. 1, 2., P. 23 for explanation. 

(2) In the Scripture, it is said, in a general manner, that both Jiva 
Isvara are 'Bhoktas or enjoyers.' But although no difference is here made 
explicity between the enjoyment of the former and that of the latter, yet 
we know that as the two are different, their enjoyments must also be so. 
The former enjoys the fruits of its actions ; the latter, the bliss of His 
own nature. B. g. when we say, in a general manner, that a King and his 
servant are both eating food, we understand at once that although there 
is no explicit mention of the fact, the food of the former is quite different 
from that of the latter. 



96 6rikant,ha-Bhasya 1. 2. 12 

individual soul and the Supreme Lord, both being eternal and conscious, 
yet there is also a difference ( between them ), as the former is subject to 
beginningless filth (Mala), not the latter. From the Scriptural text : 
"These two, the Knowing and the non-knowing, the Lord and non-lord" 
(Svet. 1. 9.), it is known that there is a difference ( between these two ) 
in respect of their qualities, viz. knowledge and ignorance, independence 
and dependence and so on. 

If it be objected Although both these are equally connected with 
the body, yet why should one be subject to disasters like ignorance and 
the rest, and not the other ? we reply : No. The mere fact of residing 
in the same place does not by itself lead to ( an experiencing of ) pleasures 
and pains, but the further fact as to whether one is independent or depen- 
dent There is a Scriptural text to this effect, viz. : "On the very tree, a 
person, sunken, grieves for his weakness, deluded. When he sees the other, 
the Lord, the contended, and His greatness, he becomes freed from sorrow" 
(Mund. 1. 2.). The text means as follows, from the point of view of our 
own Comninity : The individual soul is bound by the chain of beginning- 
less actions, and enters into many physical bodies by way of undergoing the 
fruits of its past actions. Thus, undergoing a multitude of miseries, very 
difficult to be got rid of, being under the control of another, and being, 
further, unable to get rid of this, it becomes deluded and grieves, i. e. 
remains merged in the ocean of sorrows, brought about by the great delu- 
sion. Then, when, through the grace of the Lord, it sees, i. e. directly 
knows, Him, as its Director, Him, who is satisfied in His own self, 
who favours all and who is accompanied by Um3, and then knows 
His greatness, it becomes free from all sorrows. Hence, Siva who is 
independent and ever-free, does not become subject to the faults of the 
individual soul, even when He comes to be connected with its body. 
Hence, those two, entered into the cave, are the individual soul and' the 
Supreme Lord. 

SUTRA 1. 2. 12. 
'And on account of specification' . 

Moreover, the individual soul and the Supreme Lord alone are 
specified in this Section. In the text : "The wise one is not born, nor 
dies" (Katha. 2. 18.), the individual soul is referred to ; while in the text : 
"More minute, than the minute, greater than the great" (Katha. 2.20.) the 
Supreme Lord is designated. How can these specifications be possible 
in the case of the individual soul and Buddhi ? Hence, it is ascertained 
that the individual soul and the Supreme Lord alone entered the cave 
( viz. the heart of the individual soul ) and came to be related as the 
'directed' and the 'Director', as the body and the Soul. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The cave 1 ' (4). 



Adhikarana 5 t The Section entitled "What is Within" ( Sutrai 
1317) 

( The Author ) indicates another place where the Supreme Lord, 
resides He who as abiding inside the cave of the heart, is the object to 
be worshipped. 

SUTRA 1. 2. 13. 
That which is within (the eye is Brahman), on account of fitting in". 

There is a text in the Chandogya that forms the topic here, viz. 
"That Person who is seen within the eye, He is the soul, said he, this is 
the immortal and the fearless, that is Brahman." (Chafid. 4. 15. 1.) 
and so on. Here, a doubt arises as to whether this Person declared to 
be inside the eye and possessing the characteristics of immortality and 
the rest, is the Lord, or some one else. 

Prima Facie View 

We hold that He is some one other than the Supreme Lord. For, 
in the texts : "The Dahara, devoid of sins" (Mahaiiar, 10. 7.), "Like the 
seed-vessel of a lotus" (Mahanar. 11. 7.) and so on, it is declared that the 
Supreme Lord is inside the heart-lotus only. On the other hand, the 
individual soul, being connected with the mind, enters into the sense- 
organs like the eyes and the rest for knowing colours and the rest. So it 
alone is the person inside the eyes. Or else, it is the person reflected 
( on theeye).( l ) 

Reply 
Brahman is the Person inside the eye. 

To the above, we reply : The Supreme Lord alone is the Person 
inside the eye. For, limitless immortality, fearlessness and the like fit 
in on His part alone. 

To the above stated view viz. that Scripture does not not designate 
the Supreme Lord as being inside the eye, ( the Author ) replies : 

SUTRA 1. 2. 14. 
And on Account of the designation of place'/ 

In the Scriptural text : "He who abiding within the eye is other 
than the eye, whom the eye does not know, whose body is the eye, who 

(1) When a person stands before another person, his image is reflec- 
ted on the eye of the second person. This is called 'Chaycn-purusa 1 . 
13 



&6 Srikantha-Bhasya 1. 2. 17. 

controls the eye from within, He is your soul, the inner controller, the 
immortal' (Brh. 3. 7. 18.), it is designated that the Lord abides in the 
eye and controls it. Hence, this ( Person within the eye ) is the Supreme 
Lord* 

( The Author ) shows the contradictions involved in the view that 
this is the person reflected ( on the eye ). 

SUTRA 1. 2. 15. 

"On account also of the mention only of what is chara tensed by 
pleasure/' 

As in the prior passage : "Pleasure is Brahman, the ether is 
Brahman*' (Chand. 4. 10. 4.), Brahman has been designated as characterized 
by pleasure, so this is the Supreme Lord. Pleasure is not possible on the 
part of the person reflected ( 011 the eye ). 

To the above stated view that the person inside the eye is the indi- 
vidual soul, ( the Author ) replies : 

SUTRA 1. 2. 16. 
'Tor that very reason, He is Brahman". 

Upakosala, who was afraid of transmigratory existence and desired to 
know Brahman, was instructed thus, beginning : "Pleasure is Brahman, 
the ether is Brahman' (Chand. 4, 10. 5.) and continuing : "That which is 
pleasure, that very thing is the ether ; that which is the ether, that very 
thing is pleasure' (Chand. 4. 10. 4.). "For that very reason," the ether is 
the Supreme Brahman. How can this fit in, in the case of the individual 
soul ? Limitless pleasure is never possible on the part of the individual 
soul. Hence the same Brahman, referred to before as possessing limitless 
pleasure, is designated as the support of the eye. Hence, the Person 
inside }he eye is the Supreme Lord: 

( The Author ) points out another inconsistency in the Prima Facie 
view, thus : 

SUTRA 1. 2. 17. 

"And on account of the mention of the path of one who has heard 
the Upanisad." 

In the Scriptural text, beginning : "( The dead ) pass over to 
light, from light to the day", and ending "Then there is a non-human 
Person. He leads them to Brahman. This is the Path of the Gods, the 
Path to Brahman, Those who go by it do not return to this human whirl- 
pool they return not" (Chand. 4. 15. 5-6/, it is mentioned that the 
Path beginning with Light to be traversed by those who have heard 



The Vital breath is not the Person of the size of a Thumb 99 

about, ( i. e. know ) the nature of Brahman, belongs also to those who 
have heard about ( i. e. know ) the Person inside the eye. Hence, this 
( Person inside the eye ) is neither the individual soul, nor the person 
reflected ( on the eye ), but none else but the Lord. ( l ) 

Here ends the Section entitled What is Within/' (5) 



Adhikarana 6 : The Section entitled 'Non-abiding ( Sutra 18 ). 

vSUTRA 1. 2. 18. 

"(The Person of the size of a thumb is the Lord ), because of the 
non-abiding ( i. e non-existence ), as well as because of the impossibility 
( of the attributes of 'having the entire world as the body' etc. on the 
part of any one else )" 

There is a text in the Mahopanisad that forms the topic here, viz. 
"The Person of the size of merely a thumb, residing in the thumb, the 
Lord of the whole world, the Master, the devourer of the Universe, who 
pleases ( His devotees )" ( Mahanar. 16. 3. ). Here, a doubt arises as to 
whether the Person of the size of a thumb is the Supreme Lord, or some 
one else. 

Prima Facie View 

As the topic here is the Agnihotra to the vital-breath, and as the 
Person is designated to be very small in the passage: "Of the size of 
a thumb merely" ( MahanSr. 16. 3. ), it is known that this vital-breath 
alone is the eater of the five offerings. No inconsistency is involved if 
it is taken to be an eater. For, from the text : "The water and the 
earth, further the fire and the air, the two eaters of food," it is well- 
known that air, too, is an eater. Hence, from every point of view, this 
( Person ) is the vital-breath. This is the Prima Facie view. 



(1) In Prasna 1. 10., it is .said that one who knows Brahman goes 
through the Northern Path, or the Path beginning with Light. In 
Chand. 4. 15. 5., it is said that one who knows the Person within the sun 
goes through the very same Path beginning with light. Hence, there 
can be no doubt that Brahman and the Person within the sun are one 
and the same. 



100 6rIkantha-Bha.sya 1. 2. 19 

Reply 
Brahman is the Person of the size of a thumb. 

But the Correct Conclusion is that He is none but the Supreme 
Lord. For, attributes like 'being the Lord of the entire world/ 'being 
the devourer of the universe' and so on, cannot belong to any one else ; 
and they are also impossible on the part of any one els'e. Hence, the 
Lord alone is such a Person. He is designated to be worshipped as the 
vital-breath as well, for in the text : "Thou art the knot of* the vital- 
breath. May not Rndra destroy people" ( Mahanar. 16. 2. ), He is declared 
to be the support of the vital-breath. ( He is said to be ) of the size of a 
thumb as an object to be worshipped so here there is no inconsistency. 
Though the vital-breath is designated as an eater, yet it is impossible 
for it to be the devourer of the universe. Hence, it is established that 
the Supreme Lord alone, being the object to be worshipped in the obla- 
tions to the vital-breath, ( Pranagnihotra ) is designated as the vital- 
breath. 

Here end* the Section entitled "Non-abiding '. (6) 



Adhikarana 7 : The Section entitled "The Inner Controller" 
( Sutras 1921 ). 

It has been established above that though All-pervasive, the Omni- 
scient, Omnipotent Siva, the Supreme Brahman, the Favourer of all, 
resides inside the disc cf the sun, the heart-lotus and so on, in order that 
He may be ( easily ) worshipped. To prove that He is inside everything, 
( the Author ) begins a new Section. 

SUTRA 1. 2. 19. 

"The inner controller in the presiding deities and the rest, and 
in the worlds and the rest ( is the Highest Self ) ; on account of the 
designation of His qualities " 

In the Section dealing with the Inner Controller, there is a text 
that forms the topic treated here, viz. "He, who, dwelling within the 
earth, is other than the earth, whom the earth does not know, of whom 
the earth is the body, who controls the earth within He is your soul, the 
inner controller, immortal" ( Brh. 3. 7. 3. ), and so on. Here, a doubt 
arises as to whether the Being who is declared to be inside all things, 



Brahman, the Inner Controller 101 

beginning with the earth and ending with the Self, (M is the Supreme 
Lord, or the individual soul, or Virfit Punisa, or PradhSiia. 

Prima Facie View 

It is reasonable to suppose that the individual soul enters into all 
elements and sense-organs for undergoing the variegated results which it 
deserves ( in accordance with its own actions ). It is also reasonable to 
suppose that Yirnt Purusa being the material cause of all sentient beings, 
enters into all the elements. Or, ( alternately, ) it stands to reason that 
Pradhana which is transfer md into the form of 'Maliat' and the rest 
pervades all in accordance with the text : "Rudra is higher than the 
universe." ( Svet. 3. 4. ) ; the Supreme Lord being higher than the 
universe is above all the effects ; hence such an entrance into the universe 
consisting of these effects is not possible on His part. Hence, one of the 
above three ( viz. the individual soul, Viral, Purusa and Pradhfma ), other 
than the Supreme Lord, must be the Inner Controller. This is the Prima 
Facie view. 

Reply 

To this we reply : He who is declared by Scripture to be the Inner 
Controller of the earth and the rest, is none but the Supreme Lord, "On 
account, of the designation of His qualities", like, 'being within all' and 
so on, In the Atharva-siras text : "He entered the innermost of the 
innermost' ( Atharvasiras. 1. ), it is said that the Supreme Lord 
alone enters into all as their soul. In the text : "He is your soul, the 
inner controller, immortal" ( Brh. 3. 7. etc. ), it is said that 6iva alone is 
ever-free and immoral, in accordance with the text : "These, verily, are 
the names of the immortal" ( Svet. 3. 4. ). Just as in the text : "Rudra is 
higher than the universe" (Mahanar. 13. 3. ), the Supreme Lord is declared 
to be higher than the universe, so in the text "All, verily, is Rudra" 
(Mahanar. 13.2.), He is declared to be of the form of the universe. 
Althcugh He enters into all these effects, yet He is absolutely untouched 
by them. To show this, the word 'immortal' has been used in every case 
( in Brh. 3. 7. 323. ). In the Atharvasiras text : "Who is Rudra ? He is 
the Lord, Bhur. Bhuvafo, Suvaryah, Brahma, obeisance to Him" ( Athar- 
vasiras 2. ) and so on, the Supreme Lord is repeatedly -said to be of the 
form of Brahma, Visnu, Rudra, Uma, LaksmT, Sarasvatl, Ganesa, Skauda, 
Indra and other governors of worlds, the seven worlds like Bhuloka, the 



(1) In Br. 3. 7. 323., the Self is repeatedly said to be the Inner 
Controller of the earth, water, fire, sky, air, Heaven, sun, quarters, moon 
stars, space, darkness, light, all elements, vital-breath, speech, eye, ear, 
mind, skin, understanding and semen. 



102 nkantha-Bhasya 1. 2. 21. 

five elements like the earth and the rest, the sun, the moon, the planents 
and stars, time and so on. There, too, lest the Supreme Lord be taken to 
be subject to human inclinations etc. because of entering into all the 
sentient and the non-sentient, in every case, the word 'the Lord' 
( Bhagavan ), denoting the auspicious qualities like glory and the like, has 
been used, Hence, it is reasonable that, that which is higher than all, yet 
the soul of all, is 6iva, the Supreme Brahman. 

( The Author ) refutes the view that Pradhana etc. are the Inner 
Controller. 

SUTRA 1. 2. 20. 

"And ( the inner controller ) is not that which is designated in the 
Smrti, on account of the mention of qualities not belonging to it, and 
the embodied one." 

The Pradhniia, established by the ( Samkhya ) Smrti, is not the 
Inner Controller, on account of the non-meiition of its qualities, like 
changeableness, non-sentience and so on. "The embodied self," i. e. Virat- 
Purusa, is also not ( such an Inner Controller ), for he cannot be the 
governor of all. 

The individual soul, too, ( is not the inner controller ). So says ( the 
Author ) : 

SUTRA 1. 2. 21. 
"For both also depict as different*' 

"Both" the Kanvas and the Madhyadinas "depict" the individual 
soul "as different" from the Inner Controller, thus : "He who abiding 
in intelligence" ( Brh. 3. 7, 22. ), "He who abiding in the soul 
( 6at. Br. 14. 6. 7. 30.). Hence, it is established that the Supreme Lord 
alone is the Inner Controller of all, and not Pradhana, Virat Purusa or the 
individual soul. (Jiva). 



Here ends the Section entitled "The Inner Controller". (7) 



Adhikaraiia. 8 : The Section entitled 'Invisibility' (Sutras. 2224). 

The Supreme Lord, though established (above) to be of the form of 
the visible earth and the rest, yet is not perceptible like them to prove 
this, ( the Author ) begins a new Section : 

SUTRA 1. 2. 22. 

'That which possesses the qualities of invisibility and so on ( is 
Brahman ), on account of the mention of (his) qualities." 

The following text forms the topic treated here, viz. : "Now, the 
Higher (Para) is that whereby the Imperishable is apprehended that which 
is invisible, incapable of being grasped, without family, without caste, 
without eye, without ear, it is without hands and feet, eternal, all-pervasive, 
omnipresent, excessively subtle, it is unchangeable, which the wise per- 
ceive as the source of beings" (Mund. 1.1.5.6.). Here, a doubt arises 
as to whether the Imperishable is Pradhana, or the individual soul, or the 
Sumpreme Lord. 

Frima Facie View 

The Imperishable is Pradhsua. For, as it is transformed into 'Mahat 1 
and the rest, it can 'be taken to be the source of beings. Or, ( alternately, ) 
it is the individual soul. In accordance with the text : "What is peri- 
shable is Primary Matter, what is immortal and imperishable (is the soul)" 
(Svet. 1. 10.), it can be appropriately designated by the word 'Imperish- 
able', Further, through its own actions, it becomes the source of the 
great elements ( ] ), Hence, the Imperishable must be one of these two. 

Reply 
Brahman is the Imperishable One. 

The Supreme Lord alone is the Imperishable, "On account of the 
mention of (His) qualities" iu the text : "Who is omniscient all-knowing, 
whose penance consists of knowledge" (Mund. 1. 1. 9.) and so on. Omni- 
science and the rest are not possible on the part of any one else, besides 
the Supreme Lord. Your view that Pradhana and the individual soul 

(1) At the time of creation, the Creator creates the world accord- 
ing to the past Karmans of Jivas. In this sense, the Jivas are the causes 
of those objects, 



104 6nka$tha-Bhasya 1. 2. 24 

may be taken to be the source of beings is wrong. For, the former being 
non-sentient and the latter non -omniscient cannot have such a power. 

(The Author) points out the inconsistency involved in ( taking) the 
individual soul and Pradhana ( as the Imperishable ). 

SUTRA 1. 2. 23. 

"And on account of the designation of distinction, not the other 
two/ 5 

Here, the text begins with a discourse on the knowledge of all 
through the knowledge of one thus : "What is that, reverend Sir ! Which 
when known, all this becomes known ?" (Muncl. 1. 1. 3.) Here, 'this' 
and 'the other' have been distinguished ( l ). "On account of the desg na- 
tion of that, also, Pradhana is not the Imperishable. Further, as in the 
text : "Higher than the high, Imperishable' (). (Mund. 2. 1. 2. ), ( the 
Imperishable) is designated as different from the individual soul, the in- 
dividual soul is not ( the Imperishable ). 

SUTRA 1. fi. 24 
" Alao oa account of the mention of (His) form." 

In the text : "Fire is his head ; the sun and the moon, his eyes ; 
the regions, his ears ; the Vedas, his utterances ; wind, his breath ; the 
universe, his heart ; from his feet, the earth (arises) truly, he is the 
inner soul of all beings" (Mund. 2. 1. 4.), it is designated that the three 
worlds constitute the form of the Imperishable. For this reason, too, 
the Supreme Soul alone, the soul of all, is designated by the word 
'Imperishable'. 



Here ends the Section entitled "I he Imperishable' 7 . (8) 



(1) Here, two kinds of Vidyfts are spoken of Para and Apara. The 
former is that which enables us to know of the Imperishable, the latter 
consists of the Vedas etc. So, Pradhana cannot be the Imperishable. 

(2) i. e. Hiranyaagarbha. 



Adhikarana 9. The Section entitled "The Imperishable" ( Sutras 
2533) 

That which has been designated above as an object to be wor- 
shipped as the support of the vital-breath, is also to be worshipped as 
the fire in the belly so the (Author) says. 

SUTRA 1. 2. 25. 

"Visvanara (is the Lord), on account of the distinctive attributes 
of the common term". 

There is a text in the Chandogya that forms the topic treated 
here, viz : "But he who meditates on the Vaisvanara Self as of the 
measure of a span only and as of an unlimited dimension, eats food in 
all the worlds, in all beings, in all selves 1 ' (Chand. 5. 18. 1.). Here, a doubt 
arises as to whether Vaisvanara, designated as the object to be wor- 
shipped, is the Supreme Lord, or some one else. 

Prima Facie View 

The Prima Facie view is as follows : The term "Vaisvanara stands 
for the gastric fire, for it is ordinarily applied to the gastric fire, as in 
the text : "This is the Vaisvanara fire which is within this person, by 
means of which this food is digested. Its noise is that one hears on covering 
the ears. When one is on the point of departing, one does not hear this 
sound" (Brh. 5. 9. 1.). Or, (alternately), it is the elemental fire, the third 
great element, for the word 'Vaisvanara' is well-known to be indicat- 
ing it, as in the text : "This, verily, is Vaisvanara fire" (Tait. Sam. 3.3.8., 
Sat. Br. 10. 6. 1. 11.). Or, else, (alternately), it is the Fire-god, for it is 
declared to be the giver of fruits of actions as the Deity to be worshipped, 
Compare the text : "When a son is born, Vaisvanara should be offered 
obtations on twelve pot-sherds (Tait. Sara. 2. 2. 5.). But the Supreme 
Lord cannot be (Vaisvanara), for from the text : "Measure of a span only" 
(Chand. 5. 18, 1.), (Vaisvanara) is known to be of the measure of a span 
only. 

Reply 
Brahman is Vaisvanara 

To this, we reply : The Supreme Lord alone is Vaisvanara. Why ? 
Although the worxl "Vauvanara" is a common term, yet it is here quali- 
fied by words like 'Brahman* and the like that apply only to the Snpreme 
Self. Compare the passages : "Who is our Self ? Who is Brahman ?* 



106 6rIkantfia-Bliasya 1. 2. 27 

( Chand. 5. 11.1.), "You now know this Vaisvanara Self, tell us about 
that" ( Chand. 5. 11.6.), and so on. Hence, such a qualification is not 
possible .in the case of the gastric fire and the rest. So, the Supreme 
lyord alone is VaisvSnara. 

(The Author) states another proof in support of the view that 
(Vaisvanara) is the Supreme Lord. 

SUTRA 1.2. 26. 
"That which is stated by Smrti must be an indication, thus". 

In the passage : "The fire it his head ; the sun and the moon, his eyes" 
(Mund. 2. 1. 4.), the form of the Supreme I/ord, covering Heaven and earth, 
is designated. The same form is recognized here too, in the passage : 
"Verily, of this Vaisvanara Self, the head, indeed, is the brightly shin- 
ing (Heaven) ; the eye, the multiform (sun) ; the breath, that which 
moves in various paths (i. e. the wind) ; the body, extended space ; the 
bladder, indeed, wealth (i. e. water) ; the feet, the earth" (Chand. 5. 18. 2.). 
So, this a sign that (Vaisvanara) is the Supreme self. 

SUTRA 1.2.27. 

"If it be objected that (Vaisvanara is the gastric fire) on account 
of word and the rest, on account of abiding within, not (the Supreme 
Lord), (we reply :) no, on account of teaching the vision (of the Lord) 
thus, on account of impossibility, and (because) they read him also 
at a person". 

Objection 

Because of the word 'fire', mentioned in the text : "This is the 
Vaisvanara Fire" (Sat. Br. 10. 6. 1. 11.) ; because of the designation of a 
triad of fires, in the texts : "The heart is the Garhapatya fire ; the mind, 
the AnvSharya ; the mouth, the Ahavaniya" (Chand. 5. 18. 2.) ; "There- 
fore, the first food which one may come across should be offered" (Chand. 
5. 19. 1. ) ; because of the ( the designation of Vaisvanara) as the support 
of the oblation to the Vital-breath, in the text : "Vaisvanara is the fire in- 
side a person" ( Brh. 5. 9. 1. ; Maitrl 2. 6. ) and also because of the sign of 
abiding within a person, as found in the text : "For, he who knows this 
Vaisvanara fire to be like a man, abiding within a man" ( Sat. Br. 
10. 6. 1. 11. )- ( Vaisvanara ) is the gastric fire, not the Supreme L,ord. 

Reply 
The Gastric Fire is not Vaiavanara. 

W.e reply : "No", because ( the Supreme L/ord ) is taught here as an 
object to be worshipped as the gastric fite ; also because, the mere gas- 



Brahman is Vaisvanara Fire 107 

trie fire cannot possibly have the three world as its body, and so on. 
Moreover, the Vajasaiieyins designate Vaisvanara as a person in the 
text : 'This Vaisvanara fire is the Person.' ( Sat. Br. 10. 6. 1. 11. ). The 
Supreme lyord alone is denoted by the word 'Person' without any quali- 
fication, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "All this is filled up by 
this Person" (Mahanar. 10. 4., Svet. 3. 9.). Hence to hold that (Vaisvanara) 
is the Supreme Self does, indeed, stand to reason. 

SUTRA 1. 2. 28. 
"For that very reason, neither the deity, nor the element." 

As this Vaisvanara has the three worlds for its body, and is denoted 
by the word 'Person', so "for that very reason", it is neither the Fire-god, 

nor the third element ( fire ). 

After having established that ( the Supreme Lord ) is to be wor- 
shipped as the gastric fire, ( the Author ) shows the different constructions 
given by different teachers as regards the word 'fire* denoting the 
Supreme Lord. 

SUTRA 1. 2. 29. 

"(There is) no contradiction, even (if the word 'Vaisvanara' 
denotes the Lord ) directly, Jaimini ( thinks so )". 

It is not necessary to hold that ( the Supreme Lord ) stands for the 
word 'fire' only so far as He is to be worshipped in the form of fire. It 
is also possible to take the word 'fire' as directly referring to the Supreme 
Lord as 'one who leads in front' (*). Heuce, there is "no contradiction 
even" if ( the word 'Vaisvanara be taken to be ) referring to the Supreme 
Lord "directly", () so says "Jaimini". 

SUTRA 1. 2. 30. 
"On account of manifestation, Asmarathya ( thinks so )." 

In the text : "But who meditates on the Vaisvanara Self as of the 
measure of a span merely*' ( Chand. 5. 18. 1.), He who is unlimited, is 
said to be limited as being connected with ( limited ) regions like 
Heaven and earth and this is done "on account of ( His ) manifestation" 
to the worshippers this is the view of the sage "Asmarathya". 



(1) Agram nayati iti Agni. 

(2) It has been said in the prior Siitra that the word 'Vaisvanara' 
stands for the Lord only so far as He is qualified by the gastric fire, i. e. 
only so far as He is to be worshipped as that fire. But, now it is shown 
that the word 'Vaisvanara' denotes the Lord directly, Without any 
qualification. 



108 nkantha-Bhasya 1. 2. 33 

SUTRA 1. 2. 31. 
"On account of remembrance, Badari ( thinks so )/* 

The imagination of a body from head to foot as Heaven upto 
the earth (*) is for the sake of meditation leading to the attainment of 
Brahman this is the view of "Badari". 

SUTRA 1. 2. 32, 

"On account of identification, so Jaimini thinks, for thus (Scripture) 
shows/' 

Here the breast of the worshipper has been imagined to be the 
sacrificial alter and the rest in the text : "The breast is the sacrificial 
alter, the hairs, the sacrificial grass ; the heart, the Garhapatya fire ; the 
mind, Anvaharya-pacana fire" ( Chand. 5. 18. 2. ), in order that the offer- 
ing to the vital-breath, ( Pranahuti ) which is a subsidiary element of the 
Vais'vanara-vidy3, may be imagined to be Agni-hotra this is the view 
of "Jaimini". There is a Scriptural text to this effect : "Now, he who 
offers Agni-hotra knowing this thus" ( Chand. 5. 24. 2. ). 

SUTRA 1. 2. 33. 
"And they record this in that." 

In connection with the offering to the vital-breath, the Tattinyas 
"record" "this", i. e. the Supreme Lord, as the eater "in that" i. e. in the 
body of the worshipper, thus : "May not 6iva destroy people", "The 
Master who pleases (all), the Eater of the universe" (Mahanar. 36.). Hence, 
in accordance with views of all the teachers, as well as on the grounds of 
reason, it is perfectly reasonable to hold that the Supreme Lord is to be 
worshipped as the gastric fire, by means of the offering to the vital-breath. 
( Pranagnihotra ). 

Here ends the Section entitled "Vaisvanra" (9). 

Here ends the Sscond Quarter of the First Chapter of the 
Commentary on the Brahma-Mimainsa, composed by the Saiva teacher 
Srikantha. 

( According to 6rikantha, the Second Quarter of the First Chapter 
contain 33 Sutras and 9 Adhikaranas ). 



(1) Cf. the text : "Verily of this Vaisvanara Self, the head is the 
brightly shining ( Heaven ) ; the eye, the multiform sun" etc. (Chand* 
5.18.2.). See above P. 106. Su 1. 2. 26. 



FIRST CHAPTER ( Adhysya ) 
Third Quarter ( Adhikarana ) 

Adhikarana 1 : The Section entitled "Ths Heaven, the earth and 
o on" ( Sutras 16). 

In this Section, those Vedanta-texts that are half clear yet half not 
clearO) are discussed ; and incidentally it is also determined as to who are 
entitled ( to the knowledge of Brahman ). 

SUTRA 1. 3. 1. 

'The support of the Heaven, the earth and o on ( is Brahman 
alone ), on account of the term 'own 9 . 

In the "Mundaka Upanisad, there is a text that forms the topic 
treated here, viz. : "In whom the Heaven, the earth and the sky are woven, 
as well as the mind together with all the vital-breaths, Him alone know 
as the one soul ; give up other worlds. He is the bridge to immortality." 
(Mund. 2. 2. 5.), Here, a doubt arises as to whether that which is indi- 
cated as the support of the Heaven and the rest is the Supreme Lord, or 
some one else. 

Prima Facie View 

It is arrived at that the air alone, different from the Supreme Lord, 
is the support of the Heaven and the rest. For, from the text : "By means 
of the thread of the air, O Gautama, this world, the next world, as well as 
all beings are tied together" (Brh. 3. 7. 2.), it is well-known to be the 
support of all. 

Reply 
Brahman is the support of the Heaven etc. 

To this, we reply : The Supreme Lord alone is the Support of the 
Heaven and the rest, on account of the term 'self occurring in the 
passage : "Him alone know as the one self " (Mund. 2. 2. 5.). 

To the objection : What harm is there if the air, which is the soul 
passing through the Universe like a thread,( a ) be denoted by the term 
'self ( the Author ) replies : 



(1) In the First Pada "Spasta-liftga-Vakyas" were discussed ; in the 
Second Pada "Anati-spasfc-Vakyas ; in the Third Pada" 

Vakyas". 

(2) Sutratama. 



110 ^rikaiitha-Bhasya 1. 3. 5 

SUTRA 1. 3. 2. 

"On account of the designation of the object to be approached by 
the freed." 

In the texts : "When the seer sees the golden Creator, the Lord, 
the Person, the source of Brahma, then the knower, having dis- 
carded merit and demerit, stainless, attains the highest Unity". (Mund. 
3. 1. 13.), "Just as the flowing rivers disappear into the ocean discarding 
names and forms, so the knower, freed from name and form, goes to the 
Person, who is higher than the high" (Mund. 3. 2. 8.), ( the support of the 
Heaven etc. ) is designated as the object to be attained by the freed souls, 
freed from the names and forms due to merit and demerit. For this 
reason also, it is none but the Supreme Lord. How can this be possible 
on the part of the air ? The air which is the soul passing through the 
universe like a thread (Siitratman) is really the Supreme Lord this being 
one of the eight forms of the Supreme Lord. Hence, it is established that 
this is not the air. 

SUTRA L 3. 3. 

"Not the inference, on account of a word not denoting it, and the 
bearer of the vital -breath." 

It is not to be said that the inferrible Pradhana being the material 
cause of everything is the support of the Heaven and the rest, "on account 
of a word not denoting it," i.e. on account of the word 'self. The "bearer 
of the vital-breath" (i. e. the individual soul) also is not ( such a support ), 
on account of inconsistency. 

SUTRA 1.3.4. 
"On account of the designation of difference/' 

Here, the Lord is designated as different from the individual soul, 
thus : "On the very same tree, a person, sunken, grieves for his weakness, 
deluded. When he sees the Other, the Lord, the Contended, and His 
greatness, he becomes freed, from sorrow." ( Mund. 1. 2. ). (*) Hence, 
naturally, the Supreme Lord alone is the support of the Heaven and the 
rest. 

SUTRA 1.3. 5. 
"On account of the topic." 

In accordance with the text: "Now the high is that through which 
the Imperishable is known" (Mund, 1.1.), the Supreme Being alone is the 
topic treated here. For this reason, too, ( the support of the Heaven etc. ) 
is the Supreme Lord. 

(1) See tinder Su. 1. 2. 11. for explanation. P. 96, 



The Plenty is not the Vital-breath 1 1 1 

SUTRA 1.3. 6. 
"And on account of abiding and eating/' 

The text : "Two birds, fast bound companions, clasp close to 
the very same tree. Of these two, one tastes the sweet berry, the 
other looks on without eating'' (Muncl. 3.1.1.), after having designated, "the 
eating" of the fruits of actions by the individual soul, speaks of the other 
as non-eating and shining forth. Hence, it is established that the Supreme 
Lord other than the individual soul, is the support of the Heaven and the 
rest. 



Here ends the Section "The Support of the Heaven, the earth, and 



Adhikarana 2. The Section entitled "The Plenty". (Sutras 78). 

( The Author ) now shows that the attainment of the Supreme Lord, 
established here as the object to be attained, is the cause of unsurpassable 
bliss. 

SUTRA 1. 3. 7. 

"The Plenty ( is the Lord ), because of the teaching (of it) as above 
serenity." 

After having stated that "The Plenty (Bhuman) alone is pleasure" 
(Chand. 7. 23.1.), the Chandogya goes on to indicate the nature of the 
Plenty, thus : "Where one does not see another, does not hear another, 
does not know another, that is the Plenty" (Chand. 7. 24. 1.). Here, a 
doubt arises as to whether that which is denoted by the term 'Plenty' 
( Bhuman ) is the Supreme Soul, or some one else. 

Prima Facie View. 

The Plenty is something other than the Supreme Lord, viz. the 
vital-breath. As regards the prior entities beginning with 'name,' in reply 
to the question of Narada : "I? there anything, Sir ! which is higher 
than name ?' (Chand. 7.1.5.), Sanatkumara says : "Speech, verily, is 
higher than name" (Chand. 7.2.1.), and soon. Then he introduces the 
Plenty after speaking of the vital-breath, even without any further 



1 12 Srlkantha-Bhasya 1 . 3. 8. 

question answer. (*) Here, the Supreme Lord i.s not at all referred to. 
Hence, the Plenty is the vital-breath. 

Reply 

The Supreme Lord alone is indicated by the word 'Plenty', "became 
of the teaching (of it) as above Serenity". "Serenity" means the individual 
soul, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "This serenity, having arisen 
from this body" (Chand. 8.3.4.) and so on. It is this that is denoted here 
by the term 'vital-breath'. The Plenty is taught as higher than that arid 
inside the self, thus : "But he, verily, speaks superiorly, who speaks 
superiorly through Truth" (Chand. 7.16.1.) and so on. Here, having stated 
that a knower of the vital-breath is a superior speaker in the passage : 
"Verily, by seeing this, by thinking this, by knowing this, one becomes 
a superior speaker" (Chaud. 7.15.4.), the text goes on to demonstrate, by 
the term 'but', the superiority of one who speaks superiorly through 
Truth to one who speaks superiorly through the vital-breath (in Chand. 
7.16.1.). Hence, it is ascertained that, that which is denoted by the word 
'Truth' and is the cause of the former kind of superior speaking, is 
superior to the vital-breath which is the cause of the latter kind of 
superior speaking. The same Being, is later on proved to be endowed 
with the attribute of plentifulness (Chand. 7.23.1.), He is further down 
described as the soul also in the passage : "Now, an instruction with 
regard to the soul" (Chand. 7.25.2). Hence, the Plenty, the Self that is 
higher tjian the individual soul indicated by the word 'vital-breath', is 
none but the Supreme Lord. 

SUTRA 1.3.8. 
"And on account of the appropriateness of the attributes*'. 

In the texts : "Sir ! On what is it established ?' 'On its own great- 
ness'" (Chand. 7.24.1.), "The Self, verily, in all this" (Chand. 7.26.1.), 
"From the Self the vital-breath ; from the Self, hope" (Chand. 7.25.2.), and 

(1) Cf. Chand. 7.1. 7.15. Here, fifteen objects are successively 
referred to, viz. name, speech, mind, resolution, thought, meditation, 
understanding, strength, food, water, heat, space, memory, hope, and the 
vital-breath. In every case, except the last, Narada asks : "Is there any 
thing higher, Sir ?" And, Sanatkumara indicates the immediately succeed- 
ing entity. But, after he comes to the vital-breath, Narada does not ask the 
same question again. But Sanatkumara goes on to speak of the difference 
between the knower of the vital-breath and that of the Truth ; and refers to 
Truth, understanding, thinking, faith, devotion, action, and pleasure, each 
preceding one depending on each succeeding one. (Chand. 7. 15 22.). 
Then he speaks of the Plenty (Bhtiman), 



Brahman is the Bhftman 113 

so on, attributes like 'being established on one's own greatness', 'being 
the soul of all 1 , 'being the cause of all, and so on are taught. All these 
are appropriate on the part of the Supreme Lord alone, and never on that 
of the individual soul, denoted by the word 'vital-breath'. Hence, it is 
established that the Supreme Lord alone is the Plenty, and none else. 

Objection 

In the prior Section^ 1 ) it has been said that in accordance with 
the text : "Stainless, he attains the highest unity" (Mund. 3.1.13.), the 
freed souls become similar to Brahman. Heuce, it is established that 
the freed souls who have attained similarity with Brahman remain 
separate from Him. But in the text : "Where one does not see another, 
does not hear another, does not know another, that is the Plenty" 
(Brahman) (Chand. 7.24.1), it is said that when Brahman is perceived, 
there, is no perceiving of the universe, different from Him. How can 
these two statements be reconciled ? 

Reply 

The assertion that when the Plenty is perceived, 'one does not see 
another' and so on, means as follows : The Being, who is unsurpassable 
bliss in nature, and on directly perceiving whom a person merged (in 
such a bliss) does not care to perceive any other object like colour and 
so on for getting any other kind of pleasure that Being is the Plenty 
or Brahman. The pleasures due to other objects are but infinitesimal 
parts of an infinitesimal part of the bliss due to Brahman. There is a 
Scriptural text to this effect : "On a part of just this bliss do other 
creatures live" (Brh. 4.3.32.). Hence, here duality is not denied in 
Brahman. 

"But, even if the universe exists then, why should the freed 
souls, not give up perceiving it, as it does not serve the spiritual end of 
men ?" such a doubt cannot be raised here. For, the freed souls do not 
perceive the material universe. But they come to perceive only Brahman, 
who is unsurpassable bliss in nature, as the universe. There is a Scrip- 
tural text to this effect : "After that he becomes this, Brahman, who 
has the ether for His body, whose soul is truth, whose pleasure is the 
vital-breath, whose mind is bliss" (Tait. 1.6.1.). (*) Here, in the passage : 
"He obtains self-rule, he obtains lord of the mind" (Tait. 1.6.1.), the freed 
soul is referred to. In the passage : "He becomes the lord of speech" 
(Tait. 1.6.1.) and so on, it is said that (the freed soul) conies to be connected 



(1) See Br. Su. 1.3.2. P. 

(2) For explanation, see under 1.1.2. P. 23. 

15 



1 14 6rikatrtlia-Bhasya 1,3.9. 

with independent, non-material, pure speech-organ and the rest. After 
it attains such a state, to it (the freed soul) the entire expanse of the 
visible, material universe, becomes Brahman who has the ether for 
His body", i. e. whose body is the Ether consisting in the manifested 
Consciousness. (Cidambara) this is the real meaning of the above text. 
Hence, the freed souls are similar to Brahman, yet they perceive the 
universe similar in essence to Him thus everything is consistent. 



Here ends the Section entitled 'The Plenty" (2). 



Adhikarana 3 : The Section entitled : "The Imperishable". 
(Sutras 911) 

SUTRA 1. 3. 9. 

"The Imperishable (is Brahman), because of supporting the end 
of the ether . 

There is a text in the Brhadaratiyaka that forms the topic here, viz. : 
"That, verily, O Gargi, the Brahmanas call the Imperishable, non-gross, 
non-atomic, non-short, non-long, non-red, non-lubricous, without shadow" 
(Brh. 3. 8. 8. ) and so on. Here, a three-fold doubt arises, viz. whether 
that which is denoted by the word 'Imperishable' is Pranava, or the indivi- 
dual soul, or the Supreme Lord. 

Prim a Facie *. iew 

The word 'Imperishable* denotes either Pranava or the individual 
soul. Why ? The word 'Imperishable' (Aksara) being a synonym for the 
word 'letter' (Varna or Aksara), it should be taken to be referring to 
Pranava. In the text : "The Person is said to be imperishable", a 
person, too is denoted by that term. Hence, these two are denoted by 
the term 'Imperishable'. 

Reply 
Brahman is the Imperishable. 

To this we reply : Here, the Supreme Brahman alone is denoted 
by the term 'Imperishable'. Why ? "Becaiue of supporting the end of 
the other". In the text : "That, O Gargi, which is above the Heaven, 



Brahman is the Aksara 115 

that which is beneath the earth, that which is between these Heaven 
and earth, that which people call the past and the present and the future 
in the ether alone all that is inter-woven, warp and woof" ( Brh. 3. 8. 4.), 
the ether is referred to as the support of everything. Then to the question 
of Gargi : "In what is that ether inter- woven, warp and woof ?" (Brh. 
3. 8. 6- ) Yajfiavalkya replied, beginning : "That, O Gargi, Brahmanas 
call the Imperishable", ( Brh. 3. 8. 8. ) and ending : "In that Imperish- 
able, O Gargi, is the ether inter-woven, warp and woof ( Brh. 3. 8. 11.). 
From this, it is known that the Imperishable, referred to by Yajfiavalkya, 
supports the entire universe up to the ether. How can this be ever pos- 
sible on the part of any one else other than the Supreme Lord ? Hence, 
the Supreme Lord alone is denoted by the term 'Imperishable' (Aksara). 

SUTRA 1. 3. 10. 

"And this (supporting) ( is possible on the part of the Lord only ), 
on account of command. 

From the text : "Verily, at the command of this Imperishable, O 
Gargi, the sun and the moon stand held apart" (Brh. 3. 8. 9. ), it is 
known that "this also", i.e. this supporting, is due to an unrestricted 
command. Such a ruling over the world is not possible on the part of 
the individual soul, for the Scriptural text : "Rudra is one only they 
do not admit a second" ( 6 vet. 3. 2. ) declares that there is no one else who 
can rule over the world. Hence, the Supreme Lord alone is denoted by 
the word 'Imperishable'. 

SUTRA 1.3. 11. 

"And on account of the exclusion of another nature". 

" Another nature" means 'another object'. The concluding text : 
"Verily, that Imperishable, Gargi, is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, 
the unthought thinker, the unknown Knower" ( Brh. 3. 8. 11. ) excludes 
a nature, other than the Supreme Lord, from being the Imperishable, for, 
it is impossible for Pranava and the individual soul to be the Unseen Seer 
and the rest. Hence, it is established that the Supreme Lord alone is the 
Imperishable. 



Here ends the Section entitled "The Imperishable" (3). 



Adhikarana 4 : The Section entitled "One Sees" (Sutra 12). 

To prove that though the Supreme Lord is beyond perception and 
the rest, yet through His supreme grace, He makes Himself perceivable 
to His worshippers, ( the Author ) begins another Section, 

SUTRA. 1. 3. 12. 

"On account of the designation (of His qualities). He is the object 
which one sees." 

There is a text in the Pras'na Upanisad that forms the topic treated 
here, viz. "Again, he who meditated on the Highest Person with this 
very syllable *Om' of three elements, goes to the ray in the sun. As a snake 
is freed from its skin, so, verily, is he freed from sins. He is led by the 
Samaii verse to the world of Brahman. He sees the Person lying in the 
city, and higher than the highest mass of souls (Prasna 5. 5. ). Here, a 
doubt arises as to whether the Person declared by the text to be the object 
of the act of seeing is the Supreme Lord or some one else. 

Prima Facie View 

He is not the Supreme Lord, but Hiranyagarbha, because in the 
passage : "He is led by the Saman verse to the world of Brahman", it is 
said that he attains his ( Hiranyagarbha f s) world ; and also because 
the word 'Highest' is applicable only to him, ( Hiranyagarbha ) as he 
is higher than the individual soul. Or, else (alternately), He is Narayana, 
because he is denoted by the word 'Person' ; because he can appropriately 
be taken to be higher than Hiranyagarbha, the highest mass of souls ; 
because it is well-known that the word 'Om' denotes him alone ; because 
the text : "The wise always see that supreme place of Visnu" (Nrsimha- 
purvatSpam. 5. 10.), his world alone is declared to be an object to be 
directly intuited by the wise ; and, finally, because, in the later text : 
"Through the Rg. Verses ( he attains ) this (world) ; through the Yajus 
Formulae, the sky ; through the Saman Chants, that which the sages 
know" (Prasna 5. 7.), we find a reference to him. 

Reply 
Brahman is the Object of Seeing 

To this, we reply : The Supreme Lord alone is the object of the 
act of seeing, because, in a later text, viz. "Through the syllable 
'Om', verily, as a support, the knower reaches that which is peaceful, 
imaging, immortal, fearless and supreme" ( Prasna 5. 7. ), His special 



Brahman, the Object of Seeing 117 

qualities, like peacefulness and the rest, have been designated. These 
attributes of peacefulness and the rest can never belong to Hiranyagarbha, 
His product. From the phrase : "World of Brahman", it is known that 
the world of the Supreme Brahman, 6iva, is the object to be attained. 
The words "mass of souls" mean Hiranyagarbha who is of the form of the 
totality of individual souls. He who is higher than he, the high, is 
declared by the text to be the object of worship. Hence, the view that 
(the Person to be seen) is Hiranyagarbha does not stand to reason. 

Next, let us consider your view that (such a Person) is Narayana. 
How can (the qualities of) 'being ever free', 'being the cause of fearless- 
ness', 'being the highest as superior to the world', mentioned in the 
text : "Immortal, fearless and supreme" (Brh. 5. 2. 7.), fit in on his part ? 
This (Person) has the whole universe as His form. How can that, too, 
fit in on his (Narayana's) part ? He who is higher than even Narayana, 
who is higher than Hiranyagarbha, the mass of souls, lies in the 
city (i. e. in the heart) as the inner controller. Hence, it is said here 
that the worshipper of Brahman directly sees Him, the Supreme 
Person. It is asserted by Scripture that "Brahman is higher than 
Narayana" (Mahanar 11. 4.), ( ] ) "The True, the Existent, the Supreme 
Brahman, the black and twany Person, self-controlled having diverse (i.e. 
three) eyes". (Mahanar. 12. 1.) and so on. Hence, it is reasonable to hold 
that in the text : "He sees the Person lying in the city, and higher than 
the highest mass of souls" (Prasna 5. 5.), Brahman higher than all, is. 
designated as the object of the act of seeing Brahman who is called a 
'Person' as He lies in the 'city', viz. the heart lotus (*) ; who is also 
denoted by the word 'Om' in accordance with the Scriptural text : "He 
who is higher than that which is merged in Prakrti is Mahesvara" 
(Mahanar. 10. 8.) ; who is higher than Narayana, who is of the form of 
the universe, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "Brahman is higher 
than Narayaria", (Mahanar 11.4.) who is the 'the True, i. e. the Existent', 
being free from all the mistakes due to speech and mind ; who is 'diverse- 
eyed' as possessing three eyes ; who is 'black and twany' as having a 
variegated form, which again is due to being denoted by the word I'Uma' 
which consists of the same letters as the word 'Om^ 8 ). 

The text quoted by you, viz. 'The supreme place of Visnu' (Nrsini- 
hapurvatapani 5. 10.), means the supreme form of Visnu a form other 
than the form of the universe and unsurpassable bliss in nature ; and 



(1) See under 1. 2. 5. P. 87. 

(2) Puri (Dahara-pundarike) sete iti Purusa. 

(3) See under Adhikarana 5 Introduction. 



118 6rikantha-Bhasya 1. 3. 13 

such a form is none but the Supreme Brahman, called 'Siva'. So no 
contradiction is involved here. As Visnu and 6iva are respectively the 
material and efficient causes, there is only a difference of states, but no 
difference of nature, between them. 



Here ends the Section "One See a" (4\ 



Adhikarana 5 : The Section entitled "The Small" (Sutras 13-22). 

It has been established above that although the Supreme Brahman, 
who i.s a Person as lying in the city (i.e. the heart-lotus) for favouring His 
devotees, who is variegated in form as possessing the supreme power viz. 
'Uma', arrived at by changing the letters of the Pranava (*), and who has 
diverse eyes (i. e. three eyes) is beyond the universe including Hari, Brahma 
and the rest, yet there results a direct perception of Him on the part of 
those who worship Him, i. e. are devoted to Pranava 'Otn', denoting 
Him, a perception that leads to the cessation of trail smigratory existence 
and attainment of Him. To make clear this kind of worship of Him as 
lying in the city (i. e. the heart-lotus), (the Author) begins a new Section. 

SUTRA 1. 3. 13. 
'The small (ether) is Brahman, on account of what follows." 

There is a text in the Chandogya that forms the topic treated here, 
viz. "Now, what is within this city of Brahman is a small lotus, a 
chamber j small krthe ether within it. What is within that should be 
searched for ; that, verily, should be enquired into", (Chsnd. 8.1.1.). Here, 
a doubt arises as to whether this 'Small Ether' (Daharakasa) is the 
elemental ether, or the individual soul, or the Supreme Lord, 8 

Prima Facie View 

As the word 'ether' directly stands for the ether, this small ether is 
the elemental ether. Or, alternately it means the that individual soul (is 

(1) The Pratjava is the Supreme Syllable "Om" counsting of three 
letters "A, U, Ma". If these are changed as "U, Ma, A" then we get the 
none "UM&", ("Ma+A=MA). 

(2) See Br. Su. 3.3,1. ; 3.3.38. 



Brahman is Daharakasa 119 

such a 'small ether'), as the word 'small' indicates a small size and that is 
possible in the case of the atomic soul only. But the all-pervasive 
Supreme Lord cannot be 'the small'. 

Replr 
Brahman is the 'Small Ether" 

To this, we reply : The Supreme Lord alone is the 'Small Ether'. 
Why ? "On account of what follows", i. e. on account of the qualities of 
of 'being free from sins' and the rest, established by the concluding text : 
"This soul is free from sins, without hunger, without thirst, having true 
desires, having true resolves" (Chand. 8.7.1.). How can all these be 
possible on the part of the transmigratory soul ? Hence, the Lord alone 
is the 'Small Ether', and endowed with the attributes of 'being free from 
sins' etc. 

SUTRA 1. 3. 14. 

"On account of going and of word, for thus it is seen, there is a 
mark as well." 

In the concluding part of the text, viz. "just as those who do not 
know the place move again and again over a hidden treasure of gold, but 
do not find it, so these beings are going day by day to that World of 
Brahman, but do not find it, for they are carried away by untruth" (Chand. 
8.3.2.), the daily "going" of creatures to this 'small ether' is declared ; the 
"word" 'world of Brahman (Brahmaloka)', too, is found here for these two 
reasons as well, 'the small eather* is none but the Supreme Lord. In another 
Scriptural text, such a 'Going' to the Supreme Lord is stated thus : 
"So exactly, my dear, all these beings, united with the Existent, do not 
know : We have become united with the Existent" (Chand. 6.9.2.). The 
word 'world of Brahman,' too, is found in another text, viz. " 'This is the 
world of Brahman, O King' said he" (Brh. 4.3.32.). Further, these too, 
viz. "going" and "word" (viz. "world of Brahman') are not found in relation 
to anything else. In this Section, the daily going of all beings as declared 
by Scripture as well as the word 'world of Brahman' are sufficient proofs 
that the Supreme Lord is "the Small Ether." 

SUTRA 1. 3. 15. 

"And because supportiug, which is a greatness of Him ( viz. of the 
Lord ) is observed in it, ( viz. in the small ether )." 

"the supporting" of the world, which is mentioned in the text : 
"Now, He who is the soul is the bridge, a limitary support for keeping 
these worlds apart" (Chand. 8.4,1.), and which is a "greatness" of the 



120 6rIkantha-Bhasya 1. 3. 17 

Supreme Lord, is observed "in it", i. e. in the small ether'. And "support- 
ing" is a "greatness" of the Supreme Lord, in accordance with the 
Scriptural text : "He is the Lord of all, He is the Lord of the worlds. He 
is the bridge, the limitary support for keeping these worlds apart" ( Brh. 
4,4.22.). Hence, 'the small ether' is the Supreme Lord. 

SUTRA 1.3.16. 

"And because of being celebrated." 

In the Mali opani sad, as well as in the Kaivalya U pan i sad, the 
Supreme Lord, the Companion of Uma, is celebrated as an object to be 
worshipped as inside the small (heart-) lotus. Compare the following texts : 
"Inside the heart-lotus, there is the small ether, devoid of sins. Inside 
that small ether, again, there is the ether devoid of sorrows what is in- 
side this, is to be worshipped" (Mahopanisad) ; beginning "The heart-lotus 
devoid of blemishes", and continuing "meditating on the Lord, the Master, 
with Uma as Companion, with three eyes, with a blue neck, calm" 
(Kaivalya). For this reason, too the Supreme Lord is 'the Small Ether.' 

If it be objected : 'The Supreme Lord is celebrated in another 
Upanisad as an object to be worshipped as inside the small ether, 
within the small (heart-) lotus. Compare the text : "That which is this 
ether inside the heart in it He lies, the controller of all, the Lord of all" 
(Brh. 4.4.22.). But here He is taken tc be the small ether itself. (*) 
So, here a contradiction arises, 

We reply : There, too, f viz. in Brh. 4. 4. 22. ) the Supreme 
Lord is not an object to be worshipped as inside the small ether, but 
as His qualities, like 'freedom from sins' and the rest, belong to the 
small ether, He is the small ether itself, consisting, as He does of the 
Ether that is Consciousness in essence ( 8 ). So, here there is no con- 
tradiction. 

SUTRA 1. 3. 17. 

"If it be objected tbat on account of a reference to the other (viz. 
the individual soul), he ( is the small ether ), ( we reply : ) no, because 
of impossibility. 9 ' 

Objection 

In the text : "This serene being, having arisen from this body 
having attained the form of highest light, is completed in its own form. 

(1) i. e. in Chand. 8.1.1., it is said that the Lord is the small ether, 
while in Brh. 4.4.22., it is said that He is inside the small ether. How 
can these two statements be reconciled ? 

(2) Cidambara. See above, P. 23, etc. 



The Individual Soul is not Daharakasa 121 

This is the soul, said he" ( Chand. 8. 3. 4. ), "the other", i. e. the indivi- 
dual soul, has been referred to. Hence "he" must be the ether which is 
the topic here. 

Reply 

Jiva it not the Small Ether/' 

We reply : "No", "because of the impossiblity" of ( the qualities 
like ) 'freedom from sins' and the rest on its part. Hence, it is reason- 
able to hold that the Supreme Lord alone, its support, ( is the small 
ether ). 

SUTRA 1. 3. 18. 

"If it be objected that from what is subsequent, ( the individual 
soul may be meant here ), ( we reply : ), but ( that subsequent passage 
refers to the soul so far only as ) it has its real nature manifest." 

Objection. 

In the subsequent statement made by Prajapati, Viz. in the passage : 
"The Self that is free from sins, without old age, without death, without 
sorrow, without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true 
resolves He should be searched for, He should be desired to be known" 
( Chand. 8. 7. 1. ), it is declared that the individual soul too is free from 
sins and the rest. That the possession of the three states ( l ) is a special 
mark of the individual soul, too, is mentioned in the following passages : 
"This Person who is seen in the eye He is the soul, said he'" (Chand. 8.7.4.). 
"He, the great one, who roams about in a dream he is the soul, said he'* 
( Chand. 8. 10. 1. ), "Now, when one is sound asleep, composed, serene, 
and knows no dream he is the self, said he" ( Chand. 8. 11. 1. ). Hence, 
it ( viz. the individual soul ) alone can fittingly be ( the small ether ). 

Reply 

This is not correct. When the individual soul conies to have a 
body, due to its own beginningless actions, its qualities like 'freedom 
from sins' and the rest disappear. Later on, when it attains the form of 
the Highest Light, ( viz. Brahman ), "it has its own nature manifest", i. e. 
then its qualities like 'freedom from sins' etc. are manifested, And, it is 
this ( freed soul ) that is referred to ( in the above-mentioned passage ), 
and not the transmigratory soul. But the small ether possesses all auspi- 
cious qualities that are natural and never disappear. Hence, ( the indi- 
vidual soul ) that is in bondage at first, and only later on freed, is not the 
small ether. (). 

(1) i. e. Jagrat, Svapna, Susupti. 

(2) i. e. the Lord always possesses the attributes of 'freedom from 
sins' etc ; while the individual soul does not possess them always, but 

16 



122 Srika^ha-Bhasya 1. 3. 21 

SUTRA L 3. 19. 
"And the reference has a different purpose. 

In the text : "Having arisen from this body, having attained the 
form of the highest light, it is completed in its own form" ( Chand. 
8. 3. 4. ), it is said that when the individual soul attains the Supreme 
Reality, denoted by the word 'small ether', it is manifested in its own 
form. The reference to the individual soul there is for the purpose 
of demonstrating His greatness. Hence, no contradiction in involved 
here. 

SUTRA 1. 3. 20. 

"if it be objected that on account of the Scriptural declaration 
of what is small, ( the Lord is not the small ether ), ( we reply : ) 
that has been said/' 

To the objection that as ( the small ether ) occupying, as it does, 
a small place, is itself small in nature, it cannot be the Supreme Being, we 
have already replied before, in the Aphorism : "And like the ether" (Br, Su. 
I. 2. 7.). 

SUTRA 1.3.21. 
"And because of similarity with that." 

From the concluding part of the text, it is known that this individual 
soul is similar to the Highest Ivight, ( viz. Brahman ), denoted by the term 
'small ether'. Compare the passage : "Over that bridge cross neither day, 
nor night, nor old age, nor death, nor sorrow, nor well-doing, nor evil-doing. 
All sins turn back from that, (for) this world of Brahman, verily, is free 
from sins. Hence, verily, upon crossing that bridge, if one is blind, be 
remains no longer blind ; if he is injured, he remains no longer, injured ; 
if he is sorrowful, he remains no longer sorrowful. Hence, verily, upon 
crossing that bridge, night appears even as day, for that world of Brahman 
is ever illumined." (Chand. 8. 4. 1-2.). Here, it is said that, as one who has 
attained the 'Small Ether' becomes free from sinful deeds, blindness and 
the rest and becomes ever-illumined, so the 'Small Ether', the object to be 
attained, is the cause (of the 'freedom from sins' etc. of the individual soul), 
possessing, as it does those qualities of 'freedom from sins' and the rest. 
From another Scriptural text, too, it is known . that it (viz. the Small 
Ether or the Lord ) is the cause of that ( viz. 'freedom of sins' etc. or 
salvation of the individual soul ). Compare the text : "Free from 



only when its real nature comes to be manifested. Hence, the Small 
E^her which always possesses these qualities cannot be the individual 
soul. 



Brahman, the Daharakasa 123 

blemishes, it attains a supreme similarity' (Mund. 3. 1. 3.). Hence, it is 
known that, ( one who has attained the Small Ether or the Lord ), becomes 
similar to it through attaining the above mentioned results ( viz. 'freedom 
from sins' etc. ). Now, such a similarity implies a difference from Him.O) 
Hence, the individual soul is not ( the 'Small Ether' )- this is the meaning. 

( The Author ) brings forth another proof with regard to this : 

SUTRA 1. 3. 22. 
"Moreover, this is declared by Smrti". 

The following Smrti passage declares that Brahman is to be wor- 
shipped as inside the small ( heart- ) lotus : "Or else, O GargT, through 
practice, ( the wise ) see Brahman the Supreme Soul, having a form of 
supreme bliss, to be known through the instruction of the teacher, the 
Person, black and twany inside the city of Brahman, ( i. e. ) in the 
middle of ether inside the small ( heart- ) lotus. You, also, do the same," 
and so on. Hence it is established that the Supreme Brahman, who is 
Supreme Light in nature, who is to be attained by the freed souls, and 
who is accompained by the Supreme Power, viz. Uma, is inside the ether 
within the small ( heart- ) lotus, is possessed of the natural qualities of 
'freedom from sins' and the rest, and is an object to be worshipped. 



Here ends the Section entitled 'The Small" (5). 



Adhikarana 6 : The Section entitled "What is measured". (Sutras 
2324). 

Now, ( the Author ) speaks of an another form of the Supreme Lord 
to be worshipped. 

SUTRA 1. 3. 23. 

"On account of the Scriptural text itself, what is measured ( is the 
Lord V 

There is a text in the Kat^a-valli that forms the topic treated 
here, viz. : "The Person, of the size of merely a thumb, dwells in the 
midst of the soul", "The Lord of the past and the future, one does not 

(1) The individual soul is only similar to Brahman, not identical 
with Him. 



124 rikattha-Bhasya ]. 3, 24. 

hate Him" (Katha. 4. 12,). Here, a doubt arises as to whether the Person 
declared by the text to be of the size of a thumb merely, is the Supreme 
Lord, or the individual soul. 

PrSma Facie View 

It is proper to hold that He is the individual soul. For, from the 
text : "Having all forms, characterised by the three qualities ( viz. Sattva, 
Rajas, Tanias ), following the three paths ( viz. of good acts, bad acts and 
knowledge ), the lord of the vital-breath ( viz. the individual soul ) roams 
about according to its deeds he who is of the measure of a thumb merely, 
of a sun-like appearance, endowed with resoultion and egoism" (Svet. 5. 13. 
7 8,), it is known that it (i, e. the individual soul) is of the size of a thumb 
merely. Also from the text : "Dwells in the midst of the soul" (Katha. 4.12.), 
it is known that it ( i. e. the Person of the size of a thumb merely ) is 
inside the body. But the All-pervasive Supreme Lord is not ( this Person 
of the size of a thumb merely ). 

Reply 
Brahman is the Person of the size of a thumb 

To this, we reply : It stands to reason that the Supreme Soul 
alone is the Person of the size of a thumb merely, "On account of the 
Scriptural te^t" indicating His special marks viz. "The Lord of the 
past and the future" (Katha 4. 12.) ; also because He alone is declared to 
be the Lord of all, by the Scriptural passage : "Endowed with all lord- 
ship, the Lord of all, &ambhu, inside the ether", 

To the objection How can limitedness, repeatedly declared here, 
be possible on the part of the Supreme Lord' ? (the Author) replies : 

SUTRA 1. 3. 24. 

"But (the Lord is said to be of the size of merely a thumb) in refer- 
ence to the heart (of men) because men (alone) are entitled (to Scripture)". 

Although the Supreme Lord is unlimited, yet He becomes of the 
size of a thumb merely "in reference to the heart" of a worshipper, for, 
in accordance with the injunctions regarding meditation, men (alone) are 
entitled to ( such a meditation). For facilitating the meditation of men, 
the All-merciful Supreme Lord assumes a limited form, of the size of 
the hearts of men. Hence it is established that the ever-illumined Supreme 
Lord, having the form of a Linga, dwells in the hearts of His worshippers. 



Here ends the Section entitled "What is Measured" (6). 



Adhikarana 7 : The Section entitled "The Deity" (Sutras 2532). 

By the phrase : "Because men are entitled (to Scripture)" (Br. vSfi. 
1. 3, 24.), it has been indicated in the previous Section that men alone 
are entitled to the worship of the Supreme Lord. But, then, why in the 
following Atharvasiras passage : "Hence, the gods do not see Rudra, those 
gods meditate on Rudra" (Atharvasiras 1.), is it said that gods too, are 
entitled to worship. Him ? 

SUTRA 1. 3. 25. 

"Even those who are above them (i. e. men) (are entitled to the 
worship of Brahman), (so) Badarayana (holds), because of possibility". 

A text mentioned in the Atharvasiras forms the topic here, viz 
"Those gods meditate on Rudra" (Atharvasiras 1. ). Here the doubt is as 
to whether the gods can possibly be entitled to worship the Supreme Lord, 
or not. 

Prima Facie View 

The Prima Facie View is that they cannot possibly be so. A seeker 
is one who possesses the power of (being so), i. e. one who is learned or 
well-versed in the Scriptures and entitled to the Vedic rites and rituals( l ). 
But they (i. e. the gods) do not possess such a power, as they do not 
possess bodies. Those who possess bodies alone are capable of (acts like) 
eulogising, meditating and the like. 

If it be objected : In accordance with the passage : "Indra 
raised the thunderbolt for Vrtra", they, too, possess bodieswe 
reply, not so, because those texts that lefer to injunctions, cannot 
stand for any other meaning. Even if they do possess bodies, they 
cannot be seekers of the Supreme Lord, as their place is the same 
as that of the Supreme Lord. From the Scriptural text : "Verily, 
the gods went to the region of Heaven ; those gods asked Rudra : 'Who 
are you, my Lord ?' " ( Atharvasiras 1. ), it is known that the region 
of Heaven, is the place of Rudra, the Supreme Brahman, and that very 
region is the place of the gods as well. From the Scriptural text : "He 
obtains self-rule" ( Tait. 1. 6. 2. ), it is known that the same place is to be 
obtained even by a freed soul. In the same manner, they ( i. e. the gods ) 
do not possess any learning. For, as the study of the Vedas, preceded 
by the purificatory ceremony of initiation, is absent ( in their case ), it 
is impossible for them to investigate into Brahman ; and hence, it is not 

(TT~See under Su. 1. 1. 1. P. 6. 



126 6rikantha-Bhasya 1. 3. 25 

reasonable to hold that they can have any knowledge of Brahman. Hence, 
they are not well-versed in the Scriptures. Therefore, the gods are not 
entitled to worship Brahman. 

Reply 
Gods are entitled to worship Brahman 

But the Correct Conclusion is that the gods, too, are entitled 
to worship Brahman. Why ? Because it is possible for them too to 
become seekers. Further, the place of the gods is not the same as that 
of the Supreme Lord, for, although the word 'Heaven' indicates pleasure 
in a general manner, due to the topic treated of and so on, yet, it may 
stand for something special. E. g. the word 'lyord', indicating only a master 
or owner ( in a general manner >, means, due to the force of the topic 
treated, the King of a particular place only, as in the passage : 'One should 
approach the Lord for the sake of keeping his property safe' ; but when 
the topic is Brahman, the same word means unsurpassable glory and 
indicates Him alone. In the same manner, the word 'Heaven' indicating 
only pleasure (in a general manner), means, due to the force of the topic 
treated as well as to another source of proof, the place of the gods, that is 
vitiated by faults like perishableness, limitedness and the like, and (as 
such) consists of very little happiness. But the place of 6iva, the Supreme 
Brahman, on the other hand, is said to be characterized by unsurpassable 
bliss and does not lead to any return (to transmigratory existence). Hence, 
those who belong to the place that consists of pleasure vitiated by limited- 
ness, can very well be aspirers after the place of Brahman, consisting in 
limitless pleasure. 

Further, as the gods possess immense powers (i. e. are omniscient 
etc.), the meanings of the Vedas are by themselves revealed to 
them ; also, they do not forget the Vedas read before. Hence, 
knowledge is quite possible on their parts. As Scripture enjoins medita- 
tion in a general manner, ( l ) it is impossible to deny this right (of 
meditation to gods). Thus, the alleged want of learning (on their parts) 
can never be proved. As they do possess bodies, as proved through 
eulogistic statements (mentioned above), they possess also the requisite 
powers (to worship). Although in figurative statements like: "The sun 
is the sacrificial post". "Fire is the antidote to cold", no literal meaning 
can be accepted, yet in eulogistic statements like 'Indra raised the 
thunderbolt for Vrtra', there being neither any contradiction nor any 

(1) i. e. it is enjoined in Scripture, in a general manner, that all 
are entitled to the meditation of Brahman, and there is no exclusion of 
the Gods by special injunctions, as there is in the case of 6udras. 



Gods possess bodies 127 

proofs through other sources, literal meaning is possible. Hence, the 
gods are entitled to the meditation of Brahman. 

Apprehending another contradiction in the view that the gods 
possess bodies, (the Author) refutes it thus : 

SUTRA. 1. 3. 26. 

"Jf it be objected that ( if tbe gods be possessed of bodies) a con- 
tradiction with regard to works ( with results ), ( we reply ) No, because 
of the observation of the assumption of many (bodies by gods and 
others). 

Objection 

If the gods be possessed of bodies, then it has to be admitted that 
they are simultaneously present in all the sacrifices, where they are in- 
voked, but which are performed in different localities. But that does not 
stand to reason. Hence, "a contradiction with regard to works" (results). 

Reply 

This is not to be apprehended. It is found that though possessed 
of bodies, Saubhari and the like assumed many bodies simultaneously. 
Hence, no contradiction whatsoever is involved here. 

To the objection : There may be no contradiction with regard to 
Vedic works, yet there does exist a contradiction with regard to words 
( the Author ) replies. 

SUTRA. 1. 3. 27 

"if it be objected that ( a contr iciction will r suit ) with regard to 
word ( we reply ) No, on account of the origin (of everything) from it 
on account of perc^pti an (i.e scripture) and inference (i.e. Smrti),'' 

Objection 

Although there may not be any contradiction with regard to works, 
such a contradiction does result with regard to Vedic words. How ? If the 
gods be possessed of bodies, then they easily become non-eternal. Then, 
gods like even Indra and the rest inevitably come to have an origination. 
If that be so, then prior to their origination and after their destruction, 
Vedic words like 'Indra' and the rest will become meaningless, or non- 
eternal ( J ). If ( the Vedas ) be non-eternal, then they will come to have a 
human origin, and, thus, the injunctive and prohibitive (Vedic) texts will 



(1) Gods themselves are non-eterual. Yet the words 'Itidra' etc. 
being Vedic words, mnst be eternal. This is self-contradictory. 



128 6nka$tha-Bhasya 1. 3. 27 

cease to be authoritative. Hence, the rites and rituals enjoined by them, too, 
will not be performed. Thus, many disastrous consequences will follow. 
So if we want to get rid of this kind of contradiction with regard to 
Vedic words, the corporeality of gods cannot be admitted. 

Reply 

To this, we reply. "No", because of the origin of Indra and the rest 
"from this", i. e. from the Vedic words themselves like 'Indra^' etc. If 
words like 'Indra' and the rest were indicative of particular individuals, 
then only could they become meaningless and non-eternal when Indra etc., 
were themselves destroyed. ( But ) it is said that like the words 'cow* and 
the like, the words 'Indra' etc. also denote particular forms or prototypes 
only ( and not particular individuals, as such ). Thus, just as a potter has 
first in his mind a general idea of a 'pot', and then makes pot etc. by 
remembering that form by that word 'pot', so when the prior Indra and 
the rest come to be destroyed, Brahma, by remembering the particlar forms 
of the former Indra etc. by means of those Vedic words 'Indra' and the 
rest, creates other Indra etc. as having the very same forms. Hence, even 
when the particular individuals like Indra etc. are destroyed, their forms 
are never destroyed. Therefore, the Vedic words are eternal, and as such, 
no contradiction is involved here. 

If it be asked : What is the proof with regard to this ? ( we 
reply ) Scripture and Smrti. Compare the following Scriptural texts : 
"Prajapati evolved name and form, the existent and the non-existent, 
by means of the 'Veda' ( Tait. Br. 2. 6. 2. 3. ), "He uttered 'Bhur', 
He created the earth ( Tait. Br. 2. 2. 4. 2.), and so on. Compare the 
following Smrti passage also : "In the beginning, He created the names 
and the actions of all as mutually separate, as well as the different establi- 
shed orders, from the Vedic words alone.' (Manu. 1. 21.).( l ) 



(1) The whole argument is as follows : The Prinia Facie view is 
that, if gods be possessed of bodies, then these bodies being non -eternal, 
the gods themselves must become so. But the words 'Indra' etc. occur in 
the Vedas. Hence, here we shall have to accept one of the following 
consequences, both of which are equally undesirable, (a) The Vedic words 
*Indra' etc. become meaningless prior to the origination and after the 
destruction of individual gods like Indra etc. For, during these two 
periods, no gods actually exist, yet the words denoting them do. So, these 
latter become mere empty words, referring to no actual objects, just like 
the words 'sky-flower' etc. (b) To avoid this, we may say that when Indra 
etc. are themselves non-existent before creation and after destruction, then, 
the words indicating them also simultaneously become non-existent, but 



The Vedas are Eternal 129 

SUTRA 1. 3. 28. 

"For thfe very reason, the eternity (of the Vedas follows)". 

'Tor th's very reason", although Visvamitra and the rest are makers 
of Mantra in accordance with the texts : "He chooses the maker of 
Sacred Formulae", "This is a hymn of Visvamitra" (Tait. Sam. 5.2.3.), 
yet as words like 'Visvamitra' etc. stand for prototypes (and .not for 
particular individuals), the eternity of the Vedas consisting of Mantra 
and Brshrnaija is not jeopardised in any way. Hence, Brahma, being 
endowed with the power of directly intuiting the Sacred Formulae 
(Mantras), without having read them, creates an object by remembering 
(its prototype) from tlie Vedic word. Thus, having remembered the 
particular forms of former Visvamitra etc. from those Vedic words, 
Brahma creates other Visvamitra etc. at the end of a Naimittika-Pralaya( l ), 
as endowed with those very forms- and those very powers. They, on 
their part, recite all those sacred formulae even without having read 
them (before). Hence, they are makers of Sacred Formulae, (yet) the 
Vedas are eternal ( 9 ). 

lyet this be so during the Naimittika-Pralaya, but during Prakrta 

Pralaya, Brahma and the Word, i. e. the Veda, too, come to be destroyed 

So, how can the Vedas be taken to be eternal ?- to this, (the Author) 
replies : 



they come into existence only when those gods themselves do so. But on 
these view, the Vedic words or the Vedas themselves become non-eternal. 
This is the Prima Facie View. 

The reply is that the Vedic words do not stand for individuals 
( Vyakti ) which are non-eternal, but for types ( Akrti ) which are eternal. 
It is in accordance with these eternal types, denoted by these eternal Vedic 
words, that non-eternal individuals are created anew at the beginning of 
each creation. 

(1) There are four different kinds of Pralaya, Nitya, Prakrta 
Naimittika, Atyantika. Naimittika-Pralaya means the end of a day of 
Brahma or the end of four Yugas. This means the destruction not of 
Brahma, but of the whole universe. Prakrta Pralaya implies the destruc- 
tion of Brahma as well. Cf. Vedanta Paribhasa (7th Chapter). 

(2) The Vedic Mantras are said to be composed by different sages 
in different ages. Hence, as these sages, are non-eternal, these Mantras, 
too, are so. Thus, the Vedas themselves become non-eternal. But really, 
the eternal Vedic Mantras are not composed by those sages, but only 
reavealed by them. Thus, a sage Visvamitra reveals a Mantra in a parti- 
cular age. Then, in course of time, Visvamitra perishes, but the Mantra 

17 



130 Snkantha-Bhasya 1. 3. 30. 

SUTRA 1. 3. 29 

"And on account of having the same name and form, (there it) 
no contradiction even with regard to the recurrence (of the world), on 
account of perception (i. e Scripture) and on account of Smrti-" 

As the objects to be created (in the beginning of each creation) have 
the same names and forms, no contradiction is involved in the recurrence 
(of the very same world-order) even after Prakrta Pralaya. Thus, the 
Omniscient, Omnipotent Supreme Lord, higher than the universe and 
the First Cause, having remembered the prior established orders, creates 
the universe anew as having the very same forms. Having remembered 
the Vedas too, as having the same order as Kefore, He gives them to 
Brahma who is like a son to Him, How is this known ? From Scripture 
as well as Smrti. Compare the following Scriptural texts : "The Creator 
fashioned, as he did before, the sun and the moon, the Heaven, the earth 
and the ether and then the sky". (Rg. V. 10.190.3.). "He who first 
creates Brahma and he who, foresooth, delivers the Vedas to him", 
(6vet. 6.18.). There are Smrti passages, too, to this effect, viz. : "At the 
beginning He created waters, then He poured semen into these, that 
became a golden egg, radiant like the sun. In it, was born Brahma 
himself, the progenitor of the whole universe. First He created the 
Brahma and to him, He delivered the Vedas". (Manu I.) 

Hence, there being the recurrence (of the prior world-order) after 
Prakrta Pralaya, the Vedas are eternal. ( l ) 

Opponent's View (Sutras 30-31) 

SUTRA 1. 3. 30. 

"On account of impossibility, (the sun and the rest have) no right 
to the (meditation on) the honey an J the rest, (so) Jaimtni (thinks)". 



does not. Later on, a new VisvSmitra is created in accordance with the 
eternal proto-type denoted by the Veclic word 'Visvamitra', and thus 
endowed with the very same forms, powers etc. This new Visvamitra 
reveals the very same Mantra and so on. Thus, the Mantra itself remains 
the same from all eternity, only its revealers change from age to age. 
Thus, the Vedic Mautras are really eternal. 

(1) Just as after Naimittika Pralaya, Indra etc. and other objects 
of the Universe are created anew according to their eternal proto-types, 
so after Prakrta Pralaya, too, Brahma himself and the Vedas are also done 
so in exactly the same manner. Here, creation of the Vedas simply means 
their revelation they being eternal. 



Gods are entitled to Worship Brahman 131 

As in the 'Meditation on the Honey' ( Madhu-Vidya ), gods like Vasu 
and the rest are themselves objects to be worshipped and attained, Vasu and 
the rest cannot consistently be agents (i. e. worshippers) and objects ( i. e. 
objects to be worshipped) at the same time. So they cannot be the objects 
to be worshipped. Again, as the existent Vasu etc, have already attained 
Vasu-hood etc., these (Vasu-hood etc.) cannot, again, be the objects to be 
attained. Hence, Vasu and the rest are not entitled to it (viz. Honey- 
Meditation) So thinks jaimini. 

Opponent's View ( concluded ) 

SUTRA 1. 3. 31. 

"And (Gods are worshippers) with regard to light ; also because of 
existence (of texts to that effect) 1 ' 

Although from the text : "That the gods worship (Him) as the Light 
of lights, as life, as immortal' (Brh. 4.4.16.) it is known that the Light, i.e. 
the Supreme Brahman, is (the object to be worshipped) in general by gods, 
yet as such texts indicate their right ( to the worship of Brahman only), 
they have no right to other (kinds of worship) like the Honey-Meditation 
this is established by logical arguments. 

Author's View 

SUTRA 1. 3. 32. 

"But Badarayana (maintains) the existence (of right on the part of 
the gods), for it is (possible for Brahman to be worshipped as Vasu etc./' 

Badarayana thinks that Vasu and the rest are entitled to the Honey- 
Meditation and the like also. For, there is noing wrong in supposing that 
Brahman having the form of Vasu and the rest should be the object to be 
worshipped by those present Vasu, etc., and also that they should strive 
for Vasu-hood in a future age. Brahman, both in His the causal and 
effected states, is the object to be worshipped here. Thus, having begun, 
"This sun, verily, is the honey of gods" (Chand. 3.1.1.), the text goes on to 
teach the worship of Brahman in a particular effected state, endowed with 
the names, forms and actions of Aditya, Vasu and the rest. Then, in the 
passage : "Then, when (it) ascends up above this, it will not rise, 
will not set, but will remain alone in the middle" (Chand. 3.11.1'), it is 
taught that Brahman is to be worshipped in its causal state as devoid of 
names, forms and actions, and abiding as the Inner Controller of the subtle 
Aditya etc. The result of the worship of Brahman in both these states is 
the attainment of Vasu-hood and the rest in another age. at the end of 
both these kinds of states (viz. Vasu-hood etc. now and in another age), 
they come to attain Brahman, In the passage : 'He who knows thus the 



132 vSrikantha-Bhasya 1. 3. 32. 

nectar becomes one of the Vasus themselves, and through Agiii as mouth, 
is satisfied merely with seeing that nectar" (Chand. 36.3. , there is a 
reference to the attainment of Vasu-hood as resuslt. In the passage : 
" Verily, it neither rises nor sets for him, for him it is always day, who 
knows thus the mystic doctrine of Brahman" (Chand. 3. 11. 3. ), there is a 
reference to the attainment of Brahman as a result. Hence, the gods are 
entitled also to the Honey-Meditation. Thus, in every way are the gods 
entitled to the meditation of Brahman. (*) 



Here ends the Section entitled 'The Deity (7). 



(1) The Madhu-Vidya, or the representation of the sun as the honey 
extracted from all the Vedas, as taught first to Prajapati by Brahma ; then 
to Manu by Prajapati, and then to the descendants of Manu by Manu, and 
to Uddalaka Aruni by his father (Cf. Chand. 3. 11. 4. ), is given in Chand. 
3. 1. 3. 11. It begins thus : "Verily, that sun is the honey of gods ; the 
Heaven its is cross-beam ; the ether is the honey-comb ; the rays are the 
sons (of bees), (Chand. 3.1.1.), and then goes on to represent the eastern 
rays of the sun, its red form, as extracted form the Rg-Veda ; 
the southern rays of the sun, its white from, from the Yajur-Veda ; the 
Western rays of the sun, its dark form, from the Sdma-Veda ; the northern 
rays of the sun. its exceedingly dark from, from the Atharva-Veda ; and, 
finally, the upward rays of the sun, ;ts centre, from the Upanisads (Chand. 
3.1. 3.5.). Then, these different forms of the sun are asserted to be the 
objects of enjoyment of respectively, Vasus, Rudras, Adityas. Maruts and 
Sadhyas (Chand. 3.6.3. 10.). Finally, in the concluding text, the sun is 
represented as neither rising, nor setting, but standing alone in the middle 
for he who knows the secret doctrine of Brahman (Chand. 3.11.). 

Here, the opponent points out that as Vasu etc. are enjoined as the 
objects to be worshipped and attained (ChSnd. 3.6.3 - 10.), they themselves 
cannot be the worshippers here. That is, gods like Vasu etc. are not 
entitled to this Madhu-Vidya. 

The reply is that the Madhu-Vidya has two Sections. In the first 
Section ( Chand. 3. 6. 3. 10. ) Brahman is represented in His effected 
state, i.e. as appearing in the forms of Vasu etc. In the second Section 
( Chand, 3. 11. ), He is represented in His causal state, i.e. as abiding in 
the sun as its inner self. The concluding designation of Madhu-Vidya as 
Brahmopanisad or the Mystic Doctrine of Brahman, proves that in the 
First Section, too, Brahman Is the real object of worship, and the worship 



Adhikarana 9 : I he Section entitled 'The Exclusion of the Sudras ' 
(Sutras 3339). 

In the Sutra : "Because men are entitled ( to Scripture ) ( Br. Sfi. 
1. 3. 24. ), the right of men ( to Scripture ) has been indicated in a general 
manner. After that, ( the Author ) points out a special case. 

SUTRA. 1. 3. 33 

"Hit grief (arose) on account of hearing its disrespect, on account 
of hastening at that time, for this is what is indicated (by the term 
'Sudra' )". 

There is a text in the Chandogya that forms the topic treated here, 
viz. : "He has brought these. O Siidra ! merely with this face, you would 
cause me to speak" ( Chanel. 4. 2. 5. ). Hence, the doubt is whether even 
the v-mdras are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, or not. 

Prima Facie View 

They are entitled ( to it. ), as it is possible for them to be seeker (*) 
and the like. There is no fixed rule that only those belonging to the upper 
three classes are entitled to it, as it is found that even gods, who do not 
belong to these three classes are so entitled. In the case of gods, even in 
the absence of initiation and study ( on their part, ) they quite appro- 
priately come to have knowledge, as the meaning of the Vedas is self- 
revealing. So, no doubt can be raised with regard to these ( viz. Siidras ). 
For, it but stands to reason that they, too, can have knowledge through 



of Vasus etc. is really the worship of Brahman in their respective forms. 
Thus, Vasus etc. can be the worshippers here. That is. they are entitled 
to the Madhu-Vidya. 

Further, in the first Section, it is said that those who worship 
Vasus etc. ( i.e. Brahman in those forms ) become Vasus etc. This means 
that when Vasus etc. themselves worship Brahman in these forms, they 
become Vasus etc. in the next age, too. But those who are not at present 
Vasus, become Vasus in the present age. In the second Section too, it is 
said that those who worship Brahman as such attain Brahman. So, no 
contradiction is involved here too. 

(1) It has been shown in the prior Section that as gods are seekers 
(Arthin) or desire for salvation, they are entitled to the knowledge of 
Brahman. In the same manner, jis Sudras, too, can be seekers of salva- 
tion, they, too, must be entitled to the same knowledge. 



134 Srikantfia-Bhasya 1. 3. 33. 

hearing the Puranas. Further, they, too, can be entitled to understanding 
the great texts on the maxim of 'King who is a Nisada' ( l ). 

Feply 
The "udras, are not entilled to Brahma- Vidyc 

To this, we reply ; The Siidras are not entitled to the knowledge or 
meditation of Brahman, for, as they have not studied the Scriptures, no 
knowledge regarding the object to be worshipped and its attributes etc. 
which alone is a means to this (viz. Worship) is possible on their part. 
Tradition (Itihnsa) and Puranas only confirm the Vedas, and thus are useful 
only as a means (to Veclic knowledge), and not independently. The knowledge 
that the vSiidras gain through hearing Tradition and Puranas has only 
the ejfect of destroying their sins. Vidura( l ), Dharmavyadha and the 
rest came to be attached to Brahman, as the knowledge which they 
attained in a previous birth, contined in this one also. 

If it be asked : Why should there be the mention of the word 'Siidra' 
in connection with an instruction regarding Brahman ?' (We reply :) Here 
the mention of a 'Sfidra' does not imply a caste, but only means that his 
grief arose through not attaining the knowledge of Brahman. His grief 
arose "en account of hearing its disrespect" i. e. through hearing the 
disrespectful words applied to him by the swan because of his lack of the 
knowledge of Brahman, and then he hastened towards the teacher. The 
word 'hi' indicates the reason. As the mention of oudra' has no reference 
to caste here, so a 6iidra is not entitled to the worship of Brahman. ( f ) 

For this reason also, the mention of a '6udra' has no reference to 
caste. So says (the Author) : 



(1) Nisada-Sthapati-Nyaya. 'Nisada' means an non-Aryan or one 
belonging to the lower caste, and 'Sthapati' means a King. Now, a 
'Nisada-Sthapati' is entitled to the Rudra sacrifice. Hence, here the que- 
stion is : What exactly is the meaning of 'Nisada-Sthapati' ? How are we 
to break the compound ? There are two possible ways of doing so : (i) 
Sasfthi-tatpurusa as 'Nisadanam Sthapatil.i* or King of the Nisadas. (ii) 
Kannadharaya, as * Nisada eva Sthapatir/ or a King who is Nisada by 
caste. Here, the second interpretation is the correct one, as it makes a 
direct statement and does not involve any metonymy, which the former 
does. Thus, even a Nisada or a 6udra is entitled to Vedic sacrifices. 

(2) In Chand. 6.12. there is a story about Jana&ruti Pantrayatia and 
Raikva. Janasrnti was a great philanthropist and used to feed many people 
daily. One night when he was lying on the roof of his palace, two swans 



Sudra, not entitled to Vedic knowledge 13$ 

SUTRA 1. 3. 34. 

"(Janasruti was not a Sudra) also because we know of (his) 
Ksatriyahood". 

Further, as we know that Janasruti who was desirous of learning 
( about Brahman ) was a Ksatriya, the mention of a v-wdra here has no 
reference to (the fourth ) caste. In the beginning of the story, in the 
text: "Now, there was Janasruti Pautrayana a respectful giver, a plentiful 
giver, a preparer of much food. He had rest-houses built everywhere, 
thinking: "Everywhere people will eat my food" (Chand. 4. 1. 1.), it is 
said that Janasruti possessed immense wealth and used to distribute many 
kinds of cooked food. In the middle, in the text : "He said to the door- 
keeper (Chand. 4. 1. 5.), it is said that he sent the door-keeper ( in search of 
Raikva ). Again, in the end, in the text : "Here is a wife, and here is the 
village in which you dwell" (Chand. 4. 2. 4.), "So these are called Raikva- 
parna ( villages ) among the Mahavrsas where he dwelt for him" (Chand. 4. 
2. 5.), it is said that he gave away many villages. From all these indications, 
it is known that Janasruti was a Kstriya. 

SUTRA 1. 3. 35. 

Tram the indication (viz. the fact of his being mentioned) later 
on with Caitraratha". 

From what follows also, it is found that in the Samvarga-Vidya.( ) there 
is a reference to Brshmana and Ksatriya ( and not to a 6udra ). Compare 
the text : "Now, when Saunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kaksaseni were 
being served food by a cook, a religious student begged of them" (Chand. 
4. 3. 5.). From this it is known that Abliipratarin Caitraratha was a 
Ksatriya, as he was connected with Kapeya, his priest. The connection of 
Caitraratha with Kapeya, as his priest, is known from the following text : 
"The Kapeyas made Caitraratha perform sacrifices, by this they made him 
alone the lyord of food" (Tand. Br. 2. 12, 5.). From this, it is also estab- 



began to fly over him. Then the second swan said with concern to the 
first one : 'O Bhallaksa ! the light of Jsnasruti has pervaded the sky, do 
not touch it, see that it does not burn you !' The first swan replied scorn- 
fully : 'O, who is that man of whom you speak as if he were Raikva !' 
On hearing this scornful words of the swan, Janasruti approached Raikva 
with six hundred cows, a necklace and a chariot and begged him to teach 
him. Raikva here twice called him a Sudra. Now. here the word '6udra' 
does not mean one belonging to the fourth caste. But it simply means 
one in whom grief had arisen. Thus, Suc-f ra = Sud-f ra = 6udra, means 
one who grieves (socati). 

(1) Taught by Raikva to Janasruti. See Chand. 4. 3. ff. 



136 ^rikantna-Bhasya 1. 3. 36. 

lished that Abhipratarin, though having a different name (in the text) was 
really a descendant of Citraratha.( l ) Generally, the same priest serves the 
same individuals. That, as belonging to the clan of Citraratha, he was a 
Brahmin is known from the concluding part of the text : "From him was 
born a king of Ksatriyas, named 'Caitraratha". "Thus, the Ksatriya-hood 
of Abhipratariti being ascertained "later on" on the ground of his associa- 
tion with Kspeya, a BrShmana, the Ksatriya-hood of JSilasruti, is known 
( in the beginning ) on the very same ground of association with 
Raikva, a Brahmana, Hence, a Ksatriya alone was denoted by the term 



Your view that on the maxim of 'the King who is a Nisada', a 
Sfidra is entitled only to the hearing of the great texts, (the Author) 
replies : 

SUTRA 1. 3. 36. 

"On account of the reference 1 3 the purificatory rite, and on 
account of the declaration of it* absence ( in the case of a Sudra ), (a 
Sudra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahm&n)". 

"On account of the reference to the purificatory rite" of initiation 
with the holy thread in the introductory Section concerning the know- 
ledge of Brahman thus : "I irhall invest you with the holy thread" (Chand. 
4. 4. 5.). "He invested him, forsooth, with the holy thread" (6at. Br. 11. 5. 
3. 13.) ; "and on account of the declaration of its absence' , in the case of 
a 6udra, by the following Smrti passages : "In a Sudra, there is no sin, 
and he is not fit for a purificatory rite" (Manu. 10. 126.). "A Sudra belongs 
to the fourth caste and is once born" ( G. D. S. 10. 50. ), he is not entitled 
to the knowledge of Brahman. There being a definite injunction, viz. 
"One should perform a sacrifice for the King who is Nisada", there is no 
contradiction. But there is no injunction anywhere that a Sfidra should 
hear the great texts even though not iuitiated.( s ) 



(1) In the given Chand. text 4. 3. 5., there is no mention of Caitra- 
ratha But really here Abhipratarin means Caitraratha, for here Abhiprata- 
rin is said to be associated with Kapeya, and we know from another Tsnd. 
Br. passage that Cahraratha was no associated. 

(2) As there is a special injunction with regard to the King who is a 
Nisada, he may repeat Mantras even though not initiated. But in the 
case of ordinary ^udras, there is no such injunction. So, this is never 
permissible in their case; 



A Sudra is not entitled to the Knowledge of Brahman 137 

SUTRA 1. 3. 37 

"And because of (Gautama's) proceeding (to initiate Jabala) on 
the ascertainment of the absence of that (viz. his Sudra-hood), (a 
Sudra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman)' 1 . 

When only it had been ascertained that Jabala was not really a J-wdra, 
as he spoke the truth, thus : "A non-Brahmin cannot speak thus. 
Fetch the fuel, my child, I shall invest you with the holy thread. 
You have not deviated from truth" ( Chand. 4. 4. 5. ), did 
( Gautama ) proceed to initiate, instruct, and impart knowledge to 
him ( 1 ). For this reason, too, a 6udra is not entitled to the knowledge 
of Brahman. 

Objection 

Is the prohibition with regard to the uttering of ( the name of ) 
Brahman on the part of those who are not initiated, applicable to all, or 
to some only ? It cannot be universally applicable, for although a child 
is not initiated with a holy thread, yet in accordance with the text : 
"Except in the performance of 6raddha, ( the name of ) Brahman is not 
to be uttered", the utterance of Brahman's name during the performance 
of Sraddha has been enjoined. Hence, the prohibition with regard to 
uttering ( the name of ) Brahman by an uninitiated Sudra holds good 
only in respect of simple, domestic sacrifices etc., but not in respect 
of the knowledge and meditation of Brahman. 

Reply 

SUTRA 1. 3. 38. 

''On account of the prohibition of hearing, studying, and 
(learning) the meaning (of the Veda), (a Sudra is not entitled to the 
knowledge of Brahm an)". 

In the passage : "One should not study ( the Veda ) in the vicinity 
of a Sudra'' ( V. Sm. 18. 9. ) the hearing etc. of the Vedic texts is forbidden 
( on the part of a Sudra ). How can there by any study etc. (of the Veda) 
on the part of one who cannot even hear it ? 

(1) Cf. Chand. 4. 4. for the story of Gautama and Jabala. Jabala was 
the son of a maid-servant, and his pedigree was not known. When he 
approached Gautama, desiring to become his pupil, Gautama asked 
abont his parentage. Jabala frankly confessed that he did not know his 
father's name. Thereupon, Gautama was so much struck by his truth- 
fulness, that he at once accepted him as his disciple. 
18 



138 6rikairtha-Bhaya 1. 3. 40 

SUTRA 1. 3. 39. 
"Also on account of Smrti." 

The following Smrti passages mention the punishment to be 
inflicted on a 6udra if he hears the Veda and so on : "If a 6udra hears 
the Vedas, molten lead and lac are to be poured into his ears ; if he 
recites the Vedas, his tongue is to be cut off ; if he writes the Vedas 
on the body, his body is to be pierced." 

Thus, as, on the grounds of Scripture and Smrti, even the study- 
ing etc. (of the Veda) in the vicinity of a Sudra has been prohibited, 
how can there be any investigation into the meaning of the Vedas and 
so on on their part ? Hence, from every point of view, there cannot be 
any study of the Veda by any one anywhere without the purificatory 
ceremony of investiture with the holy thread at the age of eight in the 
case of a Brahmana, and ?o on, as befitting. Hence, the 6udras are not 
at all entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. 

After having settled the incidental question of right ( to the know- 
ledge of Brahman ), ( the Author ) resumes the original discussion : 

SUTRA 1. 3. 40. 
"On account of trembling." 

In the Section regarding the Person, of the size of a thumb, there 
is a text in the Katha-Valli, viz. "Whatever there is, the whole world, 
emanated ( from the vital-breath ), trembles in the vital-breath alone, 
the great fear, a thunderbolt about to be hurled. Those who know that, 
become immortal" ( Katha. 6. 2. ). Here the doubt is whether the 
Supreme I/ord is the cause of trembling, or some one else. 

Prima Facie View 

Here, it is said that the whole world trembles through fear, due 
to that which is indicated by the word 'Vital -breath'. It is not proper 
that the Supreme Lord who gives safety to the whole world, who is 
sweet-natured and all-merciful should be the cause of the trembling 
of the world. Hence, as a thunderbolt has been mentioned in the 
text, that must be the cause of the trembling of the world. Or, else 
as the vital-breath has been mentioned in the text, that is the cause of 
trembling. As the vital-breath is the cause of the movement of the body, 
all this, i. e. the body-like world trembles in the vital-breath, the efficient 
cause. Hence, the assertion that "Whatever there is, the whole 
world, trembles in the vital-breath," quite fits in with regard to it. The 
thunderbolt, the child of lightning and containing rain, the cause of great 
fear, a thunderbolt about to be hurled, too fits in with regard to it. In 



Brahman, the Cause of Trembling 139 

accordance with the text : "The air alone is individuality, the air 
alone is totality. He who knows thus conquers repeated deaths" 
(Brh. 3. 3. 2.), it is also quite reasonable to hold that immortality results 
from the knowledge of air. 

Reply 
Brahman is the cause of trembling 

To this, we reply : The Supreme Lord alone is the cause of 
trembling. Being the Controller, He is the cause of the trembling of 
the entire universe through fear of whose control we all turn away from 
what is prohibited and engage ourselves in what is enjoined, through 
fear of whose control alone are air and the rest engaged in their respective 
duties, as known from the text : "Through fear of this, the wind blows" 
(Tait. 2. 8. L). Though of an auspicious form, He, as the Controller, 
becomes also terrible-looking. There is a Scriptural text to this effect, 
viz. "Hence, He has the face of a King, is terrible and thoughtful". 
Hence, being the Master, the Supreme Lord alone is the cause of the 
fear of the entire universe. 



Here ends the Section entitled 'Trembling" (9). 



Adhikarana 10 : The Section entitled " The Light" (10). 

To prove that the Supreme Lord who has been designated above 
as the object to be worshipped in the small (heart-) lotus and the rest, is 
the object to be attained, (the Author) begins a new Section : 

SUTRA 1. 3. 41. 
"The Light (is Brahman), on account of seeing". 

There is a text in the Prajapati-Vidya in the Chandogya that 
forms the topic treatad here, viz. "This serene one, having arisen from 
this body, having attained the form of the highest light, Is completed 
in his own form. He is the Highest Person", (Chaiid, 8. 12. 3.). Here a 
doubt arises as to whether this highest light, declared by the text to be 
an object to be obtained by the freed souls, is the Supreme Lord, or 
Narayana, an embodied soul. 



140 6nka9tha-Bhasya 1. 3. 42 

Prima Facie View 

As the highest light, an object to be attained by the freed 
souls, is denoted by the word 'Highest Person' (Purusottama), so the phrase. 
* 'The Highest Person" (Uttamh Purnsah) refers to it. Further, the word 
'Highest Person* directly refers to Narayai;a. Hence, he is the highest 
light standing for the highest person. 

Reply 
Brahman is the Highest Person. 

To this, we reply : Here the highest light, ,an object to be 
obtained by the freed souls, is none else but the Supreme Brahman, 
called Supreme Siva. For, it is seen that those only who attain Him 
do not return (to transmigratory existence). How can this kind of 
non-return ( to transmigratory existence be appropriate on the part 
of those who attain some one other than the Supreme Brahman ? 
Although the words 'Highest Person' directly refer to Narayana, yet it 
is applicable to Brahman as well, as He is superior to all persons or 
individual souls. In the Brahma-medha-kalpa too, viz. in the text, "To 
encircle the Highest Person", the name 'Highest Person' has been 
employed as a synonym for the Supreme Brahman, the object to be 
obtained. Hence, the Supreme Brahman alone is the highest light. 



Here ends the Section entitled "The Light'' (10). 



Adhikarana 11 : The Section entitled "The Designation of some- 
thing Different". (Sutras 4244). 

SUTRA 1. 3. 42 

"The Ether ( is Brahman ), on account of the designation of some 
thing different, and so on." 

There is a text in the Chandogya that forms the topic treated 
here, viz. "The ether, verily, is the producer of names and forms. That 
within which they are, is Brahman, that is immortal, that is the soul" 
(Chand. 8. 14. 1.). Here the doubt is whether the ether, declared by the 
text to be the producer of names and forms, is the Supreme Soul, or 
the sky, or the individual soul. 



Brahman is the Ether 141 

Prima Facie View 

As the sky affords space to everything, it can be the producer 
of names and forms, so the sky is the ether here. Or, alternately, it is 
the individual soul, as in accordance with the text : "Having entered 
into these by this living soul, let me manifest name and form" ( Chand. 
6. 3. 2.), it is found to be concerned with the manifestation of names and 
forms. 

Reply 
Brahman is the Ether 

To this, we reply : The Supreme Lord alone is indicated here 
by the word 'ether' as the producer of names and forms, "on account of 
the designation" of His attributes like immortality and so on. Such 
immortality atid the like are possible neither on the part of the sky nor on 
that of the individual soul. Hence, the Supreme Lord alone is the ether. 

Apprehending the objection that in accordance with the teaching 
"Thou art that" (Chand. 6. 8. 7. etc.), the Supreme Lord is not something 
different from the individual soul, (the Author) replies : 

SUTRA 1. 3. 43. 

"On account of the (designation (of Brahman) as different (from 
the individual soul) in deep sleep and departure". 

As in the texts "Embraced by the Intelligent Soul, he does not 
know anything external, nor anything internal" (Brh. 4. 3. 21.), "Mounted 
by the Intelligent Soul, it goes on, groaning" (Brh. 4. 3. 35.), it is desig- 
nated that during deep sleep and departure the individual soul, devoid of 
the knowledge of any external and internal objects, is quite different from 
(the Supreme Soul) who remains an intelligent self even then, the Supreme 
Lord is something different from the individual self. He alone is here 
denoted by the term 'ether'. 

SUTRA 1.3.44 
"On account of words like 'Lord' and the rest". 

As words like 'the Lord' etc. have been applied by Scripture to this 
embracing, intelligent Soul, so for that reason, as well, it is known that 
it is something different from the individual soul. Later on, it is asserted 
by the text that "He is the Controller of all, the Lord of all, the Master 
of all. He does not become superior by good action, nor inferior by bad 
action. He is the Lord of all, the Supreme Lord of all beings, the 
Protector of beings" (Brh. 4. 4. 22.), and so on. From the text : "The 
Lord of beasts, the Lord of trees", too, it is well-knowu that the Supreme 



142 6rikantha~Bhasya 1. 3. 44 

Lord is the Lord of the world, and never the individual soul. Hence, 
this Supreme Lord, different from the individual soul, is denoted by the 
word 'ether' here. 



Here ends the Section entitled "The Designation of Something 
Lifferent"(H) 



Here ends the Third Quarter of the First Chapter of the Commen- 
tary on the Crahma Mioiamsa, composed by theSaiva Teacher, Srikantha. 



(According to Srikantha, the Third Quarter of the Final Chapter 
consists of 44 siitras and 11 Adhikaranas). 



FIRST CHAPTER (Adhyfiya) 
Fourth Quarter (Pada) 

Adhikarana 1 : The Section entitled "What is Derived from In- 
ference" (Sutras 17). 

In the previous Quarter, those texts that are half clear, half non-clear 
have been discussed. In this Section, some texts that are non-clear are 
being discussed ( 1 ). 

vSUTRA 1. 4. 1. 

"If it be objected that what is derived from inference (viz. Pradhana) 
too (is mentioned in the texts) of some branches, (we reply : no, because 
of understanding what is put down in the simile of the body, and (the 
text) shows (this)". 

There is a text in one of the Katha-Branches that forms the topic 
treated here, viz. "Higher than the sense-organs are the objects 
of the senses, higher than the objects of the senses is the mind, 
higher than the mind is the intellect, higher than the intellect is 
the great self, higher than the great (Mahat) is the unmanifest (Avyakta), 
higher than the unmanifest is the Person (Purusa). Nothing is higher 
than the Person, that is the goal, that is the highest course" ( Ka^ha 
3.11.). Here, a doubt arises whether 'the unmanifest', designated as 
higher than 'the great', is Pradhana of Kapila, or the body. 

Prima Facie View. 

The Prima Facie view is that it is quite reasonable to hold that it 
is Pradhana. Why ? As it is well-known that the Great ( Mahat ), the 
Unmanifest' (Avyakta ) and 'the Person' ( Purusa ) are Samkhya cate- 
gories, and as these are found here too, the body is not at all the topic 
here. So, this must be the Samkhya Pradhana, not the body. 



(1) In the First Quarter, texts that are clear (Spasta-Brahma-lifiga) 
have been discussed ; in the Second Quarter, those that are not very clear 
( Anati-Spasta-Brahma-lifiga) ; in the Third Quarter, those that are half, 
clear, half non-clear (Spastaspasta-Brahnia-lifiga) ; and in the Fourth Quar- 
ter, those that are non-clear (Aspasta-Brahma-liftga). 



144 6rIka$tha-Bhasya 1. 4. 2. 

Reply 
The A vyakta is the Body. 

But the reasonable conclusion is that it is the body. For, in a 
previous passage : "Know the soul to be the Lord of the Chariot, the 
body to be the Chariot ; know intellect Lo be the Charioteer, and the 
mind to be the Reins. The sense-organs, they say, are the Horses ; the 
objects of the senses, their Roads" ( Katha. 3. 3. 4. ) and so on, the soul, 
the body and the rest, that are the instruments of worshipping, have 
been metaphorically put down as the lord of the chariot, chariot and 
so on, in order that they may be controlled ; and among these, the body, 
metaphorically put down ( as the chariot ) being leftover, must be deno- 
ted by the word 'Unmanifest (*). Beginning: "Higher than the sense- 
organs are the objects of the senses", and ending : "That is the goal, 
the highest course," the text mentions those that are successively 
higher and higher, in order that they may be ( successively ) controlled. 
This is shown later on by the text : "A wise man should restrain speech 
in the mind, that he should restrain in the intelligent soul, the intelli- 
gent soul in the great, that he should restrain in the tranquil soul" 
( Katha. 3. 12. ). Hence, by the term 'Unmanifest', here the body is 
denoted. 

To the doubt : It is well-known that the Unmanifest ( A vyakta ) 
is Pradhana. How can this be said to be the body ?- ( the Author ) 
replies : 

SUTRA 1. 4. 2. 

"But the subtle ( or the term 'Avyakta can denote the body too ) 
on account of its fitness". 

The word 'Ayyakta 1 means what is subtle. As ( a word denoting the 
cause ) can fittingly denote the effect, it is quite reasonable to hold that 
'Avyakta' here denotes Avyakta when it assumes the form of the body ( 2 ). 



(1) In Katha. 3. 3 3-9., the soul, the body, the intellect, the mind, 
the sense-organs and the objects of the senses are respectively com- 
pared to the lord of a chariot, chariot, charioteer, reins, horses and 
roads. Again, in Katha. 3. 10 -3. 11., the same objects, the soul, the inte- 
llect, the mind etc. are mentioned once more, but not metaphorically, 
but directly and plainly. Now, in these latter verses, the soul etc. are 
actually mentioned by those very words, but there is no actual mention of 
the body. Hence, when everything else fits in, the body that is left over 
on this side ( 3. 33. 9. ) must be denoted by the word * Unmanifest', left 
over on that side ( 3. 103. 11 ). 

(2) The cause and the effect being non-different, a word that denotes 



Pradhsna, not the Object to be Known 145 

( The Author ) puts forward another argument : 

SUTRA 1. 4. 3. 

"( The soul, the body and the rest ) have a meaning at dependent 
on Him ( viz. the Lord )." 

The soul, the body and the rest "have a meaning", i. e. are con- 
ducive to the growth of worshipping, as dependent on the Supreme Lord. 
The Supreme Lord, the Inner Controller, directing the soul and the rest 
as instruments of meditation and as something to be subjugated, is 
called 'the Goal', and being the object to be attained, He is called 'the 
Highest Course'. Hence, here, the Un manifest ( Avyakta ) is the body, and 
nothing else. 

SUTRA 1. 4. 4. 

"And, because of the absence of any statement of (its) being an 
object to be known. 

If the Samkhya Pradhana were the Unmanifest ( Avyakta ) here, 
then it ( Pradhana ) ought to have been mentioned here as an object to be 
known. But it is not done so. Hence, Pradhana of Kapila is not the 
Unmanifest here. 

Raising the doubt that it ( Pradhana ) is indeed said to be an object 
to be known, ( the Author ) disposes of it." 

SUTRA 1. 4. 5. 

"If it be objected that (Scripture) speaks (of Pradha-.a as an object 
to be known), (we reply :) No, for the intelligent soul (is the object to be 
known), on account of the topic." 

If it be objected that the following text : "What is without sound, 
withoxtt touch, without form, unchangeable, likewise without taste, 
constant, and without smell, without beginning, without end, higher than 
the great (Mahat), eternal by discerning that, one is delivered from the 
jaws of as death" (Katha 3.15.) declares it (Pradhana) as an object to be 
known, we reply : "No," for in the text : "A wise man should restrain 
speech in the mind" (Katfia. 3. 12.), the intelligent self has been referred to 
before as the topic. So, the 'Unmanifest' is but the body. 

Pradhana is not the topic here so says (the Author). 

the former may very well denote the latter, too. Here, Avyakta (Pradhana 
or Prkrti ) is the cause, the body, the effect. So, the former can denote the 
latter. 

19 



146 6rIka$tha-Bhasya 1. 4. 7 

SUTRA 1. 4. 6. 

'And thus there are statement as well as question about three 
alone/' 

In this 'Section, questions have been set forth about three things 
only as the objects to be known, viz. about the object of worship, 
about worship and about the worshipper, but not about Pradhana and 
the rest. For example, there are statements like : "Him, who is difficult 
to be seen, who is hidden, who has entered within, who is hidden in the 
cave and who dwells in the abyss by knowing Him as God through the 
knowledge of the Yoga relating to the soul, a wise man discards joy and 
sorrow" (Ka^ha. 2. 12.). There are also questions like : "When a man is 
dead ; there is this doubt, some saying that he is, others that he is not. 
This may I know, taught by you this is the third among the boons" 
(Katha. 1. 20.), "What you discern to be different from the right, different, 
from the non-right ; different from the done as well as from the undone ; 
different from the past as well from the future, tell me about that" (Katha. 
2. 14.). Hence, the body being the topic here, it alone is 'the Unmanifest* 
(Avyakta), and not Pradhana. 

Moreover, there is another indication (with regard to it) so says 
(the Author) : 

SUTRA 1. 4. 7. 
"And as in the case of the great/' 

JusL as in the text : "Higher than the intellect (Buddhi) is the great 
soul (Mahan Atma)' (Katha. 3. 10.), the word 'great' does not stand for 
Mahat of the Tautrikas (i. e. Samkhyas) there being the word 'soul' 
(connected with it) so it is established that even the word 'Unmanifest' 
(Avyakta) does not mean Pradhana. 

Here ends the Section entitled "What is Derived from Inference" (1) 



Adhikarai?a 2 : The Section entitled "Like a Cup" (Sutras 8 10). 

Apprehending the objection : very well let Pradhana be not the topic 
here, as it has not been mentioned before. But in other places, Pradhana 
itself is declared by Scripture to be the cause (the Author) begins a new 
Section. 



Saijikhya Prakrti is not the Cause 147 

SUTRA 1. 4. 8. 

"(The word ' Unborn' does not denote the Samkhya Pradhana) on 
account of non-specification, as in the case of a cup." 

There is a text in the vetasvatara that forms the topic treated 
here : "By an unborn female (Aja). (*) red, black and white, bringing 
forth manifold offspring of alike nature, there lies an unborn. male 
(Aja), ( 8 ) enjoying. Another unborn male (Aja) leaves her who has been 
enjoyed" (6 vet. 4. 5.). Here, the doubt is whether Prakrti, declared by the 
text to be 'unborn' because of having no origination as the cause of the 
entire universe, is Prakrti as established by the Samkhyas, or the Supreme 
(Para) Prakrti, (the Power of Brahman ) ? 

Prima Facie view. 

It should be taken to be Prakrti as established by the Samkhyas, 
because the phrase 'unborn female' declares it to be devoid of origination ; 
because she is said to be the cause af all offspring ; and because from 
the text 'Red, black and white', the three gunas (viz. rajas, lamas and 
sattva), metaphorically described by (those three) colours, are known. 
All these do not fit in on the part of something other than this ( viz. 
Para-Prakrti ). 

' Reply 

As regards this, the Correct Conclusion is now stated. Prakrti 
as established by the (Samkhya) Tantra, is not designated here as the 
cause. She (Prakrti) cannot be taken to be denoted here, simply because 
she is devoid of origination ; for, there is no special mark, as in the state- 
ment : "There is a cup with its mouth below and bottom above" ( Brh. 
2. 2. 3. ). ( Later on, however ), the cup is specifically characterised as 
"This is that head" ( Brh. 2. 2. 3. ) When from the etymological meaning 
of a word, one particular object is understood, there must be some special 
marks ( to justify such an acceptance of one particular meaning to the 
exclusion all the rest. ). ('). So, ( the unborn female ) is not Prakrti of 
the (Saijikhya) Tantra. 

(1) Aja also means a she-goat. 

(2) Aja also means a he-goat. 

(3) A word may mean many things in general according to its 
etymology. But when we take it to be standing for only one, particular 
object, to the exclusion of all other possible ones, there must be some ad- 
ditional grounds, some special marks for that. E. g. compare the Brh. text 
about 'the Camasa'. At first we only know from the etymology 'Camyate 
anena' that a Camasa is that whereby one drinks, or that it is some kind 
of cup. But in the complementary passage, we are told specifically, that 



148 6rikatrtha-Bhasya 1. 4. 10 

But of what kind is this Prakrti, other than Prakrti established by the 
(Saipkhya) Tantra ? to this ( the Author) replies : 

SUTRA 1. 4. 9. 

"But (Prakrti, other than Samkhya Prakrti is) that which haft light 
(i.e. Brahman) as itt beginning (ie. cause), for thus some read." 

By the term 'light' the Supreme Lord is denoted. It is said here 
that this 'unborn female' is Prakrti having the Supreme Lord as her 
cause. "Thus" some Tattirryas read a sacred text about the nature (of 
the Lord) which text establishes only that (Prakrti) which has the Supreme 
Lord as her cause. Thus, having introduced Brahman in the pessage : 
"Smaller than the small, greater than the great" (Mahanar. 6. 3. ) (*). 
having then designated the origin of the entire universe from the Supreme 
Lord in the passage : "Seven vital-breaths arise from Him" ( Mahanar. 
8. 4. ), the text goes on to "read", when establishing that (Prakrti) has that 
(viz. Brahman) for her soul, : "An unborn female" (Mahanar. 9. 2. ). Hence, 
as the very same (Prakrti) is recognised ( in this text too ), this 'unborn 
female' (Aja) must have the Supreme Lord as her cause. Hence, the 
view that it stands for (Prakrti) established by the (SSmkhya) Tantra, 
does not stand to reason.( 8 ) 

Apprehending the objection : (Prakrti) having the Supreme Lord as 
her cause, is said to be an effect of the Supreme Lord. So, how can she be, 
again, 'unborn' ? (the Author) says : 

SUTRA 1. 4. 10. 

"And on account of the teaching of the fashioning ( of the uni- 
verse X there is no contradiction, as in the case of the Honey ( Medita- 
tion ).' 

The word 'fashioning' means origination. In spite of the teaching 
of origin in the text : "Sacred hymns, sacrifices, rituals, vows, the past, 
the future, and what the Vedas declare from which the illusion-maker 



it denotes the head, and through this alone do we come to know that the 
word 'Camasa' means one particular object. 

But in the above text about the 'Aja', there are no special marks that 
justify us in holding that it is the Samkhya Prakrti. For, etymologically. 
the word simply .means an unborn one, and this is the mark of many 
things and not only of the Ssmkhya Prakrti. 

(1) The verse occurs also in Katha 2. 20. and Svet. 3. 20. 

(2) The Sainkhya Prakrti is an independent principle, as the 
Samkhyas do not admit Brahman. But the Vedanta Prakrti is a power of 
Brahman and, as such, wholly dependent on Him. 



Ssrjikhya Prakrti is not the Cause 149 

( Mayin ) creates this universe, in it by illusion ( Maya ) the other is 
confined. Now, one should know that Prakrti is an illusion, and that the 
great Lord . ( Mahesvara ) is the illusion-maker" ( 6 vet. 4. 89. ), there 
is no contradiction between <hese two conceptions of Prakrti ) as 
unborn, yet an effect of the Great Lord. Thus, during the time of 
dissolution, Maya or the non-sentient ( power of Brahman Acit-sakti ) 
discarding name and form, abides in a subtle form as the body of the 
Great Lord in this sense, it is unborn. Again, during the time of 
creation, it comes to be endowed with name and form in this sense, 
it has that ( viz. Brahman ) for its cause. For example, from the Honey- 
Meditation, it is known that during the time of creation, the sun 
becomes an effect and honey as the substratum of the juice enjoyable 
by Vasu and the rest. But, again, during the time of dissolution, abiding, 
as it does, in an extremely subtle form, it is not fit to be designated 
as honey, and is so not an effect. Compare the Scriptural texts : "Verilv, 
the sun is the honey of Gods" (Chand. 3. 1. 1.). "Then, having risen 
up from thence, it will neither rise, nor set, it will remain alone in the 
middle" (Chand. 3. 11. 1.). In the very same manner, there is no incon- 
sistency in Prakrti s being unborn, yet an effect of the Supreme Lord. 
Hence, the 'unborn female' is not (Prakrti) established by the ( Sarnkhya ) 
Tantra. 



Hare ends the Section entitled "The Cup (2). 



Adhikarana 3. The Section entitled ''The Collection of Number" 
(Sutras 11 15). 

Apprehending the objection that in other places of Scripture, 
the twenty-five principles ( of the Samkhyas ) have been mentioned, 
( the Author ) begins a new Section for refuting it. 

SUTRA 1. 4. 11. 

"Not on account of the collection of number even, on account of 
diversity, and on account of excess." 

The following text forms the topic treated here, viz. "On whom are 
based the five five-people and the ether Him alone I, the knower, the im- 



150 ^rika^tha-Bhasya 1. 4. 11 

mortal, know as the soul, the immortal Brahman" (Brh. 4.4.17.). Here, a 
doubt arises as to whether the objects referred to by the phrase "Five five- 
people" are the principles established by the Samkhyas, or by Scripture. 

Prima Facie View 

As the twenty-five principles are established by the Samkhya- treatise, 
and as here, too, these are referred to, these 'five five-people' must be, from 
all points of view, those very principles. 

Reply 

To this, we reply : Although here by the phrase : 'Five five-people' 
the number twenty-five is "collected", or found, yet in spite of that, these 
are not the principles of the Tantrikas (i.e. Samkhyas ). From the word 
"In whom" ( "Tasmin" ), it is learnt that these are based on the Supreme 
L/ord, indicated by the word "whom", so these are quite distinct from those 
( viz. the Samkhya twenty-five principles^ 1 ) Further, the ether being 
separately designated, there is an "excess", i. e. an excess of number, (viz. of 
one, over the required number twenty-five ).( 2 ) Hence, here there are no 
twenty-five principles at all. Moreover, it is not reasonable to hold that here 
there is any "Collection" of or reference to twenty-five principles. In accor- 
dance with the ruling : 'If there be the same number repeated twice, ( the 
last one ) stands for a proper name', this compound denotes a name. Thus, 
there were some things called 'Paftca-jana', and there were five of such 
things, like the statement 'Seven Saptarsis'.( 8 ) Hence, the Samkhya 
principles have not been referred to here at all. 

What then, are these Five-people ( Paftca-jana ) ? to this ( the 
Author ) replies : 

(1) Even if we admit that here twenty-five things have really been 
referred to, still, they cannot be taken to be the twenty-five principles of 
the Samkhyas. For, these latter are not dependent or grounded on any 
superior principle, while the alleged twenty-five principles are definitely 
declared to be established in Brahman. 

(2) Really, not twenty-five, but twenty-six things are referred to 
here. 

(3) As a matter of fact, there are no twenty-five things referred to 
here at all. Here, we have the text 'Paftca Pafica-jana'. The second 
'Paftca' does not stand for number at all, but it is a proper name. Thus, the 
expression 'Five-people' ("Paftca-jana") denotes the name of a certain class of 
beings, and the expression 'Five five-people' ("Paftca Paftca-jana") denotes 
that there are five of these classes of beings. E. g. the expression 
'Seven-sages' ( Saptarsi ) means acertain class of sages (i.e. stars ), and the 
designation 'Seven seven-sages' (Sapta Saptarsi) means that there are seven 
of these sages and not that there are forty-nine sages. So is the case here. 



Sainkhya Prakrti, uot mentioned in Scriptures 151 

SUTRA 1. 4. 12. 

"(The Tive-peopJe' are) the vital-breath and the rest, on account 
of complementary pat sage". 

"On account of the complementary passage : "Those who know the 
breath of breath, the eye of eye, the ear of ear, the mind of mind" f6at. 
Br. 14.7.2.21.), the objects, called 'five-people' (Paftca-jaua), are the five 
sense-organs like the vital-breath etc. For this reason, too, there is no 
reference here to the principles of the Tantrikas (i. e. the SSmkhyas). 

SUTRA 1. 4. 13. 

"( The number five is to be completed ) by light, food being non- 
present ( i. e. not mentioned ) ( in the text ) of some." 

As the reading of the Kanvas do not contain the phrase : "Food of 
food" ( ! ) it is known from the word 'light', mentioned in the 
beginning : "The light of lights" (Brh. 4.4.16.) thac those 'five-people' are 
the sense-organs. It is first said that Brahman is 'the light of lights', 
i. e. the revealer of even the revealers. After that, 'five five-people' are 
referred to. So, from this, it is known that those revealers are the five 
sense-organs. 

SUTRA 1. 4. 14. 

".And just as on account of the declaration ( i. e. understanding ) 
( of Brahman ) designated as the cause, ( in all the Vedanta texts ), 
with regard t*> ( all the effect like ) the ether and the rest. ( Pradhana 
of the Samkhya is not understood, so the twenty-five Samkhya prin- 
ciples, too, cannot be accepted here)." 

From the Vedanta-texts : "The non-existent, verily, was this in the 
beginning'' ( Tait. 2. 7. ). "Verily, at that time, it was unmanifest 
(A vyakrta) (Brh. 1.4.7.), no sepecific cause of the group of effects, beginn- 
ing with the ether, is known. But when such specific texts like : 
"Verily', the soul alone was this in the beginning, One only" (Ait. 1.1.) 
definitely point to one particular object (viz. the soul), (Prkrti) of the 
(Sarnkhya) Tantrikas cannot be imderstood by the word 'unmanifest'. 
In the very same manner, here, too, as the sense-organs have been desig- 



(1) In the Madhyandina Branch, five things, viz. vital-breath, eye, 
ear, mind and food are mentioned, and hence these may be taken as the 
'five five-people'. But in the Kanva branch, there is no mention of food. 
So, here, to complete the number five, light, mentioned in the beginning, 
is to be counted with the four others. 



152 &rikaiitha-Bhaya 1. 4. 15 

uated by specific texts, the principles of the (Samkhya) Tautrikas cannot 
be accepted. (*) 

But why cannot the principles of the (Samkhya) be accepted here ? 
to this (the Author) replies : 

SUTRA 1. 4. 15. 
"On account of drawing in." 

The very same Omniscient Being referred to previously in the text : 
"He desired : 'May I be many' " (Tait. 2.6.) is "drawn in" (i. e. referred to 
again) in the text "The non-existent, verily, was this in the beginning" 
( Tait 2. 7. ). Also, the unmanifest, referred to before (in Brh. 1.4.7.) is 
"drawn in" (i. e. referred to once more) in the text : "He has entered here 
right from the finger-nail tips" (Brh. 1.4.7.). So, "on account of this 
drawing in", He (Brahman) alone is understood here. In exactly the 
same manner, here also there is no inconsistency in understanding 
'the five-people' as the sense-organs, "on account of drawing in". ( 8 ) 



Here ends the Section entitled "The Collection of Number" (3) 



(1) That is, just as we interpret the vague and general text 
"Verily at that time, it was uumanifest" (Brh. 1.4.7.) in the light of the 
specific text : "The soul alone was this in the beginning" (Brh. 1.4.1.), 
and understand, thereby, the vague text as denoting Brahman, and not 
Pradhana, by the general term 'Unmanifest', so exactly should we inter- 
pret the vague and general text about 'Five five-people' (Brh. 4.4.18.), 
and take the five five-people as the five sense-organs, and not as the 
twenty-five Samkhya principles. 

(2) Just as the very same Brahman referred to previously in the 
passage "He desired" (Tait. 2.6.) is to be understood in the subsequent 
passage "The non-existent alone was this in the beginning" (Tait. 2.7.), 
as these two passages involve each other, so exactly, the "Five five-people 
mentioned in the prior passage (Brh. 4.4.17.) is to be understood as the 
yital-breath etc. mentioned in a subsequent passage (Brh. 4.4.18.), as 
these two passages closely involve each other. 



Adhikarana 4 : I he Section entitled "Denoting the World" 
( Sutrat 1617 ). 

The doubt that the Satjikhya principles ( have been referred to in 
the Vedanta-texts ) has been removed. Now, ( the Author ) proves the 
difference between the Supreme Lord and the individual soul. 

SUTRA 1. 4. 16. 
"Because of denoting the world." 

There is a text in the Kausitakl-Brahmana Upanisad that forms 
the topic treated here, viz. that text which beginning : "Let me tell 
you about Brahman' ( Kaus. 4. 1. ) goes on : "He who, verily, O Balaki, 
is the maker of these persons, of whom, verily, this is the work, he, 
verily, is to be known" ( Kaus. 4. 19. ). (') Here, the doubt is whether 
the object to be known is the Supreme Lord or the individual soul. 

Prima Facie View 

As it is possible for an individual soul, too, to become the maker 
of the persons within the sun and the rest, referred to by a multitude 
of prior texts like : "Him who is the person within the sun him indeed, 
I worship" ( Kaus. 4. 3. ). "Him who is the person within the moon" 
( Kaus. 4. 4. ). "Him who is the person within lightning" ( Kaus. 4. 5. ) 
and so on ; as the word 'work' ( in the above text ) denotes sacrifices or 
rites and rituals ; as sacrifices etc. have meaning only with regard to it 
( viz. the individual soul ) ; as these are not possible on the part of the 
Supreme Lord who is devoid of all connection with works so it ( i. e, 
the object to be known ), mentioned in the above text must be none else 
but the individual soul. 

Reply 
Brahman is the object to be known. 

As the word 'work' denotes the same object as the word 'this' and 
as it etymologically means 'What is done', ( 8 ) so it denotes the world. 

(1) Cf. Kaus. 4. Here, the sage Gargya Balaki approaches 
King Ajatasatru and wants to teach him about sixteen persons within the 
sun, the moon, lightning, cloud and so on. In every case, the King dec- 
lines to be taught about that person, as he is already acquainted with 
him. Finally, the King himself taught the sage about Brahman. 

(2) In the text : "Of whom this is the work ( Karma )", the word 
'work' does not mean sacrifices etc. to be performed by the individual 

20 



154 6rikaatha-Bhasya 1. 4. 17. 

Hence, here the Supreme Lord alone, having- the world as His effect, is 
designated. Creatorship of the whole world is never possible on the part 
dfthe ; world. 

Objection 

Apprehending another objection, ( the Author ) disposes of it : 

SUTRA 1. 4. 17. 

"If it be objected that on account of the characteristic mark of the 
individual soul and the chief vital-breath, (the Lord is not denoted here), 
(we reply : ) that has been explained." 

It is not to be said here that as in the texts : "Just as a merchant 
enjoys with his own people, as his own people enjoy with him, so 
exactly this intelligent self enjoys with these selves, so exactly do these 
selves enjoy it" Kaus. 4. 20. ), "When the sleeping person does not see 
any dream whatever, in the vital-breath alone does he become one" 
( Kaus. 3. 3. ), the characteristic marks of the individual soul and the 
chief vital-breath ( respectively ) are found, this ( i. e. the object to be 
known, mentioned in the text under consideration ) is not the Supreme 
Lord for, this has already been explained before in the Pratardana- 
Vidya, Here too, when on a consideration of 'the Beginning and other 
parts' ( l )> ( the text ) is established to be concerned with Brahman, 
other marks are to be explained consistently with it. Previously, in the 
beginning, in the text : "Let me tell you about Brahman" ( Kaus. 4. 1. ). 
JBrahman has been referred to ; in the middle again, in the text : "Of 
whom this is the work'" ( Kaus. 4. 19. ), the creator of the whole world has 
been mentioned ; in the end, again, in the text : "He who knows thus, 
having overcome all evils, attains supremacy, self-rule and lordship among 
all beings" (Kaus. 4. 20.), it has been declared that the exclusive result of a 
worship of Brahman is the over-coming of all evils and the consequent 
self-rule. Thus, this Section being ascertained to be concerned with 
Brahman, the characteristic marks of the individual soul and the chief 
vital-breath too, are to be explained as referring to Him alone. 



.soul, but it simply means an effect. So, the text means : "Of whom this 
: is the effect"., Here both 'this' and 'effect' refer to the same thing, viz, 
the world, 

" " (1) Su. 1. 1. 4. P. 39. 



Brahman, the Creator of the entire World 155 

The Author states the view of another (teacher). 

SUTRA 1. 4. 18. 

"But ?aim ni (thinks that the mention of the individual jpul ) hat a 
different purpose, on account of question tnd explanation, and thus 
some (read)." 

In the text : "The two went to a sleeping person. Him, then, 
Ajatasatru addressed : "O great, white-robed, King Soma !" But he 
merely kept silent. Thereupon, he struck at him with a stick. Then, 
he arose" (Kaus. 4. 19.), it is shown that the individual soul is something 
over and above the vital-breath and the rest, as when (the sleeping 
person) was addressed to by the name of vital-breath, he did not hear, but 
when he was struck with a stick, he arose. And, this (demonstration 
of the individual soul finally) serves the purpose of (demonstrating) the 
worship of Brahman, over and above (even) that (viz. the individual 
soul). This is known from the question : "Where, O Balaki ! did this 
person lie ? What, verily, did he become ? Whence did he return ?" 
(Kaus. 4. 19.), from the reply : "When the sleeping person sees no 
dreams whatsoever, then in this vital-breath alone does he become one" 
(Kaus. 4. 20.), as well as from another text having the same meaning, viz. 
"Then, my dear, he has attained the Existent" (ChSnd. 6. 8. 1. ). 

Some Vajasaneyikas designate the same thing clearly in the dialogue 
between Bslaki and Ajatasatru. There, too, we find the following question : 
"When this man fell asleep thus, where, then, was the person who 
consists of intelligence ? Whence did he, thus, come back ?'' (Brh. 2.1.16.) ; 
and the following answer : "When this man has fallen asleep thus, 
the person who consists of intelligence, having by intelligence taken the 
intelligence of those vital-breaths, lies in that ether within the heart" 
(Brh. 2. 1. 17X 1 ). Hence, the Supreme Lord alone is the Creator of the 
entire world. 



Here ends the Section entitled "Denoting the World" (4). 



(1) The Balaki-AjatSsatru-Sainvada.in Brh. 2. 1. is exactly si 
to that in Kaus. 4 ; only the latter makes no mention of the ether* 



Adhikarana 5 : The Section entitled "The Connection of texts' 4 
(Sutra 1922). 

Everywhere, it being found that the individual soul and the 
Lord are denoted by the same word, how can they be taken to be standing 
in a relation of attribute and substratum ? to determine this,, (the 
Author) begins this Section. 

SUTRA. 1. 4. 19, 
' 'And on account of the connection of texts' 7 . 

There is a text in the Brhadara^yaka that forms the topic treated 
here, viz. the text that beginning : "O ! not for the love of the husband, 
verily, is a husband dear, but for the love of the Soul is the husband 
dear" (Brh. 2.4.5. ; 4.5.6.), goes on : "O ! the Self, verily, should be seen, 
should be heard, should be reflected on, should be meditated on" 
(Brh. 2 4. 5 ; 4. 5. 6. ). 

Prima Facie View 

As from the phrase : "For the love of the Soul", it is known that the 
soul, as endowed with (earthly) enjoyment and love, is the transmigratory, 
earthly soul, so the individual soul is referred to here. 

Replr 
Brahman is the Soul. 

On the above Prima Facie doubt, we state the Correct Conclusion 
that (the Soul) is the Supreme Lord. Why ? "On account of the connec- 
tion of all the texts" with the Supreme Lord. Compare the following 
texts in the beginning : "Of immortality, however, there is no hope 
through wealth (Brh. 2. 4. 2 ; 4. 5. 3.) "O 1 the Self being seen, heard, 
reflected on, known, verily, all this comes to be known" (Brh. 4. 5. 6.). 
"All this is this Self" (Brh. 2. 4. 6. ; 4. 5. 7.) ; and the following text at 
the end : "Whereby would one know Him by whom one knows all this ?" 
(Brh. 2. 4. 14.4.5.6.). Hence this reference to the individul soul, endowed 
with (earthly) enjoyment, really implies the Supreme Lord, so no 
contradiction is involved here. 

Why should Lord be eyerywhere denoted by the word indicative 
of the individul soul ? This (the Author) explains by means of the views 
of other (teachers)* 



Brahman can be denoted by a word denoting Jiva 157 

vSUTRA 1.4. 20. 

"(The reference to the individual soul is) a mark of the es- 
tablish ment of the initial preposition, Asmarathya (thinks so)". 

For proving ( the initial proposition that) there is the knowledge 
of all through the knowledge of one, as asserted in the text : **O 1 
the Self being seen" etc. (Brh. 4.5.6.), it is necessary to show that the 
individual soul being His effect is non-different from Him. For this 
reason, the Supreme Lord has been designated by a word indicative of the 
individual soul so thinks "Asmarathya". 

SUTRA 1. 4. 21. 

''On account of such a condition of one who is about to depart, 
Audulomi (thinks so)." 

As "One who is about to depart' 1 , i. e. the freed soul, attains the 
nature of the Supreme Lord, so the Supreme Lord is designated by the 
word 'soul', This is the view of "Audulomi". 

SUTRA 1. 4. 22. 
"On account of abiding, so Kasakrtsna (thinks).' 

As in accordance with the Scriptural text : "He who abiding in the 
soul is other than the soul" (Sat. Br. 6. 7. 30.), the Supreme Lord abides in 
the individual soul as its soul, so the Supreme Lord is denoted 
by a word indicative of the individual soul so thinks " Kasakrtsna". This 
alone is the view of the Author of the Aphorisms, too. This is known from 
the fact that after having stated the first two views, he states this (third 
view) as opposed to them, but does not state another view after this. 

This can also be supported by strong Scriptural texts. Thus, in the 
Atharvasiras, it is declared that on account of entering into all sentient 
beings and non-sentient objects, the Supreme Lord can be denoted by all 
words. In the first part, it is declared : "The gods, verily, went to the 
region of Heaven. These gods asked Rudra : "Who are you, O reverend 
Sir !" He said : "I, the One, was existent in the beginning, I exist at 
present, I will exist in future. Nothing is different from me. He entered 
the innermost part of the innermost, He entered into the quarters, I am He, 
I am. the eternal and the non-eternal. I am Brahma, and non-Brahma, I am 
the east and the west, I am the north and the south, I am the up and the 
down, I am the quarters and the intermediate quarters, I am a man, I am 
woman, I am the Gay3tn, I am the SSvitr!, I am the Tris^ubh and the 
Auu$ubh, I am metre, I am the Garhapatya, Daksinagni, Ahavaniya, I 
ain the truth, I am the cow, I am Gaun, I am the eldest, I am the best, I 
am the greatest, I am water, I am fire, 1 am Yajus, Sama, Atharva, 



158 ^rfkantha-Bhasya 1. 4. 23 

Angiras, I am perishable, I am imperishable, I am secret, I am forest, I am 
pond, I am pure, I am the beginning, the middle, the outside, the front, 
I am light thus I am everything. He who knows me, knows all the gods" 
(Atharvasiras. 1). Again, in the second part beginning : "Who is Rudra, He, 
verily, is the I^ord, He is Brahma, obeisance to Him" (Atharvasiras. 3.), 
the text goes on to demonstrate that because of entering into everything, 
(the Soul) can be denoted by words, indicative of all the things of the 
universe, such as, 'Brahma, 'Visnu', 'Mahesvara', 'Uma', 'Vinayaka' etc. 
Thus, when the real import of all Scriptural texts are discussed, we come 
to know that 6iva, the Supreme Lord, who has entered into everything 
as the Inner Controller of all sentient beings and non-sentient objects and 
who has everything as His body, is denoted by all words. Hence, it isbut 
reasonable to hold that the view of Kasakftsna alone is supported by 
Scripture, Aphorisms and the highly learned. 



Here ends the Section entitled : "The Connection with the Texts".(5) 



Adhikarana 6 : The Section entitled : 'The Material Cause" 
(Sutras 2328). 

Previously, in the Second Section (of the First Quarter), i. e. in the 
Aphorism : "From whom arise the origin and the rest of this" (Br. Su. 
1.1. 2.), it has been proved, in a general manner, that the Supreme Lord 
is the Material Cause of the world, and this has been proved by means of 
the text : "From whom, verily, all these beings arise (Tait. 3. 1.), where an 
ablative (Yatfy) has been used. To confirm this specifically, (the Author) 
begins this Section. 

SUTRA 1. 4. 23. 

"(Brahman is) the material cause, and (the efficient cause, as well), 
on account of the absence of conflict with regard to the initial propo- 
sition and the illustration/' 

The following texts form the topic treated here, "From him, verily, 
from this soul, the ether originated' (Tait. 2. 1. 1.), "The One God, 
creating the Heaven and the earth" (6vet. 3. 3.), 



Brahman is both the Material and Efficient Cause 159 

Here a doubt arises as to whether Brahman can be appropriately 
taken as the two kinds of cause (material and efficient), as well-known 
from these (texts). 

Prima Facie View. 

This doubt is due to the fact that the efficient, cause, e. g. a 
potter, is never found to be the same as the material cause, e. g. a 
lump of clay. In the same manner, the material cause, vix. the lump of 
clay, is never found to be ihe same as the efficient cause, viz. the 
potter. vSo, how can here (the Lord) be taken as both the efficient and 
the material cause of the world, the effect ? Hence, the Prima Facie view 
is that (He) is only the efficient cause of the world, and not its material 
cause. Why ? Because that is impossible. A potter who is making a 
pot himself never becomes the lump of clay and then makes the pot. The 
same is the case with a weaver, weaving a piece of cloth. (Even) if he 
wishes to be so, he cannot be so. Hence, it is impossible for Brahman, 
the efficient cause, to be the material cau.se again. In fact, it is 
useless to imagine that the efficient cause itself is the material cause. 
For, even if we do not imagine this, the effect results quite well. E. g. 
though the potter is distinct from the lump of clay, we find that the pot 
has come to be produced quite well. Hence, Brahman is only the efficient, 
and not the material cause. 

Reply 
Brahman is both the Material and Efficient Cause. 

To this, we reply : Brahman alone is the Efficient as well as the 
Material Cause of the world. The Scriptural text : "6vetaketu, my dear, 
since now you are conceited, think yourself learned and are proud, did 
you ask for that instruction whereby the unheard becomes heard ; the 
unthought, thought ; the unknown, known ?" (Chand. 6. 1. 3.), states the 
initial proposition, viz. that through the knowledge of the Instructor 
there is the knowledge of all, i. e. through the knowledge of the Instructor, 
the Efficient Cause ( viz. Brahman), the entire world, consisting in the 
sentient and the non-sentient, becomes known. Further, the text : "Just 
as my dear, through a lump of clay, all objects made of clay may be known" 
(Chand. 6. 1. 4.), brings forth an illustration to prove the above contention, 
and there is no contradiction involved here. Hence, if Brahman be taken 
to be merely the Efficient Cause, theu the knowledge of the entire universe 
through the knowledge regarding Him will not be possible. E. g. through 
the knowledge regarding the potter, the effects like pots etc. cannot be 
known, but they can be known only through the knowledge regarding the 
lump of clay, their material cause. Hence, that ( viz. the knowledge of 



160 6nkantha-Bhasya 1. 4. 25 

all through the knowledge of all ) is possible only if Brahman, the 
Efficient Cause, is, at the same time, the Material Cause too. Hence, 
Brahman alone is the Material Cause. ( In the above Chand. text ), the 
word 'instruction' stands for the Instructor, viz. Brahman. 

To show that the Material Cause is none else (but Brahman), (the 
Author) states another reason : 

SUTRA 1. 4. 24. 
'Also, on account of the teaching of reflection'. 

In the text : "He perceived (i. e. thought) : "May I be many" (Chand. 
6.2.3.), it is taught that Brahman, alone, Omniscient, the Efficient Cause, 
the Perceiver, had a desire to become many in the form of the variegated 
world. Hence, the Material Cause must be the same as the Efficient 
Cause. 

Objection 

From the text : "Rudra, higher than the universe, the great sage, 
saw Hiranyagarbha being born" (Svet. 4.12 ; Mahanar. 10.3.), it is known 
that the Supreme Lord, the Efficient Cause, transcendent over the world, 
favourably glances at Hiranyagarbha, the first among all the gods, when 
he is being born through His own desire, (but) out of a separate material 
cause. So, how can He be taken to be the Material Cause and as such 
of the form of the universe ? In the text: "One should know Maya to 
be the root material cause" (Svet. 4.10.), Maya is declared to be the 
material cause. Again, in the text : "From that Virat was born. Above 
Virat is the Purusa", the Purusa is declared to be the material cause. 
Hence, these two being the material cause, they should appropriately be 
of the form of the world. 

Reply 

To this, (the Author) replies : 

SUTRA 1. 4. 25. 
"And, on account of the direct mention of both in the sacred text'". 

In the Vedanta-portion, it is declared that as the Material Cause, 
the Supreme L,ord rs of the form of the world, and as the Efficient Cause, 
He is the Lord of the universe. Thus, just as from the Scriptural text : 
"Rudra is higher than the universe" (6vet. 4.12 ; Mahanar. 10.3.), it is 
known that (He is) higher than the universe, so the text : "Everything, 
verily, is Rudra' (Mahanar. 13. 2.) and so on, declares Him to be also 
the Material Cause, and of the form of the universe. In the 6atarudrlya, 



Brahman is both Material and Efficient cause 161 

beginning : "Obeisance to One having golden hands" (Mahauar. 13.4.), 
and ending : "Obeisance to the Lord of those who pluck out their hairs", 
the text designates Him as the Lord of the universe ; and after that, 
"Obeisance to one wearing leaves and having leaves as distinguishing 
marks" upto this, the Supreme Lord is declared to be of the form of 
the world. In another place, there are both the kinds of text, viz. 
"Brahman was the wood, Brahman the tree from which they carved out 
the Heaven and the earth", "O wise men, ask through the mind whereon 
it stood supporting the worlds" (Tait. Br. 2.8.9.6 7.). In the Atharva- 
siras, the First and the Second Chapters declare (the Supreme Lord) to be 
of the form of the world, the rest designate Him as the Lord of the world. 
Hence, as both (viz. that Brahman is the world as well as the Lord of the 
world) have been directly declared by Scripture, 6iva is the Supreme 
Lord, the Supreme Brahman and as being (both) the material and efficient 
causes, is the world (as the Material Cau.se) and its Lord (as the Efficient 
Cause). 

Further, there is another proof. So says (the Author) 

SUTRA 1. 4. 26. 
"On account of creating Hiratelf." 

From the text : "That itself created itself" (Tait. 2. 7.), it is known 
that the Supreme Lord transforms itself into the form of the world. Hence 
He is the Material as well as the Efficient Cause. To the objection How 
can the Supreme w>iva, who is free from the slightest trace of all faults, 
who is an unlimited ocean of auspicious attributes, whose power is un- 
hindered and eternal and who is beyond the universe be transformed as 
the material cause of the world, into the form of the world which, as a 
respository of effects clue to ignorance, is something to be rejected ? ( the 
Author ) replies : 

SUTRA 1. 4. 27. 
"On account of transformation/' 

Although the Supreme 6iva, the Efficient Cause, is Ever-pure, Bliss, 
and of a limitless auspicious nature, He can appropriately be taken to be 
of the form of the universe as its Material Cause. If it be objected Alas ! 
transformation implies change on the part of the cause ; transformation 
means leaving the prior form and assuming another form. But how can 
this be possible on the part of the Supreme Lord, as that would result in 
undesirable attributes (ou His part) ? (We reply : ) Quite true. But there 
is a kind of transformation in which although the Efficient Cause is ateo 
the Material Cause, yet it is not touched by changes etc. 
21 



leS ^rika^tha-Bhasya 1. 4. 27. 

If it be said : Of what kind is this wonderful transformation 
We are eager to know about it ! This should be considered we reply : 
Listen, we have (already) considered it. In accordance with the 
Scriptural text : "When there is darkness, there is neither day nor 
night, neither being, nor non-being, only Siva alone. That is the 
Imperishable, that is to be wished for by the sun ; and from that 
was primeval intelligent created" (6vet. 4. 18.), during that period 
when there being no light of the sun and the moon etc. there are no 
divisions of day and night, when there being no differences oT names 
and forms, there ceases to be all individual differences of subtle and 
gross, sentient and non-sentient, being and non-being, when, as such, all 
things exist as darkness, there remains over only 6iva, without a second, 
the Absolute, with His sentient and non-sentient powers non-distinct from 
Him, and Self-revealing. That is the Imperishable, i.e. He alone is 
devoid of all destruction, the Supreme Reality. 'That is to be desired 
for by the sun' i.e. because He gave light to the sun etc. before, He is 
desired for by them, He alone is the light within them. 'From that', i.e. 
from that O n e, without a second, in whom the whole universe of the 
sentient and the non-sentient has become merged, 'was created', i.e. issued 
forth, the "primeval" or ever-established "intelligence" or supreme power 
of knowledge that removes the darkness present then and is supremely 
glittering in form. Then in accordance with the text : "He desired : 
'May I be many' " (Tait. 2. &.), 'the Supreme Lord, in His causal state 
having the subtle sentient and non-sentient, devoid of names and forms, 
as His body, desired : 'Let me have the separated sentient and non-senti- 
ent, possessing names and forms, as my body.' Then, in accordance with 
the Scriptural text : "He created all this whatever is there" (Tait. 2. 6.) 
He separated the subtle sentient and non-sentient, forming His body, from 
Himself. Then, in accordance with the text : "Having created that, He 
entered into that very thing' 1 (Tait. 2.6.), He Himself entered into the 
sentient and non-sentient objects, separated from Himself, as their souls. 
Finally, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "He became the existent 
and that" (Tait. 2. 6.), He became transformed into being and non-being. 
Thus, just like the childhood and youth of a man, Brahman, having the 
world as His body, is both the Cause and the Effect. (*) 

From the text : "But one should know Maya to be the root material 
cause, and the Great Lord < Mahesvara) to be the possesser of Maya, This 
whole world is pervaded by His parts" (6vet. 4. 10.), it is known that Maya 



(1) When a child becomes a man, he himself is both the cause and 
the effect, -he himself becomes transformed into himself. So is the case 
with Brahman. 



Brahman is both Material and Efficient Cause 163 

is the material cause, and that the Great Lord (Mahesvara), called a 'Per- 
son' because of being an enjoyer (Bhokta) through His power of the senti- 
ent (Cit) which is one of the parts of His body, pervades the whole world. 
Just as the origin of hairs, nails etc, are not possible from the body only, 
or from the soul only, so there cannot be any origination of the world from 
Maya only, or from the Great Lord only. But just as there is the origin 
of hairs, nails etc. from the soul having the body, so there is the mani- 
festation of all the sentient and non-sentient, Purusa and Prakrti, from 
the Supreme Lord alone, having Maya. From such a Lord, there origi- 
nates the unmanifest Four-faced Brahma and the rest. That is why, the 
text : "Rudra, verily, is a Person" (Mahanar. 13. 2.), declares the Lord to 
be a Person. Hence, it is quite appropriate that the Supreme Lord, endow- 
ed with the sentient and the non-sentient, is (both) the Cause and the 
Effect, as having those particular different states. 

SUTRA 1. 4. 28. 
"And because (Brahman) is celebrated to be the source." 

The Supreme Lord is directly declared to be the Source of beings. 
The text : "Through meditating on the Supreme Lord having Uma as His 
consort, the Master having three eyes and a blue neck, calm, a wise man 
attains to the Source of all beings, 'the Witness of everything, Beyond 
darkness" (Kaivalya 7. ), declares that the Supreme Lord alone the Wit- 
ness of everything, Omniscient, Beyond darkness, Supreme, Transcending 
over the world, Possessing supreme powers, Accompanied by Uma, Quali- 
fied is the Source of beings and their Material Cause. Hence, the 
Supreme Brahman alone is the Material still the Efficient Cause. 



Here ends the Section entitled ; "The Material Cause" (6;. 



Adhikarana 7 : The Section entitled "The Explanation of All" 
(Sutras 29) 

SUTRA 1. 4. 29. 
"Hereby, all is explained, explained". 

By means of (all these) Aphorisms, beginning % "From whom (arise) 
the origin and the rest of this" (Br. Sfi. 1. 1. 2.) and ending with the 
above one, the Vedanta-texts have been explained ; and through this, 



164 6rIkantha-Bhasya 1. 4. 29. 

the Vedantas that set forth the characteristic marks of Brahman, i. e. 
the Pursa-sfikta, 6ata-nidrJya and the like constituting the Mantra and 
Brahmana portions (of the Vedas), included in the Karma-Kan4a, as 
well as, Smrti, Tradition, Ptirana, Maxims of the wise have been explaned. 
The repetition (of the word "explained") indicates the end of a Chapter. 

Here, a doubt may be raised as to whether the Purusa-snkta, Sata- 
rudraya, and the rest, and Smrti, Tradition, Parana etc. all^ indicate 
Brahman, because of possessing the marks which enable us to determine 
their real meaning ( l ) or not. 

Objection 

A seed of doubt remains, viz. that due to the difference of Sections 
etc. The Purusa-sukta, etc., as included in the Section concerned with 
Karmas, should appropriately deal with the individual soul, the agent, and 
not with Brahman, the Ever-free, there being no necessity to do so. Smrti , 
Purana etc., too, do not deal with a single subject, as some of them declare 
'Brahma' to be the Supreme Brahman, some 'Visnu', some 'Rudra', some 
*6akti', some 'Agni' some, 'Siirya', some Vayu' and some, something else. 
Thus, a confusion results here. Hence, they are not indicative of 
Brahman. 

Reply 
Purusa-Sukta etc. indicate Brahman. 

To this, we reply : The Purusa-sukta etc. do designate Brahman, as 
His characteristic marks are found in them. In the texts : "From Him 
was born ViraV' *Of the colour of the sun, beyond darkness ( cf. 6 vet. 
3. 8. ). "By knowing him thus, one becomes immortal here" the characte- 
ristic marks of the Supreme Lord are found, such as, 'being the cause of 
all', 'being beyond darkness', 'being the cause of immortality' and so on. 
Hence, the Lord alone is here designated by the term 'Person*. In the 
6ata~rudriya, the Supreme Lord is directly said to be the Lord of the 
world, the soul of the world, with a blue-neck and soon. Hence, it is 
appropriate to hold that it deals with the Supreme Lord. 

Objection 

It appeare td be improper that the Supreme Lord who is an ocean of 
auspicious attributes should be dealt with in the 6ata-rudnya Here, from 
the introductory text : "Obeisance to you, O Rudra, O Anger !" the con- 
nection of Rudra with a rejectible quality like anger is known. 



(1) See under Su, 1. 1. 4. fn. (3) P. 39 for these marks. 



Sata-rtidrlya indicates Brahman 165 

Reply 
Sata-rudriya indicates Brahman. 

To this, we reply : This is not to be thought of here, as the 'anger', 
here denotes a sacrifice. Or, even if it stands for wrath, there is nothing 
wrong, because as the Supreme Lord may voluntarily assume this for 
punishing the wicked, this worldly attribute has no real connection with 
Him. It is also appropriate to hold that the Puraiias, too, possessing as 
they do, the marks that enable us to determine their real meanings, (*) 
indicate by those words 'Brahma', 'Visiiti' etc,, none but Siva, the Supreme 
Lord, the Soul of all, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Higher than all, possessing 
powers not found in others, the real meaning of the word 'Brahman', the 
sole topic of the all the Vedanta-texts that are in agreement in referring to 
Him alone, and accompanied by Uma. On the very same ground, where- 
ever the special marks of Siva, viz. creatorship of the world etc. are declar- 
ed by Scripture with reference to the sentient or the non-sentient, i.e. 
in all the anthoitative texts of Vedas and the rest, 6iva, the Soul of 
these ( sentient and non-sentient) is the object referred to. Wherever 
there are references to the attributes that do not lead to the end of men, 
like changeableness, ignorance etc., in all those places, the sentient and the 
non-sentient, constituting the body of 6iva, the Supreme Brahman, are 
denoted. So, there is no inconsistency anywhere. 



Here ends the Section entitled 'The Explanation of All" (2). 



Here ends the Fourth Quarter of the First Chapter of the 
Commentary on the Brahma-Mimamsa, composed by the Saiva Teacher 
Srikantha. 



(According to orlkan^ha, the Fourth Quarter of the First Chapter 
consists of 29 Sutras and 7 Adhikaranas). 



SECOND CHAPTER ( Adhyaya ) 

First Quarter ( Pada ) 
Adhikarana 1 : The Section entitled "Smrti" ( Sutras 1-2 ). 

SUTRA 2. I. 1. 

"If it be objected that there will result the fault of not leaving a 
room for Smrti, ( we reply : ) No, on acconut of there resulting the fault 
of leaving no roDm for ( other ) Sim t is". 

In the previous Chapter, it has been said that all the Vedanta-texts 
as well as Smrti s and the like that conform to those ( texts ) are all in 
concordance, in respect of their meanings, with regard to 6iva, the 
Supreme Brahman, who is existence, consciousness and bliss in essence ; 
Who has omniscience, omnipotence and the rest as His essential marks, and 
creatorship and the rest of the world as His secondary marks ; who is 
the soul of all ; who possesses an auspicious form, having three-eyes, black 
and twany, having a blue neck and so on ; who is directly designated by 
the names 'Bhava', 'Siva', 'Sarva', 'Mahadeva', 'Supreme Lord' and so on ; 
and who is supremely merciful^ 1 ) Now, any inconsistency between this 
concordance, on the one hand, and Smrtis that are opposed to the Vedantas 
as well as reasoning, on the other, is being removed by this Chapter. 
First, the incongruity with regard to the Sarnkhya Smrti is being 
removed. Here, in every place, the topic treated is the above-mentioned 
concordance. A doubt may be raised here as to whether the above con- 
cordance of the Vedas ( with regard to Brahman ) is narrowed down( a ) by 
Samkhya Smrti. Why ? The Veda declares Brahman to be the cause of 
the world. (But) the Smrti of Kapila declares it to be Pradhana. Kapila, 
undoubtedly, was a great sage. Hence, his view, too, is authoritative. 



(1) SeeSu. 1. 1. 2. P. 25. 

(2) It has been asserted in the First Chapter that all the Vedas as 
well as all the Smrtis based on the Vedas agree in demonstrating Brah- 
man and Brahman alone. But this supposed universal agreement or con- 
cordance seems now to be narrowed down, for we have to exclude the 
Samkhya Smrti which does not establish Brahman at all. So, we cannot 
say now that all the Smrtis are based on the Vedas and equally prove 
Brahman, but only that some of them do so. 



The Saipkhya-Smrti cannot set the Vedanta-vakyas at naught 167 

Again, the Holy Veda, too, is the Supreme Authority. There can never be 
even the slightest suspicion of falsehood in it. So, of these two, which 
is to be set at naught by the other ? thus arises a doubt. 

Prima Facie View 

As, otherwise, there will be no room or scope for the Samkhya Smrti, 
its case is stronger ; on the other hand, as the Veda will have a scope 
with regard to Dharma, its claim is weaker. Hence, it stands to reason that 
( the Athority of ) the Veda should be narrowed down by ( the Samkhya ) 
) So asserts the Prima Facie objector. 



Reply 

The Samkhya Smrti cannot set the Vecianta-vakyas at naught. 

We reply : "No". Why ? "On account of there resulting the fault 
of not leaving a room for other Smrtis", like the Manu-Smrti and the 
rest that are not opposed to the Vedas. The Samkhya-Smrti that asserts 
something ( vig. independent Pradhana ) in opposition to it ( viz. the 
Veda ) and is based on mere assumed texts, is set at naught by Manu- 
Smrti and the rest, asserting the causality of Brahman, Compare "He 
created water in the beginning and left his power in it" ( Manu. 1.8.), 
established on the ground of direct, actual texts, like "Who saw Hirajrya- 
garbha being born" ( 6vet. 4. 12 ; Mahanar. 10. 3. ). So this is to be 
accepted by authoritative persons. 

SUTRA 2. 1. 2. 
"And on acconnt of the noa-perception on the part of others." 

"On account of the non-perception on the part of others", i. e. on 

the part of omniscient Manu and the rest, of the causality of Pradhana, 
perceived by Kapila, (*) It is proper to hold that the Pradhana-Smrti 



(1) The Vedas prove Brahman to be the ultimate Cause of every- 
thing, while the Samkhya accepts Pradana alone as euch a cause. Now, if 
we accept the view of the Veda in this respect, the whole of the Samkhya 
become meaningless. But if on the other hand, we accept the view of 
the Samkhya, the Jaftan-Kand a of the Veda, of course, becomes false, yet 
its Karma-Kanda, remains just as authoritative as ever, and so the entire 
Veda does not become meaningless. Hence, we prefer, says the Prima 
Facie objector, the second alternative, as otherwise, an important Smrti 
comes to be entirely false and useless. 

(2) i. e. as great saints and scholars like Manu etc. reject Pradhana, 
it cannot be taken to be the cause of the world. 



168 Siikaijtha-Bhasya 2. 1. 3. 

is not based on Scripture. Hence, the (stated) concordance is not narrowed 
down by Samkhya-Smrti. ( l ) 



Here ends the Section entitled "Smrti" (1). 



Adhikarana 2. The Section entitled "The Refutation of the Yoga". 
( Sutra 3 ). 

SUTRA 2. 1. 3. 
"Hereby the ". oga is refuted." 

Prima Facie View 

The Hiranyagarbha-Smrti, too, establishing the subsidiary parts 
of Yoga, speaks of the causality of Pradhana. Hence, just as the con- 
cordance of the Vedas ( with regard to Brahman ) is not narrowed down 
through being opposed by the Samkhya-Smrti designating the causality 
of Brahman, so is it or is it not narrawed down by this Smrti, too ? If 
this doubt be raised, we (the Prima Facie objectors) say : It is done so. 
Why ? The Yoga-Vidya is propounded in the 6vet3svStara Upanisad as a 
means to a direct realisation of Brahman. Hence, although the Samkhya 
Smrti is based on mere assumed texts, the Hiranyagarbha-Smrti is based 
on direct actual texts ; Hence, it stands to reason that the concordance 
of texts designating the causality Brahman is indeed narrowed down by 
the Hiranyagarbha-Smrti designating the causality of Pradhana. 

Reply 
Yoga Smrti cannot set VedanU-vikyas at naught. 

To this, we reply : There is no narrowing down or restricting of 
the concordance of Scriptural texts by the "Yoga-Srarti". Beginning, 
"Yoga is the suppression of mental modifications" (Yoga-Sutras 1. 2. ), 
it refers only to the Yoga, having eight subsidiary parts (*), which is 

(1) The Saqikhya is not based on Scripture. So, even if it estab- 
lishes Pradhana, that does not falsify the statement that all Smrtis based 
on Scriptures do designate Brahman and Brahman alone. 

(2) Viz. Yama, Niyama, Pragayama, Asana, PratyShara, Dhyana, 
Dharana, Samadhi. 



Brahman, the Cause 169 

found 111 the Vedas as well, and never to the doctrine of the causality 
of Pradhana, not found in the Vedas. If however it too refers to that 
( viz. Pradhana ), then it stands to reason that it should then be equally 
rejected. Hence, it is but appropriate that the concordance of the Scrip" 
tural texts designating Brahman is not restricted also by the Hiranya- 
garbha-Smrti, designating the Causality of Brahman. 



Here ends the Section entitled : 'The Hesitation of the Yoga (2). 



Adhikarana 3. The Section entitled "Not different" (Sutras 2"^ ). 

Once more, having apprehended the objection that the concordance 
can be set at naught by the Sarnkhya and by reasonings, ( the Author ) 
refutes it : 

Prima Facie View ( Sutras 46 ) 

SUTRA 2. 1. 4. 

"( There is ) no ( having Brahman as the cause ) on its part, on 
account of difference, and (its) being so (is known) from the text.*' 

As regards the doubt : Just as the concordance is not set at naught 
by the Samkhya-Smrti, so is it or is it not done so by reasoning ? the 
Prima Facie view is as follows : This doctrine of the causality of 
Brahman can be set aside by all means by reasoning. How ? ( The 
reasoning is as follows : ). "On account of the difference" of Brahman 
from this, i. e. from the world, it is impossible for this (i. e. the world) to 
be an effect of that (Brahman). If it be a?ked : Whence do you know of 
such a difference (between the two) ? (We reply) : "From the text" alone. 
Texts like : "Knowledge and non-knowledge" (Tait. 2. 6.) declare that the 
Universe is not conducive to the highest end of men (viz. Salvation), 
characterised as it is by changeableness, ignorance and the like. Hence, 
its difference from Brahman, who is Truth, Knowledge and Bliss in form, 
is established. So, how can there be any cause and effect relation between 
these two, as between a cow and a buffalo ? 

Prima Facie View ( contd. ). 

SUTRA 2. 1. 5. 

"But ( there is ) the designation of presiding ( deities ) on account 
of speciality and following." 

22 



170" 6nkajitha-Bhasya 2. 1. 1 

If this world, because of being nou-sentient, be taken to be different 
from the sentient Brahman, then why do the following texts speak of 
certain activities possible on the part of sentient beings only ? Compare 
the texts : "The earth spoke to him" (Tait. Sani. 5. 5. 2. 3.), "The waters, 
verily, desired" (6at. Br. 6. 3. 2. 4.). 

Hence, the whole world must be sentient. So, there is no difference 
between Brahman and the world on the ground that one is sentient and the 
other non-sentient - such a doubt cannot be raised here. For it is* known 
that all those designations about knowledge, activities etc. really refer 
everywhere only to the presiding deities of those (the earth, water etc.). 
(How is that known ?) From the specification of (the earth and the rest) by 
the word 'deity' in the passage : "Very well, let me enter into these three 
deities '(Chand. 3. 6. 2.) ; as well as from "the following" (i. e. entering) of 
the presiding) deities of non-sentient things, as depicted by the passage : 
"Fire becoming speech entered the mouth" ( Ait. 2. 4. ). Hence, being 
non-sentient, the world is indeed, different from Brahman. So, it is 
against reason that it should be the effect and Brahman, the cause. 
Author's View (Sutras. 67) 

SUTRA. 2. 1. 6. 
But it is seen" 

(The Author) states the Correct Conclusion. 

Though different, yet Brahman and the world can stand in the 
relation of cause and effect. Because it is seen that sentient scorpions 
arise from non-sentient cow-dung ; nou-sentient hair and the like arise 
from sentient persons. Hence, it is established that dry reasoning can 
not by any means set aside the (above established) concordance of Scrip- 
tural texts (with regard tc Brahman alone). 

Apprehending another objection, (the Author) disposes of it. 

SUTRA 2. 1. 7. 

if it be objected that ( in that case the effect must be ) non 
existent) ( we reply : ) No, on account of there being a mere negation. 

Objection 

If it be objected : If there be such a difference between the cause 
and the effect, then the effect must be "non-exi.tent" in the cause, in 
accordance with the Scriptural text : "The non-existent, verily, was this 
in the beginning" (Tait. 2.7.1. ) 

Reply 

(We reply) This cannot be asserted, for, the text only negates or 
denies the rule 'admitted by the opponent) that there is always a similarly 
(between a cause' and its effect). Hence, the identity of essence between the 
cause and the effect, between Brahman and the world, is not jeopardised. 

Here ends the Section entitled! : "Not difference" (3) 



Adhikarana 4 : The Section entitled "Consequence of becoming 
like that during Dissolution' 7 (Sutras 812). 

Prima Facie View ( Sutra 8 ) 

SUTRA 2. 1. 8. 

"On account of there being the consequence of (becoming) like 
that during dissolution, (the doctrine, of the causality of Brahman) is 
inconsistent/ 

As regards the doubt: If according to the doctrine of the prior 
existence of the effect in its cause ( l ), the cause and the effect, Brahman 
and the the world, be identical in essence, then is (the above-established) 
concordance (of all Scriptural texts with regard to Brahman) set aside by 
reasoning, or not ? the Prima Facie view is that it is so set aside. Why ? 
Because, it has been asserted that Brahman and the world are identical 
in essence. But in that case, the undesirable consequence follows that 
like the world, Brahman, too, is subject to changes, ignorance and the 
like. Hence, the concordance of the Vedandnta-texts becomes inconsis- 
tent. Thus, the concordance is set aside by reasoning. 

Author's View (Sutras 912) 

SUTRA 2. L 9. 
"3ut no, on account of there being parallel instances 1 '. 

The word "No" disposes of the Prima Facie view. As there are 
parallel instances to prove that 6iva, the Supreme Brahman, who has 
the sentient and the non-sentient as His body, as proved by the follow- 
ing Scriptural and the Pauranic texts : "Whose body is the Atman", 
"Whose body is the Avyakta". "This world consisting of the movable is 
the form of the God of gods. The beasts (Pasu) (i. e. men in bondage) do 
not know this truth due to the preponderating influence of (their) snares" 
(Pa,4 u ) exists both as the Effect and the Cause, (yet % is not affected by the 
merits and faults (of the effect), the concordance of the Vedsnta-texts is by 
no means inconsistent. How ? Just as, the soul of a man and the like is 
subject to (various) states like childhood, youth, old age etc., still childhood 
etc. belong to (his) body only, while pleasure and the rest to (his) soul 

(1) Sat-Karya-Vada : According to .the doctrine, the effect pre- 
exists in its material cause even before its actual origination. B. g. oil 
potentially pre-exists in the seeds. The rival doctrine is called Asat- 
Karya-Vada. 



172 6rikantha-Bhasya 2. 1. 11 

only, so the evils like ignorance, change etc. belonging to the sentient 
and the non-sentient, constituting the body (of Brahman), abide in 
the sentient and the non-sentient alone, constituting (His) body ; while 
perfection, unchangeableness, omniscience, having true desires and the 
rest belong to the Supreme Lord alone, constituting the Soul. There 
being such a parallel instance, there is no inconsistency with regard to 
the Scriptural texts denoting Brahman. 

SUTRA 2.1. 10. 

"And on account of fault in his own view . 

The view of one who maintains the causality of Pradhaiia is unten- 
able on the ground of reason alone. Consider the view that when, due to 
her nearness to Purusa, Prakrti becomes active, there is a mutual super- 
imposition of the qualities of one on the other. But such a super-im- 
position of (its own qualities) on another, (or) of the qualities of another 
on itself, implying, (in both cases,) a connection (between that and itself) 
is impossible on the part of the changeless Purusa. Again, such a 
super-imposition implying such a connection is also impossible on the 
part of the non-sentient Prakrti (*). Hence, this very Doctrine of the 
Causality of Pradhana can be refuted by reasoning. 

SUTRA 2. 1, 11. 

"On account of reasoning having no solid ground". 

As reasoning has no solid ground, as the Doctrine of the Causality 
of Pradhana is based on that (viz. reasoning), and as counter-arguments 
are (always) possible, that (viz, reasoning) itself is to be discarded, not 
the Doctrine of the Causality of Brahman. 



(1) According to the Samkhya system, when there is a contact 
(Samyoga) between Purusa and Prakrti, there results the world, including 
the soul in bondage or the empirical self. Such a soul in its ignorance 
identifies itself with its body. That is, in it Purusa and Prakrti are 
wrongly identified, so that Purusa appears to have the qualities of 
Prakrti and vice versa. Now, Purusa is inactive and unchangeable. 
So, it can not really move over to Prakrti and become connected with 
Prakrti, and if there is no such connection, then, it cannot super-impose 
its own qualities on Prakrti or have the qualities of Prakrti super- 
imposed on itself. On the, side of Prakrti, too, it being unconscious, 
cannot intelligently move over to Purusa and be connected with it. Thus, 
the very connection (Samyoga) between the two being impossible, the 
creation of the world, too, is so. 



Pradhana, not the Cause 173 

SUTRA 2. 1. 12. 

"Jf it be objected that, it i* to be inferred otherwise, (we reply :) in 
that way, too, there will be the consequence of non-release". 

The contention that Pradhana may be inferred "otherwise", i. e. by 
means of another reasoning that is not overthrown by a counter-argu- 
ment, too, is not a proper one. Here too, there being ( always ) the 
possibility of an encounter with a counter-argument, the same fault of 
having no solid ground remains ; and as such, there results "non-release" 
as a consequence. Hence, the doctrine of the causality of Pradhana, 
based as it is on mere dry reasoning, is itself to be discarded, not the 
doctrine of the Causality of Brahman, established on the strong ground of 
Scriptural texts. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Consequence of that during Disso- 
lution" (4). 



Adhikarana 5 : The Section entitled "Non-acceptance by the Wise " 
(Sutras 13). 

SUTRA 2. 1. 13. 

"Here by ( the doctrines ) that are not accepted by the wise, too, 
are explained away" ( i. e. refuted ). 

Just as the SSmkhya Philosophy, being based on mere reasoning, 
was rejected, because it had no solid ground to stand upon, so on 
that very ground the views of Kanabhaksa, ( J ) Aksapada ( 9 ) and the rest, 
"not accepted by the wW, "are explained" as non-acceptable. It is said 
here that Atomism etc., accepted by Kai?ada and the rest, too, are refuted. 



Here ends the Section entitled "Non-acceptance by the Wise" (5). 



(1) i.e. Kanada, founder of the Vaisesika system. 

(2) i.e. Gautama, founder of the Nyaya system. 



Adhikarana 6 : The Section entitled "Becoming the Enjoy er" 
(Sutra 14). 

SUTRA 2.1.14. 

"if it be objected th%t on account of (Brahman) becoming an en- 
joyer, ( there will be) non-distinction (between Brahman and the Indivi- 
dual soul), (we reply : ) it may be as in ordinary life." 

A doctrine of "Visista-w>ivadvaita" has been propounded above, viz. 
the doctrine that Siva possessing the universe consisting of the sentient 
and the non-sentient, as His body, is one without a second ; and He is 
both the Cause and the Effect. Now, here the doubt is as to whether or 
not this doctrine, established by concordance ( l ), is set aside by reasoning. 

Prim a Facie view. 

As regards this, the Prima Facie view is as follows : If you desire to 
hold that the Supreme Lord possesses the sentient and the non-sentient as 
His body, then it is proved that He must be an embodied being. Like the 
individual soul, He too, becomes an enjoyer of the pleasures and pains due 
to His connection with the body. Thus, such a Supreme Lord becomes 
non-distinct from the individual soul, subject to transmigratory, mundane 
existence. On this view, distinctions like 'This is the individual soul', 
'That is the Supreme Lord', become unreasonable. Hence, if the doctrine 
( that the Lord ) possesses the universe as His body be accepted, then the 
inevitable consequence is that the Supreme Lord can no longer be accepted 
as faultless in nature. Such is the view of the Prima Facie objector. 

Reply 
Brahman is Ever-pure. 

The Correct Conclusion, however, is that no such contradiction is 
involved here. As the Supreme Lord possesses a blameless, all-auspicious 
form, there does exist a difference between Him and the individual soul. 
The mere fact of being an enjoyer because of possessing a body does not 
involve any harm ; but such an harm is involved only when one's enjoy- 
ment is under the control of another. For example, in ordinary life 
although a King possesses a body, yet as. he is not under the control of 
any one, no disastrous consequences follow from not obeying his own 
commands. In fact ( Brahman's ) enjoying is not the same as that of 
others ( viz. individual souls ). The independence of the Lord and the 

(1) i. e. all the Scriptural texts agree in proving this doctrine. 
Br. Sii. 1. 1. 4. 



Brahman and Jiva are non -different 175 

dependence of the individual soul is naturally proved by the text : "There 
are two unborn ones, the Knower and the non-knower, the Lord and the 
non-lord" (Svet. 1.9.). 

Hence, simply because they both have connections with a body, 
the Independent Lord and the dependent individual soul are by no means 
non-different. Hence, the doctrine of "Visistadvaita" is not jeopardised 
in any way. 



Here ends the Section entitled "Becoming the Fnjoyer''. (6). 



Adhkarana 7: The Section entitled "The Beginning" (Sutras 
1523). 

It has been said above that there is a distinction between the indivi- 
dual soul and the Supreme Lord, possessing as they do the opposite 
qualities of dependence and independence respectively. In the same 
manner, their non-difference, too, is proved, standing as they do in a cause- 
effect relation. Hence says ( the Author ) : 

SUTRA 2. 1. 15. 

"( Thera is ) non-difference ( of the effect ) from that ( viz. the 
cause ), on account of the text about 'bsg'nnlng' and the rest." 

Object! m 

Here, a doubt may be raised as to whether the non-difference between 
the cause and the effect, Brahman and the world, proved by concordance^ 1 ) 
stand to reason or not. This doubt arises from the fact that ( Brahman 
and the world ) possessing, respectively, the opposite quulities of sentience 
and non-sentience, must be mutually different. So, how can there be any 
non-difference between these two ? In the prior Section it has been 
pointed out that there is a difference between the Supreme Lord and the 
individual soul, as the former possesses omniscience and the rest, while 
the latter is an enjoyer and subject to ignorance. As there is an absolute 
distinction between the sentient and the non-sentient, any idea regarding 
their non-difference has to be discarded at once. Further, the mere fr|ct 
that they are causally related does not prove their non-difference. For, 

(1) i. e. all the Scriptural texts agree in proving the non-difference 
between Brahman, and the world. 



176 6rIkantha-Bhasya 2. 1. 15. 

although there is such a relation between cow-dung and scorpions, it is 
found that they are quite different. Even in the case of pots ( effects ) 
and the lump of clay ( cause ), there is no absolute identity, there being a 
difference between them as regards practical utility etc.( l ). Or else, if there 
be an absolute inentity between the cause and the effect, then the world will 
become non-separable from Brahman ; and in that case, the practical 
distinctions between agents, activities etc. will cease. 

Reply 
The Cause and the Effect are non-different. 

To this, we reply : The world, the effect, is indeed non-different from 
Brahman, the Cause. Whence is this known ? "From the text about 
'beginning* and the rest" ; i. e. from the following texts : "The effect, 
having its beginning in speech, is a name, the reality is just the clay" 
(Chand, 6. 1. 4.), "The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning, 
one only, without a second" (Chand. 6, 2. 1.), "He thought : 'May I be 
many, may I procreate* " (Chand. 6. 2. 3.), "All that has this for its soul. 
Thou art that, O 6vetaketu" (Chand. 6. 8. 7. etc), "All the elements, the 
the variegated universe, all that has been born and is being born in various 
ways all this, verily, is Rudra" (Mahanar. 13. 2.), and so on. 

SUTRA 2. 1. 16. 

''And because of the perception ( of the cause ) en the existence 
( of the effect )." 

And when there are effects like a pot etc., it is perceived that a pot is 
nothing but clay in essence. Hence, the effect is indeed non-different from 
its cause. The same thing is proved by the following Scriptural text as 
well : "The effect having its beginning in speech (Vacafambhana), that 
which is called 'clay' is the only reality" (Chand. 6. 1. 4.). 

( The word 'Vscarambhana' means as follows : ) The effect, which is 
but a name, is the 'beginning', or cause, 'of speech', i. e. of ordinary 
transactions, like speech and practical activity. It is the clay itself that is 
called a 'pot' when it assumes the form of a pot, and this serves the 
purpose of ordinary transactions, like speech and practical activity.(') 

(1) i. e. a pot can be used for fetching water, but not a mere lump of 
clay. So, the two are different. 

(2) The disputed phrase 'Vacarmbhana' is interpreted in two ways 
by ^rlkai^tba. The fiirst interpretation is : Vikafo Vacayak Aram- 
bhai?am* : The effect is the beginning or cause of speech. That is, alchough 
the cause and the efiect are really identical, yet from the standpoint of 
our everyday life, they have different names and functions. E. g. 



Brahman Pervades the World 177 

In fact, as pots etc., too are nothing but clay, so it is quite 
reasonable to hold that the reality is only clay, pots etc. being 
never found when clay is absent. Or, also, the text ; "The effect, 
having its beginning in speech ( Vacarainbhaiia)" (Chaud 6. 4.) means that 
the effect pot has its beginning in speech. That is, an effect is simply the 
object of such expressions like : 'This is a pot' etc. That is, a pot is but 
a special condition (or form) the substance clay has assumed for practical 
purposes, but is not a separate substance from clay. "That which is 
called 'clay' is the only reality'' this is quite reasonable on an authorita- 
tive ground, as pots etc. are nothing but clay, and not a different 
substance. Hence, all things called 'lump of clay', ('pot', 'glass* etc.) are 
real. As a pot is nothing but clay, so the effect is, indeed, non-different 
from the cause. 

The difference between 'clay' and 'pot' from the standpoint of 
practical activities, is due to the fact that although the two are identical 
in essence, yet they are different in condition or form. Thus, like 'clay' 
and 'pot', Brahman and the world, too, are non-different, the one being the 
Pervader, the other, the pervaded. There is a Purana text to this effect 
Compare "The powers etc. up to the earth have arisen from the Reality 
vsiva. Verily, all this is pervaded by that alone, just as pots etc. are 
pervaded by the clay." 

Objection 

If it be objected that : When it is asserted that 'the pot is the clay', 
it can be seen directly that the pot is pervaded by the clay. But when it 
is asserted that 'This world is Brahman', it can be never seen that the 
world is pervaded by Brahman. 

Reply 
Brahman Pervades the World 

(we reply :) When we see that 'the pot exists', 'the cloth exists', 
and so on, we do see that Brahman, who is existence in form, 
pervades everything. If the world be not pervaded by Siva, who is 
of the form of existence and conciousness, then, how, in the absence 
of existence and manifestation, can we see that a thing exists or is 



we use different names like 'lump of clay' and 'pot' ; again, a pot 
enables us to fetch water, not a mere lump of ciay. 

The second interpretation of 'Vacarambhana' is : 'Vikaro Vagarambha- 
visaya-matratn" : The effect has speech for its beginning. That is, 
the difference between the cause and the effect is only a difference of 
name, and not of substance or essence. 
23 



. 1. 18. 

manifested ? (If a thing neither exists nor is manifested, then) it is not 
a thing at all. Hence, it is established that as pots etc. are pervaded by 
clay, so this world, the effect, is pervaded by 6iva, the Cause, and is non- 
different from it. 

SUTRA 2. 1. 17. 
"And on account of the existence of the other/ 

"And", on account of the existence of the effect in the cause, the 
effect is, indeed, non-different from the cause. Pots, pot-sherds and the 
like previously existed in the clay, and that is why pots and the rest are 
seen to be the clay in essence. 

SUTRA 2. 1. 18. 

"If it be objected that on account of the designation of what is 
n en-existent, (the effect is) not (existent prior to its actual production), 
(we reply :) No, (such a designation is) en account of a different attri- 
bute, (this is known) from the end of the text, from reasoning, and from 
another text/' 

Objection 

If it be objected that on account of the designation of the non- 
existence of the effect, in the text : "All this, verily, was non-existent in 
the beginning", the effect is not existent in the cause. 

Reply 
The World Pre-exists in Brahman 

(we reply :) "No." This designation of non-existence is not due to 
the actual absence (of the world from Brahman), but it is simply due to 
the fact that (prior to its actual production, the world) possesses a different 
attribute, viz. subtleness as opposed to grossness. * How ? (This is known) 
from the end of the text, viz. "That non-existent itself, resolved : 'Let me 
be many' ". Such a resolution is possible on the part of an existent being 
only. 

Reasoning, too, enables us to know that the designation of (the world 
as) darkness (prior to its actual production) is simply due to its possessing 
a different attribute then. As the existent attributes like 'lump-hood', 
'sherd-hood' etc. are mutually opposed, so we say : "The pot was not 
existent before ; now it has come into existence.' Thus the ever-existent 
clay-substance is quite appropriately designated to be non-existent in this 
way, and hence the above designation of non-existence is not to be thought 
of as being due to the actual absence (of the world from Brahman prior to 
its actual production). 



Brahman and the World are non-different 179 

In the same manner, there is anothor Scriptural text to this effect. 
Compare " Verily, at that time that ( viz. the world ) was unmanifested. 
It became manifested through name and form" (Brh. 1.4.7.), and so on. The 
sense is this : In the beginning 6iva, having no inner distinctions of 
names and forms that are (then) identical with Himself and possessing 
potentially supreme powers of the sentient and non-sent ieut in a subtle 
form, remains as the Absolute. Then, again, He manifests outside in 
a gross form, those essential powers of the sentient, now subject to 
to names and forms. Here, 'dissolution' is but the state of contraction 
of 6iva, the possessor of powers ; while 'creation' is but His state of 
manifestation. There are sayings by the Wise, too, to this effect. Compare : 
"The L^ord, who is Consciousness in essence and abides inside, manifests, 
like a Yogin, a mass of objects through a mere wish, without any 
ingredients". The phrase : 'Without ingredients' means that without 
depending on any other material cause, He Himself becomes such a 
Cause. Hence, the world, the effect, is, indeed, non-different from 
Siva, the Supreme Brahman, the the Supreme Cause. 

The Author states a parallel case thus : 

SUTRA 2. 1. 19. 

"And like a piece of cloth". 

Just as a piece of rolled up cloth having a subtle form, when spread 
out, becomes the effect as a large tent of wool, so Brahman, too, the 
Cause, having a contracted form, becomes the effect, having an expanded 
form. 

SUTRA 2. 1. 20. 
"And just like the vital-breath and the rest". 

Just as the vital-breath, though one only, yet becomes subject to many 
differences like Prana, Apana etc., due to the differences of modes ( l ), so 
Brahman, too, becomes subject to all forms like Sadasiva, etc., due to 
the differences of the special functions of (His^ powers. Hence, it stands 
to reason that the world, the effect, should be non-different from 
Brahman, the Cause. 



(1) Prana, Apana, UdSna, Vyana and Samana are the five modes of 
the vital-breath. 



180 6nkaatha-Bhasya 2. 1. 22. 

(The Author) raises an objection with regard to the above view, and 
disposevS of it. 

Priroa Facie View 

SUTRA 2. 1. 21. 

"On account of the designation of another, there is the conse- 
quence of faults like nof doing what is beneficial and like", 

It has been proved that on account of the designation of the indivi- 
dual soul, the effect, as Brahman, the Cause, in the passages : "Thou 
art that" (Chand. 6. 6. 7. etc.) "This soul is Brahman'* (Brh. 2. 5. 9.) and 
so on, (the two) are non-different, This being so, it follows that, not 
creating the world is beneficial, while creating it is non-beneficial. 
oil the part of the Omniscient and Omnipresent Supreme Lord. Hence, 
the Omniscient Lord who can fulfill all his desires, knows very well 
that the sufferings of the individual soul, who is non -different from Him, 
really belong to Himself. So, why should He, thus proceed to create 
the world, the cau?e of transmigratory existence (or bondage), when such 
a creation is non-beneficial to His own Self 1 Or, why should He not 
refrain from creating the world when such a refraining is beneficial to 
His own Self 1 So, if it be established that ( the Lord } is non-different 
from the individual soul, then it follows that although the Lord is. 
Omniscient, yet He has no power to discriminate between what is good 
and what is bad for Him, this and many such logical inconsistencies 
will follow (on the above view). So, it is wrong to hold that there is 
any non-difference between the effect and the cause, the individual 
soul and Brahman. 

To the above objection, we reply : 

Author's View 
Brahman and the Individual soul are different as well 

SUTRA 2. 1. 22. 

"But (Brahman is) something more, on account of the designation 
of difference". 

Although there is non-difference between the effect and the 
cause, yet Scripture declares that the Cause (viz. Brahman) is "more" than 
(i. e. superior to) the effect, viz. the universe of souls and matter. Compare 
the text ' "Superior to the world, Rudra, the Great Sage" (6vet. 3.4.). 
The following and numerous other texts declare the difference between 
the individual soul and the Lord. Compare : "He who rules knowledge and 
ignorance, is Another" (6vet. 5. 1.), "Over both the perishable and the 



Bhedabheda-Vada is not Tenable 181 

soul, the one God rules" (6vet. 1. 10.), "Having known itself and Director 
as different" (6vet. 1.6.), "Two birds, fast friends", (6 vet. 4. 6.), "Two 
Brahmans are to be known Supreme and non-supreme" ( Maitri 6. 22. ), 
"Two unborn ones the Knower and the non-knower, the Lord and the 
non-lord" ( 6 vet. 1.9.), "The Eternal among the eternals, the Conscious 
among the conscious" ( Katha. 5. 13. ), "Entered within, the controller of 
people", "Prakrti should, verily, be known as an illusion (Maya), the Supreme 
Lord as the illusion-producer (Mayin)" ( 6vet. 4. 10. ), "From this does 
the Illusion-producer produce this universe, in Him is the other confined 
through illusion" ( 6vet. 4. 9. ), "When he sees the other, the Lord, the 
Contended," ( 6vet. 4. 7. ), "The Lord of Pradhana and the individual 
soul, the Master of the Guuas" ( Svet. 6. 16. ), "The beasts whose Lord 
is Pasupati" and so on. Hence, Brahman, otherwise called Siva, is, un- 
doubtedly "more than" or Superior to the universe. 

Objection 

Jf it be objected : In the Aphorism : "Non-difference from that" 

( Su. 2. 1. 15 ), the non-difference ( between Brahman and the world ) has 
been established. Again in the Aphorism : "But more" ( Su. 2. I. 22. ), 
the difference ( between the two ) has been established. Hence, it is estab- 
lished that there is both difference and non-difference ( Bhedabheda ) 
( between the two ) 

Reply 
Bhedabheda* Vada is not Tenable 

( we reply ) No such difference non-difference is to be apprehended 
here, for we only establish the Doctrine of Non-difference as qualified 
by Difference ( Visistadvaita ). We do not maintain that there is an 
absolute difference between Brahman and the universe, as between a pot 
and a piece of cloth. For, that would be opposed to the Scriptural texts 
maintaining the non-difference between the two. Again, we do not 
maintain that there is an absolute difference ( between the two ) as 
between the nacre and the silver. For, if one of these two be false, then 
that would contradict the Scriptural texts maintaining the difference 
between them in respect of natural qualities. Further, we do not also, 
maintain that there is both difference and non-difference ( between the 
two ), for that would be self-contradictory. But we maintain that ( the 
relation between Brahman and the world is that non-difference ( or 
Brahman ) is qualified by difference ( or the world ), as the embodied 
being is by its body, as the substance is by its attribute. 

The non-difference between the universe and Brahman simply means 
that the former being the effect and the latter its Cause, the former being 



182 6rikantha-Bhasya 2. 1. 23. 

the attribute and the latter its Substance, none can exist in the absence of 
the other, as in the case of a pot and clay. A pot is never found without 
clay ; again, a blue-lotus is never found without blueness. In the same 
manner, the power, ( 6akti ) viz. the universe, can never exist without 
Brahman ; while, Brahman, too, is never known to be without His powers, 
just as fire is never without heat. If a thing cannot be known without 
another thing, then the first is qualified by the second. The second 
thing ( the attribute ) is the first thing ( the Substance ) in essence. 
Hence, it is said that Brahman is n on -separable from and necessarily con- 
nected with the universe. On the other hand, the difference ( between 
the two ), too, is natural. Hence, the Supreme Lord is, indeed, "more 
than" or superior to the universe. The cause-effect relation ( between 
the two ) has been demonstrated under the Aphorism : "But no, on 
account of there b ing parallel instances ( Su. 2. 1. 9. ). So our view- 
point is quite consistent with texts that designate non-difference, as well 
as those that designate difference ( between the two ). 

SUTRA 2. 1. 23 

''And, like stones and thereat, there is the impossibility of that 
( viz. an absolute identity between the individual soul and Brahman )" 

If it be objected that in accordance with the Scriptural texts 
designating non-difference ( between the individual soul and the Lord ), 
the two must be identical we reply : No, just as stones, wood, grass 
and the like, being non-sentient, ( can never be identical with Brahman), 
so the individual soul, too, being ignorant, is declared by Scripture to 
be belonging to a category absolutely different from that of the Lord, 
possessed as He is of omniscience and the rest. Hence, their identity 
does not stand to reason. So, the Lord is undoubtedly different from 
the individual soul. The sense is that even the sentient cannot reason- 
ably be taken to be identical with the Lord, as it differs from Him 
in many qualities, not to speak of the non-sentient that is different 
( from the Lord ) also in nature. Thus, on grounds of Scripture, Smrti 
and reasoning, the Omniscient and Omnipotent Supreme Lord though 
in every way, non-different from the universe of the sentient and the 
non-sentient, His effect, is yet "more than'" the universe. 



Here ends the Section entitled "The Beginning" (7). 



Adhikarana 8 : The Section entitled "Observation of Collection." 
(Sutras. 242"). 

SUTRA 2. 1. 24. 

"If it be objected that on account of the observation of collection, 
(Brahman is) not (the creator of the world), ( we reply : ) iVo for (He 
transforms Himself) like milk/' 

Trima Facie View 

From the Scriptural texts : "One only, without a second" Chand. 
6. 2. 1. ), "The One God, creating Heaven and earth" (Mahanar. 2. 2.), it 
is known that the One Supreme Lord is the cause of the world. Now, a 
doubt may be raised here as to whether it is reasonable to hold that He, 
though One, is the Cause of the variegated world. As regards this, we 
say, it is not reasonable, that being impossible. Here the effect has 
various forms like, ether, air, fire, water and the like. How can these 
be possible if the cause too, is not various in form ? It is seen that there 
is "the collection" of many causes when effects like chariots etc. are pro- 
duced. Hence, it is impossible that there should be a single cause ( for 
this universe). 

Reply 
Brahman is the Single Cause. 

This is not proper. Even a single (cause) can be transformed into 
the form of the effect. E.g. though a single thing, milk itself is trans- 
formed into curd. Hence, Brahman is the sole, single Cause, while the 
world is (His) effect. 

Your view, that the manifoldness of effects is due to that of causes, 
is wrong. For, It is found that from a single sentient being, various 
effects like hairs, nails etc. arise. Hence, Brahman has not to depend on 
any other cause for bringing into existence the variegated world. 

Everything is possible on the parts of those who possess powers so 
says the Author : 

SUTRA. 2. 1. 25. 
"And in tha case of the gods and the rest t^o in (their) world " 

Just as the gods, whose powers we come to know from Scriptures, 
come to have many forms through themselves alone, so everything is possi- 
ble on the part of the Supreme Lord whose powers also we come to know 



184 Srika^tha-Bhasya 2. 1. 27. 

from Scriptures. The following Scriptural texts declare the Supreme t,ordi 
to be possessed of infinite powers. Compare the texts : "Who rules these 
world through (His) ruling powers, through (His) creative powers, through 
(His) supreme powers' (Atharvasiras. 5, ). What is there that is impossible 
on His Part ? 



Here ends the Section entitled "Observation of Collection (8). 



Adhikarana9: The Section entitled "The Consequence of the 
Entire" (Sutras 25 31). 

Prima Facie View. 

SUTRA 2. 1. 26. 

"(if the Brahman be the material cause of the world, there will be) 
the consequence of the entire (Brahman being transformed into the 
world), or the violation of the text about (Brahman's) having no parts." 

Here, the doubt is as to whether it is reasonable to hold that 
Brahman is transformed into the world, as stated above. But how can that 
stand to reason ? It has been asserted above that the One Brahman is so 
transformed. If the whole essence of Brahman be transformed into the 
form of the world, as milk is transformed into curd, then, as a consequence, 
the entire ( Brahman ) will become the effect, and no Brahman will be 
left over ( i ). If it be pointed out that (He becomes so transformed) only 
partially, then, (we reply : ) that would contradict the Scriptural texts 
designating (Brahman) as devoid of parts. Hence, no transformation of 
Brahman can be supported by reasoning. 

To this we reply : 

Author's View 
SUTRA 2. 1. 27. 

"But ( tha above objection has no force ) on account of Scripture, 
since ( the view that Brahman is the cause of the world is ) based on 
Scripture." 

(1) i. e. Ou this view, Brahman becomes wholly immanent in the 
world, and is not transcendent. 



ferahman is Endowed with all Powers 185 

Brahman's transformation into the world does stand to reason, "On 
account of Scriptural te t" to that effect. Here, Scripture alone is our 
proof and not any thing else. "Since (our view) is based on Scripture" 

alone, He is known to be quite different from all the objects known 
through other sources, and to be possessed of unseen powers. Hence, no 
contradiction is involved here. Hence, -it is quite possible for. Him, 
the Full, to be both the Cause and the Effect. For example, the Universal 
(Jati) of those who maintain this doctrine is present fully in each of 
the infinite number (of individuals), like calf, cow, etc. that are infinitely 
different, and yet here no doubt can be raised by bringing in other cases 
(where this is never found). Hence, Scripture alone is the basis for 
determining the nature of Brahman. Thus, no contradiction is involved 
here. 

SUTRA 2. 1. 28. 

"And thus in the soul (the attributes of the non-sentient are not 
found), for there are manifold (powers in different objects). 

The presence of the attribute of consciousness, opposed to that of 
the unconsciousness, is found in the individual soul, because it is quite 
different (from the non-sentient). Different non-sentient objects, like 
fire, water, etc., too, (being mutually different) are found to possess 
manifold, mutually different powers. Hence, Brahman, too, known only 
through Scripture, possesses infinite, manifold power thus everything 
is consistent. 

SUTRA 2. 1. 29. 
''And on account of fault in his own view." 

The faults like entire transformation etc. pertain to Pradhana that 
is non-sentient and without parts, and not to Brahman who is known 
through Scripture, ( l ) 

(The lyord) being Omnipotent, everything is possible (in His case) 
so says (the Author) : 

SUTRA 2. 1. 30. 
"And (the Lord) is endowed with all (Powers) because it is seen." 

From the Scriptural texts : "Supreme is His power, declared to 
be manifold ; natural is the operation of His knowledge and action" 
(6vet. 6.8.), "One should know Prakrti to be an illusion (Maya), and the 

(1) According, to the Samkhya, Pradhana is without parts, yet is 
transformed into its effects. Hence, the entire Pradhana must be so 
transformed. 
24 



166 rikairtha-Bhnsya 2. 1. 31. 

Great Lord as the illusion-producer (Mayin). The whole world is pervaded 
by His parts" (6vet. 4. 10.), it is known that all powers inhere in Brahman. 
So, what is impossible on the part of such an Omnipotent Brahman ? 

SUTRA 2. 1. 31. 

"if it be objected that (Brahman is not the cause of the world) 
because of the absence of sense-organs, (we reply :) that has been said.' 

Objection. 

If it be objected that the text : "Of Him, no action or sense-organ 
exists" (6vet. 6. 8.) declares Brahman to be without sense-organs ; hence, 
He cannot be a cause. 

Reply 
Brahman is both Transcendent and Immanent 

( we reply : ) "No." The reply to this has already been given 
above under the Aphorism : "Since it is based on Scripture" (Br. Su. 
2.1.27.). The Supreme Lord, who is variegated through possessing 
i'nfinite powers and who possesses the supreme power of Maya, 
voluntarily assumes the form of the universe through His own power, but 
is also beyond the universe. The Holy Scriptural text : "One should 
know Prakrti to be an illusion and the Great Lord as the illusion-producer. 
The whole world is pervaded by His part" (ovet. 4. 10.) supplies the 
evidence for that. There is a Purana-text, too, to this effect. Compare the 
text : "He who possesses ever-increasing and variegated desires, transced- 
ing the world, and through a particle of whose powers is everything 
finished ; He whom the knowers of the Path call both the Path and the 
Lord of the Path obeisance to Him who is different from all worlds." 

Hence, no question of possibility or- impossibility can be raised ifi 
the case of oiva, the Supreme Lord, the Supreme Brahman, who is free 
from all stains of faults, who can be known through Scriptures alone, and 
who possesses naturally all powers and wealth. 



Here 6ids the Section entitled "The Consequence of the Entire" 



Adhikarana 10 : The Section entitled "A mere Sport" (Sutra* 
3233) 

Having raised another objection, the Author disposes of it. 

Prima Facie View 

SUTRA 2. 1. 32. 

"(Brahman is) not (the cause of the world), on account of (the 
activity of an agent) having a ca se." 

It has been established that Brahman, known from Scriptures to be 
Omnipotent, has the power of being the Cause of all effects. Still, a doubt 
may be raised as to whether it is possible for the Supreme Lord, who has 
all His desires fulfilled, to be the Creator etc. of the world, seeing that all 
activities are due to needs. 

But (says the Prima Facie objector), how can that be possible ? The 
Scriptural texts : "Brahman is bliss" (Tait. 3.6.1.), "All-pervading, of the 
form of consciousness and bliss, wonderful" (Kaivalya. 6.), "Having Uma 
as a companion" (Kaivalya. 7.) etc. declare 6iva to be unsurpassable bliss 
in nature and eternally satisfied. So, how can He engage Himself in the 
activities, of creation etc, without any needs whatsoever ? If these 
activities be due to His own needs, then He ceases to be eternally satisfied. 
Or, else, His activities are improper (i. e. meaningless) like that of a fool 
and the like (who act even without any need or motive). 

To this, we reply : 

Reply 
Brahman creates in sport. 

' SUTRA 2. 1. 33. 
"But, a* in ordinary life, (creation is) a mere sport (to Brahman)." 

Your view that, as eternally satisfied (Brahman) has no needs, and so 
He cannot unnecessarily engage Himself in the activities of creating the 
world, is wrong. Activities are possible on the part of the Lord, though 
they are not due to any necessity, but to a mere sport (on His part). Just 
as "ia ordinary life", (people) engage themselves in ball-throwing through 
sport merely, even without any necessity, so the Supreme Lord, too, 
though having all His desires fulfilled, can very well engage Himself in 
the activities of creation etc., without giving rise to any contradiction. 

Here, ends the Section entitled "A mere Sport" (10). 



Adhikarana 11 : The Section entitled "Inequality and cruelty" 
(Sutra* 34-36). 

SUTRA 2. 1. 34 

"(There are) na inequality and cruelty (on the p*rt of Brahman), 
because of (His) having regard (for the works of souls), for so (Scripture) 
shows." 

It has been established that though He has no needs, Brahman 
engages Himself in the activities of creation etc., through mere sport. 
Now, a doubt is being raised here once more whether this is possible 
or not. 

Objection 

If it be objected : No creation is possible on the part of the Supreme 
Lord, even through sport, because being Full and Perfect, He is devoid of 
desire and aversion. All things being the same to the Supreme Lord, He 
is an impartial arbiter. (But if he be taken to be the Creator of the 
world, then ) creating, as He does, joyful divine bodies and painful human 
ones, it is difficult to exonerate Him of the charge of inequality or par- 
tiality. Moreover, as creation is preceded by destruction, the Supreme 
Lord, simultaneously destroying all things, have to be accused of cruelty, 
no less. So, hew can, creatorship be possible on the part of the Supreme 
Lord when it involves Him into all these undesirable consequences ? 

Reply 
Brahman is not Partial and Cruel. 

We reply : There cannot be any partiality and cruelty on the part of 
the Supreme Lord, who ( must be taken ) to be the Creator of the world 
from every point of view. The differences as found in the world are due to 
the respective Karmas ( of those individuals ). There is a Scriptural text 
to this effect : "Those who are of a pleasant conduct will enter a pleasant 
womb. But those who are of a stinking conduct, will enter a stinking 
womb" (Chand, 5. 10. 7.). 

Objection 
SUTRA 2. 1. 35. 

"If it be objected that this is not (possible) on account of the non- 
distinction of works, (we reply :) No, on account of begianinglessness, 
and (this) fits in, and is observed also", 



Brahman is Independent 189 

If it be objected : Prior to creation, there being no individual 
souls, there cannot be any Karinas. Such an absence of Karmas ( prior to 
creation ) results form "the non-distinction" ( of the entire world then ), as 
known from the Scriptural texts "The existent alone, my dear, was this 
in the beginning" (Chand. 6. 2. 1.). - 

Reply 
Brahman creates according to the Karmts of jivas. 

We reply : "No", on account of Scriptural texts like : "The two 
unborn ones, the Kuower and the non-knower, the Lord and the non-lord' 
(6 vet. 1. 9.) and soon. It "is observed" also that just as the individual 
souls themselves are beginningless, so are their Karmas. That is why, this 
transmigratory world is clue to this stream of Karmas. The Supreme 
Lord, having perceived, through His omniscience, the variegated works of 
individual souls, then creates, accordingly, through His own powers, the 
divine bodies and the like, that are the instruments through which 
( those works ) are to be experienced. Hence, the diversities as found 
in the world are due to Karmas alone. Further, destruction does not prove 
Supreme Lord to be cruel, for like deep dreamless sleep, it, too, causes 
rest to the indidual souls, exhausted through mundane activities. 

Objection 

If it be objected As the pleasure, pain and the like of individual 
souls are due to (their) Karmas alone, what is the use, here, of the Supreme 
Lord who causes nothing ? 

Reply 
Brahman is Independent. 

( We reply : ) Not so. As the Karmas, too, are under His control, 
His own independence is not jeopardised in any way. Again, it is not 
to be said here, on the maxim of 'Day-break in the vicinity of the toll- 
collector's house',( ] ) that the Karmas being not independent, it is the 
Supreme Lord Himself who is open to all these charges of partiality etc. 
For, the Supreme Lord is simply the regulator of the infinite Karma- 
aktis, due to Maya. As through their own powers, the Karmas 
themselves, are the causes of worldly diversities, the Supreme Lord, 
who simply regulates them, cannot be accused of partiality. 

(1) Ghatta-Kuti-Prabhata-Nyaya. This means that a man, anxious 
to avoid the toll-charges, takes another road, but unfortunately, finds 
himself at day-break near the house of the toll-collector! That is, this 
maxim means our failure to accomplish a desired-for object. Willy nilly, 
we are here landed on a theory that we want to avoid. 



190 6rikai?tha-Bha?ya 2. L 85 

Objection 

If it be objected As the non-sentient Karmas, not directed by a 
sentient being, are incapable of creating the bodies of the individual 
souls, it is to be admitted that the Supreme lyord alone is the real cause 
here. But, prior to creation, the individual souls were quite happy, as 
they were free from all mundane miseries, because their instruments 
for experiencing (their Karmas, i. e. bodies) were then unmanifest. 
So, how can an All-marciful Being connect such souls with bodies that 
cause transmigratory, mundane existence ? 

Reply 
Brahman brings about Salvation 

We reply : We are explaining. The Supreme Lord is the Favourer 
of all. There cannot be any rise of knowledge in the individual souls 
unless their Karmas are exhausted ; and if there be no knowledge in 
them, then they cannot attain Salvation consisting in unsurpassable 
bliss. But, Karmas cannot become exhausted unless they are actually 
experienced. Hence, in order that (the individual souls) may experience 
the fruits or results of their Karmas, (the Lord) once more conceives of 
their bodies etc. In this way, when the own Karmas of the souls 
become exhausted through experiencing, (the Lord) produces knowledge 
regarding Himself in those souls whose minds have been, thus, 
purified ; and after that, leads them to the supremely auspicious 
Salvation, of the form of unsurpassable bliss. 

Objection 

If it be objected Why does not such a powerful and supremely 
merciful Lord exhaust, at the same time, the Karmas of all the individual 
souls, and lead them all equally to the bliss of salvation ? 

Reply 
Crab man favours all according to their *. armas 

(We reply :) True, but, although the Supreme Lord equally favours 
all, yet those only whose Karma-blemishes have been destroyed are 
released immediately ; but those whose Karma-blemishes have not yet been 
destroyed, are released only in course of time. Just as, although the sun- 
rays are equally spread over all, yet only the mature lotuses bloom forth, 
not the immature ones, so is the case here. 

Hence, although Full and Perfect, the Supreme Lord engages 
Himself in activities for the sake of others. The following 



Brahman favours all according to their Karmas 191 

text, while demonstrating the Supreme L,ord to be the Favourer of all, 
makes clear all the above views : "Just as, without the suu, the world is 
reduced to darkness, so without 6iva too, the world is reduced to dark- 
ness. Just as, without a doctor, the unhappy patients suffer, so without 
Siva, the unhappy world suffers. Just as the medicine is the enemy of 
diseases, so Siva, too, by nature, is the Enemy of the worldly faults. Just 
as this terrible transmigratory existence is eternal, so 6iva, the Redeemer 
from tran smigratory existence, is eternal", and so on. Hence, activities 
connected with the creation and the rest of the world are quite possible 
on the part of the Supreme I/ord, for favouring all. 



SUTRA 2. 1. 36. 
"And because of the fitting in of all attributes 1 '. 

What more ? Those qualities that do not fit in on the part of 
Pradhana, atoms, Karma, time and so on, all fit % in on the part of the 
Supreme Lord. Hence, Brahman alone, Superior to all, is the Author of 
the creation etc. of the world thus everything is consistent. 



Here ends the Section entitled "Inequality and Cruelty 1 ' (1 1). 



(According to 6rlkantha, the First Quarter of the Second Chapter 
contains 36 Sutras and 1 1 Adhikaranas). 



SECOND CHAPTER (Adhyaya) 
Second Quarter (Padaj 

Adhikarana 1 : The Section entitled "The impossibility of arrenge- 
ment" (Sutra 1 S). 

SUTRA 2. 2. 1. 

And on account of the impossibility of arrangement, not the 
inference, also on account of activity. 

In the previous Chapter, apprehending Samkhya objections etc. 
based on reasoning, (the Author) supported his own view. Now, here he 
criticises the views of others viz. the Sanikhya etc. on the ground of reason. 
First, a doubt may be raised as to whether the Doctrine of Pradhana of 
the Samkhyas is reasonable or not. Everywhere, well-known doubts are 
to be deliberated on. 

Prima Facie View 

The Doctrine of Pradhana is, indeed, known to be quite reasonable. 
Pradhana consists of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. That alone can appro- 
priately be taken to be the cause of the world, as everywhere its effects 
like pleasure, pain and delusion are seen. ( For example, ) when a piece 
of cloth and the like are attained ( by someone ), as he can cover him- 
self with them, these cause him pleasure ; when these are stolen by 
others, these cause him pain ; when these are neglected due to absence of 
( perceptual ) activity, these cause delusion. Thus, as these are connected 
with pleasure and the rest, Pradhana alone, consisting of three Gunas, 
must be the cause of the world. 

Reply 
Pradhana is not the cause of the world. 

To this, we .reply : Pradhana is not the cause of the world, it 
being non-sentient. Thus, it is found that it is impossible for non- 
sentient objects like wood etc., to create chariots, palaces etc., as these 
( wood etc. ) are not superintended by any one who possesses knowledge 
regarding these ( chariots etc. ). But it is found that such a creation 
is possible ( on the part of wood etc. ) when these are superintended by 
one who knows ( about chariot etc. ). Hence, the non-seutient Pradhana, 



Pradhaiia is not the Cause 193 

not superintended by a conscious being, cannot appropriately be the 
cause of the world. Your view that ( Pradhaiia must be taken to be the 
cause ) because of the connection ( i. e. presence ) of pleasure and the 
rest ( in all ), is quite wrong. For, pleasure etc. are something internal. 
Hence, the Doctrine of Pradhana does not stand to reason. 

Having raised an objection, ( the Author ) disposes of it : 

SUTRA 2. 2. 2. 

"And if it be objected that (Pradhana acts spontaneously) like 
milk and wa'er, (we reply :) there, too, (the Lord is the director)". 

If it be objected that just as milk and water, even independently 
of any conscious superintendent, are transformed, respectively, into 
the forms of curd and hail, so is the case with Pradhana ( we reply : ) 
No. Here, too, the reasoning is wrong. For, all these ( milk, water etc.) 
being non-sentient, the same thing holds here too ( l ). 

SUTRA 2. 2. 3. 

"Because of the non-existence of what is different (from creation, 
viz. dissolution), on account of (its) non-dependence (on anything else), 
(Pradhana is not the cauie of the world). 

Moreover, if the non-sentient (Pradhana), not superintended by an 
intelligent being, engages itself in activity, then there will be eternal 
creation, so that what is different from it (viz. dissolution) will be 
impossible. Hence, the unconscious (Pradhana) is not the cause of the 
world. 

SUTRA. 2. 2. 4. 

"And on account of non-existence elsewhere, not like grass and 
the rest.' 

It cannot also be said that just as the grass etc., eaten by a cow, 
are transformed into milk, so the unconscious Pradhana, too, can be the 
cause for, as the grass eaten by an ox or not eaten by any one is 
not transformed into milk, so that (viz. the transformation of grass 
into milk in the case of a cow) too, is superintended by an intelligent 
principle. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 5. 

"if it be argued: As in the case of a man and stone, (we reply 
then also." 



(1) i. e. the impossibility of any intelligent activity on the part of 
a non-sentient being. 
25 



194 Srikantfia-Bhasya 2. 2. 8. 

Objection 

If it be objected Though unconscious, Pradhana acts because of 
its nearness to Pnrusa, like a blind man (moving, as directed by a lame 
man perched on his shoulders) ; or, like a piece of iron being drawn by 
a magnet. Hence, it is not necessary for it to depend on an intelligent 
principle 

Reply 
Pradhana is not the cause. 

(We reply :) Even then no activity can result on the pait of 
Pradhana. For, Purusa is unchangeable. A lame man, and a magnet 
are both subject to some changes as the lame man instructs (the blind 
man) as to the path and thereby reaches a nearby place. Hence, mere 
nearness to the unchangeable Pnrusa cannot be the cause of Pradhana 's 
activity. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 6. 
"On account of the impossibility of being preponderant/ 7 

The relation of mutual subordination and preponderance means 
that the Gunas become less or more in degree. It is held by the Sanikhyas 
that from this the world evolves. Now, at the time of each creation, 
the Gunas that are in a state of equilibrium, fail to become different in 
degree, so that this relation of mutual subordination and preponderance 
becomes impossible. Hence, on this Dectrine of Pradhana, there 
cannot appropriately be any beginning of the world. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 7. 

"And, if there bean inference in a- other way, (Pradhana cannot 
stil. be the cause) on account of the absence of the power of being a 
kaower". 

Even if Pradhana be inferred in a way other than the stated one, 
still then, "..n account of the absence of the power rf being a knower", 

the impossibility of being the creator remains just the same (on the 
part of Pradhana). 

SUTRA 2. 2. 8. 

"On account of there beiig no necessity for the admission even 
(of Pradhana)." 

If the admission of Pradhana were necessary, then we should have 
somehow or other admitted it. But there is no such necessity. For 
Purusa being unchangeable, changes involved in 'seeing* Pradhana are 



Atomism is Untenable 19$ 

impossible on its part. Hence, neither experience, due to the super- 
imposition of the attributes of Prakrti (on Purusa), nor salvation, 
due to a discrimination ( between Purusa and Prakrti ), is possible. 
So, as there is no necessity, Pradhana is not to be admitted. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 9. 

"On account of contradiction as well, (the Samkhya Doctrine is) 
inconsistent". 

Further, it is found that Purusa is admitted ( by the Samkhyas 
themselves ) to be possessed of thousands of qualities, like 'being a 
perceiver', 'being an agent', and so on, that are opposed to the quality 
of 'being unchangeable' ( admitted also, by the Samkhyas themselves ). 
Hence, the Doctrine of Kapilais, indeed, inconsistent. 

Here, ends the Section entitled "impossibility of Arrangement' 7 (1). 



Adhikarana 2. The Section entitled "Vaisesika" (Sutras 1016). 

Refutation of Vaisesika view ( Sutras 1016 ) 

Thus, it has been established that the Doctrine of Pradhana has 
no grounds to stand on. Then, for refuting the Doctrine of Atomism, 
( the Author ) begins another Section. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 10. 

"For, just as the (origin) of the great and the long from the short 
and the spherical (is untenable), (so everything is untenable in the Vaise- 
feika theory)". 

Here, the doubt is as to whether the Doctrine of Atomism, as 
established by the Vaisesikas, is reasonable or not. 

Prima Facie View 

Although the Doctrine of the causality of Pradhana, involves 
contradiction, as it does not admit God as the Superintending Deity, 
yet Atomism is quite reasonable. Thus, according to this Doctrine, 
after the dissolution of the world, when, the Supreme L/ord conies to 
have a desire to create, the first action or motion arises in the motionless 
atoms, through the Karmas of creatures. Through this motion, one atom 
comes to be connected with another atom. Through such a connection, 
a bianary compound arises. From three such bianary compounds, a 
ternary compound arises. In this way, the entire world is created. Hence, 
this Doctrine of Atomism does not involve any contradiction. 



196 6rikantha-Bhasya 2. 2. 1 1. 

Reply 
Atomism is Untenable 

To the above Priraa Facie view, we reply : According to the 
view of Kanada, "from the short and spherical" arise the ternary 
compound possessing "greatneis and longness", and the binary compound 
possessing "atomicity and shortness". How can that be possible ? Thus, 
the simple atoms are 'spherical' in size, and not 'atomic' in size. It is 
held that from two simple atoms, not 'atomic' in size, there arises a 
binary componnd 'atomic' in size. Thus, a bianary compound, being 
'short' in size, is not 'long' in size. It is held that from such three 
bianary compounds, there arises a ternary compound, 'long' in size, and 
not 'short' in size. 

All this is absolutely iiicosistent, for it contradicts the processs 
of creation, viz. that the qualities of the effect arises from the qualities 
of the cause, as admitted by the Vaisesikas themselves. 

Further, the parts (of a whole) become conjoined with one another 
by means of their six sides and theieby give rise to a larger object. 
As the atoms have no sides, they cannot give rise to a larger object. 
Hence, the Doctrine of Atomism does not stand to reason. 

(The Author) points out another inconsistency. 
SUTRA 2 2. 11. 

"Even in both ways there is no action (on the part of the atoms), 
hence there is the absence of that (viz. creation)". 

As the first action or motion is impossible on the part of the 
atoms, the connection among the atoms due to that (motion) is not 
possible. If this motion be not due to the ripening of the Unseen Principle 
(Adrsta) (or the past Karmas), then even prior to it, there must be motion 
(in the atoms). Again, if it be due to it, then, the motion in the atoms 
must result -off and on through it. In fact, this 'ripening' (Vipaka) is 
not a special quality produced in the Unseen Principle. But in the 
case of those Karmas which produce their results within a definite 
time, 'ripening' (of the Unseen Principle or Karmas) simply means the 
arrival of that particular time. In the case of those Karmas which do 
not produce their result within a definite time, 'ripening' only means the 
absence of a stronger counter-acting Karma ( J ). It is the nature of the 



(1). There are two kinds of Karmas, Niyata-vipaka and Aniyata- 
vipaka. The first produce their result at a fixed time ; and when that 
time arrives^ the results are at once produced. So, when we say that such 



Atomism is Untenable 197 

Unseen Principles (Adjsta) to produce results according to the respective 
Karmas ( of those individuals). Hence, it is impossible that all ( the 
Karmas ), performed by an infinite number of souls and producing results 
at different times, should 'ripen* togeter at the very same time ('). Hence, 
Atomism does not stand to reason. 

There is another absurdity here So points out ( the Author ) 

SUTRA 2. 2. 12. 

Mhe Vaisesika doctrine is untenable) also on account of the 
admission of the relation of inherence, on account of an infinite regress 
(ar'sing therefrom\ because of sam? ness." 

They admit a relation called "Samavaya". For that reason, too, this 
(doctrine) is self-contradictory. Why ? Because, Samavaya or relation 
of inherence, too, awaits ( another relation of inherence), as in the case of 
inseparable objects like 'class' ( and individual ), 'attribute' (and substance) 
and so on ; and this leads to an infinite regress ( 8 ). Hence, the view of 
Kanada is self-con tradictary. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 13. 

"(If the relation of Samavaya be admitted to bs eternal, the terms 
related by it, viz. ternary compounds etc , i. e. the world, too, must be) 
eternal indeed, on account of the existence (L e, eternity) (of the 
Samavaya relation)." 

The eternity of the relation of inherence ( Samavaya ) is admitted (by 
the Vaisesikas), but that is impossible if the terms related be not eternal, 



Karmas have ripened, that simply means that that particular time has 
arrived. The second do not produce their results at a fixed time, but only 
when they get an opportunity, i.e. only when there are no counter-acting 
forces. So, when we say that such Karmas have ripened, that simply 
means that such counter-acting forces are no longer there. 

(1) The creation of the world is due to the past Karmas of indivi- 
duals. Due to the Karmas, the atoms begin to move and be connected 
with one another. Now. when the world is thus created, an infinite number 
of individuals are born there to undergo the results of their Karmas. 
Hence, the world must have been due to the Karmas of these infinite 
number of individuals. But how can possibly such an infinite number of 
Karmas ripen together at the very same time ? 

(2) According to the Vaisesika School, there are two kinds of 
relation Sain yoga or that between separable objects (e.g. a pot and rope- 
tied round is ) and Samavaya, or that between non-separable objects ( e.g. 



198 6rikaitfha-Bhasya 2. 2. 16. 

From this, it follows that the parts and the whole too (viz. the world) 
must be eternal. Hence, this Doctrine is, indeed, inconsistent. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 14. 

"And on account of (the atoms) having; colour and to on, the 
reverse (would follow), because of observation/ 7 

It is admitted here that atoms have colour etc. Hence, their eternity 
etc. are "reve seJ" ( i.e. disproved ). For, it is seen in the 
case of pots etc.( ! ) For this reason, too, this Doctrine is inconsistent. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 15. 
"Bec*ue there is fault in both ways". 

If to avoid their non-eternity, ( the atoms ) be admitted to be 
devoid of colour etc., then ( their effects ) cannot derive ( their 
qualities, like colour etc. ) from their causes. Again if to make this 
possible, ( the atoms ) be admitted to be possessing colour etc., then they 
will become non-eternal. "ecauce of there being fault in both ways" 
the view of Kanada is indeed inconsistent. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 16. 

''And because of non-acceptance, (there must be an) absolute 
disregard (for the Atomic theory).'' 

Although the Sarnkhya view is opposed to Scripture and reasoning, 
yet some parts of it, viz. the Doctrine of the prior existence of the effect 
in the cause and the like, are accepted by the Vedas. But not even a 
single part of the Doctrine of Kanada is acceptable. Hence, it is to 
be totally disregarded, if one want% to attain the Summum Bonum. 

Here ends the Section entitled The Vaisesika" (2). 



between class and individual, substance and attribute, material cause and 
effect, etc. ). Now, suppose we have two separate objects A and B, and 
the relation of inherence ( say, X) between them. This relation X itself is 
absolutely different from A and B, so it itself has to be connected with 
them by another relation of inherence, that, too, must be connected with 
X and so on ad infinitum. 

(1) Pots etc. possessing colour etc, are non-eternal. Heuce, if 
atoms, possess colour, etc., they, too, must be non-eternal. 



Adhikaraya 3. I he Section entitled "The Aggregate" (Sutras 
1724) 

Refutation of Bauddha View (Su. 1724) 

SUTRA 2. 2. 17, 

"Even if the aggregate having two causes (be admitted), (there is) 
the Ron-establishment of that (viz. of the aggregate). 

The views of those who accept only a part of the Yedas have 
been refuted. Now, the views of those who altogether reject Vedic 
authority is being refuted. First, a doubt arises as to whether the Doc- 
trine of the causality of the 'Aggregate', established by the Bauddhas, 
is reasonable or not. 

Prima Facie View 

The Prima Facie view is that it does stand to reason. Thus, 
( the Bauddhas ) hold that there are two kinds of aggregate external 
and internal. The external aggregate means the world etc. The internal 
aggregate consists of the mind and the mental. These two aggregates 
constitute the entire universe. Thus, the atoms are the causes of the 
external earth- atoms, water-atoms, fire-atoms. From the simultaneous 
massing of these arises the the external aggregate. Five groups ( Pafica- 
Skandha ) are the causes of the internal aggregate ; The five groups are 
colour (Rupa), feeling (Vedana"), cognition (VijnSna). name (Samjfta), 
and impression (Samskafa). The colour-group consists of the sound, 
touch, colour etc. known by the mind. The cognition- group consists of 
the manifestations of these. The feeling-group consists of the pains due 
to these. The name-group consists of names like 'Devadatta' etc. The 
impression-group consists of the effects left by these. From these massed 
together, arises the internal aggregate. Hence, there is no inconsistency 
whatsoever in this Doctrine of the causality of the Aggregates. 

Reply 
Bauddha Doctrine of Causality is uotenable 

To this, we reply : The Doctrine of the causalilty of the Aggregates 
is not proper. They also mention the Doctrine of Momentariness. How 
can there be any aggregates of these ? For the causes being momentary 
and as such destroyed at that very moment, they are incapable of 
producing their effects. 



200 rikairtka-Bhaya 2. 2. 19. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 18. 

"If it be objected that on account of the mutual causality (of 
nescience and the rest) (the aggregation) is possible, (we reply :) No, 
because of (their) not being the came of aggregation". 

Objection 

If it be objected that from Nescience (Avidya), or taking fc the non- 
pertnament to be permanent, arises attachment etc., and so on : thus, 
there being mutual causality ( amongst these ),( ! ) the rise of aggregates is 
indeed reasonable 

Reply 
Avidya is not the Cause 

( We reply : ) "No", because Nescience is not the cause of 
aggregates. It can by no means be said that it is from the Nesci- 
ence, consisting in the error of taking a nacre for a pearl, that the 
effect pearl is produced from the object nacre. As the Nescience of a 
knower is at that very moment destroyed, attachment etc., too, due to 
it, are never possible. Hence, the Doctrine of the causality of the aggre- 
gates is unreasonable. 

(The Author) states another reason. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 19. 

"And because of the cessation of the prior on ths production of 
the subsequent." 

In order that the subsequent moment of the pot(') may arise, the 
prior momentC) of the pot must be destroyed. Thus, the second momen- 

(1) Buddhists admit of twelve causes, one leading to the other, 
in a closed circle, viz. Jara-Marana ( old age and death or worldly 
pains and sufferings ) are due to Jati ( birth ), that to Bhava ( or 
desire to be born ), that to Upadana ( or attachment to worldly life ), 
that to Trsna ( or thirst for worldly objects ), that to Vedana ( or sense- 
experience ), that to Sparsa ( or sense-object contact ), that to SadSyatana 
( or six organs ), that to Nama-rupa ( Mind-Body Complex ), that to 
Vijftana ( or initial consciousness ), that to Samskafa ( impressions of 
past Karmas ), that finally to Avidya ( Nescience ). Thus, Avidya is 
the root-cause of worldly existence. This is called "Dvadasa-Nidana", 
Chain of Twelve Links, also Bhava-Cakra, 'Wheel of Wordly Existence 1 . 

(2) i. e. the subsequent momentary existence pot. 

(3) i. e, the prior momentary existence pot. 



Avidiya is not the Cause 201 

tary existence or the effect really arises from mere non-existence (Abhava). 
As non-existance is always the same as a cause, everything will arise 
from everything at all times and in all places. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 20. 

"(If it be admitted that the effect originates) when (the cause ii) 
not existent, (then there is) the contradiction of the initial proposition, 
otherwise there is simultaneousness". 

(If it be admitted that the effect) arises when the cause is not existent, 
then the initial proposition, viz. that knowledge is due to the main 
cause (Adhipati) (viz. sense-organs like the eyes etc.), the auxiliary cause 
(Sahakari) (viz. light), and so ouX 1 ) will come to be contradicted. If, 
again, (the cause) too, is admitted to last (till the effect comes into ex- 
istence), then, two pots will come to be perceived simultaneously. If, 
again, (the cause itself) does not last (till che effect comes into existence, 
(but as soon as it arises, it itself becomes the cause), then connection and 
knowledge become simultaneous^). 

SUTRA 2. 2. 21. 

"(There is) the non-establishment of the unconscious and uncon- 
scious destruction on account of the non-interruption (of the stream 
of cognition)/' 

Destruction (according to the Bauddhas) is absolute destruction, 
leaving nothing behind( 8 ). But this kind of destruction is possible neither 



(1) The other two are Samanantara or immediate cause (viz. direc- 
tion of the mind) and Alambana or supporting cause (viz. sense-objects). 

(2) Here, three alternatives are rejected : (a) The cause is altogether 
absent, yet the effect arises. But this would contradict the theory of 
of the Buddhists themselves that knowledge arises from four causes. 
(b) The cause first arises and lasts till the effect arises the next moment 
But, then, we have two things, cause and effect existing simultaneously 
and seen together ; and this is never found, (c) The cause first arises 
and simultaneously becomes the effect. But then, the connection between 
sense-organs and the object, which is the cause, becomes simultaneous 
with the knowledge of that object, which is the effect. But this, too, is 
never found. 

(3) According to the Sat-Kafyya-Vadins, there is no such thing as 
absolute destruction destruction simply means change of form. But 
according to the Asat-KSfyya-vadins, like the Bauddhas, destruction 
means absolute, total disappearance. 

26 



202 Sr!ka9tha-Bhaya 2. 2. 24. 

in the case of gross objects, nor in the case of subtle objects. When (a 
pot) is reduced to the form of pot-sherds, still it is said to be destroyed. 
Hence, the existent object (cannot totally disappear), but is continuous. 
Thus, the Doctrine of Momentariness cannot be maintained. 

SUTRA 2, 2, 22. 
"And on account of fault in both ways." 

(On the Buddhist view) the originated (effect) is unreal^), and also 
(the effect) originates from an unreal (cause)( a ). But, first we have the 
origination of an effect that is non-existent ; secondly, no (effect) can 
originate from a mere non-existent (cause). Because of these two kinds of 
faults, this Doctrine is inconsistent. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 23. 

"And in the ether too, on account of non-distinction". 

"r*nd", there cannot be any unreality "in the ether". For, we see 
the ether as the place where hawk etc. fall( 8 ) and thus, we have un- 
contradicted preception of it. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 24. 
"And on account of remembrance.'' 

On account of remembrance, too, the Doctrine of Momentariness 
cannot be maintained. We have the realisation that 'This is that* 
here the past object and the present one are known to be identical 
through this kind of apposition ( between 'this' the present object, and 
'that' the past one ). This kind of remembrance is due to the fact 
that a person, having in his mind the impressions left by the prior 
experience, now comes to have a direct sense-perception. Hence, as it 
propounds unreasonable doctrines like that of Momentariness etc. ; the 
Doctrine of the causality of Aggregates is self-contradictory. 



Here ends the Section entitled "The Aggregate" (3). 



(1) Sinc& it passes away as soon as it arises. 

($) Since the cause which is momentary is no more when the effect 
tQ be. 

We have such direct perceptions : 'The hawk is falling'. Here, 
fa the place where the hawk is falling. Hence, such direct percep- 
tion* prove the existence of the sky. 



Adhikaraiia 4 : The Section entitled "Observation". ( Sutras 
2526). 

Of those Bauddhas who admit the existence of external objects 
(Vshyastitva-vadins), the Doctrine of those who hold that external 
objects like cows, pots etc. can be directly seen ( the Vaibhasika School ) 
has been refuted above. Now, the Doctrine of those who hold that 
external objects are inferred ( from their mental copies ) ( the SautraGtika 
School ) is being refuted. 

Refutation of the Sautrantika School of Buddhism (Su. 2526). 

SUTRA 2. 2. 25. 

"( * here is no origin of things from) the non-existent, because of 
non-observation." 

Here, the doubt is as to whether one of the Schools of the Bauddhas, 
viz. of those who hold that external objects are inferred ( from their 
mental copies ) ( i. e. the Sautrantika School ) is reasonable or not. 

Prima Facie View 

As regards this, the Prima Facie view is as follows : According 
to this form, having left its impression in the form of a cognition, the 
object comes to be destroyed ; and the knower infers ( the existence of 
the object ) through the differences of the forms of these cognitions. 
Thus, from the variety of the forms of cognition, the variety of 
external objects is inferred. 

Reply 

But this not possible. Because it is never observed that a substance 
that is itself non-existent can leave behind its qualities and here the 
object is momentary^ 1 ) 

SUTRA 2. 2. 26. 

"And thus (there will be) accomplishment n the part of the 
inctive as well." 

If the Doctrine of Momentariness be admitted, then, one will act, 
and quite a different person will reap the fruits thereof ; then, even 
those who are not striving, will get all their hearts' desires. Thus, 
this Doctrine cannot be maintained. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Observation" (4). 

(1) The SautrSntika view that an object is inferred from the im- 
pressions left on our mind by it is absurd, for a momentary, and as such, 
a non-existent, something cannot produce impressions. 



Adhikarana 5 : The Section entitled ''Perception" (Sutras 2729). 
Refutation of the Vtfnana-Vada School of Buddhism (MI. 27-29). 

SUTRA 2. 2. 27. 

"( There i) no non-existence (of external objects), on account of 
perception/' 

Here the doubt is as to whether the Idealistic School ( Vijnanavada ) 
of the Bauddhas is reasonable or not. 

Prima Facie View 

It is reasonable. Thus, cognitions alone, having definite forms, 
are the internal realities. There are no external objects, for, during 
dreams, all transactions are carried through mere cognitions, indepen- 
dently of external objects. All transactions during the waking state, 
too, are carried on in exactly the same manner. Hence, the sole reality 
is cognition or idea. 

Reply 

To this, we reply : When we have a perception like 'I know the 
pot', the object ( the pot ) is perceived to be a an object known by the 
subject. Hence, it cannot be said to be non-existent. Further, the 
forms of ideas are determined by the mental reactions of the persons with 
regard to particular objects (*). 

To your view that on the analogy of dreams, the transactions carried 
on during the waking moment, too, have no objective basis we reply : 

SUTRA. 2. 2. 28. 

"And on account of dissimilarity ( the waking cognitions are) not 
like dreams and the rest/' 

Cognitions during our waking moments are not contradicted, ( as 
dream-cognitions are, ) because their causes are not faulty (like sleep etc.). 
On account of such a dissimilarity, waking-cognitions are not false like 
dream ones. Hence, cognition is not the only reality. 



(1) i. e. it cannot be said that external objects themselves are the 
internal mental states. For, these mental states are states regarding 
those objects. B. g. we have a desire for a blue object, and this mental 
state is not the blue object itself. 



unya-Vada is Untenable 205 

( The Author ) states another reason. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 29. 

"The existence (of cognition devoid of a corresponding thing) 
is not (possible), because of non-perception*'. 

The existence of cognition devoid of a corresponding object is not 
possible, for that is nowhere seen. Even dream-cognition may have an 
objective basis. Hence, the Idealistic view, asserting ideas to be the 
sole reality, is indeed unreasonable. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Non-perception" (5). 



Adhikarana 6 : The Section entitled "Inconsistency in every way 1 ' 
(Sutra 30). 

Refutation of Sunya-Vada School of Buddhism (Su. 30), 

SUTRA 2. 2. 30. 

"And because of the inconsistency (of the Doctrine of a universal 
void) in every way.'* 

In this Section, the doubt is as to whether the doctrine of Universal 
Void ( Sunyavada ) is reasonable or not. 

Prima Facie View 

It is quite reasonable. Thus, the entire world is not existent, as it 
is negated. It is not non-existent, as it is perceived. It is not both 
existent and non-existent, for that is contradictory. It is not neither 
existent nor non-existent, as that is impossible. But it is nothing but a 
Void ( 6unya ), pure and simple, quite distinct from the above four 
alternatives. The apparent perception ( of the world as real ) is due to 
mere dissimulation. Hence, the Doctrine of Universal Void alone stands 
to reason. 

Reply 
Sunya-vada is Untenable. 

On this, we state the Correct Conclusion : The Doctrine of Universal 
Void is impossible. Why ? None of the four above assertions, ( viz. that 
it is not existent, not non-existent, not both existent and non-existent, not 
neither existent nor non-existent) can prove the utter falsity (of the world), 
because all assertions regarding the existence or the non-existence ( of 



206 6rika$tha-Bhasya 2. 2. 31. 

objects ) refer to particular states of objects, viz. their presence or absence 
that are mutually opposed.(M Your view that the apparent perceptions 
are mere illusions is absurd. If everything be a mere void, what is the 
substratum of this illusion that can appear ( to be false ) thus ? Hence, 
the Doctrine of Universal Void is inconsistent through and through. 



Here ends the Section entitled "inconsistency in every way*'. 



Adhikarana 7 : The Section entitled "impossible in one" ( Sutrat. 
31-34). 

Refutation of Jain* View ( ?u. 3 134 ) 

SUTRA 2. 2. 31. 

"The ( Jaina doctrine is ) not ( tenable ) en account of the impossi- 
bility ( of contradictory attributes ) in one ( and the same thing )." 

The Bauddhas have left, vanquished. Now, the Jaina Doctrine 
is being refuted. 

By their Doctrime of Sevenfold Paralogisms( 2 ), the Jainas take 
the very same thing to be subject to many states, Now, it has to be 
discussed as to whether their view is reasonable or not. 

The following is the Doctrine of the Jainas : There are two 
kinds of substances soul and non-soul. The soul is sentient, of the 
size of the body and possessed of parts. The non-soul is of six kinds. 
The first consistr (of all the material objects) like forests, mountains, 
etc. The other five are : Influx, Stoppage, Freedom from decay, Bondage 
and Release^"). 'Influx' (Asrava) is that through which the individual 

(1) When we assert that 'A pot exists', that assertion refers to 
a particular pot, occupying a definite space, occurring at a definite time, 
and having some definite qualities. In the same manner, when we 
assert 'A pot does not exist', that assertion too, refers to a particular pot, 
occupying a definite space etc., but now absent. In the same manner, 
all definite assertions refer to objcts. Thus, however much we try to 
disprove the reality of the world by the above four kinds of assertions, 
these all really prove its existence. 

(2) Sapta-bhangi-naya. 

(3) Jiva, Ajiva, Asrava, Nirjara, Bandha, Moksa. 



Jaina View is Untenable 207 

soul is directed to sense-objects ; so it means contact, between sense- 
organs and their objects. 'Stoppage' (Samvara) is that which suppresses 
ignorance by knowledge. 'Freedom from decay' (Nirjara) is that through 
which greed, anger and the like are withered away completely ; so it 
means austerities like plucking out the hairs, mounting on heated stones 
and the like. 'Bondage' (Bandha) means succession of births and re-births 
due to the eight kinds of Karmas. The four kinds Destructive-Karmas (*) 
are vicious Karmas. The four kinds of Non-destructive-Karnias( a ) are 
virtuous Karmas('). 'Salvation' (Moksa) means that constant ascent of 
an individual soul, freed from all these. To thevSe Seven -Categories the 
System of Seven Paralogisms is to be applied, viz. May be it is, May 
be it is not, May be it is and is not, May be it is indescribable, May be it 
is and indescribable, May be it is not and indescribable, May be it is and 
is not and indescribable( 4 ). The word 'May be' means 'little ( B ). Thus, 
Seven Categories are established through these Seven Paralogisms. 

This Doctrine does not stand to reason. Why ? Because, it is im- 
possible that in one and* the same object, there should be both exis- 
tence and non-existance, eternity and non-eternity, difference and 
non-difference. When it is asserted with regard to an object that 
'It exists', 'It does not exist' and so on, these assertions can be true 
only successively and, as existence and non-existence etc. are mutually 
opposed, they are never possible simultaneously, just as the different 
state (of a pot), like that of a lump, of a pot, of sherds etc. cannot 
exist together. Hence, the Doctrine of the Jainas is self-contradictory. 



entirety." 



SUTRA 2. 2. 32. 
'And thus ( if ) the soul ( be of the size of the body ), there is non- 



(1) GMti-karma. 

(2) Aghati-karma. 

(3) The eight kinds of Karmas are Jfianavaranlya (obscuring know- 
ledge), Darsanavaramya (obscuring perception), Mohaniya (causing 
delusion), Antanya (causing hindrance) ,* Vedaniya (relating to the 
knowable), Namika (relating to names), Gotrika (relating to family 
descent), Ayuska (relating to life). 

(4) Syat asti, SySt nasti, Syat asti ca nasti ca, Syad avyaktam, 
Syat asti ca avyaktam ca, SySt nasti ca avyaktam ca, Syat asti ca nasti 
ca avyaktam ca. 

(5) A thing exists partly, and does not exist partly etc. 



208 Srikantha-Bhasya 2. 2. 34. 

(If) the soul be such (i. e. of the size of the body), then 'Wi- 
entirety" will result, involving inconsistency. If the soul be of the size 
body, then when it enters a smaller body from a larger one, it will 
become maimed or mutiliated. Hence, it is not at all reasonable to 
hold that the soul is of the size of the body. 

SUTRA. 2. 2. 33. 

"Nor also is there non-contradiction on account of modification, 
on account of change and the rest." 

It is not possible that the contradiction (pointed out above) can be 
removed by holding that (the soul, when entering a small body) will 
come to assume that small form for then there will arise faults like 
mutability etc., as in the case of pots etc('). 

SUTRA. 2. 2. 34 

"And on account of the permanency of the two owing to the final 
( size ), there is non-distinction ( of the size ). 

As the "final" size of the soul, or its size when it attains 
salvation, is always the same, this (size) is the real, essential 
( size of the soul ). Hence, the soul and its size, both being eternal, 
( the nature and size of the soul ) in its prior state ( of bondage ) must 
be the same ( as in its later state of salvation ( 2 ). If it be of the size 
of various bodies, that will involve mutiliation on its part. Hence, 
the Jaina Doctrine is indeed, self-contradictory, as it maintains that both 
existence and non-existence are true ( of the same thing at the same 
time ), as well as that the soul is of the size of the body. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Impossible in One" (7). 



(1) i.e. thejainas may assert the soul, being possessed of parts, 
will expand or contract to suit the body it enters. But on this view, 
the soul becomes mutable and non-eternal like pots, etc. 

(2) The final nature and size of the soul is the same in the case of 
all Jivas. Now, this nature and size are the real nature and size of the 
soul, for during salvation, as admitted by the Jainas themselves, the soul 
realises its real nature. So, the soul being eternal must always be of 
this size. i. e. it cannot be of the size of the body, as during salvation 
it has no body. 



Adhikarana 8. The Section entitled "Patupata" ( Sutras 3538 ). 
Refutation of the Yoga View (Su. 3538) 

SUTRA 2. 2. 35. 

"The doctrine of the Lord ( i e, the doctrine that He In the efficient 
cause only ) ( is untenable ) because of inconsistency/' 

Although it is established by Scripture itself that the Supreme 
Lord is both ( the Material and the Efficient ) Cause of the world, yet the 
some Tantrikas, relying on their own treatises but ignorant of the real 
meaning of the view propounded therein, maintain that ( the Lord ) 
is only the Efficient Cause of the world. The doubt is as to whether this 
is reasonable or not. 

Prima Facie View. 

Here, the Prima Facie view is as follows : A potter though not 
the material cause, yet becomes the agent through regulating rods etc. 
In the same manner, the transcendent Lord is only the Efficient Cause 
( of the world ), Maya is the material cause, and 6akti is the instrument. 
Hence, if the Lord be taken to be the Material Cause, like clay, He will 
become subject to changes. Thus, the Lord is only the Efficient Cause. 

Reply 
Brahman is both Material and Efficient Cause. 

To this, we reply : It is not reasonable to hold that the Lord is 
only the Efficient Cause of the world. Because, that view being opposed 
to the Scripture, is inconsistent. 

( The Author now ) points out that the above view is opposed by 
reasoning no less. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 36. 
"And on account of the impossibility of ruler ship." 

It is not proper that the Supreme Lord, who is without a body, 
should be taken to be the ruler of Maya. ( Pradhana ). In ordinary life, 
it is found that a potter, who possesses a body, becomes the regulator 
of the material cause, viz. the clay. Hence, the illustration of the 
potter is not to the point. If Maya has no ruler, then that amounts to 
the denial of God and then, the Samkhya view is to be accepted, God 
having no necessity. Hence, it is impossible that the Supreme Lord 
should be only the Efficient cause. 

27 



210 6rIka9tha-Biiasya 2. 2. 38. 

( The Author ) raises and disposes of another objection : 
SUTRA 2. 2. 37. 

"If it be objected, as in the case of sense-organs, ( we reply S ) 
No, en account of experiencing and the rest." 

Objection 

If it be objected : In order that one may be a ruler, it is not 
absolutely necessary for him to be possessed of a body. Just as the soul, 
though not possessed of a body, rules over the sense-organs and the body, 
so the Lord, too, ( though not possessing a body ) can rule over Pradhana 

Reply 

We reply : "No", because then ( God ) will become subject to all the 
evil consequences (of the body), like experiencing of (pleasures, pains etcA 
Just as the soul, not possessed of the body, when ruling over the 
body, conies to experience the pleasures and pains etc. belonging to 
the body, so the Supreme Lord, too, if He becomes the ruler of Pradhana, 
will become subject to the experiencing ( of'pleasures, pains etc. ) belong- 
ing to it. 

SUTRA 2. 2. 38. 
"( There will result on this view ) finitudo or no ^omniscience/' 

Here the word "or" means "and". 

Objection 

If it be objected : Just as a potter rules over the material cause 
clay which is different from him, so the Supreme Lord, possessed of a 
body, ( rules over Pradhana, different from Himself, so that He is not 
subject to the states etc. of Pradhana ) 

Reply 
Pradhana is not independent 

We reply : No. In that case, the Lord will become finite and 
non-omniscient like the mundane, transmigratory soul. Hence, the 
Lord cannot be the ruler of Pradhana, for that will entail experiencing 
( of pleasure, pains etc. ) on His part. 

Objection 

If.it be objected: Even if the Lord be the ruler of Pradhana, 
He will not become subject to experiencing ( of pleasures, pains etc. ) 



Brahman is both Material and Efficient Cause 211 

belonging to it, because there is a Scriptural text ( to disprove it ), viz. 
"The other looks on without eating" ( Svet. 4. 6. ) 

Reply 
Brahman is both Material and Efficient Cause. 

( We reply : ) In that case, you will have to give up reasoning 
and resort to Scripture only. The following Scriptural passages all 
declare the Supreme Lord to be the Material Cause as well. Compare 
"He Himself made Himself ( Tait. 2.7. 1.), "May I be many, may 
I bring forth progeny" ( Chand. 6. 2. 3. ), "All this, verily, is Rudra" 
( Mahati5r. 13. 2. ). Although the Supreme Lord is the Material and the 
Efficient Cause of the world, yet in accordance with the Scriptural text : 
"Without blemishes, without activities" ( 6 vet. 6. 19.), He is also change- 
less. The following passage in the Vayu-samhita asserts that w>iva alone, 
the possessor of powers, is the Material Cause of Maya or the universe : 
"From Siva, the possessor of powers, the Lord, there arises, first, 
Sakti ; thence Avyakta." 

Again, the following passage asserts that just as the clay pervades 
the pots, etc. so 6iva, the Material Cause, pervades the world : '"Every- 
thing from 6akti down to the earth, arises from the reality 6iva, 
All that is pervaded by Him alone, as pitchers etc. are pervaded by the 
clay." 

Compare also the passage : "God, who is Consciousness in essence 
abiding inside, manifests all objects through a mere wish even without 
the help of any materials, like a Yogin". 

On account of there being such Scriptural testimony, there is 
nothing wrong in taking the Supreme Lord to be both the Material and 
Efficient cause of the world. 

In a part of the Scriptures dealing with 6iva (vsaivagama), it has 
been established that the Supreme Brahman is only the Efficient Cause. 
Prior teachers explain that the present Section is meant for refuting that 
view. But we ourselves do not see any distinction between the Vedas and 
Scriptures dealing with 6iva (6ivagama). Even in the Vedas, there is 
a reference to the Scriptures dealing will Siva, as the Vedas deal with 
6iva. Hence, the Scriptures dealing with Siva (vMvagama) are of two kinds 
meant only for the upper three classes, and meant for all. In both, 
the only topic is 6iva. That the Veda is concerned with 6iva is known 
from the following Scriptural and Smrti passages : "The Lord of all 
lords" (Mahanar. 17. 5.), "Breathed forth from this Great Being" (Bfh. 
2. 4. 10. , 4. 5, 11.), Scripture asserts that the wise Deity with spike in 



212 6rikantha-Bhasya 2. 2. 38. 

His hands (viz. Siva) Himself is the original Creator of these eighteen 
lores, propounding different paths. 

Other texts, too, are concerned with that Supreme Lord alone* 
Hence, it is proved that as both deal with the same topic, (viz. 6iva\ both 
(viz. Veda and Sivagama) must be identical in meaning. 

Or, else, as Mantras (sacred formulae) like 'Panca-brahma^ 1 ), Tra- 
nava'( f ), Tancaksar?( 3 ), Trasada' (*) etc ; terms like Pasupati'; TasV 
(noose)( B ), etc ; supreme religious practices like besmearing one's self 
with ashes, putting on the triple sectarian mark, worshipping the Linga, 
putting on Rudraksa-beads ( e ) and so on ; as well as other practices 
are found equally in both the Veda and the 6iv3gama, both are equally 
authoritative. As both are concerned with the same topic (viz. Siva), 
there cannot be any opposition between the two. 

Hence, we hold that the present Section is concerned with Yoga- 
smrti, propounded by Hiranyagarbha, that maintains the Lord to be 
only the Efficient Cause. Hence, it is but proper that this Section should 
be taken to be concerned with the refutation of the Doctrine of Hiranya- 
garbha. (and not of any 6aiva Doctrine). 

Or, else, (this Section) may be taken to be concerned with the 
refutation of the view that God is only the Efficient Cause of the 
world( 7 ). Just as there is a Section concerned with disposing of all 
doubts regarding the origin of the sky etc. ( 8 ) So, nc fault is involved 
here. In every way, our view is not that the Lord is only the Efficient 
Cause. 



Here ends the Section entitled "Pasupata" (8). 



(1) e. g. 'The Lord of all lores' etc. mentioned in the Yajur-Veda- 
Aranyaka. 

(2) e. g. *Om is Brahman' etc. 

(3) Mentioned in Yajus-samhita. 

(4) Cf. Kalika-purana. 

(5) Cf. 6vetasvatara Upanisad. 

(6) These are mentioned in Atharva-^iras, Kalagui-rudra and 
Jabala Upanisads. Cf. &MD. 

(7) i. e. .it does not particularly refer to one School, but is a general 
Doctrine. 

(8) See Su. 1. 3. 1. ff. 



Adhikarana 9 : The Section entitled : "Pancaratra" (Sutras 3942) 

Refutation of Panca-ratra View ( Su. 38 42 ) 

SUTRA 2. 2. 39. 
"On account of the impossibility of origin." 

The Paftcaratra Doctrine was propounded by Vasudeva. Here, the 
origin of the individual soul is designated. The doubt is whether that 
is possible or not. 

Prima Facie View 

The PrimS Facie View is that it is quite possible. Why ? Because 
what is propounded by Vasudeva, the Lord, must be authoritative. The 
following is the process of creation : Vasudeva is the sole Lord, the 
Supreme Soul. From Him arises the individual soul, called Sarnkarsana. 
From the individual soul arises the mind, called Pradyumna. From 
the mind arises egoity (Aharnkara), called Aniruddha. These are the 
four manifestations of the Universal Soul. Hence, as Vasudeva is hrgher 
than even Hiranyagarbha and the rest, what has been propounded by 
Him, is authoritative. So, the above Doctrine is quite consistent. 

Reply 
Pancaratra Doctrine is not Tenable 

To this we reply : This treatise, propounding as it does the 
origination of the individual soul, is not at all authoritative. There 
cannot be any origination of the individual soul, for that would entail 
the destruction of the done and the rise of the undone. When after 
having done meritorious and sinful works one individual soul comes 
to be destroyed during dissolution, another individual soul will have 
to reap the results thereof thus, there will be the rise of the undone, 
and the destruction of what has been done before. (*) Hence, the 
treatise that maintains that there is origination of the individual soul 
is unauthoritative. 



(1) i. e. one man will do many Karmas, yet be destroyed before he 
can experience their results. So another man will have to experience these. 
This is against the Law of Karma. Hence, the soul is eternal, and 
can have no origination and destruction. 



214 Srikafltha-Bhasya 2. 1. 31. 

(The Author) points out another defect : 

SUTRA 2. 2. 40. 

"And ( there can be ) no ( origin ) of the organ ( viz. the mind ) 
from the agnt ( viz. the individual soul )." 

It is maintained that from the individual soul, called Sainkarsana, 
there arises the mind, called Pradyumna. The origination of "the 
organ' or the mind from "the agent", or the individual soul too* is not 
possible ; for, it (the mind) being an effect of Prakrti, cannot be the 
effect of the sentient. 

Prima Facie View 

SUTRA 2. 2. 41. 

"If there be the assumption of intelligence and fo on, ( i. e. of the 
forms of the individual soul and so on ), there is no contradiction of 
that," 

The word "intelligence" stands for the individual soul. Here, 
the origination of the individual soul and the rest has not been desig- 
nated. But it has been maintained only that Samkarsana etc. assume 
the forms of the individual soul etc., i. e. rule over them. Hence, the 
above treatise cannot be taken to be unauthoritative. 

Replf 
Vasudeva is not the Cause 

SUTRA 2. 2. 42. 
"On account of its opposition ( to Scripture )". 

Although (the contradiction with regard) to the origin of the 
individual soul is set aside (by the above view), yet the Paftcaratra 
Doctrine cannot be accepted. For, it involves contradictions, main- 
taining, as it does, in opposition to Scripture, a Doctrine of the 
causality of Lord, (viz. Vasudeva), taking Him (viz. Vasudeva) to 
be the cause of salvation, and propounding such religious practices as, 
branding one's self with heated object with the name of Vasudeva 
etc. Hence, the Doctrine of Paftcaratra is inconsistent. In the follow- 
ing passage, it has been specially refuted : "If you become initiated 
with faith to the Doctrines of Paficaratra, Bauddha and Kalamukha, then 
you are the worst among the Brahmins/' 

Objection 

If it be objectedIn accordance with the Scriptural text : 
"Purusa, verily, is Rudra" ( Mahanar. 13. 2. ), Purufa or Vasudeva-is none 



Pancaratra Doctrine is Untenable 215 

but the Supreme Lord. It has been declared by Scripture that knowledge 
about and medtation on Him are the successive means to attaining the 
Supreme Lord. If the Pancaratra that is concerned with demonstrating 
His meditation etc. be taken to be unauthoritative, then that would 
lead to the conclusion that He is not to be worshipped 

Reply 
Pancarafra Doctrine is untenable 

( We reply : ) Not so. Even if the Pancaratra Doctrine be taken to 
be unauthoritative, as it is opposed to Scripture no harm is done to 
that ( viz., meditation on the Lord ). For, that kind of ineditatition 
will be possibe through the methods well-known from Scripture. Hence, 
there is no contradiction. 



Here ends the Section entitled "Panearatra" (9). 



Here ends the Second Quarter of the Second Chapter of the 
Commentary on the Brahma- Mima msa, composed by the Saiva Teacher 
Srikantha. 



( According to J-Srikantfia, the Second Quarter of the Second Chapter 
contains 42 Sutras and 9 Adhikaranas ). 



SECOND CHAPTER ( Adhyflya ) 
Third Quarter ( Pada ) 

Adhikarana 1 : The Section entitled "The Ether" (Sutras 17). 

All the opposing doctrines have been refuted. Now, at the end of 
the Chapter, ( the Author ) again disposes of certain incidental objections. 

Prima Facie View 

SUTRA 2. 3. 1. 

"Ihe ether (does) not originate, on account of non mention in 
Scripture". 

As the ether does not possess any parts, it may be mistakenly 
thought that is is not an effect. Hence, it may doubted as to whether 
the origination of the ether is possible or not, ( The Prima Facie 
objector holds that ) the ether does not originate. Why ? "On account of 
non mention in Scripture/' Thus, in the Chandogya, beginning : "The 
existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning" (Chand. 6. 2. 1.), the 
text designates the creation of elements like light etc., thus : "He 
created light" (Chand. 6. 2. 3. ). Here, there is no mention of the origin 
of the ether. The text in the Taittirlya : "From this soul, verily, has 
the ether arisen'' (Tait. 2. 1.) must be metaphorical in meaning, for it is 
impossible to prove a material cause that can produce the ether. Hence, 
like the individual soul, the ether, too, has no origin. 

To this, we reply : 

Reply 
The Ether, too, originals 

SUTRA 2. 3. 2. 
''But there is (origin of the ether)". 

But, the ether too, has an origin, in accordance with the following 
Scriptural text : "From this soul, verily, has the ether originated" 
(Tait. 2. 1.). As the origination of the soul is definitely forbidden by 
the Scriptural passage : "The wise man is not born, nor does he die" 
(Kat,ha. 2. 18.), it cannot have any origin. But there is no Scriptural 
text definitely disproving origin of the ether. Hence, the ether does 
originate. 



The Ether does Originate 217 

To your view, that ( the above Tait. text ) is only metaphorical, 
( we reply : ) 

Prima Facie View(') 

SUTRA 2. 3. 3. 

"(The text about the origin of the ether it) metaphorical on 
account of impossibility, and on account of Scriptural text". 

As in the text : "He created light' (Chand. 6. 2. 3.), light is 
said to be created first, the text "The ether has arisen" (Tait. 2. 1.) 
must be "metaphorical", because it ( the ether ) being without part, 
cannot have any origin, also, because there is a Scriptural text proving 
it to be eternal, viz. "The air and the atmosphere this is immortal" 
(Brh. 2. 3. 3.). 

Prima Facie View 

SUTRA 2. 3. 4. 

"And there may be (the use) of the same (term 'originated 1 in two 
different senses), as in the case of the word 'Brahman'/' 

As here the very same word 'originated' has been used in reference 
to different objects, it must have different meanings, too ; and so it can 
very well be used in a metaphorical sense in reference to the ether but in 
a literal sense in reference to the rest. ( f ) Compare the word Brahman, 
repeated twice, and so taken in two different senses, viz. in a metaphorical 
sense in the text l "From Him are produced this Brahman, (viz.) name 
and form and food" (Mund. 1. 1.9.); but in a literal sense in the text : "By 
austerity Brahman is built up" (Mund. 1. 1. 8.). Hence, the origin of the 
ether does not stand to reason. 



(1) Here the Prima Facie view is first stated, then the reply given. 

(2) i. e. when the same word is repeated in reference to different 
objects, it, really, becomes a different word in each case, having a different 
meaning. B. g. in the above Tait. text it is said : "From this soul, the 
ether originated. From the ether, air (originated). From .the air, fire 
(originated)" (Tait. 2. 1.) and so on. Here, the same word 'originated' is 
repeated many times, so its meaning, too, differs. In the first case, it is 
used in a metaphorical sense ; in the second, in a literal one. 

28 



218 rikantha-Bhasya 2. 3, 7. 

Correct Conclusion 
The Ether does originate 

Now, (the Author) states the Correct Conclusion : 

SUTRA 2. 3. 5. 

"(There is) non abandonment of the inital assertion, on account of 
non-separation". 

The initial assertion, viz. that there is the knowledge of all through 
the knowledge of one, made in the text : "Through which the unheard 
becomes heard" (Chand. 6. 1. 3.), is "not abandoned" (i, e. is proved to be 
true) only if the ether and the rest, be "non-separate" from Brahman as the 
effects produced from Him. Hence, the word 'originated' cannot be taken 
to be only metaphorical in meaning, for that would lead to the abandoning 
(or disproof) of the initial assertion. (This word 'originated') is to be 
construed in such a way as not to lead to any upsetting of the initial 
assertion. 

SUTRA 2. 3. 6. 
"On account of Scriptural texts". 

The priority of light, as known from the text about the ether, viz. 
"He created light" (Chand. 6. 2. 3.), cannot set aside the origin of the 
ether, as known from the text : "From the soul has the ether originated" 
(Tait.2. l.).(') 

SUTRA 2. 3. 7. 

"But as far as there is effect, there is division, as in ordinary 
life'. 

As from tfie Scriptural text : "All this has that for its soul" (Chand. 
6. 8. 7.), the ether and the rest, too, are known to be effects it is clear 
that the text that denotes light etc. as effects (viz. Chand. 6. 2. 3.) 
is really meant for denoting the whole mass of effects, just as in 
ordinary life, one says 'I have ten sons' and then describes the origin of 
some only ; (yet the rest, too, have origin) so is the case here. Hence, 
the origin of the ether does, indeed, stand to reason. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Origin of the Ether" (1) 

(1) In Chand. 6.2.3,, it is said that Brahman creates light first. But 
in Tait 2.1., it is said that He creates the ether first. The first, however, 
cannot disprove the second. The Chand. text is explained in the next 
Sutra. 



Adhikarana 2 : The Section entitled 'The Air* (Sutra 8) 

SUTRA 2. 3. 8. 

Hereby (the origin of) the air (too) it explained". 

(The Author) will explain later on (the origin of light from air) under 
the Aphorisom "Hence light" (Br. Su. 2.3.10.). Hence, (the origin of the air 
from the ether) is established here separately. Here the doubt is as to 
whether the air originates from the ether or not 

Prima Facie View 

In the Chandogya ( 6. 2. 3. ), light is mentioned as the first (effect 
from Brahman ), so here there is no mention of the origin of air, further, 
in the Brhadaranyaka text : "The divinity who does not set is the air" 
( Brh. 2. 3. 2. ), its origin is definitely forbidden. Because of these reasons, 
the air does not originate. 

Reply 
The Air, too, Originates 

On this, we state the Correct Conclusion. Although in the Chand- 
ogya, there is no mention of the origin of air, yet in accordance with 
the principle of mutual substitution, ( l ) the Tattiriya text : "From 
the ether, the air" ( Tait. 2. 1. ) is to be put in the Chandogya. Hence, 
in the Chandogya, too, the origin of the air is mentioned. The text 
"That divinity who does not set" ( Brh. 2. 3. 21. ) is a mere eulogy, that 
Section being concerned with meditation. Hence, the air, too, originates. 

Here ends the Section entitled 'The Air" (2). 



Adhikarana 3. The Section entitled "Impossible" ( Sutra ). 

SUTRA 2. 3. 9. 

"But there is non origination of the existent being, on account of 
impossibility. 

In the text : "The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginn- 
ing" (Chand.6. 2. L ), it is demonstrated that the ether and the rest 
originate from Brahman, the Existent. Now, a doubt may be raised 

(1) Gunopasamhara. 



220 Srlkatjtha-Bhasya 2. 3. 9. 

as to whether or not Brahman, the Existent too, originates from some- 
thing else. 

Prima Facie View 

Here, the Prima Facie view is as follows : Brahman, too, has an 
origin, just as the ether, though a cause, ( has itself an origin ). If it 
be asked : But in the Scriptural text : "The existent alone, my dear, 
was this in the beginning" ( Chand. 6. 2. 1. ), it is stated that He ( viz. 
Brahman ) originates prior to all effects. So, what is His cause ? 
( we reply : ). Nothing but non-existence, in accordance with the Scrip- 
tural text : "Non-existent, verily, was this in the beginning. From 
that, verily, the existent originated" ( Tait. 2. 7. 1. ). Hence, Brahman, 
the Existent, too, originates. This is the Prima Facie view. 

Reply 
Brahman has no Origination. 

But the Correct Conclusion is that He does not originate. Why ? 
Because, in the texts : "The existent alone was this in the beginning, 
one only without a second" ( Chand. 6. 2. 1. ), "When there is no dark- 
ness, there is no day or night, nor being nor non-being, only 6iva 
alone" ( 6vet. 4. 18. ), Brahman alone is demonstrated. It is absolutely 
impossible for Him ( to have an origin ), as ( Scripture ) definitely denies 
that. But it is possible for others besides Him to have origin. ( If 
Brahman is to have an origin then ) just as He is declared by Scripture 
to be the cause of all, so Scripture should have declared another cause 
for Him too. 

Objection 

If it be argued that in the text "Non-existent, verily, was this in 
the beginning ; from that, verily, the existent originated" ( Tait. 2. 7. 1. ), 
it is said that the non-existence is the cause of the existent 

Reply 
All things originate from Brahman 

( We reply : ) This ( view ) is wrong on account of the denial 
contained in the text : "How can the existent arise from the non-exis- 
tent ?" i. e. from His own Self. Hence, it is impossible for the existent 
Brahman to have an origin. But, it is possible for everything besides 
Him to have an origin, as otherwise the initial assertion regarding the 
knowledge of all though the knowledge of one comes to be contradicted. 



Here ends the Section entitled "Impossible" (3). 



Adhikarana 4 : The Section entitled "The Light" (Sutras 1014). 

Prima Facie View (Sutras 1013) 

SUTRA 2. 3. 10. 

"Hence the light (originates from the air), for thus (Scripture) 
declares." 

Here, the doubt is as to whether effects like the air and 
the rest originate from Brahman, or from their respective previous 
causes. Thus, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "From the ether, 
the air" (Tait. 2. 1.), the air originates from the ether, and not directly 
from Brahman. Similarly, light (or fire), too, originates from the air so, 
declares the Scriptural text : "From the air, fire" (Tait. 2.1.). 

Prima Facie View (continued) 

SUTRA 2. 3, 11. 
"Water (originates from light)". 

In accordance with the Scriptural, text, "From fire, water" (Tait. 
2. 1.), water too, (originates) from fire itself. 

Prima Facie View (Continued) 

SUTRA 2, 3. 12 

" f he earth (originates from water)". 

In accordance with the Scriptural text "From water, the earth" 
(Tait. 2. 1.), the earth, too, (originates) from water itself. 

Prima Facie View (Concluded) 

SUTRA 2. 3. 13, 

"( 1 he word 'food' denotes the earth) on account of subject-matter 
colour and another Scriptural text". 

In the Chandogya text : "They created food" (Chand. 6. 2. 4.), by 
the term 'food', the earth is denoted ; because, here the subject-matter 
is the creation of all the elements ; also because, the text : "That which 
is black, is (the colour) of food" (Chand. 6. 4. 1.), mentions the colour (of 
the earth) ; and, finally, because there is another Scriptural text to this 
effect, viz. "From water, the earth" (Tait. 2. 1.). Hence, the earth 
alone originates from water. Thus, in this way, Brahman is not the 
direct cause of all, but only indirect. 



222 6rikantha-Bhasya 2. 3. 14. 

Correct Conclusion (Sutra 14) 

With regard to this, the Correct Conclusion is being stated : 

SUTRA 2. 3. 14. 

"But on account of His, desire, on account of His mark, He alone 

(is the creator)". 

But" form Brahman "alone" there is the origin of all elements. 
Thus, beginning : "From this soul, verily, has the ether originated' 
(Tait. 2. 1.), the text goes on to designate the origin of the (elements) 
beginning with the air and ending with the earth from the previous 
causes, respectively. But it really, designates the origin of the 
succeeding elements like the air and the rest from Brahman alone 
qualified by those preceding causes like the ether and the rest res- 
pectively^). Hence, 6iva the Supreme soul alone is the direct Creator 
of everything. "On account of His desire, on account of His marks", 
as mentioned in the following Scriptural texts : "He perceived (i. e. 
thought) : May be many, may I procreate" (Chand. 6. 2. 3.), "That light 
perceived (i. e. thought) : May I be many, may I procreate" (Chand. 6.2.3.), 
"Those waters perceived (i. e. thought) * May we be many, may we pro- 
create" (Chand. 6. 2. 4.)( f ). 

In accordance with the passage : "Sada-J-Jiva is of the form of sound, 
then Isvar is of the form of touch. Rudra consists of light (i e. fire), 
Janardana is the form incarnate of taste, Brahma is of the form of smell. 
These are the five forms", the air and the rest can (arise) from Brahman, 
consisting in sound etc. and of the form of Sadasiva and the rest, These 
Sadasiva and the rest, called 'Five Brahmans' and consisting in the five 
elements, constitute the body of the Supreme Brahman. From the 
Supreme Brahman alone, having the 'Five Brahmans' as His body, the 
creation etc., of the universe take place. These Sadasiva and the rest, 
consisting in the five elements, arise from the Supreme Soul. 

Objection 

If it be objected that by means of the text "The ether has 
originated" (Tait. 2. 1.) and so on, the origin of the elements only 



(1) i. e. the "order of creation in Tait. 2. 1. is : Brahman, ether, 
air, fire, water, earth. Here, earth does not originate from water as 
such, but frcm Brahman, having water as His quality. The same is 
the case with other elements. 

(2) Here, light etc. stand for Brahman, having light etc. as His 
qualities. See under Br. Su. 2. 3. 17. 



Gods originate from Brahman 223 

has been designated here, but there is no direct mention here 
of the creation of Sadasiva and the rest 

Reply 
Gods originate from Brahman 

We reply : On account of the supplial of another Scriptural text, In 
the following Atharva-J->ikha text, it is said that Brahma etc. as well as the 
sense-organs arise together with the elements : "The Supremely adorable 
lyord is to be meditated on. All this, Brahma, Visnu, Rudra and Indra are 
born together with the sense-organs and the elements. The worshipper 
is not the cause. The cause is the object to be worshipped, viz. 
Satnbhu, endowed with all glory, the Lord of all, abiding inside the 
ether/' It is declared by Scripture that being the Cause of all causes 
bambhu is to be meditated on as abiding inside the Supreme Ether. 
Hence, it is established that those respective effects arise directly from 
Brahman alone, having the forms of those causes respectively. 



Here ends the Section entitled The Light" (4). 



Adhikarana 5 : The Section entitled "Succession" (Sutras 1516). 

SUTRA Z 3. 15. 

"The order (of creation is possible) through succession, and so (it) 
fits in". 

Here the doubt is as to whether the order of creation, as established 
in the prior Section, is appropriate, or not. 

Prima Facie View 

The Prima Facie view is that it is not appropriate. Thus, in the 
Mundaka Upanisad, it is stated that the vital-breath and the rest originate 
prior to the ether and the rest. Compare texts : "From this arise the vital* 
breath, the mind and all sense-organs, the ether, the air, light and the 
earth, the supporter of all" (Mund. 2. 1. 3.). But in the Atharvasikha, 
it is said that Brahma and the rest arise simultaneously with the elements 
and the sense-organs. Compare the passage : "These Brahma, Visnu, Rudra 
and Indra are born together with, all the sense-organs and the elements." 
So, the above order of creation of the ether and the rest does not stand to 
reason. 



224 Srikantka-Bhasya 2. 3. 16. 

Reply 
The stated order of creation is resonable 

But the Correct Conclnsion is that the above order of creation does 
stand to reason. As the vital-breath and the rest are declared by Scrip- 
ture to be elemental in nature thus : "The mind, my dear, consists of 
food ; the vital-breath of water ; speech of light" (Chand. 6. 5. 4.), they 
are really included under the elements, and so it is not necessary for them 
to have a separate order of creation. Brahma and the rest are said to 
originate together with the elements, simply because they are of the form 
of those elements and are, thus, included under them. Hence, there is no 
contradiction in the above order. 

SUTRA 2. 3. 16. 

If it be objected that knowledge and mind (must be placed) 
between (the vital-breath and the elements) through (this) order, on 
account of its indication (in Scriptural text), (we reply :), no, on account 
of non-difference". 

Objection 

This ( Mundaka X 1 ) text establishes that "through the order", 
( mentioned therein ), the sense-organs and the 'rest must intervene bet- 
ween the vital-breath and the elements, "On account of its indication", 
i. e. on account of recognising there the order established by another 
Scriptural text, viz. : "The ether, the air, light, water, the earth" 
(Mund. 2. 1. 3.). Hence, this, too, must be indicative of a successive 
order.(') 

Reply 
Brahman alone is the cause of all 

( We reply : ) "No", In the text "From Him arise" (Mund. 2.1.3.), 
every thing, beginning with the vital-breath and ending with the earth, 
is, without any distinction, connected with ( Brahman alone ). Hence, 
the Lord alone is the Cause of all. There is a Pauranic text to this 
e ff ect : ."( Every thing ) beginning from 6akti and ending with the 
earth, has arisen from the reality 6iva. By Him alone is that pervaded, 
as pots etc. are by clay." Here it is said that although there is a succes- 
sive order, yet there is the origin of every thing from the Reality, iva. 
Hence, it is appropriate to hold that Brahman is the cause of all. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Succession" (5). 

(1) "From Him arise the vital-breath, the mind and all sense-organs, 
the ether, the air, the fire, water and the earth, the support of all" 
(Mund. 2. 1. 3,). 

(2) i. e. here the preceding vital-breath etc. must cause the succeed- 
ing mind etc. Hence, Brahman is not the cause of all. 



Adhikarana 6. The Section entitled "Depending on the mobile 
and the immobile" (Sutra 17). 

SUTRA 2. 3. 17. 

"But that designation depending on (i. e. referring to) mobile and 
immobile (object*) are primary (with regard to Brahman alone), because 
(all the objects) are permeated by the being (of Brahman)/' 

It has been shown above that Brahman is denoted by the word 
'ether' and the like. Now, it is discussed here as to whether words denot- 
ing the sentient and the non-sentient, the mobile and the immobile 
objects primarily refer to Brahman or not. 

Prima Facie View 

On this doubt, we ( the Prima Facie objectors ) hold that as a word 
indicating a different object, primarily refers to that alone, it cannot 
refer to anything else. Thus, in such texts : "The sun is the sacri- 
ficial post", "The sacrificer is the stone" sacrificial posts etc. have been 
indicated by the words 'sun' etc., simply because of their similarity to 
those, but not in a primary or literal sense ( J ). Here, too, in texts, 
like "That light perceived ( i. e. thought )" ( Chand. 6. 2. 3. ), as per- 
ceiving, which is a quality of a sentient being is impossible on the part 
of non-sentient objects like light etc., by that word ( 'light* )'the sen- 
tient Brahman, its support, is indicated in a secondary sense. Hence, 
the words 'ether' etc. denote Brahman, their support, only in a secondary 
or figurative sense, as in the expression : 'Bamboo platforms are crying 
aloud.' 

Reply 
All Words denote Brahman 

To this, we reply : Words denoting the mobile and the immobile 
objects are not secondary with regard to Brahman, but primary. For, 
in accordance with the text : "Now, of these beings, there are only 
three seeds ( i. e. origins ) : born from an egg, born from a living being, 
born from a plant. That Divinity perceived ( i. e. thought ) : "Come, 
let me enter into these three divinities ( viz, light, water and food or 
earth ) with this living soul, and manifest name and form" ( Chand. 
6. 3. 1 2. ), all objects are manifested in names and forms, while 
Brahman enters into then all as their souls, so that they are all 

(1) i. e. the word 'sun' does not really literally denote a sacrificial 
post, but only figuratively. 
29 



226 6nkantha-Bhasya 2. 3. 18. 

" per e mated" by the being of Brahman. In the case of a sacrificial, post 
etc., they catmot be appropriately indicated by the words 'sun' etc. in a 
primary sense. In the case of the bamboo-platforms, as the persons 
concerned are merely seated on them, they ( the platforms ), too, cannot 
be denoted by that word ( viz. 'person' ) in a primary sense. But here, 
as Brahman enters into the universe as its very soul, He can very well 
be denoted, in a primary sense, by the words denoting it (viz. the 
universe ) ; just as the soul that enters the body of a Brahmana is 
denoted, in a primary sense, by that word 'Brahmana'. Otherwise, puri- 
ficatory ceremonies like the initiation by the holy thread etc., as 
enjoined in texts like : "A Brahmin is to be invested with the holy 
thread at the age of eight", would pertain to the body only, so that 
the soul would fail to be the object of such purificatory ceremonies. 
Hence, texts denoting results pertaining to the soul that has under- 
gone these purificatory ceremonies would become meaningless. Compare : 
"He, who has undergone these twenty four purificatory ceremonies and 
possesses eight qualities of the soul, is similar to Brahman/' Injunction 
like "A Brahmin should perform sacrifices", too, would become meaning- 
less. Hence Brahman, who has entered into the bodies of all mobile and 
immobile objects, is denoted, in a primary sense, by all the words 
designating them. 



Here ends the Section entitled "Depending on the mobile aud the 
immobile." (6). 



Adhkarana 7 : The Section entitled 'The Soul" ( Sutras 18 ). 

SUTRA 2. 3. 18. 

'The soul (does) not originate, on account of mention in Scripture, 
and on account of eternity (known) therefrom (i. e. from Scriptural 

text*)." 

It has been said above that the ether and the rest arise directly 
from Brahman. ,The doubt is as to whether on the ground of the same 
reasoning, the individual, soul, too, arises from Brahman, or not. 

Prima Facie View. 

The Prima Facie view is that it does arise ; because, from 
the Scriptural text : "One only, without a second ( Chand, 6. 2. 1. ), 



The Soul has no Origin 227 

it is definitely ascertained that prior to creation, there existed only 
Brahman, and also because this text denies (the presence of) the existent 
and the non-existent (then). Hence, at the time of creation, the individual 
soul does originate from Brahman. The example of sparks, too, support 
the origin of the indidual soul. Compare the text : "As small sparks come 
forth from the fire, even so from this Soul come forth all vital-breaths, 
all worlds, all gods, all beings, all souls (')." (Brh. 2.1.20.). Hence, just 
as sparks originate from fire, so the soul originates from Brahman. 

Reply 
The Soul has no Origin 

To this, we reply : The soul does not originate. For, its eternity is 
known from the following Scriptural texts : "The wise man is uot born, 
nor does he die' 1 (Katha. 2.18.), "Eternal among the eternal, Sentient 
among the sentient" (Katha. 5.13.), ''The two unborn ones, the knower 
and the non-knower, the Lord and the non-lord" (Svet. 1.9.), and so on. 
The designation of Brahman's sole existence prior to creation, is clue to 
the fact that then the individual soul as well as the non-sentient sub- 
stance, having the form of Brahman, are not differentiated in name and 
form ; but it does not imply the non-existence of the individual soul itself. 
The Scriptural text about sparks simply refers to the manifestation (of 
souls and matter) through names and forms, and not to (their) origin. 
Otherwise, there will result the faults of the destruction of the clone and so 
on ( 8 ). Hence, the individual soul never arises from Brahman, 



Here ends the Section entitled The Soul (7). 



Adhikarana 8 : The Section entitled " The Knower" ( Sutra 19 ). 

SUTRA 2. 3. 19. 

"(The soul is) a knower, for that very reason." 

The individual soul has been established above to be eternal. Here, 
the doubt is as to whether its knowledge is natural or not. 

(1) "All souls" this part is not found in the above Brh. text. 

(2) See under Su. 2. 3. 39. 



328 6rika$tha*Bhasya 2. 3. 19. 

Prima Facie View 

Here, the Prima Facie View is as follows : The individual soul does 
not by nature possess the attribute of knowledge. In the text : "The 
Knower aud the non-knower" (6 vet. 1.9.), the individual soul is declared 
also to be ignorant. Hence, it, of the form of sentience merely, is really 
ignorant. But when it comes to get a body and sense-organs through the 
limiting adjunct of Maya-sakti, it comes to know 'This is a pot', 'This is 
a piece of cloth', 'This is a man', 'This is a god' and so on. Thus,* during 
its state of bondage, it, as bound by a sense of false egoity, moves forth 
(from birth to rebirth). Hence, it is not a knower by nature. Otherwise, 
how can it be freed ? 

Reply 
T he Individual Soul is a Knower 

To this, we reply : The soul is, indeed, a knower. In accordance 
with the Scriptural texts : "Now, he who knows : 'Let me smell this' - 
that is the soul With the mind, he sees desires here, and experiences 
enjoyment" (Chand. 8. 12.4 5.), "The mind is his divine eye" (Chand. 8.12.5.), 
and so on, its mind is its attribute of knowledge. Hence, it is a knower 
by nature. 

Your view that during its state of bondage, it becomes a 
knower through its connection with Maya-sakti( l ) is of course true. For 
when its natural knowledge and powers are hidden by the influence of 
Maya-sakti, it comes to be connected with the mind that is really a product 
of Prakrti (i.e. material in nature). Then, the individual soul becomes an 
experiencer of pleasures and pains and a knower ; and, as confined only to 
the body and the ego, moves about (from birth to rebirth). Then, again, 
through the practice of knowledge and meditation of Brahman, it gets rid 
of the three kinds of blemishes (mala), then it becomes similar to Brahman, 
and its own quality of knowledge is manifested in the highest degree 
then it is called 'free'. 

Moreover, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "Whose pleasure 
is the vital-breath, whose mind is bliss" (Tait. 1.6.1.) ( 8 ). Brahman's mind 
is concerned with unsurpassable bliss due to His own self. His sense- 
organs, too, are known to be natural. As the individual soul that has got 
rid of mundane, transmigratory existence possesses qualities similar to His 
qualities, so, it is known that it too, possesses the mind or the internal 



(1) Not in Advaita-Sense. Here "Maya-sakti is God's "Iccha-sakti". 

(2) Or, who is the pleasure of the vital-breath and bliss of the mind. 
For explanation See under 1.1.2. P. 23. . 



The Soul is Atomic 229 

organ, which is the instrument through which it can enjoy the bliss of its 
own self, independently of external ?ense-organs. The reference to the 
individual soul's ignorance in the passage : "The Knower and the non- 
Knower" (6 vet. 1. 9.), simply means that the knowledge possessed by it is 
very little. The Supreme Lord who is not subject to mundane, trausmi- 
gratory existence, is said to be omniscient. Hence, (the individual soul) 
possesses little knowledge during its mundane state, but becomes omni- 
scient during its released state. Thus, the Soul is indeed, a knower. 



Hear ends the Section entitled "The Knower" (8). 



Adhikarana 9 : The Section entitled "Departure" (Sutras 2032). 

SUTRA 2. 3. 20. 

''(The individual soul is atomic on account of the Scriptural 
mention) of departure, going and returning." 

The soul, established above to be a knower, is found to depart 
(from the body), and from this it is known to be atomic (in size). The 
doubt is as to whether this stands to reason or not. 

Friroa Facie View 

The atomicity (of the soul) does not fit in. From the Scriptural 
text : "He, verily, is this great, unborn self (Brh. 4. 4. 22.), the individual 
soul is known to be all-pervasive. Futher, from the text "I over-power 
the entire universe", it is known that it, through pervading the whole 
world, over-powers it. So, in every way, the soul is all-pervasive. 

Reply 
The Soul i Atomic 

On the above view, we state the Correct Conclusion : The soul is 
only atomic (in size), on account of the Scriptural texts regarding its 
"departure, going and returning". In the passage : "By that light does 
the soul depart" (Brh. 4. 4. 2.), its "departure" is mentioned. In the 
passage : "Whoever, verily, depart from this world, all go to the moon 
only" (Kaus. 1. 2.), its "going" (is mentioned). In the passage : "Having 
come back from that world to this world for action" (Brh. 4. 4. 6.), its 
"returning" ( is mentioned ). If they were all-pervasive, then such 
"departure, going and returning" would not have been possible. 



230 6rikantha-Bhasya 2, 3. 22. 

Departure, consisting iu the fall of the body, may be possible on 
the part of the soul, even if it be all- pervasive. But, going and returning 
are never possible on the part of such (an all -pervasive soul) so says 
(the Author) : 

SUTRA 2. 3. 21. 

"And (there is possibility) of th-5 subsequent two (viz. going and 
returning) through one's self." 

As "the subsequent two", viz. going and returning, are posible 
only "'through one's self", the soul must be atomic. 

As regards your view that in accordance with the Scriptural text : 
''The great, unborn self (Brh. 4. 4. 22.), (the individxial soul) must 
be all-pervasive ( we reply : ) the topic there is the Supreme Self, so 
the text docs not icfcr to it (viz. the individual soul) at all. 

As regards your view, as through pervading the whole world, it 
over-powers it, ( so the individual soul must be all-pervasive ) (we 
reply : ) that text refers to the freed soul that pervades the (whole 
world) through the light of its powers('), fully manifested, after death, 
on the removal of blemishes. Hence, the soul is, indeed, atomic. 

(The Author) raises an objection and disposes of it. 

SUTRA 2. 3. 22. 

'If it be objected that (the soul is) not atomic, because of the 
Scriptural mention of what is not that, (we reply :) No, on account of 
the topic being something else". 

Objection 

If it be objected that in accordance with Scriptural text : "He, 
verily, is the great unborn self" (Brh. 4. 4. 22.), the individual soul 
is not atomic, 

Reply 
The soul is Atomic 

(We reply :) "No", because, as known from the text : "By whom 
the the soul has been found and realised" (Brh. 4. 13.), the topic is here 
the Supreme Self, (and not the individual self). 



(1) i. e. through its attribute of knowledge which is all-prervasive, 
See below Br. Su. 4. 4. 15. 



The soul prevades the body through its attribute of knowledge 231 

SUTRA. 2. 3. 23. 
"And, on account of the word itself and measure". 

Because word 'atomic' itself is mentioned in the Scrip- 
tural text : "This atomic soul, in which the five-fold vital-breath has 
entered, is to be known by means of thought'' (Mund. 3.1.9.) ; and also 
because the measure (or size of the soul) is mentioned in the Scriptural 
text: "For the lower one is seen to be like the point of the spoke of a 
wheel only" (6 vet. 5.8.) the soul is atomic. Here, an atomic object has 
been cited as an illustration, and through that its (i. e. the soul's) size has 
been shown this is the meaning of the word "m^esure". 

To the question : If the soul be atomic, then how can it experience 
the pai n etc. over the whole body ? - (the Author) replies : 

SUTRA 2. 3. 24. 
"Non-contradicticn, as in the case of the sandal-paste " 

Just a drop of sandal-paste, though occupjing one spot (of the body), 
produces a pleasurable sensation extending over the entire body, so here, 
too, there is "no contradiction". 

SUTRA 2. 3. 25. 

'If it be objected that (the two cases are not parallel) on account 
of the speciality of abode, (we reply :) No, en account of the admission 
(of an abode, viz.) in the heart certainly*'. 

Objection 

If it be objected : The sandal-paste occupies one particular spot 

Reply 
The loul pervades the body through its attribute of knowledge 

(We reply :) "No", for the soul, too, is admitted to have a particular 
abode, in accordance with the Scriptural texts : "In the heart, verily, is 
the soul" (Prasna. 3.6.) "He who is made of knowledge among the vital- 
breath, who is the light within the heart" (Brh, 4.4.22.). This is the 
view of another Sect. ( l ) 

(The Author) states his own view : 

SUTRA 2. 3. 26. 
"Or through attribute, like light " 

The soul pervades the entire body through its own attribute of 
knowledge, and thereby experiences (the pleasures belonging to the entire 



(1) Just a drop of sandal-paste on one particular part of the body 



232 6rikam:ha-Bhasya 2. 3. 29. 

body) ; just as a gem pervades all nearby objects through its own rays and 
thereby reveals them all. Hence, no contradiction is involved here. 

To the contention : There is no distinction between the soul and 
(its attribute of) knowledge : (the Author replies :) 

SUTRA 2. 3. 27. 

"(There is a) difference between (the soul and its attribute of 
knowledge) as in the case of smell, for thus (Scriplure) shows. 

Like the earth, possessing smell (as its attribute), knowledge is seen 
to be an attribute (of the soul), as when we say : 'I know'. Hence, there 
does exist a "difference" between the soul and (its attribute of) knowledge. 
The Scriptural text : "This person simply knows'' "shows" the "di ferencs" 
(between the two). 

SUTRA 2. 3. 28. 
"On account of separate teaching. 

Knowledge has been taught to be different from the soul. Compare 
the Scriptural text : "There is no cessation of the knowing of a knower" 
(Brh. 4.3.30.). Thus, the soul is proved to possess the attribute of knowlege 
eternally. 

To the enquiry : If the soul thus, possesses knowledge as its attri- 
bute, (Jnnta) then why has it been designated as mere knowledge (in 
essence) (Jnana ) ? the Author) replies : 

SUTRA 2. 3. 29. 

"But there is that designation (i. e. the designation of the soul as 
knowledge) on account of its having that attribute as its essence, as 
in the case of the intelligent one.' 1 

As the soul possesses the attribute of knowledge as its essence, so it 
has been designated as knowledge, and not because it is merely know- 
ledge ; just as "the intelligent one" (viz. the I^ord) (though a knower) is 
designated to be "Truth, Knowledge" (Tait. 2.1.). Hence, even if the 
soul be designated to be mere knowledge, no fault results. ( 1 ) 



delights the entire body, so the atomic self, abiding inside the heart, feels 
the pleasure etc.^ of the entire body. 

(1) The soul is both knowledge (Jnana or Jfiana-svarupa) and the 
substratum of knowledge (jnata). Sometimes, however, it is designated 
as mere knowledge. But that does uot imply that it is not the substratum 
of knowledge or a knower. E. g. God is sometimes designated to be mere 
Knowledge, but that does not mean that He is not a Knower. 



The Knowledge of the Soul is Eternal 233 

Once more, (the Author) points out the appropriateness (of the 
above view) : 

SUTRA. 2. 3. 30. 

"Also because of lasting as long as the soul does, there Is no fault, 
because it is seen." 

As knowledge lasts till the self itself does so, there is "no fault" if 
(the soul) is designated by it (viz. knowledge^. It is found that (all cows 
whatsoever), like hornless ones etc., are designated by the word 'cow', since 
the generic character of 'cowness', lasting as long as their real nature does, 
(is present in them all). Hence, that designation (of the soul as mere 
knowledge) is due to the fact that (its) attribute of knowledge lasts as long 
its own self does. 

To the enquiry : How can it be said that knowledge, which is 
absent during the state of deep dreamless sleep, lasts as long as the self 
does ? (the Author replies :) 

SUTRA 2. 3. 31. 

"But on account of the appropriateness of manifestation of that 
which is existent, as in the case of virility and so on." 

Knowledge is present during the state of deep, dreamless sleep, but 
is unmanifested ; and during the waking state, it is manifested. Hence, 
knowledge does last till the soul does, just as "virility", the seventh 
fluid or secretion ;( l ) though present during childhood, is manifested 
during youth. Hence, as knowledge lasts till the self does, no fault is 
involved here. 

(The Author) states why it is necessary to prove that the soul is a 
knower and atomic : 

SUTRA 2. 3. 32. 

"Otherwise, there (will be) the consequence of eternal perception 
and non-perception, or a restriction with regard to the one or the other/' 

"Otherwise", i. e. on the view that the soul is mere knowledge and 
all-pervasive, as (knowledge) lasts so long (as the soul does), there must 
be eternal perception, there being no contraction (on its part). Again, 
it (viz. the soul) alone is the cause of the non-perception present (in it) 
so this (viz. non-perception), too, must be ever-present. 

On the view that the soul is all-pervasive, though knowledge is 
not eternally present in it, but is something that rises in it accidenta j 1 ^ 
- (1) Dhatu. The seven Dhatus are : chyle, blood, flesh, fat, bone, 
marrow, semen. 
30 



234 Srikantha-Bhasya 2, 3. 32. 

the same fault persists. For, here too, all the souls being all-per- 
vasive, the causes of knowledge, viz. the connection with the mind etc., 
must be common to all. The Unseen Principle, ( Adrsta ) too, cannot be 
taken to be the restricting principle here, as it, too, is exactly on the 
same boat. Hence, as perception and non-perception are mutually 
opposed, there must be either the causes of perception alone, or those 
of non-perception alone. That being the case, there must be "a res- 
triction with regard to the one or the other." Hence, the above view 
alone is proper ( l ). 



Here ends the Section entitled ''Departure (9). 



(1) As regards the soul's knowledge, altogether four alternatives 
are possible : (i) It always perceives, (ii) It never perceives, (iii) It 
perceives and does not perceive at the same time, at all times, (iv) It 
sometimes perceives, sometimes not. Now, if the soul be taken to be 
mere knowledge and all-pervasive, ( Jnana-svarupa and Vibhu ) then we 
have to accept any one of the above three alternatives. Thus, (i) if the 
soul be the cause of perception, it being eternal, its perception, too, 
must be so. (ii) If the soul be the cause of non-perception, then, on 
the same ground, it can never perceive, (iii) If the soul be the cause 
of both, it must have eternal perception and eternal non-perception, 
together, which is absurd. So, we have to accept either of the first two 
views, which, too, are never borne out by actual experience. The undeni- 
able fact of actual experience is borne out only by the fourth view, which, 
however, cannot be accepted on the view of the all-persiveness of the soul. 
For, Ihe all-pervasive soul will be eternally connected with all the sense- 
organs and all objects, having eternal knowledge of all objects whatsoever. 
Or, if it be not connected with these, there is nothing besides this to 
bring about this connection, so that it will have eternal non-perception. 
It cannot be said that the Unseen Principle (Adrsta) or the past 
Karmans of the, souls will make them preceive some objects sometimes, 
and not others at other times. "For, all the souls will be equally 
connected with all the Adrstas ; so that their perceptions will be 
just the same, and either eternally present, or eternally absent. 

So, the soul is not merely Jnana-svarupa, but also Jnalta, having 
the attribute of Jnana, but is not Vibhu. 



Adhikarana 10 : The Section entitled "The Agent" (Sutras. 3339). 

SUTRA 2. 3. 33. 

''(The individual soul is) an agent, because of Scripture having 
a sense". 

It lias been proved above that the soul is a kiiower and atomic. 
Here, the doubt is as to whether it is an agent or not. 

Prima Facie View 

The unchangeable soul cannot possibly be an agent. Either Buddhi 
or Prakrti should be taken to be an agent. (The soul) becomes an agent 
only through the super-imposition of that (agency of Buddhi) on itself. 
Hence, it is not appropriate to hold that the soul is an agent. This is 
the Prima Facie view. 

Reply 
The Soul is an Agent 

But the Correct Conclusion is that the soul is, indeed,, an agent, 
"On account of Scripture having a sense". Otherwise, Scriptural (in- 
junctions and prohibitions) like 'It should be done', 'It should not be 
done', become meaningless. 

SUTRA 2. 3. 34. 

"On account of taking, as well as on account of the teaching 
of (the soul's) moving about". 

On account of the teaching of (the soul's) taking and moving about 
in the Scriptural text : "So exactly does he, having taken these senses, 
move about in his own body, just as he desires'* (Brh. 2. 1. 18.), it is, 
indeed, an agent. - 

As regards the view that either Buddhi, or Prakrti, should be 
taken to be the agent (the Author) condemns the view that Bnddhi 
is the agent : 

SUTRA 2. 3. 35. 

"Also, on account of the designation (of the soul as an agent) with 
regard to actions, otherwise, (there will be) reversal of description." 

As in the Scriptural text : "Understanding performs a sacrifice" 
(Tait. 2. 5.), the soul has been designated as the agent of sacrifices etc., 
it must be an agent. 



236 rikantha-Bhasya 2. 3. 38. 

Objection 

If it be objected that by the term 'Understanding' here, Buddhi, and 
not the soul, has been designated. 

Reply 
Buddhi is not the Agent 

( We reply : ) No. If that be the case, then there must be "reversal 
of description' i. e. there must be the instrumental case 'by. under- 
standing'^ 1 ) It is found that in another text, where the term 'under- 
standing' is meant for denoting Buddhi, the instrumental case-ending has 
been used. Compare : "Having taken by his intelligence the intelligence 
of these sense-organs" (Brh. 2. 1. 17.). Hence, Buddhi being a mere 
instrument cannot be the agent. 

( The Author j condemns the view that Prakrti is the agent : 
SUTRA 2. 3. 36. 

"( If Prakrti be the agent and not the individual soul, ( then 
there would be) non-restriction (of actions), as in the case of percep- 
tion.' 

If Prakrti be the agent, it being common to all, there would be 
"non-restriction" with regard to fruits, just as there is non-restriction 
with regard to perception, as mentioned above.( 8 ) 

SUTRA 2. 3. 37. 
"On account of the reversal of power.' 7 

If Prakfti be the agent, then, as the agent alone is the enjoy er ( of 
the fruits of the actions done ), it alone must be the eujoyer. Then, the 
soul's power of enjoying will come to be "reversed", i. e. set aside. 

SUTRA 2. 3. 38. 
"And on account of the absence of deep concentration." 

Moreover, if Prakrti, alone be the agent, then as a consequence, 

(1) i. e. instead of the word, 'Vijfiana', there must be the word 
'Vijnanena' - for Buddhi cannot by itself perform 'sacrifice,it is only 
an instrument of the soul. 

(2) That is, just as it has been shown in Su. 2. 3. 32. that if the 
soul be all-pervasive, no separate perception will be possible, so if Prakrti 
be the agent, no separate activities will be possible on the part of 
different individuals. For, Prakrti being all-pervasive and common to all, 
all activities will produce results in the case of all souls ; or produce 
no results in the case of any one. 



The Soul alone is the Agent 237 

there cannot be "deep concentration", consisting in the realisation : 'I am 
different from Prakrti'. For this reason also, the soul is the agent. 

SUTRA 2. 3. 39. 
"And, like a c*rp?nter, in both ways." 

If the soul be the agent, then it acts or does not act according 
to its own wish, just a? a carpenter does ( or does not ) do his own works 
( according to his own wish ). 

Objection 

If it be pointed out that, such desires being possible on the part of 
Buddhi too, the above procedure ( i. e. acting or not acting according 
to wish ) is not jeopardised ( if Buddhi be taken to be the agent ) 

Reply 
I he soul alone is the Agent 

( We reply : ) No, for 'desire' is an attribute of a sentient being. 
Hence, it is established that the soul is the agent, neither Buddhi nor 
Prakrti. 



Here ends the Section entitled 'The Agent" (10). 



Adhikarana 11. Ihe Section entitled "Under the Control of the 
Highest" ( Sutras 4041 ). 

SUTRA 2. 3. 40. 

"But (the a gent a hip of the soul proceeds) from the Highest, on 
account of a Scriptural text to that effect." 

It has been proved above that the soul is a knower and an enjoyer. 
Now, the doubt is as to whether its agentship is under its own control 
or under the control of God. 

Prima Facie view 

It is under its own control. Otherwise, the L/ord, leading the 
individual soul to good and bad actions, must be subject to the faults 
like partiality and the like. Moreover, if the activities of the individual 
soul be tinder the control of the Lord, then it will cease to be an agent ; 



238 Srikaitfha-Bhasya 2. 3. 41. 

and thus, injunctions and prohibitions will lose all meaning. Hence, 
the activities of the individual souls are under its own control 
only. 

Reply 
The Soul is not Independent 

To this, we reply : The agentship of the individual soul is under 
the control of the Lord alone, and never under its own control ; "on 
account of the Scriptural text" : "Who rules the soul within" (6at. Br. 
14.6.7.30.). 

Objection 

To your view : If the Lord is to lead the individual souls to 
actions, then He has to be charged with partiality etc. Further, injunc- 
tions and prohibition become meaningless on this view 

( We reply : ) 

Reply 
The Soul acts as directed by the Lord 

SUTRA 2. 3. 41. 

"But (the Lord makes the soul act) having regard to the efforts 
made, on account of the futility of what is enjoined and what is 
prohibited and so on." 

Through its own Karmas, the individual soul itself is the cause of 
its activity or inactivity, according to its own desire. "The Highest (i.e. 
the Lord), having taken into account the efforts made by the individual 
souls efforts that lead to activities and inactivities on their part gives 
them permission (to act etc.), and ( in this sense alone) does He lead them 
(to actions etc.). Hence, injunctions and prohibitions are by no means 
meaningless. 

(Further), (our activities and inactivities) follow from ( our own 
desire for favouring or punishing (others) ( l ). Just as a boy, while fetching 
a heavy log, is helped by a stronger man, still he himself remains subject 
to injunctions and prohibitions, so the individual soul, too, engages itself 
into activities as helped by the Supreme Lord, yet itself remains subject 



(1) Cf. &MD. i. e. we directly feel that our own activities and 
inactivies are due to our own feelings like love, hatred etc., and 
our desires to favour or punish others. Now, on the above view, these 
direct experiences are not contradicted. 



JJva is a part of Brahman 239 

to injunctions and prohibitions. Hence as the Supreme Lord leads the 
individual soul to actions in accordance with the efforts made by it, so 
He cannot be accused of partiality. It is also established that, as the 
individual soul, too, can act independently, injunctions, prohibitions etc. 
do not become meaningless ( J ). 



Here ends the Section entitled "Under the Control of the 
Highest" (11) 



Adhikarana 12 : The Section entitled "A Part" (Sutras 4252). 

SUTRA 2. 3. 42. 

"(The individual soul) is a part (of Brahman) on account of the 
designation of variety, and, otherwise, also some read (that Brahman 
is of) the nature of fishermen, gamblers and the rest/ 1 

It has been proved above that the individual soul is eternal, know- 
ledge (in essence), atomic, an agent, (though it) acts by relying on God's 
help. The doubt is as to whether such an individual soul is itself the 
Supreme Soul, or only His part. 

Prima Facie View. 

Here the Prima Facie view is that it is the Supreme Soul. The 
Supreme Lord appears to be the individual soul, due to the influence of 
various limiting adjuncts (Upadhis), just as the same ether appears to be 
of various forms and limited through the limiting adjuncts like pots etc. 
There is a Scriptural text to this effect, viz. "This soul is Brahman" (Brh. 
2.5.19.). Hence, through the influence of the Nescience (Ajfiana), the 
Himself conies to assume the form of the individual soul. 



Jiva is a part of Brahman. 

But the Correct Ccnclusion is that the individual soul is "a part", 
i. e. a part of the Form of the Supreme Soul. "On account of the 
designation of variety" (or difference (between God and the individual 

(1) &MD, here gives the illustration of a King and his servant, The 
King himself does not act for the servant, but the servant himself acts 
according to the orders of his master. In this sense, the servant is an 
agent, yet under the control of the King, 



240 nkantha-Bhasya 2. 3. 44. 

soul ) in the following Scriptural passages : "Who abiding in the 
soul" (Sat. Br. 14.6.7.30.), "Having known the soul and the Director to be 
different" (6 vet. 1.6.), "One should know the Primary Matter (Prakrti) to 
be an illusion, (Maya), and the Great Lord, to be the Illusion-producer 
(Mayin). This whole world is parvaded with His parts" (Svet. 4.10.), 
and so on. 

To your view that, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "This 
soul is Brahman" <Brh. 2.5.19.) and so on, Brahman Himself must be the 
the soul (we reply :) "Otherwise", i. e. on account of the designation (of 
non-difference between the Lord and the individual soul) too, in the 
passages : "Thou art that",(Chand. 6.8.6. etc.), "This soul is Brahman" 
(Brh. 2.5.19.) and so on, there is also non-difference between the 
individual soul and Brahman, as they stand in a relation of the pervaded 
and the pervader. Further, "some read" such a non-difference thus : 
"Brahman are the fishermen, Brahman are the slaves, Brahman are these 
gamblers." 

Hence, though the individual soul is a part of Brahman, yet the 
above designation ( of the two as non-different ) is quite appropriate, 
as the individual soul is pervaded by Him ; just as a piece of wood, 
pervaded by fire, is called 'fire', still, fire and the wood are riot identical. 
Hence, the individual soul partakes of the nature of Brahman, only 
as His part. If it is assumed that through Nescience ( Ajftana ) Brahman 
Himself assumes the form of the individual soul, then that, would inevit- 
ably lead to the violation of numerous Scriptural texts, and similar faults. 

SUTRA 2. 3. 43. 

"On account of the wording of a sacred text". 

"On account of the wording of a sacred text", viz. "A foot of Him 
are all beings" ( Rg. V. 10. 90. 3, ; Chafid. 3. 12. 6. ), the individual 
soul is indeed a part of Brahman. 

The Scriptural text : "One should know the primary matter (Prakrti) 
to be an illusion (Maya), and the Great Lord, to be the illusion-producer 
(Mayin). This whole world is pervaded with His parts" (6vet. 4. 10.), 
makes clear that through Maya, the Great Lord is qualified by the Primary 
matter (Prakrti) ; and that the entire world is His part. Hence, the soul 
(tuiusa) is a small part of the Supreme Lord, the weilder of Maya (Mayin). 

SUTRA. 2. 3. 44. 
"And, moreover, (it is) declared by mriti " 

In accordance with the Smrti passage : "Among other forms,( l ) 



(1) Cf. &MD. the other forms are the ether etc. 



Individual Souls are parts of Brahman 241 

the soul is the eighth and the all-pervasive( J ) form of 6iva, the Supreme 
Soul", the soul is but a part of the Form of 



SUTRA 2. 3. 45. 

"(The individual soul is a part of Brahman) as light and the rest 
(are parts of the sun etc.), not so the Highest (i. e. Brahman it not of 
the same nature as the soul).' 7 

Although the individual soul is a part of Brahman, yet the Supreme 
Lord is not of the same form and the same nature as the individual soul, 
but is endowed with omniscience and the like. How ? "Like light and 
the rest/' Just as the light of a gem and the like that possess light as an 
attribute is a part of that substance gem and the like, so the individual 
soul is a part of Brahman who having the individual soul as His body is 
qualified by it as an attribute. The word "and the rest" ( in the Apho- 
rism ) stands for generic qualities etc., similar in nature to ( ordinary ) 
attributes. Though the attributes are parts of the substance, yet there is no 
contradiction in holding that they differ in nature from it, in accordance 
with the Scriptural text : "Who abiding in the sour (Sat. Br. 14.6. 7. 30.). 

SUTRA 2. 3. 46. 
"And Smriti declares ( this )." 

Compare the passage : "This world, consisting of the moveable and 
the immoveable, is a form of the God of gods. This truth the beasts ( viz. 
Pasus or the souls in bondage ) do not know through the preponderance of 
(their) noose ( i. e. Pasa, or ignorance or bondage )." Hence, the indivi- 
dual soul is indeed a part of Brahman. It is established that as (Brahman) 
is qualified by it ( viz. the individual soul ), they differ in nature. 

SUTRA 2. 3. 47. 

"Injunction and prohibition (fit in) on account of (the soul's) 
connection with bodies, as in the case of fire and so on." 

Objection 

If it be objected : If all the individual souls be parts of Brahman, 
then to whom are the Vedic injunctions to apply, to whom the prohi- 
bitions ? 

Reply 

Individual Difference are due to connection with different Bodies 
( We reply : ) This is quite possible due to the connection ( of the 
souls ) with the bodies of Brahmanas etc., just as fire etc. ( are taken to be 

(1) The form of the soul is said to be all-pervasive because it pre- 
sides over, i. e. enjoys all these, and wrongly identifies itself with these. 
31 



$42 6rikantha-Bhasya 2. 3. 50. 

different due to their ) connection with the house of a otriya, a 
crematory etc.( l ) 

SUTRA 2. 3. 48. 

"And on account of non-extension, there is non-intermixture". 

"Non~extensien" means non-all-pervasiveness. As the indtvkttt-al 
soul differs in every body, and as it is atomic and so limited in each 
case, it is "non-extended" i. e. non-all-pervasive. That is why, there 
is no inter-mixture among the knowledge, pleasures and the like of these 
embodied souls like : 'I am fat', 'I am thin', 'I am happy' etc. 

'What do you say ?' We say that, as all embodied souls are equally 
non-all-pervasive, the souls in bondage, having limited knowledge, 
pleasure etc., are all equally limited. Through this, it is established 
that the natural knowledge etc. of the freed souls who have got rid of 
the sense of narrow egoity through knowledge about the Supreme Brahman, 
and have come to attain the sense of supreme egoity through the 
supreme extension (of its power of knowledge) is quite different from 
the empirical knowledge etc. (of the souls in bondage), being unsurpass- 
able and eternal. 

On your view that through the limiting adjunct of Nescience, it is 
Brahman Himself who comes to be in bondage, (the difference among the 
the individuals souls) cannot be explained so says the Author. 

SUTRA 2. 3. 49. 

"And (the reasons advanced for the doctrine of the all pervasive- 
ness of the soul) are mere fallacies". 

The reasons (advanced by the supporters) of the two views, viz. 
(i) Brahman becomes the individual soul when bound by true limiting ad- 
juncts (viz. body, sense-organs etc.), (ii) Brahman becomes the individual 
soul when bound by a false limiting adjuncts (viz. Nescience) are "mere 
fallacies". 

SUTRA 2. 3. 50 

"Because of non-restriction with regard to the Unseen Principle". 

If the individual souls be due to the true and false limiting ad- 
juncts, (viz. to bodies etc. and Nescience respectively,) then Nescience 



(1) Fire is the same, yet it is taken to be different when connected 
with different substrata. E. g. fire brought from the house of a 
Sotriya is accepted as pure, while that from a crematory is rejected 
as impure. In the same manner, the different souls are connected with 
different bodies, and thus, become subject to different injunctions and 
prohibitions : "A Brahmana should not be killed" etc. 



Souls are Mutually Different 243 

and the limiting adjuncts (Upadhis) belong to Brahman Himself. Hence, 
there is "no restriction" even by means of the Unseen Principle, due to 
these (viz. Nescience etc.). 

SUTRA. 2. 3. 51 
"And it i so even with regard to determination and the like". 

"Even determination and the like", the causes of the Unseen Prin- 
ciple, (Adrsta) cannot bring about any restriction here. 

SUTRA 2. 3. 52 

"If it be objected : on account of place (we reply) No, on account 
of inclusion". 

Objection 

If it be objected that as particular places (or parts) of Brahman 
become mutually different due to their connection with (different) limiting 
adjuncts 

Reply 
Souls are mutually different 

(we reply :) "No", because all the places are included under (all) 
the limiting adjuncts that are moving about. Hence, no explanation 
(regarding the mutual differences among the experiences of the different 
souls) is possible on these two views, viz. that Brahman as limited by 
(i) true, or (ii) false limiting adjuncts ( l ) becomes the individual soul. 
Hence, it is appropriate to hold that the individual soul is a part and an 
attribute of Brahman, and as such, similar to Him in nature('). 

Here ends the Section entitled "A Part "(12). 

Here ends the Third Quarter of the Second Chapter of the Com- 
mentary on the Brahma-Mimamsa, composed by the Saiva Teacher 
Srikantha. 

( According to Srikantha, the Third Quarter of the Second Chapter 
contains 52 Sutras and 12 Adhikaranas. ) 



(1) See Su. 2. 3. 49. 

(2) Srikantha here criticises the Advaita view that the individual 
soul is really all-pervasive, being identical with Brahman ; but when 
Brahman is connected with Upadhis or limiting adjuncts, He becomes 
Jlvas, and as such, limited. Now, according to our Author, there are 
two forms of this Upadhi-vSda ; (i) Brahman is limited by Nescience 
which is false, (ii) Brahman is limited by bodies, sense-organs etc. which 



SECOND CHAPTER ( Adhyaya ) 
Fourth Section ( Pada ) 

Adhikarana 1 : The Section entitled "The Origin of the Organs." 
( Sutra 13 ). 

Prima Facie View 

SUTRA. 2. 4. 1. 
"Likewise, the organs/ 7 

It has been established above that the elements arise from Brahman 
and that the individual soul is eternal. Here, the question is being 
discussed as to whether the organs arise from Brahman like the elements, 
or whether they are eternal like the individual soul. ( The Prima Facie 
view is as follows : ) Just as the individual soul being eternal does not 
originate, so is the case with the organs as well. 

are true. Neither of these two views can explain facts. The difficulty 
here is that the souls feel that they are different, and their knowledge, 
feelings etc. are quite different. How can this undeniable fact of 
direct experience, viz. the mutual differences of the experiences of the 
Jivas, be explained on this view that Brahman and the Jivas are really one 
and the same ? (i) First, it may be said that these different experiences of 
the different souls are due to their Adrstas or the Unseen Principles, 
i. e. their past Karmas. But as against this, it may be pointed out that 
according to this view, Brahman Himself is subject to Nescience 
and limiting adjuncts. Hence, He Himself is connected with all Karmas 
whatsoever, So, how can there be any restriction or definite rule here 
that these Karmas belong to this individual, and those Karmas to that ? 
(ii) Secondly, it may be said that those Adrstas or past Karmas are 
due to the determination etc. of those souls and as these resolves are 
different, their Karmas, too, are so, and finally, their experiences are 
also different. But here also, we have the very same difficulty. If 
all souls be really identical, their resolves etc., must be the same, 
(iii) Thirdly, it may said that although Brahman is one, yet different parts 
of Brahman may be connected with different Upadhis, and thus, there 
arise different experiences due to those different Upadhi-connected parts 
of Brahman. But, as against this view, it may pointed out that as 
Brahman is universal, all parts of Brahman are connected with all 
Upadhis. So, we have the same difficulty over again. 



The Seuse-organs are not Eternal 245 

For, as in the case of the individual soul, so in their cases too, 
there may very well be Scriptural texts to prove their eternity. The 
text : "The non-existent, verily, was this in the beginning'. Then 
they said : 'What was that non-existent ?' 'The sages, verily, were the 
non-existent in the beginning.' Then they said : 'Who were those 
sages ?' 'The organs, verily, were the sages'. ( Sat. Br. 6. 1. 1., 1. ) 
declares the existence of the organs during the time of dissolution. Hence, 
the sense-organs do not originate from Brahman. 

To this, we reply : 

Reply 
The Sense-organs are not eternal. 

SUTRA 2. 4. 2. 

<( ( The plural number in the above Sat. Br. text ) is secondary, be- 
cause of impossibility, and also because there is a Scriptural text about 
( Brahman's ) prior ( existence )." 

There is no existence of the organs prior to creation, but only of 
the Supreme Lord, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "The exis- 
tent alone, my dear" ( Chand. 6. 2, 1. ). The words "sages" and "sense- 
organs" ( in the above text ) refer to the Supreme Lord alone. As He can- 
not be many, the text indicating the plural number ( viz. "sages" and 
"sense-organs" ) is "secondary". Hence, Brahman alone exists prior ( to 
creation ), never the sense-organs. 

( The Author ) mentions another reason : 
SUTRA 2. 4. 3. 

"On account of speech ( i. e. names and forms ) being preceded by 
that ( i. e. creation by the Lord )." 

Everything else comes to be associated with name and form being 
first created by the Supreme Lord. Hence the word "sense-organ" ( in 
the above text ) does not really stand for sense-organs. So, Brahman alone 
exists prior to all. 



Here ends the Section entitled "The Origin of the Sense-organs" (1). 



Adhikarana 2 : The Section entitled "The Knowing of the Seven". 
(Sutras 45). 

Prima Facie View 

SUTRA 2. 4. 4. 

"On account of the knowing of the seven, and on account of 
being specified. 

Above, the organs have been established to be effects of Brahman. 
On the doubt : How many are they in number ? the Prima Facie view 
is as follows : They are seven in number. Why ? Because, from the 
text : "When cease the five ( sense ) knowledge, together with the mind, 
and the intellect stirs not that, they say, is the Supreme Goal" (Katfia. 
6. 10. ), only seven ( sense-organs ) are known ; also because in the text : 
"Seven sense-organs arise" ( Mund. 2. 1. 8. ). seven are specifically 
mentioned. 

To this we reply : 

SUTRA 2. 4. 5. 

"But ( there are also ) hands and the rest, because of abiding ( in 
the body and assisting the soul ), therefore, ( it ) is not so.'' 

The organs are not only seven in number. "The hands and the rest" 

too, 'are organs, because they, too, equally serve the purpose of the soul, 
abiding in the body. But they are eleven in number, in accordance with 
the following Scriptural and Smrti texts : "There are ten organs in a 
person, the soul is the eleventh" (Brh. 3.9.4.). "The organs are ten and one" 
(Gita. 15.5.). Intellect etc. are not separate organs, but they are but 
different modes of the mind. The Scriptural mention of the going of 
seven organs only and the special mention of the number 'seven' are (both) 
due to the prominence of these (seven over the rest). Hence, the organs 
are not seven, but eleven in number. 

Here ends the Section entitled 'The Knowing of the Organs". (2). 



Adhikarana 3 : The Section entitled :"The Atomicity of the Organs" 
(Sutra 6) 

SUTRA 2. 4. 6. 
"And atomic' 

On the doubt as to whether these organs are all-pervasive or atomic, 
if it be said : As eyes etc. can perceive distant objects, so they must be 



The Vital-breath does Originate 247 

all-pervasive we reply : They are atomic. Why ? On account of the 
Scriptural text : "The vital-breath going out, all the organs go out" 
(Brh. 4.4.2.), they are not all-pervassive, If they were all-pervasive, then 
no going out would have been possible on their parts. The eyes etc. can 
perceive distant objects not because they are all-pervasive, but because 
they, being of the form of light as well as atomic, can move about quickly. 
Hence, the organs are indeed atomic in size. 

Hear ends the Section entitled 'The Atomicity of the Organs'' (3). 



Adhikarana : 4 The Section entitled "The Best" (Sutra 711). 

SUTRA 2. 4. 7. 
"And the best" 

Objection 

On the doubt as to whether the vital-breath, having five modes, and 
mentioned as the best of all the organs in the text : "The vital-breath 
going out, all the organs go out" (Brh. 4.4.2.), arises from Brahman, or 
not, if it be said : The vital-breath does not originate, because the 
N5sadiya-Sukta : "There was neither death, nor the immortal, nor then a 
sign of night or day. That One breathed without wind by its self-power. 
There was verily, nothing whatsoever other than it, or higher" (Rg. V. 10. 
129.2.), designates the motion of the vital-breath even prior to creation 

Reply 
The Vital-breath does originate. 

We reply : The vital-breath, too, does indeed originate. The text : 
"That one breathed without wind", does not speak of the activity of the 
vital-breath, for, the phrase "without wind" denies its existence. But it 
speaks of the existence of Brahman alone. Hence, it is impossible that the 
vital-breath should be beginningless. 

Objection 

Let the vital-breath have a beginning. But in accordance with the 
text mentioned : in another treatise (viz. the Samkhya), "Five-fold air, 
like the Prana etc., is the common function of the organs", it must be the 
function of organs. Or, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "What is 
the vital-breath, is the air," it must be the elemental air, and not some- 
thing different. 



248 6rikant;ha-Bhasya 2. 4. 10. 

Reply 

To this, we reply. 

SUTRA 2. 4. 8. 

"(The vital breath is) not air and function, on account of separate 
teaching 1 '. 

The vital-breath, having five modes, is not air, nor a function of 
organs, "on account of separate teaching" by the following Scriptural 
text : "From Him arise the vital-breath, the mind and all the organs, the 
ether, the air, light, water, earth, the support of all (Mund. 2. 1. 3.). 
Hence, the vital-breath is something different from the air and the mode 
of organs. 

Although (the vital-breath) is something different from the air, yet 
it is not a separate element so says the Author. 

SUTRA 2. 4. 9. 

"But like the eyes and the rest, (the vital-breath is an instrument 
of the soul), because of being an object to be taught together with them, 
and so on". 

Although 'it (i. e. the vital-breath) is different from the air, yet it is 
not a separate element like fire and the rest, But the air itself becomes fit 
for supporting the body, and thereby becomes the support of the Supreme 
lyord, in accordance with the Scriptural texts : "The supporter, being 
supported, supports : The same Divinity has entered into manifold 
(things)", "You are one, (though) you have entered into many things", "You 
are the knot of the vital-breaths" (Mahanar. 16. 2.). Further, it too, like, 
the eyes etc. is an instrument of the soul. The reason is that in the 
Dialogue amongst the sense-organs, the vital-breath is taught together 
with the eye etc., and so it too, equally serves the purpose (of the soul). 

SUTRA 2. 4. 10. 

"And (there is) no fault on the ground of (its) not having a function, 
far thus (Scripture) shows' 7 . 

"Not having a function" means not having an activity. No fault is 
involved here on the ground that it (viz. the vital-breath) has no activity 
serving the purpose of the soul. For, Scripture itself "shows" that the 
air is the cause of the non-dissolution of the body, the sense-organs etc. 
For, in the Dialogue amongst the sense-organs, after the statement by 
Prajapati, viz. "That one of you after whose departure the body appears as 
if it were the very worst off he is the most superior of you" (Chand. 
5.1.7.), the text goes on the show that even when speech etc. departed, the 
body and the sense-organs etc. continued to peisist ; but on the departure 
of the vital-breath, the body and the sense-organs came to be dissolved. 



The Vital-breath is Atomic 249 

SUTRA 2. 4. 11. 
"(The vital-breath) having five modes is designated, like the mind". 

The vital -breath, though one only, is designated as manifold as 
'Prana', 'Ap3na', etc., through its own five modes : just as the mind, 
though one only, is said to be manifold through its modes like desire etc. 
Hence, it is established that the vital-breath is one only, other than the 
elemental air and a mode of the organ, and an instrument of the soul. 

Here ends the Section entitled 'The Best" (4). 



Adhikarana 5. The Section entitled "The Atomicity of the Chief 
Vital-breath" (Sutra 12) 

SUTRA 2. 4. 12. 
"And atomic." 

Objection 

On the doubt as to whether this vital-breath having five modes is 
atomic like the organs, or all-pervasive if it be urged : It is not atomic. 
In accordance with the Scriptural texts : "Because it is equal to a gnat, 
equal to a fly, equal to an elephant, equal to these three worlds, equal to 
this universe" (Brh. 1. 3. 22.), "Everything is installed in the vital-breath" 
(Prasna. 2. 6.), "For, all this is covered by the vital -breath", the vital-breath 
covers everything, and so, it must be all-pervasive. 

Reply 
The Vital breath is Atomic 

We reply : The vital-breath is indeed atomic in size, for the Scrip- 
tural text : "The vital-breath goes out after him'* (Brh. 4. 4. 2.) speaks of 
motion on its part. The divine vital-breath of Hiranya-garbha in its 
collective aspect is all-pervasive, and not the vital-breath in its separate 
aspect (as present in the individual souls separately). So, no contradiction 
is involved here. Hence, the vital-breath having five modes is indeed 
atomic. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Atomicity of the Chief Vital- 
breath" < 5). ' ' ' 



Adhikarana 6. The Section entitled "The Rule of Fire and the 
rest" (Sutra*. 1314). 

SUTRA 2. 4. 13. 

"But the rule of fire and the rest with the bearer of the vital- 
breath (i. e the individual soul) (over the tense-organs is) on account of 
of the thinking of that (viz the Lord) in accordance with Scriptural text", 

The Scriptural text : "The sun, having become sight, entered 
the eyes" ( Ait. 2. 4. ) and so on declares that the eyes etc. are ruled over 
by the sun etc. The Scriptural text : "Even so here thir one, taking 
with him his senses, moves around in his own body just as he pleases" 
(Brh. 2. 1. 18.) declares that the soul, too, rules over the body for apppre- 
hending colour etc. Now, on the doubt as to whether this ruling over 
the senses by the sun etc. together with the soul is under the control of 
the Supreme Lord, or independent. 

Prima Facie View 

The Prima Facie View is as follows : The text "The sun, having 
become sight, entered the eyes" ( Ait. 2. 4.), declares the ruling by the 
sun etc. to be independent, so it is not under the control of the Lord. 

Reply 
The Lord is the Ruler 

But the Correct Conclusion is that the ruling by the sun etc' is 
under the control of the Supreme Lord. Why ? For, in accordance 
with the Scriptural texts : "Who rules the sun from within" (Brh. 3. 7. 9.). 
"Who rules the soul from within" and so on, all activities are due to the 
resolution of the Supreme Lord. Hence, the ruling of the sense-organ 
etc. by the sun etc. and the soul is undoubtedly under the control of the 
Supreme Lord. 

SUTRA 2. 4. 14. 

"And on account of the eternity of that". 

All things are eternally ruled by the Supreme Lord. For this reason, 
too, the ruling by these is due to the resolution of the Supreme Lord. 

Here ends the Section entitled "1 he Rule by Fire etc". (6). 



Adhikarana 7 : The Section entitled "The Sense-organs" ( mtras 

(IB 16). 

SUTRA 2. 4. 15. 

"They (are) sense-organs, on account of the desigation of those as 
other than the best". 

Objection 

On the doubt as to whether the abve-mentioned sense-organs 
like speech etc. are different from the modes of the vital-breath 
( viz. Prana, Apana etc. ), if it be held that they are nothing 
but modes of the chief vital-breath , because of the Scriptural text : 
''Of him alone they became a form" ( Brh. 1. 15. 21. ) declares them to be 
of the form of the vital-breath ; also because it is equally found that on 
the decease, i. e. cessation, of speech and the rest, the vital-breath is also 
gone. Hence, the sense-organs are non-different from the vital-breath. 

Reply 
The sense-organs are different from the vital-breath. 

We reply : The sense-organs are really different from the chief vital- 
breath. Those vital-breaths ( Pranas ) that are other than "the best" ( or 
the chief vital-breath ) are the sense-organs, on account of the sense- 
organs, like the eye etc., being designated in the text : "The sense- 
organs are ten and one" ( Gita. 13. 5. ). 

SUTRA 2. 4. 16. 

".And on account of the 3c iptunl text regarding difference and 
on account of difference". 

In the Scriptural text : "Prom Him arise the vital-breath, the 
mind and all the sense-organs" ( Mund. 2. 1.3. ), the vital-breath and the 
sense-organs are said to arise separately. Further, it is found that they 
are different, as even after the cessation of the sense-organs, the modes 
of the vital-breath do not cease. ( l ) For these reasons, too, the sense- 
organs are different from the modes of the vital-breath. 

Here ends the Section entitled : "The ense-organs'' (7) 

(1) Vide Brh. 1. 5. 21. When the different sense-organs were created 
by Prajapati, death came and overcame them all, with the exception of 
the vital-breath. So, the sense-organs decided to assume the form of the 
vital-breath. 



Adhikaraua 8 : 1 he Section entitled "The Making of Name and 
Form". (Sutras 17-1 9;. 

SUTRA 2. 4. 17. 

"But the making of name and form (is the function) of Him who 
renders tripartite, on account of teching". 

It has been said above that the elements like the ether etc. 
together with (their) presiding deities like Sadasiva etc. all arise from 
the Supreme Lord. Now, the doubt is as to whether when they are 
created, the making of names and forms of those gods after that is 
due to the Root Cause (viz. Brahman), or to some one else. 

Prima Facie View 

In accordance with the Scriptural text : "That light perceived 
( i. e. thought ) : 'May I be many, may I procreate.' It created water" 
( Chand. 6. 2. 3. ), Rudra, the presiding deity of light, creates water, 
puts his own seeds into it, and from that arises Visnu, with Sattva, in 
accordance with the Scriptural text : "The waters arise from the Nara, the 
Kara is Rudra." Visnu is called Narayana, because he, as sprung up from 
Rudra, is characterised by abundance and extension. In accordance 
with the Scriptural text : "Those waters perceived, they created food" 
( Chand. 6. 2. 4. ), their presiding deity Narayana creates earth, denoted 
by the word 'food'. In that egg or the earth, Hiranyagarbha resides. 

There is a Scriptural text to this effect : "From Rudra's seed, 
first arises the golden egg in the midst of the sea* In it, arise Brahma, 
Visuu and Fire." Compare also the following passage from Manu-Smrti : 
"He, desiring to produce beings of many kinds from his own body, 
first with a thought created the waters, and placed His seed in them. 
That ( seed ) became a golden egg, bright like the sun ; in that egg 
was born Brahma himself, the Progenitor of the whole world. The 
waters are called 'Nara-born', ( for ) the waters are indeed the offspring 
of the Nara ; as they were his residence, he, therefore,is called Narayana" 
( Manu. 1. 8 10. ), Narayana is Supreme and the Primary Matter 
( Avyakta ). From Primary Matter arises the egg, inside the egg exists 
this earth consisting of seven islands". 

There is also a Purana passage : "The Deity called Rudra comes 
to assume a form. By Him as possessing the form, the supreme seed is 
thrown in the fluid ( rasa ). That seed becomes an egg, similar in brilli- 
ance to the sun. Visnu, through the excellence of my power, entered 



Brahman is the Cause 263 

into that. Then, through my order, he gets the appellation of 'Narayana'. 
This verse he cites to Narayana. The subtle fluid should be known to 
be water, and the fluid is well-known to be born from the Person. Then, 
Brahma springs from the Person, the Person is said by the Smrti to be 
Siva Himself. It is said that the Person has 'Nara' ( i, e. water ) as his 
shelter hence he is declared by the Smrti to be 'Narayana'. O tiger 
among men ! Brahma too entered into that Being who possesses the 
earth as His body." 

Or, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "Prajapati manifested 
existent and non-existent forms by means of the Veda", Hiranyagarbha, 
included under the universe, ( is the creator ). 

Reply 
Brahman is the Cause. 

But the Correct Conclusion is that the above established order of 
creation does not stand to reason. But, in accordance with the Scrip- 
tural texts : "The existent alone, my dear, was that in the beginning, 
one only, without a second." (Chand. 6,2. 1. ), "He perceived (i.e. 
thought ) : 'May I be many, may I procreate'. He created light" ( Chand. 
6. 2. 3. ) and so on, Brahman alone, denoted by the term 'existent', is the 
cause of the five elements. Light ( or fire ) is first created. Then, 
Brahman, assuming the forms of respective prior causes called Sadasiva 
etc. successively creates the effects beginning with the ether and ending 
with the earth. This is known from the following Scriptural texts : "He per- 
ceivedThat light perceived" ( Chand, 6. 2. 3. ), "Those waters perceived" 
( Chand. 6. 2. 4. ). From the Scriptural texts : "That Divinity thought : 
'Come, let me, having entered into these three deities with the living 
soul ( Jivattnan ), evolve name and form" ( Chand. 6. 3. 2. ), "Let me make 
each of them tripartite" ( Chand. 6. 3. 3. ), it is known that the Supreme 
Lord alone, "who renders tripartite" and who is of the form of air etc., 
having entered into the three divinities ; viz. light, water and food, 
by assuming the forms of Brahma, Visuu and Rudra, makes names and 
forms. Hence, it stands to reason that the making of all names and 
forms is the task "of one who renders tripartite" and is of the form of 
the four-faced ( Brahma ) and the rest. This kind of tripartition is not 
possible on the part of the four-faced (Brahma) etc. alone. The egg ( viz. 
the universe ) arises from fire, water and earth that have been thus ren- 
dered tripartite. Then, after that, the four-faced ( Brahma ) etc. are 
created, in accordance with the Scriptural text : "From Rudra 's seed 
first arises the golden egg in the midst of the sea. In it, arise Brahma, 
yisnu and Fire". 



254 6rikantha-Bhasya 2. 4. 18. 

Objection 

Apprehending the objection : The tripartition can, of course, 
be due to the four-faced (Brahma) etc. alone. The following Scriptural 
texts teach that the process of tripartition is found in the individual souls 
created by the four-faced (Brahma), Compare. "Now, verily, my dear, under- 
stand from me how each of these three divinities become three-fold" 
(Chand. 6. 3. 4.), "Food, when eaten, becomes divided into three-parts. 
That which is its grossest portion becomes the excreta ; that .which is 
the finest, the mind" (Chand. 6. 5. 1.). ( the Author ) disposes of it : 

cply 
Tripartit'on is due to Brahman alone. 

SUTRA 2. 4. 18. 

"Flesh and the rest are of an earthly nature, in acordance with the 
Scripturral text, and the other two as well". 

The text : "Food, when eaten, becomes divided into three parts" 
(Chand. 6. 5. 1.), does -not speak of tripartition, established above, but 
of an entirely different thing, viz. of the process of the transformation 
of the food etc. eaten by a person, included ( i. e. residing ) in the egg 
( viz. the universe ), Otherwise, the flesh and the mind, too, being finer 
than excreta, becomes of the nature of light ( or fire ) and water. In that 
case, the introductory text : about three-foldness, viz. "Food, when eaten, 
becomes divided into three parts" (Chand. 6. 5. 1.), as well as the earthly 
nature of the mind as established in the text : "For, my dear, the mind 
consists of food" (Chaud, 6. 5. 4.) come to be contradicted. In the same 
manner, the three-foldness of the other two also. viz. water and light 
( viz. fire ), will come to be contradicted. Hence, it has been said here : 
"Flesh and the rest are of an earthly nature, in accordance with the Scrip- 
tural text, and other two as well." I/ike the excreta, the flesh and the 
mind, too, are earthly in nature ; in the same manner, like the urine, the 
blood and the vital-breath are water in nature ; similarly, like the bone, 
the marrow and speech are fire in nature^ 1 ) 



(1) The point here, is whether the tripartition of the elements 
fire, water and earth is an excusive function of the Lord, or whether 
Brahma etc. too,' are capable of it. The Prima Facie view is that 
Brahma, too, is capable of it. For, Brahma creates the individual 
souls, and in Chand. 6. 5., a process of tripartition has been referred 
to with regard to the individual souls. That is, it is said here that 
food is tripartitioned into excreta, flesh and mind ; water into urine, 
blood and vital-breath ; fire into bone, marrow and speech. All these, 



Tripartition is due to Brahman alone 255 

Objection 

If it be objected : If the process of tripartition takes place before, then 
why has an object that really consists of all the three elements has been 
called 'food', 'water or 'fire' " (the Author) replies : 

SUTRA 2. 4. 19. 

"But on account of speciality, (there is) that designation, that 
designation." 

The designation of 'food' is due to the pre-ponderance of food. (*) 



viz. excreta etc., are parts of the individual soul. Hence, Brahma, 
the creator of the individual soul, is indeed capable of tripartition. 

The reply to this is as follows : (i) First, the Brahmanda 
( or the universe ) is created, then Brahma, then Jiva or the indivi- 
dual soul. Now, the universe itself is due to this process of triparti- 
tion. Hence, Brahma, who is created after the creation of the world, 
cannot be held responsible for that first tripartition, which was due 
to the Lord alone, (ii) As regards the later alleged tripartition of 
food etc. after the creation of the world, for which Brahma is held to 
be responsible the Author points out that this is not really a pro- 
cess of tripartition. Tripratition means that all the three elements 
are inter-mixed, so that each of the resulting effects partakes of the 
nature of each of the three original elements. In that case, flesh and 
mind must be of the nature water and fire too. But really, excreta, 
flesh and mind are only earthly in nature, but are not of the nature 
of water and fire. This is known from the introductory text : "Food, 
when eaten, becomes divided into three parts" (Chand. 6. 5. 1.). Here, we 
have the mention of food ( or earth ) only, and not of food or earth as 
inter-mixed with fire and water. This is also known from the closing 
text : 'Mind consits of food' (Chand. 6. 5. 4.). It is not said here 
that mind is also water and fire in nature. The same is the case with 
breath and speech that are only water and only fire in nature, respec- 
tively. So, here we have no process of tripartition, but only a process of 
the division of food only, water only, and fire only into three parts 
respectively. 

(1) After the process of tripartition, each of the three elements earth, 
water and fire contains the other two elements as well. So, how can we 
distinguish between these and designate them separately as 'earth', 
'water', 'fire' ? The reply is that although all the three elements are 
present in each. Yet they are not present in the same degree. In what 
we call 'earth' e.g., the element of earth preponderates over the other two, 
that is why it is called 'earth', and so on. 



256 Srlkantha-Bhasya 2. 4. 19. 

Hence, the view that the creation of all names and forms is due to the 
Supreme Lord who renders (the elements) tripartite and who creates these 
by a$suming the forms of the four-faced (Brahma) does indeed stand to 
reason. 



"Here ends the Section entitled 'The Making of Name and 
Form". (8). 



Here ends the Forth Quarter of the Second Chapter of the 
Commentary on the Brahma -Mimamsa, composed by the Salva Teacher 
Srikantha. 



Here ends the Second Chapter. 



(According to the Srikantha, the Fourth Quarter of the Second 
Chapter contains 19 Sutras and 8 Adhikaranas) 



THIRD CHAPTER ( Adhyaya ) 
First Quarter ( Pada ) 

Adhikarana 1 : The Section entitled "Obtaining what is Different 
from That" (Sutras 17). 

SUTRA 3. 1. 1. 

"In obtaining (a body) different from that, (the soul) hastens 
closely embraced, (this is known) from question and determination." 

In the previous Chapter, all (apparent) contradictions with regard to 
the unanimously agreed Doctrine of the Causality of Brahman, established 
in the First Chapter, have been removed. Thus, in the First Quarter, the 
contradictions pointed out by the Samkhyas etc. on the grounds of reason 
have been removed. In the Second, the contradictions involved in the 
Doctrine of Pradhana etc. on the grounds of reason, have been shown. In 
the Third, the (apparent) contradictions with regard to the creation of 
elements respectively have been first removed, and after that the attributes 
of the individual soul, viz. its eternity etc, have been demonstrated. In 
the Fourth, the nature of the vital-breath and the sense-organs, as well as 
their origin from Brahman have been shown, and after that the manifesta- 
tion of the names and forms of all have been demonstrated. 

Now, in the First Quarter of the Third Chapter, the going away and 
the coming back etc. of the individual soul, endowed with eternity and 
the like, are being demonstrated. In the Second, its (different) states are 
demonstrated, and then the essential characterising marks of the Lord are 
mentioned. In the Third, (it is shown that) that the peculiar features or 
details mentioned in connection with particular meditations on Him are to 
be combined together. In the Fourth, the religious duties (Dharma) 
incumbent on the (different) stages of life etc. (are discussed). Such is 
the distinction (among the Four Quarters). 

Objection 

Now, in the First Section, the doubt is as to whether when 
the individual soul first goes away and then comes back for assuming 
another body, it goes as surrounded by the subtle elements, or not 
so surrounded. If it be pointed out ; It is said that the individual 
soul, having come out of the body, goes away as not embraced by the 
subtle elements which are the seeds of its future body. The elements 
33 



2S8 SrlkairtHa-Bhasya 3. 1. 1. 

being easily available everywhere, no special effort is necevSsai y (for getting 
them) 

Reply 
The Individual Soul goes as surrounded by the Subtle Elements. 

We reply : For obtaining another body, away the individual soul 
goes as embraced by the subtle elements. This is known from the 
question and answer contained in the 'Knowledge of Five Fires'^ 1 ). How ? 
The question is : "Do you know how in the fifth oblation water comes 
to have the speech of a man" ? (Chand. 5. 3. 3.). The answer given is : 
"In the fifth oblation, water comes to have the speech of a man' " (Chand. 
5. 9. 1.). 

This means as follows : When the soul that resides in the body 
of a Brahmin etc, having performed actions like oblations, charity 
etc., conies out of that body for experiencing the results thereof, it 
is closely embraced by the subtle waters, present inside that body and 
connected with other subtle elements. Then it attains to Heaven, 
defined to be a fire. Then, as closely embraced by those very waters, trans- 
formed into the form of an immortal body, it attains to the state of 
Divinity, and undergoes particular kinds of enjoyments there with them 
(viz. the gods). After that, for performing Karmas by returning again 
to this world together with the remaining works that have not been 
experienced and that lead it to have the body of a Brahman etc., it, as 
closely embraced by those very (waters), attains to the cloud, defined to 
be a fire. Then, together with the showers of rain, it attains to the earth, 
defined to be a fire, and through crops like rice etc., becomes transformed 
into the form of food. After that, it attains to a man, defined to be a 
fire, and being closely embraced by those very waters and transformed 
into the form of semen, it (finally) attains to a woman, defined to be a 
fire, and assumes a body there, and being closely embraced by the 
waters that can be called a 'person', it is born again as possessing the 
body of Brahmin etc., in accordance with its Karmas ( a ). All these will 

(1) Paftcagui-Vidya. Vide Chand. 5. 3, 5. 10. 

(2) Cf. Paiicagni-Vidya or the Doctrine of Five Fires. Chand. 5. 3. 
5. 10. Here, Pravahana Jaibali asks Svetaketu Arui?eya five questions, 
viz. (i) Where do creatures go forth hence ? (ii) How do they return ? 
(iii) What are the Path of gods and Path of Fathers ? (iv) Why is the 
Yonder World not filled up ? (v) How in the fifth oblation does water 
come to have the speech of a man ? As both Svetaketu and his father 
(who came to see the King later on) failed to answer these questions, the 
King himself undertook to instruct them thus : First, the yonder world 
is a sacrificial fire. To this fire, the gods offer Reverence (6raddha). 



The Individual Soul goes as surrounded by the Subtle Elements 259 

be explained in deails later on^). Hence, a person attains another body 
as, indeed, surrounded by the subtle elements. 

SUTRA 3. 1. 2. 

"But on account of (water) consisting of three (elements), (only 
water has been mentioned here), on account of preponderance". 

As everything consists of three elements on account of tripar- 
tiou,( 8 ) the word 'water' here denotes water connected with other 
elements, it being the preponderant clement. Hence in the text : "In the 
fifth oblation, water conies to have the .speech of a man" (Chand. 5. 9. 1.), 
the use of the word 'water' only, doe? not involves any self-contradiction. ( 8 ) 

SUTRA 3. 1.3. 

"And on account of the going of the sense-organs." 
On account of the going of the sense-organs together with the 
individual soul, as declared by the Scriptural text : "The vital-breath 
going out, all the sense-organs go out after it" (Brh. 4. 4. 2.), the going 
of the body, too, as their substrum, is proved. For this reason, too, 
( the soul ) goes as endowed with the body, consisting of the subtle 
elements. 

Apprehending an objection, (the Author) disposes of it thus : 
SUTRA 3. 1. 4. 

"If it be objected : On account of the Scriptural mention of the 
going (of speech and the rest) to fire and the rest, (we reply :) No, on 
account of metaphorical nature." 

From this arises King Soma. Secondly, the cloud is a sacrificial fire. 
To this fire, the gods offer King Soma. From this arises Rain. Thirdly, 
the earth is a sacrificial fire. To this fire, the gods offer Rain. From 
this arises Food. Fourthly, man is a sacrificial fire. To this fire, the 
gods offer Food. From this arises Semen. Fifthly, woman is a sacri- 
ficial fire. To this fire, the gods offer Semen. From this arises the Fetus. 
Thus, in the fifth oblation water comes to have the speech of a man i. e. 
assumens a human form. See Br. Su. 4. 2, Cf. Brh. 6. 2. 9. 13 for a 
similar Pancagni-Vidyfi 

(1) Br. Su. 4. 2. 

(2) Cf. Chand. 6. 3. 3. See Br. Su. 2. 4. 1719. 

(3) Here there is the mention of 'water' only. But that does not 
mean that the soul goes embraced by water only, and not by other 
elements. In fact, here 'water' stands for all other elements, as water 
itself contains all of these. Here, only water has been mentioned because 
water is the preponderrating element in the human body. 



260 6rika$tfia-Bhasya 3. 1. 6. 

Objection 

If it be objected : In the Scriptural text : "When the speech of 
this dead man goes to the fire, his breath to the air, his eyes to the sun" 
(Brh. 3. 2. 13.), it is declared that the sense-organs go into the fire and 
the rest. Hence, the sense-organs cannot go with the soul. 

Reply 

The sense-organs accompany the Soul 

( We reply I ) "No", For, the words 'speech' etc., metaphorically imply 
the presiding deities of speech etc. This is known from the fact that ( the 
above text ) is cited together with the text : "His body-hairs ( go into ) the 
medicinal herb ; his hairs on the head, to the trees" (Brh. 3. 12. 13.), 
and body-hairs etc. never go to ( medicinal herbs etc. ) 

SUTRA 3. 1. 5. 

"If it be objected : On account of non-mention in the first, (we 
reply :) No, for they alone, on account of fitting in." 

Objection 

If it be objected : As "in the first/' i.e. in the fire of the Heaven- 
world, there is no mention of water, so water does not go ( with the soul ). 
In the text : "In this fire, the gods offer Reverence," (Chand. 5. 4. 2.), only 
Reverence ( Sraddha ) has been mentioned 

Reply 
Water accompanies the Soul 

( We reply : ) "No", Water alone is denoted by the word 'Reverence' 
here. Why ? Because, as the question was about water, the answer 
fits in ( only if it, too, refers to the very same water ).(*) Further, the 
word 'Reverence' is applied to water, in accordance with the Scriptural 
text : "Reverence, verily, is water" (Tait. Sam. 1. 6. 8. 1.). 

Apprehending another objection, (the Author) disposes of it thus : 
SUTRA 3. 1. 6. 

"If it be objected that on account of not being mentioned, (we 
reply :) No, on account of those who perform sacrifices and the rest 
being known*" 

fl) In Chand. 5. 3. 3., the question is asked : 'Do you know how 
in the fifth oblation water comes to have the speech of a man ?' And, 
the aswer is given in Chand. 5 4. 10. So in Chand. 5. 4. 2., the word 
'Reverence' must stand for 'water', otherwise there will be a question 
regarding one thing ( viz. water ), while an answer regarding a different 
thing ( viz. Reverence ), which is absurd. 



The Soul goes forth to Heaven 261 

Objection 

If it be objected that here in the question as well as in the answer, 
only water is found mentioned and not the soul closely embraced by it. 

Reply 
The Soul goes forth to Heaven 

( We reply : ) "iVo". For, in the subsequent text : "But those who 
in the village worship through sacrifices, charitable deeds and alms- 
ging they pass into the smoke ; from the ?moke, into the night ; from 
the night, into the latter half of the month ; from the latter half of the 
month, into the six months of the sun's southern progress these do not 
reach the year ; from these months into the world of the Fathers ; 
from the world of the Fathers, into the ether ; from the ether, 
into the moon ; That is King Soma. That is the food of the 
gods. The gods eat that. After having remained in it as long- 
as there is a residue ( of their meritorious works ), then by that 
Path by which they came, they return again, just as they came, into 
the ether ; from the ether, into air, after having become air, he becomes 
smoke. After having become smoke, he becomes mist. After having 
become mist, he becomes cloud. After having become cloud, he rains 
down. They are born here as rice and barley, as herbs and trees, as 
sesame plants and beans. Thence, verily, it is indeed difficult to emerge ; 
for, only if some one eats him as food and emits him as semen, is he 
born again" (Chand. 5. 10. 36), there is the mention of those who per- 
form sacrifices etc., who, after having enjoyed the fruits of their meri- 
torious deeds, as possessing immortal bodies, designated by the word 
'King Soma', and after the cessation of their meritorious deeds, come back 
here again and enter embryos. And, in the text : "In this fire, the 
gods offer Reverence. From that oblation arises Soma, the King," (Chand. 
5. 4. 2.), by the words 'King' and 'Soma' those very persons are referred to. 
Hence, it is established that in the question as well as in the answer, 
'water' means the individual soul, closely embraced by water and possess- 
ing it as its body. 

SUTRA 3. 1. 7. 

"Or, (that designation is) metaphorical, on account of being not 
acquainted with the soul, for this (Scripture) shows.' 

Objection 

If it be objected : In the text : "That is King Soma. That is the 
food of the gods. The gods eat that' 5 (Chand. 5.10.3.), it is said that 
one who has become King Soma is himself the food of the gods, and so, 
this cannot be the individual soul 



262 6rikantha-Bhasya 3. 1. 8. 

Reply 

(We reply :) The statement that (the souls) are the food of (gods) is 
only a metaphorical cue, the sense being that (these pious workers) "being 
unacquainted with the soul 1 ', are but implements of the enjoyment of the 
gods. Thus, the Scriptural text : "He is like a beast of the gods" (Brh. 
1.4.10.) "shows" that those who are unacquainted with the Soul are, like 
beasts, but the implements of the enjoyment of the gods. From this, it 
follows that just as those who know the Soul, are the implements of the 
Great Lord, so those who do not know the Soul, are the implements of the 
gods. Hence it is established on all grounds that when obtaining another 
body, the soul goes as closely embraced by the subtle elements. 

Hear ends the Section entit'ed "Obtaining what is Different 
that (1\ 



Adhikarana 2 : The Section entitled 'The Passing away of 
Works' (Sutras 8 11). 

SUTRAS. 1. 8. 

"On the passing away of works, (the soul re-descends as) possessed 
of the remnants of results, on account of what is seen (i. e. Scripture) 
and Smrti, as (it) had come and not thus." 

It has been established above that the individual soul, possessing a 
body consisting of the subtle elements, goes to Heaven etc., and there 
assuming the form of gods enjoys the fruits of its own Karmas. Now, the 
doubt it as to whether after enjoying those fruits, the soul re-descends to 
this world as accompanied by the remnants of the results of its works, or 
after having undergone all the results of its works, without a remant. 

Prima Facie View 

It is reasonable to hold that when a person re-descends to this world 
from Heaven, he is not accompanied by any remnants of the results of his 
works. The word "Anusaya" means something that lies in the soul, viz. 
the remnants of the results of its works. It is not possible that one who 
is descending fr.om Heaven can have such remnants clinging to him, as the 
fruits of such remnants have already been enjoyed there. The Scriptural 
text : "Having dwelt there as long as there is a remnant (of their good 
works) (Sampata), then they return again by the way they came" (Chand. 
5.10.5.) refers to this. Here tbe word 'Sampata' means a multitude of 
of works. The text : "Having dwelt there as long as there is 'Sampata 3 
(Chand. 5.13.5.), means that (the soul lives there) only so long as its works 



The Soul re-descends with a remnant of its Karmas 263 

last. Hence, after having experienced the results of works without a 
remnant, the soul descends from Heaven as completely devoid of all 
Karmas. This is the Prirna Facie view. 

Correct Conclusion 
The soul re decends with a remnant of its Karmas. 

But the Correct Conclusion is that when the soul, on the 
cessation of its meritorious deeds, re-descends to this world from 
Heaven, it comes as possessing the remnants of its own works. How is 
this known ? From Scripture and Smrti themselves. The Scriptural text 
is as follows : "Then those who are of a pleasant conduct here, the 
the prospect is indeed that they will attain a pleasant birth, the birth of 
a Brahmana, or the birth of a Ksatriya, or the birth of a Vaisj'a. Now, 
those who 1 are of a stinking conduct here, the prospect is, indeed, 
that they will attain a stinking birth, the birth of a dog, or the birth of 
a pig, or the birth of a Candala" (Chand. 5. 10. 7. ). The Smrti passage 
begins thus : "They are born through good works" and so on. Other- 
wise, a new-born child, having no merit and demerit, cannot experience 
pleasure and pain. Hence, ( the soul ) "posse reed of the remnants of the 
results", goes "as ( it ) had come and not thus". As the descending soul 
passes through the ether, the way of descent is like that of ascent ; but 
as it passes through the air and does not pass through the world of 
Fathers, it returns by another way a? well. ( ] ) this is the sense* 

Apprehending another objection, ( the Author ) disposes of it by the 
view of another ( sage ) thus : 

SUTRA 3. 1. 9. 

"If it be objected : On account of conduct, ( we reply : ) No, ( the 
text is ) meant for connoting that ( viz. work ) metaphorically, so 
Karsnajini thinks." 

If it be objected that in the texts : "Those who are of a pleasant 
conduct", ( "Ramanrya-caranfi" ) "Those who are of a stinking conduct", 

(1) The order of ascent is : Smoke, Night, Dark Fortnight, Six 
Months of the Northern progress of the Sun, World of Fathers, Ether and 
Moon. But the order of descent is : Moon, Ether, Air, Smoke, Mist, 
Cloud and Rain. ( Vide Chand. 5. 10. 36. ). That is, the order of 
descent is partly similar ( "Yathetam" ) to that of ascent, and partly 
dissimilar ( "anevam" ) to it. The two journeys are similar, as in both 
cases the soul passes through Moon, Ether and Smoke ; but different, as 
the descending soul passes through Air and does not pass through World 
of Fathers. Compare also Brh. 6. 2. 16. containing an exactly similar 
account. 



264 ^rlkai^ha-Bhasya 3. 1. 11. 

( "Kapuya-carana" ) ( Chand. 5. 10. 7. ) the word 'Caraiia' ( conduct ) does 
not imply the remnant of the results of works, as the word 'Carana' here 
means the conduct of those who are versed in the Smrtis 

Reply 
Car ana here means remants of work. 

( We reply : )"No". The above Scriptural text regarding 'Carana' 
( Chand. 5. 10. 7. ) is "n eant for connoting' 1 the remnant of the results of 
works, as this alone can bring about pleasure etc. 

SUTRA 3. 1. 10. 

"If it be objected that ( tbere is ) futility, ( we reply : ) No, because 
of the dependence of that. " 

Objection 

It it be objected : If that be so, then the conduct of those who are 
versed in the Smrtis being useless, will become futile 

Reply 
Smrti Injunctions are not meaningless. 

( We reply : ) "No", for, all good works depend on that, in accor- 
dance with the text : "He who does not perform the Sandhya-prayers 
and is impure, is for ever unfit for all works. He does not experience 
the results of any other work that he may do." f 1 ) This is the view of 
"Karsftajini." 

SUTRA 3. 1. 11. 

"But ( the word 'Carana' means ) nothing but good and bad works, 
so Badari ( thinks )." 

"But Badari" holds that in the texts : "Those who are of a pleasant 
conduct", "Those who are of a stinking conduct", by the word 'Carana' 
( conduct ) good and bad works are denoted, in accordance with the state- 
ments. "He performs ( Acarati ) good deeds and so on. This alone is the 
view of the Author of the Aphorisms. As Badari 's view is that the word 
'Carana' means good and bad works directly and literally, and not 
indirectly and metaphorically, so it is also admitted that works depend 
on the conduct of those who are versed in the Smytis. Hence, it is 
established that the soul re-descends from Heaven as possessing the 
remnants of the results of its good and bad works. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Passing away of Works" (2). 

(I) That is, all his good works become futile. 



Adhikarana 3 : The Section entitled, "Those who do not perform 
sacrifices, and the rest" ( Sutras 1221 ). 

SUTRA. 3. 1. 12. 

"And ( the ascent ) of even those who do not perform sacrifices and 
the rest is declared by Scripture." 

Here the doubt is as to whether others also go to the moou, just 
like those who perform sacrifices, works of public utility and so on. 

Prima Facie View 

( Here the Prima Facie view is as follows : ). Those who do not perform 
sacrifices and works of public utility, too, do indeed go to the moon, 
as the Scriptural text : ''Whoever, verily, depart from this world they 
all go to the region of the moon" (Kaus. 1.2.), mentions that all go to the 
moon, without distinction. Although sinful men cannot enjoy anything 
there, yet they have to go to Heaven in order that they may become subject 
to the fifth oblation (*) for coming back and assuming (new) bodies. Heiice 
it is reasonable to hold that even those who do not perform sacrifices and 
works of public utility etc. go to Moon. 

To this, We reply : 

Correct conclution (Sutras 13 21). 

The Sinners go to Hell 

SUTRA 3. 1. 13. 

"But (there are) ascent and descent on the part of others, after 
having experienced (the consequences of their evil deeds) in the abode 
of Yama, their going being declared/' 

Those who do not perform sacrifices and works of public utility etc. 
do not go to Moon ; but having experienced the results of their works in 
the abode of Yama, they re-descend. Their "ascent and descent" are of 
such a kind, "their going being declared" by the Scriptural text : "The 
son of Vivasvat, the meeting-place of all men" (Rg. V. 14.14.1.). The 
going to Heaven is for the purpose of enjoyment and not for being 
subject to the fifth oblation, as exceptions are found in the case of Drona 
and others in whose case there was no offering (of semen) to women. 
Hence, it stands to reason that sinners should attain the world of Yama. 

SUTRA 3. 1. 14. 

"And Smrti texts declare.' 7 

"And" Srnrti texts like : ''And all these, verily, come under the 
sway of Yama, reverend Sir !" (V. P. 3.7.5.) "declare" the same thing. 

(1) See above Su. 3.1,1. 
34 



266 Srikaitfiia-Bhasya 8. 1. 19. 

SUTRA 3. 1. 15. 
"Moreover seven." 

Smrti texts declare also that the sinners go to seven Hells beginning 
with the Raurava. 

SUTRA 3. 1. 16. 

"On account of his activity even there, (there is) no contradiction 

As "even there", i. e. even in the Hells presided over by Citragupta 
and others the presiding "activity" of Yama, their Commander, is 'present, 
(such souls, are under the control of Yama, and so there is "no contradic- 
tion' 1 here. 

SUTRA 3. 1. 17. 

"But (the Paths) of knowledge and work thus, on account being 
the subjects of discussion." 

Going to Brahman and to Moon (Heaven) are respectively meant for 
enjoying the fruits of knowledge and works. Why ? For, in the Scriptural 
texts : "So those who know this, and those who in the forest worship 
through faith and austerity, pass into light." (Chand. 5.10.1.), "Now, 
those who in the village worship through sacrifices, works of public 
utility and alms-giving, pass into the smoke" (Chand. 5.10.3.), only 
knowledge and work, leading to Brahman and Moon (Heaven) respectively, 
are referred to as the subjects of discussion. Hence, the sinners do not go 
there. 

SUTRA 3. 1. 18. 

"(There is) no (need of the fifth obletion) in the third place, because 
of observation thus/' 

In the case of sinners, there is no need for them to go to the Heaven- 
World for getting bodies that depend on the fifth oblation. For, in the 
following Scriptural text it is found that they do not go to the Heaven- 
World. Compare the text : "But through neither of these ways are 
born the small, continually returning creatures, (those of whom it is said :) 
'Be born and die' theirs is a third place. That is why, the yonder 
world is not filled up" (Chand. 5.10.8.). It is said here that 'the third 
place' belongs to the sinners. Hence, the sinners do not go to Heaven. 

SUTRA 3. 1. 19. 
"And moreover (this is) declared by Smrti in ordinary life." 

It is declared by Smrti that "in ordinary life", the bodies of even 
pious workers, like Draupadi (*) and the rest originated independently of 
the fifth oblation. 



(1) Draupadi was born from the centre of a sacrificial alter, and not 
from the fifth oblation or the ordinary union between the sexes. See 
Mahabharata 1.6398.) 



The Descent of the Soul 26^ 

SUTRA 3. 1. 20. 
"And on account of observation." 

Moreover, there is a Scriptural text to this effect. Compare the 
text : "Now, of these beings, there are three origins : ''those) born of eggs, 
born of living beings, born of plants" (Chand. 6.3.1 A Of these, it is found 
that those born of moisture and plants do not require this (viz. the fifth 
oblation). 

If it be objected that in the above Scriptural text : "Born of eggs, 
born of living beings, born of plants" (Chaiid. 6.3.1.), there is no mention 
of those born of moisture, (the Author) replies : 

SUTRA 3. 1. 21. 
"(There is) inclusion of the moisture-born by the third term." 

By the third term : "plant-born", the moisture-born, too, are 
included, Hence, it is established that the sinners do not go to Heaven, 

Here ends the Section entitled "Those who do not perform 
Sacrifices and the rest" (3). 



Adhikarana 4 : The Section entitled "Attaining the Nature of 
That" (Sutra 22). 

SUTRA. 3. 1. 22. 
"(There is) attaning the nature of that, on account of fitting in/' 

It has been established above that the individual soul, after 
having experienced the results (of its Karmas), re-descends from Heaven 
as accompanied by the remnants of the results thereof. It is declared 
by Scripture that such a re-descending soul assumes the form of the 
ether and the rest. Compare the Scriptural text : "Then, by the very Path 
they came, they return again, just as they came to the ether ; from the 
ether, to the air. After having become the air, he becomes smoke ; after 
having become smoke, he becomes mist ; after having become mist, he 
becomes cloud ; after having become cloud, he rains down" (Chand. 5. 10. 
5 6.). Here, the doubt is as to whether the individual soul actually 
becomes the ether and rest, or only becomes similar to them. 

Objection 

If it be said that on account of the words : "After having become", 
the soul does actually become the ether and the rest 



nkai?ttta-Bhasya 3. 1. 23. 

Reply 
The descending soul becomes similar to the ether and the like. 

( We reply : ) The descending souls do not actually become the 
ether and the rest, but only become similar to them, as ( then ) it does 
not actually experience pleasure and pain. The fact is that, connection 
with different bodies is meant for experiencing these ( viz. pleasure and 
pain ).(>) 

Hence, it is established that the descending soul becomes" similar 
to them-r-that alone "fits in". 

Here ends the Section entitled "Attaining the Nature of That" (4). 



Adhikaraija 5 : The Section entitled "In a Not very Long time' 1 
(Sutra. 23.) 

SUTRA 3. 1. 23. 

"In a not very long time, on account of specification." 

Here the doubt is : Is there no fixed rule that the descending soul 
may delay or may not do so ; or, (is there a fixed rule that ) it never 
delays ? 

Objection 

If it be said : In the Scriptural text : "They are born here as 
rice and barley, as herbs and trees, as sesame plants and beans" (Chand. 
5. 10. 6.), it is said that after having been poured down as rain, ( the 
souls ) become rice and the rest. There is no fixed rule regarding delay 
or non-delay during their states of the ether and the like, preceding their 
states of rice, barley and the rest. 

Rep!y 
The Soul does not delay in the ether etc. 

( We reply : ) The soul does not stay for long in the ether and the 
test which it attains prior to attaining rice etc. Why ? In the text : 
"Thence, verily, it is difficult to escape" (Chand. 5. 10. 6.), it is declared 
that the escape from the states of rice etc., subsequent to those of the 

(1) i.e. such an experiencing of pleasures -and pain is not present 
when the soul passes to the ether etc. So, then, it becomes only similar to 
them and has no real connection with them. But when it becomes the 
moon, or a man etc., it actually experiences pleasures and pains. So, in 
these cases, it does actually become a god or a man etc, :. i 



The Soul is only connected with rice etc. 2fi 

ether etc., is indeed very difficult. Hence, the soul stays for a long time 
in the rice etc., but for a short time only in other things this being 
known ( from the above passage ), the soul does not delay in the either 
and the rest^ 1 ) 

Here ends the Section entitled ''In Not a very Long time' (5). 



Adhikarana 6 : The Section entitled "Occupied by others" (Sutras 

2427). 

SUTRA 3. 1. 24. 

"In ( rice and the rest ) occupied by others, on account of statement 
as in the previous cases." 

Objection 

On the doubt as to whether the soul comes to be only connected 
with rice and the rest, or is actually born as these if it be urged that 
on account of the Scriptural text "They are born as rice and barley" 
(Chand 5. 10. 6.) and so on, it is born as rice etc. 

Reply 
The Soul is connected with rice etc. 

We reply : The soul is only connected with rice etc., already 
occupied by other souls. As in the case of the ether aud the rest, so here 
too, there is no statement regarding the cause of the birth of the 
descending soul. So, the Scriptural text : "They are born" etc. (Chand. 
5. 10. 6. ) is only a metaphorical one. Where actual births as Brahmins 
etc. take place there the causes of such births, too, are definitely men- 
tioned, as in the texts : "Those who are of a pleasant conduct", ' Those 
who are of a stinking conduct" etc. ( Chand. 5. 10. 7. ). Hence, it is 
established that as there is a definite statement only regarding the birth 
(of the soul) as a Brahmin etc., so in other cases ( viz. in the case of 
the ether etc. as well as in that of rice etc. ), ( the soul ) comes to have 
only a connection with them ( and is not actually born as them (*) 

(1) The descending soul passes through the ether etc., and is then 
born as rice, barley etc. Now, it is definitely said here that emergence 
from the rice etc. is very difficult for the soul. This, specific statement 
implies that the soul's emergence from the ether etc. is not so very 
difficult, and so it stays in the ether etc. only for a short time. But as its 
emergence from the rice etc. is much more difficult, it abides in rice etc* 
for a much -longer time. - ... 

(2) The descending soul passes through the ether, air, etc., and 



27<* 6nkagtfca-Bhasya 3. 1. 25. 

SUTRA 3, 1. 25. 

' 'If it be objected that ( sacrifices and tbe rest ) are impure, ( we 
reply : ) No, on account of Scriptural text." 

Objection 

If it be objected that of the sacrifices performed by the descending 
person, Agnisoma and the like are "impure", involving as they do, 
injury ( to living beings, i. e. sacrificing animals to the gods ). Hence, 
for experiencing the results of such impure acts, ( the descending soul ) 
is actually born as rice and the rest. 

Reply 
Religious Sacrifices etc. are not impure. 

( We reply : ) "A'o". The Scriptural texts : "( The sacrificed animal ) 
having attained a golden body, goes upward and attains the Heaven- 
world", "Thou does not die, thou art not hurt, thou goest to the gods 
through easy paths. Where men of good deeds go and not evil-doers, 
there may the sun -god lead thee" ( Tait. Br. 3. 7. 7. 14. ), prove that 

then is said to be born as rice, barley etc. Now, here the question is 
whether it actually becomes the ether etc., and rice etc. In the case of 
the ether etc., ( ether, air, smoke, mist, cloud and rain ) the word 'born' 
is not used, and from that we may conclude at once that the soul is not 
actually born as the ether etc,, or does not actually become the ether etc. 
but simply passes through them, and is, as such, only connected with 
them for a short time ( see above Su. 3. 1. 23. ). But in the case of the 
rice etc. ( rice, barley, herb, tree, seasamum and beau ), it is said that 
it is born as rice etc. So, it may be thought here that although the 
soul is not born as the ether etc., it is actually born as rice etc. But 
that is wrong. Here, too, the soul is not actually born as rice etc., 
does not actually become these, but only passes through them and is, 
as such, only connected with them for a longer time. ( See above 
Su. 3. 1. 23. ). The reason for this is that Karmas alone cause birth, 
but here the descending soul has no Karmas which can lead it to be 
born as rice etc. its Karmas lead it to enter a human body and be born 
as a human being only. If it is not fit for such a birth, it never passes 
through the ether etc., and rice etc., so that the question does not arise 
at all then, Such a soul does not go to the Moon at all and does not 
return from the Moon through the ether etc., and the rice etc, ( See 
above Su. 3. 1. 21. ). But when the soul does go to the Moon and returns 
therefrom, it must only pass through the ether etc., and rice etc., and 
finally be actually born as a human being only. So, prior to that, it can 
be born neither as the ether etc. nor as rice etc., but only passes through 
all these. - - - 



The Descent of the Soul 271 

killing animals is not really killing. Hence, ( the descending sonl ) is 
not born as rice etc. 

The Author states another reason : 

SUTRA 3. 1. 26. 

"After that ( there is ) connection with one wl>o performs the act 
of generation." 

After that, in the text : "For whoever eats food and performs the 
act of generation, that he ( viz. the descending soul ) becomes again" 
( ChSud. 5. 10. 6. ), it is said that it ( viz. the descending soul ) comes to 
be only connected with one who performs the act of generation. So, in 
the prior cases of rice etc. as well, it is only connected with them. 

SUTRA 3. 1. 27. 
"From the womb, the body." 

When ic( viz. the descending soul) enters the womb, then alone 
it comes to have a body. The sense is that, therefore, in all the pre- 
vious cases ( from the ether to the man ), the soul is only connected with 
these. 



Here ends the Section entitled "Occupied by Another". (6). 



Here ends the First Quarter of the Third Chapter of the 
Commentary on the Brahma-Mimamsa, composed by the Sa va Teacher 
Srikantha. 



( According to 6rikantha, the First Quarter of the Third Chapter 
contains 27 Siitras and 6 Adhikaranas. ) 



THIRD CHAPTER ( Adhyaya ) 
Second Quatter ( Pada ) 

Adhikarana 1 : The Section entitled "The Intermediate Place 
(Sutras 16). 

I- rima Facie View ( Sutras 12 ) 

SUTRA 3. 2. 1. 

"In the intermediate place, the creation (is due to the individual 
soul ) because ( Sripture ) declare? this." 

Previously, the going and returning of the soul have been deter- 
mined. Here, its states are being discussed. The Scriptural text : 
"There are no chariots there, no teams, no roads ; then he creates chariots, 
teams and roads". (Brh. 5. 3. 10.) refers to the creation that takes place 
"in the intermediate plac :" i. e. during dreams. The doubt is as to 
whether such a creation is due to the the individual soul, or to the 
Supreme Lord. With regard to this, ( the Prima facie view is as follow : ). 

Prim a Facie View 

This is known to be due to the individual soul, "because" the 
Scriptural text : Then, he creates tanks, lotus-pools, streams. For he is a 
creator" (Brh. 4. 3. 10.) "declares" that the dreaming soul is a creator. 

Prima Facie View ( concluded ) 

SUTRA 3. 2. 2. 
"And sonr.e ( designate ) the maker, and sons anJ the rest." 

In the text : "He who is awake in those that are asleep, the person 
fashioning desire after desire'" (Ka^ha. 5. 8.), the followers of "some" 
branches -speak of none but the individual soul itself as the creator of the 
objects of desires during dreams. Here, the word 'desire' means the objects 
of desire like "sons and the rest", as designated previously in the text : 
'Ask for all objects of desire (Kama) just as you wish" (Katha. 1.25.), 
'Choose sons and grand-sons living a hundred years" (Katha. 1. 23.). 

To this, we reply : 

Correct Conclusion ( Sutras 36 ) 
SUTRA 3. 2. 3. 

"But ( the dream-creation is ) mere -Maya, ( the individual soul ia 
iot the creator of dream -objects ) on account of not having its own 
attributes ) fully manifested in nature/' 



The State of Bondage < $7$ 

The objects, like chariots etc., that are created during dreams are 
"mere Maya", and created by the Lord, not by the individual soul. They 
are said to be "mere Maya'' because they are something wonderful as 
being experienced by the dreamer alone and existing only during that 
period. ( During its state of bondage, the attributes ) of the soul, like 
'having true desires'( l ) and the rest remain concealed, and so, it is not 
possible for it to have the power for creating chariot and the like. Hence 
the text : "The person fashioning desire after desire" (Katha. 5 8.) does 
not refer to the individual soul. But it refers to the Supreme Lord in 
accordance with the concluding portion of the text : "That indeed is the 
Pure, that is Brahman, that indeed is called the Immortal. On it, all 
worlds do rest, and no one can ever go beyond it" (Katha. 5. 8.). Hence, 
in order that there may be unanimity of meaning ( among different texts ), 
the text : "He is the creator" (Brh. 4. 3. 10.), too refers to Him alone 
( viz. the Supreme Lord ). Hence, the dream-creation is due to the 
Supreme Lord. 

(The Author) states the reason for the non-manifestation of the real 
nature of the individual soul (during its state of bondage) : 

SUTRA 3. 2. 4. 

'But through the wish of the Highest ( the real attributes of the 
eoul remain ) hidden, for from that its bondage and its reverse ( viz. 
salvation ) ( result )'' 

Because of its beginningless flow of sins, (the real attributes of the 
soul), like 'having true desires' and the rest, remain concealed "through 
the wish of the Highest' i. e. the Lord. 

As these sins continue (during the soul's dream-state no less, it 
cannot create dream-objects at will then). ( a ) From that very wish of the 
Highest Lord result its Bondage and Salvation. There is a Scriptural 
text to this effect : "For, truly, when he finds fearlessness as a foundation 
in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined and unsupported, then he 
is gone to fearlessness. When, however, he makes the smallest distinction 
therein, then he comes to have fear. (Tait. 2.7.)'. 

SUTRA 3. 2. 5. 
"Or, that (results) also from the connection with the body." 

The obscuration of the real nature of the soul takes place during 
the time of creation through its connection with (gross) matter, viz. with 
the body of a god, a man etc. During dissolution, again, (such an obscura- 
tion) is due to its connection with subtle matter, devoid of all distinctions 

(1) i. e. desires that are at once fulfilled. 

(2) Cf. 6MD. 
35 



274 r!kastfca-Bhasya 3. 2. 7. 

of names and forms. Thus, during dreams, the soul having its (real attri- 
butes), like 'having true desires' and the like concealed, cannot possibly 
have the power of creating the variegated objects present then. 

(The Author) states another justification (for the above conclu- 
sion) : 

SUTRA 3. 2. 6. 

"And because (a dream is) indicative (of future good or evil), in 
accordance with Scriptural text, and those who are versed in that 
declare (this)." 

In accordance with the Scriptural texts : "When during works, 
undertaken for fulfilling definite ends, a man sees a woman in his dreams, 
let him there conceive ol success in that dream-vision" (Chand. 5.2.9.), 
"Now, when a man sees a black person with black teeth in his dreams, he 
(i. e. the black person) kills him (i. e. the dreamer)" (Ait. Ar. 3.2.4.), a 
dream is "indicative" of good or evil. Further, those who are versed in 
dream-lores, declare that particular dreams are indicative of good and evil. 
Hence, the dream- objects are not created by the individual soul, for, then, 
the objects that are indicative of evil, would have never been created by it. 
Hence it stands to reason that the dream-creation is due to the Supreme 
Lord. 

Here ends the Section entitled 'The Intermediate Place" (1). 



Adhikarana 2 : The Section entitled 'The Absence of That" 
(Sutras 78). 

SUTRA 3. 2. 7. 

"I he absence of that (takes place) in the veins and in the soul, 
because of the Scriptural text to that effect." 

The absence of dreams is called 'Susupti' or the state of deep 
dreamless sleep. From the Scriptural texts : "Then when he is sound 
asleep, composed, placid, he knows no dream ; then he comes to fall 
asleep in these veins" (Chand. 8.6.3.), "Now, when he conies to fall into 
a profound sleep, then he does not know anything whatsoever, then there 
are seventy-two thousand veins called 'Hita' which lead from the heart to 
the pericardium having crept out through them, he lies in the 
pericardium" (Bfh, 3.19.1.), "When this person sleeps, as we say, then my 
dear ! he comes to be united with the Existent" (Chand. 6.8.1.) it is known 
that during deep dreamless sleep, the soul sleeps (respectively) in the 



The Soul sleeps in three Places !J75 

veins, in the perecardium and in Brahman. Here the doubt is as to 
whether the soul sleeps in any one of these separately, or in all of them 
conjointly. 

Prima Facie Vievr. 

The Prima Facie view is as follows : It is reasonable to hold that the 
soul sleeps in any one of these places, like the veins and the rest, separately, 
as there is only one purpose to be served (by them i. e. affording a place for 
sleep). Just as in the injunctions, "One should perform sacrifices with 
rice", "One should perform sacrifices with barley", there being only one 
purpose to be served vi2. the making of sacrificial cakes, it is admitted 
that any one of these two (viz. rice and barley) can be taken separately, so 
here, too, there being only one purpose to be served, viz. (affording a place 
for) deep dreamless sleep, it is but reasonable to hold that any one of theee 
can be taken separately and that the soul sometimes sleeps in the pericar- 
dium, sometimes in the veins, sometimes in Brahman. 

Correct Conclusion. 
The soul sleeps in three places conjointly. 

The Correct Conclusion is that ( the soul sleeps in all these three 
places ) conjointly. Why ? Because the purpose to be served here is 
not the same. Thus, the veins serve as the way through which the soul 
can go to Brahman, residing in its own heart. As in the case ( of a 
man sleeping both in ) a palace and on a bedstead, so here too, no con- 
tradiction is involved in the fact that the soul sleeps in both the peri- 
cardium and Brahman. (') Thus, gliding through the veins, the soul 
sleeps in the pericardium and in Brahman. In this way, there being 
a difference of purpose here, ( veins, pericardium and Brahman all 
three constitute the place of deep sleep ) conjointly. (*) 



(1) When it is said that a man sleeps in a palace as well as on a 
bed-stead, no contradiction is involved as the bed-stead is inside the 
palace, so that he may very well sleep in both conjointly. The same 
thing is true of the soul sleeping in both the pericardium and Brahman 
conjointly. 

(2) It has been urged above that if the purpose to be served be 
the same, then any one of the different means mentioned may be adopted 
separately, it being unnecessary it resort to all of them conjointly. E. G. 
when it is enjoined that rice and barley should be used in a sacrifice, 
the purpose to be served by them being the same, viz. making sacri- 
ficial cakes, it is not necessary for us to take both of them con- 
jointly. Here, too, the purpose to be served is just the same, viz. to 
afford a place to the soul to sleep in. So, the soul can choose any one 



276 $rikagtha-Bhasya 3. 2. 8. 

SUTRA 3. 2. 8. 
"Hence the awakening from Him." 

The Scriptural text : "Having come back from the Existent, 
they do not know : 'We have come back from the Existent' " ( Chand. 
6. 10. 2. ) declares its ( the soul's ) awakening from Brahman. Hence, 
( the soul sleeps in all the above three places ) conjointly. If it be held 
that ( the soul sleeps in one of these ) separately, then an eightfold 
fault will result. Thus, it the soul is taken to be sleeping in*the veins, 
then both the texts that it sleeps in the pericardium and that it sleeps 
in Brahman ( viz. Brh. 3. 19. 1. and Chand. 6. 8. 1. respectively ), though 
known to be authoritative, are rejected ; and that which is not known to 
be authoritative is accepted. If the soul is taken to be sleeping in the 
pericardium and in Brahman, then the previously rejected authoritative- 
ness of these two texts is accepted ; and the previously accepted unautho- 
ritativeness of these texts is rejected. Thus, with regard to the texts 
regarding the sleeping of the soul in the pericardium and in Brahman, 
four faults arise, viz. rejection of what is known, acceptance of what is not 
known, acceptance of what has been rejected, rejection of what has been 
accepted. ( l ) 



of the three possible places, viz., veins, pericardium and Brahman, and 
sleep there, but it cannot sleep in all of them together at a time. This 
is the Prirna Facie View. 

To this, the Author replies thus : The purpose to be served is 
not the same here, The purpose of the veins is not to afford a sleeping 
place for the soul, but to afford a way for it to go to Brahman finally. 
The purpose of the pericardium is to act as the palace ; and that of 
Brahman, as the bed-stead or the maki place of sleep. So the soul can- 
not sleep either in the veins, or in the pericardium, or in Brahman 
separately, but it sleeps in all of them conjointly. That is, having 
passed through the veins, it rests in the pericardium, and finally in 
Brahman. 

(1) Here, we have three Scriptural texts to the effect that the soul 
sleeps in the veins, in the pericardium, in Brahman. ( See Su. 3. 2. 7. ) 
Now, suppose we accept the view that the soul sleeps either in the 
veins only, or in the pericardium only, or in Brahman only. In that 
case, when we say : 'The soul sleeps in the veins', then the assertion 
'The soul sleeps in the pericardium' becomes false. Again, when we 
say : 'The soul sleeps in the pericardium', that being also true in 
our view then the previously accepted view that 'The soul sleeps 
in the veins' becomes false, and the previously rejected view that 'The 
soul sleeps in the pericardium' is accepted as true. Thus, with regards 



One who Sleeps Arises ,277 

In the same manner, four faults arise in connection with the text 
regarding the (sleeping of the soul) in the veins thus altogether eight 
faults arise here. Hence, it is estblished that (the soul does not sleep 
in any one of these three) separately, but the only view that fits in is that 
(it sleeps in all these) conjointly. 

Here ends the Section entitled 'The Absence of That" (2). 



Adhikarana 3. The Section entitled ''Work and Remembrance 
( Sutra 9 ). 

SUTRA 3. 2. 9. 

"But he alone (rises), on account of work, remembrance, text and 
injunction". 

Here, the text : "Then, rny dear ! he comes to be united with the 
Existent" (Chand. 6 8. 1.) forms the topic to be treated here. 

Objection 

The soul's state of deep dreamless sleep has been determined above. 
Here the doubt is as to whether he alone who was asleep awakens or 
some one else. If it be said It follows here that some one else awakens, as 
it is improper to maintain that one who has attained Brahman can return 
again. It is unreasonable to assert that the individual soul who has 
become one with Brahman, the unsurpassable Bliss, should return again 
to the world full of suffering?. How can one who is united with the 
Existent reawaken ? How can it have any distinctions (of names and 
forms) again ? 

Reply 
One who sleeps arises 

We reply : Although united with the Existent, he alone who was 
asleep arises, because he experiences (the results of) works done by him 
through ignorance ; also because he remembers his prior experiences ; 
because there is a Scriptural text : "Whatever they are in this world, 
whether tiger, or lion, or wolf, or boar, or worm, or fly, or gnat, or 
mosquito, that they become" (Chand. 6. 9. 3.) ; and because (on this view), 
the texts enjoining the means to salvation will become useless. As the 
the text : "Having come back from the Existent they do not know" 

each text, four faults arise, as mentioned above. So, altogether twelve 
faults arise here ( cf. &MD. ). But the Commentator combines the 
second and the third texts as one, and so he speaks of eight faults only. 



278 nkaitfha-Bha$ya 3. 2. 10. 

(Chand. 6. 10.2.) declares that (the soul united with Branman during 
deep sleep) do not possess the bliss and knowledge of Brahman like the 
freed souls. Hence it is quite reasonable that he who fell asleep arises 
again (and not any one else). 

Here ends the Section entitled "Work and Remembrance". (3). 



Adhikarana 4 : The Section entitled " I he Swooning Person'" 
(Sutra 10). 

vSUTRA 3. 2. 10 

"Iri the swooning person, (there is) half -attainment, on account 
of being left over". 

As we speak of 'a person who has swooned', there is a state called 
'Swoon'. The doubt may be raised as to whether this state is different 
from those of deep dreamless sleep etc., or not. 

Pri-na Facie View 

If the Priina Facie view be : As no other state, different from those 
of waking, dreaming and deep dreamless sleep, is known, the state of 
swoon must be included under the states of waking and the rest 

Reply 
The state of swoon is a different one. 

We reply ' The state of a person who has swooned implies the 
"half-attainment" of the state of death ( ! ). Thus " on account of being 

left over", it is different from deep dreamless sleep and the rest. As 
(during the state of swoon) there is no consciousness of the world, it can- 
not be included under the states of waking and dreaming. As during 
deep dreamless sleep, the face is seen to be tranquil while during this 
state (of swoon) the face is distorted('), so it is established that swoon is 
different from that no less. 

Here ends the Sectioi entitled "The Swoonig Person" (I). 



(1) i. e. a swooning person makes a half-way approach to death or 
is half-dead. 

(2) i. e. a swooning person does not enjoy any bliss as a person in 
deep sleep does ; on the contrary, he is in intense pain. 



Adhikarana 5 : The Section entitled " Possessed of two-fold 
Charcteristics (Sutras 1120). 

SUTRA 3. 2. 11. 

". v ot on account of place even (is there any imperfection) on the 
part of the Highest, because everywhere (He is declared to be) possessed 
of two fold characteristics." ^ 

In the previous Sections, the nature, attributes, going, returning, 
and particular states (like dream etc.) of the individual soul, denoted by 
the word 'thou' (Tvarn), have been determined. After that, the nature, 
attributes and the rest of the Supreme Lord, denoted by the word 'that' 
(Tat)( l ) are being determined. In the texts: u He entered into the 
innermost part of the inmost part, he entered into the quarters" (Siras 1), 
"Who abiding in the earth" (Brh. 3.7.3.) and so on, it is declared that 
the Supreme Lord enters into eveiy thing as its soul. On the doubt : 
As to whether He, who is present in all things as their Inner Controller, 
is besmeared by the faults pertaining respectively to them 

Prima Facie View 

The Prima Facie view is as follows : They do so pertain. Thus, 
the texts : "Non-gross, non-subtle, non-short" ( Brh. 3.8.8. ). Without 
parts, without activity, tranquil, irreproachable, spotless" (6 vet. 6.19.) 
deny any forms and the like to the Supreme Lord. In order that He 
may not be besmeared by the sins belonging to those (worldly objects), 
the text : "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" (Tait. 2.1.), declares 
that He is of the form of only unlimited knowledge and truth. If His 
connection with the effects of Prakrti (Primal Matter) be admitted, 
then like the individual soul, He, too, would come to be subject to all 
the faults of all those effects. ( 8 ) 

(1) Compare the famous passage 'Tat Tvam Asi' (Chand. 6.8.7. etc.), 
'That thou art'. Here 'Tat' means Brahman, 'Tvam' means the individual 
soul. 

(2) The Prima Facie view is that the Lord has no connection 
with worldly objects, otherwise He must of necessity be subject to all 
the faults and imperfections inherent in those objects. But the Author's 
View is that the Lord has an intimate connection with all objects, as 
He is present in all of them as their Inner Controller, yet is untouched 
by their sins and defects. 



280 Snka^a-Bhaya 3. 2. 13. 

Correct Conclusion 
Brahman is Faultless 

The Correct Conclusion is : This is not so. Although the Supreme 
lyord is present in all things under all states, yet He never comes to be 
besmeared with sins. Why ? Because in all the Scriptural texts, He is 
celebrated to be "possessed O f two -fold characteristics", viz. freedom from 
all faults, and possession of unsurpassable auspiciousness. Compare 
the texts : "This soul is free from sins, ageless, deathless; griefless, 
without hunger, without thirst, possessed of true desires, possessed of 
true resolves" (Chand- 8. 7. 1. 3.), "There exists One who is an abode of 
unlimited pleasing attributes, the creator of all the worlds, and different 
from the world of sense", Hence, although (the L,ord) abides in the 
earth and the rest as their Inner Controller, yet He has no faults 
whatsoever. 

SUTRA 3. 2. 12. 

"If it be objected I On account of difference, iWe reply :) No, 
on account of the statement of what is not that in each case'." 

Objection 

If it be objected : Although by nature the individual soul is endowed 
with the attributes of freedom from sins and the rest, (*) yet because it 
assumes different states due to his connection with (different) bodies, like 
those of gods etc., it does come to have the stated imperfections. In the 
very same manner, the Supreme Lord, because of assuming different bodies 
as declared by the text : "Whose body is the earth''" (Brh, 3.7.3.) -must 
be subject to the faults partaiuing thereto 

Reply 

(We reply :) "No", "On account of the statement of what is not that 
in each case", i. e. because in every case, there is a text which denotes 
His faultlessness. In the text : "Whose body is the earth" (Brh. 2.7.3.), 
the faultlessness of the Inner Controller is definitely depicted thus : "He is 
your Soul, the Inner Controller, the Immortal" (Brh. 3.7.3.). In the case 
of the individual soul, on the other hand, its real nature remains 
concealed through the wish of the Highest. This has already been stated 
above.( f ) 

SUTRA 3. 2. 13. 

"Moreover, thus tome ( teach )". 

"Moreover", although both the individual soul and the Lord 
reside inside the same body as its soul, yet there does exist a difference 
. (]]""cf. Chand. 8. 7. 13. 

(2) Vide Su. 3. 2. 4. 



The Individual Soul and Brahman are different 281 

between the two, viz. the former is connected with faults ( inhering 
in the body ), but the latter is just the opposite. This "some" desig- 
nate in clear terms thus : "Two birds, close friends, cling to the same 
tree. Of these two, one eats the sweet berry ; the other, without eating, 
looks on" ( Rg. V. 1. 164. 20 ; Mund. 3. 1. 1. ; Svet. 4. 6. ). Hence no 
faults pertain to the L/ord, as they do to the individual soul. 

( The Author ) points out that although the individual soul and the 
Lord abide in the same body, yet they abide in different forms. 

SUTRA 3. 2. 14. 

"For, that ( \ iz. Prahman ) is like something without form indeed, 
on account of bein^ the principal ( agent )." 

"I hat'' viz. Brahman, the Supreme Lord, although present in the 
bodies of gods and others as their souls, abides like something devoid 
of form. Why? "On account of being the principal" ( agent ) with 
regard to the creation of names and forms. There is a Scriptural text to 
this effect: "The ether, verily, is the creator of name and form. That 
within which they are, is Brahman'* ( Chand. 8. 14. 1. \ ( Brahman ) 
abides in the midst of names and forms, but is untouched by those effects. 
The very fact that lie abides 'in the midst' ( of names and forms ) indi- 
cates His difference ( from them ). But, the individual soul abides in 
the body for experiencing the results of its works. Hence there does 
exist a differences between the two ( viz. between the individual soul and 
Brahman ). 

SUTRA 3. 2. 15. 

"And en account of the non-futility (of texte designating Brahman 
as possessed of all auspicious qualities and devoid of all imperfections), 
like (the text c'esignating Him to be self-) manifesting". 

Just as on account of the non-futility of the text :"Brahinan is truth, 
knowledge, infinite" (Tait. 2. 1.) Brahman, as having a self-manifest form, 
is of the form of knowledge, so "on account of the non-futility " of 
hundreds of texts regarding the Highest Being, Brahman is faultless 
and an abode of auspicious qualities, and is, thus, possessed of two-fold 
characteristics. Compare : "Without parts, without activity" (6vet. 6. 19.), 
"Free from sins" (Chand. 8. 1. 5., Maitri. 7. 7.), "Having truth as the 
soul, the vital-breath as pleasure, the mind as bliss (*)" (Tait. 1. 6. 2.), 
"Who is omniscient, all-knowing' (Mund. 1. 1. 9. ; 2.2.7.), "The Master 
of Pradhana (Primal Matter) and the individual soul, the Lord of 
attributes" (Svet. 6. 16.), "Supreme is His power, declared to be 

(1) Or, who is the pleasure of the vital-breath, and the bliss of the 
mind. See under Sii. 1. 1. 2. P. 23. 
36 



282 Snkantha-Bhasya 3. 2. 17. 

manifold" (6vet. 6. 8.), " 'Now, why is He called Mahadeva ?' ''He 
who having discarded all forms, glorifies in supreme self-knowledge, 
Yoga and splendour, is, for that reason, called Mahadeva (the Great 
God) ;" and so on. 

SUTRA 3. 2. 16. 

"And (texts like 'Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite') declare 
that only". 

The Scriptural text : "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" 
(Tait. 2. 1J declares only that Brahman is of the form of unbounded 
knowledge, but does not deny other (qualities) to Him, because there 
is no specific statement (to that effect), also because, no contradiction is 
involved (in the fact of Brahman having infinite other auspicious quali- 
ties as well). Just as, when it is said : 'The crown is of gold', the state- 
ment simply asserts that it is golden in form, but does not deny the 
fact of its being studded with gems, so is the case here. Here, too the 
Scriptural text "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" (Tait. 2. 1.) simply 
designates the Supreme Brahman, Himself supremely manifesting His 
own form, as of the form of Supreme Knowledge. So, how can it deny 
to Brahman His attribute of wisdom or omniscience, mentioned later on 
( Tait. 2. 1. ) ? A wise being ( Vipascit ) is one whose intellect perceives 
various objects. Hence, no contradiction is involved here. 

SUTRA 3. 2. 17. 

"And ( Scripture ) shows ( this ), then ( it is ) declared by Smrti too.'' 

The Holy Scripture "shows' everywhere that Brahman possesses 
two-fold characteristics, viz. on the one hand, He is devoid of ( all ) bad 
qualities ; on the other, endowed with ( all ) auspicious ones. Compare : 
the text : "Brahman, whose body is the ether, whose soul is truth, 
whose pleasure is the vital-breath, whose bliss is the mind, abounding in 
tranquillity, immortal thus, O PrScina-yogya, worship" ( Tait. 1. 6. 2. ). 
Here the adjective "Whose body is the ether" ( Akasa-sariram ) means as 
follows. The word 'Akasa' means something that shines all around 
(AkSsata Akasa ), or manifestation or illumination ( Prakasa ). Thus, the 
adjective means : "One who is of the form of consciousness". The adjec- 
tive, "Whose soul ih the Truth" ( Satyatma ) means : "One who is of 
the form of existence ( Satta )". The adjective "Whose pleasure 
is the vital-breath" ( PrSnafama ) means one whose pleasure lies 
in His own soul only, not in any external objects. The adjec- 
tive "Whose bliss is the mind" ( Manaananda ) means "Whose bliss lies 
in His mind only", not in any external sense-organ- The word "mind" 
means knowledge, i. e. the internal organ. Brahman is said to be omnis- 
cient because He possesses this special kind of knowledge which does not 



Brahman is Immanent, yet Faultless 283 

depend on any external sense-organs, which manifests all the perceptible 
external objects and which is eternally free from all defects. Through 
this, He experiences the immeasurable bliss of His own nature that is 
why, He is said to have the "Mind for His bliss". The adjective "Abound- 
ing in tranquillity" (Santi-samrdham) means as follows : The word "tran- 
quillity" (v-Janti) means an absolute absence of all bad qualities like attach- 
ment, aversion and so on ; and He abounds in this, i. e. is absolutely and 
entirely free from all faults whatsoever. The adjective 'immortal' (Amrtani) 
means that He is said to be without a beginning. (*) 

Thus, Scripture "shows" that the Supreme Brahman is of the form 
of truth and knowledge, is also omniscient, manifesting unsurpassable 
bliss and powers of His own nature, and free from all defects whatsoever ; 
and thus, He possesses two-fold characteristics. In the same manner, the 
following Scriptural texts, too, declare Brahman, to be possessed of two 
fold characteristics. Compare : "Without parts, without activity, tranquil" 
( Svet. 6. 19.), "The Bringer of right, the Remover of evil, the Lord of 
prosperity" ( Svet. 6. 6. ), "He who is the Supreme Mighty Lord of lords" 
( 6vet. 6. 7. ) and so on. 

The following Smrti texts, too, declare that Brahman, called 
'6iva', possesses two-fold characteristics. Compare : "The lord is called 
'v-jiva' ( the Auspicious one ), as He is absolutely pure in nature 
being free from any connection with beginuingless sins", "The Lord 
who is one mass of infinite, blissful and auspicious attributes is called 
'6iva' by the wi.se who know about "Siva". The very word '6iva', 
which denotes supremely pure and auspicious attributes, indicates 
Brahman, free from all the blemishes whatsoever, leading to the 
Supreme end of man and possessing ( good and auspicious ) qualities. 
Thus, as Brahman is denoted by the term 'Siva', for that reason too, He 
possesses two-fold characteristics. 

SUTRA 3. 2. 18. 

"And for that very reason, ( there is ) the simile, Like the sun and 
water and so on." 

The Supreme Lord, though abiding in the earth and everywhere 
else, is yet faultless and possessed of auspicious qualities. "For that very 
reason", in the Scriptures, "the simile" of "the sun and water" is stated 
with regard to Him. Compare the text : "But just as the one ether 
becomes divided, in the pots and the rest, r,o, verily, does the one soul abide 
within many, like the sun within water-receptacles" ( Yaj. Sm. 3. 144. ) 
Here, the ether which is actually present ( in those pots ), as well as 

(1) Cf. Su. 1. 1. 2. for explanation, P. 23, 



284 vSrikantha-Bhasya 3. 2. 20, 

the sun which is not actually present ( in those water-receptacles ) have 
( both ) been cited as examples for the following reason : Just as the same 
ether actually abides in the jars etc. separately, so the same Supreme Lord 
abides in the earth etc separately as their soul. Thus, the Supreme 
Lord, though one and the same, can yet very well abide actually in many 
objects that is why, the simile of the ether has been taken here. Again, 
just as the sun which does not actually abide in the water-receptacles is 
not at all touched by their faults like changeability etc.. so the Supreme 
Lord, although actually abiding in the earth and the rest is yet not 
touched by their faults, like changeability etc. Thus, as the Supreme 
Lord, the Inner Controller of all, is faultless and never losses His real 
nature and attributes, so the simile of the sun has been taken. So, 
through these similes of the ether etc., too, it is established that the 
Supreme Lord possesses two-fold characteristics. 

Prima Facie View ( Siltra 19 ) 

SUTRA 3. 2. 19. 

"But on account of non-apprehension, like water, there is no 
being so." 

The sun is not actually present in the water (-jars), but the same is 
not the case with the Supreme Lord and the earth and the rest. But, He 
is actually present in these. So how can He be faultless ? On this doubt, 
( the Author ) solves it thus : 

Correct Conclusion ( Sutra 20 ) 
Brahman is Immanent, Yet Faultle s 

SUTRA 3. 2. 20. 

"(Brahman's) participation in the increase and decrease on account 
of being included within ( is denied ) ; because of the appropriateness of 
the two (examples), (it is) EO, as well as on account of observation." 

The word 'no' is to be supplied ( from the previos Aphorism ). 
Although the Supreme Lord is actually present in the earth and the rest, 
yet He cannot possibly be subject to the increase and decrease inherent 
therein. "R cause of the appropriateness of the two" examples cited 
above, this is known to be so. It has been pointed out above that the 
similes of both the sun that is not actually present ( in the water-jars ) 
and the ether that is actually present ( in the jars ) have been taken, 
because of showing that the Supreme Lord, though present everywhere, 
is not touched by the faults, inherent therein, just like one not so present. 
Thus, it is seen that an example designates similarity in respect of 
intended attributes only, as in the case of the example : 'The face is 



Brahman has two-fold Characteristics 285 

like the mooii.'( l ) Hence, it is established that the lyord does possess two- 
fold characteristics, although He actually abides in the earth and the 
-rest. Or else, in Scripture, too, it is observed that the example is meant 
to denote similarity in respect of intended attributes only. Compare 
the text : "Having shaken off sins, as a horse docs its hairs" (ChSild. 8.13.1.). 
Hence, "on account of the appropriateness of the two" examples due to 
their designating similarity in respect of intended attributes only, it is 
established that Brahman possesses two-fold characteristics. 

Here ends the Section en'itleJ 'Posf eased of Two-fold Charac- 
teristcs'' (5). 



Adhikarana 6 : The Section entitled "The so-muchness resulting 
from what has been previously declared' 1 (Sutras 21 2 Q ), 

Apprehending the objection that Brahman cannot possibly be 
possessed of two-fold characteristics, (the Author; says : 

SUTRA 3. 2. 21. 

"For (the text) denies the so-muchness resulting from what has 
been previously declared and after that, speaks of something more 1 '. 

It has been established above that Brahman possesses two-fold 
characteristics. Here the doubt is as to whether that is contradicted (by 
the text later on), or not. 

Objection 

If it be said Having designated Brahman as possessing as, His 
form, the corporeal and incorporeal universe consisting of the earth, 
water, fire, air and ether, thus : ''There are, verily, two forms of Brahman ; 

(1) When one thing is figuratively compared to another, that does 
not imply that the two are similar in all respects it means only that they 
are similar in some respects, as intended by the person concerned. E. G. 
when we compare a face to the moon, it does not mean that they are simi- 
lar in all respects and that the face is an inanimate, cold object like the 
moon. It simply means that the face is similar to the moon in some 
respects, viz. in respect of its loveliness, etc. Here also, Brahman 
is compared to the sun. So, it does not imply that Brahman, is not 
actually present in the earth, as the sun is not actually present in water- 
jars etc. It means only that just as the sun is untouched by the defects 
and changes of those jars, so Brahman too, is not affected by the defects 
etc. of the earth and the rest. The fact is that in the case of a simile, 
only the relevant points of similarity are to be understood, not, all the rest. 



286 6rikanUia-Bhasya 3. 2. 22. 

the corporeal and the incorporeal' 1 (Brh. 2. 3. 1.), the text goes on to declare : 
"Hence, now, the teaching is : 'Not so, not so' " (Brh. 2. 3. 6.) Here, as 
the word 'so' refers to what has been said before, so the previously es.- 
tablished fact of Brahman's having the corporeal and incorporeal universe 
as His form is denied. 

Reply 
Brahman has two-fold Characteristics. 

We reply : The text : "Not so, not so" (Brh. 2. 3. 6.) does not deny 
the prior-established fact of Brahman's having the universe as His form, 
for, (the above mentioned) enjoined (attributes of Brahman) being not 
known (through other sources), cannot properly be denied( 1 X But, it is 
proper to hold that the text : "Not so, not so" (Brh. 2. 3. 6 ) denies only 
Brahman's "so muchness resulting from what has been p r eviously 
declared , i. e. the limitedness due to it (viz. His connection with the 
corporeal and the incorporeal forms, mentioned before). Further, after that 
i.e. the after the text : "Not so, not so (Brh 2. 3. 6.), (Scripture) "speaks 
of something mare", i. e. some more qualities, not mentioned before. 
Compare, the text : "Hence, now, there is the teaching 'Not so, not so', 
for there is nothing higher than this, hence (it is called) 'not so'. Now, 
(its) name is "the real of the real". The vital-breaths, verily, are the 
real. It is their Real (Brh. 2. 3. 6.). Here, the text : "There is nothing 
higher than this" means that there is nothing that is superior to Brahman, 
referred to as the real. Its meaning is stated by the text : "The vital- 
breaths, verily, are real. It is their Real (Brh. 2. 3. 6.). The vital-breaths 
or the individual souls, are 'real', having no origin like the ether and 
the rest. But He (Brahman) is the real of even these reals, having no 
contraction of His knowledge like them. Hence as the text "Not so, not 
so*' (Brh. 2. 3. 6.) denies (only) material qualities and limitedness (to 
Brahman), so the previously established fact of Brahman's having two-fold 
characteristics is not jeopardised thereby. 

To the objection, viz : When it is said : 'The pot exists', 'The cloth 
exists' and so on, it is Brahman alone, immanent in them and existence 
in essence, who is true. (But) the text : "Not so, not so*' (Brh. 2. 3. 6.) 
denies everything else besides, like pots etc. (The Author) replies : 

SUTRA 3. 2. 22. 

"That (viz Brahman, is) unmanifest, for Scripture declares (this)". 

The nature of Brahman cannot be apprehended through any other 

(1) The attributes of Brahman mentioned by the prior text are not 
known from other sources, and that is why, Scripture takes special pains 
to designate them. Hence, why should it, after taking the trouble of 
formulating these unknown characteristic of the Lord, again deny them ? 



The Worshippers of Brahman Come to attain His attributes 287 

source (besides Scripture) like perception and the rest. As the Scriptural 
text : "His form is not present to vision, no one whosoever sees Him 
with the eye" (Katha. 6. 9 ; Svet. 4. 20.) "declares" (this), so the objects 
whose existence is established through perception and the like, is not 
Brahman. 



(The Author) states the means to an apprehension of the nature of 
Brahman thus : 

SUTRA. 3. 2. 23. 

"And (Brahman is revealed) in perfect meditation, on account of 
perceptioT (i. e. Scripture) and inference (i e.Smrti)". 

"And", when Brahman is properly meditated on, then His real 
nature comes to be apprehended through knowledge, i. e. through 
meditation Those who, being imbued with Brahman, worship Him, by 
them (only) can the real nature of Brahman be apprehended. This is 
known from Scripture and Sinrti. Compare the Scriptural texts : ''The 
Soul is not attainable by instruction, nor by intellect, nor by much 
learning. He is attainable only by him whom he chooses to him He 
reveals His own person" (Ka^ha. 2. 23 ; Mund. 3.2.3.), "He, with his nature 
purified through the clarification of the nature of Brahman, perceives, 
meditating, Him, who is without parts 1 ' (Mund. 3.1.8.) ; and the Snirti 
text : "He is not an object of perception''. 

SUTRA. 3. 2. 24. 

"And, as in the cafe of light (i. e. Knowledge) and so on, there 
is non-difference, and the manifestation (< f Brah.. an takes place) 
through repetition with regard to act". 

Those who attain a direct vision of the L,ord through ceaseless 
meditation, come when through that direct vision they perceive 
(Brahman), to have I/ordship over the world, just as they attain know- 
ledge, bliss and the rest like Him. This is proved by the following 
texts : "I become Mauu, as well as the sun" (Rg- 4.26.1. ; Brh. 1.4.10.), 
"As such, worship me as life, as immortality" (Kaus. 3.2.), and so on, 
where it is said that the worshippers of Brahman, meditating on their 
identity with Him, come to attain His special attributes. In the text : 
"I give you divine eyes, behold my glorious Yoga" (Gita. 9. 5 ; 11.8.), it 
is said that Krsna and the rest came to reveal His glory and majesty 
through meditating on their identity with them. Further, through the 
repeated practice of meditation on Brahman, Visvamitra, Agestya, and 
the like came to have the power (respectively) of sending (Trisafiku) to 



288 Srikantha-Bhasya 3. 2. 25. 

another Heaven, (*) drinking the ocean, ( 8 ) and so on. In ordinary life, 
too, it is found that those who meditate on the Garuda-Mantra come to 
have the special qualities of Garuda (viz. the power of destroying poison 
at its very sight). When this realisation of the identity between 
Brahman and the worshippers become mature, they alone come 
to be endowed with some of the .special attributes of Brahman -this 
(conclusion) is perfectly reasonable. 

Hence, it is self-contradictory to hold that Brahman, who is pure 
existence and who is immanent in pots and the like, can be perceived 
(in that way). ( 8 ) For then, meditation and the rest, which are the 
causes of the direct perception (of Brahman) will become futile ; also, 
although not perceivable, (Brahman) is declared by Scripture to be 
possessed to (two-fold characteristics). Hence, it is not proper to hold 
that Brahman is only existence in essence and perceivable and that 
the text : "Not so, not so" (Brh. 2.3.6.) denies everything else. 

SUTRA 3. 2. 25. 

"Hence (it i proved that Brahman has connection) with infinite 
(auspicious qualities"*, for, thus the mark (i e. two-fold characteristics 
of Brahman) (i* established) 1 '. 

As the worshippers of Brahman too come to have His special 
qualities, like knowledge, bliss, supreme lordship and so on, so it is, 
established that He does possess a connection "with infinite" auspicious 
qualities, demonstrated in the text : "There are, verily, two forms of 
Brahman" (Brh. 2.3. 1.). Hence, Brahman possesses two-fold characteris- 
tics. 



(1) The story of Visvamitra who was born a Ksatriya, yet became 
a Brahmin through penance and meditation, is well-known. The story 
goes that when King Trisafiku wanted to go to Heaven in the present 
embodied state before death, he approached Visvamitra, being refused 
by his own priest Vasistha. Visvamitra performed a sacrifice for him and 
thereby sent him to Heaven just as he was. But when Trisanfcu was 
falling down from Heaven through the wish of the gods, Visvamitra, 
through his own prowess of penance, made him stay in the void, and 
began to create a new Heaven for him. Then the gods intervened, and 
allowed Trisafiku to remain in the constellation of stars, created by 
Visvamitra. 

(2) This, too, is a well-known tale, according to which, the sage 
Agysta drank up the whole ocean for enabling the gods to kill the demons 
who had taken shelter there. 

(3) Sfi. 3. 2. 22. 



The Relation between Branman and Universe 289- 

Objection 

Apprehending the objection : The universe can be taken to be 
the form of Brahman as declared by the text : "There are, verily, two 
forms, of Brahman, the corporeal and the incorporeal (Brh. 2.3.1.) 
only on the supposition that there is a relation of super-imposition 
between them, ( l ) for this is not possible on any other ground. Hence it 
stands to reason that the text : "Not so, not so" (Brh. 2.3.1.) denies this 
universe, super-imposed (on Brahman) (the Author) points out that even 
without this relation of super-imposition, this is possible through another 
way as propounded by himself. Before that, however, he states two Prima 
Facie views : 

First Prima Facie View 

SUTRA 3. 2. 26. 

"But on account of the designation of both, (the relation between 
Brahman, and the universe is) like that between a serpent and its coil " 

The texts : "All, verily, is Rttdra" (Mahanar. 13. 2.), "God, (though) 
creating Heaven and earth, is one (only)" (Mahanar. 2.2.), designate the 
oneness as well as the manifoldness (of Brahman). Hence, just as the 
coiled form and the straightened form are but particular states of the same 
serpent, so the earth and the rest which are said to be of the form of the 
Supreme Lord in the text : "There are, verily, two forms of Brahman" 
(Brh. 2.3.1.) are His particular states (only). 

Second Prima Facie View 
SUTRA 3. 2. 27. 

"Or, (the relation between Brahman and the universe is) like that 
between light and its substratum, on account of be'ng light." 

Just as light and its substratum (e. g. the rays and the sun), though 
different in nature, are yet identical, both being but light, so are the non- 
sentient and Brahman, too, having the same generic characteristics. ( 8 ) 
Thus it is that He can have the earth etc. as His form. 

(1) Here 6amkara's view is referred to, viz. that the universe is 
falsely super-imposed on Brahman just as during the snake-rope illusion 
the snake is falsely super-imposed on the rope. 

(2) The same genus or universal 'Light* is present in all the species 
or individual lights viz. 'this light', 'that light' etc. Thus, the genus and 
the species, the universal and the particular though different are yet 
identical in so far as both share the same common class-characteristics. In 
the same manner, Brahman is present in the whole world ; and, therefore, 
Brahman and the world though different are yet identical, as sharing the 
same class-characteristics. 

37 



296 Srlkantha-Bhasya 3. 2. 29. 

Correct Conclusion 
The Universe is the form of Brahman. 

SUTRA 3. 2. 28. 

"Or, as before." 

The word "or" is meant for refuting the above two views. It has 
been said above, ( l ) that, as in the case of light, universal, attribute and 
body, (*) the sentient, which is an attribute (of Brahman) and occupies the 
same space as (i. e. abides in) the substance (viz, Brahman), is a part (of 
Brahman). The same is the case with the non-sentient no less. The 
designation of the sentient and the non-sentient by the same word 
(' Brahman')- as declared by the text : "All, verily, is Rudra ' (MahanSr. 
13. 2.) - is possible only if these two, reduced to the same from (of 
Brahman), have the above-mentioned f elation (with Brahman). 

On the other two views, it is difficult to prevent faults from pertain- 
ing to Brahman. On account of the Scriptural text : "Of whom the body 
is the earth, of whom the body is the soul (Atman)" (Brh, 3.7.3.), as well as 
on account of the Purana-text : "They call the sentient 'knowledge' 
(Vidya) aud in the same manner, the non-sentient 'non-knwledge' 
(AvidyS). There is no doubt that the entire universe consisting of 
'Knowledge' and 'Non-knowledge' is the form of the Lord of the universe, 
the All-pervasive One, as the universe is under His control, so it is 
established that the eight forms of the sentient and non-sentient constitute 
the body of Brahman. 

SUTRA 3. 2. 29. 
"And on account of denial." 

As in the texts : "That does not grow old with old age" 



(1) Cf. Sii. 2. 3. 45. Also, Cf. Sti. 2. 3. 42. 

(2) The relation between Brahman, on the one hand, and the sentient 
and the non-sentient, on the other, is just like that between a substance and 
its 1 attributes, between light and its substratum, between universal and 
particulars, between the body and the soul ; i. e. it is a relation of whole 
and parts. An attribute abides in a substance and can have no separate 
existence from it. In the same manner, light or ray abides in its substra- 
tum (viz the sun etc.) and cannot exist separately or independently from 
it. A universal, similarly, manifests itself in particulars, and cannot 
exist apart. The body, finally, cannot exist apart from the soul. Thus, 
there is a relation of 'Aprthak-Siddhi between attribute and substance 
etc., i. e. they are organically related, and one (viz. attribute etc.) is a 
part of the other (viz. substance etc.). Exactly similar , is the relation 
between the universe of souls and matter, on the one hand, and Brahman, 
on the other. 



Brahman has no Superior 291 

(Chand. 8. 1. 5.), "Non-gross, non-subtle" (Brh. 3. 8. 8.) and so on, the 
qualities of the sentient and the non-sentient are denied ( to Brahman ), 
so although consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient, He is yet 
faultless and an abode of all auspicious attributes. 

This is asserted here: Although He is the cause of the sentient 
and the non-sentient, and although He is qualified by these, yet 6iva or 
Brahman is free from the futile attributes of 'mutability', 'ignorauace' and 
the like ; and endowed with supremely useful attributes of 'omniscience', 
'being eternally satisfied', 'having beginningless knowledge', 'independence' 
'having powers ever unconcealed', 'having infinite powers' and the like 
this is eternally established. 

Here ends the Section entitled 'The So-muchness, resulting from 
what haft been previously declared." (6) 



Adhikarana 7 : The Section entitled "The Highest (Sutras 30 35). 

For proving that there is nothing higher than the Supreme Brahman, 
called 'vMva ( the All-auspicious Being ), 'Vifupaksa ( the three-eyed 
Being ) and so on, who has all the sentient and the non-sentient as His 
form and who manifests supreme powers, who is free from the stigma 
of the impressions of all faults and who is an ocean of all auspicious 
qualities like 'omniscience' and the rest, ( the Author first ) raises a 
doubt thus : 

Prima Facie view 
SUTRA 3. 2. 30. 

"( There is some one ) higher than this ( viz. Brahman ) on account 
of the designation of bridge, measure, connection and difference." 

On the doubt as to whether or not there is anything higher than the 
Supreme Lord, established to be the Supreme Cause by the Aphorisms, 
beginning : "From whom ( arise ) the creation and the rest of this 
(Br. Su. 1. 1. 2.) and ending "And, on account of denial" (Su. 3. 2. 29). 

the Prima Facie view is as follows : As the texts : "Now, that which is 
the soul is a bridge" (Chand. 8. 4. 1.), "Having crossed this bridge, one 
who is blind becomes non-blind" (Chand. 8. 4. 2.), "Brahman has four feet" 
(Chand. 3. 18. 2.), "This is the bridge of immortality' (Mund. 2. 2. 25.) 
and so on, designate the Supreme Brahman ( respectively ) as a bridge, 
as something to be crossed, as something limited, as something leading 
to ( something higher ). Hence, there is something higher than Brahman. 



292 6nkaiitha-Bhasya 3. 2, 33. 

Correct Conclusion ( Sutras 3135 ) 
Brhman is the Highest. 

SUTRA. 3. 2. 31. 

"But on account of resemblance." 

The word "but" is meant for disposing of the Prima Facie View, 
The view that there is something higher than 6iva, the Highest, does not 
stand to reason, as the Scriptural texts : "Rudra, Superior to the universe, 
the Great Sage" ( vet 3. 4 ; Mahanar. 10. 3.) and so oivprovethat He is 
Superior to the whole universe. The designation (of Brahman) as a bridge 
and the rest is simply "on account of resemblance", ( i. e. because 
Brahman is similar to a bridge etc. in certain respects ). Thus, as Brahman 
separates all the worlds from one another ( just as a bridge separates one 
sheet of water from another and marks the boundaries of contiguous 
fields ), so it is declared by Scripture : "Now, that which is the soul is a 
bridge, the separation, for keeping these worlds apart" (Chand. 8. 4. 1.). 
Brahman, alone who is established to be the Material and the Efficient 
Cause of the world by the Scriptural text : "All this, verily, is Brahman" 
(Chand. 3. 14. 1.), is the object to be attained, as known, from the text : 
"Into Him I shall enter on departing hence" (Chand. 3. 14.4.). Further, in 
another text, viz. "Having meditated on the three-eyed, blue-necked God, 
the Tranquil, a sage goes to the Source of all things, the Perceiver of all, 
beyond darkness" (Kaivalya. 7.), it is said that Brahman alone who 
is Omniscient, and who has three eyes, is the object to be attained, 
being the Highet of all. Here the word 'to cross' means 'to attain' 
otherwise, if there be anything higher than the Supreme Cause, Superior 
to the whole universe, who is the Supreme object to be attained, 
then, there will be another object higher than even that, and so on 
on ad infinitum, so that the Vedanta-texts will involve an infinite regress. 
Thus, the Supreme 6iva is beyond everything and hence Brahman is the 
Highest of all. 

To the view that Brahman is limited in extent, (the Author) replies 

SUTRA 3. 2. 32 

"(The designation of measure is) for the purpose of understanding, 
as in the case of feet". 

The designation of measure in the text "Brahman has four feet" 
(Chand. 3. 18. 2.) is meant for (promoting) meditation, as in the the case of 
the text : "Having speech as feet, having four feet". 

SUTRA 3. 2. 33 

"On account of the speciality of place, as in the case of light and 
the like . 

Although the Supreme Lord is unlimited, yet it is quite reasonable 



Brahman has 110 Equal 293 

to hold that "on account of the speciality of place", He cati appear to be 
limited, just as light etc. (appear to be limited) through their connection 
with windows etc. 

SUTRA 3. 2, 34. 

"And on account of appropriateness". 

"And", it is quite appropriate to hold that the Supreme T v ord, though 
the object to be attained, yet leads to the attainment of Himself, as (the 
Scripture) declares : "He is attainable only by one whom he chooses" 
(Katha. 2. 23 ; Mund. 3. 2. 3.) Hence, it is established that there is 
nothing higher than the Supreme Lord. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Highest" (7). 



Adhikarana 8 : The Section entitled ; 'The Denial of Another" 
(Sutra 35-36). 

SUTRA 3. 2. 35 
"Likewise, on account of the denial of another". 

In the previous Section, it has been established that there is nothing 
higher than the Supreme Brahman, the Three-eyed God. Here, on the 
doubt as to whether there is anything equal to him, or not, the Prima 
Facie view is as follows : 

Prima Facie View. 

Although there is nothing superior to the Supreme I^ord, yet there 
is some one equal to him, some one, who being the cause of the world, is 
endowed with lordship and the rest (like Him). Thus, it is declared in 
Scripture : "The Person has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand 
feet" (6 vet. 3. 14.). Here a mention is made of a certain Person. From the 
text : "A person having thousand heads" (6vet. 3.14.) and so on, he, is known 
to have may faces feet etc ; from the text : "All beings are one fourth of 
him", (Chand. 3. 12. 6.), He is known to possess the universe as his 
attribute ; from the text : "Three-fourth of him, the immortal in the sky" 
(Chand. 3. 12. 6.), He is known to abide in the Supreme Ether ; from the 
text ^"From him was born VirSt ; from Virat, the Supreme Spirit", he is 
known to be the material cause of Avykata (the Primal Matter) and 
Hiranyagarbha ; from the text : "Of the colour of the sun, beyond dark- 
ness" (6 vet. 3. 8.), he is known to be beyond darkness ; and from the text : 
"By knowing him alone, one becomes immortal here" (Nrip. 1. 6.), he is 
known to be the cause of Salvation. Further, from the text beginning : 
"The God having a thousand heads" (Mahanflr. 11. 1.) and continuing : 



294 rikantha-Bhasya 3. 2. 35. 

"The Lord of the universe" (Mahanar. 11. 3.), it is known that He 
is the Lord of the universe ; from the text : "Narayana, the Supreme 
Brahman" (Mahanar. 11. 1.), it is known that he is denoted by the woid 
'Narayana', the Supreme Brahman ; from the text : "The Supreme Soul 
ivS placed (in the small ether)" (MahZluar. 11. 13.), it is known that He is to 
be worshipped as the Small Ether (Daharakasa). Hence, such a Narayana 
possesses the same qualities as the Supreme Lord. 

The qualities of the Supreme Lord are as follows ; In the Mnutro- 
ponisad it is said ; "The Glorious Lord possesses all faces, heads and 
necks and lies in the heart-cavity of all. Further, He is all-pervasive, 
and hence Siva is immenent in all things" (6vet. 3. 11.). In the Maho- 
panisacl, it is said : "He has eyes on all side?, again, faces on all sides" 
(Mahanar. 2 ; Svet. 3. 3.). Further, in the 6iva-Samkalpa, it is said : 
"He has faces on all aides" (6iras 5.). In the Atharva-Sikha it is said that 
the Supreme Lord possesses many faces, feet and the rest. From the text : 
"One should know that Prakrti (Primal Matter) is an illusion (Maya) and 
the Great Lord (Mahesvera) is the illusion-maker (Mayin). This whole 
world is pervaded with beings that are His parts (Svet. 4.10.), it is known 
that He (the Supreme Lord) has the universe as His attribute ; from the 
text : "Who beheld Hiranyagarbha when he was born" (6 vet. 4.12 ; Mahanar. 
10. 3.), it is known that He is the cause of Hiranyagarbha ; from the text : 
"The witness of everything, beyond darkness" (Kaivalya. 7.), He is known 
to be beyond darkness ; from the text : "The small (ether within the heart), 
devoid of sins" (Mahanar. 10.7.), it is known that He is to be worshipped 
as the Small (Dhara) (Ether) ; from the text : "By knowing, Siva, one 
attains to Supreme peace" (6vet. 4. 14.), it is known that He is the cause 
of salvation ; and from the text : "Endowed with all glories", He is known 
to be Lord of the world. 

Thus, these two, viz. Narayana and the Supreme Lord, have the 
same qualities, like having the universe as the form and so on. The 
Smrti etc., while enjoining worship, mention the two as alternatives, 
they being the same, thus : "Either 6iva or Visnu alone." In ordinary 
life, these two are equally taken to be objects of worship ; also, Puranas 
and Agamas and the like proving them are the same, Hence, Narayana is 
the Person who is similar to the Supreme Lord. 

Reply 
Brhman is the Highest 

To this we reply : Just as there is nothing superior to the Supreme 
Lord, so there is nothing equal to Him, "on account of the denial of 
another" as the cause of the world, as the Lord and soon. Thus, the 
texts : "Rudra is one only, they do not stand for a second who rules all 



brahman is the Highest 295 

the worlds with His ruling powers" (6vet. 3. 2.), ''The One God, creating 
Heaven and earth" (Mahanar. 2.2.), "He who is called One Rudra" "The 
One God Hara lords it over the mutable (viz. matter) and the soul/', 
"When men will roll up the ether like a piece of leather, there will be an 
end of suffering (even) without knowing Siva'V) (ovet. 6.20.), "Siva alone, 
who brings about auspiciousness, is to be adored, leaving aside every thing 
else" (6ikha. 2.), "When there is Darkness, there is neither day nor night, 
neither being nor non-being, only Siva alone" (Svet. 4.18.) and so on deny 
creatorship etc of the world to any one else besides the Supreme Lord. 

Hence there is nothing similar to the Supreme Lord. 

The Supreme Lord alone is the Efficient Cause possessing as He does 
supreme powers, while the 'Person' is the material cause (of the world), and 
thus it is that the Person is the cause of Hiranyagarbha. He (the Person) 
being the Material cause and the Lord being the Efficient Cause, both are 
said to be the cause of the world. Thus it is that the text : "From Him 
was born the Virat" proves the Person to be the material cause, while the 
texts : "Who beheld Hiranyagarbha being born' (6 vet. 4.12 ; Mahanar. 
10.3.), "The one God creating Heaven and earth'" (Mahanar. 2.2.), speak of 
the Supreme Lord as the Efficient Cause. From 6iva, the Supreme 
Brahman, who is omniscient, omnipotent and superior to the whole universe, 
first the Supreme Power, (Para-6akti) the Supreme Prakrti is manifested. 
That, in its first state of being an enjoyer, is called the Person, mentioned 
in the Scriptural text : "The Person who has a thousand heads" (6 vet. 
3. 13.J. From the Soul alone, from J:>iva, the whole sentient world results. 
For this reason, beginning by indicating that the Supreme Lord is the 
Soul of everything thus : "All, verily, is Rudra" (Mahanar. 13.2.), the text 
goes on so say : "The Person, Narayana, being the Material Cause, is the 
Soul of all." 

Apprehending the doubt : Why is He the Soul of all ? the texts 
prove that the Person, coo, who is of the form of the world, is the Supreme 
Lord, in accordance with the text : "The Person, verily, is Rudra'' (Mahanar. 
13.2.), "The Supreme Brahman, alone who is Omniscient, Omnipotent, 
Eternally satisfied, Self-dependent, Superior to the universe, and the 
Efficient Cause, having resolved to be many at the time of creation thus : 
"May I be many" (Caand. 6.3.1.), manifests that Person from His own Self. 
Then by a part of Himself, separated from Himself, He becomes the whole 
world. 

This is known from the texts : "Having created that, He entered 
into that very thing. Having entered that, He became the actual and the 

(1) i. e. when the impossible will become possible. 



296 6rika$tka-Bhasya 3. 2. 37. 

yonder " (Tait. 2.6.1.)- "One should know Prakfti (Primal Matter) as att 
illusion (Maya) and the Great Lord (Mahesvara) as the Illusion-maker 
(Mayin). This whole world is pervaded with beings that are His parts" 
(6vet. 4.10.) and so on. As the Material Cause, (viz. Narayana) is due to the 
resolve on the part of the Efficient Cause (viz. Siva), the Efficient Cause is 
superior to the Material Cause. As the Material Cause becomes one with 
the Efficient Cause on entering into it, so the attributes of the Efficient 
Cause are assigned by Scripture to the Material Cause. Hence, there is 
certainly nothing that is either superior or equal to the Supreme Lord. 

For this reason also, there is nothing superior or equal to the Supreme 
Lord so says (the Author) : 

SUTRA 3. 2. 36. 

''Through this (i. e. through Narayatia) (Siva's) ail- pervasiveness (is 
known), on account of Scriptual texts about expansion (i e. supreme per- 
v sivene&s) and so on". 

The Lord's "all-pervasiveness" means supreme pervasiveness. The 
texts : "Having all faces, heads and necks" (6vet. 3. 14.), "He has eyes 
on all sides, faces on all sides" (vet. 3. 3 ; Mahanar 2. 2.) ; the Maho- 
panisad text beginning : "The most subtle among the most subtle" 
(Mahanar 8. 3. ) and continuing : "All this, verily, is Rudra" ; the Atharva, 
text, beginning : "He who is the Lord" (6iras 2.) and continuing : "And 
that (Rudra) pervades the whole world", all prove that (Rudra) pervades 
the whole world. The Efficient Cause is known to be all-pervasive 
"through this", i. e. through the Person who is the material cause 
and a part of His own Self. Thus, the universe is nothing but a 
manifestation of the Supreme Lord.(M Hence, there is nothing that 
is either superior or equal to Him. 

Here ends the Section entitled "I he Denial of Another" (S) 



Adhikarana 9 : The 1 ection ntided "The Fruit". (Sutras 39-40) 

Thus, He (&iva) alone-who is the Supreme Lord being the Lord of all 
and the Soul of all, is the Giver of the fruits of all works either as those 
respective gods or as His own self to prove this (the Author) says : 

SUTRA 3. 2. 37. 

"The fru't (arises) from this, on account of appropriateness". 

The doubt is as to whether the Supreme Brahman alone, proved 
above to be the Lord of all, is the Giver of the fruits of all works, or not. 

(1) i, e. 6iva or the Supreme Lord pervades the whole world through 
Narayana. 



Brahman is the Giver of Fruits Z7 

Prima Facie View 

Although a work is destroyed every moment, yet, due to the Unseen 
Potency (Apurva) involved in it, it has the power to bring about the 
fruit, produced at another time. Thus it being established that a work 
itself is the giver of its own fruit, it is altogether redundant to surmise 
an unknown Supreme Lord, besides it. Hence, He is not the giver of 
fruits. This is the Prima Facie view. 

Reply 

Brahman is the Giver of Fruits. 

But the Correct Conclusion is as follows : The fruits of the works 
of all persons result only from the Supreme Lord who is worshipped. 
"On account of appropriateness", i. e. because it is appropriate 
that the attainment of the fruits by the worshippers should result from 
the Supreme Lord, the worshipped, as (worldly ends of the royal servants) 
result from the King served (by them). Neither the non-sentient nor the 
Unseen Potency inherent (Apurva) in works can have the capacity to know 
and produce the different results in diffeient cases, because the same is 
found to be the case with the non-sentient act of serving (the King). (*) 
As the Supreme Lord who is definitely established by the Scripures, 
is not an object of mere surmise, there is no redundancy of surmise 
here. Thus, the Scriptural text : "This one, truly, causes him, 
whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds, to perform good 
action. This one also, indeed causes him, whom he wishes to lead 
downward, to perform bad action" (Kaus. 3. 8.) points out that the 
Lord alone is the giver of the fruits of good and bad action and the 
cause of those actions. Moreover, the Uuseen Potency (Apurva) itself 
being not established by Scripture, it is redundant to surmise it. Hence, 
it is established that the Supreme Lord, worshipped by works (like 
acts of devotion etc.), is the Giver of the results thereof, and not those 
works themselves. 

SUTRA 3. 2. 38. 

"And because of being declared in Scripture". 

It is declared by Scripture that the Supreme Lord is the Lord of 
works, He being the object worshipped, as well as the giver of the 
fruits of all works. Compare the text : "To the Lord of hymns, the 
Lord .of sacrifices ; to Rudra, the balm of happiness ; to Rudra, the 
King of our sacrifices" and so on. The Smrti, too, base^on this declares 

(1)~ When a royal servant serves a. King, he gets the fruit or result 
of his action, viz, monetary reward etc, from the King himself : but his act 
of serving being non-sentient cannot bring its own result, so is the case 
here. 

38 



298 6rikantha-Bhasya 3. 2. 40. 

that the Supreme Lord is the Lord of all sacrifices. Compare the passage : 
"One should worship the God Soma, endowed with Soma, with Soma" ; 
in the Ramayflna, there is a text viz : "For worshipping Rudra, there is 
no better sacrifice than the Horse-sacrifice". In the Camaka-Suktas, e. g. 
"My food, my origin, my sustianer, my Visnu", objects like the rice and 
the rest, as well as gods like Visnu and the rest are found to be objects to 
be given (as gifts), and so, the only remaining one, viz. the Lord, is 
established to be the Giver of the fruits of all works. Hence, the Supreme 
Lord alone, the object to be worshipped in all sacrifices, is the Giver 
of all fruits. 

Opponent's View 

SUTRA 3. 2. 39. 

'Religious merit ( is the giver of fruits K Jaimini thinks so >, for 
thote very reasons". 

"Jaimini" thinks that "religious merit" alone is the giver of fruits, 
"on account of appropriateness' (Br. Su. 3. 2 37.), "and because of being 
declared in Scripture" ( Br. Ju. 3. 2. 38.). The appropriateness is as 
follows : It is found that in the case of tilling and the like as well as in 
the case of grinding etc., the result is produced immediately or successively. 
The Scriptural evidence is as follows. As otherwise the injunctions 
regarding works to be performed as his essential duties by one who 
desires for particular fruits ( through them ) will become inappropriate, 
so those works themselves, through the Unseen Potency inherent therein, 
bring about their own fruits.(') 

Correct Conclusion. 
The Lord is the Giver of Fruits 

SUTRA 3. 2. 40. 

"But ( the giver of fruits is ) the former ( viz. the Lord ), 3adrayana 
( thinks ), on account of the designation (of Him) as the cause"- 

The reverend "Badarayana" holds that the Supreme Lord alone, 
mentioned above, is the Giver of the fruits of works, because in those 
very injunctions regarding works, like "One desirous of prosperity 
should sacrifice a white (goat) to Yayu He alone leads him to prosperity", 

(1) In the case of tilling etc., those works themselves produce 
their own results, like crop etc. and not any sentient being worshipped 
through such acts of tilling etc. : Again, in the Scriptural injunctions 
like "One desiring Heaven should perform sacrifices", sacrifices etc. 
are said to be the essential duties of one who desires for particular 
fruits like Heaven etc., and gods etc are enjoined, to be propitiated 
through those sacrifices etc. 



The Lord is the Giver of Fruits *> OQ 

Vayu and the rest are designated as the causes of fruits, only because they 
have the Supreme Lord' as their souls.( f ) In the absence of the such ( a 
mention of the Lord as the cause of fruits ), in order that the momentary 
works may be able to bring about their own results, the existence of an 
Unseen Potency (in those works) is imagined. But if the particular, 
way of bringing about the fruit, which is proved by the concluding part 
of the text and requires an injunction, be admitted, then He ( the 
Supreme Lord ) has to be admitted as well. Compare the text : "Those 
who desire to be well established, perform the Ratn-Satra or Night- 
Sacrifice" where a fruit, mentioned in the concluding part of the text and 
requiring injunction, is admitted. From the Atharva-&iras text : 
"He who is Rudra is the Lord" ( iras 2. ) it is known that the Lord has 
the forms of all gods like Vflyu and the rest. In that very treatise, in 
the text : "He who knows me knows all the gods ( Siras 1.), it is proved 
J?y the Supreme Lord that through knowledge regarding Him results 
knowledge regarding all the gods who possess Him as their souls. 
Hence, it is established that the Supreme Lord, the Supreme Brahman, 
$iva, the Husband of Uma is of the form of all the gods, the object to 
be worshipped in all the acts, and the giver of all the fruits. 

Here ends the Section entitled : "The Fruit" (9). 

Here ends the Second Quarter of the Third Chapter of the 
Commentary on the Brahman-Mimanisa, composed by the Saiva 
Teacher Srikantha. 

( According to ^flkantba, the Second Quarter of the Third Chapter 
of the Brahma-Sutras contains 40 Sutras and 9 Adhikaranas ). 



(1) That is, Vayu etc, : by themselves are not the givers of fruits, 
but the Lord Himself, having the forms of Vayu etc., is such a giver. 

(2) It has been pointed out above that in injuctions regarding works, 
no mention is made of the Lord as the Giver of the fruits of those 
works. E-G. it is said : "One desiring Heaven should perform sacrifices !" 
Hence, from this injunction it appears that the work of sacrificing 
itself will lead to the result, viz. Heaven. But the Author criticises 
this view by pointing out that even in many of the injunctions, there 
is a direct mention of a god ( i. e. the Lord in the form of that parti- 
cular god ) as the giver of the fruits thereof. Here, it is unnecessary 
to bring in the Unseen Potency inherent in the works ( Apurva) as the 
cause of the fruits. Such an imagining of the Unseen Potency is possible 
only in those cases where no direct mention is made of the Lord or 
a god as the giver of fruits. But, here, too, the Lord is the real Giver. 



THIRD CHAPTER ( Adhyftya ) 
Third Quarter ( Pada ) 

Adhikarana 1 : The Section entitled "The Understanding from All 
the Vedantas" (Sutras 1-4). 

It has been established above that the individual soul (Pasu) denoted 
by the word 'Tvam' and possessed of the attributes of eternity and the 
rest, is the worrhipper ; while 6iva, the Lord (Pasupati), denoted by the 
word 'Tat', and possessed of the attributes of omniscience and the like, is 
the object to be worshipped. Now, in answer to the question : "How is 
Meditation (on. the Lord to be carried on) ?" its nature is being determind. 
in the following (Sutras). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 1. 

"The understanding (ie. what is understood) from all the Vedantas 
(is one), on account of the non-difference of the injunction and the rest." 

In all the Vedantas, Dahara- Meditation and the rest are mentioned. 
The doubt is as to whether they are identical, or different, because of 
belonging to different Branches. 



(1) Compare the famous passage 'Tat Tvatn Asi' (Chand. 6.8.7. etc.), 
"That thou art" Here 'Tat' means Brahman' 'Tvam' means the individual 
soul. 

(2) Dahara-VidyS or the Doctrine of the Small, i. e. the Doctrine 
that the Universal Soul is within the heart of man. Vide Chand. 8.1. 8.6. 
and Mahsnar. 10.7. Compare also. Brh. 2.1.17. In the Chandogya, the 
Doctrine begins thus : "Now, what is here in this city of Brahman is a 
small lotus-chamber, small is the ether within that. What is within 
that should be searched for, that certainly is what one should desire to 
understand" (Chand. 8. 1. 1.) ; and ends : "Now, as a great extending 
highway goes to two villages, this one and the yonder, even so these 
rays of the sun go to two worlds, this one and the yonder. They extend 
from the yonder sun and enter into these veins. They extend from the 
veins and enter into the yonder sun." (Chand. 8.6.2.). "But when he thus 
departs from the body, he ascends upwards through those very rays of the 
sun. With the thought 'Om', forsooth, he passes up. As quickly as one 
could direct ones mind to it, he goes to the sun. That, certainly, is the 
door to the world (of Brahman), an entrance for knowers, a stopping for 
non-knowers". (Chand. 8.6.5.). Vide Br. Su. 1.3.1322. Also, Br, Su. 3.3.36. 



The Dahara-Meditations are the Same 301 

Prim a Facie View 

As difference of Branches implies difference of contexts, so the 
meditation is different in every Branch (where it is mentioned). Thus* 
the Dahara-Meditation is mentioned both in the Chaiidogya and Taittiriya 
Manuals. In the former case, the text, beginning : "The soul that is free 
from sins, ageless, deathless" (Chand. 8.1.5,), mentions the attributes of 
'being free from sins' and the rest. In the latter case, the text beginning :: 
"To the righteous, to the true" (Mahanar 10.7.), mentions the attributes 
of 'being black and twany' and the rest. 

Prima Facie View 

Here the attributes mentioned being different, the Meditations, too, 
must be so. Again, in the Cha"ndogya, the Doctrine of Five Fires (*) 
has the name Kauthuma^ 8 ); while in the Brhadaranyaka, it has the 
name 'Vajasaneya' ( 8 ). 

Here the names being different, the Meditations, too, must be so. 
In the Mundaka Branch, there is the mention of a sacred duty called' 
*6irovrata'( 4 ), in the passage : "To them indeed one may declare this 
knowledge of Brahman, when, however, the Head -rite (6irovrata) has 
been performed by them according to rule" (Muncl. 3. 2. 10.). Here the 
'^irovrata', a particular kind of Vedic rite, has been enjoined only for 
the followers of the Atharva-Veda, and not for others. Hence, the 
religious rites being different ( for the followers of different Vedas), the 
Meditations, (mentioned therein), too, must be so. Hence, on account of 
the difference of Branches (of the Vedas) and so on, the Meditations, 
(mentioned therein), too, must be different, This is the Prima Facie 
View. 

Correct Conclusion 
The Dahara -Meditation* are the Same. 

But the Correct Conclusion is as follows : 

"The understanding from all the Vedantas", i.e. the Dahara- 
Meditation and the rest ( known therefrom ), are indeed the same, "On 
account of the non-difference of '.injunction and the rest", viz of injunc- 
tion, connection with fruit, form and name, as in the case of injunctions 
regarding sacrificial works( 8 ). Thus, injunction : like 'One should know', 

(1) See under Br. Sfi. 3. 1. 1. 

(2) Taught by Kauthuma. 

(3) Taught by Vajasaneya. 

(4) The rite of carrying fire oil the head, a well known Vedic vow 
amongst the followers of the Atharva. Veda. 

(5) Cf. Pfl. Mi. Su, 2. 4. 9, "Or, one, on account of non-difference of 
their connection, form, injunction and name". 



302 ^nkairtha-Bhasya 3. 3. 2. 

'One should medidate', are the very same in spite ot difference of Branches. 
The connection with fruit, viz. the attainment of Brahman, is the same 
(in all). The object to be meditated on, too, is just the same, viz. 
Brahman having the form of Vaisvanara and the rest. The name, too, viz. 
'Vaisvanarna-Vidya', is the same. Thus, the Meditations (though men- 
tioned in different Branches) are one and same. Even when the Vidyas( J ) 
etc., are different, the Meditations do not differ. 

In the Chandogya, the Dahara-Meditation is enjoined thus": ''What 
is within that should be searched for" (Chand. 8. 1. I. 1 ; while in the 
Tattinya-Manual, it is said : "What is within that should be meditated 
on" (Mahanar. 10. 7.). Here, the place (viz the Small Ether within the 
heart) as well as Brahman, the object to be meditated on being the 
same, the attributes mentioned in these two cases do not conflict with 
each other( ? ). Hence, the Vidyas are, indeed, one and the same. In the 
Chandogya and the Brhadaraijyaka Branches, what is recorded of the 
Five Fires as the objects to be meditated on viz. Heaven, cloud, earth, 
man and woman( 8 ), is the very same in both the cases. Hence, the 
Vidyas are not different. 

SUTRA 3. 3. 2. 

"If it bi objected that on account of the differences (of the object 
of meditation, there is) no (identity of Vidyas), (we rep v y ) (there may 
be repetition) even with regard to the same Vidya''. 

Objection 

If it be objected that the repetition of (the same Vidyas) in the 
Very same form in different Sections, proves their difference. Hence, the 
Vidyas are not the same. 

Reply 
The Meditations are the Same. 

We reply : Even if the Vidyas be the same, yet (their repetition) in 
other Branches is quite appropriate, the readers (of those Branches) being 
different. Hence this kind of repetition does not prove the difference 
(among those Vidyas) ( 4 ). 

(1) The Vidyas are the various Meditations mentioned in the 
Upanisads etc. There are different Vidyas like Dahara-Vidya, Vaisvanara- 
Vidya etc. in different treatises. But all cf them involve Meditation on 
the very same Brahman. 

(2) Br. Su. 3. 3. 4. 

(3) Cf Paficagni-Vidya or the Doctrine of Five Fires. See under 
Br. Su. 3. 1. 1. see Chand. 5. 3. 5. 10. and Brh. 6. 2., 913. 

(4) It is found that the very same Vidya is repeated in different 



The Meditations are the Same 303 

SUTRA 3. 3. 3. 

" Because (the Head-rite is a subsidiary part) of the study of the 
Veda (and not of the Vidya) (it) being so, (there is) that restriction, 
(because it is mentioned to be so^ in the Samacara and because of the 
topic, and in the case of libations " 

The restriction with regard to the Head-rite (of carrying fire on the 
head), as mentioned in the Atharva-Veda thus : "Let one declare the 
knowledge of Brahman to them alone" (Mund. 3.2.10,), is due to the fact 
that it is a subsidiary part of the study of the Veda and not of the Vidya 
itself. ( l ) (The Head-rite is a subsidiary part of the study of the Veda and 

Upanisads etc. Now, such a repetition is altogether useless, unless it 
serves some definite purpose. 

Here the Prima Facie View is that the exact repetition of one 
and the same Vidya can have no useful purpose whatsoever. Hence, in 
order that the different Branches of the Vedas may not be charged with 
doing what is is absolutely useless, we have to admit that really here there 
is no repetition of one and the same Vidya at all, but each is a new and 
separate Vidya having a different object of its own. 

But the Author criticises this view by pointing out that such a 
repetition of the very same Vidya is not at all meaningless, but serves a 
useful purpose. That is, it is for the benefit of the different readers of the 
different Branches of the Vedas. Bach and every person does not read 
each and every Branch of the Vedas. E g. one who reads the Chandogya 
may not read the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad. Hence, the same Vidya has 
often been purposely repeated in two or more different Branches, so that 
the persons reading one or other of those Branches may have an equal and 
easy access to the Vidyas in question. 

1) It may be objected that the same Vidyas, mentioned in different 
Branches, must be different. For example, in the Mundaka, it is declared 
that only those who perform the Head-rite, i. e. only those who follow 
the Atharva-Veda, are entitled to the Brahma-Vidya, contained in the 
Mundaka. This shows that the Brahma-Vidya mentioned in the Mundaka is 
a separate and special kind of Brahma-VidyS, quite different from similar 
Brahma-Vidyas mentioned in other Branches. For, the Mundaka Brahma- 
Vidya is open only to those who perform the Head-rite ; but, if it be the 
same as other Brahma-Vidyas mentioned in other Branches, then the 
followers of those Branches, too, must perform the same Head-rite. In 
that case however, the special restriction that the Head-rite is to be 
performed only by the followers of the Atharva-Veda would become 
meaningless. Hence, the Mumjaka Brahma-Vidya must be different from' 
other similar Brahma-Vidyas. 



304 rikantha-Bhasya 3. 3. 4. 

not of the Vidya itself) because its connection with study is known from 
the text : "One who has not practised the vow, does not read this" (MuncJ. 
3.2.11.); also because in the 'Samacara' treatise, it is proved to be a 
Vedic rite, thus : "This too, has been explained as a Vedic rite" (In the 
above Mund. 3.2.10. text) in the expression : "Knowledge of Brahman," the 
word "Brahman" means 'the Veda' Thus just as the (seven) libations 
belong to them alone (viz. to the followers of the Atharva-Veda only), so 
does the Head-rite no less. (*) Hence, the restriction that the knowledge 
of the Veda is to be imparted only to those who perform the Head- 
rite, i. e., only to the followers of the Atharva-Veda, is not an indication 
of the difference among the Vidyas. 

SUTRA 3. 3. 4. 
"And ( Scripture ) shows ( this )". 

Scripture itself "how*' the identity of the VidySs. In the Dahara- 
Vidya,( a ) mentioned in the Harm Upanisad and the Kaivalya Upanisad, 
the form of the Lord is referred to thus : "To the Righteous, to the True, 
to the Supreme Brahman, to the Person black and tawny, to the Abste- 
mious, to the Three-eyed Being" (Mahanar. 10. 7.), "To one who has Uma 
for His Companion, to the Supreme Lord, to the Master, to the Three-eyed 
One having a blue neck, to the Tranquil" (Kaivalya 7, ). Now, as ( the 
Lord ) as possessing such a form, may become subject to sin, old age, 



The answer to this is that the Head-rite is not really an essential 
subsidiary part of or requisite to that particular Mundaka-Brahma-Vidya 
(Meditation). It is only a subsidiary part of the study of the Veda, and 
not of the Vidya, stated in it. That is, it is not essential for one to per- 
form the Head-rite in order to be entitled to the study of the Mundaka 
Brhma-Vidya. But it is essential for him to perform it to be entitled only 
to the study of the Atharva-Veda. The Head-rite being a Vedic-rite, a 
part of the Vedic study, those who practise it, become entitled to the 
knowledge of the Atharva-Veda in general. Thus, Mundaka Brahma- 
Vidya is not different from other similar Brahma-Vidyas. 

(1) Here a parallel instance is cited. The seven oblations, beginning 
with the Sauryya and ending with the ataudana, have no connection 
with the three fires mentioned in a different Branch, but are only connected 
with the one fire mentioned in the Atharva-Veda ; and hence they are to 
be offered to one fire by the followers of the Atharva-Veda alone. In the 
very same manner, the followers of the Atharva-Veda alone, and not 
others, are entitled to the Head-rite, which is a subsidiary part of the 
study of the Atharva-Veda. 

(2) SeeBr. So, 3, 1.1, 



The Vidyas are the Same 80S 

death and the like, so the Chaudogya, beginning : "Now, that which is 
within this" (Chand. 8.1.1.), goes on to denote Him as possessing only eight 
qualities^ 1 ) Here there is no scope even for the doubt that the repetition 
of the same texts, establishing different attributes in their respective 
place?, prove those Vidyaas to be different.! 8 ) Hence it is establsihed that 
"on account of the non-differance of injunction and the rest, the under- 
standing from all the Vedantas" (Br. Sii. 3. 3, 1.), i- e. the meditations 
( understood from all of them ) are one and the same, there being no other 
texts and the rest proving them to be different.( 8 ). 



"Here ends the Section entitled "The Understanding from all the 
Vedantas". (1) 



(1) Cf. Chand. 8. 1.5.: "The soul is free from sins, without old age, 
without death, without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having 
trule resolves". 

(2) When the same Vidya is found repeated in different Branches 
of the Veda, and when the texts in connection with it are exactly the same 
in those different treatises, there is, of course, some scope for the doubt 
that the Vidyas must be somehow different for, why should Scripture 
indulge in a mere senseless repetition ? This objection has been 
disposed of above in Br. Su. 3. 3. 3. But in the case of the Dahara-Vidya, 
mentioned in three different places, viz. Mahanarayana, Kaivalya and 
Chandogya Upanisads, even this doubt cannot be raised. For, here, 
although the very same Dahara-Vidya is repeated thrice, yet the particular 
texts regarding it are not exact repetitions, but mention different 
qualities of the object to be meditated on. Thus, in the first two 
Upauisads, the Lord is described as having a particular form, viz. black 
and tawny, three-eyed etc. Then, in the last Upanisad, it is shown that 
in spite of having a form, He is sinless, ageless etc. Thus, the last 
one supplements the first two. Hence, the Dahara-Vidya must be the 
same in all. 

(3) Pu. ML Su. 2. 4. 9. mentions the grounds for taking acts to be 
the same, viz. injunction, form, name etc. Pu. MI. Su. 2. 2. 1. ff mention 
the grounds for taking acts to be different, viz. text, repetition, section, 
number, attribute, procedure and name. Here, the former grounds are 
present, the latter absent' That is, here, the texts regarding the Small 
etc. are the same and so on. See Br. Su. 3. 3. 56. 

39 



Adhikarana 2 : The Section entitled "Combination (Sutra S) 

(The Author) points out the result that follows from (the above) 
demonstration regarding the identity of all the Vidyas enjoined in the 
Vedantafc 

SUTRA 3. 3. 5. 

"And ( the Vidyas ) be : ng the same, ( there is ) combination ( of the 
special features ), on account of the non-difference of meaning, as in 
the case of what is complex entar? to injunction. 1 ' 

The doubt is : If the Vidyas be the same, whether the special 
features mentioned in one Branch, are to be combined with those 
mentioned in another, or not. 

Prim a Facie View 

The Prima Facie view is as follows : 

These are not to be so combined. Thus, in the Dahara-Vidya, as 
contained in the Chandogya, 'attributes of 'freedom from sins' and the rest 
are mentioned, but not in the Taittirlya- Manual ( viz. Mahanarayana ). 
Hence, not being mentioned there, these should not be inserted there, ( in 
the Mahanarayana ). The purpose of meditation will be served very well 
by the qualities of 'black and tawny* and the rest, mentioned therein 
( i. e, in the Mahanarayaua ). So what is the use of combining with them 
( the qualities of 'freedom from sins' etc. ), not enjoined ? 

Correct Conclusion 
' The Qualities mentioned in Different Vidyas are to be Combined. 

To this, we reply : The meditations being the same everywhere, the 
qualities of 'freedom from sins' and the rest, mentioned in the Chandogya 
etc, in connection with Uie Dahara-Meditation, are to be included under 
the bahara-Meditation mentioned elsewhere, viz. in the Taittiflya-Manual 
( i. e. in the MahSnarayana etc. ), on account of the unity of purpose, i. e. 
because the purpose, viz. facilitating meditation, is the same (everywhere). 
Just as in Agnihotra "and the like, the subsidiary features, enjoined as 
complementary to injunctions, ( are to be combined ),(*) so the injunction 

(1) In the Karma-Kanda, the special features or subsidiary parts 
( Aftgas ) of a sacrifice, are not always mentioned in the same place, but 
in many different places. But when the sacrifice is performed, all 
scattered features or details are combined together. In the very 
satne manner, the special features or details of a particular VidyS or 
meditation may be mentioned in various places ; yet when it is practised, 
all these details are to be combined together. 



The Udgitha- Vidyfts arc Different 8Q7 

and the rest being the same, in Dahara- Meditation and the rest, the quali- 
ties, ( mentioned in different places ) are all to be accepted. Thus, it 
stands to reason that there must be the combination of qualities ( rrtentipn- 
ed in different places ). 

Here ends the Section entitled Combination (2), 



Adhikarana 3. The Section entitled "Difference (outra 6- 8 ), 
Prima Facie View 

SUTRA 3. 3. 6. 

"If it be objected that (there is) difference (between the two 
Udgitha-Vidyas) on account of words, (we reply) : no, on account of 
non-difference". 

In the Udgitha-Vidya,s( l ) of the Vajinas and the Chandogas, the 
Meditation on the (UdgTtha) as the (chief) vital-breath, leading to the 
overcoming of enemies, has been enjoined Hence, on the doubt as 
to whether the Vidyas are identical or not, the Prima Facie view is as 
follows ' 

(4) Cf. the Udgitha- Vidya in the Brhadaranyaka and Chandogyd 
Upanisads. 

(a) Brh. 1. 3. The account given is as follows : The gods and the 
demons, the offspring of Prajapati, fought with one another for the 
possession of the worlds. Then, the gods resolved to overcome the demons 
at the sacrifice by the Udgltha (Sarificial Hymns). So, they asked speech to 
sing the Udgitha for them. Thereupon, demons rushed upon it and pierced 
it with evil. Then tire gods successively approached the in- breath, the eye, 
the ear and the mind, with the same request ; but each failed to comply 
with it because of the same reason. Finally, the gods requested the chief 
vital-breath who sang the Udgitha for them ; and when the demons tried 
to rush upon it and pierce it with evil, they themselves were scattered 
and destroyed. (Brh. 1. 3. 1. 1. 3. 7.) 

(b) Chand. 1. 2. Here also a very similar account is found. It 
is as follows : The gods and the demons, the offspring of Prajapati, 
fought with one another. Then the gods took the Udgitha, hoping 
to overcome the demons with it. So, they worshipped the breath in the 
nose as the Udgitha, but the demons pierced it with evil. Then they 
successively worshipped speech, the eye, the ear and the mind a* the 
Udgitha, but each was corrupted by the demons. Finally, they wor- 
shipped the chief vital-breath as the Udgitha, and when the demons 

to corrupt it, they themselves fell to pieces, (Cband. 1. 2 1. \. 2. 7*). 



08 rikai?tha-Bha$ya 3. 3. 7. 

Prima Facie View 

On account of the non-difference of injunction and the rest( l ), the 
Vidyas are identical. If it be objected : In the case of the Vajinas, 
the Meditation on the (Udgitha) as the (chief) vital-breath, implies that 
(the chief vital-breath) is the subject of the singing of the Udgltha, This 
is known from a word (in the nominative' case) : as in the text : "Then, 
verily they said to the breath in the mouth : 'Sing the Udgltha for us* ". 
'So be it', that breath sang the Udgltha for them" (Brh. 1. 3. 7.). * But in 
the case of the Chandogas, that (viz the chief vital-breath) is the object of 
the singing of the Udgltha. This is known from a word (in the accusative 
case), as in the text : "That which is the chief vital-breath, that they 
worshipped as the Udgltha" (Chand. 1. 2. 7.)( s ), Hence there is "difference 
between the two Vidyas, and not identity 

We reply : "No", "on account of the non- difference" of the 

beginning etc. In one place, the beginning is as follows : "The gods and 
the demons were the two-fold offspring ofPrajapati. Of these, the gods 
were the yonger, the demons the older. They fought with each other for 
these worlds. The gods said : 'Come, let us overcome the demons at 
the sacrifice with the Udgitha' " (Brh. 1. 3. 1.). In the other place, the 
beginning is as follows : "Verily, when the gods and the demons, both 
offspring of Prajapati, fought with each other, the gods took unto them- 
selves the Udgitha, thinking : 'With this, we shall overcome them' " 
(Chand. 1/2. 1.). Hence, "on account of the non-difference' of the 
beginning and the rest, the Vidyas are identical. 

Correct Conclusion ( Sutras 78 ) 
The Udgitha- Vidyas are different. 

SUTRA 3. 3. 7. 

"Or, (there is) no (fameness of the Vidyas), on account of the 
difference of the subject-matter, as in the case of being higher than the 
high 1 '. 

(1) Cf. Br. Su. 3. 3. 1. Here the injunctions 'One should meditate' 
are the same ; the fruits, viz. the overcoming of the demons too, are 
the same ; the forms, as well, are just the same, as in both cases, the 
Udgitha is to be meditated on as the chief vital-breath ; finally, the 
names are, also the same, viz ' Udgitha- Vidy a. 

(2) In the Brh., the chief vital-breath itself sings Udgltha, and is 
as such, different from Udgltba. But in the Chand, the chief vital-breath 
itself is worshipped as the tldgltha. So, in the first case, the chief vital- 



The Udgftha- Vidyas are Different 309 

(The Author) states the Correct Conclusion thus : The two Vidyas 
are not the same, "on account of the difference of the subject-matter*". 

Thus, in the case of the Chandogas, the subject-matter is the Pranava 
which is a part of the Udgltha, in accordance with the text : "Let ofle 
meditate on the syllable 'Om' as the Udgltha" (Chand. 1. 1. 1.). But in the 
case of the Vajinas, the subject-matter is the entire Udgltha ( l ). Thus, the 
subject-matters being different, the forms, too, must be so ; and so, the 
Vidyas, as well, must be different. Just as, even in Udgltha-Meditation 
of the same Branch, (the Meditation on the Udgltha) as the Golden Person 
differs from that as "higher than the high", so is the case here too.f*) 

Apprehending an objection, (the Author) disposes of it :- 

SUTRA 3. 3. 8. 

"If it be objected that on account of (s-milar) names, (there is same- 
ness of the Vidyas) (we reply : ) that has been said, on the other hand, 
(there is) that toa (i. e the identity of nimes) (ev n in the absence of 
identity of the objects named) . 

It is not to be said that on account of the sameness of names, viz. 
'Udgitha-Meditations', the two (Vidyas) are one and the same, for sameness 



breath is the subject, the singer, while the Udgltha is the object, the thing 
sung. But in the second case, the chief vital-breath is the object of 
worship as the Udgltha. 

(1) Cf the Brh. text where no specification is made, and the entire 
Udgltha is referred to thus : "Let us overcome (the demons) by the 
Udgltha" ( Brh, 1. 3. 1. ) 

(2) The rule is that if the objects meditated on be different, then 
the meditations themselves must be so, whether in the same Branch or in 
different Branches. Now, in Chand. 1. 6. 9., It is enjoined that the 
Saman, i. e. the Udgltha, is to be meditated on as the Golden Person 
within the sun ; while in Chand. 1.. 4. 2., it is enjoined that the Udgltha 
is to be meditated on as possessing the attributes of being higher than the 
high and so on. Now, in both the cases, Udgltha is the common object 
of meditation, still, it is to be meditated on under two different aspects 
in one case as the Golden Person, in the other, as Higher than the high. 
Hence, these two Udgltha- Meditations, though mentioned iu the same 
treatise, are, yet, taken to be different. In the very same manner, here 
in the case of of Bjrh and Chand., although the same Udgltha is enjoined 
to be meditated on, yet in the former case, it is to be meditated on as a 
whole, while hi the latter case, only as a part. So, the two Udgltha- 
Vidyas are different. 



310 Srikantha-Bhasya 3. 3. 9. 

of names is found even when the objects named are different. Just as 
in the case of the regular Agni-hotra and the Agni-hotra which is a part 
of the ceremony called 'Kun<}a-Payinam Ayanam' (!), although the names 
are the same, yet the sacrifices are different, so is the case here too. So, 
contradiction is involved here. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Difference' (3) 



Adhikarana 4 : The Section entitled "Universality" (Sutra 9). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 9. 

"And on account of the universality ( of Pranava as the object to 
be meditated en), (the view that Pranava is qualified by the Udgitha, 
is) appropriate". 

In the Chandogya, it is said : "Let one meditate on the syllable 
'Om', the Udgitha". ( Chand. 1. 1. 1. ). Here, on the doubt as to 
whether the Pranava (Cm) and the Udgitha are to be meditated on 
separately, or conjointly the Prima Facie view is as follows : 

Prima Facie View 

Although here the words 'Pranava' (Om) and the Udgitha are known 
to be standing in a relation of co-ordination such a relation being possible 
between a noun and an adjective yet there being no fixed rule either that 
the Pranava is qualified by the Udgitha or that the Udgitha is qualified 
by the Pranava, they are to be meditated on separately. 

Reply 
The Pranava alone is the object to be meditated on. 

To this, we reply : The Udgitha and the Pranava are not to be 
worshipped separately, Just as in the beginning, the Pranava is designated 
as the object to be meditated on, thus : "Let one meditate on the 
syllable 'Om', the Udgitha. One sings the Udgitha (beginning with) *Om' 
( Chand. 1, 1. 1. ), so later on, too, the Pranava is denoted to be the 
universal object of meditation, thus : "Such is the explanation of this 
syllable" ( Chand. 1. 1, 1. ). Hence, Pranava is qualified by the Udgitha. 
Thus, it is appropriate to hold that ( just as there is the meditation on the 



(1) A particular religious ceremony in which ewers or pitchers 
are used for drinking. 



The Fra&a-V* dyas are the Same 311 

tfdgftha) as the vital-breath (') (so here too, there is the Meditation ott 
the Udgrtha as the Pranava). Hence, the Pranava alone is the object to 
be meditated on. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Universality 1 ' (4) 



Adhikarana 5 : The Section entitled " Non-difference of All" 
( Sutras 10). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 10. 

"On account of the non-difference of all ( i.e. of the three Prana- 
Vidyaft), those ( qualities are to he inserted ) elsewhere.' 

In the Prana-Vidyas (*). of the Chandogas, the Vajinas and the 
Kausjtakinas, ( the attributes of the vital-breath, ), such as, being the 
eldest and the best, are designated. Compare the text : "He who, verily 
knows the oldest and the best, becomes, foresooth, the oldest and the best 
to his own people. The vital-breath, verily, is the oldest and the 



(1) See Chand. 1. 2. 7. 

(2) Prat;a-Vidya or the Doctrine of the Sense-organs. Compare 
Brh. 6. 1. ; Chand. 5. 1 ; Kaus. 3. 3. Also compare. Ait Ar. 2. 1. 4. ; Sat. 
Br. 14. 9. 2. ; Prasna 2. 2. 4. 

In Brh. 6. 1., it is said that the sense-organs quarrelled among 
themselves regarding their own superiority and then approached Brahma. 
Then he told them that, that one, after whose departure, the body becomes 
worse off, is the most excellent. Thereupon, speech, eye, ear, mind and 
semen left the body one after another. Still the body lived as a dumb, 
blind, deaf, stupid and impotent being, respectively. Finally, when the 
vital-breath was about to go out, the other sense-organs implored it not 
to leave them , as it would not be possible for them to live without it 
Thereupon, the vital-breath demanded offerings from the sense-organs etc. 
So, speech, eye, ear, mind and semen respectively offered to the vital- 
breath their cwn qualities viz, being 'the richest,' 'firm basis', 'attainment 1 , 
'abode' and 'procreation'. 

An exactly similar, but a little more condensed, account is found in 
Chand. 5. 1. 

In Kau. 3. 3., the last part of the above two accounts ( viz the offer- 
ings to the vital-breath of their own qualities by speech etc. ) is not found 
The first part too, is somewhat different, there being no mention of the 
quarrel among the sense-organs etc. 



312 6rika^ha-Bhaya 3. 3. 10. 

best" (Brh, 6.1.1.)- By all these three, it is established in the same manner, 
that as the vital-breath is the support of all the sense-organs like speech 
and the rest, and as their activities are all due to the vital-breath, so the 
vital-breath is the eldest. The connection of the vital-breath with the 
qualities of * being the richest' and the rest, inhering in speech and the 
rest, are declared by the (lirst) two only, thus : "Then Speech said unto 
that one: 'If I am the richest, then are you the richest,' Then the Eye 
said unto that one : 'If I am a firm basis, then are you a firm basis' Then 
the Ear said unto that one ; 'If I am attainment, then are you attain- 
ment.' Then, the Mind said unto that one : 'If I am an abode, then are 
you an abode."" ( Chand. 5. 1. 12.-14. ) ( l ). But ( in the PrSna-Vidya ) 
of the Kausitakinas, ( these attributes of 'being the richest' etc ) are 
not mentioned. So, on the doubt as to whether these qualities of 'being 
the richest' etc. are to be inserted here, too, or not 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : In accordance with the text : "He who knows thus" 
( Kaus. 4. 20. ), only those qualities, which are mentioned in that Branch, 
are to be meditated on. Hence ( the other qualities, mentioned in other 
Branches ) are not to be inserted herein. 

Reply 
The qualities of 'being richest and the best* are to be inserted. 

We reply : Though not mentioned, the qualities of 'being the 
richest and the best' are indeed to be inserted, because the word 'thus' 
implies the qualities that have not been mentioned, just like those that 
have been mentioned ; and also because, the object, viz. the vital-breath, 
being the same, its qualities, too, must be piesent to the mind. 
E. G. Devadatta is seen to be teaching in Mathura, and not to be teaching 
in Mahismati, yet there, too, he is recognised as a teacher. In the same 
manner, in the Chandogya etc., ( the vital-breath ) is said to be endowed 
with the qualities of 'being the richest' and the like ; but again in another 
place (viz. in the Kausitaki), (it) is described as just as it is ( without 
those qualities ). Still, here too, it is present to the mind as endowed with 
those qualities. Thus, as the word 'thus' ( in the above Kaus. 4. 20. text ) 
refers to these qualities of 'being the richest and the best/ they are to be 
inserted therein, (i.e. in the Kausitaki). 



Here ends the Section entitled "Non difference of All' (5). 

(1) Cf Brh, 6. 1. 14. 



Adhikarana 6 : The Section entitled "Bliss and the rest" {Sutra U). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 11 

Bliss and the rest ( are to be understood everywhere ), ( on account 
of the non-difference ) of the Chief." 

The phrase : "on account of non-difference" is to be supplied 
( from the preceding Aphorism). In the Para-Vidyas ('). i.e. in the 
texts 'Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" ( Tait. 2. 1. 1. ), "Brahman 
is bliss" ( Tait. 3. 6. 1. ), "To the righteous, to the true, to the highest 
Brahman, the black and tawny person" ( MahanSr. 12. 1. ), "Brahman has 
the ether as His body, truth as His soul, the vital-breath as His 
pleasure, the mind as His bliss, abounding in tranquillity" ( ? ). ( Tait. 
1. 6. 2. ) and so on, the qualities of 'bliss' etc, "of the chief i. c. of 
Brahman, are mentioned. On the doubt as to whether these are to be 
inserted in all the Para-Vidyas or not 

Prima Facie View. 

If it be said : They are not to be so inserted, because, if the one 
Brahman be possessed of many qualities, like bliss etc., then He will 
Himself become many ; because, (qualities) entail differences in the 
substances qualified ; and because, Meditation is very well possible only 
through those qualities, mentioned in those respective places 

Reply 
The qualities of Bliss etc are to be inserted everywhere. 

We reply : The object qualified, viz. Brahman, being the same, (the 
qualities of) bliss etc. are to be inserted an all the Para-VidySs. Only 
contrary qualities, like 'blue, white and red,' 'broken and unbroken 
horn' etc, show that there must be more than one substance (as one and 
the same thing cannot be blue and white etc.) ; and never (compatible 
qualities) like 'blue' etc., when it is said : 'This is a large, blue, fragrant 
lotus'. Hence the attributes of Brahman (like bliss etc.) being quite 
compatible with one another, do not prove (His) manifoldness. Therefore, 
Brahmau, the Object qualified, being everywhere the same, (the qualities 
of) bliss and the rest are to be inserted everywhere. 

Here ends the Section entitled Bliss and the rest" (6). 



1. i.e. Doctrines or Discourses regarding the Highest. 

2. See above Br. Su. 1, 1. 2. for explanation. P. 23. 
40 



Adhikarana 7 : The Section entitled "Having joy for the Head" 
(Sutra* 1213). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 12. 

"(There is) no relevancy (of the attribute of) 'having joy for the 
head' and the rest, (or, (there will be) increase and decrease (on the part 
of Brahman) (and also) difference/' 

In the text : "Joy alone is His head, delight the right wing, excessive 
delight the left wing, bliss the soul, Brahman the tail, the foundation" 
(Tait. 2. 5.), 'having joy as the head' and the rest are declared to be the 
attributes of Brahman. On the doubt as to whether they too, like bliss 
etc., are to be included in the Para-Vidyas or not 

Prima Facie view 

If it be said : What contradiction is involved if they too, like (the 
attributes of) 'having true resolves' etc., be included ? 

Reply 

The qualities of 'having joy for head' are not to be inserted every- 
where. 

We reply : (the attributes of) 'Having joy for the head' etc. are not to 
be included in the Para-Vidyas, for, they are not the attributes of 
Brahman like (the attributes of) 'having true resolves' etc. If they be so 
included, then Brahman will become an embodied being, and in that case, 
there will result "increase and decrease" on His part. Further, if (the 
qualities of) 'having joy for the head' and the rest be natural (on His part,), 
then Brahman will come to involve differences. Hence, they are not to be 
so included. 

(The Author) points out that like (the attributes of) bliss and the 
rest, (those of) omniscience etc., too, are the attributes pertaining to the 
very nature of Brahman ; and hence, no contradiction is involved here : 

SUTRA 3. 3. 13. 

"But the others, on account of (their) similarity with the object 
itself." 

"The others", i. e. (the attributes) of omniscience', 'being eternally 
satisfied' and so on, are included in the very nature of Brahman and so are 
similar to the object (viz. Brahman). Hence, they are to be included 
everywhere (but the attributes of 'having joy for the head' etc, not being 
so included, are not to be inserted (everywhere). 

Here ends the Section entitled "Having Joy as the Head" (7). 



Adhikarana 8 : The Section entitled "Meditation" (Sutras 1417). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 14. 

"For the purpose of Meditation, on account of the absence of 
purpose/' 

Here the doubt is as to whether, like the Meditation on the Self 
consisting of bliss, that on the self consisting of food and the rest,(') too, 
is to be constantly undertaken, or not 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : The Self consisting of bliss is inside all the rest, viz. the 
self consisting of food and so on. Hence, the Meditation on the self 
consisting of bliss is impossible without the prior successive meditations 
on the self consisting of food and the rest. Therefore, the meditations on 
these ( viz. the self consisting of food and the rest ), too, are to be regularly 
undertaken. 

Reply 

Meditations on the Self Consisting of Food etc. 
need not be Constantly undertaken. 

We reply : The meditation on ( the Self) consisting of food and so 
on are not to be regularly undertaken, "on account of the absence of a 
purpose". These ( viz the meditation on the self consisting of food etc. ) 
are meant only for the purpose of leading one to Brahman, consisting of 
bliss. Hence, the meditation on the self consisting of food etc is to be 
undertaken only so long that purpose is not fulfilled. So, such medi- 
tations ( on the self consisting of food and so on ) are not to be constantly 
undertaken. 

SUTRA 3. 3. 15. 
'And on account of the term 'self ". 

In the text : "He who knows this on departing from this world, 
proceeding on to the self consisting of food" (Tait. 3. 10. 5.) and so on, 
there is the mention of the term 'self in each case. From this, it is known 

(1) Cf. the Ananda-Valll in Tait. 2.15. Here the soul is said to 
have five sheaths, one inside the other, viz. food, vital-breath, mind, 
intelligence and bliss. (Anna, Prana, Manas, Vijnana, Ananda). Thus, 
inside the soul consisting of food, there is the soul consisting of the vital- 
breath ; inside that ; again, the soul consisting o( mind, and so on. 



316 6rikantha-Bhasya 3. 3. 17. 

that the self consisting of food and so on mean sentient beings, viz. 
the presiding deities of food etc. As it is definitely forbidden that any 
other sentient being, besides Brahman, should be taken to be an object 
to be worshipped by one who desires for salvation, these ( viz. the self 
consisting of food etc. or their presiding deities ) are not to be thought of 
during meditation. Thus, in the Atharva-^ikha, the text : "6iva alone, the 
cause of auspiciousness, is to be meditated on, discarding everything 
else" (6ikha 2), forbids that any thing else, besides Brahman, -should be 
taken as the object to be worshipped by one who desires for salvation. 
Hence, the meditations on the self consisting of food and so on are 
not to be undertaken constantly. 

SUTRA 3. 3. 16. 

"( In Fait. 2. 5., by the term 'self, there is ) the understanding of 
the self (viz. Brahman), as in other places ( viz. in Tait. 2.1,), on 
account of what follows''. 

Here, in the text : "Verily, other than and within that one that 
consits of understanding, is the .self that consists of bliss" (Tait. 2. 5.), the 
term 'self means the Supreme Self, and not the indivivual self ; as in the 
case of the term 'self in the text : "From the self, the ether arises" (Tait. 
2. 1.). This is known from the subsequent text : " Having approached 
the self consisting of bliss" (Tait. 3. 10. 5.). Hence, the Meditation on the 
Self consisting of bliss is the main one, and it is nothing but the Medita- 
tion on Brahman. 

SUTRA 3. 3. 17. 

"If it be objected ; on account of the connection (of the self consist- 
ing of bliss and the rest with the term 'self ), we reply : There may be 
difference on account of ascertainment". 

Objection 

"If it be objected" : "on acount of the connection" of ( the self ) 
consisting of food and so on, with the term 'self (*), that they, too, should 
be meditated on as the Supreme Self, involves no contradiction 

Reply 
Siva alone is to be meditated on. 

(we reply) No. For, from the text : "Another internal self is that 
which consists of Bliss" (Tait. 2. 5.), it is known that 6iva, the Supreme 
Self consisting of bliss, is different from the self consisting of food and 



(1) The self consisting of food etc., too are called 'self, just like the 
self consisting of bliss. Hence they too, must be equally selves. 



Siva alone is to be Meditated on 317 

the rest ; and also because, from the text * "Siva alone, the Cause of 
auspiciousness, is to be meditated on descarding everything else" (Sikha 2), 
it is definitely ascertained that Siva alone is to be meditated on, 
discarding all other objects. Here, the word 'iva', free from the 
stigma of all sins whatsoever and an abode of all auspiciousness, 
denotes the Supreme Brahman. Through constant meditation on One who 
is Three-eyed, and Black and Tawny, one attains Slavation, viz. similarly 
of form with Him. Hence, just as one meditates, so does one attain the 
result thereof. Therefore, the meditation on things other than Siva and 
devoid of the nature of Siva, cannot lead to the attainment of Siva. Hence 
Siva alone, consisting of bliss, is to be meditated on. 

Here ends the Section entitled ''Meditation (8). 



Adhikarana 9 : The Section entitled "The statement regarding 
something to be done" (Sutras 18). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 18. 

"On account of the statement regarding a thing to be done, (viz. 
something not known) (rinsing is not enjoined by the text hsre, but) some- 
thing new (i.e. meditation on water as the dress of th^ vital-breath)." 

In the text beginning : "Verily, he who knows the eldest and the best" 
( Brh. 1. 1. 1. ), and continuing : "What is my food, what is my dress ?" 
( Brh. 6.1.14 ; 6at. Brh 14.9.2.14.), the vital-breath is said to ask this ques- 
tion of the sense-organs. Then the answer given is that water is its 
dress ( l ). After that, the text goes 011 to declare : "Hence, he who knows 
this, should rinse the mouth with water when about to eat, and should 
rinse the mouth with water when he has eaten : Thus, indeed, he makes 
the breath non-naked/ 3 (6at. Br. 14.9.2.15.) ( 2 ), Here, on the doubt as to 
whether here both the ( ordinary) rinsing of the mouth and the meditation 
of water as forming the dress of the vital-breath are enjoined, or only the 
meditation on water as forming the dress of the vital-breath 

(1) Cf. "Whatever there is here, as far as dogs, worms, crawling 
and flying insects that is your food ; water is your dress" ( Brh. 6. 1. 14, 
6at. Br. 14. 9. 2, 14. ). 

(2) Cf. also : "Those who are versed in the Veda and know this, 
rinse the mouth with water when they are about to eat, and rinse the 
mouth with water when they have eaten. So indeed they think that they 
are making the breath non-naked' (Brh. 6. 1. 14.). 



318 6nkantha-Bhasya 3. 3. 19. 

Prima Facie \ iew 

If it be said : There being no specification, both are enjoined.... 

Reply 
The Meditation on water has been enjoined here. 

We reply : Ordinary rinsing being already known from the custom 
sanctioned by the Smrtis, (the meditation on) water as forming the dress of 
of the vital-breath, not being known, is "something new" and that alone is 
enjoined here. ( l ). As (Scripture) makes a statement regarding something 
to be done only when that thing is not already known, so here even the 
mere assertory statement is to be taken to be injunctive in force.( 8 ) Hence, 
it stands to reason that only the meditation on water as forming the dress 
of the vital-breath that is "something new", is enjoined here. 

Here ends the Section entitled 'The Statement regarding Some- 
thing to be Done" (9). 



Adliikarana 10 : The Section entitled "The Name" (Sutra 19). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 19. 

"(The attribute of 'consisting of mind' and the rest) b.ing the same, 
too (it 5*) thus, ii e. therein identity of- Vidyas), on account of no n- 
di Terence." 

In the 'Mystery of Pire'( s ), as well as in the Brliadarananyaka, the 
Meditation taught by Sfmdilya( 4 ) is recorded. In one place, it is said : 

(1) The ordinary practice of rinsing the mouth with water befoie 
and after meals, is not enjoined here by Scripture. For, this has already 
been enjoined by Smrtis, and Scripture does not enjoin what has already 
been done so. Hence, the above Scriptural' text only re-mentions this 
ordinary custom, but does not enjoin it. What it enjoins is the meditation 
on water as forming the dress of the vital-breath, not enjoined before. 

(2) In the text : "So, indeed, he makes the breath non-naked' ; (6at. 
Br. 14.2.2. 15), there is no sign of any injunction, like 'should make'. Still, 
as it is a statement regarding something not known from other sources, 
(viz. meditation on water as forming the dress of the vital-breath), 
and as it is the special task of Scripture to enjoin such unknown things, 
the above assertory statement should be taken to be injunctive in force 

(3) Agni-Rahasya, the name of the tenth book of 6atapatha- 
Brahmana. 

(4) SancJilya-Vidya, Cf% also CliSnd. 3. 14. 



The 6andilya-Vidyas are the Same 319 

"Let one meditate on the self, consisting of mind, having the breath for 
its body, of the form of light, having true resolves, having the ether for 
its soul" (6at. Br. 10. 6. 3. 2.) ; in the other : 'This person within this 
heart consists of mind, is of the nature of light, is like a grain of rice or 
barley-corn. He, verily, is the ruler of all, the lord of all who governs all 
this, whatsoever there is" (Brh. 5. 6. 1.). Here the doubt is as to whether 
these two meditations are different or not. 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : In one case, ( the Self ) is great as having the ether 
for its soul ; while in another, it is small, as being similar to a barley-corn. 
Again, in one place, it has true resolves ; in another it is a ruler etc., 
Hence, the attributes ( of the self ) being thus diflerent, ( the meditations 
on it as possessing those attributes ), too, must be so. 

Reply 
The Sandilya-Vidyas are the same. 

We reply : Everywhere ( i. e. in both 6at. Br. and Brh.) the 
(qualities of) 'consisting of the mind' etc. "being the same 7 , (the 
attributes of } 'having the ether for its soul' ( as mentioned in 6at. Br.), 
may appropriately imply either that the self is transparent ( like the 
ether ), dr that it is only glorified to be great ( but is not really so ). 
Further, the qualities of 'lordship' etc. ( as mentioned in Brh. ) are 
nothing but special forms of ( the qualities of ) 'having true resolves' 
elc.( ! ), & n d are as such, identical with them. Hence, the Meditations are 
identical. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Same" (10). 



Adhikarana 11: 1 he Section entitled "Connection" (Sutras 
20 21). 

Prima Facie View ( Sutra 20 ) 

SUTRA. 3. 3. 20. 
"On account of connection, co elsewhere aho". 

In the Brhadaranyaka, beginning : 

"The person who is there in that orb and the Person who is here in 
the right eye" (Brh. 5. 5. 2.), the text goes on to designate that Brahman, 

(I) One cannot lord it over all, unless he has the power of translating 
all his resolves into actions at once. So, the former follows from the 
latter and is only a special manifestation of of such a power. 



320 6rIkantha-BhSya 3. 3. 22. 

the True, is to be worshipped, in the orb as well as in the eye, as possessing 
mystical utterance of the names of the seven worlds as His Body, (*). 
After that, the text records His two secret names, thus : "His secret name 
is 'Day' this in reference to the presiding Deities" (Brh, 5. 5. 3.), "His 
secret name is T this in reference to the Self" (Brh. 5. 5. 4.\ On the 
doubt as to whether these are to be insertd in both the places, or not. 

Prim a Facie View 

The Prima Facie view is as follows : The objects of meditations, 
( Brahman ), being the same, the meditations, too, must be so. Hence, 
these two names are ( to be inserted ) in both the places. 

Correct Conclusion 
1 he Meditations are different 

SUTRA 3. 3 21. 
"Or not, on account of difference". 

Here, the Meditations are not identical, as the objects to be 
worshipped are different, due to its connection with different places, viz. 
the sun and the eye( 8 ). Hence, the two names are to be inserted only 
in their respective places. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Connection'' (11). 



Adhikaraiia 12 : The Section entitled "Meditation on the Orb" 
( Sutra 22 ). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 22. 
"And ( Scripture ) shows ( this )" 

In the Chandogya as well as in the Taittiiiya- Manual ( i. e. 
Mahanarayana ) the Meditation on the Orb.( 2 ) is recorded. On the 
doubt as to whether they are different, or not. 

Prim a Facie View 

The Prima Facie view is as follows : In one place, it is said : "Now, 
that Golden Person who is seen within the sun has a golden beard and golden 
hair. He is golden all over, even up to the finger-nail tips" (Chand. 1.66.) 



(1) viz. Bhii, Bhuvar, Svar, Mahar, Jauar, Tapar, Satya, Cf. the text I 
"Bhur is his head, Bhuvar is his arm, Svar is his feet" (Brh. 5. 5. 3. ) 

(2) Mandala-Vidya. 



The Meditations are One and the Same 18ft 

In another place, having introduced the Golden Person as inside the 
Person in the orb of sun, thus : "He who is the Golden Person insidfc 
the sun" (Mahanar. 12. 2.), in the end, the text begins by asserting : 
"All, verily, is Rudra", (Mahanar. 13. 2.), and ends by declaring (Him) to 
be the Soul of all, to be possessing Golden arms and to be the Husband of 
Urna", thus : "Obeisance to Him who has golden arms, who is the Lord 
of gold, who is the Husband of Ambica, who is the Husband of Uma 
obeisance to Him again and again" (Mahanar. 13. 4.). Now, here in one 
place (viz the Chand.) (the Lord is conceived to be) golden all over ; while 
in the other (viz. the Mahanar.), (He is conceived to be) golden in His arms 
only. Thus, there is difference of forms. In one place (viz. the Mahanar.), 
in accordance with the text : "All, verily, is Rudra" (Mahanar. 13. 2.), 
(He is conceived to be) the soul of all. In the other (viz. iu the Chand.), in 
accordance with the text : "He is the Lord of all the worlds'"( l ), (He is 
conceived to be) the Lord of all. Thus, there is difference of attributes 
also. Hence the meditations are not one and the same. 

Reply 
The Meditations on the Golden Person are one and the same. 

To this we reply : The meditations are not different. The same- 
ness of the place, as declared by the text "Inside the sun" (Chand. 1. 6. 6. ; 
Mahanar. 12. 2.), by itself "shows" the sameness of the meditations. 

In the Tattinya-Manual, (viz- the Mahanar.), the text begins thus : 
"The Golden Person" (Mahanar. 12 2.)(). Hence the declaration that He 
is golden only in His arms (in Mahanar. 13. 4.) being only a metaphorical 
one, in the end, too, it is intended that He is golden all over. 
Further, it has been proved that even the Lord of the world can be the 
soul of alt, as He enters into the bodies of all. Hence, the object (viz. 
Brahman) being the same in both the cases, the attributes of 'being the 
husband of Uma' and the rest, are to be inserted in both the places. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Meditation in the Orb" (12). 



Adhikarana 13 : The Section entitled, "Holding together' 7 
( Sutras 23 ). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 23. 

"(The attributes like) holding together and pervading the Heaven, 
too, (are not to be inserted in all Vidyas), and for this reason". 



(1) This is not found in the Chandogya. Compare, the text : "He 
is the Lord of the worlds which lie beyond the yonder sun" (Chand. 1. 6. 8.). 

(2) Here, as no specification is found, He must be golden all over. 
41 



822 ^rikastha-Bhasya 3. 3. 23. 

In the supplementary writings of the Ranayaniyas, it is said : "The 
powers of which Brahman is the oldest were held together. Braman 
stretched out the Heaven, the oldest, in the beginning. Brahman was 
born as the first of Truth. Who, then, is fit to rival that Brahman ?" (Tait. 
Br. 2. 4. 7. 10.). 

(The meaning of the above text is as follows :) The Supreme 
Brahman 'stretched out', i. e. performed, in the world (acts like) burning 
Tripura, drinking poison and so on, which are unsurpassable/ 'oldest', 
not accomplishable by others, and 'held together' (by Him) in the forms 
of^rlkantha etc. Brahman is the 'oldest', i. e. superior to even Hari- 
Hara, Hiianyagarbha etc. 'In the beginning', i. e. even prior to their 
creation, (He) stretched out the Heaven', i. e. pervading the world of 
Supreme Ether, permeated it. 

Prima Facie View 

On the doubt as to whether, (these attributes of) 'holding together 
these great powers', and 'pervading the Heaven' are to be inserted in all 
the Para-Vidyas(M, or not - If it be said : As they, too, are equally arrtibutes 
of Brahman, and as they are not mentioned in connection with any 
particular (form of meditation), they are to be inserted in all the Para- 
Vidyfls. 

Reply 
The attribute of 'pervading' is not to be inserted everywhere. 

We reply : (The attribute of) 'pervading' is not to be inserted in all 
places. It is to be inserted only where it is fit to be done so, i. e. only in 
those meditations where the Lord is not conceived to be occupying a 
small place. 

The text : "The gods, verily, went to the world of Heaven : Those gods 
asked Rudra : Who are you, your reverence ?" (6iras. l.) 7 speaks of a great 
place that is called 'Heaven' because of being an abode of unsurpassable 
bliss, and that is greater than the place of even Brahma etc. Hence, (the 
attribute of) 'pervading' the Heaven is to be inserted in the Vaisvanara- 
Meditation etc., where the I/ord is not conceived to be occupying a small 
place. (*) (The attribute of) 'holding the great powers together,, too, 
accompanying as it does, the attribute of 'pervading the Heaven', is to be 
inserted only in those very places. 

Here end* the Section entitled "The Holding Together* (13). 

(1) Meditations on the 'Supreme Being 

(2) i. e. it is not to be inserted in the 6an<}ilya-VidyS etc. (Chand. 
3.14.3.) where Brahman is meditated as something very small. 



Adhikarana 14 : The Section entitled "The Meditation on the 
Person" (Sutra 24). 

vSUTRA 3. 3. 24. 

"And even in the meditation on the person, (there is no transference 
of attributes;, on account of others being not recorded." 

In the Chandogya as well as in the Taittrlya-Manual (i. e. Mahanar. 
and Tait. Ar.), the 'Meditation on the Person' is recorded(*). In the one 
place, it is said : "The person, verily, is a sacrifice. His twenty-four 
years are the morning libations" (Chand. 3,16.1.) ; while in another : 
"For him who knows thus, the soul of the sacrifice is the sacrificer ; 
faith, his wife ; his body, the fuel ; his breast, the sacrificial alter ; 
body-hairs, the sacrificial grass." (Mahanar. 2.5.1, Tait, Ar. 10.64.). Here, 
the doubt is as to whether these two (Meditations on the Person) are 
identical or not 

Prim a Facie View 

If it be said : As in both the places, the names viz. Tnrusa-Vidya* are 
identical ; further, in both, the different parts (of a person^ are imagined 
to be the different parts of a sacrifice. Hence, they are identical 

Reply 
The Purusa-Vidyas are not identical. 

We reply : In the Tattiriya-Manual, the wife of the sacrificer etc., 
the parts of the sacrifice, (viz. fuel, alter etc ) (*) as well as three libations 
are mentioned ; but none of these is found mentioned in the Chandogya. 
In the latter, three other libations have been imagined. Hence, the two 
Meditations on the Person are different. In the Taittirlya- Manuals, three 
libations have been imagined thus : "The evening, the morning and the 
mid-day are the libations" (Mahanar. 25.1 ; Tait. Ar. 10.64.). But in the 
Chandogya, the life of a person (up to hundred and sixty years), divided 
thrice, has been imagined to be the three libations. ( 8 ) In the Taittirlya- 
Manuals, there is no direct mention of the fruit (of such a 'Meditatian on 
on the Person)'. Now, here having set forth the Meditation on Brahman 



(1) Purusa-Vidya. 

(2) The Chandogya simply iudentifies Person with a sacrifice and 
stops there, without entering into details. But the Taittiriya-Manuals 
differ from the Chandogya not only in not identifying the Person with a 
sacrifice, but also in entering into greater details. 

(3) In the Chandogya, the parts of one and the same thing have 
been imagined to be three libations ; while in the Taittiriya-Manuals, 
three different things have been so represented. 



324 ^rika^tha-Bhasya 3. 3. 25. 

(in the previous Section) thus: "Let him unite with you, the Great 
Brahman, Om" (Mahanar. 24.2 ; Tr. 10.63.). and having stated the fruit 
thus : "He attains the greatness of Brahman" (Mahanar. 25.2 , Tait. Ar. 
10.64.), the text goes on to the record the 'Meditation on the Person', 
thus : "For him who knows thus" (Mahanar. 25.2, Tait. Ar. 10.64.). Hence, 
this 'Meditation 'on the Person' is a subsidiary part of the Meditation on 
Brahman, referred to before. Hence, its fruit is nothing but the attainment 
of Brahman. But in the Chandogya, the fruit (viz. the attainment 
of longevity) is mentioned thus : ''He who knows this, lives for a hundred 
and sixteen years" (ChSnd. 3. 16.7.;. Hence, on account of the difierence of 
fruits, as well as on account of the difference of parts, there is no identity 
of the Vidyas here. 

Here ends the Section entitled 'The Meditation on the 
Person." (14). 



Adhikarana 15 : The Section entitled "Piercing and so on." 
(Sutra. 25.) 

SUTRA 3. 3. 25. 
"On account of the difference of the matter of piercing and so on". 

In the beginning of the Upanisads of the Taittiriyas, the following 
sacred formulae are recorded : "May Mitra give us weal, may Varuna" 
( Tait. 1. 1. ), "May ( Brahman ) protect us both" ( Tait 2. 1, 3. 1. ). 

Prima Facie View. 

On the doubt as to whether these are subsidiary parts of the 
Vidyas, or not if it be said : As they are mentioned in the close proximity 
of those Vidyas, they are the subsidiary parts of the Vidyas. 

Reply 
The Mantras in question are not parts of Vidyas. 

We reply : Just as the sacred formula, recorded in the beginning 
of the Upanisads of the followers of the Atharva-Veda, viz : "Piercing 
the semen, piercing the heart'' and so on, is a subsidiary part of certain 
magical practices ( and not a part of the VidySs ), on account of the indi- 
cation (Lifiga), i.e. the power of the text to exhibit its own meaning, 
viz. the piercing of the heart etc., (*) ; and just as works, like 



(1) Cf. Pu. Mi. Su. 3. 3. 24. Here, it is said, that of 6ruti, 
Vakya, Prakarana. Sthana, Saipkkrya, each succeeding one is weaker 



The Mantras are not Parts of Vidyas 325 

Maha-Vrata ( 1 ). and Pravargya, mentioned in the beginning of the 
Upanisads of the Aitareyinas and Vajasaneyinas, are subsidiary parts of 
sacrifices, on account of the presence of direct Scriptural statement and 
the like ( 5 ) so here, too, on account of the indication (Liftga) ( 4 ), viz. : "I 
shall speak the truth" (Tait. 1. 1.), "May the knowledge of us two be 
increased" (Tait. 2. 1. ), these two sacred formulas are subsidiary parts of 
the study ( of the Vedas ) and not of meditations or Vidyas. This is so 
because their purpose is quite different, C 8 ) ; and also because proximity 
is weaker in force than direct Scriptural statement ( 6ruti ), indication 
or power of words to express a meaning (Linga) and entire statement 
(Vakva) (<). 



Here ends the Section entitled "Piercing and so on (15). 



than each preceding one. Now, the above Mantra is in close proximity 
to the meditations enjoined in the Upanisads of the followers of the 
Atharva-Veda, being recorded in the beginning of those treatises. So, it 
may be thought that it is a subsidiary part of those Vidyas. But really it 
is a subsidiary part of certain magical practices only. This is due to the 
fact that the Mantra itself clearly expresses its own meaning, viz. that 
it is to be uttered in connection with certain magical ceremonies, under- 
taken for destroying one's enemies. So, mere proximity (Sthana) being 
much weaker in force than the power to express a clear meaning (Linga), 
the above Mantra though in proximity to Vidyas, itself implies something 
else, viz. magical practices. 

(1) Cf. the text: "Verily, Indra became great by killing Vrtra" 
etc. 

(2) Cf. the text : "Verily, the gods held a sacrificial session" ( Sat. 
Br. 14. 1. 1. 1.), 

(3) Here, the texts directly prove that those rites, like Maha-Vrata 
and Pravargya, are subsidiary parts of sacrifices, not of meditations : So, 
though, stated in proximity to certain meditations, they are really 
parts of sacrifices, and not of meditations. 

(4) The above two Mantras, though stated in the beginning of 
certain meditations, show clearly that they are meant for facilitating the 
study of the Vedas, and have no connection with meditations as such. 

(5) i. e. they are to be uttered for facilitating study, and not tnedit- 
tion. 

(6) See under Br. Su. 3. 3. 25. 



Adhikarana 16 : The Section entitled 'Abandoning and Taking. 
(Sutra 2b). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 26. 

"But in the abandoment ( of merit and demerit, the taking of them 
by others is to be supplied), on account of the word 'taking' being sup- 
plementary ( to the word 'abandoning' ), as in the case of Kusa, metre, 
praise and accompanying song, this has been said (in Purva-Mimamsa).'" 

In the School of some, it is said that there is the discarding 
of merit and demerit by a knower who has attained Brahman. 
The School of others declare friends to be the place where the merits 
enter, and enemies to be the place where the demerits enter. The treatise 
of some others, again, declare both the abandoning (of merits and demerits) 
and the places where they enter. All these are meant for the purpose of 
meditation. 

Here, the doubt is as to whether both these, viz. abandoning of 
merits and demerits, and the places (viz. friends and foes) where the) 7 
enter, are to be meditated on conjointly, or separately. What follows 
here? In the text of the Satyayaninas, it is said : ''His sons obtain the 
inheritance, his friends the good deeds, his enemies the bad deeds( ] ). In 
the Branch of the Tandinas, it is said : "Shaking off evil, as a horse 
does its hairs ; shaking off the body, as the moon frees itself from the 
mouth of Rshu" (Chand. 8. 13. 1.)- Further, in the text of the followers of 
the Atharva-Veda, it is said : "Then, the knower having discarded 
merit and demerit, stainless, attains supreme identity" (Mund. 3. 1. 1.). 

Frima Facie View 

If it be said : In the text which establishes (only) the abandoning 
of sins by the knower, the places where the abandoned merits and 
demerits enter are not to be inserted, as they are not mentioned in such 
a text- 
Reply 
'Abandoning 7 and Taking' are to be taken together. 

We reply : "Abandoning" means giving up, "Taking" means entering. 
It stands to reason that in the texts which declare only the abandoning 
(of merits and demerits by the knower) and in the texts that declare 
only entering (of these into friends and foes respectively), the other (viz. 
entering or abandoning as the case may be) is to be inserted, and not 

(1) See Br. Su. 4. 1. 17. 



Abandoning and Taking are to bo taken together 327 

that they are to be taken separately. This is so, because 'entering* is 
supplementary to 'abandoning', the text about 'entering* being supple- 
mentary to that about 'abandoning' ; and also because, those two (viz. 
merit and demerit) that are discarded, implying as they do some places 
where they enter, necessarily involve that (viz. 'entering'). 

If it is objected : How can a text, stated in one place, form the 
supplement of a text, mentioned in another place ? 

(We reply :) Just as, the specific text, mentioned in another place, 
viz : "The Kusas are the progeny of the Udambara tree", forms the supple- 
ment of the (general) text : "The Kusas are the progeny of the tree''( l ) ; 
just as, the text, mentioned in another place, viz : "The metres of the gods 
are prior", forms the supplement of the text : "The metres of the gods 
and the demons'"( 5 ), just as, the text *, "When the sun is half-risen, he 
assists the chanting of the Sodas'in (6at, S. S. 9. 7. 19.) forms the supple- 
ment of the text : "He assists the chanting of the Sodashr (*), just as the 
text : "The Adhvaryyu does not join the singing" (Tait Sam. 6,3. 1.), 
forms the supplement of the text: "The sacrificial priests join the 
singing"(*^ so, the text about 'entering' may very well form the supple- 
ment of the text about 'abandoning'. Hence, it does not stand to reason 
that ('abandoning' and 'entering') should be taken separately (without any 
mutual insertion). 



(1; The text : "The Kusas are the progeny of the tree" is a general 
oiie, mentioning no specific kind of Kusa. So, the text : "The Kusas are 
the progeny of the Udambara trees", specially mentioning a kind of tree, 
supplements and completes the first text. 

(2) The text : "Let one praise by the metres of the gods and the 
demons" is a general one, and does not mention any specific 
order of priority and posteriority. So the text : "The metres 
of the gods are the prior", mentioning such a specific 
order, supplements and completes the first text. 

(3) The text : "He assists the chanting of the Sodas'in by gold" is a 
general one, and does not mention any specific time for such a chanting, 
which is a subsidiary part of the ceremony of taktng a particular kind of 
pot, viz. Sodasin. So, the text : "When the sun is half-risen, he assists the 
chanting of the Socjasin', indicating a specific time, forms the supplement 
of the first text. 

(4) The text : "The sacrificial priests join the singing" is a general 
statement, making no specific exclusion. So, the text : u The Adhvaryyu 
does not join the singing" making such a specific exclusion of one class of 
sacrificial priests, forms the supplement of the first text, 



828 &rikatitha-Bhasya 3. 3. 26. 

4 Thut has been said" in the prior treatise, (viz. Pfirva-Mimams3) 
thus : "Let it be, on the contrary, supplementary to the text, on account 
of the impropriety of an option. Let the injunction refer to the same 
place". (Pii. Mi vSti. 10. 8 15.)(M 

(According to some, such a mutual insertion of 'abandoning' and 
'entering') is meant for the purpose of glorifying or showing the excellence 
(of the knower), and not for the purpose of meditation, as said 



Objection 

If it be objected : How can an eulogistic statement depend on ( i. e. 
necessarily imply), another eulogistic statement, made in another place ? 

Reply 
"Abandoning" and "Taking" are to be taken together 

( We reply : ) no, because it is found that the Scriptural text, which 
is an eulogy of the worship of the Sama, viz. : "Verily, the sun is the 
twenty-first from here" (Chand. 2. 10. 5.), depends ( i. e necessarily 
implies ) another eulogistic statement, made in the Section of sacrifices of 
the Tattiriya- Manual, for determining as to why the sun is the twenty- 
first. There, in the text : "Twelve months, five seasons, these three world 
(so) is the sun the twety-first" the number ( i. e the reason for the sun'? 
being the twenty-first ) is stated. 

Hence, even if it be an eulogistic statement, 'entering' is to be 
inserted ( in those placese where it is not mentioned ). Further, in a text 
in the Kausitakin, both 'abondoning' and 'entering' are found mentioned 
together, thus : "Then he discards good and evil deeds. His dear relatives 
obtain the good deeds ; those not dear, the evil deeds" (Kaus. 1. 4.). 
Hence, these two ( viz. 'abandoning* and 'taking' )are to be taken together. 

Here ends the Section entitled ; "The bandoning and Taking" 

(16). 

(1) That is, when there is a general and a specific text regarding 
something to be done, they cannot be taken to be indicating options or 
alternatives ; but the only proper thing to do here is to take the specific 
text as supplementing and completing the general one. 

(2) At first it was said that 'abandoning' and 'entering', being 
supplementary, are to be combined together for the purpose of such a 
combined meditation Then, the Author states an alternative view, viz. 
that they are to be done so, for a different purpose, viz. Eulogy of the 
knower. But even on this second view, 'abandoning' and 'entering' are 
not mere figurative expressions, but are to be taken literally. See 6. M. D. 



Adhikaraiia 17: Ths Section entitled: 'The Passing 
( Sutras 2730 ). 

Prima Facie View ( Sutras 27 29 ) 

SUTRA 3. 3. 27. 

"In passing away, ( there is a complete abandonment of merit and 
demerit ), on account of there being nothing to be crossed, for thus 
others ( declare )''. * 

Raising the doubt as to whether such an abandoning; of merits and 
demerits, as stated above, are to be meditated on as taking place at the 
time of (the soul's) separation from the body, or on its way (to Brahman), 
(The Author) states the Prima Facie View : 

Prima Facie View 

In one Scriptural passage, viz. "Having shaken off evils, as a horse 
does its hairs ; shaking off the body, as the moon frees itself from the mouth 
of Rahu, I, with the self obtained, pass into the uncreated world of Brahman" 
(ChSiid. 8.13.1.), it is declared that the abandoning of good and bad deeds 
takes place at the time of (the soul's) separation from its body. In another 
place, again, viz. in the text : "He comes to the river Viraja, crosses it 
with the mind ; then he discards good and evil deeds" (Kaus. 1.4.), it is 
said that this takes place on the way (to Brahman). Although there are 
both these texts, yet (such 'abandoning' and 'entering') are to be meditated 
on as taking place "in passing away", i. e. only at the time (of the soul's) 
separation from the body, because after that, besides the attainment 01" 
Brahman, there is nothing else to be attained, that is, there is no further 
experiencing of pleasure and pain due to works. 

'Tor, thus others" declare : "He delays here only so long as he is 
not free, then he attains unity." (ChSnd. 6.14.2.). Hence, after (the soul's) 
separation from the body, Brahman alone is attained (by it ). 

Prima Facie View ( Continued ) 

SUTRA. 3. 3. 28. 

"According to intention, on account of the non-contradiction of 
both. 

As in one Scriptural text, it is asserted that the abandoning of' 
merits and demerits takes place at the time of the soul's separation from 
the body ( viz. Chand. 8. 13. 1. ) ; and as in another Scriptural txt, it is 
asserted that after that, (the soul) attains (only) Brahman (ChSnd. 6.14.2.)' 
so no contradiction is involved here in respect of these two texts. Hence, 

42 



380 6rika9tha-Bhasya 3. 3. 30. 

that part of the Scriptural text : viz. "Then he discards good and evil 
deeds" (Kaus. 1. 4.), is to be taken ''according to intention", i.e. it is to be 
inserted prior to the part : "Having attained the Path of gods, he goes 
to the world of Fire" (Kaus. 1. 3.). 

Prima Facie View ( concluded ) 

SUTRA 3. 3. 29 

"( The going of the soul is ) appropriate, on account of finding 
things which are marks of that ( viz. of the going of the soul ), as in 
ordinary life". 

Although there is the decay of all the works of the worshippers of 
Brahman, at the time of their separation from their bodies, yet their going 
is quite "appropriate on account of the finding of things which are marks 
of that", viz. of the roaming forth ( of the souls ) in those respective 
places. This is declared by the text : "He becomes a self-ruler, he comes 
to wander at will in all the worlds" (Chand. 7. 25. 1.). "As in ordinary 
life", i. e. just as in ordinary life, those who are patronised by a King, get 
all their hearts' desires, unlike ordinary people, so is the case here.( l ). 
Hence, the Scriptural text, about ( the soul's ) going through the Path 
(of gods), too, is not contradicted. Although there is the decay of all 
works at the time ( of the soul's ) separation from the body, yet the subtle 
body continues to exist through the might of Vidya ; and so, ( the soul's ) 
going through the Path ( of gods ), roaming forth in those respective 
places, its dialogue with the moon and all other such matters become 
possible. 

Correct Conclusion 

SUTRA 3. 3. 30. 

'There is meaning of the going in two ways, for otherwise there is 
contradiction". 

If there be the decay of works "in two ways", i. e. at the time ( of the 
soul's ) departure from the body and at the time of its crossing the river 

(1) Those who have got the patronage of the King, get all the im- 
plements necessary for fulfilling their ends. How much more would, then, 
those who have liad recourse to the Lord, get whatever is necessary 
for the fulfillment of their ends, viz. for their journey to the world of 
Brahman. Hence, although all their works are destroyed at the time of 
their departure from their bodies, yet their subtle bodies continue to 
accompany them in order that they may journey to the world of Brahman. 
Then, they attain new, non-material bodies there of S. M. D. 



The Place of STva is the Highest 331 

Viraja, then only is its going through the Path of gods( l ) becomes neces- 
sary. "Otherwise", if there were the decay of all the works at the time of 
its departure from the body, then it would have become free immediately 
after that, so that its going through the Path of gods ( to attain salvation ) 
would have been unnecessary. Hence, on this view, the Scriptural statement 
regarding ( the soul's ) going through the Path of gods, also the Scriptural 
statement that there is the manifestation of the soul's real nature, viz. 
the manifestation of knowledge etc., only after it attains Brahman through 
the Path of gods, viz. "Having attained the form of Supreme Light, he is 
completed in his own form" (Chand. 8. 3. 4.), both come to be contradic- 
ted. Now, although, on this view, the going through the Path of gods, 
roaming in those respective places, dialogue with the moon and like, may 
become possible through the might of Vidya, as in the case of its 
prior roaming etc., yet, so long as the soul does not attain Brahman 
through the power of Vidya, its continued subjection to transmigratory 
mundane existence, viz. the contraction of its knowledge, as well as 
the continuation of the remnants of its works which cause the above 
must surely be admitted. It is not to be said that such continuations 
(of worldly existence and the works as the causes thereof ) result only 
from a particular ( arbitrary ) desire of the Supreme Lord. As we have 
already said that the Lord's desire too, is due to the works ( of the 
souls themselves ), we do not hold that merit and demerit can result 
without the desire of the Supreme Lord, which desire however, is due to 
the conduct ( of the souls themselves ), such as doing what is enjoined, or 
not doing what is forbidden.( 3 ). 

Objection 

If it be objected : If there be the manifestation of the real nature 
( of the soul ) i. e. manifestation of its knowledge etc., only after it attains 
Brahman, then the works, which are the causes of the contraction of 
knowledge ( or bondage ), must continue up till then ( i. e. till the soul 
attains Brahman ). So, how can there be the decay of works after ( the 
soul ) crosses the river Viraja ( even before it attains Brahman ? ). 

Reply 
The Place of Siva is Higher than that of Visnu. 

We reply : Crossing over the boundary-line of the material universe 
is nothing but attaining the place of Supreme 6iva or the Supreme 



(1) cf. Chand. 4. 15. 5, 5. 10. 1. 

(2) See Br. Su. 2. 1. 34. Merit etc. of the soul is, of course, due to 
the wish of the Lord, but this wish is not an arbitrary one, for it is due 
to the works of the souls themselves. 



332 6rikaiitha-Bhasya 3. 3. 3. 

Ether. And, this itself is the attainment of Brahman r as declared by 
the text : "Having attained the form of Supreme I/ight" (Chsnd. 8. 3. 4.). 
The river Viraja, connected with the place of Visnu, forms the 
boundary-line of the material universe. After entering that, the 
Yogius, with all the vestiges of their works destroyed, enter the 
non-material, supremely blissful place of Siva which is higher than the 
place of Visnu. Hence, it is said in Scripture : "He reaches the end of 
his journey, the Supreme Place of Visnu'X 1 )- (Katfia. 3. 9.). Hence, no 
contradiction is involved here. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Passing Away" (17). 



Adhikarana 18 : The Section entitled "Those who are entrusted 
with certain offices" (Sutra 31). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 31. 

"Of those who are entrusted with ( certain) offices, there is abiding 
so long as the offices last (3). 

The worshippers, mentioned above, discard their merits and demerits, 
and attain Brahman. Here the doubt is as to whether those who have 
been entrusted with certain offices, (like revealing the Veda etc.) attain 
Salvation only after enjoying their respective offices, or not. What follows 
here? 

Objection 

If it be said that In those particular Puraijas, it is stated that 
Vaisistha and the rest ( 8 ) are born again, so that, they cannot have 
salvation. Hence, the knowers of Truth do not always attain salvation, but 
only sometimes (*) 



(1) Consistently with the above interpretation, this should mean : 
The place is higher than that of Visnu, 

(2) Vasistha is said to have been re-born from a pitcher Cf. RG.V. 
7. 33. 13. 

(3) Here the doubt is whether knowledge leads to salvation always, 
or only sometimes. It may be objected that Vasistha etc. were real 
knowers, yet they were re -born. This proves that all knowers do not 
attain salvation. The reply to this is that, knowledge can destroy only 
those Karmas which have not as yet begun to produce their respective 
fruits, but is helpless in the case of Prarabdha-Karmas or those works 



The Path beginning with light is to be included everywhere 333 

Reply 
All knowers attain salvation. 

We reply : Those who have been entrusted with certain offices, 
experience other fruits even after the fall of their bodies, so long as the 
works which have already begun to bear fruits and which brought about 
those offices, are not destroyed. Thus, so long as their offices do not come 
to an end, they have to stay on in those ports for experiencing the results 
of those works which brought them about ; and so they do not go by the 
Path beginning with light, (i. e. the Path of gods leading to Brahman). 
Even in the case of knowers, the works which have already begun to bear 
fruit, can be destroyed only by direct experience (of the results thereof). 
Hence, those who have been entrusted with certain offices, attain salvation 
only after the cessation of their offices. Hence, it is not that the knowers 
attain salvation only sometimes, and sometimes not. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Those who have been entrusted 
with certain offices" (18). 



Adhikarana 19 : The Section entitled ''Non-restriction" (Sutra 32). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 32. 

"(There is) non-restriction (with regard to the going through the 
Path of gods, but it belongs) to all (the worshippers of Brahman), (there 
is) non-contradiction with regard to word (i. c. Scripture) and inference 

(i. e. Smrti ." 

In the Upakosala-Meditationt 1 ) and the like, the Path beginning 
with light is mentioned. Here, the doubt is as to whether this (Path) 



which have begun to produce their fruits. These latter kinds of Karmas 
can be exhausted only by direct Bhoga or retributive experience. In the 
case of Vasistha etc., their Prarabdha-Karmas entitle them to those offices, 
and so they have to experience them fully before they can attain salvation. 
Cf. &MD. See Br Su. 4.1.19. 

(1) Upakosala-VidyS or the Knowledge obtained by Upakosala, the 
disciple of Satya-Kama Jsbala. Vide Chand. 4.10.-4.15. The account is as 
follows : Upakosala Kamalayana dwelt with Satyakama Jabala as a student 
of sacred knowledge and tended the fires for twelve years. But Jabala did 
not allow him to return home, nor did he teach him the knowledge of 
Brahman, but went off on a journey. Thereupon, Upakosala, in grief, 
made up his mind to fast. Then, the three fires (Garhapatya, Anvaharyya 



334 6nkantha-Bhasya 3, 3. 32. 

belongs only to those who possess Upakosala-Vidya etc., or to all 
worshippers whatsoever. 

Prima Facie View 

In Paficagni-Vidya ( l ) of the Chandogya, as well as in the Upakosala- 
Vidya, the Path beginning with light is mentioned ; in the Pasupati- 
Vidya of the Atharva-siras, it is suggested ; but in the Sandilya-Vidya( a ) 
etc., it is not mentioned at all. On account of the force of the general 
context, the (Path) is restricted only to those (Vidyas) where it Is actually 
mentioned, and is not to be included in others. 

Reply 
The Path beginning with Light is to be included everywhere. 

We reply : There is "no restriction" that it is to be included in 
those (Vidyas) only where it is actually mentioned. On the contrary, it 
is to be included in all the meditations whatsoever. If this be so, then 
alone does there result no contradiction with regard to Scripture and 
Smrti. In the Paficagni-Vidya, the Scriptural text is of a non-specific 
kind : "And those who worship faith and truth in the fires, they pass 
over to light" (Brh. 6. 2. 15.) ; while the Smrti passage is specific in 
nature : "Fire, light, the bright fortnight, the six months of the northern 
progress of the sun departing through these, those who know Brahman 
go to Brahman" (Gita 8. 24.)( 8 ). Hence, the Path beginning with light ^ is 
to be regularly included in all the meditations whatsoever. 

and Ahavanlya) took pity on him and taught him the Agni-Vidya and the 
Atma-Vidya, and told him that his teacher would teach him the Path. 
When the teacher reaturned, he began to teach Upakosala thus : "The 
person who is seen within the eye is the soul, that is the immortal, the 
fearless, that is Brahman" (Chand. 4. 5. 1.). "Now, whether they perform 
cremation obsequies in the case of such a person (i. e. one who knows this 
Vidya), or not, they (i. e. the dead) pass over to light, from the light to the 
day, from the day to the fortnight of the waxing moon, from the fort- 
night of the waxing moon to the six months of the northern progress of 
the sun, from those months to the year, from the year to the sun, from 
the sun to the moon, from the moon to lightning.*' (Chand. 4.15. 5.). Vide 
Br. Su. 1.2.13. 

(1) The Doctrine of Five-Fires taught by Gautama to King 
Pravahana. Vide'ChSnd. 5.4. 5. 10. ; Brh. 6.2. See above Br. Su. 3.1.1. for 
a detailed account. 

(2) The Doctrine taught by 6andilya. Vide Brh. 5.6. ; 6at. Br, 
10.6.3. Chand. 3.14. See Br. Su. 3.3.19. 

(3) 6rlkatka does not quote the whole passage here. 



The Conception of the Imperishable 335 

Some hold that the word "non-restriction" (in the Sutra) means that 
there is no restriction that the Path beginning with light belongs to all the 
worshippers. If this be so, then alone, is there no contradiction with 
regard to Scripture and Snirti. This (interpretation) too, is quite correct, 
for, the worshippers (of Brahman) not having any qualities( a ), do not 
wait for that (viz. journey through the Path of gods)( f ) 

Here ends the Section entitled "Non-restriction" (19). 



Adhikarana 20 : The Section entitled "The Conception of the 
mperishable (Sutras 3334) 

SUTRA 3. 3. 33. 

"But there i the comprehension (in all Brahma-Vidyas) of the con- 
ceptions of the Imperishable, on account of generality and on account 
of being that, as in the case of what belongs to the Upasad, that has 
been said". 

In the Gargi-Brahmana, in the text : "That, verily, Gargi the 
Brahmanas call the Imperishable, non-gross, non-subtle, non-short" 
(Brh. 3. 8. 8.)( 8 ) and so on, certain denials are found in connection with 
the knowledge of Brahman. In the treatise of the followers of the Atharva- 
Veda, too, it is declared : "That which is invisible, intangible, without 
family, without caste, without eye, without ear, without hands and 
feet !" (Mund. 1. 1. 6.)( 4 ). 



(1) Nirguna-Nirvisesa-Brahinan. 

(2) They, naturally, do not journey through the Path of gods to 
attain Saguna-Brahman, but become one with Nirguna-Brahman all at 
once. 

(3) Vide the Dialogue between Gargi and Yajfiavalkya in Brh. 3. 8. 
Gargi puts two questions to Yajfiavalkya, the first of which is 
as follows : "That which is above the sky, that which is beneath 
the earth, that which is between these two, the sky and the earth, 
that which people call the past, the present and the future, across 
what is that wo^en, warp and woof ?" (Brh. 3. 8. 4.). The answer given 
was : "That, O Gargi, the Bramanas call the Imperishable", etc. 

(4) Vide Mund. 1.1. Brahma taught this knowledge of Brahman 
to his eldest son Atharva, who taught it to Angir, who taught 
it to Bharadvaja Satyavaha, who taught it to Angiras. Then, 
6aunaka, a great householder, approached Angiras and asked : "Sir I 



336 6rika$tha-Bhasya 3. 3. 33. 

Here the doubt is as to whether, like (the attribute of) 'bliss' 
and therestO), these (attributes of non-gros&uess etc.), too, are to be 
inserted (everywhere) or not. What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said that these denials (or denied qualities), not being the 
the attributes (of Brahman) like 'bliss' etc.( 9 ), are not to be inserted in all 
the Meditation? on the Supreme Being ( 3 ). 

Reply 
The qualities of non-gr<mness etc. are to be inserted everywhere. 

We reply : The insertion of these denying "conceptions" regarding 
"the Imperishable" in all the Meditations on the Supreme Being, stands 
to reason, as the object qualified, viz. Brahman, is everywhere the same. 
Through these qualities alone, and not through anything else, does the 
Meditation on Brahman, as different from everything else, become possible. 
On the other hand, (the attributes of) 'bliss' etc., which can have no 
connection with the bad qualities, differentiate Brahman from the 
individual souls( 4 ). The nature of an attribute is that it follows the 
chief (viz, the substance). Just as( 5 ), through the sacred formula ; "May 
through knowing which everything else becomes known T (Mund, 1.1.3.). 
Then, Angiras proceeded to teach him two kinds of knowledge, higher 
(Para) and lower (Apara). The higher knowledge is that of the 
Imperishable ; the lower knowledge is that of the four Vedas with their 
subsidiary parts, 

(1) See Br. Su. 3.3.11. 

(2) 'Bliss' etc, can be said to be attributes of Brahman, as they 
definitely tell us what Brahman actually is. But 'non-grossness' etc. 
simply tell us what Brahman is not. Hence, they cannot be said to qualify 
Brahman, When e.g. we say : 'This table is non-black, but it is brown', 
here only 'brown' qualifies, i, e. belongs, to the table ; 'non-black, cannot 
do so, for, how can a mere absent thing belong to another ? 

(3) Para-Vidya. 

(4) 'Bliss' etc. distinguish Brahman only from the sentient (Cit), for 
these attributes cannot, evidently belong to the non-sentient (Acit). So, 
'bliss' etc. show that though the individual souls, too, possess bliss, yet 
their bliss etc. ate different from Brahman's bliss etc. Then, 'non-gross' 
etc. distinguish Brahman from both the sentient and the non-sentient. 

(5) Here the Author cites an example to show that the attributes or 
secondary matters always follow the chief or the primary matter, So 
'bliss* etc. and 'non-grossness' etc., being the attributes of Brahman, are 
to be thotught of whenever Brahman Himself is done so. 



Aft attributes are not to foe included in all the Meditations on the Supreme Being 337 

the fire promote the sacrifice" (Tand. Br. 7. 1. 9.), being in the Ssnia- 
Veda, should have been recited in the loud accent of the Sama-Veda, 
yet being a subsidiary part of the Jamadagnya Caturatra Sacrifice in 
which the Upasad offerings are to consist of Purodas (*), it follows the 
principal, viz. the Upasad ceremony of the Yajur-Veda, and is, therefore, 
recited in the low accent of the Yajur-Veda( 2 ) so is the case here. "This 
has beea said' in the first treatise (viz. the Ftirva-MiinSnisS) thus : "If 
there be opposition between the subsidiary and the primary, there is 
connection of the Veda with the primary, because of the subserviency of 
that (i. e. of the subsidiary to the primary)" (Pii. MI. Su. 3. 3. 9.). 

( The Author ) points out that from this, it does not follow that 
( all the attributes whatsoever of Brahman ) are to be inserted ( in all the 
meditations whatsoever ). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 34. 

"So much ( i. e. only the above attributes ) ( are to be inserted 
everywhere ), on account of reflection''. 

The word "ref lection" means thinking of something, face to face. 
Only "so much", i. e. only the above attributes are to be inserted every- 
where, i. e. only those groups of qualities through which the Meditation 
on Brahman, as distinguished from everything else, becomes possible. 
Hence, only those "conceptions" which deny grossiiess etc. to Brahman, 
being attributes that distinguish Him from everything else, are to be 
inserted in all the Meditations on the Supreme 'Being, and not other 
attributes, as mentioned in the text : "Having all works, having all 
colours, having all tastes" (Chand. 3. 14. 2, 4.). 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Conception of the 
Imperishable" (20). 



(1) Cf. the text : "'Jamadagni, desiring prosperity, sacrificed with the 
'Four-nightly Rite.' He prospered therein, and the two descendants of 
Jamadagni are not found to be grey-haired. He who knowing thus offers 
the 'Four-nightly Rite', comes to have that prosperity. The sacrificial 
cakes become the Upasad offering." (Tait. Sam. 7.1,9.) 

(2) The Mantra : "May the fire" etc, is recited in connection with 
the Upasad ceremony of the sacrifice called 'Jamadaguya Caturratra,' 
Now, this Mantra really is a Mantra of the Sfuna-Veda ; and as the 
Mantras of the Sania-Veda are to be recited in a loud voice, this, too, 
should have been done so. But, here as it to be uttered in the Upasad 
ceremony, it is a subsidiary part of he Upasad ceremony which is a 
ceremony of the Yajur-Veda. Now, the Mantras of the Yajur-Veda are to 

43 



Adhikarana 21 : The Section entitled '* Within the group of 
t lements" (Sutras 3536). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 35. 

' 'If it be objected that ( the f< rmer reply which describes the self 
as ) within, (fpeaks) of one's own self as posessing the group of elements, 
otherwire ( there is } unaccountablenees of difference, ( we reply : ) no, 
as in the case of another teaching". 

In the Bfhadaranyaka, to the question of Usasta, viz : "He Who is 
Brahman manifest and not invisible, He Who is the Soul within all, 
explain Him to me". (Brb. 3. 4, 1.), the answer given was : "Who 
breathes in with the in-bieath He is your Soul, within all ; Who breathes 
out with your out-breath He is your Soul, within all" (Brh. 3. 4. 1.), 
ending. "Ought else than Him is wretched" (Brh. 3. 4. 2.)( J ). After 
that, to the question of Kohala ; viz : "He alone who is Brahman, 
manifest and not invisible, He who is the Self within all, explain Him to 
me" (Brh. 3. 5. 1.), the answer given was : "He who passes beyond hunger 
and thirst, beyond grief, delusion, old age, death- foresooth, having known 
such a Self, the Bfahmanas give up desire for sons, desire for wealth", 
ending : "Aught else than Him is wretched' (Brh. 3. 5. 1. ). 

Prima Facie View 

Here, the doubt is as to whether these two Meditations are identical, 
or not. If it be said : .The question of Usasta, viz." He who is the soul" 
(Brh. 3. 4. 1.), refers to the individual soul "possessing the group of 
elements'X 1 ). "Otherwise", we cannot account for the difference between 
the answer to it : viz. "Who breathes in with the in-breath, He is 
your Soul" (Brh. 3. 4. 1.), and the answer to the question of Kahola, viz. 
"Who passes beynd hunger" (Brh. 3. 5. 1.) and so on( 2 ). 

be recited in a low voice. Hence, the above Mantra, though really 
belonging to the Sama-Veda, is here treated as belonging to the Yajur- 
Veda and recited in a low voice, accordingly. This shows that a subsidiary 
part ( Anga ) always follows the principal ( Pradhsna ). 

(1) i. e. possessing the body etc. which are the products of the 
elements. 

(2) The answer to Usasta's question is that, He who breathes in 
with the in-breath etc. is the Soul. But the answer to Kohala's question 
is that, He who is beyond hunger etc. is the Soul. Thus, here the 
answers are quite different. Hence, the questions, too, must be so, the 
first referring to the individual soul, the second to the Supreme Soul. 
Hence, the two Vidyas having different objects must be different. This 
is the Prima Facie View. 



The Vidyas are the Same 339 

Reply 
The Vidyas are the same. 

( the Author ) states the Correct Conclusion : 
"No, as in the case of ( another ) teaching". 

As the questions are the same in both the places, viz. "The Self 
that is within all" ( Brh. 3. 4. 1 ; 3. 5. 1. ), the Supreme Lord alone is 
referred to by both the questions. The guileless ( or limitless ) 
qualities of 'being the cause of breathing* etc., and of 'being beyond 
hunger' etc., mentioned in the answers, can appropriately belong to Him 
alone. As in the case of the Sad-Vidya (' , so here too, the repetition 
of question and answer refer to the very same object ( 2 ). Difference of 
questions and difference of forms do not entail any difference in the 
Vidyas ( or meditations ) themselves ( ). 



(1) Sad-Vidya or Doctrine of the Existent or the True, taught by 
Aruni to Svetaketu. Vide. Chanel. 6. The account is as follows : At 
the request of his father Aruni, Svetaketu became a student of sacred 
knowledge, and returned home after having studied for twelve years. 
But he became conceited and thought himself very learned. Thereupon, 
his father, to test him, asked him whether he had asked for that instruction 
whereby the unheard becomes heard, the unthought thought, the 
unknown known. As Svetaketu was not acquainted with that Doctrine, 
Aruni taught him how from the knowledge of the cause, the knowledge 
of all its effects results. Next, he proceeded to teach him the process 
of creation from the Sat ( Chand. 6. 2. 6. 7. ). Finally, he taught him the 
Great Doctrine of "Thou art that" ( Tattvamasi ) in various ways. (Chand. 
6. 8. 6. 16. ). Each time, Svetaketu asked to be taught once more 
( altogether nine times ), and each time Aruni taught him the same thing 
by means of a new example. 

(2) It is said that the two questions of Usasta and Kahola, as well 
as two replies by Yajnavalkya refer to the very same object, viz. the 
Supreme Lord. Now, it may be asked here : Why should there be 
such a repetition of the very same question ? The answer is that such 
a repetition is meant for demonstrating the different attributes of the 
same object, and is found in the Sad-Vidya as well. There, Svetaketu 
repeats the same question about Brahman as many as nine times ; and 
Aruni answers him nine times about the same Brahman by means of 
different illustrations. Hence, such repetitions are quite justifiable when 
the topic is a difficult one, as here. 

(3) Here, the questions ( viz, of Usasta and Kahola ) are different ; 
the form of Brahman, as conceived in the two places, are also so, ( viz. in 
one place He is conceived to be the cause of breathing etc, ; in the other, 



340 6rikantha-Bhasya 3. 3. 37. 

Thus ( the Author ) says : 

SUTRA 3. 3. 36. 

"( There must be ) exchange ( of ideas ), for ( the two texts ) specify 
( the same Brahman ), as in another case.'' 

The sameness of the objects being definitely determined, there 
should be "an exchange" of the conceptions of the questioners. That 
is, Usasta should conceive ( of Brahman ) as beyond hunger etc., while 
Kahola should conceive ( of Brahman ) as the cause of breathing etc. 
The texts of both the Sections, really, "specify" the Supreme Lord, "as 
in another place", I e. as in the Sad-Vidya. Hence, both the questions 
and the answers being concerned with the very same object, the Vidyas 
are not different. The repetition, on the other hand, is meant for removing 
doubt, as in in the case of the text : "Thou art that" ( Chand. 6. 8. 7. 
etc,)( 8 ). 

Here ends the Section entitled "Within the Group of Elements" (21) 



Adhikarana 22 : The Section entitled "The True". ( Sutras 37 ). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 37. 

'Tor, he alone ( is the object of meditation in all the versions ), 
the true and the rest ( are to be inserted in all the versions ).'' 

Prima Facie View 

The example by which conclusion was arrived at in the previous 
Section, i. e. the Sad-Vidya itself, may be subject to the doubt as to 
whether it is the same Vidya or different( 8 ). If it be urged: As here 
a repetition of the questions is found, and as the answers, too, are found to 
be different in each case, ( the Vidyas is different ). 

as beyond hunger etc. ) Still, the Vidyas are one and the same, as their 
objects ( viz. Brahman ) are so. It is the difference of objects only that 
makes a difference in the Vidyas. See. Br. 3. 3. 7., footnote. (2) 

(1) See above Br. Su. 3. 3. 35. 

(2) Op cit. 

(3) It was stated above that the repetition of questions does not entail 
any difference in the Vidyas, for the questions refer to the eatne object, 
as in the case of Sad-Vidya. Now, a doubt is raised as regards this 
Sad-Vidya itself. As in the Sad-Vidya, too, there is a .repetition of 
questions and answers, how is it ascertained that their object is the same 
everywhere f , 



The Sad-Vidyas are the Same 341 

Reply 
The Sad-Vidyas are the Same. 

We reply : The Sad-Vidyas are not different ( in those different 
places ), for, the Great God ( Mahadeva ), introduced in the text : 
"That Divinity" ( Chand. 6. 3. 2. ), is referred to in ( all the ) questions 
and answers. As, in the text : "That is the True, He is the soul, That 
thou art" (Chand. 6. 8. 7 ; 6. 9. 4. etc.), repetition of the (the attributes 
of) 'being the True' and etc. is found, so the object is everywhere the 
same. Hence, the Vidyas are one and the same. 

Here ends the section entitled "The Truth" (22). 



Adhikarana 23 : The Section entitled "Desire" (Sutra 38). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 38. 

''(The attributes of having true) desires and so on (are to be inserted 
in Brhadaranyaka, Mahanarayana and Kaivalya), (the Vidyas are the 
same), on account of abode and so on". 

In the Chandogya, Taittiriya-Manual (viz. Mahanarayana), Kaivalya- 
Upanisad, as well as in the School of the Vajinas, the Meditation on the 
Smallf 1 ) is recorded. On the doubt as to whether these Vidyas are 
identical or different the Prima Facie View is as follows : 

Prima Facie View 

In the Chandogya, beginning thus : "Now, that which is within this 
city of Brahman is a small lotus-chamber, small is the ether within that. 
What is within that, should be searched for" (Chand. 8. 1. 1.), the text goes 
on to record the main eight qualities, viz. freedom from sins etc.( 8 ), of one 
who is designated by the term 'Small Ether' and is inside the small lotus. 
In the Tattrlya- Manual, beginning thus : "The small, devoid of all sins" 
(Mahanar. 10. 7. 1.), the text goes on to mention the following qualities of 
one who is inside the small lotus, viz. that He is designated by the mystical 
sound Tranava' ('Om'), that He is designated by the word 'Great Lord' 
(Mahesvara\ that He is black and tawny, that He is three-eyed and 
so on. (Mahanar. 10, 7,). In the Branch of the Vajinas, on the other 
hand, in the text : "Who lies in the ether within the heart, the Controller 

(1) Dahara-VidyS. See Br, Su. 3. 3. 1. 

(2) Cf. "This soul is free from sins, without old age, without death, 
without grief, without hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having 
true resolves" (Chand. 8. I. 5.) 



342 6rikantha-Bhasya 3. 3. 38. 

of all, the Lord of all, the Master of all" (Brh. 4. 4. 22.), the attributes of 
'being the Controller of all' and the rest are mentioned. In the Kaivalya- 
Upanisad, beginning thus, "The heart-lotus, stainless" (Kaivalya 5), and 
ending : "All-pervasive, consciousness and bliss, formless, wonderful, 
having UmS as Companion, Supreme Lord, Master, three-eyed, having a 
blue neck, tranquil" (Kaivalya 7.), the text records the following attributes 
of the Highest Being within the heart-lotus, viz that He has three eyes 
and a blue neck, that He is consciousness and bliss in essence., that He 
has Urna for His Companion, and so on. Here, 'having a blue neck' etc. 
are the attributes of the soul, and so, they are mutually opposed. Hence, 
the insertion of the first group in the second, and vice versa, does not 
stand to reason. Therefore, the Vidyas are different. 

Correct Conclusion 
The Dahara-Vidyas are the Same. 

To this, we reply : "In those places", (viz. in the Chandogya, 
Mahanarayana, Brhadaranyalsa and Kaivalya), "on account of the * bode 
and the rest", viz. the heart-lotus etc. (being the same), the VidySs are 
indeed identical. Hence, (the attributes of) 'having true desires' etc. are 
to be inserted everywhere. The attributes of 'being free from sins' etc., 
as mentioned in the Chandogya ; the attributes of 'being the controller of 
all' etc., as mentioned in the Branch of the Vajinas ; the attributes of 'being 
denotable by the Pranava'etc., as mentioned in the Taittiriya-Manual ;and 
the attributes of 'being consciousness and bliss in essence,' as mentioned 
in the Kaivalya all these attributes of Brahman are to be meditated on in 
the Dahara-Vidya. The attributes of 'having Uma as Companion,' 'having 
three eyes* etc. as mentioned in the Kaivalya, are the same as those of 
'being black and tawny,' 'having three eyes' etc. mentioned elsewhere (viz. 
in the Mahsuar.). Their repetition is meant for showing care or respect.( ] ) 
The repetition of attributes everywhere should be taken to be for this 
purpose only. Here, being the substratum of qualities, the very same 
Brahman is the object to be meditated on (everywhere), and so the 
Supreme Brahman, possessing the attributes of 'being free from sins' etc. 
the Lord of all, denotable by the Pranava, having Uma for His companion, 
having three eyes, having a blue neck, consciousness and bliss in essence, 
infinite, immortal and wonderful is to be meditated on inside the small 
heart-lotus. Thus, He alone is the Primary Object in all the 'Meditations 
on the Supreme Being' (Para-Vidya). In the Chandogya and in the 
Kaivalya-Upaiii?ad, from the texts : "Having attained the form of Supreme 
light, he is completed in his own form" (Chand. 8.3.4.), "Having meditated 
(on the Lord), a sage goes to the source ot all beings, the witness of 

(I) See below Br. Su. 3.3.39. 



The Dahara-VidySs are the Same 343 

everything, beyond darkness/' (Kaivalya 7), the attainment of that very 
Supreme Brahman, the object to be worshipped and beyond the 
material sphere, is knowu to be the fruit (of such a meditation). Hence, 
as the attributes of 'having a blue neck' etc., as well as those of 'being 
free from sins* etc., are constant attributes of Brahman and 
inter-dependent, no contradiction is involved in their combination, 
for there can be no denial of supra-mundane (qualities) ( l ). On the other 
hand, for denying the mundane qualities of the body like, sin, old-age, 
death, hunger, thirst' not having true desires, not having true 
resolves to Brahman, possessing a body, having three eyes etc., the 
attributes of 'being free from sins' and the rest have been demonstrated. 
Although the Supreme Brahman possesses a body, having three eyes 
etc., yet He is free from sins, without old age, without grief, without 
hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true resolves, conscious- 
ness and bliss in essence. So, no contradiction is involved here. 

Here ends the Section entitled : "Desire" (23). 



Adhikarana 24 : The Section er titled Von-negation". (Sutra 39). 

If it be objected : If like the qualities of 'having joy as the head' 
etc.( 8 ), those of 'having a blue neck' etc., which imply parts, be taken to 
belong to Brahman, then increase and decrease will result on His part. 
Hence, the qualities of 'having a blue neck' etc. are to be omitted ( the 
Author ) replies : 

SUTRA 3. 3. 39. 

" There is no negation (of the attribute of 'having a blue neck' etc. ) 
since ( they are designated in Scripture ) for showing care". 

Above, the mass of qualities f of the L,ord ), such as, 'having a form 
characterised by a blue neck etc.', 'being accompanied by the Supreme 
Power called Uma', 'having true resolves' and the rest have been deter- 
mined. Hence, the doubt is as to whether these are denied of Brahman 
sometimes, and sometimes not. What follows here ? 

(1) i. e. it may be thought that the qualities of 'having a blue neck' 
etc. being the qualities of the body, will entail defects on the part of 
Brahman ; and so these qualities are to be rejected and not combined. 
The answer is that, these are not ordinary mundane qualities, so do not 
entail any imperfection on the part of Brahman, hence they are not to 
be rejected. 

(2) See Br. Sii, 3. 3. 12. 



344 nkantba-BIiasya 3. 3. 39, 

Prim a Facie View 

If it be said : 

As these are imagined for the sake of meditation only ( but are not 
Brahman's real attributes ), so they are sometimes^) subject to negation,- 

Reply 
Brahman's Attributes cannot be negated. 

We reply : The qualities of the Supreme Brahman, vfz. 'being 
accompanied by Uma' etc., repeated in all the Scriptures "for showing 
care", are never negated. For this very reason, the Supreme Brahman 
is said to have His powers ever-manifest. 

If it be objected : Where are these repented "for showing care' 

( We reply ) : Everywhere. When it is said "Black and tawny, 
three-eyed" (MahanSr. 10. 7.), although it is proved thereby that He is 
accompanied by the Power (Umfi) and is three-eyed(*) ( yet for the purpose 
of showing care or respect,( 8 ) it is repeated again thus: "Having Uma as 
Companion, the Supreme Lord, Master, Three-eyed" (Kaivalya 7.). Further, 
in the Meditation on the orb of the sun,(*), in the text : "Obeisance to one 
having golden arms, to the Lord of gold, to the Husband of Ambka, to 
the Husband of Uma" (MahZIiiar. 13. 4.), the quality of 'being the Husband 
of Uma' is repeated for showing care or respect ( for the L/ord ). In 
another place, viz. : "Having a blue neck, non-red (obeisance to ) one 
having a blue neck, (Nila-gnva) one having a dark blue neck" (Siti-Kantha) 
(Nila 2. 10.), the Lord's quality of 'having a blue neck' is repeated for 
showing care or respect. The qualities of 'having true desires', established 
in one place, are repeated in another place for the sake of showing care 
or respect. Hence, the qualities of 'having Um5 as a companion' and 
the rest, being repeated "for showing care", can never be denied of the 
Supreme Brahman. 

As regards Brahman and His attibutes, not known from other 
sources (besides the Scripture ), what is designated by the Holy Scripture, 
alone is to be accepted by those who rely on Scripture as the ( only 



(1) In those places where that particular form of meditation is not 
enjoined. 

(2) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 38. where it is said that these two groups of 
attributes, mentioned in the Mahanarayana and Kaivalya mean the same 
thing. 

(3) See Br. Sfi. 3. 3. 38. where it is said that repetition of qualities 
is meant for showing care or respect for the substratum of those qualities. 

(4) Uan^ala-Vidya, See. Br. Su. 3. 3. 22. 



Brahman's Attributes cannot be Negated 345 

source of knowledge (regarding supra-mundane things). Otherwise, if 
one resorts to argumentation, opposed to Scripture, then the fact that 
Brahman is the Material Cause of the universe can never be established. 
Hence, Scripture itself, having declared in the text ? "Biahman is truth, 
knowledge, infinite," (Tait. 2. 1. 1.), that Brahman is of the form of Truth 
and Knowledge, and Unlimited, goes on to say, in the text : "The 
Righteous, the Truth, the Supreme Brahman, the Person black and 
tawny, Abstemious, Three-eyed" (MahSuar. 12. 1.) and so on, that the same 
Brahman possesses the attributes of 'having three-eyes' 'having a 
variegated form as having UinS as His Supreme Form' etc. Again, in the 
text : "That is one bliss of Brahman" (Tait. 2. 8. 1.), (Scripture) decares that 
He is of the form of unsurpassable bliss. In the text : "Brahman has the 
ether as the body, truth as the soul, the vital-breath as pleasure, mind 
as bliss, abounding in tranquillity" (Tait. 1. 6. 2.)( ! ) and so on, (Scripture) 
shows that the very same Brahman is of the form of consciousness and light, 
finds pleasure in His own self, manifests supreme bliss which He enjoys by 
the inner-organ alone independently of the external sense-organs, is free 
from the stigma of all calamities, and is eternally free. In the text : "Free 
from sins" (Chand. 8. 1. 5.) and so on (Scripture) denies to Him all 
mundane qualities, belonging to the individual soul, though He possesses 
a body characterised by having three eyes etc. By the texts : "Who is 
omniscient, knower of everything" (Mund. 1. 1. 9.), "Supreme is His 
powers" (Svet. 6. 8.), "To the Lord of beasts" ( viz, the individual souls ) ; 
and so on, (Scripture) proves His omniscience, omnipotence, independence 
and the like. Hence, how can one deny Scripture, the best of all the 
proofs, which declares everywhere that the Supreme Brahman who is 
truth, knowlege and bliss, who is unlimited in nature, who is omniscient, 
eternally satisfied, independent, eternally manifested, who has His powers 
eternally revealed, who finds pleasure in His own self, who enjoys supreme 
bliss internally, who is tranquil, who is immortal, who has blue neck and 
three eyes, and who is accompanied by Uma is the Soul of all and 
the Cause of Salvation. Hence there cannot be any negation of the stated 
nature and qualities of the Supreme Brahman. 



Here ends the Section entitled "Non-Negation" (24). 



(1) See Br. Su. 1. 1. 2. P. 23 for explanation. 
44 



Adhikarana 25 : The Section entitled "On account of Statement 
to that Effect" ( Sutra 40 ). 

SUTRA 3. 3 40. 

"On approaching ( the Lord, it becomes similar to Him ), for this 
reason, on account of statement to that effect". 

Prim a Facie View 

Here the doubt is as to whether that very nature of Brahman, as 
demonstrated in the previous Section, is to be attained by a freed soul, 
or something else. What follows here ? 

If it be said : In the text : "Without parts, without activity, 
tranquil, irreproachable, sinless" (Svet. 6. 19.), Brahman is declared to 
be devoid of all differences (Nirvisesa). In the text : "One who knows 
Brahman becomes Brahman Himself" ( Mund. 3. 2. 9. ), it is said that 
salvation means the attainment of His nature by the freed soul. Hence, 
it is such a Brahman devoid of all differences that is to be attained by the 
freed soul, and not any one else. 

Reply 
The Mukta realises the Savisesa Form of Brahman. 

We reply : It is the above stated nature of Brahman as possessing 
differences ( Savisesa ) that alone is to be attained by the freed soul. 
This is so, because when in accordance with the text : "Having attained 
the form of Supreme Light", the freed soul attains the Supreme Brahman, 
the three-eyed Being who has been established as the object to be meditated 
on as within the small-lotus, it conies to be completed in its own 
form, as declared by the text : "Having attained the form of Supreme 
lyight, he is completed in his own form'' (Chsnd. 8.3.4. ; 8.12.3.)( l ) ; because, 
there is a statement that ( the freed soul ) attains its relatives etc, at 
will, viz : "He roams about there, laughing, playing enjoying with women, 
or with carriages, or with relatives" (ChSnd. 4 8. 12. 3.); and, because in 
accordance with the Scriptural text : "He attains to a supreme similarity' 7 
(Mund. 3. 1.3.), as well as in accordance with the Smrti text : "The freed soul 
becomes similar to 6iva", it is stated that the freed soul becomes similar 
to the Supreme Brahman. Hence, it is the above stated real nature of 
the Supreme Brahman, as characterised by the attributes of 'having a, 
blue neck* etc., that is to be directly obtained by the freed sottl, and not 



(1) The freed soul attains the form of Brahman and therby attains 
its own real form too. Now, the form of the freed* soul is not Nirvisea, 
but Savisesa. So, the freed soul attains Savisesa Brahman. 



The Mukta realises the Savisesa Form of Brahman 347 

any mundane form, for, the text -."Free from sins" (Chand. 8. 1. 5.) and so 
on, denies all mundane qualities (to the Lord). Hence the Meditation on 
the Supreme Being (Para-Vidya") means meditation on Him as possessing 
qualities (Saguna). In the text : " 'Without parts, without activity* " 
(Svet. 6. 19.) so on, the bad qualities have been denied, not the auspicious 
ones. Thus, in the texts : "Without parts, without activity" (6vet. 6. 19.) 
"The Lord of Pradhana ( Primary Matter ) and the individual soul" 
(6vet. 6. 19.), it is said, respectively, in a general manner, that Brahman 
is devoid of qualities (Nirguna) and Brahman possesses qualities (Saguna). 
Then by the specific texts: "Free from sins" (Chand. 8. 1. 5.), "Who is 
omniscient, all-knowing' 1 (Mund. 1. 1.9), the texts designating Brahman 
to be devoid of attributes is shown to imply that Brahman is devoid of 
bad qualities only, while the texts designating Brahman to be possessing 
qualities to imply that Brahman possesses auspicious qualities only. 
Moreover, it is a text designating Brahman to be possessing qualities that 
shows the fruit, viz. salvation, thus : "He enjoys all desires together 
with Brahman, the Wise" (Tai. 2. 1. 1.) (The sense is that:) The freed 
soul attains all objects of desire together with Brahman 'the wise' or the 
the omniscient. The words 'together with' imply that it enjoys bliss 
simultaneously with Brahman. Hence, the fruit to be attained by the 
freed souls, is (attaining) the real nature of Brahman, only as possessing 
qualities (Saguna). 

Here ends the Section entitled "On account of a Statement to that 
Effect". (25). 



Adhikarana 26 : The Section entitled "Non-restriction with regard 
to the Specifying of lhat ! (Sutras 41) 

SUTRA 3. 3. 41. 

"(There is) non-restrict on with regard to tl e specifying of that, 
on account of that being seen, for, the fruit, (viz.) non-obstruction, is 
different'^ 1 ) 

Prima Facie View 

The doubt is as to whether the Meditations on the Udgltha( 5 ), and 
the rest, the subsidiary parts of sacrificial works are to be regularly 
undertaken in those, or not. What follows here ? If it be said : Being 

(1) See below Br. Su. 3. 5963. 

(2) Cf. the text : "Let one meditate on the syllable 'Om' as the 
Udgitha. ( Chand. 1. 1. 1. ) etc. 



348 6rika$tha-Bhasya 3. 3. 41. 

subsidiary parts of those works, these are to be regularly undertaken 
whenever those works themselves are undertaken. Although these 
(meditations on the subsidiary parts of sacrificial works) are not taught as 
a regular subject in the Section dealing with sacrificial act, yet on 
account of direct statements to that effect, their relation with sacrifices 
is quite appropriate. Just as, in accordance with the text : "He 
whose sacrificial ladle is made of the Parna-wood, does not hear 
sinful verses" ( Tait. 3. 5. 7. ), the quality of being made % of the 
Parna-wood, not taught as a regular subject (in the Section dealing 
with sacrificial works), has a connection with the sacrifice, through a 
direct statement to the effect that it is connected with the scrificial 
ladle which is regularly connected with the sacrifice so here, 
too, in accordance with the texts : "Who knowing thus sings the 
Udgltha' 1 , "Who knowing thus, sings the Saman" (Chfind. 1. 7. 7., 9.), 
those meditations (on the subsidiary parts of scrificial acts), have a 
connection with sacrifices through the Saman, the Udgltha etc. which 
are regularly connected with sacrifices^). Hence, the Meditations on 



(1) Here the question is whether the Meditation on the Udgltha 
etc. are to be undertaken regularly whenever those sacrificial works 
themselves are done so, or not. To determine this, we have to be sure, 
first that these Meditations on the Udgltha etc. do actually form sub- 
sidiary parts of sacrifices. It may be objected that as these Meditations 
have not been taught as a regular topic in the Section ( Prakarana ) 
dealing with sacrificial works, so these cannot be taken to be subsidiary 
parts of those works ; and, therefore, no question of their regular inclusion 
in those works arises at all for, why should meditation on altogether 
unconnected things be included in those sacrifices without any rhyme 
and reason ? To this, the Prima Facie objector points out that these 
Meditations do form subsidiary parts of sacrifices. Although these are 
not directly treated in the Section ( Prakarana ) of Karmas, yet there 
are direct statements ( Vakya ) to show that these are connected with 
sacrifices as their subsidiary parts. Compare, the statements that these 
Meditations are regularly connected with Udgltha etc ; and Udgltha etc. 
in their turn, are regularly connected with sacrifices. Hence, such 
Meditations on the UdgTtha etc ; are regularly connected with the 
Udgltha etc., and through them, regularly connected with sacrifices 
themselves. Hence, Vakva is stronger than Prakarana in accordance with 
Pfl. ML Su. 3. 3. 14. See under Br. Sii. 3. 3. 25. fu. (1). 

The Author cities a parallel case too. The quality of being made of 
the Parna-wood is not directly enjoined in the Karma-prakarana. Yet. 
it being regularly connected with the sacrificial ladle, in accordance 



Udgitha-Meditations are not be undertaken Regularly 349 

the Udgltha and like are to be regularly included in those sacrificial 
works 

Reply 
Udgitha-Meditations are not be undertaken regularly. 

We reply : Such Meditations are not to be inserted regularly 
(in those sacrificial works), as in the case of the mi Ik ing-vessel. Just 
as in accordance with the text : "One should fetch water by means of 
Camasa- vessel ('), (but) for one desiring cattle, he should do so by means 
of the milking- vessel" (Go-dohana,)' the milking-vessel, enjoined 
in connection with the sprinkling of water, does not srve ( the 
general ) purpose of the sacrifice as such, and is thus only 
optional, and not obligatory like the fetching of water so the 
meditations ( on the Udgltha etc. ), enjoined in connection with sacrificial 
works, do not serve ( the general ) purpose of those sacrifices for, in 
accordance with the text : "Both perform this, he who knows ( l ). this 
thus, and who does not know thus". ( Chand. 1. 1. 10. ), it is found that 
even one who does not meditate on the Udgltha, may perform sacrifices. 
Although in the text : "Whatever one does with knowledge (meditation) 
with faith, with the mystic doctrine that only becomes more potent" 
( ChSnd. 1. 1. 10.), the present tense ("does"; has been used, yet, in order 
that it may bring about greater potency of the sacrifice ( as the fruit ), 
an injunction regarding meditation is to be conceived of here ( 8 ). 
'Greater potency' means that ( the sacrifice in question ) can lead to its 
fruit or result within a short time, without being obstructed by any 



with direct statements ( Vakya ) to this effect, is, thereby, regularly 
connected with sacrifices, as the ladle itself is regularly connected with 
sacrifices 

(1) A vessel used at sacrifices for drinking the Soma. 

(2) Here the word 'Veda' ( knows ) may be translated in conformity 
with the context, as 'Meditates', the text meaning that one may perform 
a sacrifice either with meditating on the *Om', or not meditating on it. 

(3) In the above text, there is no sign of an injunction viz. 'should 
do'. Still, as it is meant to indicate a special result of the meditation on 
the Udgltha, viz, greater potency of the sacrifice where such a meditation 
is undertaken, it is to be taken as injunctive in force. So, it means 
that 'one who desires to attain the above special fruit, should perform 
the sacrifice with knowledge* etc Here, 'knowledge' ( VidyS ) means 
'meditation'. So, the above text means that 'one who desires to attain 
greater potency 'of his sacrifice, should meditate on the Udgltha in his 
sacrifice*. See Br. Su. 3. 3, 63. 



350 Srikat?tha-Bhasya 3. 3. 41. 

other stronger work. Hence, separate fruits, like rain at will and so on, 
also, being declared by Scripture, these meditations are not to be regularly 
undertaken ( in sacrifices )(M. 

Here end* the Section entitle \ "Non-restriction with regard to the 
specifying of that" (26). 



(1) The whole problem is as follows : There are certain medita- 
tions, enjoined in the Upanisads, on certain subsidiary parts of Sacrifices, 
such as, the Udgitha etc. The question is whether these are necessarily 
connected with those sacrifices, i. e. are to be regularly undertaken 
whenever those sacrifices themselves are undertaken ; or, whether these 
are to be undertaken Optionally in accordance with the will of the sacrificer 
himself. In the former case, such meditations would stand to the sacrifices 
in the same relation as the quality of being made of the Parna-wood 
( Parnamayitva ) does. The quality of being made of the Parna-wood is 
permanently connected with sacrifices through the sacrificial ladle made 
of the Parna-wood. Similarly, these meditations on the Udgitha etc. 
would, on this view, he permanently connected with the sacrifices 
through the Udgitha etc. (See above. P. 348 fn. 1. ). That is, in 
accordance with the dictum in Pu. Mf. Su. 3. 6. 1 2 ( Vide 6ab. B, on it ), 
a sacrificial ladle made of the Panja-wood is an essential ingredient of a 
sacrifice, and is to be included in it whenever it is undertaken. Similarly, 
on the first view ( the Prima Facie objector's view ), the meditations on 
the Udgitha etc. are to be performed whenever the main sacrifices are 
performed. 

In the latter case, however, such meditations would stand to 
sacrifices in the same relation as the milking-vessel does. Here, in 
accordance with the dictum laid down in Pu. Mi. Su. 41.2. ( Vide 
6ab. B. on it ), the milking-vessel ( Go^ohaua ) is used in certain sacri- 
fices, viz. in the Dasa-purnamasa, not always, but only occasionally, i. e. 
only if the sacrificer desires a special result, viz. cattle. Similarly, on 
the second view ( which is the Author's view \ the meditations on the 
Udgitha etc. are not obligatory to the main sacrifices, but only optional. 

The Prima Facie View is that such meditations on the Udgitha 
etc- serve no special purpose, as. e. g. the milking-vessel does. On the 
contrary, they simply secure the greater potency of the sacrifices which 
is the general fruit of all other connected acts, just as having one's 
sacrificial ladle made of the Parna-wood secures no special result for 
the sacrificer. That Udgitha-Meditations etc. serve the general purpose 
of the sacrifices by making them more potent, but does not lead to any 
special results, is known from the fact that that above text : "Whatever 



Adhikarana 27 : The Section entitled "Offering" (Sutra 42) 

SUTRA 3. 3. 42. 
"Simply as in the case of offering, that has been said''. 

It has been said above that one and the same Siva, the - Supreme 
Brahman, is to be meditated on in all the Para-Vid>as( I ), as different, 
possessing those different qualities respectively. Now, the doubt is as 
to whether this is possible, onnot. What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : Although the qualities are different, yet the 

one does with knowledge (i. e. meditations), becomes more potent" 
(Chand. 1. 1. 10.), contains no injunction, but is a plain asssertion ; and 
it cannot be said to enjoin a special act (viz. Meditation on the Udgltha 
etc.) for a special result (viz. greater potency), Hence, it cannot be 
said that those meditations on the Udgitha etc. are to be undertaken at 
will for the sake of securing a special result. Therefore, these are to 
be undertaken always with those sacrifices. 

The Author replies thus * 

(i) Such meditations on the Udgltha etc. do not serve the general 
purpose of meditation, as held above, but have special results, just as 
the milking-vessel does not serve the general purpose of the sacrifice as 
such, but has a special result, viz securing cattle. Hence, such 
meditations are by no means obligatory to sacrificial acts, but only optional. 
This is clear from text that both who meditates and does not meditate 
perform sacrificial acts (Chaud. 1. 1. 10,). Hence, those onJy who wish 
to obtain those special results perform such meditations, not others. 

(ii) What are the special results of such meditations ? First, as 
declared by the above text (Chand 1. 1. 10. , these secure a greater potency 
of these sacrifices. This greater potency is a special result, and not 
the general result of the sacrifices as such. Each sacrifice produces 
a general result of its own ; and such a meditation on the Udgltha etc., 
when performed in it, produces a special beneficial result, viz. enables 
the sacrifice to produce its particular result more quickly and in an 
unobstructed manner. Hence, although there is no sign of injunction 
in above text (Chand. 1. 1. 10.), it has really an injunctive force. (See 
fn. 3, P. 349 above.) Further, such meditations are declared to have other 
special results, like bringing rain at will etc. Hence, these are not obligatory 
to sacrifices, but are only optional, to be undertaken at the will of the 
sacrificer, when only he desires for the afccve special result?. See 
Br. Su. 3. 3. 63, 

(1) Meditations on the Supreme Being or Brahman. 



352 Srikantfia-Bhasya 3. 3. 43. 

substratum of qualities, viz Brahman, being the very same, the meditations 
cannot be different. Just as the same King, even when endowed with 
different attributes like different ornaments etc. and even when occupying 
different places, like throne etc., is not found to be different in acts like 
inspecting, taking physical exercises, eating, sitting, hunting, fighting 
and so on, so even if the places occupied by the Lord, like the small 
heart-lotus etc. be different, and even if the attributes be different 
respectively, yet Brahman is one and the same, s^, the meditations 
on Him must be all one and the same. 

Reply 
Meditations on different Forms are different. 

We reply : Although the essential nature of iva, the Supreme 
Brahman, who is One only is the very same always, yet He has different 
forms, as qualified by those differnt attributes respectively, and also the 
attributes being different, the meditations on their substratum ( viz. the 
Lord ), as qualified by these are to be repeated ( separately ). Hence, these 
meditations have been enjoined as different, as in the case of the offerings 
to Indra. ( Although Indra is one and the same ), yet because of differences 
of qualities ( like King-ship, over-lordship and self-rulership ), and because 
it has been said in the Sainkarsana( l ). that "Diverse, foosoorth, are 
the divinities owing to different conceptions", there are ( three ) separate 
offerings of the sacrificial cake ( to him ), as declared by the next : "Let 
one offer the sacrificial cake on eleven pot-sherds to Indra, the King ; to 
Indra, the over-lord ; to Indra, the self-ruler" (Tait. Sam. 2. 3. 6.). 

In the very same manner, here although the Supreme Brahman is 
one and the same, yet due to differences of attributes, the meditations ( on 
Him as qualified by those attributes ) are different. As regards the 
example, cited above, of one and the same King, although the real nature 
of the King remains unchanged, yet due to differences of place etc., the 
modes of adoring him are indeed different on the part of those who 
serve him. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Offering" (27). 



Adhikarana 28 : The Section entitled : " * he Majority of Indicatory 
Marks" (Sutra 43). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 43. 

"On account of the majority of indicatory mark*, for, that is 
stronger, this also ( has been explained )". 

It has been established above that in all the meditations ( that lead 

(1) An appendix to,t&e Mlmamsa-Sutra. 



Brahman is to'be Meditated OH in all the Para-Vidyas 358 

to salvation ), Brahman is the sole object to be meditated on. Now, this 
Section is meant for determining Brahman, the object of meditation, as 
possessing certain particular attributes. In the Tattirr) a- Manual it is said : 

"All, verily, is Rudra, obeisance to that Rudra,- obeisance 
to Him. 

The Person, verily, is Rudra ; the Existent and the . 
Great, obeisance ( to Him ) again and again. 

All beings, the variegated universe, all that has been 
and is being born as manifold. 

All, this, verily, is Rudra, obeisance to that Rudra. 

Let us utter the most pleasant panegyric for Rudra, the 
Wise, the Bountiful, the Strong Being who abides in 
the heart. 

All, verily, is Rudra ; obeisance to that Rudra. 

Obeisance to One having golden arms, to the Lord of 
gold, to the Husband of Ambica to the Husband of Uma" 
(Mahanar. 13. 24,) 

Prima Facie View 

Here the doubt is as to whether the Supreme Brahman, declared by 
the Scriptural texts to be the Soul of all etc. and the husband of Uma, 
is to be meditated on only in this 'Meditation on the orb of the sunV), or 
in all the 'Meditations on the Supreme Brahman' (Para-Vidya) whatsoever. 
What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : As the context cannot be set aside, so He is to be so 
meditated on only in this 'Meditation on the orb of the sun' referred to 
here. 

Reply 

Brahman is to be Meditated on in all the Para- Vidyas. 

We reply : Such a Supreme Brahman, accompanied by Uma, is to 
be meditated on in all 'Meditations on the Supreme Brahman', on account 
of there being a large number of texts, connected with those respective 
indicating marks.( 2 ). Thus, in the texts : "All, verily, is Rudra" 

( 1 ) Savtr-mandala-V idya. 

(2) That is, the above MahsnSryana texts mention a large number 
of attributes, found mentioned in connection with many other Vidyas.* 
Hence, these attributes are to be included in all the Vidyas. 

45 



S54 &rikantna-Bnasya 3. 3. 4 

(Mahanar 13. 2.), there is an indicatory mark regarding the object to be 
meditated on in the Sandilya-Vidya^), as mentioned in the text : "All this, 
verily, is Brahman. Tranquil, let one worship It as that from which one 
came forth, as that into which one will be dissolved, as that into which one 
breathes" (Chand. 3. 14, 1.). In the text : "This Person, verily, is Rudra" 
(Mah&nar 13. 2*), there is an indicatory mark of the object to be meditated 
on in the 'Hymn to the Person'( 2 )> in the Upakosala-Vidya(*). etc. 

In the text ; "The existent' 1 ( Mahauar. 13. 2. ), there is an indicatory 
mark regarding the object to be meditated on in the Sad-Vidya ( 4 ), 
as mentioned in the text : "The existent, alone, my dear ! was this in 
the beginning" ( Chand. 6, 2. 1. ), In the text : "The Great" (Mahanar. 
13. 2, ), there is an indicatory mark regarding the object to be meditated 
on; in the Vyahnti-Vidya ( B \ as mentioned in the text: 'Bhiir'. 
'Bhuvar', 'Svar', Verily, these are the three utterances. And, beside 
these, Mahacamasya made known a fourth, namely, Mahas ( greatness ). 
That is Brahman. That is the soul. Other divinities are the limbs" 
{ Tait. 1. 5. 1. ). In the text : "To one abiding in the heart" ( Mahaiiar. 
13. 3. ), there being a clear reference to the heart, there is an indicatory 
mark regarding the object to be meditated on in the Dahara-Vidya ( 6 ). 
In the text : "To one having golden arms" ( Mahanar. 13. 4. ), there is 
an indicatory mark regarding the object to be meditated on in the 
Savitr-mandala-Vidya( 7 ) In the text: "To the husband of Uma, 
( Mahanar. 13. 4. ) there is an indicatory mark regarding the object to be 
meditated on in all the Para-Vidyas ( 8 ) Siva, the Supreme Soul is 
called 'Rudra*, as He chases away all mundane miseries ( 9 ). 

Thus, that Siva, the Supreme Brahman, the husband of Uma, is the 
object to be meditated on in all the Para-Vidyas, is clearly ascertained 
from direct statements themselves. A direct statement ( Vakya ) is of a 
greater force than mere context (Prakarana). 'That too" has been said : "If 
there be the combination of direct assertion, indicatory mark, syntactical 



(1) See Br. Su. 3. 3 19. 

(2) Vide R. G. V. 10. 90. 

(3) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 19. 

(4) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 35. 

(5) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 21. CL Brk 5. 5. 3., where Brahman is enjoined, 
to be meditated on as having tfoe mystical utterances ( Vyahriti ) Bhfir etc. 
as, His head etc. 

(6) $e$ Br, Su. 3 3. 1. 

(7) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 22. 

(8) Meditations on the Supreme Being. 

(9) Rug dravati it Rudra. See Br. StL 4. 1. 12. 



The Fires built up by the Mind etc. are not parts of Actual Sacrifices 355 

connection, context, place and name, each succeeding one is ( weaker than 
each preceding one ), on account of its remoteness from meaning" ( Pu MI. 
Su. 3. 3 14. ).(*) Hence, it is established that the Supreme Reality, 
accompanied by Uma and chasing away mundane miseries, is the object 
to be meditated on in all the Para-Vidyas. 

"Here ends the Sect'on entitled "On account of a Majority of 
.ndicatory Marks" (29). 



Adhikarana 30 : I he Section entitled "An Alternative Form of the 
Preceding One" ( Sutras 4450 ). 

Prima Facie View ( Sutras 4 45 ) 

SUTRA 3. 3. 44. 

"( The fires built up by the mind and the rest ) may be an 
alternative form ( of the preceding fire built up by bricks ), n account 
of the context, ( they are ) action, as in the case of the mental vessel.' 

In the 'Mystery of Fires' ( 2 ), it is declared : "It saw the thirty-six 
thousand fires belonging to itself, the suns made of the mind, piled up 
by the mind" ( Sat. Br. 10. 5. 3. 3. ). Thus in the text : "Piled up by 
speech, piled up by the vital-breath, piled up by the ey*, piled up by 
the ear, piled up by action, piled up by fire" (*), (i. e. fire of digestion), 
it is said that there are thirty-six thousand days in the life of a person, 
living up to the age of a hundred years. Here, if all his mental processes, 
during the course of a single day, form one fire, then, there will be 
thirty-six thousand fires. And, these are to be meditated on as the 
individual soul. The same is the case with the fires piled up by 
speech etc. 

On the doubt as to whether these are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice 
consisting in a actual action, or, whether they are subsidiary parts of a 
sacrifice consisting only in meditation. 

Prima Facie View 

The Prima Facie View is as follows : The fires piled up mentally, 
as declared in the text : "Piled up by the mind, piled up by speech" ; 
etc<y should be taken to be connected with a sacrifice consisting in 



(1) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 25. 

(2) Tenth book of the Satapatha-Brahinana. See Sat. Br. 10. 5. 3. 

( whole ). 

(3) Quotation mark wrong in the text. 



356 6rikantfca-Bhasya 3. 3. 45. 

actual action, the whole, of which the fire, piled up by bricks, referred 
to previously in the passage : "The non-existent, verily, was this in 
the beginning" ( 6at. Br. 6. 1. 1. 1. ), forms a subsidiary part. (*). And, 
hence, these fires are the "alternative forms" of the fires piled up by 
bricks ; ( 3 ). "as in the case of the mental ( vessel )". That is, 
on the tenth day, called the 'Avivakya'O, of the 'Twelve days' Sacrifice, 
all the mentally accomplishable rites, viz. taking, arranging, singing 
hymns, reciting hymns, taking up again and eating in connection with 
the earth-jug, Prajnpati-deity, sea-juice and mental cupH, though merely 
mental, are yet subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in actual action. 
In the very same manner, here, too, all these fires, though mental, are, yet, 
subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in actual action. 

Prim a Facie View (cont'nued) 

SUTRA 3. 3. 45. 
"And on account of transference''. 

In the text : "There are thirty-six thousand fires, the suns. Of 
these, each is as great as the former" (6at. Br. 10. 5. 3. 3., 11.), the functions 
of the fires piled up by bricks are transferred to these (mental fires)( 6 ). 



(1) The fire piled up by brick or an actual fire, forms a subsidiary 
part of an actual sacrificial act. So the fires piled up mentally too, must 
be so. 

(2) So that for the actual construction of an alter built by bricks, 
this mental or imaginary alter may be optionally substituted. 

(3) 'Avivakya' is the name of the tenth day of a particular kind of 
Soma sacrifice. 

(4) Cf. the text : "With this (earth) as the jug, with this sea as the 
juice, he takes the mental cup, offered to Prajapati, for you". 

(5) The sense is that on the tenth day of the Soma sacrifice, lasting 
twelve days, a cup is offered mentally to Prajapati, the earth being 
imagined to be the cup and the sea the Soma-juice. Now, here, all the 
operations connected with the offering of the cup are mental, yet the 
offering of the cup is taken to be a real, and not an imaginary, action, 
since it is connected with a real sacrifice. In the same manner, the fires 
built up by the mind etc., though mental, are to be taken as parts of real 
sacrifice. This is the Prinia Facie View. 

(6) That is, here, first, brick-built, ordinary, actual fires are 
mentioned, then the mental fires are mentioned ; and finally, it is said that 
these latter are as great as the former. That implies that the functions 
and powers of the former belong also to the latter. From this kind of ^ 
transference of the the special attributes etc. of the former to the latter, 
we know that they are of the same kind. 



Mind-built Fires are parts 01 Meditation 357 

Hence, these latter, too, must be the subsidiary parts of this (viz. a real 
sacrifice). 

Correct Conclusion (Sutra 4650) 
Mind-built Fires a?e parts of Meditation. 

SUTRA 3. 3. 46. 

"But (these are) meditation alone on account of specification and on 
account of observation (i. e Scriptural text)". 

"Meditation alone" means that these are subsidiary parts of a 
sacrifice consisting in meditation only. Although from the very fact 
that these are mental fires, it is established that these consist in meditation 
only, yet "the specification' 1 , viz. "For, they are piled up by meditation 
alone" (6at. Br. 10. 5 3., 12.), is meant for making it known that these are 
subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation only. In that 
very place, a sacrifice consisting in meditation only has been designated 
thus : "By mind alone they are placed, by mind they sung hymns, by 
mind they recited hymns. Whatever work is done in a sacrifice, what- 
ever sacrificial work there is, that, consisting of mind, piled up by 
mind": (6at. Br. 10.5.3.3.). Hence, these are, indeed, subsidiary parts 
of a sacrifice consisting in meditation only. 

SUTRA 3. 3. 47. 

"And, on account of the greater force of direct Scriptural statement 
and the rest, (there is) no setting aside". 

The fact that (these mental fires) are connected with a sacrifice 
consisting only in meditation is known direct from Scriptural statements, 
as well as from syntactical connection and indicatory mark. The direct 
Scriptural text is : "For, these are piled up by meditation (Vidya) alone 
(Sat. Br. 10. 5. 3., 3.) The indicating mark is : "All beings at all times pile 
these up for him who knows thus, even while he sleeps" (Sat. Br. 10.5.3., 12). 
The syntactical connection is : "For, by meditation ( Vidya ) alone 
are these piled up for one who knows thus" (Sat. Br. 10. 5. 3., 12). Hence, 
it cannot be set aside by more context (Prakarana) which is much weaker 
than these (*). 

Objection 

If it be objected : In the text : "By mind the cups were taken in 
them" (Sat. Br. 10. 5. 3., 3.) there is no mention of an imperative word ; 

(1) Cf. Pu. Mi. Su. 3. 3. 14. See above Br. Su. 3. 3. 43. That is, 
although these mental fires have been mentioned in the Section of actual 
brick-built fires used in actual sacrifices, yet they are quite distinct 
from the same, because there are stronger reasons, like direct Scriptural 
assertion etc., proving their difference from ordinary sacrificial fires. 



358 6rikantha-6hasya 3. 3. 49. 

hence, there cannot be any sacrifice consisting in actual action ( the 
Author) replies : 

SUTRA 3. 3. 48. 

"On account of inseparable adjuncts and the rest, like separateness 
of other cognitions, and it is found, that has been sa'd". 

"On account of the inseparable adjuncts" ( ] ) of a sacrifice, as 
declared by the text : "By mind, the cups were taken" (Sat. Br. 10. 5. 3., 3.) 
as well as on account of Scriptural texts etc, like : "For, they are piled up 
by the mind alone" (at. Br. 10. 5. 3., 12.), an injunction regarding a 
sacrifice consisting in meditation is to be imagined. Just as Dahara- 
Meditation ( 8 ) and the rest are different from sacrifices consisting in 
actual action, so this sacrifice consisting in meditation only, too, is known 
to be different from an actual sacrifice because of inseparable adjuncts 
and Scriptural texts etc. "And, it is found" that an injunction is conceived 
of even in a mere explanatory repetition, as in the case of the text : 
"What one does with knowledge (meditation)" ( Chand. 1. 1. 10.)( 8 ), and 
soon. "Th t has be? n said" in the text: "But the text, on account 
of being new" (Pii. MI. Su. 10. 4. 22.) Hence, it stands to reason that these 
should be subsidiary parts of a scacrifice consisting only in meditation. 

Apprehending an objection, ( tbe Author ) disposes of it. 

SUTRA 3. 3. 49. 

"( hese fires are) not ( identical ), still tben, ( their transference 
is ) due to the similarity ( of their results ), for, it is fo jnd ( that the-e is 
transference because of similarity ) as in the case of death, for, there is 
no r ttaining the world ( of death by the person in the sun )". 

In the text : "Of these, each is as great as the former" 
( 6at. Br. 10. 3. 3, 11. ), the transference ( of the functions of a sacrifice 
consisting in actual action to a sacrifice consisting in meditation only )( 4 ), 
is due to the similarity of the results of the fires piled up by bricks and 
those piled up by fire ( viz. the fire of digestion )( 8 ) etc. That is, just as a 



(1) i. e. the attendant performances of a sacrifice, viz. taking 
cups, reciting hymns, singing hymns etc. These are quite different 
here, i. e. these are only mental, and not actual physical actions. Hence, 
this sacrifice consisting in meditation must be quite different from an 
actual one consisting in physical action. 

(2) See under Br. Su. 3. 3. 1. 

(3) See under Br. Su. 3. 3. 

(4) This disposes of the objection raised in Br. Su. 3. 3, 45. 

(5) See above under Br. S& 3. 3. 44. 



Mind-built Fires are parts of Meditation 369 

fire piled up by bricks gets its result though the sacrifice of which it is a 
part, so these ( mental ) fires also get their results through the sacrifice 
consisting in meditation only (of which these are parts )( l ) But these 
(mental) fires by no means belong to the same place as the fire built up by 
bricks.( 2 ). For, it is found that sometimes such a transference may 
be due to mere similarity ( in some points ), as in the text : "He, verily, 
is death, who is the person within this orb" (6at. Br. 10. 5. 2, 3.), ( the 
person is said to be death, only because of similarity in a single respect ), 
viz. destructiveness. Here, the person within the orb of the sun does not 
occupy the woild of death. So, such a transference on account of similarity 
( in some respects ) does not involve any contradiction^). 

( The author ) states another reason : - 

SUTRA 3. 3. 50. 

"And, on account of what is subsequent, the fact that the text is 
of this kind ( is established ), there is connection ( with action ), on the 
other hand, en account of majority 1 '. 

*'And on account of what is subsequent", i. e. from the immediately 
following Section, it is known that this "text", denoting a fire piled up by 

(1) 'Similarity of results' does not mean that the result of works, 
like sacrifices, is similar to that of meditation. It simply means that just 
as brick-built fires being subsidiary parts of an actual sacrifice, do not 
lead to any independent results, but can produce results only through the 
main sacrific, so here, too, the mental fires lead to their results not 
independently, but only through the main meditation of which they are 
subsidiary parts. So, the similarity between the actual and the mental 
fires is that in both cases, the same principle, viz. that subsidiary parts 
(Angas) get their results through the whole (Afigin), holds good. 

(2) That is, these are not parts of an actual sacrifice consisting in 
action, as brick-built fires are, and are, thus, not placed in an actual 
sacrifice. 

(3). That is, mere transeference of the property of one thing to 
another is by no means an indication of their actual identity ; for, it is 
found that sometimes such a transference is based on a single or a few 
points of similarity only. E. g. the person within the orb of the sun is said 
to be death, but there is only one point of resemblance between them, viz. 
destructiveness, and no resemblance in other points. E. g. the person 
within the sun does not occupy the world of death. So, this person 
and death cannot be said to be identical. In the same manner, the 
actual and the mental fires are never the same. The property of the 
former has been transferred to the latter only because of similarity in the 
point noted above. 



360 ^rika^tha-Bhasya 3. 3. 52. 

the tiiind etc., proves that ( these fires ) consist in meditation. Thus, in 
the text : "This world, verily, is piled by the fire, water only surrounds it", 
(Sat. Br. 10. 5. 4. 1.). a meditation having separate result has been enjoined. 
The connection of these fires, piled up by mind etc. with a Section 
doaling with action is,( l ) on the other hand, due to a large number of 
subsidiary details to be performed in the case of these mental firms also.( 2 ). 
Hence, these are subsidiary parts of a sacrifice consisting in meditation. 

Here ends the Section entitled "An Alternative Form of the 
Preceding One 29) 



Adhikarana 30 : The Section entitled, "Exigence in the Body" 
(Sutras 51-52). 

Prima Facie View ( Sutra 51 ) 

SUTRA 3.3.51. 

"Jome ( hold that the Lord should not be meditated on in all the 
Para-Vidyas ), on accunt of the existence of the ( individual ) soul in the 
body". 

Here, the doubt is as to whether the meditation on the real nature 
of Brahman, as stated above, should be undertaken in all the Para-VidySs, 
or not. Here, "jome" think that, on account of his existence in the 
body", the worshipper comes to have the form of an agent and an enjoyer. 
Hence, the Supreme Lord, who abides in him as his soul, cannot properly 
be meditated on, in the Para-Vidyas, in His real nature as possessing 
three-eyes etc. 

Correct Conslusion ( Sutra 52 ) 
The Soul is to be Meditated on as Mukta 

SUTRA 3. 3. 52. 

"dut ( the individual soul is to be meditated on in its state of 
release) different (from its state of bondage ), not (in its state of an 
agent and an enjoyer ), because of becoming of that na'ure, as in the 
ca r e of realisation." _______ 

(1) i. e. their mention therein. 

(2) In connection with the mental fires, many details of actual 
sacrifices have been mentioned, such as, placing, piling up, taking cups, 
reciting hymns, singing hymns etc. (6at. Br. 10. 5. 3, 3.), See above 
under Br. Su. 3. 3, 46. That is why, these fires, though mental, have 
been stated in connection with actual fires and sacrifices. 



The Freed Form of the Soul is to be meditated on 361 

The Supreme Soul is not to be meditated on as the soul of the 
worshipper who has assumed the form of an agent and enjoyer and so on 
( i. e. who is in bondage ). On the contrary, only that form ( of the 
individual soul ) is to be meditated on which is "different", i. e. the form 
as endowed with the attributes of 'freedom from sins' and the rest, (which 
it gets ) when it is freed from its mundane nature. For, the realisation 
of ( its ) real nature is due to such a meditation. Just as, in accordance 
with the Scriptural text : "As the purpose of a man is in this world, so 
will he be on departing" ( Chand. 3. 14. 1. ), there is the realisation of 
Brahman according to meditation, so is the case here. Hence, as the 
worshipper is to be meditated on in his real nature as freed from mundane 
nature and possessing 'freedom from sins' etc., so the Supreme Son!, to be 
meditated on as his soul, may very well, without any contradiction, be 
meditated on in His real nature as possessing three eyes etc. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Existence in the Body" (30). 



Adhikajana 31 : The Section entitled, "Connected with the 
Subsidiary Parts" ( Sutras 5354 ). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 53. 

"But ( the practices ) connected with the subsidiary part?, ( are ) 
not ( restricted )to ( particular ) Branches, for, ( these are to be under- 
taken in ) each Veda." 

Here the doubt is as to whether (the practices), "connected with the 
subsidiary parts" of meditations and meditations in the same Branches, are 
to be undertaken in all the meditations as their subsidiary parts, or not. 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : In the Dahara-Meditation '*), in the Kaivalya Upanisad, 
in the text : "Having made the self the lower piece of wood and the 
Pranava the upper piece of wood used for kindling fire by attrition, a 
wise man burns off his noose ( viz. state of bondage ) by kindling the 
fire of meditation" ( Kaivalya 12. ), the repeated practice of Pranava is 
declared. In the Pasupata-Meditation in the Atharva-6iras, in the text : 
"Having taken ashes with ( the Mantra ) 'fire' etc, having anointed the 
limbs with it, one should touch ( them ). Thus is the sacred vow of 
Pasupata for getting rid of mundane existence" ( 6iras 5. ), the besmearing 
( of the body ) with ashes is declared. In another place, in the text : 
"One should draw three lines" (Kalag 2.), there is an injunction regarding 
the putting on of three sacred marks ( on the forehead ). As in the 



(1) See under Br. Su. 3. 3. 1. 
46 



3(32 6rikantha-Bh5sya 3. 3. 55. 

text : " Absorption in 6iva" ( Kalag. 2. ), a fruit is mentioned, so it is a 
subsidiary part of the Para-Vidya ( Meditation on the Supreme Being ). 
These ( practices ), connected with the subsidiary parts of meditations, 
are to be undertaken by the worshippers only in the meditations which 
are enjoined in those Branches where these themselves are mentioned 
and not everywhere. 

Reply 

The Practices of Anointing the body with ashes etc. are to be 
undertaken everywhere. 

To this, we reply : There is no restriction regarding (practices like) 
anointing the body with ashes, 'connected with the subsidiary parts" 

of meditations which are mentioned in the Branches where these 
(i e. these practices) themselves are mentioned. But, these are to be under- 
taken "in each Veda" ( l )> i e. in all the Branches, by all the worshippers 
of Brahman. Thus, mere proximity is set at naught by direct Scriptural 
statement ( 8 ). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 54. 

''Or, as in the case of the sacred formulae and the like, ( there 
is ) no contradiction/ 7 

Just as there is u no contradiction" in taking the sacred formulae, 
which are; the subsidiary parts of sacrifices, mentioned in one place, as 
connected with the sacrifices mentioned in all the Branches, so is the 
case here. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Connected with the Subsidiary 
Parts." (30). 



Adhikarana 31 : The Section entitled "The Superiority of the 
Sacrifice." ( Sutra 55 ). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 55. 

"( There is ) superiority of the s lentitude, as in the case of a 
sacrifice, for, thus ( Scripture ) shows.'* 

Here, the^doubt is as to whether in the Vaisvanara-Vidya ( 8 ), there 
should be meditation on the parts separately, or on the whole collectively. 

(IT SeeBr. Su. 3. 4 48. 

(2) Cf. Pu. MI. Su. 3. 3. 14. See Br, Su. 3. 3. 33. 

(3) Vaisvanara-Vidya or Doctrine of the Universal Soul taught to 
six Brahmanas, Praclnasala and the rest by King Asvapati. Vide 



Meditation on the Whole is be undertaken 363 

Prima Facie View 

Thus, there it is established that the Heaven, the sun, the air, the 
ether, water and the earth are to be meditated on, respectively, as the 
head, the eye, the vital breath, the middle of the body, the bladder and the 
foot of the Vaisvanara. 

The meditation on each of these separate texts, repeated in connection 
with the Heaven and the rest, thus, "He eats food, he sees what is pleasing. 
There is eminence in sacred knowledge in the family of him who 
meditates on the Vaisvauara Atman (Universal Soul)" (Chand. 5. 12. 2.).( 1 ). 
This being so, as the words 'meditates on', as well as the statement 
regarding the fruit are found in the case of each, the meditation on the 
separate parts is, indeed, appropriate. This is the Prima Facie View. ' 

Correct Conclusion 
The Meditation on the Whole is to be Undertaken. 

But the Correct Conclusion is as follows : It is said here that the 
meditation on the Whole alone is the primary one. Thus, having stated that 
the Heaven etc. up to the earth, are the limbs, from head to foot, of the 
Vaisvanara Atman ( Universal Soul ), who is to be meditated on as having 
the three worlds as His body, the text goes on to declare the fruit of a 
direct intuition of Brahman, thus, "He, however, who meditates on this 
Vaisvanara Atman ( Universal Soul ) that is of the measure of the span 
and unlimited, eats food in all the worlds, in all beings, in all selves" 
(Chand. 5. 18. 1.). Here, it is said that the meditation on "the plentitude', 
i. e. on the whole is, "superior to", i. e. more authoritative than the 
meditations on the parts like the head etc., as in that very place, the fruit 
of a direct intuition of Brahman has been mentioned. The mention of the 
fruits of the meditations on the separate limbs here, is intended to be 
taken, as in the case of a sacrifice. Just as, when having said : "If a son is 



Chand. 5. 11 5. 18. The account is s follows. Six great house-holders, 
Pracmasala and the rest, assembled and pondered : "Who is our Soul ? 
Who is Brahman ?" Unable to come to a conclusion, they approached 
Uddalaka Aruni with a view to learning about the VaisVanara Atman, 
or the Universal Soul, from him. The latter directed them to King 
Asvapati. Asvapati asked each of the six : "What do you revere as 
the Universal Soul ?" They successively answered : The Heaven, the 
Sun, the Wind, the Ether, Water and the Earth. Therefore, Asvapati 
taught them that the Universal Soul is not thus separate, i. e. either the 
Heaven only, or the Sun only, etc., but is a Universal Being comprehending 
everything Vide Br. Su. 1. 2. 25. 

(1) Repeated in connection with all the rest. 



364 6nkantha-BhSsya 3. 3. 54. 

born, one should make offerings to Vaisvanara on twelve pot-sherds", the 
text asserts : "There is an offering on eight pot-sherds. One purifies this 
by the GayStrl itself by pre-eminence in sacred knowledge", it does not 
intend to demonstrate separately the offering on eight pot-sherds or its 
result^) so is the case here, too. Thus, Scripture "shows" the superiority 
of the Meditation on the Whole alone. Here, to the questions (of Asvapati), 
viz : "Aupanianyava ! Whom do you worship as the Soul ?" (ChSnd. 5.12.1.), 
"Pracmayogya ! Whom do you worship as the Soul ?" (Chand. 5. 13. 1.) 
and so on, the answers refer to meditations oil the separate parts, thus : 
"The Heaven, indeed, Sir, O King f (Chand. 5. 12. 1.), "The sun, indeed, 
Sir, O King !" (Chand. 5. 13. 1.) etc. After that, although in the texts : 
"He eats food ; he sees what is pleasing" (Chad. 5. 12. 2 ; 5. 13. 2. etc.), the 
separate fruits are mentioned in those respective places, yet the King's 
words : "Your head would have fallen off had you not come to me" 
(Chand. 5. 12. 2.), "You would have become blind had you not come to me" 
(ChSnd. 5. 13. 2.; etc. clearly indicate the disastrous consequences ( of such 
meditations on the separate Hnibs).('). Hence, the Meditation on the 
Whole alone is the primary one. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Superiority of the Plentitude". 

(32). 



Adhikarana 33 : The Section entitled "Difference of Words' 
(Sutra. 56.) 

SUTRA 3. 3. 56. 

"( The Vidyas ) are diverse, on account of the difference of words 
and so on." 

Here, on the doubt as to whether all the Para-Vidyas ( Meditations 
on the Supreme Being) are to be undertaken collectively, or separately, 

(1) The sacrifice on eight pot-sherds is a part of the sacrifice on 
twelve pot-sherds. So, it is not to be performed separately, and has no 
separate fruit of its own. So, here, too, the Meditation on the Whole 
Vaisvanara Atman is to be undertaken, not separate meditations on its 
separate parts: . ' 

(2) Here, when in answer to the King's question : "Whom do you 
worship as the Soul ?" the six Brahmanas respectively reply : the Heaven 
etc., then, in each case, the King, begins by eulogising that kind of 
meditation, but ends by pointing out its disastrous result. Cf. the text : 
"You eat food, you see what is pleasing. There is eminence in sacred 



The Meditations are Diverse 365 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : The meditations, though mentioned in many 
Branches, are to be undertaken collectively, as the object meditated 
on viz. Brahman, is the same in all 

Reply 
1 he Meditations are Diverse 

To this, we reply : As it is improper to undertake, collectively, 
these numerous meditations, known from numerous Scriptural texts, so 
the meditations do differ, due to differences of attributes, in spite of the 
fact that Brahman's real nature is one and the same. (*\ Where there is 
no difference of qualities, there the meditations differ due to difference 
of places ( 2 ) Hence, it has been established that there is difference 
amongst the offerings of sacrificial cakes to Indra, due to difference of 
his attributes, like Kingship ( 3 ). etc. ; just as, there is difference 
amongst the auxiliary ceremonies in connection with the fires, viz. 
Garhapatya and the rest, due to difference of their places ( 4 ). Hence, it 

knowledge in the family of him who worships the Vaisvanara Attnan 
thus: "That (viz. the Heaven) is only the head of the Atman. Your 
head would have fallen off had you not come to me". (Chand. 5. 12. 2.). 

(1) Brahman is meditated on in all the Vidyas, yet He is meditated 
on as possessing different attributes. Hence, the Vidyas, too, are taken 
to be different. E. g. the Dahara-Vidya ( See Br. Su. 3. 3. 1. ) and the 
Vaisvanara-Vidya ( See Br. Su. 3. 3. 55. ) are both meditations on the same 
Brahman, yet these are taken to be two different meditations, as, in the 
former case, Brahman is meditated on as very small ; in the latter, as 
omnipresent. Vide also Br. Su. 3. 3. 6 ; 3. 3. 24. where it is said that even 
the Vidyas having the same names, ( Udgitha-Vidya and Purusa-Vidya 
respectively ) are to be taken to be different, if their forms, parts and 
fruits be different. 

(2) Here, too, even if the same Brahman be meditated on, yet He 
may be meditated on in different places. Hence, the Vidyas, too, are to 
be taken to be different. E. g. in the Dahara-Vidya ( See. Br. Su. 3.3.1. ) 
Brahman is meditated on in the heart-lotus ; while in the Mandala-Vidya 
( See Br. Su. 3. 3. 22 ), He is meditated on in the orb of the sun. Hence, 
these two Vidyas are different. In Br. Su. 3. 3. 21., it is said that due to 
difference of places ( the sun and the eye ), the Vidyas are not identical. 

(3) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 42. 

(4) These fires are placed in different directions, the Daksina fire 
to the south, the Ahavanlya to the east etc. Hence, the ceremonies, 
too, differ. 



366 6rikantha-Bhasya 3. 3. 57. 

is established that the meditations are of "diverse" kinds, "on account of 
the difference of words" (*), attendant performances etc. 

A new Section has been begun here for disposing of the view 
that no injunction is possible with regard to knowledge ( 2 ). 

Here ends the Section entitled "Difference of Words" (33) 



Adhikarana 33 : I he Section entitled "Option ( Sutra 57 ). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 57. 

"( There is ) option, on account of the non -distinction of the 
result." 

Thus, it has been proved that the 'Meditations on the Supreme 
Being' ( Para- Vidya ) are of various kinds. The doubt is as to whether 
these are to be undertaken by the worshipper collectively, or optionally. 
What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : The Dahara-Meditation, ( 3 ). the Sat-Meditation ( 4 ). 
etc. are to be undertaken jointly, for, if there be a large number of 
meditations, then there may result a large number of fruits ( from them ). 
On the contrary, there is no fixed rule that only one or the other of these 
is to be undertaken optionally. 

Reply 
The Fara-Vidyas are to be practised optionally. 

We reply : If the worshipper be the same, then all these meditations 
on the Supreme Being are to be undertaken by him only optionally. 
Why ? "On account of ths non-distinction of the result", i. e. because 
the fruit of a direct intuition of Brahman, viz. experiencing the 
unsurpassable bliss of Brahman, is the same everywhere. If one's purpose 



(1) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 1. where the reasons for taking Vidyas to be 
identical are stated. Cf. Pu. ML Su. 2. 4. 9. which mentions these 
reasons ; while Pu. ML Su. 2. 2. 1. mentions the reasons for taking Vidyas 
to be different. See Br. Su. 3. 3. 4. 

(2) In Br. Su. 3. 3. 42. it has already been shown that due to 
difference of attributes and places, the Vidyas themselves become 
different. Still, a separate Section has been devoted to that topic again 
for showing that even Vedanta-texts may be injunctive. See Br. Su. 1.1.4. 

(3) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 1. 

(4) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 3637. 



Para-Vidyas are to be undertaken optionally 367 

be fulfilled by only one meditation, what is the use of undertaking the rest 
unnecessarily ? Moreover, through a single meditation only, carried on 
with intense connentration, one can have a direct intuition regarding 
the real nature of Brahman, through thinking of himself as one with 
the object of meditation. Hence, if leaving one ( meditation ), he under- 
takes another, that may lead to the distraction of his mind. Thus, 
these are be undertaken only optionally. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Option" (34). 



Adhikarana 35 : The Section en itled "At Will" ( Sutra 58 ;. 

SUTRA 3. 3. 58. 

"But ( the meditations bringing about ) objects of desire, may be 
combined together or not at will, on account of the absence of the 
former reason.'* 

On the doubt as to whether the above principle, established in the 
previous Section, is to be applied to meditations which bring about 
fruits other than the direct intuition of Brahman, or not 

We reply : The principle established in the prior Section is not 
applicable here, on account of difference. From the text : "Having 
become God, one attains God", it is known that amongst the Para- 
Vidyas, those that involve meditation on the self as identical with the 
L,ord, may lead to a direct attainment of the state of God, even here 
and in the present life, through excellence of meditation. But there is no 
evidence to show that the meditations on Name as Brahman (*) etc. 
bringing about objects of desire, may bring about a direct intuition 
( of Brahman ) as their fruits. And, there being the absence of such a 
fruit, all those meditations are to be practised jointly for enabling one to 
have many enjoyments, there being no single fruit here, as in the case 
of the fruit, viz. Brahman. Hence, it is establised that one or many of 
those will have to be practised.( 8 ). 

Here ends the Section entitled "At Will" (35). 

(1) Cf. the text : "Verily, he who meditates on Name as Brahman, 
comes to have freedom of movement as far as Name goes" (Chaud. 7.2.5.). 

(2) The meditations on Brahman all lead to the very same fruit, viz. 
attainment of Brahman. Thus, as any one of these meditations leads to 
Brahman, it is unnecessary to undertake all or many of them at a time. 
But this does not apply to meditations that lead to other objects of desire. 
Here, each has a special fruit of its own, arjd so one mav undertake one 



Adhikarana 36 : The Section entitled : "Of the Same Nature as 
their Bases" ( Sutras 59-62 ). 

Prima Facie View (Sutras 59-62) 

SUTRA 3. 3. 59. 

"( 1 he meditations based ) on the subsidiary parts ( of sacrifices 
are of the same nature as their substrata". 

Once more,( l ) on the doubt as to whether the meditations on the 
subsidiary parts of sacrifice, like the Udgitha etc., are subsidiary parts of 
sacrifice, or something separate the Prima Facie View is as follows 

The meditations on the subsidiary parts of sacrifices, like the 
Udgitha etc., are, indeed, subsidiary parts of sacrifices, like the Udgitha 
etc., because, there is no mention of any fruit in those texts themselves 
( regarding meditations on the Udgitha etc. ), as in the case of a milking 
vessel('). 

Prima Facie View ( continued ) 

SUTRA 3. 3. 60. 
"And, on account of teaching". 

On account of there being an injunction in the text : "L,et one 
meditate on the Udgitha' (Chnd. 1. 1. 1.), and on account of there being 
no injunction in the text : "What one does with knowledge (meditation)'V) 
(Chand. 1. 1. 10.)( 4 ), (these) are indeed, subsidiary parts (of sacrifice). 

Prima Facie View ( Continued ). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 61. 
"And, on account of inclusion". 

In the text : "From the seat of the Hotr simply, he sets right the 
Udgitha that has been wrongly chanted" (Chand. 1. 5. 5.), it is found that 
there is a fixed rule about the inclusion of the meditation ( on the Udgitha 
in sacrifices ). For that reason, too, (such meditations on the Udgitha etc.) 
are subsidiary parts of sacrifices. 'The Udgitha that has been falsely 
chanted' means the Udgitha that has not been meditated on. The text, 
declaring that jf there be no meditation ( on the Udgitha ), then that is 
to be rectified by some other means, shows that these ( viz. the meditations 
on the Udgitha etc. ) are to be regularly included ( in those sacrifices ). 



(1) This has already been discussed under Br. Su. 3. 3. 41. 

(2) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 41., footnotes, for explanation. 

(3) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 41., footnotes, for explanation. 



Udgltha-Meditations are not to be included everywhere 

There being such a fixed rule, ( those meditations on the Udgltha etc. ) 
are subsidiary parts ( of sacrifices ). 

Prima Facie View ( Concluded ) 

SUTRA 3. 3. 62. 

"And on account of the Scriptural text about the commonness of 
attributes." 

From the text : "Thereby this three-fold knowledge ( meditation ) 
exist?. With 'Om' ( the Adhvaryu priest of the Yajur-Veda ) gives order, 
with 'Oin' ( the Hotr priest of the Rg-Veda ) recites, with 'Om' 
( the Udgatr priest of Sama-Veda ) sings" (Chand. 1. 1. 9.), it is known that 
the meditation on the Pranava ( 'Cm' ) is inculuded ( in sacrifices always ), 
as it is the subsidiary part of the Pranava which is included in all 
(sacrifices). Hence, there is a fixed rule that the meditation ( on the 
Pranava ) is to be included ( iu all sacrifices ). The word 'thereby' refers 
to what has been referred to before ; and it is the Pranava together with 
meditation on it that has been referred to before^ 1 ). Hence, 
there cannot be any option ( with regard to the inculsion of ) the Udgitha- 
Meditation and the rest ( in sacrifice ). 

Correct Cnolusion ( Sutras 6364 ). 
Udgitha-Meditations are not subsidiary parts of sacrifices 

SUTRA 3. 3. 63. 

"Or, not, on account of Scripture not declaring (their) accompanying 
( sacrifices ) M . 

(The Author) states the Correct Conclusion. "Accompanying" 
means "being subsidiary parts", There being no mention of this in 
Scripture, these ( viz. the Meditations on the Udgltha etc. ) are not that 
(viz. subsidiary parts of sacrifices ). For, the meditations, known to be 
leading to a separate result, from the text : "Whatever one does with 



(1) Udgltha or Pranava is included in all sacrifices, hence it is an 
essential subsidiary part of sacrifices. Here, the question is whether the 
meditation on the Pranava, too, is to be incuded always, or not. The Prima 
Facie objector points out that it, too, is to be included. First, texts prove 
that if there be mere Pranava and no meditation on it, then a meditation 
or its substitute is to be undertaken. ( Sutra 3. 3. 61. ). Secondly, the 
Pranava is the basis, the primary, while the meditation on it, dependent 
on it, is the subsidiary part. So, whenever the former is present, the latter 
must.also is also so, Hence, the latter, too, like the former is present in 
all sacrifices. 

47 



370; Srikastfaa-Bhafya 8. 3, 64. 

knowledge (meditation), that only becomes more potent'^ 1 ). (Chand. 
1. 1. 10.) are not the subsidiary parts of sacrifices. As the texts : "Let 
one meditate on the Udgitha' (Chand. 1. I. 1.), prove only that ( such a 
meditation ) is based on the Udgitha, so such ( meditations ), based on the 
subsidiary parts ( of sacrifices, viz. the Udgitha etc. ), are not subsidiary 
parts ( of sacrifices ). 

SUTRA 3. 3. 64. 
"And, on account of Scriptural text". 

The Scriptural text : "Verily, the Brahmana priest who knows ( or 
meditates ) thus, protects the sacrifice, the sacrificer, and all the officiating 
priests". (Chand. 4. 7. 10.), declaring that through the meditation by the 
Brahmana priest all are protected, shows the there is no fixed rule that 
( in sacrifices ) there must always be meditation by the Udgaty priest etc. ; 
and thereby, that these ( meditations ) are not the subsidiary parts ( of 
sacrifices )(*). Hence, it stands to reason that there should be no fixed rule 
that the above meditations ( on the Udgitha etc. are to be included in 
sacrifices regularly ). 



Here ends the Section entitled : 'Of the same Nature as the 
Substratum" (36). 

.Here ends the Third Section of the Third Chapter of the 
Commentary on the Brahma-Mimamsa. 



. ( According to 6rikantha, the Third Section of the Third Chapter- 
contains 63 Sutras and 36 Adhikaranas.). 



(1) The result of such a meditation is a special one, quite different 
fr.om that of the sacrifice. Hence, those only who desire for this special 
result ( viz. greater potency of the sacrifice ) undertake such a meditation, 
not others. See Br. Su. 3. 3, 41. for explanation. 

(2) The result of such a meditation is a special one, viz. securing 
protection for all Hence, only those who desire this special result 
undertake such a meditation, not others. 



THIRD CHAPTER (Adhyaya) 
Fourth Quarter ( Pa da ) 

Adhikaana 1 : The Section entitled "The End of Men" ( Sutras 
1-17 ). 

Above, the different kinds of 'Meditations on the Supreme Being' 
( Para-Vidya ) have been established. Here, on- the other hand, for 
demonstrating the duties incumbent on one's stage of life etc., (the Author) 
shows that the Summum Bonum of men results only from knowledge^ 1 ). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 1. 

"The end of men (arises) from this, on account of Scriptural 
statement, so Badarayana ( thinks )." 

"From this", i.e. from knowledge alone, arises "the end of men' 1 , "on 
account of Scriptural le\ts like: 'The knower of Brahman attains the 
highest" ( Tait. 2. 1. ), "By knowing 6iva, one attains supreme peace" 
(6vet. 4. 14.) and so on so thinks the revered "Badarayana". 

On the doubt as to whether that is possible or not, there being both 
kinds of texts( 8 ) the Prima Facie View is as follows : 

Prima Facie View ( Sutras 27 / 

"SUTRA 3. 4. 2. 

"On account of being complementary, ( the statements about the 
fruits ) are glorification of man, just as in other cases, so Jaimini 
( thinks )". 

The end of men does not result from knowledge. Why ? Because, 
from the text : "Thou art that" ( Chand. 6. 8. 7. etc. ), it is known 
that the agent of actions himself is Brahman. Here, knowledge ( or 
meditation ) that effects the purification of the agent, must itself be a 
subsidiary part of action. The Scriptural statement about the 
fruit( 8 ), is simply a "glorification", in accordance with the principle : 



(1) That is, Vidya, or knowledge leading to meditation, not pure 
knowledge in the 6amkarite sense. 

(2) That is, some texts asserting that knowledge is independent of 
action ; while, others asserting that knowledge is a subsidiary part of 
action. 

(3) Cf. "The knower of the self crosses over grief (Chand. 7. 1. 3.), 
"The knower of Brahman attains the highest" (Tait. 2. 1.) etc. 



372 6nkafltha-Bhasya 3. 4. 6. 

"The statement about the end attained with regard to substance, quality 
and purification, must be glorification, because these subserve the end of 
another" (Pu. Mi. Su. 4. 3. !.) Hence, the end of men does not result 
from knowledge so thinks the' teacher "Jaimini'. 

Prima Facie View. ( Continued ) 

SUTRA. 3. 4. 3. 
"On account of the observation of conduct". 

Conduct, too, is found. Asvapati Kekaya, a knower of Brahman, said : 
"Verily, sirs, I am about to have a sacrifice performed" (ChSnd. 5.12.5.) (*). 
Thus, even in the case of knowers of Brahman, like Kekaya and 
others, it is action that is known to be the primary thing. For this 
reason, too. knowledge is but a subsidiary part of action. 

Prima Facie View ( Continued ) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 4. 
"On account of Scriptural statement about that". 

"On account of Scriptural statement", viz. "What alone one does 
with Knowledge" (ChSnd. 1.1. 10.), knowledge is applied to action ; and 
for this reason, too, it must be a subsidiary part of action. 'The Scriptural 
text means : What is done, must be done with knowledge. 

Prima Facie View ( Continued ) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 5. 
"On account of laying bold of". ' 

In accordance with the text : "Knowledge and action lay hold 
of him" (Brh. 4. 4. 2.), it is found that knowledge and action o-exist 
in the same person. For this reason, too, knowledge is, indeed, a 
subsidiary part of action. 

Prima Facie View ( Continued ) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 6. 

"On account of enjoinment ( of action ) on tbe part of one having 
tbat ( viz. knowledge )''. 

In the text : "Having studied the Veda in the house of a teacher, 
according to rules, during the time left over from doing work for the 
teacher, having returned to his own house, studying his sacred text in 



(1) See Vaisvanara-Vidya, Chand. 5. 11. 5. 18. See Br. Su. 3. 3. 55. 
above. 



Jftana'is not a subsidiary part of Karma 373 

some clear spot, having produced religious-minded ( sons and pupils )" 
(ChSnd. 8. 15. 1.), the performance of action is enjoined on the part of one 
who is studying ( the Veda), till he comes to grasp the real meaning 
(thereof). For this reason, as well, knowledge is a subsidiary part of action. 

Prima Facie View ( Continued ) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 7. 
''On account of restriction*'. 

In the text : "Only doing work here, let one desire to live a 
hundred years" (Isa. 2), there is a definite rule that the life of one who 
knows the self, should be devoted to works. For this reason, as well, 
knowledge must be a subsidiary part of action ; and the end of men does 
not result therefrom. 

Correct Conclusion ( Sutras 817 ). 
Jnana is not a subsidiary part of Karma. 

SUTRA 3. 4. 8. 

"But on account of the teaching of what is superior, such ( is the 
view of ) Badarayana, on account of that being seen". 

( The Author ) states the Correct Conclusion. 

Knowledge is not a subsidiary part of action. On the contrary, 
BadarSyana's view alone, viz. that from knowledge only arises the end 
of men, is reasonable. For, only something other than the individual 
soul, the agent, is taught to be the object to. be known ( and meditated 
on ). 0). Thus, in the texts : "Let me be many, let me procreate" 
(Chand. 6. 2. 3.). "He is the cause, the L,ord of the lord of sense- 
organs" (Svet. 6. 9.), "Superior to the Universe is Rudra, the Great 
Seer" (Svet. 3. 4.), the superiority of Brahman, the object to be known, is 
declared. Hence, knowledge is not a subsidiary part of action. 

Correct Conclusion ( continued ) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 9. 

"But the Scriptural declaration is equal". 

To the view : "On account of the observation of conduct 9 (Br. Su. 
3. 4. 3.), (the Author) replies : 

Even if knowledge be taken to be our primary concern, still 
then the Scriptural declaration ( regarding the performance of 
'works) may be of equal (force). But this is not possible if works, 

(1) This refutes the Prima Facie view contained in Br. So. 3. 4. 2. 



374 6rfkagtha-Bhasya 3. 4. 11. 

alone are taken to be so. But, in the text : "Knowing this, foresooth, 
the sages descended" from Kavasa said: "For what purpose shall 
we perform sacrifices? What shall we do with progeny?", it is found 
that the knowers of Brahman give up actions. On the other hand, 
being subsidiary parts of knowledge, works are to be performed in a 
distinterested spirit without any selfish* desire Tor fruits. Only those 
works are to be given up which involve such selfish desires for fruits. 
Thus, there being no contradiction whatsoever here, *), it is action itself 
that is the subsidiary part of knowledge and it is knowledge that is the 
primary thing. 

Correct Conclusion (continued). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 10. 
"(The text quoted by the Prima Facie objector is) non-universal". 

To the view that the Scriptural statement "What only one does 
with knowledge" (Chand. 1. 10.) (Br. Sfi. 3. 4. 4.), (proves that knowledge 
is a subsidiary part of action) (the Author) replies : The Scriptural 
text : "What only one does with knowledge" (Chand. 1. 1. 10.), does 
*nbt refer tp. all knowledge, as the words: 'what only one does with 
knowledge', indicates only some thing well-known, viz. the Udgitha- 
Meditation (*) only. In the text : * What only one does with knowledge, 
becomes more potent" (Chand. 1. 1. 10.), it is enjoined that in the 
Udgitha- Meditation, the above work is a means to a greater potency. 
Hence, knowledge is not a subsidary part of action. 

Correct Conclusion (continued). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 11. 
"The division (is) as in the case of a hundred". 

To the view that the Scriptural text : "Knowledge and work lay 
hold of him" (Brh. 4. 4. 5.) (proves the co-existence of the two), (the Author) 
replies - In the text I "Knowledge and work lay hold of him" (Brh. 4,4.2.), 

(1) i. e. if we hold that knowledge is not a subsidiary part of work, 
then those texts which enjoin the non-performance of works on the part 
of knowers, may very well be explained as enjoining the non-performance 
of selfish works and the performance of unselfish works in a purely 
disinterested sprit with a view to attaining knowledge. But if we hold that 
knowledge is a subsidiary part of work, then those Scriptural texts which 
enjoin the non-performance of action, cannot be explained in any way. 
See Br. Su. 3. 3. 26. 

r 2) See Br. Sft. 8. 3. 6-9. 



Knowledge is the Primary Thing 375 

as the results of knowledge and work have been stated to be different, so a 
"division" is to be admitted here, viz. th^t knowledge brings about its own 
result ; just as, when it is said "Through selling a field and a gem, one 
has got hundred', a division is to be admitted, viz. that he has got one 
hundred for the field and one hundred for the gem. 

Correct Conclusion (continued). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 12. 
"On the part of one who hat only read the Veda". 

As in the text ; "Having read the Veda" (Chand. 8. 15. 1.), work is 
enjoined "on the part of one who has on'y read the Veda", so knowledge 
is not a subsidiary part of action. The injunction regarding 'reading' 
leads one to the apprehension of the syllables only. And, even if the 
injunction regarding 'reading' were understood as prcinoting to the 
understanding of the meaning (of the text), still then knowledge (or 
meditation) would have been quite distinct from the mere understanding 
of the meaning (of a text). The meditation enjoined thus: "Let one 
meditate" is of the form of a continued firm conviction. Hence, it cannot 
be auxiliary to anything whatsoeverf 1 ). 

Correct Conclusion (continued) 

SUTRA 3.4. 13. . 

' Not (so), on account of non-specification". 

In the text : "Only doing work here'' (Isa 2), no specification is 
found that the life of a knower is to be devoted to works that are 
independent (of knowledge). (On the contrary), .knowledge being the topic 
here, as known from the text : "By the Lord all this is to be enveloped" 
(Isa. 1), it is definitely known that .such works are subsidiary parts of 
knowledge. Hence, knowledge is not a subsidiary part of action ( 8 ). 

Correct Conclusion (continued). 

SUTRA 3. 4 14. 
"Or, the permission (of work) is for the purpose of eulogy"* 

The concluding portion of the text('), points out that though 
constantly doing works, (a knower) is not touched by the same because of 
the excellence of knowledge. ' For this reason^ too,- knowledge alone is the 
primary thing. 

(1) This refutes the Prima Facie view contained in Br. Su. 3. 4. 6. 

(2) This refutes the Prima Facie view cpntained in Br. Su. 3. 4. 7. 

(3) Cf. the text : "The deed does not cling to the man'* ( Isa 2. ). 



376 6rflcantha-Bhasya 3. 4/17. 

Correct Conclusion (continued) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 15. 

"And, some (branches designate that knowers give up work) 
according to voluntary procedure". 

"Some" record the voluntary giving up of the life of a householder 
by the knower, thus : "What shall we do with progeny, we, whose is this 
soul, this world ?" (Brh. 4. 4. 22.). For this reason, too, knowledge is found 
to be the primary thing. 

Correct Conclusion (continued) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 16. 
"And, there is the destruction (of work by knowledge)'*. 

Some declare the destruction of all works by knowledge, thus : "The 
knot of the heart is broken, all doubts are severed and all his works 
perish, when He who is high and low is seen" (Mund. 2. 2. 8.). Hence, 
works are by no means the primary things. 

Correct Conclusion ( End ) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 17. 

"Andy ( knowledge arises ) in one who is chaste, for such a stage 
of life is declared in Scriptural text." 

As Scripture declares that knowledge arises even in thos6 stages of 
life which are given to chastity ( i. e. in which the duties of a house- 
holder are absent ), and as ( works like ) Agni-hotra etc. are not possible 
in these, so knowledge is not a subsidiary part of action (*). Thus, 
there being a text : "There are three branches of religious duty" 
( Chand. 2. 23. L ), three stages of life are, indeed, found mentioned in 
the Veda. Hence, it is established that knowledge alone is the primary 
thing, leading to a man's highest end ; and that, only those works are 
to be undertaken which are enjoined as auxiliary to knowledge and do 
not involve any selfish desire for independent fruits ( other than the fruit 
of knowledge itself ). 

Here end* the Section entitled "The End of Men'/ (U 



(1) If knowledge were auxiliary to works, it could x not have arisen 
where works are absent. But it does so, and is, therefore, independent 
of works. 



Adhikarana 2 : The Section entitled "Reference . (Sutras 1820). 
Opponent's View ( Sutra 19 ) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 18. 

''( There is only ) a reference ( to a fourth stage of life ), Jaimini 
( thinks so ), on account of there being no injunction, for (Scripture) 
condemns ( such a stage of life )." 

It has been said above that in accordance with the text : "There 
are three branches of religious duty" ( Chand. 2. 23. 1. ), there are only 
three stages of life during which these religious duties are to be 
performed. Now, on the doubt as to whether there is a fourth stage of 
life, the Prima Facie View is as follows : 

As in the text : "There are three branches of religious duty" 
( Chand. 2. 23. 1. ), there is no mention of a fourth stage of life, so 
"Jaimini' thinks that the reference to the fourth stage of life in the 
passage : "Desiring this world ( of Brahman ) only, mendicants wander 
forth" (Brh. 4, 4. 22.) is only an eulogistic statement regarding meditation. 
For, ( Scripture ) "condemns" the fourth stage of life thus : "He who 
extinguishes the fire is the slayer of the hero among the gods 
( Tait. Sam. 1.5 2. ). Hence, to give up performing Agni-liotra is a great 
sin. Thus, there is no stage of life which involves giving this up. 

Correct Conclusion ( Sutras 1920 ) 
There are Four Stages of Life 

SUTRA 3. 4. 19. 

"( This is ) to be adopted, Badarayana ( thinks so ) on account 
of the Scriptural mention of equality/' 

Like the stages of a house-holder and the rest, the other ( viz. the 
fourth) stage of life, too, "is to be adopted" such is the view of the 
reverend "Badarayana". For, there are Scriptural texts enjoining all 
the stages of life equally, thus : "There are three branches of 
knowledge" ( J ) ( Chand. 2. 23. 1. ), "Desiring for this world alone, the 
mendicants wander forth" ( 8 ). ( Brh. 4. 4. 22. ). The act of abandoning 
the fire is a sin only in the case of a house-holder. Hence, there does 
exist a fourth stage of life. 



(1) This text refers to the first three stages of life. 

(2) This text refers to the last or the fourth stage of life. 
48 



378 Srlkastha-Bhasya 3. 4. 20. 

Correct Conclusion ( End ). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 20 
"Or, there is an injunction, at in the case of holding/' 

Just as, in the text : "I^et him follow, holding the sacrificial faggot 
below ( the ladle ). He holds it above for the gods" (Ap. S. S. 9.1 1. 89), 
there is an injunction, this being not known before, ( l ), so is the case 
here. In the Jabala-text, however, there is a direct injunction, as well : 
"Having completed the life of a religious student, one should become a 
house-holder. Having become a house-holder, one should become a 
dweller in the forest. Having become a dweller in the forest, one should 
wander forth." (Jabala4). There is no fixed rule with regard to this 
order. For, there is a Scriptural text : "Or else, one should wander 
forth from the very life of a religious student, or from the house, or 
from the forest, Then, again, whether he has taken a vow or not, 
whether he has begun the life of a house-holder after studentship or 
not, whether he has discarded the sacred fire or has not at all lighted 
it the very day one gets indifferent to the world, one should wander 
forth" ( Jabala 4 ). Thus, one, whose mind is already purified through the 
good deeds performed in a previous life, can wander forth as a 
mendicant from even the stage of studentship. The prohibition (regarding 
this fourth stage of life ), contained in the passages : "Having settled 
the three debts(*), then one should concentrate his mind on salvation. 
But if he tries to attain salvation without first settling these, he goes 
downward", holds good only in the case of those who have not got over 
their attachment to the world. 

On account of the prohibition with regard to the extinguishing of 
fire, contained in the text : "He who extinguishes the fire is the slayer 
of the hero among the gods" (Tait. Sam. 1. 5. 2.), some hold that one 
should embrace the life of a wandering medicant immediately after the 



(1) The question here is whether the fourth stage of life, or the 
life of a wandering mendicant ( SannySsa ) is enjoined by texts : Now, 
in the first-quoted text in this connection : "Desiring this world alone, 
the mendicants wander forth" ( Brh. 4. 4. 22. ), there is no sign of 
injunction. ( like 'should wander forth' ) Yet it is to be taken as 
injunctive in Force, as here something not known from any other source, 
has been referred to, and it is the special task of Scripture to enjoin such 
unknown things. See under Br. Su. 3. 3. 18. L/ater on, however, a text 
containing an actual injunctive word is quoted. ( Jabala ). 

(2) viz. debts to sages, to manes and to gods, to be repaid, respctive- 
ly, through Vedic study, procreation and oblations etc. 



Udgltha-Meditation is enjoined 379 

stage of studentship and not after the stage of a house-holder( l ). But, if 
this be so, then the text : "Having become a dweller in the forest, let one 
wander forth. Whether he has discarded the sacred fire or has not at all 
lighted it the very day one gets indifferent to the world, one should 
wander forth" (JabSla 4.), becomes meaningless, Hence, it should not be 
insisted upon that one should wander forth as a medicant from the stage 
of a religious student only, or from that of a dweller in the forest only. 
Those who hold that one should wander forth as a mendicant from the 
stage of a religious student only, really mean only this : There are two 
stages of life, one in which the sacred fire is lighted, and the other in 
which it is not lighted. Here, a religious student ( belonging to the 
first stage of life ) and a wandering mendicant ( belonging to the fourth 
stage of life ) do not light the sacred fire ; while a house-holder 
( belonging to the second stage of life ) and a dweller in the forest 
( belonging to third stage of life ) do so. To adopt the life of a wandering 
mendicant immediately after the stage of a religious student only, is far 
better than doing so after having once lighted the sacred fire and then 
extinguishing it. Otherwise, Scripture will come to be contradicted( f ). 
Hence, the religious duties incumbent on all ( the four ) stages of life are 
( hereby ) established. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Reference" (2). 



Adhikarana 3 : The Section entitled "A Mere Eulogy" ( Sutras 
21-22 ). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 21. 

"If it be objected that ( the texts about the best essence and the 
like ) are mere eulogy, on account of taking ( these as connected with 
parts of sacrifice ), ( we reply : ) no, on account of being something 
new". 



(1) It is very wrong to light a sacred fire once, then extinguish it, 
for embracing the life of a wandering mendicant. So, it is held by some 
that it is far better to embrace such a life before lighting the sacred fire 
at all, i. e. before beginning the life of a house-holder at all, so that one 
may not have to incur the great sin of extinguishing the fire. Hence, one 
should wander forth from the stage of a student before entering that of a 
householder, or a dweller in the forest, in both of which one has to light 
the sacred fire. 

(2) That is, one may embrace the life of a wandering mendicant 



360 6rikantha-Bhasya 3. 4. 21. 

Beginning : "One should meditate on the syllable 'Om' as the 
Udgitha' (Chand. 1. 1. 1.), the text goes on to declare : "This is the best 
essence among the essences, the supreme, the highest place, the eighth 
viz. the Udgitha" (Chand. 1.1. 3.). 

Here, the doubt - is as to whether in such examples, it is enjoined 
that the Udgitha and the rest should be meditated on as the best essence 
and so on. What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View 

Meditation on the Udgitha etc. as the best among the essences etc. 
is not enjoined here. But, as in the case of the text : "This earth, indeed, 
is a sacrificial ladle, heavenly world is the Ahavaniya-fire", so here, too, 
the statement that the Udgitha, which is a subsidiary part of sacrifice, is 
the best among the essences, is a "mere eulogy." Here ends the Prima 
Facie View. 

Reply 
The Udgitha- Meditation is enjoined. 

The Correct Conclusion is as follows : "No, on account of being 
something new*'. This is not a mere eulogy, but here Meditation on the 
Udgitha as the best among the essences is undoubtedly enjoined, **on 
account of being something new"( l ) The examples of the sacrificial 
ladle etc. do not fit in here. For, ( the eulogy regarding the Scriptural 
ladle etc. v is found in the proximity of an injunction, regarding the 
sacrificial ladle etc. ; but the above text is not so found in the proximity 
of an injunction regarding the Udgitha. ( s ). Hence, there is, indeed, an 
injunction regarding the Meditation on the Udgitha as the best among 
the essences. 



from any and every stage of life. Still, it is better to do so after the stage 
of studentship for reasons stated in fn. (1). 

(1) Something that cannot be known from any other source is 
enjoined by Scripture, this being its special task. Here, the meditation on 
the Udgitha as the best among the essences is something new and unknown 
Hence, it is indeed enjoined by Scripture See Br. Su. 3. 3 4 18. 

(2) An Auuvada glorifies a Vidhi or an injunction. Hence, there 
cannot be glorification unless there be an injunction in proximity. In the 
case of the sacrificial ladle, there does exist such an injunction, and hence 
the text can be taken to be a mere eulogy. But in the case of the Udgitha, 
there bein^ tu such iniunction. it cannot be an eulosrv. 



The 1/egends recited at the Asvamedha Sacrifice 381 

SUTRA 3. 4. 22. 

"And, on account of a text ( indicative of ) the existence of 
( injunction )". 

Here, in the text : "One should meditate on the Udgitha" (Chand. 
1. 1. I.), an injunctive form, too, is found. For this reason, too, there is an 
injunction here regarding the Meditation on the Udgltha as the best 
among the essences. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Mere Eulogy" (2). 



Adhikararja 3 : The Section entitled "The Legends recited at 
the Asvamedha Sacrifice". ( Sutras 2324 ). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 23. 

"If it be said that ( the Scriptural stories ) are meant to be recited 
at the Asvamedha sacrifice, (we reply : ) no, on account of being 
specified". 

In the Vedantas^ 1 ) stories are related at the beginning of certain 
Vidyas, such as : "Forsooth, Pratardana, the son of DivodSsa, went 
to the favourite place of Indra" (Kaus. 3. 1.) and so on( 9 ). Here, the doubt 
is as to whether these are meant for being recited at the Asvamedha 
sacrifice, or for glorifying the Vidyas. What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View 

The Prima Facie View is as follows : These are meant for being 
recited at the Asvamedha sacrifice. During the Asvamedha sacrifice, 
when the King takes his seat together with his relatives, these Vedic tales 
are to be told by the Adhvaryu-priest, sitting in front. This kind of 
work, viz. recitation of tales at the Asvamedha sacrifice, has been 
enjoined by the text ' "He should recite stories at the Asvamedha 
sacrifice". On account of the direction contained in the text : "They 
should recite all the tales at the Asvamedha sacrifice", the stories related 
at the beginning of the Upanisads are meant for that ( i. e. for being 
related at the Asvamedha sacrifice only ). 



(1) The Upanisads, the end of the Vedas. 

(2) Cf. "Now, there was Jauasruti, the great grand-son ( of Janasruti ), 
a pious giver, a liberal donor' 5 (Chand. 4. 1. 1.), "Now, there was vetaketu, 
son of Aruna" (Chand. 6. 1. 1.) etc. 



382 6rika9tna-Bhasya 3. 4. 25. 

Correct Conclusion 

We reply : "No, on account of being specified." These are not meant 
for being recited at the Asvamedha sacrifice For, the stories that are 
to be recited at the Asvamedha sacrifice are specified thus : "On the 
first day, the story of Manu, Vivasvat's son, the King" ( is to be told ) ; on 
the second day, (about) Yania, Vivasvat's son, the King" (6at. Br, 13.4.3.3.) 
and so on. 

(On the other hand), the 'stories of the UpanivSads, forming one 
compact whole with the injunctions regarding Vidyas, mentioned in 
proximity, subserve the purpose of those VidySs. This, ( the Author ) 
point out now. 

SUTRA 3. 4. 24. 

"And, this being so, on account of the connection ( of these stories 
with meditation ) as forming part of a coherent whole". 

Just as, stories like : "He cried'' and so on, form one compact whole 
with the injunctions regarding works, so ( these stories of the Upanisads, 
too ), being connected with Vidyas, form one compact whole with the 
injunctions regarding these Vidyas. Hence, these are meant only for 
eulogising meditation. 

Here ends the Section entitled 'The Legends Recited at the 
Asvamedha Sacrifice" (3). 



Adhikarana 4 : The Section entitled "The Kindling of Fire" ( Sutra 

25). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 25. 

"And, for this very reason, ( in the case of those who observe 
chastity, knowledge is ) independent of the kindling of fire and so on". 

As proved above, there exists the last ( viz. the fourth ) stage of 
life( l ). The doubt is as to whether in the case of one ( who has adopted 
such a life ), the kindling of fire is necessary, or not, in order that he may 
attain knowledge. What follows, to begin ? 

Prim* Facie View 

If it be said: As sacrificial works, (like kindling of fire etc.) have been 

(1) viz. the life of a wandering mendicant. See Br. Su. 3, 4, 18-20. 



Kindling of Fires etc, are not necessary everywhere 883 

enjoined as auxiliary to knowledge, so those who observe chastity and 
possess knowledge should undertake the kindling of the sacred fire and 
the like as subsidiary parts of knowledge. 

Reply 
The Kindling of Fire etc. are not nececssary in the case of Mendicants. 

We reply : In their case, knowledge does not depend on the 
kindling of fire and similar practices. For, from the Scriptural text : 
"Desiring this world alone do the mendicants wander forth" (Brh. 4.4.22.), 
it is known that they come to have knowledge only through giving up 
all sacrificial acts. But, their knowledge depends on the duties incumbent 
on their own stage of life, as kindling of fire etc. (which are duties 
incumbent on other stages of life) are not appropriate on their part. 

Here ends the Section entitled The Kindling of Fire" (5). 



Adhikarana 6 : The Section entitled : "Dependence on All" 
( Sutras 26 ). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 26. 

"And, dependence on all, in accordance with the Scriptural text 
about sacrifice and so on, as in the case of a horse". 

It has been established in the previous Section that as (the 
performance of sacrificial acts is) inappropriate on the part of those who 
have adopted the last stage of life (viz. the life of a wandering mendicant), 
so their knowledge does not depend on acts like kindling the fire etc. The 
doubt is as to whether the knowledge of the house-holders too is 
independent such works. 

Prim a Facie View 

We hold that in the case of the house-holders no less, knowledge 
does not depend on the kindling of fire etc. If knowledge can arise even in 
the absence of such works, then these works cannot appropriately be taken 
to be the subsidiary parts of knowledge, The different view held about 
knowledge is based on the following process of inference : 'Knowledge 
depends on works which are its own subsidiary parts, because of being 
the whole, like the Dasapurnamasa sacrifice depending on the preliminary 
offerings etc( 1 ). Here, in what sense can the kindling of fire etc. be taken 

(1) The inference is as follows : All wholes depend on their parts, 
like, a sacrifice depending on its attendant ceremonies. 
VidyS is a whole. 
VidyS depends on its parts, viz. Karinas. 



384 Srlkantha-Bhyasa 3. 4. 26. 

to be the subsidiary parts of knowledge ? Either, these must help the 
production of the fruit (of the whole), as in the case of the preliminary 
offerings ; or, these must help the main sacrifice itself, as in the case 
husking( 4 ). Not the former, for, if salvation be due to these (works), 
then it would become something non-eternal. On the second alternative, 
the illustration does not prove the case at all("). Hence, works are not 
subsidiary parts of knowledge. So, in the case of the house-holders, too, 
knowledge is independent of works. This is the Prima Facie View. 

Reply 
Kindling of fire etc. are necessary in the case of House-holders 

But the Correct Conclusion is as follows : 

In the case of a house-holder who performs sacrificial acts, knowledge 
depends on all these works, like Agni-hotra and the like ; because, there 
is a Scriptural text to this effect, viz. "Him the Brahmanas desire to 
know by the recitation of the Veda, by sacrifice, by chanty, by austerity, 
by fasting" (Brh. 4. 4. 22.) ; and also because, it is an established fact 
that sacrifices and the rest have been enjoined by the Supreme Lord 
Himself. Just as a horse, though itself a means of locomotion, requires 
some other assisting factors (like saddle, attendants, grooming etc.), so 



(1) If we say that the whole depends on its parts, then the parts 
must somehow benefit the whole. Now, these may benefit the whole 
(i) either by enabling it to bring about its own fruit, (ii) or by bringing 
it about itself, i. e. by enabling it to be performed at all. 

(1) E. g. preliminary offerings etc. (Prayaja) are not essential for the 
very performance of the sacrifice, for the sacrifice may be performed with 

its own ingredients, like husked rice, clarified butter, oblation etc. But 
these are necessary in order that the sacrifice may bring about its own 
result, like Heaven etc. So these benefit, not the sacrifice itself, but its 
fruit, (ii) But, husking of rice etc. are essential to the very performance 
of the sacrifice itself, for without these the sacrifice cannot be undertaken 
at all. So, these benefit the sacrifice itself. 

(2) (i) If -it be said that works benefit knowledge by bringing about 
its fruit, viz. Salvation, then Salvation becomes an effect of works, and as 
such, non-eternal, which is impossible, (ii) If it be said that works 
are essential to the very rise of knowledge, as husked rice to a sacrifice, 
then that is false, for, admittedly, mendicants attain knowledge without 
performing these works. 



House-holders may also be endowed with Calmness etc. 3S3 

is the case with knowledge too. Works, undertaken without any selfish 
desire for fruits, are subsidiary parts of knowledge itself( 4 ). Hence, 
the fruit, viz. Salvation, is not produced from these works. But, 
Salvation is the direct result of knowledge alone('). Hence, in the case 
of house-holders, knowledge depends on acts like sacrifices etc. The 
fact is that the knowledge of persons belonging to all the stages of life 
depends on the duties incumbent on all those stages respectively. Thus, 
knowledge does depend on works( 8 ). 

Here ends the Section entitled "Dependence on Air (6). 



Adhikarana 7 : The Section entitled "Calmness, Self-control and 
so on." (Sutra 27). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 27. 

"But still ( a house-holder ) may be endowed with calmness, 
self-control and so on ; since, on account of the injunction of these as 
the subsidiary parts of that ( viz knowledge ), these are to be practised 
necessarily." 

In the texts : "Hence, he who knows thus, having become calm, 
self-restrained, indifferent, patient and collected, should see the Self in 
the self alone' 5 ( Brh. 4. 4. 23. ) "Know ( Him ) through faith, through 
devotion, through meditation" and so on, it is declared that knowledge 
depends on the ( prior ) attainment of calmness and the rest. The doubt 
is as to whether such an attainment of calmness etc. is possible on the 
part of house-holders, or not. 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : Those who perform sacrifices etc., perturbed as they 
are by many ( mundane ) affairs, cannot possibly attain calmness and the 
rest that involve detachment to all these things. 

(1) Vidya, or Meditation based on Knowledge. 

(2) Works do not benefit knowledge by bringing about its fruit, 
but by bringing it about itself. Thus the very rise of knowledge is due to 
these Karmas each must do the duties incumbent on his own stage of 
life. Then alone can he get knowledge. So, when it is said that knowledge 
depends on .works, it does not imply that it depends only on works, like 
kindling the sacred fire etc. Each stage of life has certain special duties 
attached to it. So, in each stage, knowledge depends on those special 
works respectively. 

(3) See. Br. Su. 4. 1. 16. 
49 



Bhyasa 3. 4. 27. 

Reply 
House-holders also may be endowed with calmness and the rest' 

We reply : Although a house-holder is engaged in those works 
which have been enjoined ( by Scripture ), yet when he refrains from the 
forbidden selfish works undertaken with a desire for fruits, he comes to 
be "endowed with calmness and the rest/' For, as the texts : "Having 
become calm, self-restrained" ( Brh. 4. 4. 23. ) "Know ( Him ) through 
faith, through devotion, through meditation," enjoin calmness etc., so 
in order that one may attain knowledge, these are to be surely practised 
as auxiliary to knowledge. 

'Calmness* ( 6ama ) means the non-manifestation of inner attachment, 
hatred etc. 'Self-control' ( Dama ) is the weaning away of all the 
sense-organs from activities that are not enjoined ( in Scripture ). 
'Indifference' ( Uparati ) means the giving up of all selfish acts undertaken 
with a desire for fruits ( l ). 'Patience' ( Titiksa ) means the power to bear 
the opposites ( like 'heat and cold' etc. ). 'Being collected' ( Samadhana ) 
means turning the mind towards the Supreme Being, giving up all 
distractions like sleep etc. ( i. e. constantly ). 'Faith' ( 6radha ) means 
aversion to all the treatises which do not subserve the purpose of man 
( i. e. Salvation ), and strong desire for the Upanisads that deal with 
Para-vidyas and the Supreme Soul. 'Devotion' ( Bhakti ) means a kind 
ofVedic action, viz. the serving of the Supreme 6iva, giving up the 
worship of any other god, to be performed by the three kinds of organ ( 2 ), 
and consisting of eight parts. 'Desire for salvation' ( Mumuksa" ) means 
the hurry for having a direct experience of Supreme Salvation, consisting 
in the enjoyment of supreme bliss. This desire for Salvation is possible 
only on the part of one who is endowed with a complete detchment, viz. 
aversion to all kinds of enjoyment, here or hereafter ; who is endowed 
with a discriminatory knowledge, viz. the discrimination between the 
eternal and the non-eternal things ; and who, finally, has attained 
calmness etc ( 8 ). All these supreme duties, beginning with 'discrimination' 
and ending with 'desire for salvation', are to be undertaken equally 
by all to whatever stage of life they may belong for the sake of 
knowledge. 

Here ends the Section' entitled ''Calmness, Self-rt straint and the 
rest." (7). .,. 

(1) ama, Dama and Uparati respectively imply the control of the 
inner organ ( the mind ), of the organs of knowledge ( eye etc. ) and of the 
organs of actioii { -ftftftds etc. ). See 6. M. D. 

(2) viz. the internal organ, organs of knowledge, organs of action. 

(3) See 6amkara-Bhasya 1. 1. 1. 



Adhikarana 8 : The Section entitled "The Permission for All Food.' 
(Sutras 28 31 ). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 2&. 

"And, t^e permitsion for all food ( is valid ) in the event of danger 
to life, on account of that being sean.*' 

In the Prana-Vidya, (*). it is said : "Verily, to one who knows thus, 
there is nothing whatever that is not food" (Chand, 5. 2. 1. ). Here, it 
seems that one who is versed in the Prajia-Vidya is allowed all kinds, 
of food. The doubt is whether that is appropriate or not. What follows, 
to begin with ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said: Eating (of some, and not all, food ) is known from 
other sources, ( 2 ) and it cannot be enjoined ( by Scripture again ,). But 
the permission to eat all kinds of food is not known from anything else, 
and so it is this that is enjoined here ( 8 ). 

Reply 
Permission for all food is given only under extreme emergency. 

We reply : Even in the case of one who is versed in the Prana- 
Vidya, this permission for all kinds of food does not hold good always, 
but only "in the event of danger fo life", It is declared by Scripture that 
the more powerful ( 4 ). Usasti, though a knower of Brahman, ate the 
leavings (of an elephant-keeper,) only when his life was in danger. 
Compare the text : "When the Kurus were struck by hailstorms, there 



(1 ) See under Br. Su. 3. 3. 10. 

(2) Viz. Smrti etc. 

(3) The question here is whether the above passage in the Prana- 
Vidya enjoins the eating of all kinds of food, or of some only. The 
Prima Facie objector points out that the eating of some kinds of food 
only is already known from other sources, so Scripture cannot enjoin that 
again here. The special task of Scripture is to enjoin something not 
known otherwise. ( See Br. Su. 3. 3. 18. ). Hence, it enjoins here the 
eating of all kinds of food, not known from anything else. 

(4) i. e. a knower of Brahman is evidently more powerful than or 
superior to a knower of the Prana-Vidya merely. Still, a knower of 
Brahman too, is not allowed all kinds of food under ordinary circums- 
tances. So how much more must this be true of a knower of the Prana- 
Vidya merely, who is much inferior to a knower of Brahtnan. 



388 6rikantha-Bhasya 3. 4. 81. 

lived in the village of an elephant-keeper ( i. e. a rich man ), a very poor 
man, Usasti Cakrayana, with his young wife. When the elephant-keeper 
was eating beans, he begged of him. The former said to him, ' I have 
no other than that left before me/ 'Give me some of these', said he. He 
gave them to him, and said, 'Here is drink'. 'Verily, that would be for 
me drinking leavings'. 'Are not these ( beans ) leavings ?' 'Verily, I 
could not have lived, had I not eaten these', said he, 'The drinking of 
water is at my will', (ChSnd, 1. 10. 14). Hence, the permission for all 
food is given even to one who knows the Par5-Vidya only in "the event 
of danger to his life. 

SUTRA 3. 4. 29. 

"And, on account of non-contradiction". 

"On account of the non-contradiction" of pure nourishment^), in 
the Scriptural text : "If there be a pure nourishment, then there is a pure 
nature. If there be a pure nature, then there is a firm fixing of Smrti. 
If there be the acquirement of Smrti, then there is realease from all 
knots" (Chatid. 7. 26. 2.), the permission of all food is given only when one 
is in danger of life. 

SUTRA 3. 4. 30. 
"Moreover, it is declared by Smrtf. 

The Smrti passage : "He who being in danger of life eats food from 
any one whatsoever, is not touched by sin, as a lotus-leaf is not touched 
by water '(*). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 31. 

"And, so there is a Scriptural text as to non-proceeding according 
to liking". 

Hence, there is a Scriptural text for preventing wanton action, viz. 
"Hence, a Brahmana should not drink wine (Kath Sam. 12. 2.). Hence, 
e v en a knower is permitted to eat all food only when he is in danger of 
life, Otherwise, by doing what is forbidden, he will become inimical 
to the Supreme I/ord. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Permission for all Food". (8). 



(1) i. e. Scripture insists on the purity of food and this cannot be 
contradicted. 

(2) The fifst line of the passage is similar to Manu 10. 104 ; the 
last line, to Glta 5. 10. 



Adhikarana 9 : The Section entitled ''The Duties incumbent on 
the Stages of Life". ( Sutras 3235 ). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 32. 

"And, on account of being enjoined, the works incumbent on the 
s ages of life, too". 

In the text : "He performs the Agni-hotra as long as he lives, 
it has been enjoined that a house-holder, devoid of knowledge, should 
perform sacrifices etc. as the duties incumbent on his stage of life. 
Further, from the Scriptural text : "Through sacrifices, charity" 
(Brh. 4. 4. 22.), it is known that he should perform these as leading to 
knowledge, also( ! ). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 33, 
''Also because of being auxiliary". 

From the Scriptural text : "Knowledge and non-knowledge" (Isa 11.), 
it is known that as these have been enjoined as subsidiary parts of 
sacrifices( 8 ). so these are to be performed also by a knower( 8 ). 

On the doubt as to wherther these sacrifices and the rest, being 
enjoined both for one devoid of knowledge and one possessed of knowledge, 
as a means to knowledge and as a subsidiary part of knowledge 



(1) i. e. a house-holder who does not know should perform these 
both as the duties incumbent on his stage of life ( Asrama-Karma ) and as 
leading to knowledge ( Vidya-Sadhana ). 

(2) i. e. a house-holder who knows should perform these sacrifices 
etc. both as the duties incumbent on his stage of life ( Asrama-Dbarma ) 
and as auxiliary to knowledge ( Vidyanga ). 

(3) The text : "He performs Agni-hotra as long as he lives" proves 
that sacrifices etc. are to be performed by an ordinary house-holder not 
possessing any knowledge. Again, the text : "Knowledge and 
non-knowledge" shows that those sacrifices are to be performed also by a 
house-holder who possesses knowledge. So, these sacrifices etc., viz. the 
Asrama-Karmas of a house-holder, are to be performed both by house- 
holders who are non-knowers and those who are knowers, both as their 
Asrania-Karmas and as helping the rise of knowledge. 

(4) That is, the same .sacrifices etc. are to be performed both by a 
house-holder who does not know and by a house-holder who knows. But 
the object of their doing so is different. A uon-knower performs these in 
order that he may come to have knowledge. So, in his case, these 



390 6rikantha-Bhasya 3. 4. 34. 

respectively, are to be performed twice (by each), or only once( 1 )-( the 
Author ) states the Correct Conclusion. 

SUTRA 3. 4. 34. 

"In every way even, those very ( sacrifices and the rest are the 
same on account of a couble indicatory mark". 

Though of two forms, because of being enjoined in two places( 8 ), yet 
"those very" sacrifices etc. ( are to be undertaken in both the cases ). For, 
these only are recognised everywhere. 

Thus, though the works are of the very same nature, yet that (these 
may serve tsvo different purposes) gives rise to no contradiction according 
to the maxim of conjunction and se')arateness( 8 ). Although these aie 
enjoined to be performed once and although the works are the very same, 
yet due to two different texts, these may be conceived to have two different 
forms. Just as, in accordace with the two texts : "The sacrificial post 
is made of the Khadira wood'', "For one desiring power, let one make 
a post of the Khadira wood", serve the purpose' of Nitya-Karma ( 4 ) as 
well as that of a Kamya-Karma(^), so is the case here. Here, both a knower 



sacrifices etc. are means to (Sadhana of) knowledge. But a knower performs 
these as subsidiary parts (Aftga) of knowledge, for knowledge involves 
not only knowing, but also doing one's own duties. 

(1) It has been said above that sacrifices etc. are to be performed 
both by a house-holder who does not know and a house-holder who knows. 
Now, the question is whether a uon-knower and a knower should perform 
these twice separately, or only once. That is, it may be thought, that 
these sacrifices etc. are to be performed by them, firstly and primarily 
as the duties incumbent on their stages of life (AvSrama-Dharma^ ; and 
secondly and secondarily, as leading to (Sadhana of) knowledge (in the case 
of a non-knower), or as auxiliary to ( Anga of ) knowledge (in the case of a 
knower). Thus, these sacrifices etc. are to be performed by these twice, 
once primarily, again secondarily. This view the Author criticises 
in the next Sutra. See 6. M. D. 

(2) viz. once as duties incumbent on that stage of life, and again as 
means to knowledge. 

(3) Cf. Pu. ML Su. 4. 3. 5. "But in the case of one and the same 
thing being both, there is conjunction and separateness". 

(4) Nitya-Karma is to be performed always, like a sacrifice etc., 
being enjoined by Scripture. 

(5) A Kamya-Kanna is one that is undertaken with a selfish desire 
for fruits* 



Case of those who do not belong to any stage of life 891 

and a non-knower should perform the sacrifices etc. only once, as auxiliary 
to or as leading to knowledge, that being enjoined( 1 ). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 35. 

"And, (Scripture) shows the non-overpowering (of knowledge). 1 ' 

The Scriptural text : "By means of religious observance, one 
removes one's sins" ( MahanSr. 22, 1. ) "shows" that the duties incumbent 
on one's own stage of life lead to the "non-overpowering" of knowledge, 
through removing the obstacles that prevent the rise of knowledge ( 2 ). 
Hence, there is no contradiction in the above view. 

Here ends the Section entitled 'The Duties Incumbent on the 
Stages of Life." (H). 



Adhikarana 10 : The Section entitled, "Those Who Stand Between" 
( Sutras 36 -39 ). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 36. 

"But ( those ) also ( who stand ) bet wee-, on account of that being 
seen." 

It has been said above that those who belong to one or other of 
the stages of life are entitled to knowledge. Now, the doubt is as to 
whether knowledge is possible on the part of those who do not belong to 
any stage of life. 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : Those who do not belong to any stage of life, such as 
those who have completed the life of a student but have not as yet entered 
the life of a house-holder, as well as those who are widowers and the like, 
cannot possibly have the knowledge of Brahman, as in their case, there are 
no special duties incumbent on a particular stage of life which are means 
to knowledge( 3 ). 

(1) That is, sacrifices etc. are not to be undertaken twice (i) as 
Asrama-Dharnias or duties incmbent on a stage of life, (ii) as helping the 
rise of knowledge, as its auxiliary when it has once risen. Really, 
sacrificees etc. are the very same in both these cases. Hence, these are to 
be performed only once. 

(2) Obstructions, like impurity of the mind, may prevent the rise 
of knowledge in the mind. These Asrama-Karmas, when performed in a 
disinterested spirit, purify the mind, and thereby help the rise of 
knowledge in it. 

(3) This has been said afrove under Br. Su. 3. 3. 26. 



392 6nkaiitlia-Bimsya 3. 4. 39. 

Reply 
Those who do not be 1 on? to any stage of life are entitled to knowledge 

We reply : As. Raikva( 1 ) and others are found to possess knowledge, 
so even those who do not belong to any stage of life can very well have 
knowledge. 

SUTRA 3. 4. 37. 

"iVToreover, it is declared in Smrti". 
Prima Facie View 

To the view that ( such people cannot have knowledge ) because 
i,n their case, there are no special duties incumbent on a particular stage 
of life which are means to knowledge ; ( the Author ) replies : 

Reply 

Those who do not belong to any stage of life, may also attain knowledge. 
In the Smrti passage ; "But through the uttering of prayeis alone, 
can a Brahmana attain success there is no doubt about it. Whether he 
does something else or not, a friendly man is called a Brahmana" (Manu 
2. 87.), it is declared that through the muttering of players etc., even those 
who do not belong to any stage of life may easily attain knowledge. 

SUTRA 3. 4. 38 

'And, ( there is ) a special facilitation". 

In the Scriptural text : "But those who seek the soul by penance, 
abstinence, faith and knowledge" (Prasna. 1. 10.), it is declared that there 
is the "facilitation" of knowledge( a ). through some particular duties not 
exclusively prescribed for the stages of life. 

SUTRA 3. 4. 39. 

"But than this, the other is better, on account of indication". 

Belonging to a stage of life is ''better'' than not belonging to any 
stage of life because ( the former state ) involves a large number of 
religious duties ( which, when properly performed, purify the mind and 
make the rise of knowledge in it far easier and quicker ), and also because 
of the Smrti text : "Let not a twice born remain outside the stage of life 
even for a single day" (D. Sm. 1. 10.). Thus belonging to a stage of life is, 
indeed, far beteer than not belonging to any stage of life. Still, if the 
latter state be due to misfortune ( and not to any wilful negligence ), then 
even those who do not belong to any stage of life may attain knowledge 
through the muttering of prayers and the like. 

Here encfs the Section entitled : ' Those Who Stand Between" (10). 



(1) vide Chand. 4. 1. See Br. Su. 1. 3. 34. 

(2) i. e. these, too> produce knowledge, 



Adhikarana 11 : The Section entitled : "One who has become 
That" (Sutras 40 43). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 40. 

"But, of one who has become that, there is no becoming not that, 
( this is the view ) of Jaimini, too, on account of restriction, on account 
of the absence of the forms of that". 

Here, the doubt is as to whether those who have adopted a life of 
chastity, are allowed to descend again to the previous stage of life( l ), or 
not. 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : Just as, in accordance with the text : "Having 
completed the life of a religious student, one should become a house- 
holder, one should become a dweller in the forest, one should wander forth. 
Or else, let one wander forth from the very life of a religious student, or 
from the house, or from the forest" ( Jabala 4 ), the ascent to a stage of life 
depends on one's own sweet will, so does the descent no less. 

Reply 
A Perpetual Religious student should never give up the vow of Celebacy 

We state the Correct Conclusion : There can possibly be "no 
becoming not that" i. e. no falling off from that stage, on the part of a 
perpetual religious student, bound by chastity( a ). and the rest( 8 ). Why? 
"on account of restriction, on account of the absence of the forms of 
that". 

The following texts restrain ( men, who have adopted chastity, from 
falling off from their stage of life ). "A student of sacred knowledge, 
dwelling in the house of a teacher', exhausting himself completely in the 
houseof a teacher" (Chand. 2. 23. 1.), "One should go to the forest, thence 
one should not return any more", "Having once given up the fire, one 
should not return any more" (Kafta 5. 4.). Further, there are no Scriptural 
texts enjoining descent from a stage of life, like those that enjoin ascent 
to it. 

Hence, as there are Scriptural passages restraining such persons 

(1) i. e. begin the life of a house-holder. 

(2) Naist^ika-Brahmacarin; 

(3) viz. a Vaikhanasa or a hermit belonging to the third stage of 
life ; and Parivfajaka or a medicant belonging to the fourth stage of life. 

50 



394 6nkam:ha-Bhasya 3. 4. 42. 

from falling off ( from their state of chastity X 1 ). and as there are no 
Scriptural texts allowing such a falling off( 9 ), so such persons ( who have 
fallen off from their state of chastity ) are not entitled to knowledge. This 
Is the view "of Jaitnini too". 

( The Author ) points out that those who once adopt ( the stage of 
chastity ), but later on fall off from it, cannot be entitled to knowledge 
(even) through expiatory petiances etc, 

SUTRA 3. 4. 41, 

"And, not even ( the expiation ) treated ( in the Section ) about 
rights, ( is possible on the part of a transgressing hermit etc. ), on 
account of its ineffectiveness, by reason of the inference ( i. e. Smrti 
passage ) about the fair. 

The expiation for one who has given up his vow of chastity, viz. the 
sacrificing of an ass, as mentioned in the text : "The Avakirni-Pasu 
( sacrifkce ) also ( is to be performed ) like that ( viz. the Sthapati-Isti )* 
(Pu. MI. Su. 6. 8. 22.), is not possible on the part of one who has fallen off 
from his state ( of chastity ). For, on account of there being a Smrti 
passage indicating that such a person is not entitled to any expiatory 
ceremony, this is impossible in his case. Compare the passage : "But a 
twice-born, who having ascended the state of a perpetual religious student, 
bounded by chastity, deviates therefrom I do not see any expiation 
whereby he, the slayer of himself, may be purified" ( Agni 165. 23a-35b ; 
A. Sm. 8. 16. ( f ). 

Opponent's View ( Sutra 42 ) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 42. 

"But preceded by 'Upa' ( i. e- a minor sin ) even, some ( think so ), 
( they claim ) the existence ( of an eipiation for it ), as in the case of 
eating, that has been said." 

"Some" hold that, ( such a deviation from the vow of chastity ) being 



(1) This explains the phrase : "on account of restriction". 

(2) This 'explains the phrase : "on account of the absence of the 
forms of that". 

(3) i. e; the stated expiation is valid for a religious student who 
becomes a house-holder after the completion of his study, or for a 
Upakurvana only, who does not remain a religious student permanently. 
But it is not valid for a Naisthika who remains a religious student all his 
life; or for a Vaikhanasa ( a dweller in the forest ), or for a Parivfajaka 
( wandering medicant ). 



No expiation is possible for perpetual religious students 395 

a minor sin, there does exist an expiation for it, just like the expiation 
for the taking of intoxicating liquor. 'That has been iaicT in the 
passage : "Of the subsequent ones, what is non-contradictory to that." 
( Gautama-Smrti ). The sense is that what has been said with regard 
to a religious student for a time only ( viz. an Upakurvana ), is possible 
in the case of one who belongs to a subsequent stage of life ( l ), in so far 
as it is not contradictory to that stage of life. 

Correct Conclusion ( Sutra 43 ) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 43. 

"But ( such a transgressor is ) outside ( the sphere of knowledge ) 
in either caee even, on account of Smrti and on account of conduct." 

Whether ( the deviation of perpetual religious students etc. from 
their vow of chastity ) be a major or a minor sin, these are debarred from 
the right to ( expiatory ) rites, because there is a Smrti passage to this 
effect, viz. "I do not see any expiation whereby he, the killer of himself, 
may be purified" ( Agni 165. 24b ), also because they are ex-communicated 
by the good. Hence, in every way, those who have fallen off from their 
stage of life are not entitled to knowledge. 

Here ends the Section entitled One who has Become That" (11) 



Adhikarana 12 : The Section entitled "The Lord' 5 (Sutras 4445), 
Opponent's View ( Sutra 44 ) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 44. 

"Of the Lord, on account of the Scriptural statement about fruit, EO 
Atreya ( thinks )". 

Udgltha-Meditation and the rest have been mentioned before ( 2 ). 
The doubt is as to whether this is the work of the sacrificer, or of the 
sacrificing priest. What follows here ? 



(1) viz. a religious student for life, a house-holder, a dweller in the 
forest, a wandering mendicant. Hence, as a religious student for some- 
time, can have expiation for his lapse from the vow of chastity, so a 
permanent religious student also, can have the very same expiation. A 
dweller in the forest and a wandering mendicant, on the other hand, can 
have the Kjrccha-candrayana expiation for this kind of sin. See SMD. 

(2) See Br. Su. 3. 3, 1. ff.. 



396 ^rika^tha-Bhasya 3. 4. 46. 

Prima Facie View 

Udgltha-meditatiou and the rest are to be performed by the sacrificer 
himself, for, it is declared by Scripture that the fruit, viz. greater 
potency (*), belongs to him alone, and not to the sacrificing priest. This 
is the view of "Atreya". 

Cor-ect onclution ( Sutra 45 ) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 45 

"I he work of the priest, so Audulomi thinks, because tor that 
he ) is bought". 

In the concluding portion of the text : "Therefore, an Udgatr-priest 
may say : "What object may I win for you by singing ?" (Chand. 1.7.8), 
it is clearly said that the Udgatj-priest is the worshipper here. That is 
"the work of the priest" only this is the view of "Audulomi". 

Objection 

If it be objected : How can the fruit of a work done by one ( viz. 
the priest ) pertain to another ( viz. the sacrificer ) ? 

Reply 
The Sacrificer obtains the results. 

( We reply : ) This is so because the priests have been "bought" 
by the sacrificer for performing the auxiliary ceremonies, too, just like 
the main act. The priests are "bought" by the sacrificer ( 2 ). for 
performing the sacrificial work together with all its parts. Hence, 
what is done by a priest is really done by the sacrificer himself. And 
the fruit, too, belongs to the lord ( viz. to the sacrificer himself ). Thus, 
no contradiction is involved here. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Lord" (12). 



Adhikarana 13 : The Section entitled, "The Injunction of / nother 
Auxiliary" (Sutra 46 ). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 46. 

"( There is ) injunction of another auxiliary for one who possesses 
that, as in the case of injunction and so on, (the term 'Mauna' denoting^, 
in accordance with the other alternative, a third something. ' 

(1) cf, the text : "What alone one does with knowledge (meditation), 
becomes more potent" ( Chand. 1. 1. 10. ) ( See Br. Su. 3. 3. 41. ). 

(2) Through the payment of Daks ina ( fees ). 



Asceticism, too has been enjoined 397 

In the Kahola-Brahmana, it is said : "Hence, let a Brahmana, 
being disgusted with learning, desire to live in the childlike state ; 
being disgusted with the states of childhood and learning, then he 
becomes an ascetic (Muni) ; being disgusted with the non-ascetic and 
ascetic states, then he becomes a Brahmana" (Brh. 3. 5. L). This means 
that having fully attained 'learning' consisting is an understanding of the 
meanings of numerous Upanisads, ( a Brahmana ) should abide in a stage 
of 'childhood', i. e. in a state free from attachment, hatred etc., similar to 
the state of childhood. After that, having fully attained these states of 
'learning' and 'childhood', he becomes an 'ascetic'. Here, on the doubt as 
to whether like the states of 'learning' and 'childhood', the state of an 
'ascetic' too has been enjoined or not. 

F rima Facie View 

If it be said : As there is no imperative form like 'should become( l ), 
so it has not been enjoined. 

Reply 
Asceticism, too has been enjoined. 

We reply : Like sacrifices etc.(*). Ascetism, too, has been enjoined 
for a knower as "another auxiliary" "a third something" besides 
'learning' and 'childhood'. For, the word 'ascetic' (Muni) is well- 
known to denote 'one given to profound recollection'. ( s ) As imperative 
form : 'should abide' is to be repeated here too (as in the two previous 
cases of 'learning' and 'childhood'), so this kind of profound reflection, 
which is nothing but a repeated meditation on the object to be 
worshipped, is indeed, enjoined here for bringing about knowledge. 
Hence, the injunction about 'asceticism' is possible for a knower. 

Here ends the Section entithd "The Injunction of Another 
Auxiliary' (13 . 



Adhikarana 14 : The Section entitled 'The Existence in All. * 
(Sutra 47) 

SUTRA 3. 4. 47. 

"But on account of the existence (of knowledge) in all (the stages 
of life), (there is) concluding with the house-holder". 

(1) The text contains the mere assertory word' 'Becomes'. 

(2) See Br. Su. 3. 4. 26, 3.4. 3235 etc. 

(3) i. e. this state of 'asceticism' is not the same as that of mere 
'learning', but different from it. 



398 6rIkantha-Bhasya 3. 4. 47. 

Here the doubt is as to whether knowledge is common to all the 
stages of life, or belongs to some only, 

Prima Facie View 

A religious student, while memorising the Vedas, is under the 
control of another, viz. the teacher ; a house-holder has to strive for 
maintaining his relatives ; and a dweller in the forest is busy with the 
duties incumbent on that stage of life. Hence, neither knowledge nor 
meditation is possible on the part of these. As, in the Scriptural text : 
"They who have ascertained the meaning of the VedSnta-texts, 
ascetics with natures purified through the application of renunciation" 
(Mund. 3. 2. 6.), it is declared that those who possess the knowledge of 
the meaning of the Vedantas, are those who have renounced the world ; 
and as, in the Scriptural text : "One who has adopted the last stage of 
life ('), having stopped all sense-organs, having bowed down to his own 
preceptor with reverence" (Kaivalya 5), there is an injunction regarding 
meditation so, knowledge and meditation are possible only on the part 
of those who have adopted the last stage of life, and not on the part of 
others. This is the Prima Facie View. 

Correct Conclusion 
Knowledge is possible in all the stages of life. 

Knowledge is, indeed possible in all the stages of life. For, in the 
Chandogya, beginning : "Having studied the Veda in the house of a 
teacher in accordance with rule, in time left over from doing work for the 
teacher ; having returned to his own house studying his sacred texts in a 
clean spot" (Chand. 8. 15. 1.), and concluding. "Foresooth, having stayed 
thus as long as he lives he reaches the world of Brahman and does not 
return any more" (Chand. 8. 15. 1.), it is shown that knowledge does exist 
in all the stages of life. " Concluding with the house-holder" here is 
meant for showing all the stages of life. In the same manner, the above 
text about the last stage ( Kaivalya 5 ) is meant for showing all the stages 
of life. Hence, knowledge can belong to persons belonging to all the 
stages of life. 'Renunciation means giving up desires for fruits. 
'Asceticism'^) means controlling the sense-organs. All these are quite 
possible on the part of any and every one. 

Here ends the Section entitled: "The Existence in All'' (1 4). 



(1) i. e. the life of a wandering mendicant. 

(2) As referred to the above Mund. 3. 2. 6. text. 

(3) op, cit. 



Adhikarana 15 : The Section entitled: *'As in the Case of 
Asceticism*. ( Sutras 48-49 ). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 48. 

<4 As in the case of asceticism on account of the teaching of others 
as well '. 

In the Atharva-Siras, it is said : "Having severed thirst, having 
thought of the root cause of the net of causes ( viz. worldly objects ) 
through Buddhi, and having placed everything in Rudra, ( the wise ) 
declare the oneness of Rndra. Through penance, fix up Rudra in mind 
who is eternal, ancient, vigorous and strong. This is the vow of Pasupata" 
( Siras 5 ). Such a Pasupati-vow is delclared in the Atharva-^iras, 
and is also celebrated in the Puranas( ] ). The doubt is whether knowledge 
and salvation are possible on the part of those who practise this this vow, 
or not. What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : As they do not belong to any stage of life, as it is found 
that there is an end ( to their vow of Pasupata )(*), as this ( vow ) was 
practised by Krsna and the rest for the sake of sons etc., so besides having 
some secondary fruits, they cannot attain salvation. 



(1) The vow of Pasupata, which is practised by those who do not 
belong to any ordinary stage of life, is of two kinds. The first, as declared 
in the Upanisads like Atharva-6iras, Kalagni-Rudra etc., means simply 
anointing one's self with ashes, putting on the three holy marks on the 
forehead etc. It has been shown above that such practices are to be 
included in all the Para-Vidyas. ( See Br. Sfi. 3. 3. 53.). The second, as 
declared in the PurSnas, like the Vayu-Samhita etc., consists in anointing 
oneself with ashes, putting on the three sacred lines on the forehead, etc., 
preceded by oblations etc., as long as one likes, beginning with twelve 
years and onward. Here, a discussion is undertaken with regard to this 
second form of Pasupata vow. Those who practise this do not belong to 
any ordinary stage of life. Hence, the question is whether those who 
practise it are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman and its result, 
salvation, or not. See 6. M. D. 

(2) The question is whether Salvation is attainable by those who 
practise this vow as long as they live, or only for twelve years and 
upward at will. 



400 6rikantha-Bh3sya 3. 4. 49. 

Reply 
Pasupata-Vrata leads to Salvation 

We reply : Those who practise this vow permanently^) do get 
Salvation itself as the fruit. The attainment of knowledge means an 
investigation into Rudra, the Supreme Brahman. As, like the quality of 
asceticism, other supreme qualities, too, like begging, calmness, self-control 
and the rest, have been taught in the vow called 'Pasupata', so those who 
practise it, too, attain the fruit of the meditation on Rudra, viz. Salvation, 
consisting in a a severance of the noose, as known from the text : "They 
declare the oneness of Rudra. Through penance, fix Rudra, in mind who 
is eternal ancient, vigorous and strong. This is the vow of Pasupata. 
Having taken ashes with the utterance ( of the Mantra ) "Fire" etc., 
having anointed the parts of his body, one should touch ( them ). Thus, 
is the vow of Pasupata, meant for getting rid of mundane existence" 
( 6iras 5 ). Hence, those who practise this vow of PSsupata as long as 
they live, do indeed get Salvation as the fruit. 

SUTRA 3. 4. 49. 

"( Although the Pasupata- Asrama ) does not manifest itself ( as a 
particular Asrama ), owing to ( its ) connection ( with all the requisites 
of the stage of asceticism, it is called a 'super-asrama' )". 

To the view that ( this vow of PSsupata is not included under any 
Asrama ), ( the Author ) replies : Although the Pasuata- Asrama "does not 
mani r est it self" as another stage of life, yet "owing to its connection" with 
the qualities of asceticism, like celebacy ete., which are means to know- 
ledge, it is called a 'Super-Asrama' ; and as a separate stage of life, it leads 
to the attainment ot the Supreme 6iva. In accordance with the texts : 
"Up till the fall of the body, or for twelve years", there are two alternative 
forms of the vow of Pasupata :* limitless and limited ( 8 ). Of these, the 
limitless form is called a 'super-stage of life' and is the cause of Salvation. 
The other form is the cause of enjoyment only such is the distinction 
(between the two)." Thus, Scripture itself enjoins such a vow, having two 
forms, as leading to enjoyment and as leading to Salvation, and bringing 
about the grace of 6iva. Facts are to be interpreted in such a way that 
Scripture is never taken to be unauthoritative ( 8 ). 

Here ends the Section entitled, "As in the case of Asceticism" (1 ). 

(1) See next 6utra. 

(2) Atyantika and Savadhika. 

(3) Scripture can never be contradicted. So, facts must be inter- 
preted to tally with Scripture, and not vice- versa. 



Adhikarana 16 : The Section entitled, "In tjhis Life" vSutra 50). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 50. 

"(Salvation results) in this life, (i. e. as soon as the present body 
cease?) if obstruction be not present, on account tf that being seen." 

On the doubt as to whether those who practise the' stated 
meditations (*) attain salvation "in this life" (i. e. after the fall of the 
present body), or in another life 

Prima Facie View 

If it be argued : A person undertakes meditation with the intention : 
"May my Salvation result in this very life, and not in another." Who 
will wish for delay in his end 1 Hence, if the fruit viz. Salvation, results, 
it must do so in this very life (i. e. after the end of the present life) ; 
otherwise, it cannot result at all. 

Reply 
Salvation may result after this life, or not 

We reply : If there be no obstruction due to some other strong 
Karma, then the fruit of the meditation en the Supreme Being will result 
"in this very life" (i. e. after the end of the present life) ; but if there be 
any such obstruction, it will result in another life. Just as, there is no 
fixed rule that the result, viz. prosperity, of good deeds follows from these 
immediately after, but it may result in another birth if there be some 
obstruction so is the case here. This is so, because even Vamadeva and 
and others are declared in Scripture to have re-births ( 8 ). Hence, there 
is no fixed rule that the fruit, viz. Salvation, must result "in this life." 

Here ends the Section entitled "In this Life 1 (16). 



Adhikarana 17 : The Section entitled "The Fruit, viz, Salvation" 
(Sutra 51). 

SUTRA 3. 4. 51. 

"(There is) no fixed rule that the fruit, viz. salvation, (has 
differences like the fruits of Karma), since (salvation) is ascertained to 
be that condition (viz. state of Brahman).' 



- (1) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 

(2) If there be no contrary Karmas, then a knower attains Salvation 
as soon as he dies. But if there be such Karmas, then he has to be re-born 
and exhaust these before he cau attain release. See Br. Su. 3. 3. 31. 
51 



402 6rikantha-Bhasya 3. 4. 51. 

It has been established above that like the fruit of mere works, via 
prosperity, the fruit (of knowledge and meditation) viz. Salvation, too, cai 
result only when no obstructions are present. Here, the doubt is as t< 
whether according to this principle, there is a fixed rule that like th 
fruits of action, the fruits of knowledge, too, are subject to differences, o 
not. What do we get here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said: Like the fruit of action, the fruit (of knowledge ant 
meditation) viz. Salvation, too is subject to such differences, as from th< 
texts : "One who desires for Heaven should perfom the Jyotistonu 
sacrifice" "One who desires for sovereignity should perform the Vajapeyj 
sacrifice" and so on, it is known that the fruits of works are subject tc 
differences. The same is the case with the fruit of meditation anc 
knowledge. 

Reply 
Results of Knowledge and Meditations are the same. 

We reply : There is no rule that like the fruit of works, the fruit ol 
knowledge and meditation, too. is subject to differences. For, it i* 
ascertained that the fruit (of knowledge and meditation) is attaining "the 
state' of Brahman. As all the knowers attain the very same nature o: 
Brahman, so no difierences are possible here. It is not to be said alsc 
that due to differences in the meditations, their result, viz. Salvation, too 
may differ. For, the act of meditation cannot have any fruit besides 
Salvation ; and Brahman being the same, Salvation, too, which is of the 
form of Brahman, must be so. Hence, there cannot be any differences in 
the fruit, viz. Salvation.' 



Here ends the Section entitled "The Fruit, viz. Salvation 1 ' (17). 



Here ends the Fourth Quarter of the Third Chapter of the 
Commentary on the Brahma-Mimamsa, composed by the reverend 
Saiva Teacher Srikantha. 



According to Srikantha, the Fourth Quarter of the Third Chapter 
contains 51 Sutras and 17 Adhikaranar. 



FOURTH CHAPTER ( Adhayaya ) 
First Quarter ( Pada ) 

Adhikarana 1 : The Section entitled "Repetition" ( Sutra 12 ). 

SUTRA 4. 1. 1. 
"Repetition more than once, on account of teaching' '. 

In the Third Chapter, the differences of worshippers, of objects 
worshipped, and of meditations have been discussed. Here, again, in the 
First Quarter of the Fourth Chapter, the mode of meditation ; in the 
Second Quarter, the going out of the individual soul, the worshipper ; in 
the Third Quarter, the Path beginning with light ; and in the Fourth 
Quarter, the state of one who has attained Brahman, are being determined. 

In the First Section, here, the doubt is as to whether knowledge( J ), 
enjoined as a means to Salvation in the texts : "The knower of Brahman 
attains the highest" (Tait. 2. 1. 1.), "By knowing 6iva, one attains to 
supreme peace" (6vet. 4. 14.) and so on, is to be undertaken only once, or 
repeatedly : What do we get here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : In accordance with the maxim : "The meaning of 
Scripture can be understood, if undertaken only once", it is to be 
undertaken only once. For, as in the case of preliminary offerings etc., so 
here, too, even if undertaken only once, the purpose of knowledge( 8 ), is 
served. 

Reply 
The Vidyas are to be practised repeatedly. 

To this, we reply : Knowledge, enjoined as the means to Salvation, in 
the passage : "The knower of Brahman attains the Highest" (Tait. 2. 2. 1.), 
is to be undertaken "more than once". In the texts : "Let one meditate 
on the mind as Brahman. He shines and glows with fame, with splendour, 
and with eminence in sacred knowledge, who knows thus" (Chand. 

3. 18. 1 ; 3. 18. 6.), "1 say the same thing of whoever knows what he knows. 
Now, Sir, teach me that divinity which you meditate on" (Chand. 4. 1. 4 ; 

4. 2. 2.) and so on, the terms 'Knowing* and 'Meditating' have been used 

(1) 'Knowledge' ( Vidya ) leading to 'Meditation', not pure knowledge 
in the 6arnkarite sense. 

(2) Accoording to the Prima Facie objector, the word 'Vedana' 
means 'Jfiana' or pure knowledge. But according to the Author, it means 
Meditation. 



404 6rikai;tha-Bhasya 4. 1.3, 

one in the place of the other in the beginning and the end( 1 ). From this 
it is known that 'Knowledge' (Vedana), the means to Salvation, is of the 
from of 'Meditation'. The word 'Meditation, again, denotes continued 
remembrance. 

To your contention that like preliminary offerings, ( meditation, too, 
brings about its result if performed only once ), ( we reply : ) As these lead 
to unseen results, so the above single performance has been enjoined quite 
appropriately. But the fruit of meditation, viz, direct intuition, being 
something 5een, repetition is necessary till there is the rise of the fruit, as 
in the case of husking( 8 ). 

SUTRA 4. 1.2. 

"And on account of indicatory mark 9 '. 

"And", there is an "indicatory mark" to this effect. Compare the 
text : "The purity that the individual soul comes to have from the 
knowledge of the Lord, is said to be supreme whether he commits great 
sins or minor sins that does not matter He should practise meditation on 
Brahman during the night, practise spiritual concentration, and know the 
Supreme Person, shining like gold, who can be attained during sleep"( 8 ), 
and so on. Hence, the Meditation on Brahman is to be repeated. 

Here ends the Section entitled I "Repetition (1). 



Adhikarana 2 : The Section entitled "Meditation under the Aspect 
of the Self ( Sutras 3 ). 

SUTRA 4. I. 3. 
"But, 'the self so ( they admit and make others ) understand". 

(1) According to the Aiithor, 'Vedana' means 'UpSsana', or 
'Knowing and 'Meditating' mean the same thing. This is proved by the 
fact that these two terms have been used in the same text, one in 
the beginning, the other in the end E. g. in the first text, the term 
'Meditates' is used in the beginning ; the term 'Knows' in the end. 
In the second text, the term 'Knows' is used in the beginning, the 
term 'Meditates' in the end. Now, the beginning and the end of 
the same text must refer to the same thing. Hence, 'Knowing' and 
'Meditating' must be identical. 

(2) The beating of rice-grains for husking is to be repeated, 
for, the seen result, viz. husking, cannot be attained by a single 
beating. In the same manner, not a single meditation on Brahman, 
but repetition is essential here. 

(3) i. e. the state of Samadhi. 6.M.D. 



Identity-Meditation is to be undertaken 405 

It has been said above that there should a repetition of the meditation 
on Brahman. Now the question must be discussed as to whether (He) 
is to be meditated on as the self of that ( viz. the worshipper ) or as some- 
thing different. 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : the Scriptural text : "Superior to the universe 
is Rudra, the Great Seer" (6 vet. 3. 4. 4. 12 ; Mahanar. 10.3.), as well 
as in the Aphorism : "Jut tomething more, on account of the 
indication of difference" (Br. Su. 2. 1. 22. ) and so on, it has been 
established that the Supreme Brahman, the Lord, is a Reality different 
from the individual soul, the 'beast' ( M . Further, the individual soul can 
never become Brahman, He being omniscient and the rest. Hence, it 
stands to reason that the individual soul should meditate on Brahman 
as different from itself. This is the Prima Facie view. 

Reply 
Identity- Meditation is to be undertaken. 

But the Correct Conclusion is as follows : Although the Supreme 
Brahman called '6iva' is superior to the individual soul, yet the worshipper 
meditates on Him with the thought : 'I am Brahman'. That is why, 
former worshippers admit (the Lord as) "the self," thus : "Then, I am 
indeed Thou, Holy Divinity, and Thou art I." Although different from 
the worshippers, the Supreme Brahman favours those worshippers by 
revealing His own form to them. They again, "teach" others, viz. their 
disciples, that He is their Soul, thus : "Thou art that" (Chand. 6. 8. 7. etc.) 
and so on Salvation means attaining the state of 6iva, a state that is free 
from all blemishes and full of unlimited, supreme bliss. Such an attaining 
of vsiva is not possible without the prior cessation of the beastiality (*) 
(Pasutva) of the individual soul. Again, such a cessation of beastiality is 
not possible without meditation on Him. Hence, having his noose 
loosened through continued meditation thus : "I am 6iva M , the 
worshipper, with his beastiality ( 3 ) removed, becomes 6iva Himself. 
'Siva-hood' means freedom from the slighest possibility of the stain of 
sins, and possession of unsurpassable anspiciousness. The Supreme 
Brahman is of such a nature. 

By meditating on him, the worshipper becomes of that very form. 



(1) In the 6aiva system, the Lord is called the 'Lord of Beasts' 
(Pasupati), while individual so iil arfi ^liorl 'K^ti' /'Pa^nV 

(2) See fn. 1. above. 

(3) op. cit. 



406 6rikautha-Bhasya 4. 1.4. 

Hence, in the text : "6iva alone, the bringer of auspiciousness, is to be 
meditated on, discarding everything else" (6ikha 2) it is forbidden that 
any one else should be worshipped by one who desires for Salvation. 

In accordance with all the Scriptural texts : 'Salvation' means that 
one who has got rid of 'beastiality' (or mundane existence), consisting in a 
narrow sense of egoity, like 'I am a Brahmana' and so on, comes to realise 
his identity with the Supreme Being, viz 6iva, who is the witness of the 
limitless bliss of His own nature and is self-manifest. The Meditation on 
Brahman (as one's own self) is the cause of Salvation, otherwise there can 
be no cessation of transmigratory mundane existence. 

Here ends the Section entitled " Meditation under the aspect of the 
Self" (2). 



Adhikarai;a 3 : The Section entitled " I he Symbol" ( Sutras 4 

SUTRA 4. 1. 4. 
"Not in a symbol, for that ( is ) not ( the self )". 

(The Author) points out an exception. 

From the Scriptural text : "Let one meditate on the mind as 
Brahman" (Chand. 3.18.1.) and so on, it is known that the mind and the 
like are to be meditated on as something different. 

Prima Facie View 

The Prima Facie View is as follows : From the meditations on 
symbols, as established in the texts : "Let one meditate on the mind as 
Brahman" (Chand. 3.18 1 ), "Let one meditate on the sun as Brahman", and 
so on, it is known that the mind etc., as purified by being concceived as 
Brahman, are the objects to be meditated on. Hence, as one who 
meditates on these symbols looks upon these as Brahman, so what 
contradiction is involved if he looks upon these as his own self ? 

Reply 
Symbols should not be meditated on as the Self. 

To this, we reply : The symbols are not to be looked upon as the self 
(of the worshipper), "for", the Supreme Brahman is not the object to be 
meditated on in these. But, here the objects to be meditated on are the 
mind etc. conceived as Brahman. Here, although it is Brahman, as 
qualified by the mind etc., that is the object to be meditated on, yet as the 
mind etc., being subject to changes, cannot be the attributes of Brahman, 



Mind etc. have to be viewed as Brahman 407 

so Brahman, as qualified by these, is not to be taken as one's own self ; but 
only Brahman, as qualified by the attributes of 'having true desires' etc. is 
to be done so, otherwise, the soul too will come to be subject to changes, 
hence, the worshippers should not meditate on the symbols as their own 
selves. For, in them, the Supreme Lord is not the direct object to be 
worshipped. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Symbol" (3). 



Adhikarana 4 : The Section entitled "Viewing as Brahman" 
(Sutra 5). 

SUTRA 4. 1.5. 
"Viewing as Brahman, on account of superiority." 

On the doubt as to whether in the meditation on the symbols, the 
worshipper should view the mind and the rest as Brahman, or Brahman as 
the mind the rest 

Prima Facie View 

The Prima Facie View is that Brahman is to be viewed as the mind 
etc. and then meditated on as such, for He alone is the giver of fruits. 

Reply 
Mind etc. have to be viewed as Brah nan. 

To this, we reply : As, from the text : "Superior to the universe is 
Rudra, the Great Seer" (6 vet. 3. 4, 4. 12. MahSnar 10. 3.) and so on, the 
"superiority" of Brahman is known, so the mind and the rest, which are 
inferior to Him, are to be viewed as He. For, in ordinary life, people view 
a royal servant, who is inferior to the King, as the King and worship him 
like the King. But none views the King as a servant and worships 
him as such. Thus, this alone is in the fitness of things. Hence, every- 
one bows down to that which is the most superior. From this, it is known 
that the Supreme Brahman, being Superior to every thing, is the 
object to whom everyone bows down. In the sacred formula : "To 
the Righteous, to the True" (MahSnar. 10. 1 ), it is said that the Supreme 
Brahman, qualified by the stated attributes, is the only object to be 
bowed down, and not any one else, thus : "Obeisance to Him alone who 
has the universe as His form" (Mahanar. 12. 1.). 

Moreover, ( in texts ) it is stated that the Supreme Brahman 
is the object to be bowed down only because He is most superior : 



408 Srikantha-Bhasya 4. 1. 6. 

Thus, in the Scripture of the Tattiriyas, viz : "To whom we bow 
down, His head is Religion, forehead Brahma, the upper jaw-bone 
sacrifice, the lower jaw-bone Visnu, the heart the year, the genera- 
tive organ" ( Tait. Sam. ), while determining the nature of a porpoise, 
the text designates that 6iva, the Supreme Brahman, of the form of 
the head, the primary thing, is different from Visnu and the rest, of the 
forms of the heart and the rest ; and refers to Him again, as the 
object to be bowed down, being the best of all, thus : /'To whom 
we bow down, He is the head". Again, at the end, having designated 
that ( He ) is the Lord of all things and the superiormost, thus : 
"You are the Lord of beings, You are the superiormost among the 
beings", it goes on to point out that being the best among all the 
beings, He is established to be the only object to be bowed down 
by all, thus : "Obeisance to Him, every one bowed down to Him". 
Everywhere, in the text : ''Obeisance to you Rudra, the Furious 
One", and so on, it is said that being the best of all, He is to be 
bowed down again and again. In ordinary life, people bow down 
to one more and more because of his lordship and the like. Hence, 
the object to be bowed down by all is the Supreme Brahman, the 
best of all, accompanied by Uma, and denoted by words like 'Three-eyed 
Being', 'the Lord' and the like. All symbols like the mind and the rest, 
are to be worshipped, only when viewed as He, the Best of all and 
the object to be bowed down by all. Hence, in the text : "Obeisance 
to dogs, to the Lords of dogs", Scripture declares that even 
very inferior objects, like dogs etc., are to be bowed down, only 
when viewed as Brahman, the Best of all. Hence, as it is found 
that an inferior object is to be revered only as being connected with 
a superior object, so it is established that the mind and the rest are 
to be worshipped only when viewed as Brahman. Superior to the 
universe. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Viewing as Prahman" (4). 



Adhikarana 5 : The Section entitled : " The Ideas of the Sun and 
the rest" ( Sutra 6 ). 

SUTRA 4. 1. 6. 

"And, the ideas of the sun and the rest ( are to be super-imposed ) 
on t*>e subsidiary part, on account of appropriateness". 

It has been said above that Brahman being Superior, the sun 
and the rest are to be worshipped only when viewed as He. Here, 



Udgltha etc. are to be viewed as the sun etc. 409 

the doubt is as to whether in the meditations on the subsidiary 
parts, of sacrificial acts, as enjoined in the text : "Verily, he who is 
the sun, let one meditate on him as the UdgTtha" (CliSnd. 1. 3. 1.) 
and so on, the sun and the rest are to be looked upon as the 
Udgltha, or conversely. What follows here ? 

PrLna Facie View 

If it be said : As both the Udgltha and the rest, as well as the 
sun and the rest, are equally subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, and 
of the nature of Brahman( 1 ), so there is no fixed rule here 

Reply 
Udgitha etc. are to be viewed as the sun etc. 

We reply : As the sun and the rest are superior, being objects 
to be worshipped in those sacrificial acts, so Udgitha and the rest, 
the subsidiary parts of sacrificial acts, are to be viewed as these. For, 
more excellent results are possible only from the Udgltha-Meditalions 
etc. when the Udgitha etc. are purified by being viewed as these 
( viz. the sun and the rest ). From the text : "Whatever is done with 
knowledge ( meditation ), alone becomes more potent" (Chand. 1.1. 10.)( f ), 
it is known that what is by itself 'potent' and is being done by itself 
that very thing, when purified by meditation, comes to have more 
excellent result, viz. a greater potency. Hence, although both ( viz. 
the sun etc. and the Udgltha etc. ) are equally of the form of Brahman(*), 
yet as there are injunctions regarding the Udgitha-Meditation etc., as 
the Udgitha-Meditation etc., when performed, bring about a fruit, and 
as the sun and the rest being of an opposite nature cannot bring 
about a fruit in this way so, it is established that the Udgltha and 
the like, the subsidiary parts of sacrifices, are to be viewed as the 
sun and the rest( 4 ). 

Here ends the Section entitled ''The Ideas of the Sun and the 
rest" (5 . 



(1) i. e. both are to be viewed as Brahman during meditations. 

(2) See Br. Su. 3. 3. 41. 

(3) i. e. both being inferior to Brahman are to be looked upon 
as Brahman during meditation. 

(4) The Udgitha is a part of sacrifices, and meditation on the 
Udgitha produces a special result for the whole sacrifice. But the 
sun etc. are not of that kind. So, it is the Udgltha that is to be 
meditated on, net the sun. Thus, the Udgitha is to be meditated on 
as the sun, and not conversely. 

52 



Adhikaraga 6 : The Section entitled "S.ttbg" ( Suiras 710 ). 

SUTRA 4. 1. 7. 
''Sitting, on account of possibility". 

The procedure of meditation has been established above. Now, 
the doubt is as to whether there is any fixed rule regarding the seat 
of such a meditation. 

Prima Facie View 

There is no fixed rule like 'one should practise meditation sitting'. 
As meditation being a mental activity is possible under all conditions, 
so there is no fixed rule for the worshipper regarding his seat. This is 
the Prima Facie View. 

Reply 

The Correct Conclusion is as follows : 

One should meditate on Brahman only as 'sitting", for concentration 
is possible only on the part of one who is sitting. Further, there is also a 
Scriptural text regarding the fixed rule about seat. Compare theKaivalya 
Upanisad text : "Seated on a comfortable seat in a solitary place, pure, 
with the head, neck and body held straight, an ascetic who has adopted 
the last stage of life ( viz. the life of a wandering medicant ), having 
stopped all the sense-organs, having bowed down to his own spiritual 
preceptor with reverence, and having ( then ) meditated, in his heart- 
lotus, on the Supreme L,ord 6iva accompanied by UmS, blemishless, pure, 
spotless, griefless, infinite, unmanifest, having an inconceivable form, 
tranquil, immortal, the source of Brahma, similarly devoid of beginning, 
middle and end, one, all-pervasive, consciousness and bliss, wonderful, 
master, three-eyed, having a blue neck, tranquil, goes to the soul ce of 
beings, the witness of everything, beyond darkness." ( Kaivalya 4 7). 
Hence, one should meditate on Brahman as "sitting" only. 

SUTRA 4. 1. 8. 
"And, on account of contemplation" 

From the Scriptural texts : "By meditating ( on Brahman ), an 
ascetic goes to the Source of beings" ( Kaivalya 7 ), "But, Sambhu, the 
Cause, endowed with all lordship, the L,ord of all is to be meditated on 
inside the ether", "Through kindling the fire of meditation only", and fo 
on, it is known that meditation, which is the cause of the severance of 
the noose of mundane existence, is of the form of contemplation. 



Meditation is to be practised sitting 411 

The term 'Contemplating' is employed to mean concentrating the 
mind on one object only, with the eyes fixed on it and with all physical 
activities given np, as when we say : 'A crane is meditating' (*). 'A 
friend is meditating on his absent friend' ( 8 ) and so on. As in meditation, 
which is uninterrupted by any thought of another object and which is 
of the form of continued remembrance, ceaseless like the flow of oil, 
concentration of the mind is essential, so, in order that one may practise 
such a meditation, a fixed rule regarding the seat ( of meditation ) is, 
indeed, to be accented, (*). 

SUTRA 4. 1. 9, 
"And, with reference to immobi ; ity." 

In the Scriptural text : "The earth contemplates, as it were. The 
Heaven contemplates, as it were" (Chand. 7. 6. 1.), the word 'contemplates' 
has been used "with reference to the immobility" of the earth and the 
rest. For this reason, too, one should practise meditation as "sitting" 
only. For, continued meditation is possible only on the part of one who 
is sitting immobile like the earth and the rest. 

SUTRA 4. 1. 10. 
"And, Smritis declare." 

As in the Smrti text : "Having placed, on a clean spot, one's steady 
seat that is neither very high nor very low and consists of a cloth, deer- 
skin and Kusa-grass, one over the other ; having sat there on the seat, 
concentrating one's mind and with the functions of the mind and sense- 
organs controlled, let one practise deep meditation for the purification 
of his self' ( Gita 6. 11. ), a fixed rule about the seat ( of meditation ) is 
found, so it is established that one should meditate on Brahman as 
'sitting" only. 



Here ends the Section entitled "Sitting" (6). 



(1) A crane stands absolutely still and fixes its eyes on a fish. That 
is why, it is metaphorically said to be meditating. Thus, absolute 
stillness, fixing the eye on one object etc. are taken to be the essential 
marks of meditation. 

(2) A friend thinks of an absent friend with one-pointed attention. 
So, this, too, is a sign of deep thinking or meditation. 

(3) Meditation necessarily involves deep concentration, and that is 
possible only when one is sitting. 



Adhikarana 7 : The Section entitled "Where there is Concentration" 
(Sutras 11 ). 

SUTRA 4. 1. 11. 

''Where concentration ( is possible ) there, on account of non- 
specification." 

It has been said above that there is a fixed rule about t"he seat of a 
worshipper. Similarly, on the doubt as to whether there are fixed rules 
regarding the place and the time ( of meditation ), or not 

Pritna Facie View 

The Prima Facie View is as follows : It is appropriate to hold that 
there do exist ( such fixed rules ). Just as, with regard to enjoined 
sacrificial acts, there is a fixed rule regarding 'direction' in the text : 
"One who is performing the Brahman a sacrifice ( l ), should face the east" ; 
a fixed rule regarding 'place' in the text : "One should perform the 
Visvadeva ( 8 ). sacrifice in a place sloping towards the east" ; a fixed rule 
regarding 'time' in the text : "In the evening they perform the 
Pi^da-Pitr (*) sacrifice," so here, too, meditation being equally enjoined, 
fixed rules regarding direction and the rest are, indeed, appropriate. 

Reply 
There is no fixed rule regarding the place etc. of Meditation. 

But the Correct Conclusion is as follows : 

In meditation, there is no fixed rule regarding 'direction* 
and the rest. The main means to meditation is concentration. And, 
this does not depend on particular 'direction' etc. Where there is no cause 
of any foulness due to attachment, hatred and the like, there the mind 
becomes concentrated. Only this much is necessary, in accordance with 
the Scriptural text : "In a solitary place, seated on a comfortable seat" 
(Kaivalya 4.). The text : "Infinite in the proximity of 6iva" etc. refers 
to the muttering of prayers, and not to meditation. Hence, as meditation, 
which is of the form of contemplation, ( 4 ) is due only to concentration, so 
there are no fixed rules regarding direction, place and time here. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Where there is Concentration" (7). 

(1) One of the five Maha-Yajflas or great sacrifices. 

(2) A particular religious ceremony in which offerings are made 
to all gods, specially to Fire. 

(3) The oblation to deceased ancestors on the evening of new moon/ 

(4) See Br. Su. 4. 1. 8. 



Adhikarana 8 : The Section entitled ''Until Daath" ( utras 12). 

SUTRA 4. 1. 12. 
"Until death, for, there also it is seen". 

It has been stated above that there are no fixed rules regarding 
direction etc. in the meditation on Brahman. Now, here discussing the 
question as to whether that (viz. meditation) has an end, or not, 

Prim a Facie ^ iew 

The Prima Facie objector says : One should meditate only so 
long as one likes, otherwise it is to be given up. 

Reply 
Meditation is to be practised ceaselessly. 

The Correct Conclusion is as as follows : 

Meditation is to be undertaken ceaselessly day by day "until death". 
It is not to be given up at any time whatsoever. For, in the Scriptural 
texts : "Day by day, verily, he who knows this goes to the Heavenly 
world" (Chand. 8. 3. 3.), "Verily, having stayed thus as long as he lives, 
he attains the world of Brahman" (Chaud. 8. 15. 1.) and so on, it is 
declared that meditation is practised "until death". There must not 
be any interruption in the contemplation of Brahman which enables 
one to attain the nature of Brahman. For, if one ceaselessly 
meditates on Brahman as his own self, then He manifests that form to 
the worshipper. So, in order that there may be a manifestation of the 
real nature of Brahman, the Supreme Brahman omniscient, eternally 
satisfied, self-manifest, independent, having non-hidden powers, 
omnipotent 1 ) should be meditated on ceaselessly. Thus, Scripture 
declares that the real nature of Brahman is manifested to the worshippers. 
Compare the text ' "O Rudra. that which is your Bodyauspicious, non- 
terrific, non-ill-looking, most beneficient, inhabiting in mountains 
through that Body shine forth for us". He is called 'Rudra' because He 
chases away all the infinite mundane miseries, having different forms like 
'Adhyatmika'( 9 ) etc. and due to a narrow sense of egoity caused by the 
impressions of beginningless Karmas. He is iva, the Supreme Brahman. 
The above is an invocation of such a Rudra. 



(1) See under Br. Su. 1. 1. 2. 

(2) The three kinds of miseries are (i) Adhyatmika or due to inner 
natural causes, viz. those due to one's body and mind., (ii) Adhibhautika 
or due to outer natural causes, like snake-bite, etc., (iii) Adhidaivika 
or due to super-natural causes, like gods, demons etc. 



414 6rikantha-Bhasya 4. 1. 13. 

This means as follows : Rudra : O Supreme Lord : that which 
is your 'Body', i. e. form, 'auspicious' i. e. supremely pure because 
of being eternally free from sins etc., supremely auspicious, and 
bringing supreme auspiciousness, 'non-terrific', i. e. understood by 
all as endowed with auspiciousness only ; 'non-ill-looking' ( l ) i. e. 
manifested to the freed souls all whose merits and demerits have 
been burnt off by the fire of knowledge ( 8 ) ; 'most beneficent', i. e. 
consisting in unsurpassable bliss in accordance with the Sciiptural text : 
"This is one bliss of Brahman" (Tait. 2. 8V. 

'Through such a Body directly manifest Yourself to us as well, in 
Your own Form, having destroyed all our merits and demerits which cause 
mundane existence' such is the prayer of the worshippers. Hence, in 
order that there may be a manifestation of the real nature of Brahman 
in the heart of the worshipper, the meditation on Brahman, which is the 
cause of such a manifestaion, is to be practised as long as life lasts ; but 
is never to be given up. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Until Oeath" (8). 



Adhikaraiia 9 : The Section entitled "On the Attainment of That". 
(Sutra 13). 

SUTRA 4. 1. 13. 

"On the attainment of that, (there follow) non-clinging and 
destruction of subsequent and prior sins, on account of the designation 
of that". 

It has been established above that through the excellence (of 
knowledge and meditation), the real nature of Brahman is manifested to 
the worshippers all whose merits have been destroyed. Here, the doubt 
is as to whether there can be such a destruction of the sins of the 
worshippers, or not. What follows here ? 

Frima Facie View 

If it be said : There cannot be any destruction of sins, even in the 
case of the worshippers, without actual experiencing these in accordance 
with the text ; "A work which is not experiencep does not decay even in 



(1) Apapa-Kasinl. 

(2) 'Apapa' means the freed souls who have got rid of all fruits of 
Karms, good or bad. 'Kssinp means one who manifests itself. So the 
whole word means : That which manifests itself to the freed souls. 



Merits aiid Sins of Knowers are destroyed 415 

hundreds of millions of years" (Br. V. P. 26. 70.). Hence, when they 
assume (new) bodies for experiencing (these works) they perform works 
again, and, thus, they can never get Salvation( l ). 

Reply 
Sins of worshippers are destroyed. 

We reply : The sinful works of the worshippers do come to 
be destroyed. How ? When meditation is once begun, through its might, 
there result "the destruction' of" the prior sins" and "the non-clinging" 

of "the subsequent" sins. For, ( Scripture ) designates this thus : "J ust 
as a tuft of Isika-reed placed on fire is burnt up, so all his sins are burnt 
up" ( Chand. 5.24.3. ), "Just as water does not cling to the lotus-leaf, so no 
evil deeds cling to one who knows thus" (Chand. 4.14.3.). Hence, there 
result the destruction and non-clinging, respectively, of the prior and 
subsequent sins of the worshippers. The quoted text : "A work which is 
not experienced, does not decay" ( Br. V. P. 26. 70. ), refers to the case of 
the non-knowers, and so no contradiction is involved here. 

Fere ends the Sect 'on entitled "On the Attainment of That." 



Adhikarana 10 : The Section entitled: "ihe Non-clinging of 
Others" ( Sutra 14) 

SUTRA 4. 1. 14. 
"Of the others too, ( there is ) non-clinging thus, but on the fair. 

It has been established above that a knower is not besmeared with 
sins. Here, it is discussed as to whether he is besmeared with its opposite, 
viz. merits. What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View. 

If it be said : It is quite appropriate that there should be the dacay 
of sins which are opposed to knowledge. But there cannot be any decay 
of merits, for, these being subsidiary parts of knowledge, it is but 
appropriate that these should continue. 

Reply. 
Merits of knowers are destroyed. 

We reply : There result the non-clinging and destruction of even 

(1) i. e. here there is a vicious circle, Kanna Birth Karma 
Rebirth etc. ad infinitum. 



416 6rikantha-Bhasya 4. 1. 15. 

the merits of a knower, as these are opposed to Salvation and are thus 
equally injurious in result. "On the fall of the body", there is the decay 
of merits which are congenial to knowledge and bring about ( mere 
worldly ) results, like recovery from disease etc i 1 ). On the other hand, 
there is the non-clinging of works which are subsidiary parts of 
knowledge ( 9 ), as these are not connected with any selfish fruits. Hence, 
it is established that a knower is not besmeared with even merits. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Non-clinging cf Others." (10). 



Adhikarana 35 : The Seciion entitled "1 he works the Effects of 
which have not yet Pegun." ( Sutra J 5 ), 

SUTRA 4, 1. 15. 

"But, on' y tVose former (works) the effects of which have not yet 
begun, because ti 1 ! that." 

It has been established above that there result the destruction and 
non-clinging, respectively, of the prior and subsequent merits and 
demerits of a knower. Here, the doubt is as to whether in his case, the 
prior and subsequent works, the effects of which have already begun, 
persist, or not. 

Prima Facie View. 

If it be said: As in the Scriptural text : "All sins are burnt up" 
( Chand. 5.24.3. ), no specification is found, so when-one comes to have 
knowledge, there is the destruction of such prior and subsequent works, 
too, without distinction. 

Reply. 

We reply : When one comes to have knowledge, only those prior 
and subsequent good and bad deeds come to be destroyed which have not 
as yet begun to bear fruits. In the Scriptural text : "For him there Is 
delay so long as he is not free. Then he will attain Brahman'' ( Chand, 
6.14.2.), it is declared that Salvation does not arise till there is the fall of 
the body. Hence, there is no destruction of the works which have 
already begun to bear fruits 

Here ends the Section entitled 'The Works the Effects of which 
have not yet Pegun" (IK 



(1) See Br. Su. 4.1.17.18. for the explanation as to how these come 
to be destroyed. 

(2) See Br. Su. 3.4.26. 



Adhikarana 12 : TEe Section entitled "Agni-hotra and the rest' 3 . 
(Sutra 1618). 

SUTRA 4. 1. 16. 

"But, the Agni-hotra and the re*t (are to be performed) with a view 
to that effect (viz. knowledge) alone, on account of the observation of 
that". 

It has been established above that there result the destruction and 
non-clinging of the merits and demerits of a knower. It has also been 
proved that there should be the repetition of meditation till life lasts.( ! ). 
Here, it is being discussed as to whether the rerformaiice of the 
Agni-hotra and the like is to be continued till the fall of the body, or 
given up in the middle. What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : The Agni-hotra and the like are not to be performed 
until death. For, it is held that even if these are performed, these will 
come to be destroyed (like other good works, as shown above). Who will 
concentrate his mind on something that is unnecessary ? 

Reply 
^Agni-hotra etc. are to be performed regularly. 

We reply : Agni-hotra and the like are to be performed until 
death "with a view to that effect", viz, knowledge.( 2 ) Thus, this is 
found in Scripture : "Him the Brahmanas desire to know by the 
recitation of the Veda, by sacrifice, charity, by austerity, by fasting" 
fBrh. 4. 4. 22.) and so on. Here 'recitation of the Vedas' means the 
repetition of the Vedas, i.e. repeated mutterings of the Veda-Mantras, 
which are the causes of the supreme knowledge that is a means to the 
attainment of the Supreme Lord, and which speak of the Supreme 
Spirit. 

Thus, in the Jabala Upanisad, it is said : "Then, the Brahmacarinas 
said : 'Tell us, Sir, through which kind of muttering ( can 
one attain ) immortality ?' He, Yajfiavalkya, said : 'Through the 
6ata-rudrlya. These are, verily, the names of the Immortal ; through 
these, verily, one becomes immortal'" ( Jabala 3 ). In the Kaivalya- 
Upanisad, it is said : "A Brahmana who daily reads the 6ata-rudriya, 
becomes purified by fire, he becomes purified by air, he becomes 
purified from ( the sin ) of drinking wine, he becomes purified ( from 



(1) See Br. Su. 4. 1. 12. 

(2) See Br. Su. 3. 4. 26. 

53 



4lS ^rikantha-Bhasya 4. 1. 16. 

the sin ) of murdering a Brahmana. One belonging to the last stage 
of life should mutter ( it ) always, or once, ( then ) he attains supreme 
knowledge which destroys mundane existence" (Kaivalya 24). From 
these, it is known that through the repetition of the Mantras ' sacred 
formulae ), called *6ata-rudrlya', which denote Brahman, there result 
destruction of mundane existence, the attainment of .supreme 
knowledge, and the destruction of sins opposed ^o it ( viz. knowledge ). 
From the text : "These, veiily, are the names of the Immortal", 
(Jabala 3.), it is known that the 6ata-rudriya being the name of 6iva, 
the Eternally Freed, the Immortal, there results the destruction of 
all sins through the muttering of the Sata-rudriya ; and hence, the 
repetition of the names of the Supreme Lord, such as, *&iva' etc. too, 
is the cause of the destruction of all the sins, opposed to knowledge. 
The very same thing is found in the Mundaka Upanisad too. 
Compare the text: "Verily, a Candala who utters the word { 6iva'~ one 
should talk with him, one should live with him, one should eat with him". 
From this, it is known that through the mere repetition of the supremely 
pure word *6iva', denoting Brahman, even a sinful man comes to 
attain supreme purity. In another place, beginning : "The Brahmana 
who daily reads the Atharva-Siras", the text goes on to point 
out that those who repeat it get rid of all sins ; and after that, 
demonstrates the fruit, viz. Salvation, thus : "Through repeating it 
once, one becomes pure in his acts. Through repeating it twice, he 
attains the state of Ganapati. Through repeating it thrice, he enters 
into God Himself ". In the text : "Having made the soul the upper wood 
and Pranava the lower wood" and so on, the repetition of the Pranava 
and the like is said to be the cause of the severance of the noose 
of mundane existence Thus, the same thing may be found in other 
places also. 

Hence, as it is known that the Vedic Mantras, denoting the 
Supreme Lord, bring about supreme knowledge by destroying sins, 
and thereby lead to salvation, so even a knower should repeat these 
as long as he lives. In the same manner, sacrifices, like the 
Agni-hotra and the rest, too, in which the fruits are dedicated to 
the Supreme Lord, being due to His command and being nothing 
but a kind of meditation on Him are to be performed repeatedly. 
The same is the case with charity and the like. Thus, "with a view to 
this effect", i. e. for the sake of attaining knowledge, even a knower should 
perform these Agui-hotra and the rest. In fact, the worship of the Lord 
consists in sacrificial acts, penance, muttering of prayers, and meditation. 
'Sacrificial works' mean Agni-hotra and the like ; 'penance' means restric- 
tion for withering away of the body ; 'muttering' means repetition of the 



Agni-hotra etc. are to be performed regularly 419 

above mentioned Pranava and the like all these bring about Salvation 
through the destruction of sins. Knowledge and meditation, on the other 
hand, are the direct (means to Salvation), as these lead one to attain the 
nature of Brahman. Hence, all these should be performed. 

Apprehending the objection : Good deeds like the Agni-hotra and 
the like, are meant for giving rise to knowledge. Other prior good, deeds 
besides these, are also destroyed at the first rise of knowledge. Hence, to 
what can the text : "His friends the good deeds" refer ? f 1 ) (the Author) 
replies : 

SUTRA 4. 1. 17. 

'Tor, (there are) also (good and bad deeds) other than these, (to 
which refer the text) of some, (these are works) of both (kinds)". 

There are good deeds, "other than" those good deeds, like Agni-hotra 
etc., which are meant for giving rise to knowledge. These (former) 
kinds of good deeds can produce results congenial to knowledge, such 
as, freedom from diseases, purity of the mind and the like, and so 
these are not destroyed even by knowledge. ( 8 ). But, their results have 
been obstructed by other stronger works. It is these works that are 
refered to by the texts of those who belong to the Schcfol of 6atyayana, 
viz : "His sons inherit his property, his friends the good deeds, his enemies 
the the bad deeds" (<). 

(1) There are two kinds of good deeds : (i) Agni-hotra etc. that 
produce knowledge, (ii) other good deeds besides these. The first are 
destroyed by producing their appropriate effect, viz. knowledge. The 
second are then destroyed on the rise of knowledge, as knowledge destroys 
all merits, too, as shown above in Br. Sii. 4.1.14. Hence, no good deeds are 
left which can go to the friends of the knower, as asserted by the above 
text. This is the Prima Facie View. 

(2) Certain good works produce knowledge and then are destroyed. 
Certain other good deeds produce results, quite in harmony with 
knowledge. Hence, these latter are not destroyed even after the rise of 
knowledge, although these, being opposed to Salvation, do come to be 
destroyed after death. (See Br. Su. 4. 1. 14.)' Now, the works which 
produce results, quite* in harmony with knowledge, are of two kinds : 
those that can produce their results without obstruction, and those that 
cannot do so. The first are destroyed by producing their respective 
results ; the second go to the friends of the knower after his death, and are 
destroyed by producing their own results there. 

(3) See Br. Su. 3.3.26. 



420 &rikairtha-Bhasya 4, 1. 19. 

vSUTRA 4, 1. IS. 
"Because 'what alons with knowledge' o ( captures declares)". 

The text : "What alone one does with knowledge that alone 
becomes mote potent" (Chand 1.1.10.), having pointed out that 'non- 
obstruction' of the results of works is the fruit of the Udgltha-nieditation, (*) 
reveals the existence, of other work the results of which are obstructed 
by other stronger works. The sense is that Agni-hotra and the rest are 
to be performed, also for removing these obstructions to the fruits of works 
th?t are congenial to knowledge. 

Here ends the Section Entitled "Agni-hotra and the Rest" (12). 



Adhikarana 13 : The Section entitled 'The Destruction of Other* 
(Sutra 19). 

SUTRA 4. 1. 19. 

"But having destroyed, the other two by enjoyment, then (he) 
attains (Brahman)' 

On the doubt as to whether those knowers who have been entrusted 
with certain offices, ( s ) can have any other fruit besides these, viz. 
Salvation, or not. 

Frima Facie View 

If it be said : If they are admitted to have many re-births for 
undergoing the fruits of those works which have already begun to 
fructify, then their prior knowledge will come to disappear ; and hence 
what works they do will come to bring about retributive experiencing of 
their fruits ( and thereby, re-birth ). Hence, there being a succession of 
births and re-births, they cannot attain Salvation. 

Reply 

Thoie also who. have been entrusted with certain 
Offices can be Free. 

We reply : A work that has begun to fructify can lead only to the 
retributive experiencing of its own result. But such works cannot cause 
the disappearance of the knowledge gained in a previous life. Hence, they 



(1) See Br. Su. 3.3.41. 

(2) See Br. Su. 3.3.31. 



Those entrusted with certain offices can be Free 421 

do attain Salvation. They are not subject to an endless succession of 
births and re-births, there being no cause for that. Just like the interval 
of deep dreamless sleep, the interval of another life, too, does not cause 
the disappearance of knowledge , f ). 



Here ends the Section entitled "The Destruction of Others" ( 3) 



Here ends the First Quarter of the Fourth Chapter of the Com- 
mentary on the BrahTia^Mimamsa, composed by the revereni Sai*a 
Teacher Srikantha. 



[ According to Srikantha, the First Quarter of the Fourth Chapter 
contains 19 Sutras and 13 Adhikaranas]. 



(1) When a knower falls asleep, he does not lose his knowledge. In 
the same manner, those entrusted with certain offices have to be reborn, 
no doubt, but they do not lose their already attained knowledge 
thereby. 



FOURTH CHAPTER (AdhySya) 
Second Quarter ( Pada ) 

Adhikarana 31 : 1 he Section entitled, 'The Merging of Speech" 

( Sutras 1 2 ). 

SUTRA 4. 2. 1. 

"Speech in the mind, on account of Observation and on account of 
Scriptural text". 

SUTRA 4. 2. 2. 
"And, for there very reason, all after ( speech )". 

The procedures etc of the meditation of a worshipper have been 
stated above In this Quarter, the way of his departure from the body is 
being determined. From the Scriptural text : "Of this person, my 
dear, who has departed, speech merges in the mind, the mind in the 
vital-breath, the vital-breath in fire, fire in the Highest Divinity ( Chand. 
6.8.6. ), it is known that speech and the rest of one who has departed 
( from the body ) merge in the mind. The doubt is as to whether that is 
reasonable, or not. What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : An effect can merge only in its material cause, 
as in the case of an earthen jar. The material cause of speech and the 
rest is Brahman, not the mind Hence, it stands to reason that these 
should merge in Him only. 

Reply 
At the time of Departure, the sense-organs merge in the Mind. 

We reply : In accordance with the texts : "Of this person, my 
dear, who has departed, speech merges in the mind" ( Chand. 6. 8. 6. ) 
''Therefore, one whose heat has ceased, goes to re-birth with his sense- 
organs merged in the mind" ( Prasna 3 9. 2. ), it follows that when one has 
departed (from the body), speech and the rest cease to function even before 
the mind does so. For this reason, speech merges* in the mind first. 
After that, all other sense-organs merge in the mind. 

Your view that merging is possible only into the material cause, is 
wrong. , When there is the merging of the thing itself, then alone that 
can take place in the material cause only. But, we do not hold 



The Function of the Mind merges in the Vital-breath 423 

that speech and the rest themselves become merged into the mind, but that 
their functions only do so. Just as, when a piece of burning coal is thrown 
into water, its functions, like illuminating and the like, become merged 
(i. e. disappear), so the merging of the functions of speech and the rest, 
in the mind, though not their material cause, stands to reason. The 
Scriptural text denoting the merging of speech and the rest having 
certain functions, really implies the merging of their functions, for, 
functions and the object having those functions are taken to be identical. 

Here ends the Section entitle^ : "The Mergirg of Speech" (I). 



Adhikarana 2 : Tre Section entitled "The Merging of the Mind" 
(Sutra 3). 

SUTRA 4. 2. 3 

Th<vt mind in the vital-breath, on account of what is subsequent". 

The doubt is : Of what kind is the merging of the mind, connected 
with all the sense-organs, like speech etc., into the vital-breath, as 
declared by the Scriptural text : "The mind in the vital-l>reath 
(Chand. 6. 8. 6.) ? 

Prima Facie View 

Let there be the merging of the functions of speech etc. in the mind, 
although it is not their material cause. But there must be merging of 
the mind itself into the vital-breath, as the latter is the material cause of 
the former. In accordance with the Scriptural text : "The mind, my 
deal, consists of food ; the vital-breath, of water" (Chand. 6.5.4.), the 
mind which is of an earthly nature consisting, as it docs, of food, may 
very well, without giving rise to any contradiction, itself merge into the 
vital-breath which is its material cause, consisting, as it does, of water. 

This is the Prima Facie View. 

Reply 

The Function of the Mind merges in the Vital-breath. 

But the Correct Conclusion is as follows : As in previous cases, 
so here, too it is the function of the mind that becomes merged 
in the vital-breath, and not the mind itself, in accordance with the 
subsequent Scriptural text : "The mind in the vital-breath" (Chand. 6.8.6.) 
For, as the vital-breath is not the main material cause of the mind, 
so the merging of the mind itself in it is inappropriate. Hence, it 
stands to reason that there is the merging of the function alone of the 
the mind in the vital-breath. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Merging of the Mind' (2). 



Adhikarana 3 : 1 he Section entitled, 'The Merging of the Vital- 
breath". (Sutras 46). 

SUTRA 4. 2. 4. 
"That with the ruler, on account of its approach and so on". 

It has been established above that the mind, connected with all the 
sense-organs, merges into the vital-breath. Here, the doubt is : To where 
does the vital-breath merge ? What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : In accordance with the Scriptnrel text : "The vital- 
breath into the fire" (Chand. 6.8.6.), the vital-breath merges into the lire - 

Reply 
The vital-breath is united with the Jiva. 

We reply : The vital-breath, then, comes to be united "with the ruler", 
i. e. with the individual soul. it does not merge into the fire. For, from 
the Scriptural text : "So do all vital-breaths approach together the soul 
at the time of death" (Brh. 4. 3. 38.), it is known that it (viz. the vital- 
breath) goes to the individual soul. 

(The Author) points out that the Scriptural order : "The vital-breath 
into the fire" (Chand. 6. 6.) does not involve any contradiction. 

SUTRA 4. 2. 5. 

"In the elements, on account of the Scriptural dec'aration to that 
effect." 

In the text : "The vital-breath into fire" ( Chand. 6. 8, 6. ), it is fire, 
connected with other elements, that is meant. Hence, to say that the 
vital-breath becomes united with the elements together with the individual 
soul, does not involve any contradiction. 

SUTRA 4. 2. 6. 
"Not in one, for, ( Scripture and Smrti ) show". 

The vital-breath does not merge in the fire alone. For, the Scriptural 
text about tripartition (*). shows that ( fire ) is connected with other 
elements. Hence, the view that the vital-breath becomes merged into 
the elements together with the individual soul, does not contradict 
Scripture. 

Here ends the Section entitled "The Merging of the Vital-br ath" (3). 



(1) Cf. Chand. 6. 1.3. 



Adhikarana 4 : The Section entitled "Beginning of the Path* 
( Sutra 7 ). 

SUTRA 4. 2. 7. 

"And, same up to the beginning of the path, and the ( knower 
attains ) immortality without having burnt/' 

Here, the doubt is as to whether up to the beginning of the Path 
beginning with light, the mode of departure, as determined above, is the 
same for a knower and a uon-knower. What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said: As the fruit, viz. 'salvation', is absolutely different 
from the fruit, viz., 'mundane existence', so the modes of departure of a 
knower and a non-knower must be different 

Keply 
In the beginning-, the mode of Departure is the same. 

We reply : Up to the beginning of the Path beginning with Light, 
the mode of departure is the very same in the case of both a knower 
and a non-knower. After that, of course, there is a difference, viz. 
that the knowers alone come out through the vein that passes out of the 
crown of the head, and attain immortality, but riot others (*). in 
accordance with the Scriptural text : "There are a hundred and one 
veins of the heart. Of these, one goes out through the crown of the 
head. Going up through it, one goes to immortality. The others are 
for departing in other directions" ( Chand. 8. 6. 6. ). Hence, before 
actually coming out ( of the body ), the mode of departure is, indeed, 
the same ( in the case of both the knowers and the non-knowers \ 

Here ends the Section entitled, "The Beginning of the Path" (-). 

(1) When a person dies, whether he be a knower or a non-knower, 
first the function of his speech is merged in the mind, and then the 
functions of other sense-organs do so. Then, the function of the mind is 
merged into the vital-breath. After that, the vital-breath is connected 
with the soul and the soul with the elements. Then, the soul actually 
leaves the body to follow a particular Path. Now, prior to actually leaving 
the body and following a Path, the same thing, as noted above, happens to 
knowers and nou-knowers alike. But after that, there is a difference. A 
knower leaves the body through the vein which passes through the crown 
of the head, while a non-knower does so through other outlets, like the 
eye etc. Again, a knower goes through the Path of Gods , a non-knower 
through the Path of Fathers, if he be a pious worker. See below 
Br. Su. 4. 2. 16. 

54 



Adhikarana 5 : The Section entitled, 'That up till Fntering" 
(Sutras 813), 

SUTRA 4. 2. 8, 

"That, on account of the Designation of transmigratory existence 
up till entering". 

It has been established above that a knower departs (from the body) 
by means of the vein that passes through the crown of the head ; then 
it goes through the Path beginning with Light. Here, the doubt is as to 
whether such a Path beginning with Light is possible in the case of the 
knower who has departed from the body, or not, 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : In the Scriptural text : "When all the desires which 
abide in the heart are loosened, then a mortal becomes immortal, therein 
he reaches Brahman" (Brh. 4. 4. 7.), it is declared that (a knower) attains 
immortality immediately after the fall of the body. In that Scriptural text : 
"They reach light" (Chand. 4. 15. 5.), it is declared that (the knowers) go 
through the Path beginning with light. The doubt arises from these two 
kinds of text. If it be said : As it is impossible that speech and the rest 
that have become merged into Brahman can arise again, so a freed soul 
cannot go (through any Path), ( l ) and thus, the Path beginning with 
Light cannot belong to the freed souls 

Reply 
Knowers go through the Path beginning with Light. 

We poin-t out the Correct Conclusion. As it is designated that 
before (the knower) attains Brahman through the Path beginning with 
Light, he remains connected with the body, so there cannot be any 
cessation of mundane existence (prior to that). The above text about 
immortality (Brh. 4. 4. 7.) simply means immortality that he is going to 
to attain soon. Hence, the Path beginning with Light is quite 
appropriate in the case of (a knower) who has come out of the body. 

To the yiew that as speech etc. (of a knower) merge (into Brahman), 
so he cannot go (through any Path) (the Author) replies : 



(1) Journeying through a path is impossible without a body, sense- 
organs etc. Here, a knower's body with its sense-organs become merged in 
Brahman. So, how can hejravel ? 



Knowers go through the Path beginning with Light 



427 



SUTRA 4. 2. 9. 

"And, the subtle (body persists), because thus it is known from 
proof", 

The subtle body of even one, who has come out of the body, persists. 
For, otherwise, the going (of the soul), as well as its dialogue with the 
moon and the like would become impossible. Thus, in the Paryanka- 
Vidya, there is the mention of a dialogue between a knower and the moon 
on the Path of Gods. Thus, beginning : "Those who, verily, depart from 
this world to the moon only would they all go" (Kaus. 1. 2.), the text goes 
on : "This, verily, is the door of the Heavenly world that is, the moon. 
Whoever answers it, him it lets go further. But whoever answers it not, 
him having become rain, it rains down here. Either as a worm, or as a 
moth, or as a bird, or as a tiger, or as a lion, or as a fish, or as a snake, or 
as a person, or as some other in this or that condition, he is born again 
here again according to his deeds, according to his knowledge. When he 
comes there, it asks him : 'Who are you ?' He should reply" (Kaus. 1. 2.) 
and so on. 

Hence, such a journeying through the Path beginning with light 
is quite appropriate on the part of a knower who has come out of the 
body. 

SUTRA 4. 2. 10. 

' 'Hence, not (the immortality that takes place) through the 
destruction (of the body)". 

Hence, in accordance with the above principle, the text about 
immortality, viz. "Then a mortal becomes immortal" (Brh. 4.4.7.) does not 
speak of the immortality which takes place then and there "through tho 
destruction" of one's connection with the body. 

SUTRA 4. 2. 11. 

"And, of this alone (is) the warmth, on account of appropriateness/ 7 

"And'', it being quite appropriate that this, viz. the subtle body, 
should continue to exist sometimes, (the immortality refered to above) is 
not that takes place through its destruction. For, sometimes, even a 
knower who is departing from the body is found to possess warmth which 
is an attribute of the subtle body. This (warmih) is not an attribute of 
the gross body, for, it is not found in other cases. For this reason, too, 
the going (of a knower) is quite appropriate. 

SUTRA 4. 2. 12. 

"If it be objected that on account of denial, (we reply :) no, (that 
refers to the going out of the sense-organs) from the embodied soul, for, 
(the text) of some (makes this clear)." 



428 Srikastha-Bhasya 4. 2. 13. 

Prima Facie View 

If it be objected : In the Brhadaraiiyaka, having designated the mode 
of departure of the non-knower thus : "For, the tip of his heart is lighted 
up. By that light, this soul goes out, either through the eye, or through 
any other part of the body. It going out, the vital-breath goes out 
after it ; the vital-breath going out, all the sense-organs go out 
after it" ( Brh. 4 4. 2. ), having finished the topic of the non-knower 
thus : "So the man who desires" (Brh. 4. 4. 6.), the text, then, goes on 
on to deny the departure of the knower ( from the body ), and thereby, 
declare that he directly attains Brahman, even here and now, thus : 
"Now, the man does not desire. he who is without desire, who is 
freed from desire, whose desire is .satisfied, whose desire is the Soul his 
sense-organs do not depart. Being Brahman Himsief, he goes to Brahman" 
(Brh. 4. 4. 6 A 



Reply 
The Knowers also depart from the body. 

We reply : "No". For, the text : "His sense-organs do not go out" 
(Brh, 4.4.6.) points out that sense-organs of a knower, who is leaving the 
body for going through the Path beginning with Light, do not become 
separate from him. This is clearly stated in the Branch of the 
Madhyandinas, thus : "He who is without desire, who is free from desire, 
who has attained his desires from him the sense-organs do not depart" 
(6at. Br. 14. 7. 2, 8.). 

SUTRA 4. 2. 13. 
"And (it is) declared by Smrti". 

This going of a kuower through the vein, that passes out of the 
crown of the head, is declared by Smrti thus : "Of them, there is one that 
is situated above, penetrating the disc of the sun. Having passed the 
world of Brahman, one goes to a Supreme Place through it" (Yaj. Sm. 
3. 167.). Hence, such a going through the Path beginning with Light is, 
indeed, appropriate on the part of a knower who has departed (from the 
body). 

Some hold that those who worship (Brahman) as devoid of all 
differences, (*). attain Salvation here and now immediately after the fall 



(1) Nirvisesa. See Br. Su. 4. 3. 1. 



The Jivas do not become identical with Brahman 429 

of the body ( l ), and so there is no fixed rule that every one should go 
through the Path beginning with Light. 

Here ends the Section entitled That Up till Entering" (5) 



Adhikarana 6 : The Section entitled, "Merging in the Highest" 
(Sutras 1415). 

SUTRA 4. 2. 14. 
"1 hose in the Highest, for thus (Scripture) Bays". 

It has been established above that the individual soul, together 
with the vital-breath, becomes merged in the elements, metaphorically 
implied by the word 'fire'. From the text : "Fire in the Highest 
Divinity" (ChSnd. 6. 8. 6.), it is known that fire, connected with other 
elements and with the soul, merges into the Highest Divinity. The 
doubt is as to whether it loses its very nature in the Supreme Brahman, 
or simply becomes non-distinct from Him. 

Prima Facie View 

It loses its very nature that alone is reasonable. Thus, the phrase 
'Highest Divinity' means the 'Great God' (Mahadeva). In the Scriptural 
text : "That Divinity preceived" (Chaud. 6. 3. 2.). "The One God, 
creating Heaven and earth" (6 vet. 3. 3.), the same Great God is declared 
to be the Supreme Brahman, the Cause of all things. Hence, it is 
appropriate to hold that the elements, together with the individual soul, 
come to lose their very nature in Him, the Material Cause. This is the 
Prima Facie View. 

Reply 
The Jivas do not become identical with Brahman 

But the Correct Conclusion is as follows : They do not lose their own 
nature in Brahman, even though He is their Material Cause ; but only 
become non-distinct from Him. For, there is no evidence that the very 
same word 'merging', as mentioned in the text : "Speech merges into 
mind" (Chand, 6 8. 6.), has a different meaning (in this case). Hence, as in 
the case of the mind, so here, too. (the text) speaks of the merging of 
functions only ( 2 ). 

(1) See Br."Sfl. L 3. 8. 

(2) i. e. in all the previous cases, the word 'merges' means not the 
merging of the thing itself, but only of its functions, (See Br. Su. 4.2 l.ff.). 
So, it must mean the same thing here also. That, is, the soul does not 



430 6nkantha-Bhasya 4. 2. 16. 

SUTRA 4. 2. 15. 
"Non-division, on account of declaration". 

On account of the text about merging, it is indeed proper that the 
elements come to be only 'non-divided' from Brahman. 

Here ends the Section entitled " Merging into the Highest" (6). 



Adhikarai?a 7 : The Section entitled, "The Ferepart of His 
Abode" (Sutra 16). 

SUTRA 4. 2. 16. 

'\There is) lighting up of the forepart of the abode, with the door 
ravealed by Him (viz. the Lord), through the might of knowledge and 
through the application of remembrance of the Path which is a 
supplementary part of that ( viz. knowledge ), ( the knower ), favoured 
by one who dwells in the heart, (departs) through the hundred and first 
(vein)". 

It has been proved above (*) that up to the beginning of the Path 
beginning with Light, the modes of the departure of a knower and a non- 
knower are one and the same. Now, it is being discussed whether there is 
any distinction between them at the time of departure (from the body). 

Prima Facie View 

In accordance with the Scriptural text : 'Tire into the Highest 
Divinity" (Chand. 6. 8. 6.), both a knower and a non-knower, 
together with the elements, merge into the Supreme Brahman, the 
Supreme Cause, the Supreme God of the form of the Supreme Ether, 
and having rested in Him as non-distinct for a moment, abide in Him. 
Hence, the modes of their departure are the same. For Scripture 
declares that there being the lighting up of the tips of their hearts (in 
both the cases), their modes of departure are the same. Compare the text : 
"For, the tip of his heart is lighted up. By that light, this soul goes 
out, either through the eye, or through the head, or through any other 
part of the body" (Brh. 4. 4. 2.). Hence, this being the same, the modes 
of their departure (from the body), too, must be the same. This is the 
Prima Facie View. 



become absolutely identical with Brahman, losing its own nature ; but 
only loses its separate functions, retaining its own personality. 
(1) Br. StU 3.3. 7. 



The modes of Departure of Knowers and Non-knowers are different 431 

Reply 
The Modes of Departure of knowers and non-knowers are different 

We state the Correct Conclusion : 

Thus, through the might of the Vidya which consists in the 
worship of the Supreme Lord, as well as through meditation on the 
Path which is a subsidiary part of this (Vidya), He, the Favourer of all, 
becomes pleased, and looks upon the knower with favour, which destroys 
all his sins that so long concealed His real nature from him. Then, he 
"with the door revealed" by His grace, comes out through the hundred 
first vein that passes through the crown of the head. Others do not 
do so, but come out through other veins. There is a Scriptural text to 
this effect: "There are a hundred and one veins of the heart. Of these, 
one passes out of the crown of the head. Going up by it, one goes to 
immortality, others are for departing in other directions" (Chand. 8. 6. 6.). 
This is the difference in the departure of a knower. 

What is meant here is this : From the Scriptural text : "Rudra 
abides in the hearts of men, in the heart-lotus, stainless, pure", as well 
as from the Smrti text : "The Lord, abides in the hearts of all, O Arjuua P 
(Gita 18. 61.) and so on, it is known that the Supreme Lord abides in 
the hearts of all. During deep dreamless sleep, the individual soul 
merges into Him together with functions of its own sense-organs, and 
becomes one with Him. From the Scriptural texts : "Superior to the 
universe is Rudra, the Great Seer" (6 vet. 3. 4. ; 4. 12. ; Mahauar. 10. 3.), 
"All, verily, is Rudra" (Mahanar. 13. 2.) and so on, it is known that He 
is superior to the universe as its Efficient Cause, but is its soul as its 
Material Cause. From the Scriptural text : "Rudra, verily, is one, 
they stand not for a second" (6 vet. 3. 2.), it is known that He is the Lord 
of the universe. From the Scriptural texts : "6iva alone is to be 
meditated on" ( 6ikha2. ) "When men shall roll up the ether as if it 
were a piece of leather" ( 6 vet. 6. 20. ) and so on, it is known that besides 
Him, no other object is to be worshipped by one who desires Salvation. 
In the text : "Now, when the vital-breaths of this beast ( viz. the 
individual soul ) goes out, Rudra, Taraka-Brahmau. spoke ( to it ), through 
which, it, becoming immortal, attains salvation" ( Jabala 1. ), it is said 
that Taraka- Brahman is an Instructor, revealing His own nature ( to the 
soul ). In the text : "To your King", ( the Lord ) is described to be the 
Lord of all sacrifices, being the object to be meditated on in them all. In 
the text : "Give us attendants. I hear that you are the best among the 
physicians", ( the Lord ) is established to be the Best Physician of the 
malady of mundance existence. In the text : "But, know Prakrti 
( Primal Matter ) to be an illusion, and the Great Lord the Illusion-- 



432 6nkai?tha-Bhasya 4. 2. 19. 

producer" ( 6vet. 4. 10. ) it is proved that the Supreme Power, called 
'Maya' manifested in this vast and variegated universe, is the form and 
a part of the Lord. 

At the time of the soul's departure from the body, that very Lord 
the Supreme Brahman abiding in the hearj; ( of the individual soul ), the 
Supreme Lord, supremely auspicious in nature, the Husband of Uma, the 
Supreme Soul being pleased, looks, with a favourable glance that removes 
the stain of mundane blemishes, at the devotee who regularly performs 
sacrificial acts, like Agni-hotra and the rest, that are enjoined in 
Scriptures embodying His own commands, and are nothing but a kind 
of His own worship ; who is free from the slightest vestige of prohibited 
works ; who has dedicated all fruits of works to Him alone ; who is 
completely under His control ; who is filled with the nectar of knowledge 
regarding Himself ; who is devoid of all desires for selfish fruits ; who 
is endowed with discrimination and the rest ; who is devoted to Him 
alone ; who desires for his favour ; and who possesses knowledge. Through 
His special grace, such a devotee, free from the blemishes of mundane 
existence, conies out through the vein, passing out of the ci own of the 
head, which comes to be lighted up ; attains His Supreme Place, 
nonmaterial and Supreme Bliss in nature ; becomes of His form ; and 
comes to be Eternal and Supreme Bliss in nature. Hence, it stands to 
reason that there does exist a difference between the going of a knower 
and that of a non-knower. 

Here ends the Section entitled : "The Forepart of His Abode' (7) 



Adhikarana 8 : The Section entitled "Following the Rays'. 
(Sutras 1718) 

SUTRA 4. 2. 19. 
"Following the rays/' 

It has been said above that a devotee, who is favoured by the 
Supreme Lord abiding in his heart, comes ont of the vein that passes out 
of the crown of the head. The doubt is as to whether the going up-ward 
of one who has come out, is possible during the day as well as the night. 
What follows'here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : From the Scriptural text : "Now, when he departs 
from this body, then through those very rays he goes up" (Chand. 8. 6.5.) 



The Knowers can depart at any time 433 

it is known that one who has come out ( of the body ) goes upward through 
the rays. This is possible only during the day, and never at night. 

Reply 
The Knowers can depart at all times. 

We reply : It is true that a knower who has come out goes up 
through the rays. But that is possible during the day as well as .during 
night, For, in summer, the fact that we experience heat also at night 
shows that the rays are present even the^ 1 ). Hence, it is established 
that whether during day or during night, (a kuower) goes up by following 
the rays. 

Apprehending an objection, the Author disposes of it : - 
SUTRA 4. 2. 18. 

"If it be objected that during night, not, ( we reply : ) no ; on 
account of the relation lasting till the body does, and ( Scripture ) 
shows". 

Prima Facie View 

If it be objected : It has been said that even one who dies during 
night attains Brahman through the rays. This is not possible. For, the 
text : "Day, the bright fortnight and the six months of the northern 
progress of the sun are excellent for those who are about to die. 
But the contrary times are condemnable", condemns dying during night- 
Reply 
The Knowers can depart at any time. 

We reply: "No". For, the bondage of mundane existence lasts only 
so long as knowledge has not arisen, Further, through knowledge, 
works, which cause bondage, are destroyed, provided these have not 
yet begun to fructify ; and those works too, which have already begun to 
produce fruits, last only so long as the final body does. Hence, after 
the cessation of the final body, such works, too, come to be destroyed ; and 
after that, there are no causes to prevent him from attaining Brahman. 
Scripture "shows" this thus : "For him there is delay only so long as he 
is not free. Then he will attain Brahman" (Chand. 6, 14. 2.). The 
condemnation of dying at night, on the other hand, holds good in the 
case of other previous persons ( viz. non-knowers ). Hence, there is no 
contradiction in holding that even one who dies at night attains Brahman. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Following Rays" (8). 

(1) ^atnkara, Rama^uja and Ninibarka point out here that during^ 

winter, no heat is experienced at night, because it is over-powered 

by frost. 
55 



Adhikarana 5 : The Section entitled "The Southern Progress oi 
the Sun" ( Sutras 1920 ). 

SUTRA 4. 2. 19. 
4 'And, hence during the southern progress of the sun, too." 

For, this very reason, i. e. because there is no further cause foi 
bondage, a knower who dies during the southern progress of the sun, too, 
does attain Brahman. 

SUTRA 4. 2. 20. 

"Declared by Smrti to the ascetics, and these two are to be 
remembered'*. 

This Aphorism disposes of the following doubt : 

Prima Facie View 

If it be objected : The Smrti text : "At what time the ascetics 
departing return not, and also when they return, that time I shall 
tell you, O best of the Brahmana. Fire, light, the day, the bright 
fortnight, the six months of the northern progress of the sun departing 
there the knowers of Brahman go to Brahman. Smoke, the night, 
likewise the dark fortnight, the six months of the southern progress 
of the sun the ascetics departing there, having attained the light of the 
moon, return. The white and the dark these two are thought to 
be the eternal Paths of the world. By the one, one goes who returns 
not ; by the other, he returns again" (GIta. 8. 23 26), mentions special 
times of death as causing the non-return or the return of even a 
knower who is about to die. Hence, it is unreasonable to say that the 
condemnation of death during night and the southern progress of 
the sun holds good only in the case of non-knowers. 

Reply 
The Knower 8 always attain Brahman. 

We reply : The knowers follow the Path beginning with Light ; 
others follow an opposite Path. Hence, the two Paths, called the 
'Path of Gods' and the 'Path of Fathers', have been declared by Smrti, 
to the ascetic* as something to be remembered every day as a subsidiary 
part of Yoga, thus ; "At what time the ascetics departing return 
not" (GIta 8. 23.) and so on. But, here, Smrti does not declare a special 
time for the death of an ascetic. For, the concluding portion of the 
text states : "Knowing these two Paths, O Paftfca, an ascetic is never 
deluded. Hence, at all times, practise Yoga, O Arjuna", (GIta 8. 27.). 



The Knowers always attain Brahman 435 

Further, in the verses : "Light" (Gita 8.24.), "Smoke, the night" (Gita 8.25.), 
the Path of Gods and the Path of Fathers can be recognised 
respectively. The word 'time' in the texts : *At what time the ascetics 
departing return not" (Gita 8. 23.) means the presiding deities of timeC 1 ). 
Hence, a knower who attains Brahman, is not prohibited to die during 
the night, the southern progress of the sun and the dark fortnight. 
As soon as he gets rid of the body, he attains Brahman. 



Here ends the Section entitled "The Southern Progress of the 
Sun" (9). 



Here ends the Second Quarter of the Fourth Chapter of the 
Commentary on the Brahma- Mimamsa, composed by the revered Saiva 
Teacher Srikantha. 



[ The Second Quarter of the Fourth Chapter contains 20 Sutras 
and 9 Adhikaranas ]. 



(1) See Br. Su. 4. 3. 4. 



FOURTH CHAPTER ( AdhySya ) 
Third Quarter ( Pada ) 

Adhiarana 31 : The Section entitled, "Beginning with Light" 
(Sutra 1). 

SUTRA 4. 3, 1. 
'Through ( the Path ) beginning with light, that being celebrated." 

It has been said above that when the door is revealed to a knower 
through the grace of the Supreme Lord, abiding in his heart, he comes 
out of the body by the vein that passes out through the crown of the head. 
Now, here, first, it is being discussed as to whether such a person attains 
Brahman, only through the Path beginning with Light, or through 
something else. 

Priroa Facie View 

If it be said : From the text : "Piercing the head at the point 
where there is the edge of the hair, with the word Bhur, he stands upon 
Fire ; with the word Bhuvas, upon Air ; with the word Suvar, upon Sun ; 
with the word Mahas, upon Brahman. He obtains self-rule" ( Tait. 1.6.1.), 
it is known that in order that one may attain Brahman, there are other 
Paths, too, besides the Path beginning with Light. Hence, there is no 
fixed rule that in order to attain Brahman one must go only through the 
Path beginning with Light. 

Reply 
The Path beginning with Light alone can lead to Brahman. 

We reply : A knower attains Brahman only through the Path 
beginning with Light. For, in the Doctrine of Five Fires, ( l ), The Path 
beginning with Light alone Is celebrated to be leading to Brahman, thus : 
"They reach light ( Chsnd. 4. 15. 5. ) and so on. In the text : "With 
the word Bhur, he stands upon fire" ( Tait. 1.6.1. ) and so on, the Path to 
attaining Brahman is not mentioned, but only the Path to attaining 
those respective super-human powers, Hence, the attainment of the 
Highest Being is possible only through the Path beginning with Light. 

Some hold that those who worship Brahman devoid of all differences 
do not go through the Path beginning with Light. 

Here ends the Section entitled "Beginning with Light" (1). 

1. See Br. Su. 3.1.1. 



Adhikarana 2 : The Section entitled, "The Air" ( Sutra 2 ). 

SUTRA 4. 3, 2. 

"(The knower goes ) to the air from the year, on account of non- 
specification and specification. 

Prima Facie View 

The doubt is as to whether in the order of the successive stages of 
the Path beginning with Light, as mentioned in this Scripture ( viz. 
the Chandogya, ), the order mentioned in another Scripture. ( viz. 
Brhadaranyaka) is to be inserted, or that order only is to be accepted. 

The order of the different stages in the Path beginning with Light 
is as follows, as mentioned in the Chandogya : "They reach light ; from 
light, the day ; from the day, the waxing fortnight ; from the waxing 
fortnight, the six months when the sun moves to the north ; from these 
months, the year ; from the year, the sun ; from the sun, the moon ; from 
the moon, the lightning. Then, there is a Person, a non-mortal. He leads 
them to Brahman" (Chand. 4.15.5 6). In the ByhadSra^yaka, it is said : 
"When, verily, a person departs from this world, he comes to the air. 
There it makes way for him like the hole of a chariot-wheel. Through it, 
he ascends higher up. He comes to the sun. There it makes way for him 
like the hole of a drum. Through it, he ascends higher up. He conies 
to the moon. There it makes way for him like the hole of a kettle-drum. 
Through it, he ascends higher up. He comes to the world that is without 
sorrow, without frost" ( Brh. 5.10.1. ), Here the 'air' is mentioned in 
between the 'year 5 and the 'sun*. 

Prima Facie View 

On the doubt as to whether that ( viz. the 'air* ) is to be inserted 
there, or not if it be said : It is not to be so inserted, as it is not 
mentioned there 

Reply 
The Orders of Different Scriptures are to be combined. 

We reply : According to the maxim that the details of the same 
Vidya, mentioned in different Scriptures, are to be mutually transposed and 
combined^), the 'air' is to be inserted after the 'year' and before the 'sun', 
In the Bfhadaranyaka itself, in another place, viz. "From the months, the 

1. See Br. Sfl. 3.3.5. 



438 6rikantha-Bhasya 4. 3. 2. 

world of gods; from the world of gods, the sun" (Brh. 6.2.15.) (J)., the 
order of the Path beginning with Light is mentioned. Hence, the 'Year', 
being a longer period than the 'month*, is to be inserted from the 
Chandogya text. After that, 'the world of god' has been mentioned, and 
this, too, means the 'air'. The compound 'the world of gods' ( Devaloka ) 
etymologically means : 'the world belonging to the gods'( s ), and thus 
it denotes the 'air' non-specifically or in a general manner. Again, 
the word 'air* itself ( as mentioned in Brh. 5. 10. 1.) 'specifically denotes 
the 'air'. "On account of non-specification and specification" of this 
kind, the words 'world of gods' and 'air' mean the very same air, 
It is declared in Scripture : "The air is the seat of the gods." "The 
air is the house of the gods"( f ). 

Here ends the Section entitled : "The Air" (2). 



(1) Compare the text : "Those who know this thus and those who 
meditate on faith and truth in the forest, reach light ; from light, the day ; 
from the day, the waxing fortnight; from the waxing fortnight, the six 
months when the sun moves to the north ; from the months, the world 
of gods ; from the world of gods, the sun ; from the sun, lightning. A 
person consisting of mind comes and leads those who have reached 
lighting to the world of Brahman" ( Brh. 6.2.15. ). 

(2) The air is the dwelling place of the gods. 

(3) Here, the order of the successive stages of the Path beginning 
with Light is determined. The Author takes into account three different 
statements about it and tries to reconcile these. 

(i) The order mentioned in Chand. 4. 15. 5 6. is light, day, 
bright fortnight, six months of the northern progress of the sun, year, 
sun, moon, lightning. 

(ii) The order mentioned in Brh. 5. 10. 1. is : air, sun, moon. 

(iii) The order mentioned in Brh. 6. 2. 15. is : light, day, bright 

fortnight, six months of the northern progress of the sun, world of 
gods, sun, lightning. 

Here 'air' is mentioned in (ii), but not int (i), while in (iii) 'the 
world of gods' means the 'wind*. Again, 'year' is mentioned in (i), 
but not in (ii) and (iii). 'Moon', is mentioned in (i) and (ii), but not 
in (iii). 'lyight', 'day' etc. are mentioned in (i) and (iii), but not in (ii). 

Now, combining all these three, we get the order : light, day, 
bright fortnight, six months of the northern progress of the sun, year, 
air, sun, moon lightning. For the rest, see next Sutra Br. Sft. 4. 3. 3. 



Adhikarana 3 : The Sectioa entitled : 'Lightning ( Sutra 3 ). 

SUTRA 4. 3. 3. 
"Above lightning, Varuna, on account of connection". 

In the Upanisad of the Kausitakinas, it is said, : "Having reached 
this Path of Gods, he comes to the world of Fire, to the world of 
Air, to the world of Varuna, to the world of the Sun, to the world 
of Indra, to the world of Prajapati, to the world of Brahman" (Kaus. 1. 3.). 
Here, as the compound 'the world of fire' means 'light', there is no 
contradiction in taking it to be the first ( in the series ). The 'air' 
and the 'sun' are to be placed after the 'year', as, otherwise the order 
mentioned here would be in conflict with the order of sequence established 
in another Scripture^). Here, 'the world ol Varuna' and the rest are 
mentioned. 

Prima Facie View 

On the doubt as to whether these are to be inserted in the Path 
beginning with Light, or notIf it be said : There being no fixed 
rule or evidence for that, these cannot be so inserted. 

Reply 
Varuna etc. are to be inserted. 

We reply : "Varuna" and the rest, too, should be inserted here. 
On account of the connection between lightning and Varuna, it is 
proper that the world of Varuna is to be placed above the world of 
lightning. The relation between lightning and Varuiia is due to the 
fact that Varuna is celebrated to be the Lord of water which is due 
to rain, preceded by lightning. After that, the worlds of Indra and 
Prajapati, the only ones left over, are to be inserted. Thus, no 
contradiction is involved here( 2 ). 



Here ends the Section entitled : "Lightning" (3). 



(1) See Br. Su. 4. 3. 3. 

(2) Thus, finally, we get the following order : light, day, bright 
fortnight, six months of the northern progress of the sun, year, air, sun, 
moon, lightning, world of Varuna, world of Indra, world of Prajapati, 
world of Brahmaa. 



Adhikaraija 5 : The Section entitled: "The Conductor*" (Sutras 

45). 

SUTRA 4. 3. 4. 
"*he conductors, on account of the indicatory mark of that". 

The doubt is as to whether these 'light' and the rest are merely 
different places, signs indicating the road, or whether they are certain 
divinities conducting the knowers. What follows here ? 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : These are but different places, for such signs do exist. 
In ordinary life, e. g. people indicate (the road to some one) thus : "Having 
emerged from the village, having gone towards the river, after that you 
can reach the village of the milkmen". The same is the case wich 'light' 
and the rest. 

Reply 
Light and the rest are Divinites. 

We reply : %ight' and the rest are certain divinities, i. e. the 
presiding deities of 'light' etc., who are the conductors of the knowers. 
"On account of the indicatory mark", mentioned in the text : "Then 
there is a non-human Person. He leads them to Brahman" (Chand. 
5. 10. 2,), i. e. because there is a definite indicatory mark that the 
Person within lightning is a conductor, it is ascertained that 'light' 
and the rest, too, not being mentioned as in any way distinct, must 
be conductors. 

To the question ; If the Person within lightning Himself leads 
( the knowers ) to Brahman, then what is the use of their being led 
by Varuna and the rest ? ( the Author ) replies : 

SUTRA 4. 3. 5. 

"Thenceforward, (the soul is conducted ) only by one who belong* 
to lightning, that being declared by Scripture". 

When ( the knowers ) reach the Person within lightning, after 
that, it is .he alone who conducts them to Brahman, in accordance 
with the Scriptural text : "Then there is a non-human Person. He 
leads them to Brahman" (Chand. 5. 10. 2.) Varuna and the rest are 
said to be conductors because they assist the Person within lightning. 
Hence, no contradiction is involved here. 

Here ends the Section entitled : "Conductors" (4). 



Adhiarana 5 : The Section entitled 'the Effected One" ( Sutra* 
6-15). 

First Opponent's View ( Sutras 610) 

SUTRA 4. 3. 6. 

"To the effected (Brahman), Badari (holds this), because his going 
is reasonable". 

On the doubt as to whether the non-human Person leads the 
worshippers to Brahman directly, or to some one else, the Prima Facie 
view is as follows : He leads them "to the effected (Brahman)" merely, 
i.e. only to Hiranyagarbha. For, "the going" to such a person only is 
reasonable, and not to the Omnipresent Supreme Brahman. 

( The opponent ) mentions another proof for this : 

First Opponent's View ( Continued ) 

SUTRA. 4. 3. 7. 

"And, on account of being specified". 

"And on account of being specified" in the text : "I goto Prajapati's 
abods and assembly-hall" ( Chand. 8.14.1. ), he leads them to the place of 
Hiranyagarbha alone. 

First Opponent's View ( Continued ) 

SUTRA. 4. 3. 8. 
"But, on account of proximity, ( there is ) that designation". 

"But", the designation of Brahman in the text : "He leads them to 
Brahman" ( Chand. 4. 15. 5. ), is due to-the "proximity" of Hiranyagarbha 
to Him ( viz. Brahman ;. This "proximity," again, results from 
Hiranyagarbha's being the first effect of Brahman, in accordance with the 
Scriptural text : "Who beheld Hiranyagarbha when he was born" 
( 6 vet. 4. 12 ; Mahanar. 10. 3. ). 

First Opponent's View ( Continued ) 

SUTRA 4. 3. 9. 

"On the dissolution of ( the world ) of the effected ( Brahman ), 
with its ruler, ( the soul goes ) to what is higher than he, on account of 
declaration." 

Although ( the knowers ) first get the place of Hiranyagarbha, yet 
this fact does not contradict the Scriptural text about their non-return 
56 



442 6rikantha-Bhasya 4, 3. 12. 

(Cf. Chand. 4.15.5.). For, "on the dissolution" of the place of Hiranyagarbha, 
they, '/together with its lord", then go to the Supreme Place, higher than 
the place of the effected Brahman. This is declared by the Scriptural 
text : "But they all, attaining the highest immortality, are freed in the 
world of Brahman at the time of the great end" (Mun<J- 3. 2. 6. ). Hence 
no contradiction is involved here. 

First Opponent's View ( Concluded ) 

SUTRA. 4. 3. 10 
"And, on account of Smtti". 

.This is known also from the Smrti text : ''When the universal 
dissolution has come as well as the end of the highest, then they, with 
their souls realised, enter the highest place together with Brahman'' 
( K. P. 12 ). Hence, the troupe of conducting divinities, first, take ( the 
knowers ) to the place of Hiranyagarbha. Then, after dissolution, they 
attain the Supreme Brahman, together with him ( viz. Hiranyagarbha ). 

Second Opponents View ( Sutras 1113 ) 

SUTRA. 4.3. 11. 
'To the higher, Jairoini (holds), on account of being primary". 

The conducting divinities of 'light' etc. lead the knowers to Narayana 
who is "higher" than Hiranyagarbha. For, he ( Narayana ) being the 
Supreme Soul Himself in His state of the material cause, the statement 
( that the knowers are led to ) Brahman holds good in a direct, primary 
sense here ( l ). This is the view of Jaimini. 

He points out another ground for this : 

Second Opponent's View ( Continued ) 

SUTRA. 4. 3. 12 
"And, on account of observation". 

In the Scriptural text : "He reaches the end of his journey, the 
highest place of Visnu ( Katha 3. 9. ), it is found that his (viz. NSrSyana's) 



1 . If it be said that the knowers are led to Hiranyagarbha, then the 
Scriptural text that they are led to Brahman (Chand. 4. 15. 5. ) has to be 
interpreted 'in a rather forced, roundabout manner, viz. that they are first 
led to Hiranyagarbha, and then to Brahman. But if it be said that the 
knowers are led to NarSyana, then there is no such difficulty. For, 6iva 
is the efficient cause, while Narayana is the material cause. Hence, the 
term 'Brahman' implying the first* may very well imply the second also. 



The Knowers are led to Brahman directly 443 

place is the object to be attained ( by the freed souls). For this reason, 
too, ( the conducting divinities ) lead ( the knowers ) to him alone. 

Second Opponent's View ( Concluded ) 
SUTRA. 4. 3. 13 

"And, the intention of attaining ( does not refer ) to the effected 
(Brahman)/' 

The text quoted above, (*). viz: "I go to Prajspati's abode and 
assembly-hair ( CliSnd. 8. 14. 1. ), should not be taken to be implying any 
intention with regard Hiranyagarbha, for, the word 'Prajapati', means one 
who protects his subjects .Praja ), and so, it may easily stand for Narayana. 
In the text quoted above i 8 ). too, viz. "But, they all, attaining the highest 
immortality, are freed in the world of Brahman at the time of the great 
end'' ( Muiid. 3. 2. 6. ), the word 'Brahman' means 'NSrayana*. Having 
stayed in his ( Narayana's ) place, having attained Brahman, the Supreme 
Immortality, Superior to the universe, at the time of the great end when 
their final bodies come to be dissolved, the ascetics then, become free. 
Thus no contradiction is involved here. From the text : "These, verily, 
are the names of the Immortal", it is known that 6iva, the Supreme 
Brahman, is denoted by the ward 'Immortal' aud is eternally free. Hence, 
having stayed in the place of Visnu till the works which have already 
begun to bear fruits are exhausted, the ascetics, on the cessation of 
their final bodies, become free by attaining Brahman, the Supreme 
Immortality, Superior to the universe. 

Correct Conclusion ( Sutras 1415 ) 

SUTRA 4. 3. 14. 

"( The troupe of conducting divinities ) leads those who do not 
depend on symbols -so Badarayana ( holds ), also on account of faults 
in both ways, and whose intention is that". 

( The Author ) states the Correct Conclusion. Those who depend 
on symbols are those who only meditate on the sentient or the non-sentient 
as Brahman. Those who do not depend on symbols are those who 
meditate on Brahman, superior to the universe, directly. (The non-human) 
Person( 8 ). leads those who directly worship Brahman directly to 
Brahman Himself who is declared by Scripture to be superior to the 
universe, black and tawny and three-eyed. From the Scriptural texts : 
"Having attained the form of supreme light, one is completed in his 

(1) In Br. Su. 4. 3. 7. 

(2) lu. Br. Su. 4. 3.9. 

(3) Chand. 5. 10. 1. See Br. Su. 4. 3. 4. 



444 rikantha-Bhasya 4. 3. 15. 

own form" (Chand. 8. 3. 4.), "Having meditated on the Supreme I^ord, 
accompanied by Uma, master, three-eyed, having a blue neck, tranquil 
an ascetic goes to the source of beings, the witness of everything, 
beyond darkness" (Kaivalya 7.) and so on, it is known that one who 
worships Brahman directly, attains Brahman directly, Both the above 
views, being opposed to Scripture, are faulty. 

"Whose intention is that" ( l ). means that the worshipper of 
Brahman goes to Brahman alone, and does not delay ;n the middle 
of the way, there being no necessity for that. Higher than 
Hiranyagarbha, the aggregate of all effects, is Narayana, his material 
cause. Even higher than this ( viz. Narayana ) is 6iva, the Efficient 
Cause, the Supreme Brahmau, three-eyed, omniscient, eternally satisfied, 
independent, self-manifest. Thus, in the 6iva-Samkalpa-Upanisad, 
it is said : "Higher than the high is Brahma, higher than that 
high is Hari, higher than that high is Isa ( the Lord )". In one place, 
having asserted : "Higher than Narayana is Brahman". (Mahsnar. 12. 1.), 
the text goes on to answer the question : "Of what nature is He", thus 
"The Righteous, the True" (Mahanar. 12. 1.). By this text, it is established 
that the Supreme Brahman is the highest of all, -Brahman, who being 
omniscient, is free from mental and verbal mistakes ; who through the 
rays of His own powers fills up the entire universe ; who has a variegated 
form through possessing the Supreme Power 'Uma' that is non-distinct 
from Him, that is of the form of the Supreme Prakrti, that is characterised 
by the Supreme Ether consisting in supreme bliss and consciousness 
through and through, that consists of the entire created universe, beginning 
with Hiranyagarbha, created by Narayana, the supremely sentient being 
who is His particular state ; who is changeless and three-eyed. From the 
text : "Superior to the universe is Rudra" (6vet. 3,4.\ it is known that He 
is superior to the universe. Hence, it is wrong for those who take their 
stand on the Vedas to imagine anything else to be higher than He. 

SUTRA 4. 3. 15. 

"And, ( Scripture ) shows the difference ( between Hiranyagarbha, 
Narayana and Siva )". 

"And", Scripture itself "shows" the difference between Brahman who 
is superior to the universe, Narayana who is His particular state, i. e. the 
material cause, and Hiranyagarbha who is his ( Narayanans ) effect, thus : 
"Higher than the high is Brahman", "He beheld Hiranyagarbha when he 

(1) In accordance with the Scriptural text : "Just as the intention 
a man has in this world, so alone does he become after departing" (Chand. 
3. 14. L), one gets what he strives for in this world. Hence, he who 
meditates on Brahman attains Brahman after death. 



Worshippers of Visnu attain Visnu first 445 

was born" (6vet. 4. 12 ; Mahanar. 10. 3.), "The Person, verily, is Rudra" 
(Mahanar. 13. 2.) and so on. So, it stands to reason that the non-human^), 
person leads ( the knowers ) to the place of 6iva, the Supreme Brahman, 
which is higher the places of Brahma and Visnu, of the form of Supreme 
Ether, and full of Supme Bliss. This is declared in the text : "He reaches 
the end of his journey, that Supreme Place of Visnu" (Kafta. 3. 9.). Here 
the term 'Visnu' stands for the Supreme Brahman. It is appropriate that 
the place which is 'the end* of, i.e. beyond, the six kinds( a ) of paths, should 
be the place of 6iva alone who is superior to the universe. 

Or else, the text means, that the place of 6iva, the Supreme 
Brahman, a place that consists in the Supreme Ether and is characterised 
by Supreme Bliss, is the very excellent nature of Visnu who abides in the 
material universe( 8 ). Having attained such a place, the soul, though 
possessing a material form, does not return again. So, no contradiction 
is involved here. 

Here, some hold that the Scriptrual text : "But, they all attaining 
the highest immortality, are freed in the world of Brahman at the time 
of the great end" ( Mund. 3. 2. 6. ), means as follows : Those who worship 
Visnu as the Supreme Power of 6iva, the Supreme Brahman, first attains 
the place of Visnu who is called 'Brahman' because of being His state ; then, 
with those powers manifested in them, 'at the time of great eud' i.e. when, 
their final bodies come to be dissolved, attain, 'the supreme immortality', 
i.e. 6iva, and become free. Hence, there being a text that the worshippers 
of Visnu first attain the place of Visnu through the Path beginning with 
Ivight, and then after some delay, attain the place of 6iva, no contradiction 
is involved here. 

Here ends the Section entitled, "The Effected One" (5). 

Here ends the Third Quarter of the Fourth Chapter of tha 
Commentary on the Brahma- Mimamsa, composed by the reverend 
Saiva Teacher Srikantha. 

( According to 6rlkantha, the Third Quarter of the Fourth Chapter 
Contains 15 Sutras and 5 Adhikaranas ). 



(1) See Chand. 5. 10. 1. Vide Br. Sii. 4. 3. 4. 

(2) See Br. Su. 4. 4. 22. 

(3) Katfia 3. 9. it is said : "Tad Visnok Paramam Padam". (i) Visnofc 
Paramam Padam "means : "the Supreme Place of Visnu meaning Brahman. 
(ii), or, it may mean : Visnoh Paramam ( Utkrstam ) Padam (Svaf upam) 
Sivasya Padam Eva. That is, the place of 6iva is the real nature of 
Visnu. The place of 6iva is the manifestation of His Supreme Power, 
and that is Visnu's essential nature. See SMD. 



FOURTH CHAPTER ( Adhyaya ) 
Fourth Quarter ( Pada ). 

Adhikarana 1 : The Section entitled, "The Manifestation on 
Attaining." ( Sutras 13 ). 

SUTRA. 4. 4. 1. 

"Having attained, ( there is ) manifestation, on account of the word 
'in his own' ". 

It has been established above that through the Path beginning with 
Light, the knowers attain the place of Siva, the Supreme Brahman, beyond 
the places of Hiranyagarbha and NSrayana, and denoted by the word 
'Heaven', being supreme bliss in form. Here, the way' in which there is 
the manifestation of the real nature of one who has attained such a place, 
is being determined. In the text : "So exactly this serene being, having 
arisen from the body, having attained the form of highest light, is 
completed in its own form" ( Chand. 8. 12. 3. ), it is said that one who has 
attained the Supreme Brahman, "of the form of highest light", i.e. having 
supreme manifestation, conies to have his own nature manifested. 

The doubt is as to whether that nature is something adventitious, 
or present in him from beforehand. 

Prima Facie View 

If it be said : It cannot be present in him from beforehand. But 
because of the Scriptural assertion : "Is completed" ( See Chand. 8. 12. 3. 
above ), it must be something adventitious, like Heaven (*). If it were 
present in him from beforehand, how could there have been mundane 
existence at all ? Hence, the fruit, viz. Salvation, resulting from 
meditation on Him, must be something adventitious. 

Reply 
The Real Nature of the soul is manifested during salvation. 

We reply S Although the real nature, sinless and consisting in 
attributes similar to those of Brahman, of one who has attained Brahman 
is existent in him from beforehand, yet it is manifested in him through 



1. The knower attains the place of Brahman called 'Heaven' which 
is something new, not attained before. In the same manner, he attains his 
real nature, which, too, is something new, not present in him before. 



The Mukta is Similar to Brahman 447 

the removal of sins. This is known from from the Scriptural text : "In its 
own form" ( See Chand. 8. 12. 3. above). Otherwise, such an adventitious 
form too being something extra-ordinary or new to the self, the adjective 
'own' would become meaningless. Thus, when through the grace of oiva, 
the Supreme Brahman who favours all, the sins that concealed its own 
nature are removed, then it is manifested in its own nature as similar to 
Him in attributes, and is not produced like the fruits of works ( 9 ). These 
sins being eternal, transmigratory mundane existence results. Hence, it 
is the natural form alone of the freed soul, as consisting in consciousness 
and bliss and as endowed with omniscience and the like, that is 
manifested. 

SUTRA. 4. 4. 2 
' Free, on account of promise". 

Although the real nature ( of the soul ) is present ( in it ) even from 
beforehand, yet it is said that when it becomes free from sins, its limitless 
bliss and the like are 'manifested'. For, in the text : "But this alone I 
I shall explain to you again" ( Chand. 8. 9. 3. etc. ), Prajapati promises to 
explain the real nature of the soul, free from the states of waking etc. 
which are due to sins. 

SUTRA 4. 4. 3. 
'The self, on account of context". 

It is known from the context that in the text : "But this alone 
shall I explain to you again" ( Chand. 8. 9. 3. etc. ), the self to be explained 
is the self having the attributes of 'freedom from sins' and the rest, referred 
to before. For, having referred to such a self thus : "The self that is 
free from sins, without old age, without death, without grief, without 
hunger, without thirst, having true desires, having true resolves" 
( Chand. 8.7. 1. ), Prajapati said : "But this alone I shall explain to you 
again" ( Chand. 8. 9. 3. etc. ). Hence, it is established that the freed soul, 
with its natural attributes of 'freedom from sins' and the rest manifested, 
comes to have its own nature similar to Brahman in attributes. 

Here ends the Section entitled : "Manifestation on Attaining (1) 



1. The soul is similar to Brahman in attributes, and as such, 
omniscient, all-blissful, etc. always. But during its state of bondage, its 
real nature remains hidden by sins. So, when its sins are removed and 
it attains Brahman, its real nature comes to be