1. Bhamati Catussutri Adyar

THE BOOK WAS DRENCHED

UNIVERSAL LIBRARY OU 166523 LIBRARY UNIVERSAL

THE BHĀMATĪ

CATUSSŪTRĪ

S. S. SURYANARAYANA SASTRI

AND

C. KUNHAN RAJA

OUP-23-4-4-69-5,000.

OSMANIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

Call No. 29 4.5 Accession No.

Author

Title

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

THE BHĀMATI: CATUSSŪTRI

FOREWORD

IT is a pleasure to know that Vacaspati's Bhāmatī on the first four Sutras will now be available to students of Indian Philosophy in an edition brought out in the orthodox style, with a critical introduction, Sanskrit text, English translation and notes. All those interested in Indian Philosophy will be deeply grateful to Mr. S. S. Suryanarayana Sastri and Dr. C. Kunhan Raja of the Philosophy and the Sanskrit Departments of the Madras University for bringing out this very useful work. While Sankara's Bhasya is fairly well known among students of Indian Thought, the later thinkers are practically neglected. Vacaspati presents one great section of Advaita Vedanta and his Bhamati is second in importance only to Sankara's Bhāșya. The Introduction, besides dealing with the date of the work and its place in the Advaita tradition, gives a clear and careful account of the central ideas of the Bhamatt: the authoritativeness of scripture and

vi

its compatibility with reason, the nature of Avidyå and its seat, release-ultimate and relative-and Brahman and Isvara, among others. There are side reflections on similar views in Western Thought which are always interesting. The work will not only add to the reputation of its authors but also help to popularise Vacaspati's views on Advaita Vedānta.

Andhra University, Waltair S. R 5th May, 1933

CONTENTS

PAGE Foreword v . Introduction ix Detailed Table of Contents liii . Text and Translation :

Superimposition 1 Desire to Know 63 Definition 119 Scripture-source 137 Harmony 145 .

Notes 247 . Additional Notes 297 List of Abbreviations 313 Corrections 315 .

INTRODUCTION

I. DATE AND DOMICILE OF VĀCASPATI

ON the strength of a reference in the Nyāyasūcinibandha, it is now generally admitted that Ācārya Văcaspati Mis'ra belongs to the period round about A.D. 841-842 (898 Vikrama Era).1 The last verse of the Bhamati refers to a king Nrga.2 While it is held by some that this king has not yet been identified, others 3 believe him to have been a king of Mithila, a predecessor of Nanyadeva, who reigned about 1019 Vikrama Era, i.e., A.D. 962; it is said that this predecessor is named in some inscriptions as Kirātādhipati, and Kirātas are well known to be those who had human vehicles. It is in any case certain that there should have been a good interval between him and Udayana (A.D. 984) who wrote the Nyāyavārtikatātparyatīkāparisuddhi, as a sub- commentary on Vacaspati's Nyāyavārtikatātparyațīkā.

' See Das Gupta, History of Indian Philosophy, II, 107. Nares'varā yaccaritā-'nukāram icchanti kartum na ca pārayanti tasmin mahipe mahanīya-kirtau s'rīmannrge 'kāri maya nibandhah. See also p. 481, under II, i, 33. ' 3 See Mm. Dr. Ganganath Jha, Sanskrit Introduction to his edition of the Sankhyatattvakaumudi. "Nrga" means " one who has a human vehicle," and kiratas are well known to be such. The same writer gives many reasons, some fanciful, for holding that Vacaspati was a native of Mithila.

x

That our author belonged to somewhere in Behar or Bengal would appear to be evident from the repeated reference to mustard oil. It has also been said that in what corresponds to ancient Mithila there is a city called Bhămă (Bhamati) and a tank of the same name. It may be interesting to note a story current in pandit-tradition about the name " Bhamati". In those days (as even today in parts of Upper India), it would appear to have been customary to hold learned discussions on such occasions as marriages. Vacaspati, who listened to such a discussion on the occasion of his own marriage, was so struck by the vagaries of dialecticians that he resolved straightaway to devote himself to the task of setting forth authoritative expositions of all the dars'anas. So great was his zeal, so mighty the task and such the patient and tireless devotion of his wife that the couple had grown old before Vacaspati could write finis to his labours. Then alone did Våcaspati realise the magnitude both of his neglect of his wife and of his wife's self-sacrifice; and as a tardy measure of reparation, he gave her name to the last and greatest of his works, so that she could live on perpetually in the Bhämati, though not in the bodies of children born of her. The story is so pic- turesque, so typical of the scholar's neglect and the true scholarly recompense, that it deserves to be true.

II. WORKS

The works of Vacaspati are enumerated in the concluding verses of the Bhamati. They are as follows:

xi

the Nydyakanika (a commentary on Mandana's Vidhi- viveka), the Brahmatattvasamiksā (a commentary on Mandana's Brahmasiddhi), the Tattvabindu (a discussion of language in its relation to meaning), the Nyāya- vārtikatatparyațıkā (a commentary on Udyotakara's Nyāyavartika), the Nyāyasucinibandha (perhaps written as a supplement to the Tatparyatika), the Sankhyatatt- vakaumudī (a commentary on Is'vara Krşņa's Sānkhya- kārikā), the Tattvavaisāradi (a commentary on Vyāsa's Yogabhāsya) and the Bhāmati (a commentary on Sankara's Sārīrakamīmāmsābhāşya).1 The Bhamati has itself been commented on by several other works. The most notable of these is the Vedāntakalpataru by Amalānanda (13th Century A.D.). This work in turn formed the subject of two commen- taries, the Parimala of Appayya Dikşita (16th Century A.D.) and Ābhoga of Lakşmīnrsimha (17th Century A.D.). The Abhoga is written in the light of the Parimala and sometimes criticises it. Other commentaries on the Bhāmati are (1) the Bhamativyakhya or the Rjupra- kāsikā by Srīranganātha otherwise known as Akhaņd- ānanda 2; (2) the Bhāmatitilaka3; (3) and the Bhāmatīvilāsa.'

J All the works have been published with the exception of the Brahmatattvasamīkşā, not even a manuscript of which has been found so far. ' This has been published in part at Calcutta by Mahamaho- pādhyāya N. S. Anantakrsņa S'āstri. 3 Manuscripts of this work are found in the Government Oriental Library, Madras.

II, 108. 4 Mentioned by Das Gupta, History of Indian Philosophy,

xii

III. RELATIONS TO OTHER WRITERS

The name of the Bhamati is identified with one of two main streams of Sankara interpretation. Vacaspati owes the major part of what is distinctive in his teaching to Mandana's Brahmasiddhi. But as the views starting with Padmapåda are known as the tenets of the Vivarana-prasthana, the views that started with Mandana passed current as the tenets of the Bhamati-prasthana. Vacaspati draws largely on the Brahmasiddhi, and sometimes on the Pacapādikā, wherever necessary or possible. Striking verbal resemblances to the former work are indicated in the notes ; a few of the resemblances to the Pancapādika are noted here : bhāşyam prasannagambhīram ; (ahankāra as) idam-anidam-rupam; mithya-s'abdo 'pahnava-vacanah; sarīram eva sarīrakam s'arīrake bhavaḥ sārīrako jīvaḥ; bhikșu-bhayān na sthālyā anadhisrayaņam; so 'yam sānti-karmaņi vetālo'dayaḥ; anvaya possible even without reference to asti-kriyā as in rājño'yam purușaḥ.1

The references are to pages 1, 18, 4, 40, 63, 91, and 97 of the Pancapādika (Vizianagaram Sanskrit Series). The statements on pp. 63 and 91 of the Pancapadika are well-known proverbial expressions; what is striking is the use of them by both writers in the same context. The interested student will easily find the corresponding pages of the Bhamatt. Some of the criticism in the Bhamati would seem to be expressly directed against the doctrines of the Pancapādikā; see the Kalpataru on I, iii, 17 (p. 298) and on I, ii, 26 (p. 264). We owe this reference to Mr. T. R. Chintamani (Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. III, p. 45).

xiii

IV. SRUTI AS PRAMĀŅA

For Vacaspati, as for all adherents of any orthodox school of Indian Philosophy, Revealed Scripture (Sruti) is the final authority in matters of the Spirit. The Spirit (or Intelligence, Consciousness, the Universal Self, Brahman) is that whereby knowledge is possible; it is itself knowledge. It cannot, without losing its self-hood, become an object of knowledge. It is manifest, since but for its manifestation the whole world would be blind. But it is not manifested by another, since that would lead only to an infinite series of the blind leading the blind. It is self-luminous and self-manifest. Perception, which would have no value but for the mani- festation of the self-luminous intelligence in and through it, could not have that intelligence itself for its object. Much less can inference make that its sphere, since it is dependent on concomitances between the perceived. Brahman can be known only through intuition and that only by gifted and disciplined souls, whose minds have been purified by Scripture-ordained duties and concentrated on the Scripture-taught reality. Such minds will by first hearing of the only real, one without a second, reflecting on it and refuting all objections to the doctrine, contemplating the real uninterruptedly for a long time and with faith, realise Brahman. The supreme pramăna is Scripture, though it may and indeed has to be helped by reasoning, as an auxiliary, in order to remove the doubts that assail the mind. Such reasoning, however, is strictly

xiv

subordinated to the explication and substantiation of Scriptural truth and can in no sense be independent. Several questions naturally arise out of this: (1) Is such an advocacy of Scripture and sub- ordination of reason consistent with a truly philosophi- cal attitude? (2) How can Scripture maintain non- difference to be the truth where it conflicts with perception which cognises a world of plurality and difference? When there is a conflict between the two, should not perception prevail over the other? (3) In any case, is not Scripture cutting at its own basis in denying authoritativeness to perception, since there would be no Scriptural knowledge, if words and their senses were not first perceived ? (4) What is the nature of perception, if it does not cognise a world of diversity ? 1. Authority is claimed by Vacaspati not for all Scripture as such, but only for purportful Scripture.1 For, in Scripture itself there are many restatements and explanatory and eulogistic passages, which cannot claim to be authoritative, except perhaps in dependence on other passages which lay down something new and purportful. The marks determinative of purport are well known; they are: the harmony of the initial and concluding passages, repetition, novelty (i.e., not being otherwise made out), fruitfulness, glorification by eulogistic passages or condemnation by deprecatory passages and intelligibility in the light of reasoning. It is clear from an application of these tests that the

' tātparyavati hi s'rutiļ pratyaksād balavatī, na s'ruti-mātram; ananya-labyah s'abdārthaļı.

XV

entire Scripture has non-duality for purport. The Chandogya teaching, for instance, begins with pre- mising the secondless unity of reality and goes on to identify this reality with the self of the pupil instructed, in the words "That Thou art"; the same teaching is repeated nine-fold to show that it is important and that it is the primary purport; nor is this identity something established in ordinary experience, like the heat of fire, in which case the Scriptural declaration would be a mere re-statement; it is a statement of the novel and hence is purportful; it is fruitful, since the knowledge of it helps one to pass beyond transmigration ; the knowledge of it is praised suitably and its opposite is condemned; and the identity of the self with the absolute reality is also found to stand to reason.' Though the application of reason figures but as one of the marks of purport, it will be seen on closer examina- tion that reason really plays a much more important part. There are disputes even as to which is the introductory passage and which the conclusion. In the vast body of knowledge called Scripture it is possible to choose a beginning anywhere and call that the introductory passage; such a choice may be found to favour a dualist rather than a non-dualist interpretation. As against this the non-dualist has to make out that all such beginnings are intermediate or secondary (avăntara), that the real beginning (paramo-'pakrama)

' On advaita as the purport of all Scripture, see the Bhamatī on I, iii, 33 (especially, p. 343, Anantakrsņa S'āstri's edition); mention of creation etc. is not part of the primary intention ; see II, i, 34 (p. 482).

xvi

is elsewhere, and that this favours non-dualism. Similarly of the conclusion. The interpretation of these in harmony, again, calls for the exercise of reason. And the need of reason will be similarly found in determining what is purportful repetition and what is not, in distinguishing and assigning the fruit, in the ascertainment of the really novel, and in finding out what is glorified and by which passage. So that the authoritarianism of the advaitin is unphilosophical only on the face of it, involving as it does the abundant exercise of reason. True, he says reason finds a place only in so far as it does not conflict with Scripture; but in the end, reason itself has to judge when it conflicts with Scripture and when it does not. 2. But how can Scripture over-ride perception which cognises difference as real? The assumption here is that perception is our first and basic instrument of knowledge; and what is basic may not be rejected. The advaitin replies that no doubt it is first, but it is not basic and unsublatable. Indeed, where there is sublation, it is the earlier that is sublated. The initial statement or cognition has no doubt greater value, because of its position. But there are exceptions to this rule. Where a subsequent cognition arises validly, and it cannot arise except as sublating what goes before, the earlier cognition should necessarily be taken to be sublated; for example, the cognition of nacre could not arise, if the original cognition as silver persisted; hence, the nacre-cognition is admitted to sublate the earlier silver-cognition. Thus, the priority

xvii

of perception would of itself be an argument for its sublation by the subsequently resulting Scriptural knowledge, especially when the latter arises without depending on the validity of the former. In any case, as we shall see presently, it is not true that difference is perceived. 3. But surely Scripture is dependent on perception for its very existence! Scriptural knowledge would not be possible except for the prior perception of words and their senses. The reply to this is that all that is required is the existence, the empirical reality, of words and their senses, not their absolute reality. Even in ordinary experience we derive what we treat as valid knowledge from what is not real but is superimposed. Nāga means an elephant, while naga means a tree; the difference in the length of the vowel 'a' is a property not of 'a' itself, but of the audible sound (dhvani) which manifests it; and yet the knowledge which results from this superimposed difference is not delusive. Sounds and their senses are but manifesters of knowledge which is eternal. The former need not and indeed cannot be co-eternal with the latter; so long as they exist and manifest knowledge, their func- tion is fulfilled ; an insistence on their absolute reality is vain and unreasonable. 4. Does not perception cognise difference? The answer is in the negative. What we know as determinate perception does appear no doubt to cognise difference. But this is preceded by indeterminate perception. All distinctions are introduced later into

xviii

the single positive undifferentiated continuum presented by indeterminate perception. Such perception is compar- able to the state of feeling mentioned by Bradley, wherein there is a harmony of the that and the what, existence and content; it is broken up because of the very finitude of feeling.1 For the dialectic on difference, Vacaspati is indebted to Mandana, most of whose arguments are found briefly summarised in the Bhamati.2 The principal argument, which will bear repetition here, is that difference cannot be real, since it can be neither of the nature of things nor an attribute of them. If difference were of the very nature of things, there would be no things to be different; for, whatever you may say is one thing will immediately break up, because difference is of its nature; similarly of each of its parts; you cannot rest even in the primal atom; there is nothing which can be treated as a unit and in

' It is also comparable to what is described in the following lines of Tennyson :

The baby new to earth and sky What time his tender palm is prest Against the circle of the breast Has never thought that "This is 1". But as he grows he gathers much And learns the use of "I" and "me" And finds "I am not what I see And other than the things I touch". So rounds he to a separate mind From whence clear memory may begin As through the frame that binds him in His isolation grows defined.

2 On I, i, 4 (pp. 174-179). The notes in that connection may also be consulted.

xix

the absence of any unit there can be no difference either. If, then, difference be said to be an attribute, is this attribute different from its substrate ? If not, it is of its very nature, and we have really the former alternative alone. If the attribute is different, then we have three units on our hands, the substrate, the difference which is its attribute and the difference of the attribute from the substrate. And the moment we start inquiring into the relation of this difference to the substrate on the one hand and the attribute on the other, we are launched on an infinite regress. The notion of difference then is unintelligible, and since it pre-supposes the identity at least of a unit that is different, it is reasonable to hold that difference is superimposed on a basis of identity. May not both identity and difference be real ? Do we not indeed find this synthesis abundantly in experi- ence? We do no doubt find their apparent synthesis in experience, but that is no justification for the uncritical acceptance of both. To say that both identity and difference are manifest cannot compel us to say that they are both real, unless all attempt at systematic thinking is to be abandoned. A crown and a bracelet, it is said, are different and yet non-different, different as products, but non-different in respect of their cause, gold. But if they are really non-different, he who wants a crown must be satisfied with the bracelet ; if you say that there is difference too between crown and bracelet, then there must be difference between bracelet and gold also, since crown and gold are non-different.

XX

And if, because of the difference between the crown and bracelet, he who wants the first does not want the second, why should it not be that he wants it too, because of their non-difference? Such in bare outline is the criticism of the view of difference cum non- difference (bheda-'bheda).1 Identity may be found only with difference, but philosophy cannot stop with juxtaposing them; either should be taken to be more fundamental than the other, and the advaitin has shown sufficient cause for not treating difference as fundamental. What, then, is the goal of knowledge? Is it the pre-rational stage of cognition, analogous to feeling in Bradley's system? Obviously, it cannot be, for, on the pre-rational supervenes the rational, introducing its distinctions and doubts. The goal of knowledge cannot be any such unstable harmony. For him who has attained that, there is perfect peace, no more return to the relational world of diversity and distraction. The final cognition, though characterised as perceptual and indeterminate, cannot then be of the same nature as the indeterminate cognition of the child and the deaf-mute. Between the two, there are only two characteristics in common, the immediacy of cognition and its non-attributive nature. All determinate cog- nition is attributive; the subject is known to possess a name, a class or a quality. In the indeterminate

' The criticism of bheda-'bheda occurs under I, i, 4 (pp. 175-178). A malananda takes it to apply to Bhaskara. The arguments are in substance identical with Mandana's in the Brahmasiddhi pp. 63-70; and Mandana is criticising Kumārila.

xxi

cognition of the child, there is no distinction of subject and predicate at all. In the final perception, we pass beyond the distinction of subject and predicate, to understand the identity underlying both, not the mere attribution of one with respect to the other. A typical cognition of this character is the recognition "This is that Devadatta ". What is asserted is not the posses- sion of an attribute by a subject, but the identity of Devadatta seen at a different time and place with the Devadatta seen here and now. The judgment is essentially an identity judgment not an attributive one. And yet it is not bare identity that is affirmed, but identity as qualified by the differences of time and place. If the differences were really attributes of Devadatta, forming part of his essential nature, the identity would be impossible. It is therefore said that the differences of time and place are upalaksaņas, qualifications per accidens, and the identity asserted is so qualified. The difference between this and the bare identity of the pre-rational cognition consists in the stability, certitude and freedom from doubt of the former. For it has been mediated; it has passed through doubt and difference and is rich with their significance, though they themselves persist no longer, not being ultimately real. The attributive judgments of determinate cognition have fulfilled their purpose by extending, harmonising and consolidating the original datum of knowledge. What happens at the final stage is the realisation of the unity and identity of the empery of knowledge, a unity no longer liable

xxii

to disruption from within or without, as at the pre- rational level. This is the realisation of akhandārtha, the impartite sense, which is non-relational in nature (saņsargā-'navagāhi-jňānam), not because it is infra- relational, but because it has taken up and transcended relations. Nor need one feel that difference and relations have not come in for fair play since they are treated merely as qualifications per accidens ; for, what matters, the signification, is conserved even in the case of an upalaksana. The crow on the top of Devadatta's house serves to identify the house for him who seeks it; the identification is the significance; that is never lost, though the crow may fly away and the attribution of the crow sitting there is only a qualification per accidens.1 It is easy to fall into the error of holding

1 There is little discussion of the doctrine of akhandartha in the Bhamati itself. But it is adverted to in the Kalpataru, even in the course of the first four sutras; and the doctrine is of such vital importance to advaita that at least this passing mention has to be made. The view that the final cognition is characterised by freedom from doubt and delusion and that it is qualified per accidens by the differences is elaborated at great length in the Advaitasiddhi. Vācaspati's failure to discuss akhandārtha is susceptible of one of the following explanations. For him, as for Mandana, verbal testimony is not of itself the cause of immediate knowledge. The cognition resulting from such testimony has to be contemplated with faith, unintermittently and for a long time before the final intuition results. From the sentence there results but a mediate cognition which starts the indispensable process of prasankhyāna; it would therefore seem unnecessary to insist on the sentence too conveying a sense that is impartite. Another possible reason is that, unlike Mandana, Vacaspati does not hold to the sphota-vada, the doctrine that meaning is one and integral and that it is but revealed gradually in the spoken letters and words. He would seem to have more sympathy with the Associationist and the Behaviourist explanations of the acquirement of meaning than with an explana- tion like that of the Gestalt psychologist. The juxtaposition of such a doctrine alongside that of akhandartha would have appeared, to say the least, incongruous. It is worth noting that the doctrine

xxiii

that the indeterminate cognition is the pre-rational and the pre-relational, that it is but knowledge of the bare subject without its attributes, the bare stem without its modifications. The relations and the attributes and the modification all count in the final cognition, though they cannot count as such, as independently and absolutely real. The logical theory of Bradley and Bosanquet is generally identified with the predicative view of judgment. Judgment, according to the former, relates an ideal content to a subject in reality. The aspects of the that and the what, existence and content, exist harmoniously in feeling, but the harmony is imperfect because of the finitude of feeling. Each aspect tends to outrun or exceed the other. Thought tries to cure the defect by a homeopathic method. It accentuates the separation between the that and the what, sunders them in order to bring them together more effectively. The that thus sundered becomes the logical subject, while the what is the logical predicate. But, elsewhere, he holds that reality itself is the logical subject of every judgment. Now, obviously, reality as a whole is not a mere that; it is the perfect harmony of the that and the what. Nor

of akhandartha is primarily intended to show that statements made in Scripture, despite their propositional form involving subjects, predicates and relations, make known the one and the supra- relational, not the many in relation. A question of some importance is how words in a proposition can have an identical import and yet be non-synonymous; it is discussed at some length by most advaita writers and is briefly referred to by Mandana; the argument is not set out here for fear of prolixity.

xxiv

is the predicate, logically considered, a mere what, a bare content. All this mention of sundering and homeopathic treatment seems then wide of the mark, a defect which Bradley himself recognised in the Essays on Truth and Reality.1 What is characteristic of judgment is the presence of an ideal element. If reality alone were present in the judgment, there could be no judgment, since the latter is relational while the former is supra-relational. Such relations as are affirmed must be within reality. But no judgment establishing such relations alone can claim to absolute truth, since the predication in every case would be not of reality, but of what is in reality. In order to approximate to finality, then, the judgment should seek to identify the ideal with the real; the identity appears, as it were, in a relational form, that of predication. The predicate of the judgment is neither something other than the real, nor a single aspect of the real taken in abstraction from existence ; it is something less than the real, in that it comprises inadequately harmonised aspects of existence and content. That judgment is most true which

' Reference may be made in particular to pp. 316 and 333 of the Essays on Truth and Reality. It is not claimed that the view here explained is expressly adopted by Bradley; but it would appear to be in consonance with his metaphysical principles, and favoured by a great part of what he says in his later writings. Of particular interest in this connection are his rejection of the doctrine of "floating ideas " and of the view that the subject is a " mere that". For the Bradleian view of error explained in the next paragraph, see Appearance and Reality, 2nd edition, pp. 193, 194, particularly the following : "We have crossed the threads of the connection between our 'whats' and our 'thats,' and have thus caused a collision, a collision which disappears when things are taken as a whole." Bradley's anyathakhyati, like that provisionally accepted by the advaitin, is of a variety consistent with absolutism, not pluralism.

xxV

identifies with reality, as the logical subject, a predicate which requires the least amount of readjustment or supplementation. In essence, the function of the judg- ment is true identification, not the predication of an attribute. Such a view seems more in accord with the fundamental position of Bradley as well as his own expressed dissatisfaction with the theory of judgment formulated by him earlier. And the approximation it makes to the doctrine of akhandartha is not without interest. One may note in passing the Bradleian theory of error as a crossed reference and its similarity to the view of error as anyathākhyāti (apprehension as otherwise). It may be remembered that one of the examples Bradley gives of error is the judgment " Roses are green". The error is possible because of a confusion between the flower and the leaf; the leaves are green, while the flowers are red; but the greenness of the former is erroneously referred to the flowers; when our knowledge extends so as to cover both leaf and flower and becomes more precise, so that each colour is referred to its appropriate substrate, the error vanishes. The anyathakhyati view, though attributed to the Logicians, has some popularity with Advaitins too in the explanation of sopadhika-bhrama, delusion caused by the presence of an external adjunct. For example, the white crystal seen as red is so seen because the redness of the flower in proximity to it is erroneously referred to it. And the white shell is seen to be yellow, because in the jaundiced person, bile goes forth with D

xxvi

the rays of light from the eyes; and the yellowness of the bile is erroneously referred to the object apprehend- ed by those rays of light. This view is so much to the fore in Vacaspati's account of super-imposition that he seems to be a supporter of anyathakhyāti. And Amalănanda has to rescue him from this charge by pointing to the explanation of the mirage, where at least we have not a crossed reference, but a pure creation which is not determinable as either real or unreal.1

V. PRIMAL NESCIENCE

The stream of indeterminable superimpositions is be- ginningless, so that it is reasonable to look for the cause of each superimposition in an earlier superimposition.2 But there must be a fundamental vice, an original sin, which is responsible for the superimpositions of the diverse and the relational on the one and the supra- relational. Granted relationing, we can understand the dependence of one relation on another; granted parti- culars, we can understand their causal dependence. Back of the relations there is a relationing ; back of the particulars there is a particularising. This original sin is primal nescience, the ignorance that is the cause (mūlā-'vidyā or kāraņā-'vidyā). Dependent on this

svarūpeņa marīcyambho mrsā vācaspater matam anyathakhyatir ista'sye' ty anyatha jagrhur janah. -Kalpataru, p. 24. ' In this Vacaspati differs from Padmapada, who would go

positions, straightaway to primal nescience as the cause of all superim-

xxvii

are derivative ignorances (tūlā-'vidyās or kāryā- 'vidyās); and individual delusions are products of these. These delusions are sublatable by other appearances of the same grade of reality as themselves; the cognition of a stick may take the place of the cognition of a snake, where in truth there is neither stick nor snake. Derivative ignorances are sublatable by cognition of the objects to which they relate; ignorance about nacre is removable by knowledge of nacre ; primal nescience is removable by knowledge of the supreme reality alone; hence it persists up to the realisation of Brahman. Particularising ceases only with true knowledge, the knowledge of the universal, which is, not outside of, but above particulars. Two difficulties at least may be raised to the con- ception of mūlā-'vidyă. The brilliant dialectic of advaitins like Gaudapāda and Sankara has shown the unintelligibility of the causal concept. It is not ultimately real. It obtains, if at all, only in the world of appearance. In the phenomenal world of particulars, then, one may be excused for looking to one particular as the cause or effect of another. But what is the sense of asking for a cause of the phenomenal world and postulating primal nescience as that cause? Are we not committing the same fallacy as Kant, who, after confining the applicability of the causal concept to phenomena, proceeded solemnly to affirm things-in- themselves as the causes of phenomena ? The difficulty so presented appears serious enough. But this at least should make us pause before we condemn the doctrine;

xxviii

the cause suggested is not trans-phenomenal, but is itself phenomenal. It is not suggested that nescience is noumenal, while its consequences and products are phenomenal, though degrees of unreality are recognised between the cause and the products, these degrees being distinguished, as stated earlier, according to the nature of the means required for sublation. In setting up the alleged causal relation, then, we are dealing with terms, both of which are phenomenal and therefore susceptible of the said relation. Further, the causal relationship as between tūlā-'vidyā and its products is not of the same kind as that suggested between mūlā-'vidyā and the tūlā-'vidyās. It is not suggested that mūlā-'vidyā is a cause in time, so much as the logical ground of the tūlā- 'vidyās, for the latter too are said to be beginningless (anadi). Such a relationship is not inconsistent even with the possession of a higher grade of reality by primal nescience; for, is not Brahman the substrate of the entire world-appearance? and is not Brahman the absolute real? The relational world is the world of appearance. It has as its ground the non-relational ; but it may also be said to have relating as its more proximate ground. The advaitin believes and rightly believes in progressive development of knowledge. He would concede the doctrine that the effect is pre- existent in the cause, in order to lead the pupil on to deny the separate existence of the effect from the cause. He would concede the doctrine of the concrete universal transforming itself into the particulars, in order to lead the pupil to conceive this transformation as nothing but

xxix

an illusory manifestation.' He would concede the causing of delusions by a primal nescience in order to lead the pupil to reject finally the concept of cause. The distinction between causal and effected nescience is but relative and there are not sufficient reasons to disagree with it or reject it. Another and a more serious objection is based on the popular conception of ignorance as mere absence of knowledge. For the traditional advaitin,' nescience or ignorance is a positive entity, not a mere negation. And this would well accord with the positive nature of error, which consists not in the mere absence of know- ledge, but in the positive assertion of something else as knowledge. It may be thought that it should be a non- dualist's business to reduce the number of entities to one; but this is a misconception. Reality for him is one; but its unity does not conflict with the plurality of phenomenal existents; and it has never been con- tended that nescience, though primal, is anything but phenomenal. Nor may it be said that in any case there is no justification for ascribing a positive character to what is primarily, if not wholly, negative. For, if ignorance were wholly negative, it could not even be known to exist. Perception would not apply thereto, since what is perceived should be in sense-contact, and a mere negation cannot be in contact with the senses or with anything else. Nor can absence of knowledge

1 vivarta-vādasya hi pūrva-bhūmir vedānta-vāde pariņāma-vādah. (Sankşepas'ārīraka, II, 61.) ' Pace Y. Subba Rao : Mula-'vidyā-nirāsa.

xxx

be perceived as an attribute of the self, since an attri- bute can be perceived only in the case of a substrate that is in the sphere of perception ; but the self is not in the sphere of perception. Inference, even if it could apply, would give only mediate knowledge, whereas our experience of ignorance is immediate, in the form "I did not know nacre; but now I know " and so on ; there is the further difficulty that, being based on perceived concomitance, inference is not possible, where perception is wholly ruled out. Nor is recourse possible to the pramana called non-cognition (anupalabdhi) ; for, non-cognition again can give only mediate knowledge ; further, the self being incapable of perception, its attribute too cannot be perceived, while non-cognition applies only to that of which perception (or some other means of cognition) is possible ; truly, there is no cogni- tion of non-existence, except where the substrate of non-existence is capable of being perceived. But we do have experience both of ignorance and of its removal by knowledge. Hence, ignorance (or nescience) is both positive,1 and indeterminable, even like nacre-silver.

VI. PLURALITY AND LOCATION OF NESCIENCE

A distinctive feature of Vācaspati's advaita is the recognition of a plurality of nesciences. If the

1 Vācaspati's recognition of the two avidyās is apparent from the very first line of his invocatory verse. There is no specific defence of the conception of mula-'vidya. Some of the arguments here mentioned are based on the Istasiddhi, copies of the proofs of which were very kindly supplied by the editor, Mr. M. Hiriyanna (see particularly pp. 65, 66).

xxxi

world be admitted to be a product of nescience, when nescience is destroyed on the release of a single jīva the world should be destroyed for all other jīvas as well; and there should be no distinction between the bound and the released. One way out of the difficulty would be to affirm the existence of one jiva alone, all other jīvas, the differences of teacher and taught, bound and released, being all alike comparable to the dreams of the single jīva; this jīva has not yet been released; when he is released, the world too would of course cease to exist. But such radical solipsism is unacceptable to the majority of advaitins, who hold that the distinction between the bound and the released may not be ignored, since Scripture declares that certain souls have been released and disbelief in Scripture in such a vital matter as release would necessarily lead to the discrediting of Scripture as such. A plurality of jīvas must be conceded. Our experience even of our finite self-hood is through contact and conflict with other selves. These are no doubt looked upon by the sophisticated mind as mere not-self or inert matter; but primarily the conflict and the contrast is with other selves. That is why the Bhagavatpada, in speaking of the reciprocal superimposition of the self and the not-self, refers to the latter as the concept "Thou," though one would have expected the author to refer to it as "It" or "That ". Vacaspati's own non-dualism will be found to approximate very closely to Berkeleyan idealism, though, perhaps, not to solipsism; and the parallel

xxxii

will be found to be all the closer in that both the writers insist on the existence of God and of a plurality of spirits, however much that may seem to be in conflict with the idealism they profess. And in so far as he insists on the reality of other spirits, and of our duties and obligations in relation to them up to the stage of final realisation, Văcaspati's doctrine (as also that of Mandana from whom it is derived) should be characterised as realistic rather than idealistic.1 The stream that culminates in the solipsism of Prakās'ānanda 2 does not have its source in Maņdana or Vacaspati; its more likely source is the view that Brahman is both the locus and the content of nescience, which is but single, and that it is Brahman who through its own nescience seems bound as it were and through its own knowledge seems to be released as it were.3

'In a sense, all advaita is idealistic, in that the material world cannot have absolute and independent reality, on any variety of advaita. If such a world existed, its very existence could not be known. In the last resort, knowledge is possible only because the self is self-luminous and the self is knowledge. If things are known, it must be because they are not really other than the self, being super-imposed thereon; see the samvid-bhamati, pp. 34-38; also the Brahmasiddhi, p. 7; ekatva eva'yam drastr-drs'ya-bhavo 'vakalpate, drastur eva cidātmanaļ tathā tathā vipariņāmād vivartanād vā; nānātve tu vivikta-svabhāvayor asamsrsta-paras- para-svarupayor asambaddhayoh kidrs'o drastr-drs'ya-bhavaḥ? > The author of the Vedantasiddhantamuktavali, the out- standing representative of Vedanta Solipsism or Drstisrsti-vada, the view that perception of things is either the creation of them or is simultaneous with their creation; the latter view seems to have been favoured by Prakas'ananda. ' Such a view is more in accord with the teaching of Sures'vara, wrongly identified with Mandana. Sures'vara was an immediate disciple of S'ankara.

xxxiii .

Of the nesciences that constitute the world there should then be as many as there are jivas. When a particular jīva attains knowledge, his nescience is destroyed and for him the world ceases to be. Other nesciences, however, continue to exist and to bind the souls yet unreleased. It may be possible to explain the distinction on the basis of different capacities (s'aktis) possessed by a single nescience. Nescience binds every jīva because in respect of each jīva it has a different capacity to bind; and when a particular jīva is released, that particular capacity is lost, though nescience itself persists for other jivas. Though such an explanation is plausible, the unity of avidyā is a needless complication. It is said for instance that, though the pain in the foot is not a pain in the hand, the hand reaches forth to pluck the thorn from the foot, because both hand and foot are members of a single organism and thus there is community of feeling. There is no such community of feeling between different individuals since there is no common organism of which they are members. That is why Caitra does not feel Maitra's pain as his own. If the different experiences of Caitra and Maitra were, however, products of a single avidy, this may discharge the functions of a common organism; and it would be difficult to explain why Caitra does not recall Maitra's pain as if it were his own.1

1 This is a development of the advaitin's explanation of non- recollection (ananusandhana). It must be confessed that that explanation does not appear to be thorough-going, as it apparently ignores the fact of individuals being members of social and other organisms and thereby sharing each other's joys and sorrows.

xxxiv

The ignorances thus assumed must be located in the jīvas. Brahman who is pure and perfect cannot obviously be the locus of defect; and avidyā, the material cause of all defects, is itself the greatest defect. Apart from this, it is the jiva that is instructed, that strives and acquires the knowledge which destroys nescience. But there can be no relation of destroyer and destroyed except as between what occupy the same locus. The poison drunk by Caitra will not remove the life of Maitra. Hence, nescience must have the same locus as the knowledge which destroys it, i.e., the jiva. But it may be objected that the finitude, transmigration and suffering of the jiva, all that constitute his jīva-hood in short, are the products of nescience; there would be no jīva except as the product of nescience; how then can nescience itself reside in the jiva? The attempted charge of reciprocal depend- ence will not stand, for the interaction of ignorance and jīva-hood is beginningless. We do not say at any time that ignorance was and the jiva was not, or that the jīva was and ignorance was not. If it be still urged that such dependence is in the last resort unintelligible, we counter it with the question, "why expect in- telligibility in the case of nescience?" It is of the very essence of nescience to be unintelligible in the last resort : tad evā ' vidyānām avidyātvam.

VII. ISVARA AND THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

There being a plurality of nesciences, granted that nescience is the material cause of the world, there

XXXV

are bound to be a plurality of worlds. In conserving the authoritativeness of Scripture, we seem to have sacrificed the claims of empirical usage, which demands a single world common to all souls. The latter demand is, however, not imperative, since all that is needed is no more than the measure of agreement that exists among the different spectators of an illusion. When the rope is seen to be a snake, as it were, by a number of people, the agreement among them does not prove the existence of a single objective snake. What does exist without happens to be interpreted by all of them in the same manner; if the snake existed objectively it should not be possible for some people to mistake it for a garland. The objectivity of the world, then, is no more than the consilience of illusions. What happens, then, to the view accepted by the Vedanta that God is the Creator of the Universe? Each jiva would appear to be the creator of his world, through and out of the nescience abiding in him; the world is sustained by his nescience, and is destroyed with its destruction. The true creator, sustainer and destroyer would thus appear to be the jiva himself. If the world be considered to be created by a God, that could be no more than an illusion, on a par with the world-illusion itself. The Creator and His Creatorship would both be figments of the creature's imagination. The jiva is enthroned on high and God apparently reduced to nothing. But such a conclusion can hardly be consistent with the true trend of advaita. It is true that for this system even Isvara is not

xxxvi

ultimate; endow Him as we may with the utmost knowledge and power, He still falls short of perfection, since the Perfect is beyond all attributes; greatness is significant only in relation to smallness, while the Absolute is neither great nor small and is above relative predications. All this, however, is very different from the position that Is'vara is a figment of the jīva's nescience. On the face of it, Vacaspati would seem to be more idealistic than Berkeley, who conserved the independent reality of God along with that of other souls. And this is all the more difficult to comprehend in the case of Vācaspati, who begins his work with due invocation to Bhava, Kārtikeya and Ganapati, and throughout his work betrays little trace of the atheism that is his apparent conclusion. There is no doubt, however, that the possibility of an atheistic conclusion must have struck many of his critics, as the author of the Kalpataru is anxious to make out repeatedly that Vacaspati does recognise Is'vara and that they are fools who say there is no place for Isvara in his system. The truth of the matter seems to be this. Ignorance is bi-polar. It is located somewhere, i.e., it belongs to some one ; and it has a content. Though the jiva is the locus, the content is Is'vara. When ordinarily we use the possessive pronoun 'mine' or 'his,' we imply in the person capacity to control what is referred to. Not so in the case of ignorance; I mean by "my ignorance" the ignorance that is in me, not the ignorance that I can control. The control of avidya belongs not to me with

xxxvii

my limited powers of knowing and acting, but to the omniscient and omnipotent Being. Is'vara too may be said to be the asraya of ignorance, if by āsraya is meant the content, but not its locus (adhāra). When, therefore, it is said that my ignorance creates the universe, it does not follow that I create the universe ; rather does it mean that Is'vara, the content of my ignorance, uses the ignorance that is in me and out of that as material cause, evolves the world ; the ignorance in me, the māyă, the prakrti is the primal material cause; he who wields it for fashioning the world, the mayin, the arch-juggler, is Is'vara. 1 At no time then do we have Isvara without the jivas or the jīvas without Is'vara.' Ignorance is the condition of the existence of both. And when there is ignorance, it must exist somewhere and it must have a content. When this polarity of ignorance is resolved, ignorance itself is transcended and Brahmanhood fully realised. But when ignorance exists, Is'vara is the image which is reflected, as it were, in the various nesciences. The reflections are the jīvas. Vācaspati does not hold that the jivas are literally reflections,

' We are indebted to Mahamahopadhyaya Prof. S. Kuppuswami S'astriar, M.A., I.E.S., for considerable help in understanding this part of the doctrine. See further on the same topic, Mahamaho- pādhyaya N. S. Anantakrsna S'āstri's commentary on the Vedanta- paribhașa, first edition, Calcutta, pp. 2-3. Reference may be made to the Kalpataru, particularly p. 404. 2 Cp. "The personal God of India, Is'vara, issues from the Brahman simultaneously with the atman, the soul, and both appear together as simultaneous and mutually determined occurrences. It is the same in Eckhart's teaching. Only with and for the soul, with and for the creature, is God, God as person, as subject, and as conscious of objects."-R. OTTO, Mysticism East and West, p. 14,

xxxviii

since there can be reflection only of what is visible and in what is visible; and neither Brahman nor avidyå can be said to possess visible form. But he has no objection to using the analogy of reflection exten- sively. The diversities of jivas are compared to the diversities of the reflections of one face in different media, such as a gem, a sword, a mirror. Vācaspati's own conception of the relation of the jīva to Brahman is that of finitisation of the infinite. Ether is infinite and all-pervasive; but it seems to be confined in a pot as it were; and when the pot is moved, though the pot alone is moved, there seems to be a motion of the ether in it as well. In the same way Universal Spirit defined by the internal organ etc., is the jīva; when the defining adjuncts are got rid of, there is no longer any difference between the jiva and Brahman. The finitising is bi-polar; at one pole stands Is'vara and at the other the jiva. It is not that Brahman is first reflected as Is'vara and that the jīvas are reflections of this reflection, or that Is'vara is a reflection in one medium and the jivas reflections in another medium.1

1 Vācaspati's position in this question of whether the jiva is an avaccheda or a pratibimba is discussed fully by Appayya Diksita in the Parimala, at the close of I, i, 4, where he shows that Vacaspati favours the avaccheda-vada. Some advaitins hold that maya is different from avidyas, that the former is collective and single while the latter are diverse, or that in the former the sattva constituent is pure, while in the latter it is impure; and they say that Is'vara is the reflection of Brahman in maya, while the jivas are the reflections of Brahman in avidya. Such a view makes Is'vara very remote and leaves Him little in common with the jivas. For the various views, see the Siddhantales'asangraha, 1st pariccheda, pp. 66-104 (Kumbakonam edition).

xxxix

VIII. RITUAL AND RELEASE

Transmigration and its woes being due to nescience, the one way to get rid of them is knowledge, which destroys nescience. But knowledge does not come to all. The ground must be prepared, the mind cleared and the heart made pure for the reception of the truth. Herein lies the use of ritual, the due performance of which purifies the intellect and brings about the desire to know. The fruit of action is non-eternal; hence release can never be attained through ritual. But the desire to know can be brought about through engaging in ritual and this in due course fulfils itself through knowledge and release. It is then as little true that karma has nothing to do with release as that it can of itself bring about release. It is a remote auxiliary (ārādupakāraka) and as such requires to be duly observed in season.'

IX. THE FINAL INTUITION

When the desire to know has been awakened, one hears the highest truths from the Vedanta, reflects on them, reasons about them, refutes all objections to them, and, being finally satisfied about them, begins to contemplate the supreme Brahman that they teach. By uninterrupted meditation practised with devotion for a long time, the seeker of Brahman attains Brahman ;

1 The Vivaranakara holds that rituals are contributory to knowledge itself and not merely to the desire to know. See the Siddhantales'asaigruha, 3rd pariccheda, pp. 350-356.

x1

he obtains, that is to say, an intuition of the one Supreme Intelligence, that is beyond all duality and misery. With that intuition are destroyed nescience and its products; and spirit stands forth having attained the release that was its own essential nature and only seemed to be non-existent, as it were, like the chain round one's own neck, which one forgets and keeps looking for. The intuition is an act of immediate cognition; for, ignorance that is experienced as immediate can be removed only by knowledge which is also immediate; otherwise, it would be like the case of the fever patient who continues to find sugar bitter, though told it is not so and though himself knowing it is not so. Immediate cognition requires the functioning of a sense-organ, here the mind, the organ of internal sense. And this mental perception is made possible only by long-continued contemplation (prasankhyāna) as in the lover's perception of the long- lost damsel, whom he constantly comtemplates. The latter is, of course, a delusion; but the intuition of Brahman cannot be delusive, for Brahman is taught by Scripture, which is free from defect and cannot mislead ; further, Brahman is ex hypothesi all that is; it cannot but exist; and it is identical with the jīva whose existence cannot be doubted; whence then the possibility of delusion ?1

'It is held by some that immediate cognition may result even from verbal testimony without the functioning of a sense- organ, internal or external, and that the mind in any case is not a sense-organ. This view is mentioned in the notes, together with Amalananda's criticism thereof. The view that verbal

xli

The final intuition is of the conditioned Brahman, not of the Absolute; for there is still the distinction of subject and object. It is analogous to the absolute truth of Bradley, which, he says, is absolute, only because it is intellectually incorrigible. Of the final intuition too it is true that nothing further is needed to correct it. It destroys the entire world of duality and destroys itself with it. When the powder of the clearing nut is mixed with muddy water to precipitate the mud, that powder itself does not require another precipitant.

X. JĪVANMUKTI

When nescience is destroyed by knowledge, it stands to reason that release is attained straightaway. And this would seem to have the approval of Scripture, which says that, for him who has seen, all karmas (in the plural, not in the dual) cease ; prārabdha karma, that which has begun to fructify already, does not seem to be exempted from destruction. When a person attains knowledge, he should become disembodied too. But the position is by no means so simple as that. For one thing, there are Scriptural texts which definitely prescribe physical death as the limit after

testimony is not of itself the cause of immediate cognition is part of Vacaspati's heritage from Mandana. For the other view, see the Iştasiddhi, p. 122, the Vedantaparibhāsā, pp. 39-41, and the Siddhantalesasangraha, 3rd pariccheda, pp. 396-398; the conse- quential discussion as to how verbal testimony can cause immediate cognition goes on from p. 399 to p. 414.

xlii

which alone there is release,1 or speak of the final release on death of those who have already been released in effect. Embodiment may, then, continue even after the onset of knowledge. Prārabdha karma is like a missile that has begun to take flight; it will drop only when its force is fully spent; when that happens, the body, which is constituted for the enjoy- ment of that karma, perishes as well, and there is final release. But there is no diminution in the knowledge that has been realised. And there is this advantage in such persons continuing to be embodied, in that they serve as preceptors. None who is yet short of perfect knowledge can be a preceptor of non-dualism ; and if he who has attained such knowledge should be dis- embodied at the same time, there would be no preceptors at all. The texts which speak of release immediately on the onset of knowledge signify but the close proximity of final release, if by such release we mean release from prarabdha karma and its product, the present body. But it is possible to be released even while in the state of embodiment, in the sense that for such a person there is no more knowledge to be acquired ; much less is there anything to be done by him. Such a knower may indeed say on the strength of his experience that he is released, though he continues to appear in the body. As Sankara says:

1 tasya tāvad eva ciram yāvan na vimoksye atha sampatsye. " vimuktas' ca vimucyate. tasyā 'bhidhyānād yojanāt tattva-bhavāt bhuyas' ca 'nte. vis'va-māyā-nivrttiḥ.

xliii

" It should not be disputed whether the Brahman- knower is embodied for a time or is not embodied. How can one's own intimate experience of Brahman- knowledge existing together with embodiment be denied by another ? ' The position is attractive but hardly clear from the logical point of view. If really there is the persistence of a part or trace of avidyā, (and that is what the continuance of prarabdha karma means), what is the justification for speaking of that state as one of release? Where nescience continues, how can there be perfect knowledge? To appeal to "one's own intimate experience" is only to abandon the test of reason, so vigorously insisted on so long, side by side with the appeal to Scripture. The doctrine of Jivan-mukti does not there- fore commend itself to a logical mind like that of Mandana.' But his own position is not very clear. On

1 Bhāsya on IV, i. 15. : See the Brahmasiddhi, pp. 129-133. It is possible to make out that Mandana holds to one consistent view on this question, that there is final release only on the dissolution of the body, that though knowledge is attained and avidya destroyed at an earlier stage we have still an adept alone, not a perfected being, that, in short, there is no Jivan-mukti. Such an attempt has the merit of simplifying Mandana's position, while being on the whole faithful to it; but it does not free him from the inconsistency of holding that though avidyā is destroyed its samskāra persists. Mandana argues that because of the use of the plural " karmāņi" (in "ksīyante cā 'sya karmāņi") even prarabdha karma should be taken to be destroyed with the onset of knowledge. If that too is destroyed, how can the body persist? If it be said to persist because of samskāra, while saņskāra is admitted to be akincitkara and to have no power to bind, why then should it be said that the sthita-prajna is only a sādhaka, not a siddha? Either avidya persists, in which case the so-called Jivan-mukta is only a sādhaka, or it does not persist, in

xliv

the one hand, he would make out that release comes only with physical death, and that the descriptions in Scripture and traditional lore of those who have passed beyond the gunas or are well established in wisdom refer to the seeker not the sage, the devotee not the perfected one. On the other hand, however, he seems to admit the possibility of the body continuing for a time even after release, not because of a part of avidyā, but because of the impression (samskāra) of avidyā, i.e., what is left over of its original momentum. Avidyā, he says, has the power to bind, not so its bare impres- sion. He, who knows that the image in the mirror is a bare reflection characterised by the defects of the mirror, no longer worries about the defects in the reflection, though by the strength of impression he continues to see the face in that way. To the question whether the released one continues to be embodied, Mandana would thus seem to give two inconsistent answers-one negativing embodiment and another permitting it, but as caused by the impression of nesci- ence, not by nescience itself. And to either position grave objections may be raised. The description of him who is well established in knowledge (sthitaprajña)1 cannot apply to a mere adept; for, the latter is still proceeding from stage to

which case he is a siddha. Mandana seeks to avoid both positions, and the result seems to be neither happy nor consistent; but Prof. S. Kuppuswami Sastriar, the learned editor of the Brahmasiddhi, seems to be of a different opinion.

II, 55-61. The reference is to the description in the Bhagavad-Gita,

xlv

stage of contemplation gaining increased firmness at every stage; he whose knowledge can thus be surpassed by himself cannot be said to be well established. And no one in such a state of growth can be a preceptor of non-dualism. If, on the other hand, it be said that the preceptor is the man of perfect knowledge, who yet continues to be embodied, the difference between us extends only to the cause of such embodiment and your explanation is no better than mine. What is samskāra itself but a trace of avidya? There is no impression except as produced by some cause; and when the whole notion of cause and effect has been realised to be illusory, how can there be the persistence of an effect ? If you say the impression is such that it cannot bind, we say the same of the trace of nescience whose per- sistence we recognise. We say that when there is perfect knowledge, prårabdha karma can only work itself out and not avail to create any fresh karma or other bondage. One would seem compelled, therefore, to rest with this unsolved contradiction of the co-existence of bondage and release in the Jīvan-mukta. And this is the position of most advaitins. It is permissible, however, to speculate on a possible solution of the contradiction. The preceptor is he whom the pupil may legitimately regard as qualified to be such, not necessarily he who proclaims himself to be such. When such a person attains perfect knowledge, it may be that he, as an individual, is at that very time released. For him there is neither a trace of ignorance nor the

xlvi

impression of ignorance. The psycho-physical configu- ration, however, which was spoken of as his body, may continue to exist and function for a while, shorter or longer, according to the extent of the momentum still left in it. The samskāra of avidya does exist, but for the body, not for the released spirit. It is this configu- ration which is spoken of as alive; it is that which is looked up to as the preceptor ; it is on the dissolution of that that one speaks of the final release of that jīva. It may, however, be asked legitimately how the inert psycho-physical organism can function in the absence of intelligent guidance. If there is such guidance, is it not provided by the soul whose release is under discussion? If it does provide such guid- ance, how can we claim to be out of our original difficulty as to the co-existence of bondage and release ? The answer we suggest is that there may be intelligent guidance; but the guidance is not by the particular soul, as particular; it is by Isvara with whom the released soul has become one. Is'vara can and does express Himself through all manner of media for show- ing His Grace to suffering humanity. What more natural than that He should employ this psycho- physical organism which by due discipline and austeri- ties has been perfected as far as it may be ? But with this we pass on to the further question as to the nature of release. If the jiva is a finitisation of Brahman, with the cessation of the adjuncts and of the process of finitisation, one should expect the jiva to become identical with Brahman. And this indeed

xlvii

seems to be what the Scriptures teach when they say that he who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself. But if it is true that the finitisation is bi-polar, that Is'vara at one pole is related to the jivas at the other, as if they were reflections of Himself, that the reflection is in the different nesciences each of which is located in a different jīva, it seems difficult for the jīva to become identical with Brahman, when a particular adjunct is removed. When a face is reflected in a number of mirrors, on the removal of a particular mirror, the reflection therein becomes identical with the face-as-reflected not with the face-in-itself. The latter identity can come about only when all mirrors are removed, when there is no further possibility of reflec- tion. Similarly the attainment of Brahmanhood may result only when all nesciences are removed, that is to say, when all jivas are released. Up to that time, release can consist only in identification with Is'vara.1 Hence it is not impossible that on the release of any particular jīva, Is'vara with whom that jīva has become identical may actuate for a time the psycho-physical organism which persists for a while because of the

1 The notion of release as attainment of identity with Is'vara is dealt with at great length by Appayya Diksita in the concluding pages of the Siddhantales'asangraha, as well as in the S'ivadvaita- nirņaya, sections, 3'2351 to 3'2355. The attainment of identity with pure Brahman can be only on the final release of all. The notion of sarvamukti (release of all) is not elaborated anywhere by Vacaspati, but he does refer to it in the commentary, on II, iii, 40 (p. 617). It is legitimate to infer that the whole superstructure raised by Appayya is not untrue to the foundations in Vacaspati's own teaching. That S'ankara himself countenanced such a view is very plausibly made out by Appayya.

xlviii

strength of its initial momentum. But if avidyā has ceased to exist for the released soul, how can it exist for Is'vara ? The reply is that our conception of Is'vara is of a pure being standing over against nescience, not bound by it, but certainly limited by it, while yet controlling it. This nescience is in truth neither real nor unreal, being indeterminable. But as we conceive the Lord, He is certainly limited by nescience, though when we become the Lord, on release, it will not be experienced as a limitation. The advaitin's ideal thus conceived cannot breed self-sufficiency ; for, salvation is possible for all, and till that consummation is attained, the world-process consisting in the elaboration and manifestation of nescience will not cease; till the final release of all, therefore, release can at best be identity with God, who, for all his omnisci- ence and omnipotence, is yot limited. Nor is the identification with Is'vara the same as the attainment of lordly powers said to be possible by the contempla- tion of Brahman in one or other of the saguna forms. The latter leads not to absolute lordship but only to the ability to create what is required for one's own enjoyment in heaven. There is no destruction of nescience, and consequently the lordly powers so acquired may be exhausted by exercise, so that a return to the original unlordly condition becomes possible. He who has realised non-duality, however, becomes fully and wholly identical with Is'vara. He has not only the power to create but also the responsibility to rule and the duty to destroy. For him there is no

xlix

more Nescience; hence the declaration of non-return to samsăra. The thoughtful student of Vacaspati may, perhaps, find little that is original in him. For the distinctive aspects of his teaching, he owes much, as has been said, to Mandana. Where he differs from Mandana, he elects to follow Sankara, not, perhaps always wisely.1 But there have been very few to excel or rival Väcaspati in the versatility and the extent of his scholarship, his vigour of style and clarity of presentation. The thoughts that so far we have been able to trace to Mandana would have remained little known and barren but for Vacaspati's linking them up with Sankara's teaching. About Mandana's own advaita doctrines, there has been as much un- certainty and speculation as about his personality, in spite of scraps of information vouchsafed here and there in the course of commentaries on other works. If the publication of the Brahmasiddhi makes us realise Vācaspati's indebtedness to Maņdana, it makes no less clear our own indebtedness to Vācaspati for popularising and keeping alive such a unique line of non-dualist doctrine.

For example, in the criticism of sphota-vada. On this wubject see article on "Vacaspati's criticism of the sphota-vada," Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, VI, p. 311.

1

For the study of the Bhamati in the first instance one of the editors-Mr. S. S. Suryanarayana Sastri- had the able guidance of Vedānta Vis'ārada Paņdit K. A. Lakshmana Sastri of the Sanskrit College, Mylapore; the same scholar was of considerable help in going through the Kalpataru and the Rjuprakāsikā; and the editors' grateful thanks are due to him in full measure. For the book as a whole both the editors are responsible; but the translation of the Bhāsya was done in the first instance by Dr. Kunhan Raja, while the rest was primarily the work of the other editor.1 Both in manuscript and in proof the book has had the advantage of suggestions and criticisms from several scholars, particularly, Mahāmahopādhyāya Vidyāvācaspati Darsanakalānidhi Kulapati S. Kup- puswami Sastri of the Presidency College; to him we owe a great debt for the kind permission to use the Brahmasiddhi in proof and for the trouble he took to free the translation from inaccuracies as far as possible; our thanks are also due to Professor K. A. Nilakanta Sastri of the University of Madras, and Professors P. Narasimham and P. P. S. Sastri of the Presidency College, Madras. To these as well as to Sir S. Radhakrishnan, who has been so good as to contribute a Foreword, we take this opportunity of expressing our deep sense of gratitude. The Bhamatt is admittedly a difficult work ; and a transla- tion for the first time is almost necessarily tentative

For the text, the Vani Vilas edition of the Catussūtri Bhamati has been followed for the most part.

li

and imperfect; despite reasonable care in the firsi instance, we have had to introduce several alterations and additional explanatory notes. The readers' atten- tion is requested to these in making use of the text and translation. We are thankful to the Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, for undertaking the publica- tion, and to the Vasanta Press for finishing the work so well.

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS

[N.B. The summary in italics relates to the Bhasyu, and the rest to the Bhamatr; the arabic numerals in brackets give the pages.]

A. SUPERIMPOSITION

I. Existence of Superimposition (1). Invocation (2); Objections to the study : content already known (3); unfruitfulness (4); interpretation of the first section of the Bhāșya (5); reply to the first objection : true nature of the self is not known (7); scriptural declarations of the true nature of the self are purportful, not secondary or figurative (8); it is valid though opposed to perception, since empirical validity of the latter is not annulled (8); priority of perception not a ground for non-sublation ; the apaccheda-nyāya (9); empirical cognition of the self is untrue (9); the word " self" is used not secondarily of the body ; con- ditions of secondary usage (10); self-identity known to the inquirer, not to the man in the street (11); the self is not finite like the body (11); the concept ' I' illusory even for the vijñāna-vadin (12); it is due to reciprocal super-imposition of substrates and of attributes (13); illusory cognition is its cause and empirical usage its fruit (13); non-discrimination as the cause of illusory cognition (14); objection that there are not two realities; reply-"coupling the true with the untrue"

liv

(14); beginninglessness of super-imposition (15); objec- tion: if bodies etc., are manifest they are real ; if not, there can be no coupling (15) ; reply (16). II. Definition of Superimposition (16). Explanation of the definition (17); the definition is neither too wide (17); nor too narrow(18); explanation of the superimpositions of yellow shell, the reflected face (18) ; manifestation alone does not constitute reality (19) ; even of the unreal there can be manifestation (19); the Mīmāmsaka view of non-existence as another mode of existence and the criticism of the Buddhist view that cognitions cause' the appearance of the unreal (20); cognition can neither be determined by nor invariably linked with the unreal (21); reply to the Mīmāmsakas (21, 22); the superimposed is like what was formerly seen (22); but really it is indeterminable (23); the purity etc., and reality of the intelligent self (23); different views of superimposition : ātmakhyāti (23, 24); criticism of above by akhyātivādin (25); his criticism of the view that the superimposed is created (25, 26); his view that all cognitions are valid (26) ; that delusion is but non-apprehension of the distinction between the directly apprehended and the remembered (26, 27); the anyathākhyātivādin-his criticism of akhyāti (28, 29, 30); his view of super-imposition (30, 31, 32); indeter- minability recognised in all the definitions (32). III. Possibility of Superimposition on the inner self (33). The samvid-bhamati (34-37); difficulties in the manifestation of the self (34); viow that consciousness

lv

is self-manifest, the self being merely its locus (34, 35); refutations of the above (35, 36, 37); light is one, determinate, identical with the self and objects are superimposed thereon (37, 38); difficulty of superimposi- tion on the self which is a non-object (38, 39); reply- non-objectness not invariable (39); appearance of agency, enjoyership, objectness etc. due to defining adjuncts (40) ; ănanda, nityatva etc., not really different from caitanya (40); Jīvatva as idam-anidam-rūpa (40, 41); immediacy of realisation of the inner self (42); possibility of superimposition even on what is not manifest : a praudhi-vāda (42, 43). IV. Nature of Superimposition (43, 44). Called Nescience (43); the cause of all evil (44); means of removing it (45); impossibility of its recurrence (46.) V. Means of valid knowledge have reference to one characterised by Nescience (47). Means of valid knowledge function only when there is conceit of self in the body, senses etc. (48); without their functioning there would be no empirical usage (48, 49); they cannot function without control (49); control is not possible except by a body on which the nature of the self is superimposed (49); the unattached self, in the absence of super.mposition, is not a knower (50); where there is no knowership, the means of valid knowledge do not function (50). VI. Resemblance of learned persons to beasts etc. (51, 52).

Ivi

VII. Sacred teaching (other than the Vedanta) relates to one characterised by Nescience (53, 54) .. Activity prescribed in sacred teaching requires the self's relation to another world, not its freedom from the migratory cycle (54); these teachings function before the realisation of the self as taught in the Vedānta (55); the karma-kāņda and the Vedānta relate to different spheres; analogy of the syena sacrifice (55). VIII. Nature of Superimposition repeated (56, 57). Superimposition of attributes exemplified (57); superimposition of substrate exemplified (58). IX. Removal of this beginningless cause of evil is the purport of the entire Vedanta (59, 60). Etymology of sārīraka-mīmāmsā (61); summary of prima facie view (61, 62); summary of final view (62).

B. DESIRE TO KNOW

I. First aphorism stated (63); "atha" means "anantarya," not "adhikāra" (64), nor "auspicious- ness" (65) ; what is it that goes before? (65). Brahman-knowledge, free from doubt, is the one supreme benefit (63) ; seems to be unattained because of Nescience; illustration of necklace round one's neck (63) ; doubt implied as cause of the inquiry (64) ; primacy of the aphorism justified (64); etymology of mīmāmsā, s'āstra and sūtra (64); primacy of the " desire to know" (65, 66); "jijñāsā" distinguished from "mīmāņsā" (66); auspiciousness effected by "atha" only when used in another sense (68); "reference to what has

lvii

gone before " does not differ in effect from " immediate succession " (68, 69): correct view; there is dependence on what goes before, only where there is a statement of alternative views (69). II. Succession not to knowledge of ritual (70); no sequence intended nor a relationship of S'esa and S'eşin or of Adhikrtā 'dhikāra (71). Ritual not subsidiary to apprehension of the sense of the sentence (71); Brahman-intuition results from hearing, reflection and contemplation (72) ; sacrifices etc. are of service to that contemplation by destroying impurities opposed to beatitude or by purifying the person or because of the discharge of the three obligations (73); the rites may subserve contemplation too by samyoga-prthaktva (74); refutation of the above prima facie view: Brahman-intuition is not a product or a modification or an attainment (75, 76) or something purified (76, 77); Brahman-intuition is not itself Brahman, nor is free from adjuncts; itself the last adjunct on the brink of destruction (78); not invalid like an imagined idea, because of the immediate experience of the jīva from the first (79); intuition effected by the antaḥkaraņa aided by the impression consequent on the repetition of the Vedanta Texts; no co-presence between contemplation and ritual (79). Objection : in spite of knowledge, impressions of Nescience persist; example of the bilious person spitting out sugar; ritual needed to root out these impressions; they may succeed in the task, though

lviii

themselves part of Nescience; example of certain poisons, the clearing nut etc. (80). Reply: impressions of Nescience may continue, but the enlightened one has no faith in ritual; he who has no faith is not eligible to engage in ritual (81); ritual performed by ineligible persons has no fruit (81), and not required for contemplation (82). Objection : prohibitions too would not apply to the vidvan, and there would be transgressions of the moral law (82). Reply: Even the jivanmukta has slight traces of Nescience, though he has no faith in rituals; but faith is required only for doing, not for refraining (82) ; there can be no transgression of prohibitions (83); ritual not required even in the origination of con- templation (83); rites are remote auxiliaries (83), as generating the desire to know (84). Tapas explained as eating in moderation (84); obligatory rites purify by destroying sin already incurred (84). Samyoga- prthaktva unjustifiable, because of prolixity (85). Stages in the functioning of ritual towards the desire to know (85). Ritual unnecessary where non-attach- ment has already resulted (86). The Jabala text does not intend to declare the presence of a rule of succession (87). Both Scripture and codes intend but an emphasis on non-attachment (88). Nor is sequence established by pāțha, sthāna, mukhya or pravrtti, because there is no relationship of subsidiary and principal (88); nor is there the eligibility of a person already eligible for something else (89).

lix

III. Difference between the two " Desires to know" in respect of content and fruit (90), in the dependence or non-dependence of the content on observances (90), in the existence or non-existence of their contents (91), in the related texts prompting to activity or merely instructing (91). Etymology of vişaya (92); in spite of the apparent injunction "ātmā jñātavyah," there is no directing to activity in respect of Brahman, since it cannot be produced (93); nor in respect of contem- plation or knowledge from verbal testimony, since neither is aprpta so as to call for a scriptural injunction (93). IV. The Preliminaries stated (94). Discrimination of things eternal and non-eternal, not of the nature of certitude (95), nor of the nature of doubt, but the apprehension of difference between substrates in general, as also between their attributes, as eternal and non-eternal (95); absolute denial of truth impossible (96); non-attachment and how it arises (96); s'ama, dama etc. explained (97). V. Explanation of "therefore" ; perishability of all enjoyment, even that acquired for the hereafter, while Brahman-knowledge bears permanent fruit (98). Possibility of non-attachment questioned; pain should be remedied, not pleasure avoided (99); scriptural declaration of the imperishability of heavenly pleasures sublates inference of perishability (99); reply : pain cannot be remedied because of the defects of depen- dence on external means and diminution persisting in all produced happiness (100); diminution etc. evidenced by

1x

Scripture too in addition to inference ; hence texts to the contrary have a secondary sense (100); Brahman- knowledge the supreme human goal (100). VI. "Brahma-jijnasa" explained as a sixth case- compound with the sense of object ; Brahman does not mean caste etc. (101). Refutation of the fourth case compound (101,102); Brahman is that which will be defined later (102); refutation of "the residuary sense" of the sixth case (102, 103), because knowledge requires an object and Brahman is that object (103). VII. Further refutation of the residuary sense (104), The objection and the reply imply concealed views (104). VIII. Further defence of the residuary sense ; refutation : ucceptance of the principal involves the acceptance of everything dependent on it (105); Scriptural support for Brahman being the object (106); explanation of " jijnasa" (106); Brahman-knowledge exterminates Nescience and is hence the human goal (106). Both objector and respondent come out with their real views (105); knowledge culminating in realisation is the object of desire (107); Brahman-realisation is the human goal, though it is incapable of generation, modification, purification, or attainment (107, 108); hence its knowledge is sought (108) and this is possible only with the help of the inquiry into Brahman (109). IX. Objection : impossibility of desire to know, whether Brahman be known or unknown (109).

lxi

Reply : Brahman does exist and is well known as the self (110). Existence of a general understanding of Brahman even prior to the enquiry (111); the attributes of Brahman (111, 112); etymology of Brahman (112); no one fails to cognise his own self (113); and the self is Brahman (113). X. Objection : being known, Brahman need not be inquired into (114); reply: conflicting views about its distinctive nature; several such views stated (114, 115); necessity for inquiry into Vedanta aided by reasoning not inconsistent therewith (115). Conflicting views must have a common basis (115); such views about the denotation of the "thou" (116); similar views about the denotation of "that" indicated (116) and directly stated (117); the basis of such views (117); need for inquiry (118); place of reasoning (118).

C. DEFINITION

I. Definition of Brahman stated (119); explana- tion and justification of " janmadi" (120, 121) ; explana- tion of "this" in " for this" (121, 122); complement of the aphorism (122). Objection : No definition is possible since no pramāņa applies (119, 120); reply : tatastha-lakșaņa stated as possible (120); justification for treating Brahman as the cause, not the pradhāna etc. (121, 122); need for intelligence (122), and omniscience and omnipotence (123).

Ixii

II. Justification for considering only the three; viz., origination, sustentation and destruction (124). Other modifications of "being " mentioned (124), and shown to be included in the three (125); the mention of these three alone brings to mind the appropriate Sruti about creation etc. (125); else would be brought to mind the Nirukta which does not teach the first cause (125). III. Pradhana, primal atoms, chance etc. ruled out (126); origination etc. used by some as grounds for inferring the Lord (126). IV. Present aphorism not intended to set forth an inference (127), the purpose of these aphorisms being to inquire into and string together Vedanta texts (127), Brahman-realisation being possible by such inquiry alone (128), inference serving only to confirm the sense of the texts (128). Explanation of " manana " and " yukti" (128). V. Scripture not the sole authority, but experience etc. too, where applicable (129), since Brahman- knowledge culminates in experience (129), and relates to an existent (130); not a kārya which allows of option (130), and in respect of which prescriptions and prohibitions are purportful (130); a "thing" admits of no options (131); hence knowledge of it depends not on the human intellect (131), but on the thing itself for validity (131). Reconciliation where there is conflict between prescriptions etc. (132); doubt and error do not introduce option into things, not being dependent on their nature (133).

Ixiii

VI. The existent is open to other means of know- ledge besides the Vedanta; contingent non-authorita- tiveness of the latter (134); reply: Brahman not a content of the senses (134); the aphorism of origina- tion etc. intended not to suggest an inference (135), but to exhibit Vedanta texts (135) ; the definitive text among these (136). Objection: Vedantas would be restatements of inferential knowledge (134); the inner self not an object of the senses (135); sāmānyato drșța inference not applicable (135); Brahman's vivarto-'pādānatva ex- plained (136).

D. SCRIPTURE-SOURCE

I. Source of Scripture necessarily an omniscient being (137); author necessarily knows more than the content of the work, and Scripture itself is omniscient (138). How Rgveda etc., are Sastras (138); how they are like the omniscient one (139); not all knowledge is expressible though possessed (140); " effortlessness" applied to creation signifies slightness, not absence, of effort (140); words and sentences non-eternal (140, 141); hence creation of these by the Lord is possible though He has no absolute liberty (141, 142) ; essential nature of the Vedas identical in every creation (142) ; single authorship not inconsistent with faith in the work (142). II. Alternative interpretation: Scripture is the pramana for Brahman (143). Possible doubt that

lxiv

inference is suggested by the second aphorism is removed by the present aphorism (144).

E. HARMONY

I. Brahman not evidenced by Scripture whose purport is ritual (145); Brahman-texts futile or subsidiary to injunction of rituals or injunction of contemplation etc. (146, 148); the existent is in the sphere of other pramanas and hence Sruti in relation to it is non-authoritative (147); arthavada passages find purport in syntactical unity with injunctions (147) ; statement of the final view (148). Contingent non-authoritativeness for the Vedāntas, because of failure of non-dependence (145); they can be neither non-authoritative nor unfruitful (146); they teach the agent, deity etc. of ritual or prescribe contemplation etc. (146); no injunction possible, even of an originative nature, in the case of the existent (147); content of the injunction is a becoming (147); application, procedure, eligibility etc., are present even in the originative injunction, though un- intended (148). II. Explanation of "but " and " harmony " in the aphorism (149, 150); purport of the texts not to teach agent, deity, etc. (150); Brahman, though existent, is not the content of perception etc. (150); oneness of Brahman and the self to be known through Sastra alone (154); Sastra not futile because of the absence of what is to be rejected or accepted (154) ; even from the

lxv

realisation of Brahman results the attainment of the human goal (154); teaching of Brahman not subsidiary to contemplation (155); for then all duality is quashed (155); and there can be no resurrection thereof (155). Upakrama and upasamhāra as determinative of the sense of texts (150); illustration from the texts about the upams'u sacrifice (150); Brahman thus settled to be the purport of the Vedāntas (150, 151); non-authoritativeness cannot be as referring to existent things (152); or as dependent on the human intellect (152) ; objection: a human origin may be inferred for the Vedas, as referring to existents (152), not if they refer exclusively to what is to be done (152) ; reply : if by kārya the implied apūrva is meant, apaurușeyatva would result even for injunctions to worship a Buddhist Caitya (153) ; if for the latter human origin is seen, it may be inferred for the Vedantas (153) ; from Brahman-realisation there is direct attainment of the human goal (155); two varieties of the attained and the abandoned (155): the attained, as it were and the abandoned, as it were (156). III. Veda relating to the self is authoritative independently of injunctions, since self-knowledge is of itself fruitful (158); authoritativeness not established through inference (159). Difference of Vedantas from arthavadas like "he howled " (158); authoritativeness of the Vedānta dependent on generating indubitable knowledge of what is not already known (159); it is intrinsic (159); hence no example is necessary (160).

lxvi

IV. Objection: Brahman intimated only as the object of contemplation (160) ; analogy of the āhavaniya fire etc. (163); pravrtti or nivrtti the fruit of the S'astra (163); authority to support this position (164); knowledge of Brahman enjoined for him who desires immortality (165). Brahman not the purport as the relation of words thereto is not known (160); it is neither to be rejected nor accepted and hence cannot be declared by a prudent man (160); words have for purport what is to be done (161) and not an existent (161); that a word has a certain sense has to be known by inferring the cognition of that sense in another who hears the word, through his pravrtti or nivrtti as probans (161); pravrtti and nivrtti characteristic of sacred teaching (161); transmi- gration does not cease with knowing the sense of "That thou art" (162); from hearing, one does not attain the human goal, as reflection and contemplation are also prescribed (162); of the self, as subsidiary to contemplation, there is certitude of existence (163); contemplation cannot be of the superimposed, as it would not be of the self (163); the person eligible for contemplation of Brahman is understood on the rātri- satra-nyāya (165) V. Objection (contd.): though the objects of the two enquiries are different, only as occasioned by an injunc- tion of contemplation is there the quest of Brahman (166) ; futility of texts not relating to an injunction (167); no resemblance to "this is a rope, not a snake," as happiness, misery etc. continue even for him who has

lxvii

heard (168); reflection and contemplation are also enjoined (168). The intuition (darsana) of the self cannot be the object of an injunction (166, 167); draştavyaḥ etc. are not real injunctions (167). VI. Reply : ritual and Brahman differ in respect of their knowledge and fruit (169, 170); gradations of happiness consequent on per formance of ritual (170, 171); gradations of misery (172); final release not the fruit of religious duty (173), being natural and eternal (173). Fruit of Religious Duty surpassable and destructi- ble (169); oneness of jiva and Brahman is eternal and unproduced (170); removal of Nescience occurs even with the rise of knowledge, which results natural- ly for the mind aided by the impressions of reflection and contemplation (170); no apūrva needed (170); analogy of apprehension of musical notes (171); no injunction needed for contemplation, as the latter is even otherwise known to result in intuition (171); nor a niyama-'pūrva, as in pounding the paddy (171) ; hence texts about contemplation etc. are only apparent injunctions (172). VII. Two kinds of eternality (174); non-embodi- ment is immutably eternal (174); if subsidiary to a karya, Brahman would be non-eternal, as also final release (175). Evolving eternality not absolute (174); view of whole and part as different yet non-different (175, 176) ; non-difference in the causal aspect, difference in the effect-aspect (176); criticism (176, 177, 178); either

1xviii

difference or non-difference should be assumptive (179); grounds for holding difference to be assumptive (179). VIII. Sruti shows final release to follow imme- diately on Brahman-knowledge (180), and excludes any- thing else to be done in between (181); support from the Preceptor Akşapāda (182). Knowledge instrumental to release only asremoving two-fold Nescience (180); definition of acārya (181); explanation of the Nyaya aphorism (182). IX. Knowledge of the unity of Brahman and the self not an imagined identification, nor a superimposition, nor what is due to association with a distinctive mode of activity (184); nor a purification (186); objections to its being sampat etc. (186); Brahman-knowledge dependent on the object, not on the activity of the man (187) ; no room for activity to enter, not even through Brahman being the object of the knowing or contemplating activity (187); Scripture cited (187, 188) ; purport of S'astra to remove difference posited by Nescience (188), not to give demonstrative knowledge of Brahman (188); removal of differences of cogniser, cognised etc. (189); no fear of non-eternality of release (189). Sampat and adhyasa explained and distinguished (183, 184); association with a distinctive mode of acti- vity explained (184, 185); in all three, self is subsidiary and contemplation is the principal (185); purification explained (185); refutation of the above possibilities: texts about the self are anārabhyā-'dhīta (186); no non-inconstant connection with rites, as for the ladle made of parņa wood (187); Brahman not the object of

İxix

the cognising activity (187); words cannot give demon- strative knowledge even of worldly things, much less of the transcendent (188). X. Non-eternality of release, if it be a product or a modification (190). XI. If of the nature of oneself, Brahman is already attained: even if not so, the all-pervasive Brahman cannot be attained: hence no room for activity (191). XII. Brahman being eternally perfect and pure, no excellence may be added to it or defect removed there- from; hence release is not the purified and needs no activity (192). XIII. Release is not manifested through purifica- tory acts, as the self cannot be the locus of an act (193) ; otherwise its non-eternality would result (194). Nescience located in the jīva; hence Brahman is certainly eternally pure (194); assuming impurity, it cannot be purified by an act inherent in another, while no act can inhere in it (194). XIV. Objection : acts inhering in the body purify the self (195); reply: what is purified is the self as associated with the body (195, 196, 197); purification is of that alone which is made the content of empirically valid pramāņa (196). XV. No other channel for activity (198) ; knowledge the one means (198). XVI. Objection : knowledge is an act of the mind (198); reply: no; nature of act explained (198, 199); and distinguished from that of knowledge (200, 201).

1xx

Acts like contemplation not established prior to an injunction (200); but knowledge of Brahman results from texts for those who can understand them (200); injunction not purportful, as it cannot be effected or not effected or effected in a different way (200, 201); contemplation and culmination in experience not enjoined as they are well known even in the absence of the injunction (201). XVII. Imperatives found in Scripture about the self have not the enjoined for content (202) ; but they turn one away from the objects of natural activity (202, 203). XVIII. With Brahman-realisation, there is destruc- tion of all obligations (205); Brahman not subsidiary to an injunction of contemplation (205). XIX. The self is understood from the Upanisads alone, does not transmigrate, is of the nature of Brahman and occurs in a topic of his own; this self is neither non-existent nor unknown ((206). Purportfulness and s'astratva established for the Vedanta, even as teaching the existent (206); words are apprehended in experience in relation to existents (207); because usage with such purport is seen and it is possible to infer cognition of the existent in him who understands the word (207) ; description of Sumeru (207); an onlooker ignorant of the language, but knowing the cause of the father's happiness infers in the father the cognition of his son's birth as produced by the messenger's words (208); usage of words in relation to the existent is intelligible because of fruitfulness (208); inference as to the Vedantas having the existent for

lxxi

content (209); etymology of Upanişad (209) ; grounds for the self not being subsidiary to what is to be done (209, 210); how Brahman can be signified by the Vedanta, through elimination of defining conditions (210); im- possibility of removing that which gets so defined (211). XX. The self is the witness of the denotation of "I" (211): not known through the vidhi-kanda or through reasoning (211); impossibility of refuting or of subordinating it to an injunction (212): imperishability, eternal purity, intelligence and freedom of the self (212) : it is what is principally revealed in the Upanisads (212). All others except the self, being indeterminable and unstable perish; but not the self, the material cause of all these (214); it is immutably eternal (215). XXI. Purport is declared to be ritual only in the case of prescriptions and prohibitions (215); the existent taught by Scripture cannot be other than existent (215); even what is for the sake of an act is not itself an act, but a thing (216); the self may be taught in the same way (216); such teaching purposeful as leading to cessation of transmigration (216). Purport of words is not only kårya or what subserves kårya (217); nor is it the sense of each word independently (217); teaching of word-sense an in- evitable intermediary to sentence-sense, which is the purport (218); conjunction with other word-senses needed, not with what is to be done (218); even state- ments related to the activity of being signify not that activity but only a relation (219).

lxxii

XXII. Prohibitions relate to desisting from an act and that is not an act (224); the negation does not signify anything other than indifference consisting in desisting from what is established by one's own nature (224) ; in- difference is caused by non-existence made known by the negative particle, and it subsides of its own accord, like fire without fuel (225). Prohibitions do not have for purport what is to be done (220); for kårya depends on the existence of voli- tion, and volition on its determinant, and the determi- nant must be a doing (220); substance and quality are related to kårya only through the doing (221); when substance and quality fall within the injunc- tion, they do so as complements to the doing (221); connection of material and deity is not the content of prescription in "there is that agneya etc.," (222); even in "make a pot," the substantive is only what is desired, not what is enjoined (222); if prohibi- tions had karya for purport, exclusion would have to be understood in all cases, as in the Prajāpati-vrata, and the other function of negation would have to be aban- doned (223); cessation is not itself what is to done (224); nor is voluntary effort to desist prescribed (226); what is prohibited is cognised as instrumental to evil, and this is the cognition of its non-existence (226) ; this cognition is the cause of the perpetuation of indifference (227); the imperative suffix restates what is established even otherwise by passion and shows its instrumentality to evil (228); and this cognition dies out of itself like fire whose fuel has been consumed (229); the Mimmsaka

Ixxiii

declaration of futility applies only to such narratives etc., as do not subserve the human goal (230). XXIII. Statements about the existent are profi- table (230); transmigratoriness does not exist as before for him who has realised Brahman (230, 231); illustra- tion from the wealthy man and the man with ear-rings (231, 232); embodiment is due to illusory knowledge, while non-embodiment is eternal (233) ; embodiment not caused by merit and demerit, because of reciprocal dependence (233); because the self is not an agent, not even indirectly like kings etc. (234). Brahman-intuition compared to the intuition of musical notes by the mind purified through the hearing and practice of music (232); it removes the presentation of the entire universe and itself therewith (232). XXIV. Conceit of self in the body is illusory, not secondary (235); for secondary usage depends on the prior apprehension of difference (236); the concept " I" is applied to the body etc. non-figuratively, through non-discrimination, even by learned men (237) ; hence illusory (237); consequently when this illusion is removed by true knowledge there is jivanmukti (238); support from Sruti and Smrti (238); no transmigratoriness as before for him who has realised (238). Some unseen cause needed to explain superimposi- tion since valid perception or doubt would be appropriate otherwise (237). XXV. Brahman is not subsidiary to injunctions of reflection and contemplation, since these too are for the sake of realisation (239); Scripture is the pramana

lxxiv

for Brahman, because of harmony of the texts, not because of Brahman being the content of an injunction (240); hence the commencement of a new Sastra is justified (240) ; but not if its purport were an injunction to contemplate (241); all means of valid knowledge terminate in " I am Brahman" (242) ; they are contentless and non-authori- tative on the realisation of the non-dual Brahman (242); support from the verses of a Brahman-knower (242). No prescription of manana and nididhyāsana, since their culmination in intuition is established by co- presence and co-absence in experience (239); they are not principal rites (239); nor are they subsidiary rites, like purification, since the self is neither used nor to be used anywhere (240), and, as propounded in the Upa- nișads, is opposed to the observance of rites (240); one- ness of the self and Brahman not merely different from but opposed to Religious Duty (241); non-authoritative- ness follows at that stage for all pramāņas (242) ; expla- nation of the verses of the Brahman-knower (242); explanation of the secondary and illusory selves (243) ; dependence of loka-yātrå and even enlightenment on these conceits (243); knowership etc., possible only prior to self-realisation (243); the self to be realised is not other than the knower (244); the non-valid yet gives rise to absolutely real experience, up to the ascertain- ment of the self (244); the intuition which is absolutely real is unproduced (244); short of that there is Nescience and in its producing or destroying other Nescience there is no unintelligibility (215); Isāvāsya Upanișad cited in support (245).

भामती-चतुःसूत्री

ब्रह्मसूलशांकरभाष्यम्

युष्मदस्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरयोर्विषयविष - यिणोस्तमःप्रकाशवद्विरुद्धस्वभावयोरितरेतर- भावानुपपत्तौ सिद्धायाम्, तद्धर्माणामपि सुतरामितरेतरभावानुपपत्तिः-इत्यतः अ- स्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरे विषयिणि चिदात्मके युष्म- त्प्रत्ययगोचरस्य विषयस्य तद्धर्माणां चाध्या- सः, तद्विपर्ययेण विषयिणस्तद्धर्माणां च वि- षयेऽध्यासो मिथ्येति भवितुं युक्तम्। तथा-

मांश्च अध्यस्य इतरेतराविवेकेन अत्यन्त- विविक्तयोर्धर्मधर्मिणोः, मिथ्याज्ञाननिमिन्तः, सत्यानृते मिथुनीकृत्य, 'अहमिदम्, ममे- दम्' इति नैसर्गिकोऽयं लोकव्यवहारः।

BRAHMASŪTRABHĀȘYA

OF SANKARACARYA

OF the spheres of the two concepts of "Thou" and "I," the object and the subject, with their natures opposed to each other like darkness and light, when it is established that one cannot intelligibly be of the nature of the other, the more is it unintelligible for their attributes too to be one (in the substrate of) the other ; on this account, the superimposition of the object, the sphere of the concept of "Thou," and of its attributes, on the subject, the intelligent self, the sphere of the concept of "I," and (conversely) through an error in respect of that, the superimposition of the subject and its attributes on the object, can properly be only an illusion. Yet, after superimposing on each the nature and the attributes of the other through non-discrimina- tion of each from the other in the case of attributes absolutely distinct (among themselves) as also of substrates (similarly distinct), there is this natural empirical usage like, "I am this," and " this is mine," coupling the true with the untrue, with its cause in illusory cognition,

THE BHĀMATI

1. We render obeisance to that immortal Brahman, the immeasurable bliss and knowledge, from whom as Lord with the two kinds of indeterminable Nescience as ministers, there are the illusory manifestations of ether, air, fire, water and the earth -- and from whom came forth this universe, movable and immovable, high and low.

2. The Vedas are His breath, His glance the five elements, the (universe) movable and immovable is His smile, His sleep is the final deluge.

3. To the Vedas and to Bhava, which are eternal and associated with six angas as also with manifold im- perishable properties (or indeclinables) we render obeisance.3

4. We render obeisance to Martanda, to Tilaka- svamin,' and to Mahaganapati, who are worthy of universal adoration and are the dispensers of all fulfilment.

5. Obeisance to Vyasa, the secondary Creator.' the author of the Brahma-sutras, the incarnation of the cognitive energy of the Lord Hari.

6. Having rendered obeisance to Sankara, of wisdom pure, of grace the ocean, we (proceed to) analyse the clear (yet) deep' commentary written by him.

7. As the waters of a highway are purified by falling into the current of the Ganges, even so are the lowly words of those like us, by their conjunction with the work of the Master.

भामती

अनिर्वाच्याविद्याद्वितयसचिवरय प्रभवतो विवर्ता यस्यैते वियदनिलतेजोऽबवनयः । यतश्राभूद्दिश्वं चरमचरमुच्चावचमिदं नमामस्तद्वह्मापरिमितसुखज्ञानममृतम् ॥१॥ निःश्वसितमस्य वेदा वीक्षितमेतस्य पञ्च भूतानि। स्मितमेतर्य चराचरमर्य च सुप्तं महाप्रलयः ॥२॥ षड्भिरङ्गैरुपेताय विविधैरव्ययैरपि। शाश्रताय नमस्कुर्मो वेदाय च भवाय च ॥ ३ ॥ मार्तण्डतिलकस्वामिमहागणपतीन् वयम्। विश्ववन्द्यान्नमस्यामः सर्वसिद्धिविधायिनः ॥ ४ ।। ब्रह्मसूत्रकृते तसमै व्यासायापरवेधसे। ज्ञानशक्त्यवताराय नमो भगवतो हरेः ॥ ५ ॥

नत्वा विशुद्धविज्ञानं शङ्करं करुणानिधिम्। भाष्यं प्रसन्नगम्भीरं तत्प्रणीतं विभज्यते ॥ ६ ॥ आचार्यकृतिनिवेशनमप्यवधूतं वचोऽस्मदादीनाम्। सथ्योदकमिव गङ्गाप्रवाहपातः पवित्रयति ॥ ७॥

३ अध्यास:

अथ यदसंदिग्धमप्रयोजनं च न तत्प्रेक्षाव- त्प्रतिपित्सागोचरः, यथा समनस्केन्द्रियसंनिकृष्टः स्फीतालोकमध्यवर्ती घटः, करटदन्ता वा ; तथा चेदं ब्रह्मेति व्यापकविरुद्धोपलब्धिः । तथा हि- बृहत्वाद्बृंहणत्वाद्दात्मैव ब्रह्मेति गीयते। स चायमा कीटपतङ्गेभ्य आ च देवर्षिभ्यः प्राणभृन्मात्रस्येदंका- रास्पदेभ्यो देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्धिविषयेभ्यो विवेकेन 'अहम् ' इत्यसंदिग्धाविपर्यस्तापरोक्षानुभवसिद्ध इति न जिज्ञासासपदम्। न हि जातु कश्चिदत्र संदिग्धे 'अहं वा नाहं वा' इति। न च विपर्यस्यति 'नाहमेत्र' इति। न च 'अहं कुशः, स्थूल:, गच्छामि' इत्यादिदेहधर्मसामानाधिकरण्यदर्शनाद्दे- हालम्बनोऽयमहंकार इति सांप्रतम् । तदालम्बनत्वे हि 'योऽहं बाल्ये पितरावन्वभूवं स एव स्थाविरे प्रणप्तृननुभवामि' इति प्रतिसंधानं न भवेत्। न हि बालस्थविरयोः शरीरयोररिति मनागपि प्रत्यभि- ज्ञानगन्धो येनैकत्वमध्यवसीयेत। तस्माद्येषु व्यावर्त- मानेषु यदनुवर्तते तत्तेम्यो भिन्नं यथा कुसुमेम्यः सूत्रम्। तथा च बालादिशरीरेषु व्यावर्तमानेष्वपि

SUPERIMPOSITION 3

Now, that of which there is no doubt or that which is profitless cannot be the sphere of a desire to know on the part of a prudent inquirer, as, for instance, a pot present in bright light and coming into contact with the sense (of sight) along with the mind; or the teeth of a crow. So too, is this Brahman; hence the knowledge of what is opposed to (the presence of) the pervader 7 (of the inquiry, i.e., doubt and profit). It is thus : the self alone is called Brahman, because it is great or it causes to grow. This (self) is known through indubitable, non-erroneous and immediate experience of the nature of "I," as distinct from the body, the organs, the mind, the intellect, their objects, (in short) from whatever may be designated by the term "this"; (this experience exists) in all living beings from the worm and the moth to gods and sages ; hence the self cannot be the object of a desire to know. No one indeed doubts "Is this I or not-I?" or makes the mistake "this is not I at all". Nor is it admissible to say that, since judgements like "I am lean, stout," "I go," etc., are seen to be used in apposition with qualities of the body, the body is the substrate of the word "I". If that were the substrate, the recognition "I, who while young enjoyed (the company of) my parents, now, when I am old, enjoy (the company of) my grand- children " would not come into being. There is not, verily, as between the bodies of youth and old age the slightest trace of recognition, whereby identity could be determined. Hence, that which is constant in whatever is variable, that is different from the latter, as a string from the flowers (strung thereon). So too, the factor which is designated by the word "I" and is constant even in the variations of the bodies of youth, etc., is different from

4 SUPERIMPOSITION

these. Further, the very person, who in dreams possessed of a divine body enjoys pleasures suitable thereto, seeing himself when awake to be endowed with a human body and saying "I am not divine, but human," experiences the substrate of I-ness, which is distinct from the body and unsublated, though sublated in respect of the divine body. Further, he, who becomes a tiger by his yoga, experiences the self as non-different in spite of differences of the body ; hence, the body is not the substrate of I-ness. Hence too, even the organs are not its substrate, since even where the senses are different there is the recognition of the substrate of I-ness, in "I myself that saw now touch it". The distinction of that (self) from objects is but too patent. The intellect and the mind, being but instruments, cannot properly be substrates of a cognition of " I," which reflects the agent (not the instrument). Statements like "I am lean, I am blind," etc., which are made even though there is no non-difference (between the body and the self), are, as we see fit to hold, suitably understood as in some way figurative, like the statement "the galleries shout (meaning that the people in the galleries shout)". Therefore, it is established that the self, which is understood from the exceedingly patent experience of the "I," distinct from the body, the organs, the mind, the intellect,9 the objects, (in short) from whatever is designated by the term "this," is, because of the absence of doubt, not the object of a desire to know. (This is so) also because there is no profit (from the inquiry). It is thus: salvation which consists in the cessation of transmigration is the profit here desired to be set forth. Transmigration has for its cause the non- experience of the true nature of the self, and is to be got

अध्यास: ४

परस्परमहंकारारपदमनुवर्तमानं तेभ्यो भिद्यते। अपि च स्वप्नान्ते दिव्यं शरीरभेदमास्थाय तदुचितान्भो- गान्भुञ्जान एव प्रतिबुद्धो मनुष्यशरीरमात्मानं पश्यन् 'नाहं देवो मनुष्य एव' इति देवशरीरे बाध्य- मानेऽप्यहमास्पदमबाध्यमानं शरीराद्जिन्नं प्रतिपद्यते। अपि च योगव्याघ्रः शरीरभेदेऽप्यात्मानमभिन्नमनु- भवतीति नाहंकारालम्बनं देहः । अत एव नेन्द्रि- याण्यप्यस्यालम्बनम्, इन्द्रियमेदेऽपि 'योऽहमद्राक्षं स एवैतर्हि स्पृशामि' इत्यहमालम्बनरय प्रत्यभि- ज्ञानात्। विषयेभ्यरत्वस्य विवेक: स्थवीयानेव । बुद्धिमनसोश्च करणयोः 'अहम्' इति कर्तृ- प्रतिभासप्रख्यानालम्बनत्वायोगः । 'कुशोऽहम्' 'अन्धोऽहम्' इत्यादयस्तु प्रयोगा असत्यप्यभेदे कथंचित् 'मञ्चाः क्रोशन्ति' इत्यादिवदौपचारिका इति युक्तमुत्पश्यामः । तस्मादिदंकारारपदेभ्यो देहे- न्द्रियमनोबुद्धिविषयेभ्यो व्यावृत्तः स्फुटतराहमनु- भवगम्य आत्मा संशयाभावादजिज्ञास्य इति सिद्धम्। अप्रयोजनत्वाच्च। तथा हि-संसारनिवृत्तिरपवर्ग इह प्रयोजनं विवक्षितम्। संसारश्र आत्मयाथा- 2

५ अध्यास:

त्म्याननुभवनिमित्त आत्मयाथात्म्यज्ञानेन निवर्तनीयः। स चेदयमनादिरनादिना आत्मयाथात्म्यज्ञानेन सहानुवर्तते, कुतोऽस्य निवृत्तिः अविरोधात् ? कुतश्रात्मयाथात्म्याननुभवः ? न हि 'अहम् ' इत्यनुभवादन्यदात्मयाथात्म्यज्ञानमरिति । न च 'अ- हम् ' इति सर्वजनीनरफुटतरानुभवसमर्थित आत्मा देहेन्द्रियादिव्यतिरिक्तः शक्य उपनिषदां सहस्रैरप्य- न्यथयितुम्, अनुभवविरोधात्। न ह्यागमाः सहस्रमपि घटं पटयितुमीशते। तस्मादनुभव- विरोधादुपचरितार्था एवोपनिषद इति युक्मुत्पश्याम इत्याशयवानाशङ्कय परिहरति-युष्मदस्मत्प्रत्य- यगोचरयोः इति। अत्र च युष्मदस्मत् इत्यादिः मिथ्येति भवितुं युक्तं इत्यन्तः शङ्काग्रन्थः। तथापि इत्यादिः परिहारग्रन्थः । तथापि इत्यभिसंबन्धाच्छ- झ्यां यद्यपीति पठितव्यम्। इदमस्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरयो- रिति वक्तव्ये युष्मद्ग्रहणमत्यन्तभेदोपलक्षणार्थम्। यथा ह्यहंकारप्रतियोगी त्वंकारो नैवमिदंकारः, 'एते वयम्, इमे वयम्, आस्महे' इति बहुलं

SUPERIMPOBITION 5

rid of by knowledge of the true nature of the self. If that (transmigration) which is beginningless persists alongside the beginningless knowledge of the true nature of the self, how can there be the riddance of the former, there being no opposition (between the two) ? And how can there be non-experience of the true nature of the self ? Other than the experience of "I," there is indeed no knowledge of the true nature of the self. Nor can this self, which is other than the body, the organ etc., and which is established by the very patent experience of "I" common to all men, be negatived even by a thousand Upanisads, that being opposed to experience. A thousand Scriptures, verily, cannot convert a pot into a cloth. Therefore, because of opposition to experience, we see fit to hold that the Upani- șads have but a figurative sense. Raising a doubt, with these ideas in mind, (the commentator) answers it (thus): "Of the spheres of the two concepts," etc. Here, (the text) from " Of the spheres" etc., up to "can properly be only illusion" is the statement of the doubt. (The text beginning) from "Yet" is the statement of the answer. As against the expression "Yet" (of the next sentence), the word "though" has to be supplied in the statement of the doubt. Where the words "of the spheres of the two concepts 'this' and 'I'" should have been used, the word "thou" is used (in the place of "this ") to indicate the absolute difference (between the contrasted aspects of experience). The counter-correlate of the word " I" is not the word " this," so much as the word " thou," since there is seen extensive usage of expressions like "We are this, we

6 SUPERIMPOSITION

are that". The self of the nature of intelligence is the sub- ject (vişayin), the non-intelligent intellect, organs, body and objects, are the objects of cognition (vişayas). For, these bind the intelligent self, that is to say, make it determinable through their own form." As an exampie of absolute differ- ence, which is the ground of the impossibility of reciprocal super-imposition, (there is mentioned) "like darkness and light". Never indeed, can one understand such utterly different things as light and darkness each to be of the nature of the other. This is stated thus:" when it is established that one cannot intelligibly be of the nature of the other." The one being the other means the one having the nature of the other, that is to say, the identity of the one with the other; this is unintelligible." Be this so. Let there be no reciprocal identity between different substrates (i.e., the self and the not-self) ; there may occur yet the reciprocal super-imposition of their attributes, such as inertness and intelligence, eternality and non-eterna- lity etc. Even where substrates are distinguished, there is indeed seen to occur super-imposition of their attributes, e.g., in thecrystal though apprehended as different from the flower, yet because of its absolute transparency, there arises the illu- sion of redness, in the experience "red crystal", generated by the reflection of the hibiscus flower. To this it is said : "for their attributes too." The existence of the attributes of one substrate in the other, i.e., their mutual transfer; this is unintelligible. This is the idea : it is indeed a substance with colour, which, on account of its absolute transparency takes on the reflection of another substance with coiour, though

अध्यास: ६

प्रयोगदर्शनादिति। चित्स्वभाव आत्मा विषयी, जडस्वभावा बुद्धीन्द्रियदेहविषया विषयाः । एते हि चिदात्मानं विसिन्वन्ति अवबभ्नन्ति; सवेन रूपेण निरूपणीयं कुर्वन्तीति यावत्। परस्परानध्यासहेतौ अत्यन्तवैलक्षण्ये दृष्टान्तः-तमःप्रकाशवत् इति। न हि जातु कश्चित्समुदाचरद्दत्तिनी प्रकाशतमसी परस्परात्मतया प्रतिपत्तुमर्हति। तदिदमुक्तम्- इतरेतरभावानुपपत्तौ इति। इतरेतरभावः इत- रेतरत्वम्, तादात्म्यमिति यावत् ; तस्यानुपपत्ता- विति। स्यादेतत्। मा भूडर्मिणोः परस्परभावः ; तद्दर्माणां तु जाड्यचैतन्यनित्यत्वानित्यत्वादीनां इतरेतराध्यासो भविष्यति। दृश्यते हि धर्मिणो- र्विवेकग्रहणेऽपि त्र्माणामध्यासः, यथा कुसुमान्जेदेन गृह्यमाणेडपि स्फटिकमणावतिस्वच्छतया जपाकुसुम- प्रतिबिम्बोद्ग्राहिणि 'अरुण: स्फटिकः' इत्या- रुण्यविभ्रम इत्यत इदमुक्तम्-तद्धर्माणामपि इति। इतरेतरत्र धर्मिणि धर्माणां भावो विनिमयः, तस्यानुपपत्तिः । अयमभिसंधि :- रूपवद्धि द्रव्य-

७ मध्यास:

मतिस्वच्छतया रूपवतो द्रव्यान्तरस्य तद्विवेकेन गृह्यमाणस्यापि च्छायां गृह्लीयात्, चिदात्मा तु नीरूपो विषयी न विषयच्छायामुद्ग्राहयितुमर्हति। यथाहु :- 'शब्दगन्धरसादीनां कीदृशी प्रतिबिम्बता' इति। तदिह पारिशेष्याद्विषयविषयिणोरन्योन्यात्म- संभेदेनैव तद्धर्माणामपि पररपरसंभेदेन विनिमयात्मना भवितव्यम्, तौ चेद्धर्मिणौ अत्यन्तविवेकेन गृह्यमा- णावसंभिन्नौ, असंभिन्नाः सुतरां तयोर्धर्माः, स्वाश्रयाभ्यां व्यवधानेन दूरापेतत्वात्। तदिदमुक्तम्-सुतरां इति। तद्विपर्ययेण इति। विषयविपर्ययेणेत्यर्थः । मिथ्याशब्द:अपह्रववचनः। एतदुक्तं भवति-अध्या- सो भेदाग्रहेण व्याप्तः, तद्विरुद्धश्रेहारित भेदग्रहः, स भेदाग्रहं निवर्तयंस्तद्वयाप्तमध्यासमपि निवर्तयतीति। मिथ्येति भवितुं युक्तं यद्यपि तथापीति योजना। इदमत्राकूतम्-भवेदेतदेवं यदि 'अहम्' इत्यनुभवे आत्मतत्त्वं प्रकाशेत। न त्वेतदरि्ति । तथा हि समस्तोपाध्यनवच्छिन्नानन्तानन्दचैतन्यैक- रसमुदासीनमेकमद्वितीयमात्मतत्त्वं श्रुतिस्मृतीतिहास-

SUPERIMPOSITION 7

apprehended as different from itself ; the intelligent self, how- ever, is the colourless subject and cannot take on the reflec- tion of the object. As they (the Bhattas) say : "Of sound, smell, taste etc., in what way can there be reflection ?"" Hence it follows by elimination that mutual transfer of the constantly associated attributes of the object and the subject is possible only on the basis of the reciprocal connec- tion of these two. If these two substrates being apprehend- ed as absolutely distinct are unrelated, their attributes are even more clearly unrelated, they being further removed from each other by the interposition of their respective sub- strates. This is stated thus : "the more," etc. "Through an error in respect of that" means through an error in respect of the object. The word "illusion" signifies concealment. This is what is said: super-imposition is pervaded by non-apprehension of difference; the opposite thereof, i.e., the apprehension of difference, is present here, which, getting rid of that non-apprehension of difference, gets rid also of the super-imposition pervaded thereby. "Though they can properly be only illusion, yet": this is the construction. This is the underlying idea .- (All) this might be so, if the true nature of the self were manifest in the experi- ence of the "I". This, however, is not so. It is thus : the true nature of the self is declared in Scripture, traditional codes (smrti), epics (itihasas), and mythologies (purāņas) as undefined by any limiting conditions, as of the one consistency of endless bliss and intelligence, as indifferent, as one and without a second. Nor can those (statements) which have the purport of teaching the self as of this nature, through their introductory, intermediate and

8 SUPERIMPOSITION

concluding passages, and through purportful repetition, be made figurative even by Indra. For, from repetition results the eminence of the object, as in "Lo, beautiful, lo, beautiful!", not its littleness ; nor even figurativeness (that being) remote indeed. The experience of the "I," exhibit- ing as it does the self as finite and as confounded by a multitude of griefs and sorrows, how can it have the true nature of the self for its sphere? Or how can it be undeluded (experience)? Nor can it be said that since Scripture is opposed to perception, which is the elder means of valid knowledge (pramana), " the former alone as dependent on the latter should be declared invalid or figurative; for, since that (Scripture) is not of human origin and is free from even the suspicion of any defect, and since its validity is self-revealed by the very fact of its conveying knowledge, it is independent (of any other means of knowledge) in respect of its effect, i.e., valid knowledge. If it be said that though independent in respect of the knowledge (it generates), yet since it is dependent on perception in respect of its origin, and since there is opposition to that (perception), there will be the non-validity of Scriptural teaching, consisting in its non-production,-no (we reply); for, there is no opposition to its origination (by perception). Scriptural knowledge does not indeed annul the empirical validity of perception, whereby it would itself cease to be, because of the non-existence of its cause; rather (does it annul) the absolute (validity of perception). Nor is its cause the absolutely true (percep- tion), since true knowledge is seen to arise from means of knowledge which are empirically though not absolutely

अध्यास: ८

पुराणेषु गीयते। न चैतान्युपक्रमपरामर्शोपसंहारैः

सन्ति शक्यानि शक्रेणाप्युपचरितार्थानि कर्तुम्। अभ्यासे हि भूयस्त्वमर्थस्य भवति यथा 'अहो दर्शनीया अहो दर्शनीया' इति, नाल्पत्वमपि प्रागेवोपचरितत्वमिति। अहमनुभवस्तु प्रादेशिक- मनेकविधशोकदुःखादिप्रपञ्चोपप्लुतमात्मानमादर्शयन् कथमात्मतत्त्वगोचरः कथं वानुपप्लुवः? न च ज्वेष्ठप्रमाणप्रत्यक्षविरोधादाम्नायस्यैव तदपेक्षस्याप्रामा- प्यमुपचरितार्थत्वं वेति युक्तम्, तस्यापौरुषेयतया निरस्तसमस्तदोषाशङ्करय, बोधकतया च स्वतःसिद्ध- प्रमाणभावस्य स्वकार्ये प्रमितावनपेक्षत्वात्। प्रमिता- वनपेक्षत्वेऽप्युत्पत्तौ प्रत्यक्षापेक्षत्वात्तद्विरोघादनुत्पत्ति- लक्षणमस्याप्रामाण्यमिति चेत्, न, उत्पादका- प्रतिद्वन्द्वित्वात्। न ह्यागमज्ञानं सांव्यवहारिकं प्रत्यक्षस्य प्रामाण्यमुपहन्ति येन कारणाभावान्न भवेत् ; अपि तु तात्त्विकम्। न च तात्तविक- मस्योत्पादकम्, अतात्त्विकप्रमाणभावेभ्योऽपि सां- व्यवहारिकप्रमाणेभ्यस्तत्त्वज्ञानोत्पत्तिदर्शनात्। तथा 8

९ अध्यास:

च वर्णे हृस्वत्वदीर्घत्वादयोऽन्यधर्मा अपि समारोपिताः तत्त्वप्रतिपत्तिहेतवः । न हि लौकिकाः 'नागः' इति वा "नगः" इति वा पदात्कुञ्जरं वा तरुं वा प्रतिपद्यमाना भवन्ति भ्रान्ताः । न चानन्यपरं वाक्यं स्वार्थ उपचरितार्थ युक्तम्। उक्तं हि-'न विधौ परः शब्दार्थः' इति। ज्येष्ठत्वं च अनपेक्षि- तस्य बाध्यत्वे हेतुः न तु बाधकत्वे, रजतज्ञानस्य ज्यायसः शुक्तिज्ञानेन कनीयसा बाघदर्शनात्। तदनपबाधने तदपबाधात्मनः तस्योत्पत्तेरनुपपत्तेः । दर्शितं च तात्त्विकप्रमाणभावस्यानपेक्षितत्वम्। तथा च पारमर्ष सूत्रम्-'पौर्वापर्ये पूर्वदौर्बल्यं प्रकृति- वत्' इति। तथा च-

पूर्वात्परबलीयरत्वं तत्र नाम प्रतीयताम्। अन्योन्यनिरपेक्षाणां यत्र जन्म घियां भवेत् ॥-इति ।।

अपि च येऽप्यहंकारास्पदमात्मानमास्थिषत तैरप्यस्य न तात्त्विकत्वमभ्युपेतव्यमू, 'अहमि-

SUPERIMPOSITION 9

valid. Thus, the qualities of short and long, though foreign to letters (belonging as they do to sound : dhvani), being super-imposed thereon, are causes of true apprehension; those who in the world understand by naga and naga different objects such as elephant and tree are not, verily, deluded people. Nor may it be said of a word not having any other purport that it is used figuratively in respect of its own sense. It has indeed been said: "The meaning of a word in an injunctive statement cannot be other (than its primary one)."" The priority of what is not depended on is a ground for its being sublated, not for its sublating (another means of knowledge), for, it is seen that the earlier cognition of silver is sublated by the later cognition of nacre. If the former were not sublated, the origination of the latter (cognition) whose essence is the sublation (of the former) would not be inteiligible. And it has been shown that the absolute validity (of perception) is not depended on. So too the aphorism of the great sage (Jaimini): "Where there is the relationship of earlier and later, the earlier is weaker, as in the case of the archetypal rite (prakrti)."" And to the same effect (is the verse): "The superiority of the later over the earlier is cognised where their cognitions arise not as reciprocally dependent." 1i Further, those who acknowledge the self as the substrate of I-ness, even by them the truth of that (cognition) cannot be admitted, since in the judgement "I am in this very abode, (but) cognising," the omnipresent self is apprehended as finite, in the same way as to the man

10 SUPERIMPOSITION

on the ground, big trees on the top of a high peak appear as blades of grass. Nor is it admissible that the experienced finiteness is of the body, not of the self. For then the experience would not be of the form "I (am)," etc .; nor would it be of the form "cognising," if (the word "I" be taken to be used) in a secondary sense (of the body). Further, when it is agreed as between the speaker and the understanding listener that a certain word has the connotation of another, then the use is secondary; it follows in the wake of awareness of difference. It is, indeed, thus: when the word agnihotra, which (ordinarily) denotes the obligatory rite of that name, is used in the statement "he offers the masa-agnihotra oblation" in another context ascertained to be (of a) different (nature), in connection with an act related to the kundapāyinam ayana, the use (of the word agnihotra) based on the similarity of what is to be accomplished (in both cases) is secondary;so too the use of the word "lion" in the case of a pupil who is known from experience to be different from a lion. (Here, however) the primary denotation of the word "I" is not indeed experienced as determinately and specifically other than the body eto., in which case alone that word would have the secondary sense of body etc. Nor may it be understood that, where by long usage a term has a secondary sense, there is no recognition of the sense being secondary, as is the case with taila (lit. sesamum oil) as applied to mustard oil; for, here too, only where difference is established, in respect of viscidity, being extracted from sesamum etc., there is the conceit of mustard oil etc. being primarily

अध्यास: १०

हैवास्मि सदने जानानः' इति सर्वव्यापिनः प्रादेशिकत्वेन ग्रहणात् उच्चतरगिरिशेखरवर्तिषु महातरुषु भूमिष्ठस्य दूर्वाप्रवालनिर्भासप्रत्ययवत्। न चेदं देहस्य प्रादेशिकत्वमनुभूयते न त्वात्मन इति सांप्रतम्। न हि तदैवं भवति 'अहम्' इति, गौणत्वे वा न 'जानानः' इति। अपि च परशब्दः परत्र लक्ष्यमाणगुणयोगेन वर्तत इति यत्र प्रयोक्तृप्रतिपत्त्रोः संप्रतिपत्तिः स गौणः । स च भेदप्रत्ययपुरःसरः । तद्यथा, नैयमि- काभिहोत्रवचनोऽमिहोत्रशब्दः प्रकरणान्तरावधृत- भेदे कुण्डपायिनामयनगते कर्मणि 'मासममिहोत्रं जुहोति' इत्यत्र साध्यसादृश्येन गौणः, माणवके चानुभवसिद्धभेदे सिंहात्सिंहशब्दः । न त्वहंकारस्य मुख्योऽर्थो निर्लुठितगर्भतया देहादिभ्यो भिन्नोऽनु- भूयते, येन परशब्दः शरीरादौ गौणो भवेत्। न चात्यन्तनिरूढतया गौणेऽपि न गौणत्वाभिमानः सार्षपादिषु तैलशब्दवदिति वेदितव्यम्। तत्रापि स्नेहात्तिलभवाद्जेदे सिद्ध एव सार्षपादीनां तैल- शब्दवाच्यत्वाभिमानः, न त्वर्थयोस्तैलसार्षपयोर-

११ अध्यास:

भेदाध्यवसायः। तत्सिद्धं गौणत्वमुभयदर्शिनो गौणमुख्यविवेकविज्ञानेन व्याप्तम्, तदिह व्यापकं विवेकविज्ञानं निवर्तमानं गौणतामपि निवर्तयतीति। न च बालस्थविरशरीरभेदेऽपि 'सोऽहम् ' इत्येक- स्यात्मन: प्रतिसंधानाद्देहादिभ्यो भेदेनास्त्यात्मानुभव इति वाच्यम्। परीक्षकाणां खल्वियं कथा, न लौकिकानाम्। परीक्षका अपि हि व्यवहारसमये न लोकसामान्यमतिवर्तन्ते। वक्ष्यत्यनन्तरमेव हि भगवान्भाष्यकार :- 'पश्चादिभिश्चाविशेषात्' इति। बाह्या अप्याहु :- 'शास्त्रचिन्तकाः खल्वेवं विवेचयन्ति न प्रतिपत्तारः' इति। तत्पारिशेष्याच्चि- दात्मगोचरमहंकारम् 'अहमिहास्मि सदने' इति प्रयुञ्जानो लौकिकः शरीराद्यभेदग्रहादात्मनः प्रादेशिकत्वमभिमन्यते नभस इव घटमणिक- मल्लिकाद्युपाध्यवच्छेदादिति युक्तमुत्पश्यामः। न चाहंकारप्रामाण्याय देहादिवदात्मापि प्रा- देशिक इति युक्तम्। तदा खल्वयमणुपरिमाणो वा स्याद्देहपरिमाणो वा। अणुपरिमाणत्वे 'स्थूलोऽहम्, दीर्घः' इति च न स्यात्। देहपरिमाणत्वे तु

SUPERIMPOSITION 11

designated by the word taila. It is not however, determin- ed that there is identity between taila and mustard oil. It follows then that secondary usage is pervaded by the cognition of the difference between the primary and the secondary by those who know both. Here, the pervader, viz., cognition of difference eliminating (itself) also elimi- nates the secondary usage. Nor may it be said that though the bodies of youth and old age are different, yet, from the recognition of an identical self in the judgement "I am he", it follows that there is an experience of the self as different from the body etc. Such a judgement is, verily, that of the critic, not of the man in the street. Even critics do not surpass the generality of men in respect of practical life. Indeed, the revered commentator says this presently in the words: "And because there is no distinction from beasts etc." Even outsiders say: "It is, verily, those who reflect on the teaching that make this distinction, not learners." Hence by elimination we see fit to hold that finitude is understood of the self by the man in the street who says "I am in this very abode etc.," in the same way as ether is cognised as limited by pot, ewer, basin etc. Nor is it meet to say, in order to conserve the validity of (the use of) the word "I,"" that the self too, like the body etc., is finite. In that case, its size should be that of an atom or that of the body. If that of an atom, there would not be the usage "I am stout, or (I am) tall"; if that of the body, then, as made up of parts, there would result non-eternality, as in the case of the body. Further, on

12 BUPERIMPOSITION

this view, it must be either the aggregate of parts that intelligises or each part by itself. On the view of each part intelligising by itself, in the absence of a consensus among the many independent intelligences, either the body would be distracted or non-action would result, as the consequence of simultancous activity in opposed directions. If intelligence be associated with the aggregate, then when one part is injured, the intelligent self too being injured in part would not intelligise. Nor is there seen any fixed relationship of co-existence among the many parts. When any one part is damaged, the aggregate cannot intelligise in the absence of that part. Even if cognition (vijñana) be the substrate, the illusoriness of the concept "I" continues the same, for, that (concept) manifests a permanent substance, while cognitions are fleeting. In this way, expressions like "I am fat, I am blind, I go" etc. are explained as due to super- imposition. The concept of "I" having been in this way shown to be (worthless as) a rotten gourd, the revered Scripture may proceed unhindered to remove from the self notions conse- quent on the experience of" I," such as agency, enjoyership happiness, misery, grief etc. Hence, in the words " after superimposing on each," etc., there are elaborated the nature, cause and result of the concept "I," whose illusoriness is well-known from all trustworthy Scripture, traditional codes, epics and puranas. Superimposing the nature of one of two substrates-the body and the self-on the other,

अध्यास: १२

सावयवतया देहवदनित्यत्वप्रसङ्ग: । किंच अस्मिन्पक्षे अवयवसमुदायो वा चेतयेत्, प्रत्येकं वावयवाः। प्रत्येकं चेतनत्वपक्षे बहूनां चेतनानां स्वतन्त्राणा- मेकवाक्यताभावादपर्यायं विरुद्धदिक्क्रियतया शरीर- मुन्मथ्येत, अक्रियं वा प्रसज्येत। समुदायस्य तु चैतन्ययोगे वृक्ण एकस्मिन्नवयवे चिदात्मनोऽप्यव- यवो वृक्ण इति न चेतयेत्। न च बहूनामवयवानां परस्पराविनाभावनियमो दृष्टः । य एवावयवो यदा विशीर्णस्तदा तदभावे न चेतयेत्। विज्ञानालम्बनत्वेऽपि अहंप्रत्ययस्य भ्रान्तत्वं तदवस्थमेव, तस्य स्थिरवस्तुनिर्भासत्वादस्थिरत्वाच्च विज्ञानानाम्। एतेन 'स्थूलोऽहम् अन्धोऽहम् गच्छामि' इत्यादयोऽपि अध्यासतया व्याख्याताः । तदेवमुक्तेन क्रमेण अहंप्रत्यये पूतिकूष्माण्डीकृते भगवती श्रुतिः अप्रत्यूहं कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वसुखदुःख- शोकाद्यात्मत्वमहमनुभवप्रसञ्जितमात्मनो निषेडुमर्ह- तीति। तदेवं सर्वप्रवादश्रुतिस्मृतीतिहासपुराणप्रथित- मिथ्याभावस्याहंप्रत्ययस्य स्वरूपनिमित्तफलैरुपव्या- ख्यानम्-अन्योन्यस्मिन् इत्यादि। अन्योन्य- 4

१३ अध्यास:

स्मिन्धर्मिण्यात्मशरीरादौ अन्योन्यात्मकतामध्यस्य- अहमिदं शरीरादीति। 'इदम् ' इति च वस्तुतः, न प्रतीतितः। लोकव्यवहारः लोकानां व्यवहारः। स च 'अयमहम्' इति व्यपदेशः । इति- शब्दसूचितश्र शरीराद्यनुकूलं प्रतिकूलं च प्रमेयजातं प्रमाणेन प्रमाय तदुपादानपरिवर्जनादिः । अन्योन्यधर्मोश्राध्यस्य अन्योन्यस्मिन्धर्मिणि दे- हादिधर्मान् जन्ममरणजराव्याध्यादीनात्मनि धर्मिणि अध्यस्तदेहादिभावे समारोप्य, तथा चैतन्यादीनात्म- धर्मान् देहादावध्यस्तात्मभावे समारोप्य 'ममेदं जरामरणपुत्रपशुस्वाम्यादि' इति व्यवहारो व्यपदेशः। इतिशब्दसूचितश्र तदनुरूपः प्रवृत्त्यादिः। अत्र च अध्यासव्यवहारक्रियाभ्यां यः कर्ता उन्नीतः स समान इति समानकर्तृकत्वेन 'अध्यस्य व्यवहारः' इत्युपपन्नम् । पूर्वकालत्वसूचितमध्या- सस्य व्यवहारकारणत्वं सफुटयति-मिथ्याज्ञान- निमित्तः व्यवहारः इति। मिथ्याज्ञानमध्यासः, तन्निमित्तः, तद्भावाभावानुविधानाद्व्यवहारभावा- भावयोरित्यर्थः ।

SUPERIMPOSITION 13

e.g., "I am this body " etc. The (identification wit "this" (is) a matter of fact, not a matter of knowledge.' "Empirical usage (lokavyavaharah)" means the usage of the world ; that is designation of the form "I am this". By the word iti (in aham idam iti) there are indicated the acceptance, rejection etc. of what are known by means of valid knowledge to be beneficial or injurious to the body etc. There is also the super-imposition of the attributes of one substrate on the other, e.g., imposing the bodily attri- butes of birth, death, old age, disease etc., on the substrate, i.e., the self on whom bodies etc., have been super-imposed, and similarly the attributes of the self such as intelligence eto., on the body etc., on which self-ness has been super- imposed; there is consequently the empirical usage, i.e., the mode of speech "Mine is this-old age, death, son, cow, ownership etc." By iti (in mame'dam iti) is indicated activity etc. suitable to the above experience. The statement "after superimposing (there is) the empirical usage" is intelligible,"since the agent that is inferred for the acts of super-imposition and empirical usage is but one and the same. By indicating priority in time for the superimposition, it is made clear that it is the cause of the empirical usage, in the word : "empirical usage with its cause in the illusory cognition" etc. "Illusory cogni- tion" is superimposition;" having that as the cause; that is, the existence or non-existence of empirical usage follows on the existence or non-existence of that (superimposition).

14 SUPERIMPOSITION

Having thus stated the nature of superimposition and its fruit, viz., empirical usage, he states its cause in the words "through non-discrimination of each from the other," i.e., through non-apprehension of (their) distinctness. Now, why should it not be that there is no difference at all ? And thus, (if there were none), there would be no super- imposition. To this he says: "of the attribute and the substrate which are absolutely distinct." Distinctness from the absolute standpoint means non-identity in the case of substrates, and non-confusion in the case of attributes. Be this so. The delusion as to identity conditioned by non-apprehension of the difference between two real entities is intelligible, like the delusion of the identity with silver in the case of nacre, because of non-apprehension of their difference. Here, however, there is no real entity like the body, other than the intelligent self, which is the absolute reality. Whence then the non-apprehension of the distinctness of the intelligent self? Whence the delusion of identity ? To this he replies: "by coupling the true with the untrue." The construction is : after super- imposing because of non-apprehension of distinctness (through coupling the true etc.) The true is the intelligent self; the untrue are the intellect, the organs, the body etc .; coupling these two substrates; coupling means yoking. Because there cannot be any real coupling of the phenomenal with the absolutely real, there is used the cui suffix (mithunt- instead of mithunam- ), which signifies what is not that becoming that as it were. This is what is said: the imposition of what does not appear being impossible, what is required is the cognition of what is imposed, not its real existence.

अध्यास: १४

तदेवमध्यासस्वरूपं फलं च व्यवहारमुक्त्वा तस्य निमित्तमाह-इतरेतराविवेकेन इति। विवेकाग्रहणेनेत्यर्थः । अथ अविवेक एव कस्मान्न भवति, तथा च नाध्यास इत्यत आह- अत्यन्तविविक्तयोर्धर्मधर्मिणोः । परमार्थतो धर्मिणोरतादात्म्यं विवेकः धर्माणां चासंकीर्णता विवेकः । स्यादेतत्। विविक्तयोर्वस्तुसतोर्भेदाग्रहनिबन्धन- स्तादात्म्यविभ्रमो युज्यते शुक्तेरि रजताद्जेदाग्रहे रजततादात्म्यविभ्रमः । इह तु परमार्थसतः चिदात्मनोऽन्यन्न देहाद्यसि्ति वस्तुसत्, तक्कुतः चिदात्मनो भेदाग्रहः कुतश्र तादात्म्यविभ्रमः इत्यत आह-सत्यानृते मिथुनीकृत्य इति । विवेका- ग्रहादध्यस्येति योजना। सत्यं चिदात्मा, अनृतं बुद्धीन्द्रियदेहादि ; ते द्वे धर्मिणी मिथुनीकृत्य युगलीकृत्येत्यर्थः । न च संवृतिपरमार्थसतोः पारमार्थिकं मिथुनमस्तीत्यभूततद्भावार्थस्य च्वेः प्रयोगः। एतदुक्तं भवति-अप्रतीतस्यारोपायोगादा- रोप्यस्य प्रतीतिरुपयुज्यते न वस्तुसत्तेति।

१५ अध्यास:

स्यादेतत्। आरोप्यस्य प्रतीतौ सत्यां पूर्वदृष्टस्य समारोपः समारोपनिबन्धना च प्रतीतिरिति दुर्वारं परस्पराश्रयत्वमित्यत आह-नैसर्गिक इति। स्वाभाविकः अनादिरयं व्यवहारः। व्यवहारानादि- तया तत्कारणस्याध्यासस्य अनादितोक्ता, ततश्र पूर्वपूर्वमिथ्याज्ञानोपदर्शितस्य बुद्धीन्द्रियशरीरादेः उत्तरोत्तराध्यासोपयोग इत्यनादित्वात् बीजाङकुरवन्न परस्पराश्रयत्वमित्यर्थः । स्यादेतत्। अद्धा पूर्वप्रतीतिमात्रमुपयुज्यते आरोपे, न तु प्रतीयमानस्य परमार्थसत्ता । प्रतीतिरेव तु अत्यन्तासतो गगनकमलिनीकल्पस्य देहेन्द्रियादेः नोपपद्यते। प्रकाशमानत्वमेव हि चिदात्मनोऽपि सत्त्वं न तु तदतिरिक्तं सत्तासामान्य- समवायोऽर्थक्रियाकारिता वा, द्वैतापत्तेः । सत्ताया- श्रार्थक्रियाकारितायाश्र सत्तान्तरार्थक्रियाकारितान्तर- कल्पने अनवस्थापातात् प्रकाशमानतैव सत्ता अभ्युपेतव्या। तथा च देहादयः प्रकाशमान- त्वान्नासन्तः चिदात्मवत्, असत्त्वे वा न प्रकाशमानाः; तत्कथं सत्यानृतयोर्मिथुनीभावः?

SUPERIMPOSITION 15

Be this so. When there is cognition of what is superimposed, there is the superimposition of what was formerly seen, while that cognition itself is conditioned by superimposition; thus, (the defect of) reciprocal dependence seems difficult to avoid. To this he says: "natural". This empirical usage is natural, beginningless. Through the beginninglessness of the usage, there is declared the beginninglessness of its cause-superimposition." Hence, of the intellect, organs, body etc., appearing in every prior illusory cognition, there is use in every subsequent instance of superimposition. This (process) being beginningless, like (the succession of) the seed and the sprout, there is no reciprocal dependence ; this is the meaning. Be this so. Certainly, it is only the prior appearance that counts in imposition, not the absolute reality of what appears. But even appearance is unintelligible in the case of the body, the organs etc., which are wholly unreal, and are comparable to the lotus-pond in the sky. The reality even of the intelligent self is but manifestation, and nothing other than that, like the inherence of the class-Being (satta-samanya-samavāya) or practical efficiency (artha-kriyā-kūritā), as (the admission of) these would lead to duality." Further, with the postulation of another Being and another practical efficiency (to determine the reality) of this Being and this practically efficient, we shall have an infinite regress. Hence, manifestation alone has to be admitted as constituting reality. Thus, the body etc., since they are manifest, are not unreal, being like the intelligent self; or else, if unreal, they cannot be manifest; how then can there be the coupling of

16 SUPERIMPOSITION

It may be asked : what is this thing called super- imposition? The reply is: the appearance elsewhere, with a nature like to that of recollection, of what was seen before. Some speak of it as superimposition else- where of the attributes of another; but some others say that, when there is the superimposition of one on another, it is a delusion conditioned by the non- apprehension of their distinctness ; others, however, say that, when there is the superimposition of one on another, there is an assumption in the latter of an opposite attribute. But in any case, it does not depart from the property of one appearing as having the attributes of another. And this is our experience in the world: nacre appears as if silver ; the moon though one appears as if having a second.

the true with the untrue? In the absence of this (coupling) whose difference is it that is not apprehended ? and from what? That (non-apprehension of difference) failing, whence the superimposition? With this in mind, the objector says: "What is this thing called superimposition?" The (pronoun) "what" has the sense of an objection. The respondent meets the objection by simply giving the defini- tion of superimposition well-known to the world: "The roply is-the appearance elsewhere, with a nature like to that of recollection, of what was seen before." Avabhasa is that appearance which is terminated or depreciated. Termina- tion or depreciation is sublation by another cognition; by this, it (avabhasa) is said to be an illusory cognition.

अध्यास: १६ आह-कोऽ्यमध्यासो नामेति। उच्यते -स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः। तं केचिदन्यत्रान्यधर्माध्यास इति वदन्ति। केचित्तु यत्र यदध्यासस्तद्विवेकाग्रहनिबन्ध- नो भ्रम इति। अन्ये तु यत्र यदध्यासस्त- स्यैव विपरीतधर्मकल्पनामाचक्षत इति। सर्वथापि त्वन्यस्यान्यधर्मावभासतां न व्य- भिचरति। तथा च लोकेऽनुभवः-शुक्ति- का हि रजतवदवभासते एकश्चन्द्रः सद्वि- तीयवदिति।

तदभावे वा कस्य कुतो भेदाग्रहः? तदसंभवे कुतोऽव्यास: ? इत्याशयवान आह आक्षेप्ता- कोऽयमध्यासो नाम इति। क इत्याक्षेपे। समाधाता लोकसिद्धमध्यासलक्षणमाचक्षाण एवाक्षेपं प्रतिक्षिपति-उच्यते-स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्व- दृष्टावभास इति । अवसन्नः अवमतो वा भासः अवभासः। प्रत्ययान्तरबाधश्रास्य अवसादोऽवमानो वा। एतावता मिथ्याज्ञानमित्युक्तं भवति। 10

१७ अध्यास:

तस्येदमुपव्याख्यानम् 'पूर्वदृष्ट-' इत्यादि। पूर्वदृष्टस्यावभासः पूर्वदृष्टावभासः । मिथ्याप्रत्ययश् आरोपविषयारोपणीयमिथुनमन्तरेण न भवतीति पूर्वदृष्टग्रहणेनानृतमारोपणीयमुपस्थापयति। तस्य च दृष्टत्वमात्रमुपयुज्यते न वस्तुसत्तेति दृष्टग्रहणम्। तथापि वर्तमानं दृष्ट दर्शनं नारोपोपयोगीति पूर्व- इत्युक्तम्। तच्च पूर्वदृष्टं स्वरूपेण सदप्यारोपणीय- तया अनिर्वा्च्यमित्यनृतम्। आरोपविषयं सत्य- माह-परत्र इति। परत्र शुक्तिकादौ परमार्थसति। तदनेन सत्यानृतमिथुनमुक्तम् । स्यादेतत्। परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभास इत्यलक्षणम्, अतिव्यापकत्वात्। अरि्ति हि स्वरितिमत्यां गवि पूर्वदृष्टस्य गोत्वस्य परत्र कालाक्ष्यामवभासः । अरिति च पाटलिपुत्रे पूर्वदृष्टस्य देवदत्तस्य परत्र माहिष्म- त्यामवभास: समीचीनः। अवभासपदं च समीचीनेऽपि प्रत्यये प्रसिद्धम्, यथा नीलस्याव- भास: पीतस्यावभास इति। अत आह-स्मृतिरूप इति। स्मृतेः रूपमिव रूपमस्येति स्मृति- रूप: । असंनिहितविषयत्वं च स्मृतिरूपत्वम्।

SUPERIMPOSITION 17

This is the further commentary on that (definition): "what was seen before" etc. Purva-drsta-'vabhasah means the appearance of what was seen before. The illusory appearance cannot come about without the coupling of the imposed element with that on which it is imposed; hence what is untrue and superimposed is understood by the words "what was seen before". The word "seen" is used to indicate that it (the superimposed element) counts only as phenomenal not as absolutely real. Even thus, what is now seen is not capable of being imposed ; hence the use of the word "before". What was seen before, though real in its own nature, is yet, as superimposed, indeterminable and hence unreal. The locus of imposition, which is real, is stated in: "elsewhere." Elsewhere, in nacre etc., which are absolutely real. Thus is declared the coupling of the true with the untrue. Be this so. "The appearance elsewhere of what was seen before"-this is no definition, being too wide. There is, verily, in the cow, Kalaksi, "the appearance of cowness" seen before in the cow, Svastimati. There is also the appearance elsewhere, at Mahișmati, of Devadatta formerly seen at Pațaliputra. (Both these appearances are) valid. The word "appearance (avabhasa)" is indeed well-known as applied to valid experience, as in "the appearance of blue, the appearance of yellow" etc. To this he says: " of a nature like to that of recollection." Its nature is like the nature of recollection. The non-presence of the object is of the essence of recollection; while recognition, which is valid, is of a present object. Hence, (the definition is) not too wide.

18 SUPERIMPOSITION

Nor is it too narrow ; for, even dream-cognition which is of the same nature as delusive recollection is of this nature (given in the definition). There too, verily, because of the non-presence of the recollected parents etc. not being reflected upon, on account of the defect of sleep, there is here and there the superimposition of the time and place when they were formerly present and seen. Thus, the same definition is to be applied also to (experiences like) "the shell is yellow," "sugar is bitter". It is thus: the yellow, which resides in the bile that is in contact with the exceedingly pure rays going forth from the eye," is experienced in dissociation from the bile; the shell too is experienced (bat) with the whiteness concealed by a defect (in the sense-organ); the non-relation of the yellow colour to the shell is not experienced; because of similarity in respect of non-apprehension of non-relationship, the appositional relation previously seen in (experiences) like "yellow mass of gold, yellow bilna fruit" is imposed on yellow-ness and shell-ness and one speaks of the yellow shell. In this way too may be explained the apprehension "sugar is bitter"." Similarly, rays of light from the organ of sight come in contact with the pure mirror or sheet of water facing the cogniser, but they are reflected therefrom by the stronger rays of the Sun's light, and coming into contact with the face, apprehend the face; because of a defect, however, they do not apprehend the face as where it really is, i.e., not facing oneself, but impose on it the property of facing oneself that belongs to the formerly seen mirror or sheet of water." Thus, the definition

अध्यास: १८

संनिहितविषयं च प्रत्यभिज्ञानं समीचीनमिति नातिव्याप्तिः । नाप्यव्याप्तिः, सवप्नज्ञानस्यापि स्मृतिविभ्रम- रूपस्यैवंरूपत्वात्। तत्रापि हि स्मर्यमाणे पित्रादौ निद्रोपल्ठववशादसंनिधानापरामर्शे, तत्र तत्र पूर्वदृष्ट- स्यैव संनिहितदेशकालत्वस्य समारोपः। एवम् 'पीतः शङ्ख:' 'तिक्तो गुडः' इत्यत्राप्येतल्लक्षणं योजनीयम्। तथा हि-बहिर्विनिर्गच्छदत्यच्छ- नयनरश्मिसंपृक्तपित्तद्रव्यवर्तिनीं पीततां पित्तरहिता- मनुभवन्, शङ्गं च दोषाच्छादितशुक्किमानमनु- भवन्, पीततायाश्र शङ्गासंबन्धमननुभवन्, असंबन्धाग्रहणसारूप्येण 'पीतं तपनीयपिण्डम्' 'पीतं बिल्वफलम्' इत्यादौ पूर्वदृष्टं सामानाधि- करण्यं पीतत्वशद्घत्त्वयोरारोप्याह 'पीतः शङ्गः' इति। एतेन 'तिक्तो गुडः' इति प्रत्ययो व्याख्यातः। एवं विज्ञातृपुरुषाभिमुखेष्वादर्शोद- कादिषु स्वच्छेषु चाक्षुषं तेजो लग्नमपि बलीयसा सौरेण तेजसा प्रतिस्रोतः प्रवर्तितं मुखसंयुक्तं मुखं ग्राहयत् , दोषवशात्तद्ेशतामनभिमुखतां च मुखस्या-

१९ अध्यास:

ग्राहयत्, पूर्वदृष्टाभिमुखादर्शोदकदेशतामाभिमुख्यं च मुखस्यारोपयतीति प्रतिबिम्बविभ्रमोऽपि लक्षितो भवति। एतेन द्विचन्द्रदिङ्मोहालातचक्रगन्घर्व- नगरवंशोरगादिविभ्रमेष्वपि यथासंभवं लक्षणं योजनीयम्। एतदुक्तं भवति-न प्रकाशमानतामात्रं सत्त्वम्, येन देहेन्द्रियादेः प्रकाशमानतया सद्भावो भवेत्। न हि सर्पादिभावेन रज्ज्वादयो वा स्फटिकादयो वा रत्तादिगुणयोगिनो न प्रतिभासन्ते, प्रतिभासमाना वा भवन्ति तदात्मानस्तद्धर्माणो वा। तथा सति मरुषु मरीचिकानिचयम् 'उच्चावचमुच्चलत्तुङ्गतरङ्गभङ्गमालेयमभ्यर्णमवतीर्णा मन्दाकिनी' इत्यभिसंधाय प्रवृत्तः तत्तोयमापीय पिपासामुपशमयेत्। तस्मादकामेनापि प्रकाश- मानस्याप्यारोपितस्य न वस्तुसत्त्वमभ्युपगमनीयम् । न च मरीचिरूपेण सलिलमवस्तुसत् स्वरूपेण तु परमार्थसदेव देहेन्द्रियादयस्तु स्वरूपेणाप्यसन्त इत्यनुभवागोचरत्वात्कथमारोप्यन्त इति सांप्रतम् ; यतो यद्यसन्तो नानुभवगोचराः कथं तर्हि

SUPERIMPOSITION 19

applies to the delusion of reflection too. In the same way are to be explained suitably delusions like the perception of two moons, loss of the sense of direction, the fiery circle, the fata morgana (gandharva-nagara)," the snake seen in the bamboo."9 This is what is said: it is not that manifestation alone constitutes reality, in which case, bodies, organs etc., by the very fact of manifestation, would be real. It is not as if ropes etc., do not appear as snakes etc., or crystals etc., as endowed with red colour and so on; nor, as thus appearing, do they really become those objects or endowed with those attributes. If that were so, one would conclude in the case of a mirage that it is the MandakinI which has come down close by, with her garlands of constantly agitated waves high and low, and proceeding (thereto) should be able to quench one's thirst by drinking of that water. Hence, of what is superimposed, even though manifest, absolute reality cannot be admitted, even though this (conclusion) be not desired. Nor is it admissible to ask thus: "in the mirage, the water is unreal, but in its own nature (as mirage) it is absolutely real; whereas, the body, organs etc., are unreal even in their own nature, and as such cannot be the sphere of any experience; how then can they be super- imposed ?" For, if what is unreal cannot be the object of any experience, how then do the mirage ete., which are unreal, become the sphere of experience as water etc .? Though real in their own nature, they (the mirage etc.) cannot become real as water etc., as well.

20 BUPERIMPOSITION

It may be said: there is nothing called non-existence (abhava) as distinct from existence (bhava). An existent considered as of the nature of another existent becomes non-existence; but in its own nature it is but existence. As is said: "Non-existence is but another existent con- sidered in relation to something else."" Hence, this, which may be explained as another mode of existence, may well be in the sphere of experience. The world, which is absolutely unreal, devoid of any capacity, devoid of any (true) essence, how can it be an object of experience ? How, again, can it be superimposed on the intelligent self? Nor is it admissible that, though the objects (of experience) are wholly devoid of any capacity (to appear), the respective cognitions, through the capacity residing in them as cognitions, of themselves give rise to the appearance of the unreal, as a product of a unique nature, and that this capacity (of the cognitions) to make the un- real appear is Nescience. What is this faculty of cognition whereby it makes the unreal appear? What is it that it is capable of? If it is the unreal, is it effected or only made known by it? It cannot be effected, since that is unintelligible in the case of the unreal. Nor is it what is made known, since there is no other cognition known (other than that which makes manifest); further, (what is thus manifested being unreal and requiring its relation to the new cognition to be explained), infinite regress would result. If now, it be said that it is the very essence of cognition to manifest the unreal, what is this relation between the real and the unreal? If it be said that the

अध्यास: २०

मरीच्यादीनामसतां तोयाद्यात्मतयानुभवगोचरत्वम् ? न च स्वरूपसत्त्वेन तोयाद्यात्मनापि सन्तो भवन्ति। यद्युच्येत-नाभावो नाम भावादन्यः कश्चिदरित, अपि तु भाव एव भावान्तरात्मना अभावः स्वेन रूपेण तु भाव: । यथाहु :- 'भावान्तरमभावो हि कयाचित्तु व्यपेक्षया'। इति। ततश्र भावात्मनोपाख्येयतया अस्य युज्येत अनुभवगोचरता। प्रपञ्चस्य पुनरत्यन्तासतो निरस्त- समस्तसामर्थ्यस्य निस्तत्त्वरय कुतोऽनुभवविषयभावः, कुतो वा चिदात्मन्यारोपः ? न च विषयस्य समस्त- सामर्थ्यविरहेऽपि विज्ञानमेव तत्तादृशं स्वप्रत्यय- सामर्थ्याददृष्टान्तसिद्धस्वभावभेदमुपजातमसतः प्रका- शनम्, तस्मादसत्प्रकाशनशक्तिरेवास्याविद्येति सां- प्रतम्। यतो येयमसत्प्रकाशनशक्तिर विज्ञानस्य किं पुन- रस्या: शक्यम् ? असदिति चेतू, किमेतत्कार्यम्, आहोस्विदस्या ज्ञाप्यम् ? न तावत्कार्यम् , असत- स्तत्त्वानुपपत्तेः। नापि ज्ञाप्यम्, ज्ञानान्तरानुपलब्धेः, अनवस्थापाताच्च। विज्ञानस्वरूपमेव असतः प्रकाश इति चेत्, कः पुनरेष सदसतोः संबन्धः ?

२१ अध्यास:

असद्धीननिरूपणत्वं सतो ज्ञानस्य असता संबन्ध इति चेत्, अहो बतायमतिनिर्वृतः प्रत्ययतपस्वी यदस्य असत्यपि निरूपणमायतते। न च प्रत्ययस्त- त्राधत्ते किंचित्, असत आधारत्वायोगात्। असदन्तरेण प्रत्ययो न प्रथत इति प्रत्ययस्यैवैष स्वभाव: न त्वसद्धीनमस्य किंचिदिति चेत्, अहो बतास्य असत्पक्षपातः यदयमतदुत्पत्तिः अतदात्मा च तदविनाभावनियतः प्रत्यय इति। तस्मादृत्यन्तासन्तः शरीरेन्द्रियादयो निस्तत्त्वा नानुभवविषया भवितुमर्हन्तीति। अन्र ब्रूम :- निस्त्त्वं चेन्नानुभवगोचरः, तत्किमिदानीं मरीचयोऽपि तोयात्मना सतत्त्वा: यदनुभवगोचराः स्युः । न सतत्त्वाः, तदात्मना मरीचीनामसत्त्वात्। द्विविधं च वस्तूनां तत्वम्- सत्त्वमसत्त्वं च । तत्र पूर्व स्वतः, परं तु परतः। यथाहुः स्वरूपपररूपाभ्यां नित्यं सदसदात्मके। वस्तुनि ज्ञायते किंचिद्रूपं कैश्चित्कदाचन ।।' -- इति। तत्किं मरीचिषु तोयनिर्भासप्रत्ययस्तत्त्व- गोचरः ? तथा च समीचीन इति न भ्रान्तो नापि

SUPERIMPOSITION 21

relation of cognition, which is real, to that which is unreal is that the former is made determinate under the control of what is unreal, lo! how very fortunate is this poor cognition that attains to determination even through the unreal. Nor does cognition do anything thereto, since being the support (of any such thing) is inappropriate in the case of what is unreal. If it be said that the cogni- tion is not controlled by the unreal, but that it is of the very nature of cognition not to appear apart from the unreal, lo! unfortunate indeed is this partiality for the unreal, whereby cognition is invariably linked to the unreal, though neither originating therefrom nor of the same nature as that." Hence, body, organs etc., which are wholly unreal and have no (true) essence, cannot become objects of experience. To this we reply: if what has no (true) essence be not within the sphere of experience, are these rays real as water, in such wise that they may come within the sphere of experience? (The pürvapakșin says): They have no (true) essence (in the nature of water), since the rays are not of the nature of water. The essence of things is of two kinds, real or unreal, the former in respect of themselves, the latter in respect of things other than themselves. As is said: "The essence of things is grasped by some at some time or other either as real or as unreal in respect of (those things) themselves or in respect of others."3 (We reply): Is the cognition of water in the rays in the sphere of the true? Then, being valid, it would not

22 SUPERIMPOSITION

be delusive; nor would it be sublated. (The pūrvapakșin rejoins) : certainly, it would not be sublated, if it apprehended the rays, which truly are not of the nature of water, as not of the nature of water. When apprehended as of the nature of water, however, how can it be non-delusive or non-sublated ? Lo! then (we reply) of the rays whose nature is non-waterness, their nature as waterness is not real, since they, being non-different from non-waterness, cannot intelligibly be of the nature of waterness ; nor is it unreal; for, it is recognised by you, in the words " Non- existence is existence in another form, not anything else, since no (such thing) is proved,"" that the unreality of one thing is but another thing. Nor is the imposed form another thing; if it were, it should be either the rays or the water in the Ganges. On the first alternative, the cognition would be of the form "rays," not of the form "water"; on the latter (alternative), it would be of the form " water in the Ganges," not "(water) here". (Further) if the parti- cular place be not recollected, it should be (of the form) water" (merely), not "here". Nor is it admissible that this is something wholly unreal, a mere falsehood devoid of all existence, since that cannot intelligibly be within the sphere of experience; this has been said earlier. Hence, the water superimposed on the rays has to be recognised to be indeterminable, being neither real nor unreal nor yet real and unreal, this (last) being self-contradictory. Thus, in this way, the superimposed water is like absolutely real water, and for that reason is like what was formerly seen ; but really that is

अध्यास: २२

बाध्येत। अद्धा! न बाध्येत यदि मरीचीनयं अतोयात्मतत्त्वानतोयात्मना गृह्लीयात्। तोयात्मना तु गृह्न् कथमभ्रान्तः, कथं वा अबाध्यः? हन्त ! तोयाभावात्मनां मरीचीनां तोयभावात्मत्वं तावन्न सत्, तेषां तोयाभावादभेदेन तोय- भावात्मतानुपपत्तेः । नाप्यसत् ; वस्त्वन्तरमेव हि वस्त्वन्तरस्यासत्वमास्थीयते 'भावान्तरमभावोऽन्यो न कश्चिदनिरूपणात्' इति वदद्िः। न चारोपितं रूपं वस्त्वन्तरम् ; तद्धि मरीचयो वा भवेत्, गङ्गादिगतं तोयं वा। पूर्वस्म- न्कल्पे 'मरीचयः' इति प्रत्ययः स्यात्, न 'तोयम्' इति। उत्तरस्मिंस्तु 'गङ्गायां तोयम्' इति स्यात्, न पुनः 'इह' इति। देशभेदास्मरणे 'तोयम्' इति स्यात्, न पुनः 'इह' इति। न चेद- मत्यन्तमसत् निरस्तसमस्तस्वरूपमलीकमेवारतु इति सांप्रतम् , तस्यानुभवगोचरत्वानुपपत्तेः, इत्युत्तम- धस्तात्। तस्मान्न सत् , नासत्, नापि सद्सत् परस्परविरोधात्, इत्यनिर्वाच्यमेवारोपणीयं मरीचिषु तोयमास्थेयम् ; तदनेन क्रमेणाध्यसतं तोयं पर-

२३ अध्यास:

मार्थतोयमिव, अत एव पूर्वदृष्टमित; तत्त्वतस्तु न तोयम्, न च पूर्वदष्टम्; किं तु अनृतम् अनिर्वाच्यम्। एवं च देहेन्द्रियादिप्रपञ्चोऽपि अनिर्वाच्य: ; अपूर्वोऽपि पूर्वमिथ्याप्रत्ययोपदर्शित इव परत्र चिदात्मन्यध्यस्यत इति उपपन्नम्, अध्यासलक्षणयोगात्। देहेन्द्रियादिप्रपञ्चबाधनं च उपपादयिष्यते। चिदात्मा तु श्रुतिस्मृतीतिहास- पुराणगोचरः तन्मूलतद विरुद्धन्यायनिर्णीतशुद्धबुद्ध- मुक्तस्वभावः सत्त्वेनैव निर्वाच्यः। अबाधिता स्वयंप्रकाशतैव अस्य सत्ता, सा च स्वरूपमेव चिदात्मनः, न तु तदतिरिक्तं सत्तासामान्य- समवायः अर्थक्रियाकारिता वा इति सर्वमवदातम्। स चायमेवंलक्षणकोऽध्यासः अनिर्वचनीयः सर्वेषामेव संमतः परीक्षकाणाम् ; तज्जेदे परं विप्रतिपत्तिरित्यनिर्वचनीयतां द्रढयितुमाह-तं केचित् इति। अन्यधर्मस्य ज्ञानधर्मर्य रजतस्य; ज्ञाना- कारस्येति यावत्। अध्यासः अन्यत्र बाह्ये। सौत्रान्तिकनये तावद्वाह्यमस्ति वस्तुसत् ; तत्र

SUPERIMPOSITION 23

not water, nor what was formerly seen; but it is untrue, indeterminable. In the same way, even the universe of bodies, organs etc. is indeterminable; though novel, yet they are superimposed on something other, i.e., the intelligent self, in the same way as what was presented in prior erroneous cognitions. This is intelligible, since the definition of superimposition applies. The sublation of the universe of bodies, organs etc. will be explained later. As for the intelligent self, it is in the sphere of Scripture, traditional codes, epics and purānas; as ascertained by reasoning based on and not in conflict with these, it is of the nature of purity, intelligence and freedom, and is determinable as certainly real. Unsublated self- luminosity is its reality; that is of the very nature of the intelligent self, not something other (than this), such as inherence of the class-Being, or practical efficiency. Thus, everything is clear. Superimposition, which is indeterminable and has been defined as above, is admitted by all inquirers, but there are considerable differences of detail. For this reason, in order to establish its indeterminability firmly, he says : "Some speak of it" etc. "Of the attribute of another," i.e., of the attribute of the cognition, here, of silver; that is to say, of the form of the cognition. The superimposition is "elsewhere," i.e., outside. According to the Sautrantika teaching, there is external reality; the imposition thereon of what is of the form of cognition (is superimposition). Even according

24 SUPERIMPOSITION

to the Vijnanavadins, though there is no external reality, yet there is an external falsehood created by the impressions of beginningless Nescience, and on this there is the imposition of what is of the form of cognition. And this is the justification : there is the general rule that whatever is experienced in a particular form should be accepted in that form, since its being other than that results (only) from a cognition of greater force which sublates it. When the sublating cognition "this is not silver" is intelligible even as sublating the this-element alone, it is not meet to take it to extend to the silver-element. For, if the substrate "silver" were sublated, then, both the silver and its attribute of "this-ness" would be sublated; it would be better to take it that the attribute "this-ness " alone is sublated, not the substrate "silver" as well. Hence it follows that silver which is sublated in respect of externality is by presumption confined to knowledge within us. Thus follows the imposition outside of what is of the form of cognition. "But some others," i.e., those who are not satisfied with the doctrine of imposition as of the form of cognition, "say that when there is the superimposition of one on another, it is a delusion conditioned by the non apprehension of their distinctness". They state the reason for their dissatisfaction. That silver etc. are of the form of cognition should be established either by experience (perception) or by inference. Inference in this regard will be refuted later. As for experience, it must be either

अध्यासः २४

ज्ञानाकारश्यारोपः । विज्ञानवादिनामपि, यद्यपि न बाह्यं वस्तुसत् तथाप्यनाद्यविद्यावासनारोपितमलीकं बाह्यम् ; तत्र ज्ञानाकारस्यारोपः। उपपत्तिश्र- यद्याद्दशमनुभवसिद्धं रूपं तत्तादृवशमेव अभ्यु- पेतव्यमित्युत्सर्गः ; अन्यथात्वं पुनरस्य बलव- द्वाधकप्रत्ययवशात् ; 'नेदं रजतम्' इति बाधकस्य इदंतामान्रबाधेनाप्युपपत्तौ न रजतगो- चरतोचिता। रजतर्य धर्मिणो बाधे हि रजतं च तस्य धर्म इदंता च बाघिते भवेताम् ; तद्रमिदंतैवास्य धर्मो बाध्यताम्, न पुना रजतमपि धर्मि; तथा च रजतं बहिर्बाधितमर्थादान्तरे ज्ञाने व्यवतिष्ठत इति ज्ञानाकारश्य बहिरध्यासः सिध्यति। केचित्तु-ज्ञानाकारख्यातावपरितुष्यन्तो वद- न्ति-यत्र यदध्यासः तद्विवेकाग्रहनिबन्ध- नो भ्रम इति। अपरितोषकारणं बाहु :- विज्ञानाकारता रजतादेरनुभवाद्वा ्यवर्थाप्येत, अनुमानाद्वा। तत्रानुमानमुपरिष्टाननिराकरिष्यते। अनुभवोऽपि रजतप्रत्ययो वा र्यात्, बाधकप्रत्ययो 7

२५ अध्यासः

वा। न तावद्रजतानुभवः । स हि इदंकारास्पदं रजतमावेदयति न त्वान्तरम्। 'अहम् ' इति हि तदा स्यात्, प्रतिपत्तुः प्रत्ययादव्यतिरेकात् । भ्रान्तं विज्ञानं स्वाकारमेव बाह्यतयाध्यवस्यति, तथा च नाहंकारासपदमस्य गोचरः, ज्ञानाकारता पुनरस्य बाधकप्रत्ययप्रवेदनीयेति चेत्, हन्त बाधकप्रत्ययमालोचयत्वायुष्मान्। स किं पुरोवर्ति द्रव्यं रजताद्विवेचयति आहो ज्ञानाकारतामप्यस्य दर्शयति ? तत्र ज्ञानाकारतोपदर्शनव्यापारं बाधक- प्रत्ययस्य ब्रुवाणः श्ाघनीयप्रज्ञो देवानां प्रियः । पुरोवर्तित्वप्रतिषेधादर्थादस्य ज्ञानाकारतेति चेत्, न। असंनिधानाग्रहनिषेधादसंनिहितो भवति। प्रतिपत्तुरत्यन्तसंनिधानं त्वस्य प्रतिपत्रात्मकं कुत- स्न्यम् ? न चैष रजतस्य निषेधः, न च इदंता्याः, किं तु विवेकाग्रहप्रसञ्जितस्य रजत- व्यवहारस्य। न च रजतमेव शुक्तिकायं प्रसञ्चितं रसतज्ञानेन। न हि रजतनिर्भासस्य शुक्तिकालम्बनं युक्तम्, अनुभवविरोधात्। न स्लु सत्तामात्रेणालम्बनम्, अतिप्रसङ्गात्।

SUPERIMPOSITION 25

the cognition of silver or the cognition that sublates it. It is not the experience of silver (that intimates its nature to be the form of cognition); for, that makes known silver as having for its substrate, the "this," not what is within; for, in that case, because of the non- difference of the cogniser from the cognition, it (the cogni- tion) would be (of the form) " I (am silver)". (The atma- khyativadin may say): delusive cognition determines its own form to be external; and thus, its sphere is not the sub- strate of the word "I"; its being of the form of cognition is to be known from the sublating cognition. If this be said, (we reply): lo! let the long-lived one reflect on this sublating cognition. Does that distinguish from silver the object present before us, or also show of it that its nature is of the form of cognition ? The intelligence of that person beloved of the gods," who says of the sublating cognition that it has the function of making known (the prior experi- ence to have) the form of cognition, is indeed to be praised ! If it be said that (its being) of the form of cognition follows by presumption from the negation of the presence (of silver) before us, no (we reply); for, from the denial of the non-apprehension of non-proximity, it would become non-proximate (to the cogniser); whence then the extreme proximity to the cogniser such that it is of his own nature ? And this (sublating cognition) denies neither the silver nor the this-ness, but the empirical usage of silver occa- sioned by the non-apprehension of distinctness. Nor by the cognition of silver is silver itself occasioned in nacre; for, the presentation of silver cannot have nacre as its basis, that being opposed to experience. Nor is it

26 SUPERIMPOSITION

the basis as existent alone (not as known), since that would be too wide (a basis) ; for, existentiality being common to all things, it would follow that any of them could be the basis. Nor (is nacre the basis) as the cause (of the cognition), for, the senses too are causes. Hence, the meaning of the word "basis " is but manifestation. And since nacre is not manifest in the cognition of silver, how can it be the basis ? Or if manifestation be admitted, how can there be no opposition to experience ? Further, since the senses etc., are seen to have the capacity to generate valid know- ledge, how can illusory cognition result from them? If it be said that in conjunction with defects they acquire the capacity to (generate) illusory cognition, no (we reply), since defects can cause only the counter-action of the generative capacity (of a cause); else even from the parched kutaja seed there would result the springing up of a banyan shoot. Further, if cognitions fail to be constant to their (proper) spheres, there would result loss of confidence in everything. It should, therefore, be recognised that all cognition is valid. Thus, the cognitions-"silver" and "this"-are of two kinds, memory and experience; here, "this " is the apprehension of a mere object in front (of us); because of a defect, the class-nature of nacreity, which is there, is not apprehended ; the bare " that," which has been apprehended, calls up, because of similarity, the memory of silver, through reviving the impressions (of the former experience of silver). That (memory) though, of the nature of an apprehension of what has been appre- hended, stands as bare apprehension, the element of (the content) having been apprehended being lost through a

अध्यास: २६

सर्वेषामर्थानां सत्त्वाविशेषादालम्बनत्वप्रसङ्गात्। नापि कारणत्वेन, इन्द्रियादीनामपि कारणत्वात्। तथा च भासमानतैवालम्बनार्थः । न च रजतज्ञाने शुक्तिका भासते, इति कथमालम्बनम् ? भास- मानताभ्युपगमे वा कथं नानुभवविरोधः ? अपि चेन्द्रियादीनां समीचीनज्ञानोपजनने सामर्थ्यमुप- लब्धमिति कथमेभ्यो मिथ्याज्ञानसंभवः ? दोष- सहितानां तेषां मिथ्याप्रत्ययेऽपि सामर्थ्यमिति चेतू, न, दोषाणां कार्योपजननसामर्थ्यविघातमात्रे हेतुत्वात् ; अन्यथा प्लुष्टादपि कुटजबीजाद्व- टाङकुरोत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गात्। अपि च सवगोचरव्यभिचारे विज्ञानानां सर्वत्रानाश्वासप्रसङ्ग:। तस्मात्सर्व ज्ञानं समीचीनमास्थेयम् । तथा च 'रजतम्', 'इदम् ' इति च द्वे विज्ञाने स्मृत्यनुभवरूपे। तत्र 'इदम्' इति पुरोवर्तिद्रव्यमात्रग्रहणम्, दोषवशात्तद्रत- शुक्तित्वसामान्यविशेषस्याग्रहात् तन्मात्रं च गृहीतं सदृशतया संस्कारोद्बोधक्रमेण रजते स्मृति जनयति। सा च गृहीतग्रहणस्वभावापि दोषव- शाङ्गृहीतत्वांशप्रमोषात् ग्रहणमात्रमवतिष्ठते। तथा

२७ अध्यास:

च रजतस्मृतेः पुरोवर्तिद्रव्यमात्रग्रहणस्य च मिथः स्वरूपतो विषयतश्र भेदाग्रहात्, संनिहित- रजतगोचरज्ञानसारूप्येण 'इदम् ', 'रजतम्', इति द्वे एते अपि ग्रहणस्मरणे अभेदव्यवहारं सामानाधिकरण्यव्यपदेशं च प्रवर्तयतः । क्वचित्पुन- ग्रहणे एव मिथः अगृहीतभेदे, यथा 'पीतः शङ्क:' इति । अत्र हि विनिर्गच्छन्नयनरश्मिवर्तिनः पित्तद्रव्यस्य काचस्येव स्वच्छस्य पीतत्वं गृह्यते पित्तं तु न गृह्यते। शङ्गोऽपि दोषवशाच्छुक्क- गुणरहित: स्वरूपमात्रेण ग्रृह्यते। तदनयोर्गुण- गुणिनोरसंसर्गाग्रहसारूप्यात् पीततपनीयपिण्डप्रत्यया- विशेषेणाभेदव्यवहारः सामानाधिकरण्यव्यपदेशश्र। भेदाग्रहप्रसज्जिताभेदव्यवहारबाधनाच्च 'नेदम्' इति विवेकप्रत्ययस्य बाधकत्वमप्युपपद्यते; तदुपपत्तौ च प्राक्तनस्य प्रत्ययस्य भ्रान्तत्वमपि लोकसिद्धं सिद्धं भवति। तस्माद्यथार्थाः सर्वे विप्रतिपन्नाः संदेहविभ्रमाः, प्रत्ययत्वात्, घटादिप्रत्ययवत्। तदिदमुक्तम्-यत्र यदध्यास इति। यस्मिन् शुक्तिकादौ यस्य रजतादेरध्यास इति लोक-

SUPERIMPOSITION 27

defect. Thus, there is non-apprehencion of the difference between the memory of the silver and the apprehension of the bare object before us, whether in their own nature (as cogni- tions) or in respect of their contents; hence, because of resemblance to the cognition of silver, where it is actually in (sense-) contact, the two cognitions- "this" and "silver"-though different (in nature) as perception and memory, bring about empirical usage as non-different and appositional designation. In some cases, again, there are but two perceptions whose reciprocal difference is not apprehended as in "the shell is yellow". In that case, as (for instance) in the case of a pure crystal, there is apprehended as present in the rays of light going forth from the eyes the yellowness of the bile, but the bile itself is not apprehended. The shell too, because of some defect, is apprehended as barely existent, but as devoid of the quality of whiteness. Because of similarity in respect of the non-apprehension of the non-relation between the quality and the qualified, there is empirical usage as non-different and appositional designation, in exactly the same way as in the cognition of the yellow mass of gold. (When there is sublation) what is sublated is the empirical usage as non-different occasioned by the non-apprehension of difference; hence is intelligible the sublating nature of the cognition of distinctness in the form "not this"; and this being intelligible, there is also established what is established in the world-the delusive- ness of the prior cognition. Therefore, all cognitions doubt- ful or delusive, about (the nature of) which there is dispute, are true,"because they are cognitions, like the cognition of & pot etc. This is the view explained in the words : "whon there is the superimposition of one on another." When on

28 SUPERIMPOSITION

nacre etc., there is what is well-known to the world as the superimposition of silver etc., that is not conditioned by the cognition as something else, but it is rather a delusion conditioned by the non-apprehension of the distinctness between (on the one hand) silver and the memory of it which by the loss of the element of (the content) having been apprehended stands as bare apprehension, and (on the other hand) the bare object which is present before us as "this" and the cognition thereof. And delusiveness consists in the appositional designation of memory and apprehension with reference to each otber, and in the empirical usage as silver etc. "Others, however," who are not satisfied even with this, "say that when there is superimposition of one on another, there is an assumption in the latter of an opposite attribute". This is the underlying idea : it is (knowledge) common to all that because of the cognition "this is silver," there is for him who seeks silver activity and appositional designation in respect of the substance in front (of him). That cannot come about from the bare failure to apprehend the reciprocal difference between memory and apprehension or their respective spheres ; for, how could the activity and speech of an intelligent being, which are conditioned by apprehension, result from bare non- apprehension ? Now, it has been said that it results not from bare non-apprehension, but from memory and apprehension, where their difference in respect of their nature and contents is not apprehended; because of the similarity to the valid cognition of silver before us, they give rise to empirical usage as non different and appositional designation. (To this, the supporter of anyathakhyati replies :) Now, the similarity of this to the valid cognition

अध्यास: २८

प्रसिद्धि: नासावन्यथाख्यातिनिबन्धना, किं तु गृहीतस्य रजतादेस्तत्स्मरणस्य च गृहीततांश- प्रमोषेण गृहीतमात्रस्य यः 'इदम्' इति पुरोऽवस्थिताद्र्व्यमात्रात्तत्प्रज्ञानाच्च विवेक:, तद- ग्रहणनिबन्धनो भ्रमः । भ्रान्तत्वं च ग्रहण- स्मरणयोरितरेतरसामानाधिकरण्यव्यपदेशो रजतादि- व्यवहारश्रेति। अन्ये तु-अत्राप्यपरितुष्यन्तः-यत्र यद- ध्यासस्तस्यैव विपरीतधर्मकल्पनामाचक्षते। अत्रेदमाकूतम्-अरि्ति तावद्रजतार्थिनः 'रजत- मिदम्' इति प्रत्ययात्पुरोवर्तिनि द्रव्ये प्रवृत्ति: सामानाधिकरण्यव्यपदेशश्रेति सर्वजनीनम्। तदे- तन्न तावद्ग्रहणस्मरणयोस्तद्रोचरयोश्च मिथो भेदाग्रहमात्रान्भवितुमर्ति। ग्रहणनिबन्धनौ हि चेतनस्य व्यवहारव्यपदेशौ कथमग्रहणमात्रान्वे- ताम् ? ननूक्तं नाग्रहणमात्रात्, किं तु ग्रहणस्मरणे एव मिथः स्वरूपतो विषयतश्रा- गृहीतभेदे, समीचीनपुरःस्थितरजतविज्ञानसादृश्येना- भेदव्यवहारं सामानाधिकरण्यव्यपदेशं च प्रवर्तयतः। 8

२९ अध्यास:

अथ समीचीनज्ञानसारूप्यमनयोर्गृह्यमाणं वा व्यव- हारप्रवृत्तिहेतु:, अगृह्यमाणं वा सत्तामात्रेण। गृह्यमाणेडपि 'समीचीनज्ञानसारूप्यमनयोरिदमिति रजतमिति च ज्ञानयोः' इति ग्रहणम्, अथ वा 'तयोरेव स्वरूपतो विषयतश्र मिथो भेदाग्रहः' इति ग्रहणम्। तत्र न तावत्समीचीनज्ञान- सदृशी इति ज्ञानं समीचीनज्ञानवद्दयवहारप्रवर्तकम्। न हि 'गोसदशो गवयः' इति ज्ञानं गवार्थिनं गवये प्रवर्तयति। 'अनयोरेव भेदाग्रहः' इति तु ज्ञानं पराहतम् ; न हि भेदाग्रहे अनयोरिति भवति, अनयोरिति ग्रहे भेदाग्रहणमिति न भवति। तस्मात्सत्तामात्रेण भेदाग्रहः अगृहीत एव व्यवहारहेतुरिति वत्तव्यम्। तत्र किमयमारो- पोत्पादक्रमेण व्यवहारहेतुः, आहो अनुत्पादितारोप एव स्वत इति? वयं तु पश्याम :- चेतन- व्यवहारस्य अज्ञानपूर्वकत्वानुपपत्तेः आरोपज्ञानोत्पाद- क्रमेणैव-इति। ननु सत्यं चेतनव्यवहारो नाज्ञान- पूर्वकः, किं तु अविदितविवेकग्रहणस्मरणपूर्वक इति। मैवम्। न हि रजतप्रातिपदिकार्थमात्रस्मरणं

SUPERIMPOSITION 29

may be the cause of empirical usage either by being appre- hended, or by its bare existence, without being apprehended. Even if it be apprehended, the apprehension must be of the form "Of the cognitions 'this' and 'silver' there is resemblance to valid cognition," or of the form "Between those very two no difference is apprehended in respect of their nature or contents ". Of these, the cognition "this is like valid cognition" cannot lead to empirical usage in the same way as valid cognition. The cognition "Gavaya is like a cow" does not, verily, induce activity in respect of a gavaya in him who seeks a cow. As for the cognition "non-apprehension of the difference between those very two," that is self-contradictory where there is non-apprehension of difference, it cannot be of the form "between the two"; nor, when there is the apprehension "between the two," can there be non-apprehension of difference. Hence, it must be said that the non-appre- hension of difference, not being itself apprehended, is the cause of empirical usage by the bare fact of its existence. Is it, then, the cause of empirical usage through creating an imposition or of itself without creating an imposition ? This is how we look at it : since the empirical usage of an intelligent being cannot intelligibly be consequent on ignorance, (it must be effective) only as creating an imposed cognition. Now (it may be objected) it is true that the activity of an intelligent being is consequent not on ignorance, but on apprehension and memory whose distinctness is not known. Not so (we reply); truly, it is not the memory of the bare root-meaning of the word "silver" that causes activity; for, it is undisputed that the activity of one who seeks silver is directed to the substrate of "this-ness".

30 SUPERIMPOSITION

How can one be active in respect of the substrate of "this-ness " unless one desires it ? It is self-contradictory to say that he desires one thing and works for something else. And, not knowing that it is silver which is the substrate of the "this-ness," how can one who seeks silver desire it? If one says (that desire is) due to (the substrate of the "this-ness") not being apprehended as not of the nature of that (silver), that (one) is to be answered thus: since it is not apprehended to be of the nature of that (silver), why is not one indifferent to it ? Thus, this intelligent being pulled in opposite directions by acceptance and indifference is unsettled, and is finally settled in the attitude of acceptance by the imposition of silver on the substrate of "this-ness";" thus, the non-apprehension of difference is the cause of the activity of an intelligent being, through creating superimposi- tion. It is thus: because of the non-apprehension of difference the quality of silver is imposed on the substrate of "this-ness"; the fact that what belongs to that class (silver) is advantageous is next brought to mind; that (advantageousness) is next inferred in respect of the silver (imposed) on the substrate of "this-ness," as it belongs to that class; then, he who seeks silver engages in activity in respect of that (imposed silver); thus is the sequence established. The memory of silver in general cannot help one to infer the advantageousness of the substrate of "this-ness," as the probans, silver-ness, would not be known to reside in the subject. Perception (of subject and probans) in the same place is, verily, the cause of inference, not perception in different places. As is said : "(Inference follows) from perception (of probans and subject) in the same place by one who knows the relation

अध्यास: ३०

प्रवृत्तावुपयुज्यते। इदंकारास्पदाभिमुखी खलु रजतार्थिनां प्रवृत्तिरित्यविवादम्। कथं चाय- मिदंकारास्पदे प्रवर्तेत यदि तु न तदिच्छेत् ? अन्यदिच्छत्यन्यत्करोतीति व्याहतम्। न चेदिदंका- रास्पदं रजतमिति जानीयात् कथं रजतार्थी तदिच्छेत् ? यदि अतथात्वेनाग्रहणात् इति ब्रूयात्, स च प्रतिवक्तव्यः, अथ तथात्वेनाग्रहणात् कस्मान्नोपेक्षेतेति। सोऽ्यमुपादानोपेक्षाभ्यामुभयत आकृष्यमाणश्रेतनः अव्यवस्थितः इदंकारास्पदे रजतसमारोपेणोपादान एव व्यवस्थाप्यते, इति भेदाग्रहः समारोपोत्पादक्रमेण चेतनप्रवृत्तिहेतुः । तथा हि-भेदाग्रहादिदंकारास्पदे रजतत्वं समारोप्य, तज्जातीयस्योपकारहेतुभावमनुचिन्त्य, तज्जातीयत- येदंकारास्पदे रजते तमनुमाय, तदर्थी प्रवर्तते इत्यानुपूर्व्य सिद्धम्। न च तटस्थरजतस्मृतिः इदंकारास्पदस्योपकारहेतुभावमनुमापयितुमर्हति, रज- तत्वस्य हेतोरपक्षघर्मत्वात्। एकदेशदर्शनं खल्व- नुमापकं न त्वनेकदेशदर्शनम्। यदाहु :- "ज्ञात- संबन्धस्यैकदेशदर्शनात्" इति। समारोपे त्वेक-

३१ अध्यास:

देशदर्शनमरिति। तत्सिद्धम्-एतद्विवादाध्यासितं रजतादिज्ञानं पुरोवर्तिवस्तुविषयम् , रजताद्यर्थिनस्तत्र नियमेन प्रवर्तकत्वात् ; यद्यदर्थिनं यत्र नियमेन प्रवर्तयति तज्ज्ञानं तद्विषयं यथोभयसिद्धसमीचीन- रजतज्ञानम् ; तथा चेदम् ; तस्मात्तथा-इति । यच्चोक्तम् अनवभासमानतया न शुक्तिरालम्बन- मिति, तत्र भवान् पृष्टो व्याचष्टाम्-किं शुक्तिकात्वस्य 'इदं रजतम्' इति ज्ञानं प्रत्यना- लम्बनत्वम् आहोखित् द्रव्यमात्रस्य पुरःस्थितस्य सितभासवरस्य ? यदि शुक्तिकात्वस्य अनालम्बन- त्वम्, अद्ा ! उत्तरस्यानालम्बनत्वं ब्रुवाणस्य तवैवानुभवविरोधः । तथा हि-'रजतमिदम् ' इत्यनुभवन्ननुभविता पुरोवर्ति वस्तु अङ्गुल्यादिना निर्दिशति। दृष्टं च दुष्टानां कारणानामौत्सर्गिक- कार्यप्रतिबन्धेन कार्यान्तरोपजननसामर्थ्यम्, यथा दावाभिदग्धानां वेत्रबीजानां कदलीकाण्डजनकत्वम्, भस्मकदुष्टस्य चौदर्यस्य तेजसो बह्वन्नपचनमिति। प्रत्यक्षबाधापहृतविषयं च विभ्रमाणां यथार्थत्वानु- मानमाभास:, हुतवहानुष्णत्वानुमानवत्। यच्चोक्त्तं

SUPERIMPOSITION 31

(vyapti)." This perception in the same place occurs in superimposition. Hence is established (the following in- ference): the subject of dispute, i.e., the cognition of silver etc., has the object before one for its content, since in him who seeks silver etc., it invariably induces activity in respect of that (object in front); that cognition which invariably induces activity in him who seeks a thing has that thing for its content, as in the valid cognition of silver admitted by both of us; this (cognition) is also so; therefore, that is so (i.e., the cognition of silver has the substrate of "this-ness" for its content). As for what was said about nacre not being the basis, since it is not presented, you being questioned will have to explain this : of what is it that you say it is not the basis of the cognition "this is silver"? Is it of the nacreity or merely of the white bright substance in front ? If not being the basis belongs to the nacreity, certainly, (we agree). As for the latter not being the basis, you alone who assert it contradict experience. It is thus : he, who has the experience "this is silver," does, while so experiencing, indicate the sub- stance in front with his finger etc. It is also seen that where causes are obstructed by a defect in the production of their normal effects they acquire the capacity to produce other effects; e.g., the seeds of the cane parched by the forest-fire produce plantain-stems ; the digestive fire of him whose stomach is affected by bhasmaka" can digest a large quantity of food. The inference of the truth of delusions which are deprived of their contents by sublating perceptions is fallacious, like the inference that fire is not hot. As for what was said about the loss of confidence in all

32 SUPERIMPOSITION

means of valid knowledge if illusory cognitions be said to be inconstant (to their contents), that is met in the Nyayakanika by us who declare that (for cognition) there is self-validity through (the very fact of) its conveying knowledge and not through its constancy (to its content) ; hence it is not dilated on here." The criticism of the doctrine of the loss (of the memory-ness) of memory has been stated here only in brief; it is to be learnt in detail from the Brahmatattvasamtksu. Hence it is said : "others however say that when there is superimposition of one on another there is an assumption in the latter of an opposite attribute." When on nacre etc., there is imposition of silver etc .. there is the attribution of the properties of silver etc., which are opposed to that very nacre etc. : this is the construction. Now, let there be these differences among inquirers; what of that in the present context? To this he says : "But in any case," etc. The assumption of the attributes of one thing in the case of another, that is untruth (anrtata); we have explained above that that is indeterminability. From that (it would follow that) in the systems of all inquirers this indeterminable assumption of the attributes of one thing in another has necessarily to find a place; hence this indeterminability is an accepted doctrine in all systems: this is the meaning. The idea is that this must be admitted, though unwillingly, by those who maintain the view of non-apprehension (of difference between memory and apprehension) inasmuch as they favour the invariability of appositional designation and aotivity.

अध्यास: ३२

मिथ्याप्रत्ययस्य व्यभिचारे सर्वप्रमाणेष्वनाश्वास इति, तत् बोधकत्वेन स्वतःप्रामाण्यं नाव्यभिचारेणेति व्युत्पादयद्िरस्माभि: परिहृतं न्यायकणिकायामिति नेह प्रतन्यते। दिङ्न्मात्रं चास्य स्मृतिप्रमोषभङ्ग- स्योक्तम् ; विस्तरस्तु ब्रह्मतत्त्वसमीक्षायामवगन्तव्य इति। तदिदमुक्तम्-अन्ये तु यत्र यदध्या- सस्तस्यैव विपरीतधर्मकल्पनामाचक्षते इति। यत्र शुक्तिकादौ यरय रजतादेरध्यासरतस्यैव शुक्तिकादेर्विपरीतधर्मकल्पनां रजतत्वधर्मकल्पनामिति योजना। ननु सन्तु नाम परीक्षकाणां विप्रतिपत्तयः, प्रकृते तु किमायातमित्यत आह-सर्वथापि इति। अन्यस्यान्यधर्मकल्पना अनृतता, सा च अनिर्वचनीयतेत्यधस्तादुपपादितम्। तेन सर्वेषामेव परीक्षकाणां मते अन्यरयान्यधर्मकल्पनानिर्वच- नीयावश्यंभाविनीत्यनिर्वचनीयता सर्वतन्त्रसिद्धान्त इत्यर्थः। अख्यातिवादिभिरकामैरपि सामा-

भाव: । a

३३ अध्यास:

कथं पुनः प्रत्यगात्मन्यविषयेऽध्यासो विषयतद्धर्माणाम्? सर्वो हि पुरोऽवस्थिते विषये विषयान्तरमध्यस्यति; युष्मत्प्र- त्ययापेतस्य च प्रत्यगात्मनोऽ्विषयत्वं व्रवीषि। उच्यते-न तावद्यमेकान्तेना- विषयः, अस्मत्परत्ययविषयत्वात्, अपरोक्ष- त्वाञ्च प्रत्यगात्मप्रसिद्धेः । न चाय- मस्ति नियमः पुरोऽवस्थित एव विषये विषयान्तरमध्यसितव्यमिति। अप्रत्यक्षेऽरपि ह्याकाशे बालास्तलमलिनताद्यध्यस्यन्ति। एवमविरुद्धः प्रत्यगात्मन्यप्यनात्मनाम- ध्यास:।

न केवलमियमनृतता परीक्षकाणां सिद्धा, अपि तु लौकिकानामपीत्याह-तथा च लोके अनुभवः शुक्तिका हि रजतवद्वभासत इति। न पुना रजतमिदमिति शेषः । स्यादेतत्। अन्यस्यान्यात्मताविभ्रमो लोकसिद्ध:, एकस्य त्वभिन्नस्य भेदभ्रमो न दृष्ट इति कुतः

SUPERIMPOSITION 33

Again, how can there be the superimposition of the object and its attributes on the inner self, which is a non-object? For, everyone superimposes an object on another object that is present before him; and you say that the inner self, which is outside the concept of "Thou," is a non-object. The reply is: now, this is not invariably a non-object, because it is the object of the concept "I," and because of the immediacy of the realisation of the inner self. And there is no rule that an object can be superimposed only on another object that is present before one. For, upon ether, though not perceptible, the unthinking superimpose surface, impurity etc. Similarly there is no contradiction in the superimposition of the non-self even on the inner self.

This untruth is established in the case not only of inquirers, but also of the man in the street ; hence he says : "And thus is our experience in the world-nacre appears as (if it wore) silver." "This, again, is not silver"; this is the complement (to the above sentence). Be this so. The delusion that one thing is of the nature of another is established in experience; but there is not seen the delusion of difference in the case of what is one and non-different; whence the delusion of differenee for the jipas who are not different from the intelligent

34 SUPERIMPOSITION

self ? To this he says: "the moon, though one, appears as if having a second." In the words "Again, how," etc., the superimposition on the intelligent self is again objected to. This is the meaning : is this intelligent self manifest or not ? If it be not manifest, how can there be the superimposition of objects and their attributes thereon ? There is not, verily, the superimposition of silver or its attributes on a non- manifest substance in front (of us). If this self is manifest, it does not stand to reason that it is inert, and manifested in dependence on another, like a pot etc. 10 (The self that is manifest should be either self-manifest or manifested by another; it is not the latter; nor can it be the former.) Verily. the same thing cannot be both agent and object, because of contradiction. The object is, indeed, that which can bear the fruit of activity inherent in another; the knowing activity is not inherent in another (than the self); how, then, can that (self) be the object there- of? Nor can the same be both self- and other- (dependent), because of contradiction. But if inherence (of the knowing activity) in another self be admitted, the known self would become a not-self (not being the subject of that activity). Further, for that (another knowing self would be required, and) for that (another), so that there is infinite regress. (He who holds that consciousness is self-manifest, but not the self, may say :) be this so. The self, though inert, though manifest in the cognitions of all things, is agent alone, not object, being, like Caitra, not characterised by bearing the fruit of activity inherent in another. In Caitra's reaching a city through activity inherent in

अध्यास: ३४

चिदात्मनोऽभिन्नानां जीवानां भेदविभ्रम इत्यत आह-एकश्चन्द्रः सद्वितीयवत् इति। पुनरपि चिदात्मन्यध्यासमाक्षिपति-कथं पुनः इति। अयमर्थ :- चिदात्मा प्रकाशते न वा ? न चेत् प्रकाशते, कथमस्मिन्नध्यासो विषय- तद्र्माणाम् ? न खल्वप्रतिभासमाने पुरोवर्तिनि द्रव्ये रजतस्य वा तडर्माणां वा समारोपः संभवति। प्रतिभासमाने वा न तावदयमात्मा जडो घटादि- वत्पराधीनप्रकाश इति युक्तम्। न खलु स एव कर्ता च कर्म च भवति, विरोधात्। परसमवेत- क्रियाफलशालि हि कर्म, न च ज्ञानक्रिया परसमवायिनीति कथमस्याः कर्म ? न च तदेव स्वं च परं च, विरोधात्। आत्मान्तरसमवायाभ्युप- गमे तु ज्ञेयरयात्मनः अनात्मत्वप्रसङ्गः । एवं तस्य तस्येत्यनवस्थाप्रसङ्ग: । स्यादेतत्। आत्मा जडोऽपि सर्वार्थज्ञानेषु भास- मानोऽपि कर्तैव न कर्म, परसमवेतक्रियाफल- शालित्वाभावात्, चैत्रवत्। यथा हि चैत्रसमवेत- क्रियया चैत्रनगरप्राप्तावुभयसमवेतायामपि क्रिय-

३५ अध्यास:

माणायां नगरस्यैव कर्मता, परसमवेतक्रियाफल- शालित्ात्, न तु चैत्रस्य क्रियाफलशालिनोऽपि, चैत्रसमवायाद्रमनक्रियाया इति। तन्न, श्रुतिविरोधात्। श्रूयते हि 'सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म' इति। उपपद्यते च । तथा हि-योऽयमर्थप्रकाशः फलं यस्मिन्नर्थश्र आत्मा च प्रथेते स किं जड: स्वयंप्रकाशो वा ? जडश्रेत् विषयात्मानावपि जडाविति कस्मिन् किं प्रकाशेत अविशेषात्, इति प्राप्तमान्ध्यमशेषर्य जगतः । तथा चाभाणक :- 'अन्धस्येवान्धलमनस्य विनिपातः पदे पदे' इति। न च निलीनमेव विज्ञानमर्थात्मानौ ज्ञापयति चक्षुरादिवदिति वाच्यम्। ज्ञापनं हि ज्ञानजननम्, जनितं च ज्ञानं जडं सन्नोक्त- दूषणमतिवर्तेतेति। एवमुत्तरोत्तराण्यपि ज्ञानानि जडानीत्यनवस्था। तस्मादपराधीनप्रकाशा संविदु- पेतव्या। तथापि किमायातं विषयात्मनोः स्वभावजडयोः ? एतदायातं यत्तयोः संविदजडेति। तर्त्कि पुत्रः

SUPERIMPOBITION 35

himself, though the product inheres in both Caitra and the city, the object-ness belongs to the city alone, since to that belongs the property of bearing the fruit of activity inherent in another, and not to Caitra, though he too bears the fruit of activity, as the act of going is inherent in Caitra (alone). This is not (sound), because of opposition to Scripture. Scripture, indeed, says : "Truth, knowledge, infinitude is Brahman." This is intelligible too. It is thus: that fruit, which is the manifestation of the object, that in which the object and the self manifest themselves, is that inert or self-manifest? If that were inert, both the object and the self would be inert; which, then, would be manifest in which, there being no distinction (among the three)? Thus would result non-manifestation for the whole universe. (Nor can the reciprocal dependence of these three be of any avail); and thus the proverb: "As the blind holding on to the blind falls at every step." Nor may it be said that cognition, being itself hidden, (yet) makes known both the object and the self, like the sense of sight etc. (which, themselves unperceived, yet cause perception); for, to make known is to produce cognition, and the cognition that is produced, being inert, wouid not surmount the above-mentioned defect (of the blind leading the blind). Thus, the subsequent cognitions too being inert, there would be infinite regress. Therefore, consciousness should be acknowledged to be manifested without dependence on another. Even thus, what is gained (by you) for the object and the self, which (you hold) are both inert by nature? This is the gain. (you may say), that the consciousness of

36 SUPERIMPOSITION

them is not inert. (But it does not follow that the object and the self, the causes of consciousness, are not inert); in that case, because the son is a scholar, should the father be a scholar too? It is of the very nature of the self-luminous consciousness to be related to the object and the self: if this be said, alas ! then, it is equally the nature of the scholarly son to be related to his father. (You may define the relation thus): the manifestation of consciousness is along with the manifestation of the object and the self, never without the manifestation of the object and the self; this is its nature. If this be said, is consciousness, then, different from the manifestation of consciousness (on the one hand), and the manifestation of the object and the self (on the other) ? If that were so, then, consciousness would no longer be self-manifest, nor would consciousness be the manifestation of the object and the self. Then, (you may say), the two manifestations, of consciousness and of the object and self, are not different from consciousness; these two are but conscious- ness. If this be said, then, what is said in "consciousness (goes) along with the object and the self," that (alone) is what is said in "(the manifestation of) consciousness (goes) along with the manifestation of the object and the self" (so that there is ro advance in your position)." (Hence), what is desired to be stated by you (that the self, itself inert, is the locus of the self-manifest conscious- ness) does not result. Nor is there concomitance with the object in the case of that consciousness which has objects past and future for its sphere (though such concomitance has been assumed in the argument so far). Since there is generated the cognition of rejection, acceptance

अध्यास: ३६ पण्डित इति पितापि पण्डितोऽस्तु? स्वभाव एष संविदः स्वयंप्रकाशाया यदर्थात्मसंबन्धि- तेति चेत्, हन्त पुत्रस्यापि पण्डितस्य स्वभाव एष यत्पितृसंबन्धितेति समानम्। सहार्थात्म- प्रकाशेन संवित्प्रकाशो न त्वर्थात्मप्रकाशं विनेति तस्याः स्वभाव इति चेत्, तर्त्किं संविदो भिन्नौ संविदर्थात्मप्रकाशौ। तथा च न स्वयंप्रकाशा संवित्, न च संवित् अर्थात्मप्रकाश इति। अथ संविदर्थात्मप्रकाशौ न संविदो भिद्येते, संविदेव तौ। एवं चेत् यावदुक्त्तं भवति संविदात्मार्थौ सहेति तावदुक्त्तं भवति संविदर्थात्मप्रकाशौ सहेति। तथा च न विवक्षि- तार्थसिद्धिः । न चातीतानागतार्थगोचरायाः संविदोऽर्थसह- भावोऽपि। तद्विषयहानोपादानोपेक्षाबुद्धिजननादर्थ- सहभाव इति चेत्, न, अर्थसंविद इव

10

३७ अध्यास:

हानादिबुद्दीनामपि तद्विषयत्वानुपपत्तेः । हानादि- जननाद्धानादिबुद्धीनामर्थविषयत्वम्, अर्थविषयहा- नादिबुद्धिजननाच्च अर्थसंविदस्तद्विषयत्वमिति चेत् , तत्किं देहस्य प्रयत्नवदात्मसंयोगो देहप्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ति- हेतुर्थ इत्यर्थप्रकाशोऽस्तु ? जाड्याद्देहात्मसंयोगो नार्थ- प्रकाश इति चेत्, नन्वयं स्वयंप्रकाशोऽपि स्वात्मन्येव खद्योतवत्प्रकाशः, अर्थे तु जड इत्युपपादितम्। न च प्रकाशस्यात्मानो विषयाः; ते हि विच्छिन्नदीर्घस्थूलतयानुभूयन्ते ; प्रकाशश्रायं अन्त- रोऽस्थूलोऽनणुरहस्वोऽदीर्घक्रेति प्रकाशते; तस्मा- च्चन्द्रेऽनुभूयमाने इव द्वितीयश्रन्द्रमाः खवप्र- काशादन्योऽर्थोऽनिर्वचनीय एवेति युक्तमुत्पश्यामः । न च अस्य प्रकाशस्याजानतः खवलक्षणभेदोऽनु- भूयते। न च अनिर्वाच्यार्थभेदः प्रकाशं निर्वाच्यं भेत्तुमर्हति, अतिप्रसङ्गात्। न च अर्थानामपि

SUPERIMPOSITION 37

or indifference relating to that as content, there is con- comitance with the object: if this be said, no (we reply); because the cognition of rejection etc., like the consciousness of the object itself, cannot intelligibly have that (past or future object) as content. Because of giving rise to re- jection etc., the cognition of rejection etc. too have the object as content; and because of giving rise to the cogni- tion of rejection etc., which have the object as content, the consciousness of the object too has that (object) as content: if this be said, since the conjunction of the body with the self that puts forth effort is the cause of the set- ting up and cessation of bodily activity in respect of an object, is that (conjunction) too (we ask) a manifestation of the object? Because of its inertness, (you may say), the conjunction of the body and the self is not a manifestation of the object. Now, though this (consciousness) is self- manifest (unlike the afore-said conjunction), its luminosity, like that of a glow-worm, is only in respect of itself; in respect of objects, however, it is inert; this has been ex- plained (by the analogy of the scholarly son's father). Nor are objects of the very nature of light (i.e., of con- sciousness, as the Vijnanavadins say); they are experienced as finite, as long or gross, while light manifests itself as internal, neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long. Therefore, we see fit to hold that the object, which is other than the self-manifest, is certainly indeterminable, like the second moon experienced along with the moon. And no natural differentiation is experienced in this light as such (so that there is no obstacle to its identity with the self, which is one). Nor can differences among objects,

38 SUPERIMPOSITION

which are indeterminable, introduce differences into light, which is determinate, as that would prove too much." It will also be shown later that reciprocal difference does not come in the line of valid knowledge. Therefore, this very light, which is self-luminous, one, immutable, eter- nal, without parts, is the inner self, i.e., the self that knows the determinate self to be other than the body, organs etc., which are indeterminable. That self, not being other-dependent for its manifesta- tion, and being without parts, cannot be an object (of cog- nition). How, then, can there be the superimposition there- on of the attributes of objects, i.e., of bodies, organs etc .? The word "how" (in the commentary) is in the sense of an objection. This superimposition does not stand to reason; this is the objection. Why does it not stand to reason ? To this he says: "For, every one superimposes an object upon another object that is present before one." This is what is said: that, whose manifestation is other-dependent and which has parts, appears other than what it is, being appre- hended in its general nature, but not apprehended in its speci- fic nature, because of defect in the organs (of cognition). The inner self, however, not being other-dependent for its mani- festation, does not require for the knowiedge of itself any organs, by defects in which it would itself become defective. Nor has it any parts, in which case, it could be apprehended in some part, but not in others. It cannot, verily, happen that the same (thing) is at the same time and by itself both apprehended and not apprehended; hence on the view of the self-luminosity (of the self) there can be no super- imposition. (And) even if it be never manifest, there can

अध्यास: ३८

पररपरं भेद: समीचीनज्ञानपद्दतिमध्यारते इत्यु- परिष्टादुपपादयिष्यते। तदयं प्रकाश एव स्वयंप्रकाश एक: कूटस्थो नित्यो निरंशः प्रत्यगात्मा अशक्यनिर्वचनीयेभ्यो देहेन्द्रियादिम्य आत्मानं प्रतीपं निर्वचनीयमञ्चति जानातीति प्रत्यङ, स चात्मेति प्रत्यगात्मा । स चापराधीनप्रकाशत्वात् अनंशत्वाच्च अविषयः, तस्मिन्नध्यासो विषयधर्माणाम्, देहेन्द्रियादिधर्मा- णाम्, कथम्? किमाक्षेपे। अयुक्तोऽयमध्यास इत्या- क्षेपः । कस्माद्यमयुक्त इत्यत आह-सर्वो हि पुरोऽवस्थिते विषये विषयान्तरमध्यस्यति। एतदुक्तं भवति-यत्पराधीनप्रकाशमंशवच्च तत्सा- मान्यांशग्रहे करणदोषवशाच्च विशेषाग्रहे अन्यथा प्रकाशते। प्रत्यगात्मा तु अपराधीनप्रकाशतया न स्वज्ञाने कारणान्यपेक्षते, येन तदाश्रयैर्दोषैर्दुष्येत्। न चांशवान्, येन कश्चिदस्यांशो गृह्येत, कश्चिन्न गृह्येत। न हि तदेव तदानीमेव तेनैव गृहीतमगृहीतं च संभवतीति न स्वयंप्रकाशता- पक्षे अध्यासः। सदातनेऽप्यप्रकाशे पुरोऽवस्थित-

३९ अध्यास:

त्वस्य अपरोक्षत्वस्याभावान्नाध्यासः । न हि शुक्तौ अपुरःस्थितायां रजतमध्यस्यति 'इदं रजतम्' इति। तस्मादत्यन्तग्रहे अत्यन्ताग्रहे च नाध्यास इति सिद्धम्। स्यादेतत्। अविषयत्वे हि चिदात्मनो नाध्यासः, विषय एव तु चिदात्मा अस्मत्प्रत्ययस्य, तत्कथं ना- ध्यास इत्यत आह-युष्मत्प्रत्ययापेतस्य इति। विषयत्वे हि चिदात्मनोऽन्यो विषयी भवेत्। तथा च यो विषयी स एव चिदात्मा। विषयस्तु ततोऽन्यो युष्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरोऽभ्युपेयः । तस्मादनात्मत्वप्रसङ्गादनवस्थापरिहाराय युष्मत्प्रत्यया- पेतत्वम् ; अत एव अविषयत्वमात्मनो वक्तव्यम् ; तथा च नाध्यास इत्यर्थः । परिहरति-उच्यते-न तावद्यमेकान्ते- नाविषयः । कुतः ? अस्मत्प्रत्ययविषयत्वात्। अयमर्थ :- सत्यं प्रत्यगात्मा स्वयंप्रकाशत्वादविषयोऽ- नंशश्च; तथापि अनिर्वचनीयानाद्यविद्यापरिकल्पित- बुद्धिमन:सूक्ष्मस्थूलशरीरेन्द्रियावच्छेदकभेदेन अनव- च्छिन्नोऽपि वस्तुतोऽ्वच्छिन्न इव अभिन्नोऽपि भिन्न

SUPERIMPOSITION 39

be no superimposition, since it is not before us, i.e., is not immediately experienced. Silver is not, verily, superimposed in the form "this is silver", when nacre is not present before us. Hence it follows that there can be no superimposition both when there is complete apprehension and when there is total non-apprehension. Be this so. If the intelligent self were not an object, then indeed, there could be no superimposition thereon; but it is the object of the concept "I". Why then can there be no superimposition? To this he says: "which is ever outside the concept of ' Thou'." For, if the intelligent self were the object, the subject (vişayin) would be other than that. And thus, he who is the subject is himself the intelligent self; the object, however, should be admitted to be other than that, and in the sphere of the concept of "Thou". Hence, "being outside the concept of ' Thou'" is (stated) for the purpose of remedying the possibility of non-selfhood (for the self) and of infinite regress ; hence it is that not being an object has to be predicated of the self; and thus, there is no superimposition: this is the meaning. He answers this: "The reply is-now, this is not invariably a non-object." Why (not) ? "Because it is the object of the concept 'I'." This is the meaning: true, the inner self being self-manifest is not an object and is without parts; but yet, having attained to the state of the jwva, though not really defined by the particular defining conditions posited by indeterminable beginning- less Nescience, such as the intellect, the mind, bodies subtle and gross, and the organs, he appears as if defined ; though not different, he appears as if different; though

40 SUPERIMPOSITION

not an agent, he appears as agent; though not an enjoyer, he appears as enjoyer; and though not an ob- ject, he appears as the object of the concept "I"; just as the ether because of differences defined by adjuncts such as pot, ewer, basin etc., appears as different and possessing diverse attributes. Of the self that is but of the one essence of intelligence, there is not, verily, anything unapprehended, when the element of intelligence is apprehended. Bliss, eternality, pervasiveness etc. are not, indeed, different from its nature as intelligence, such that they are not apprehended along with the apprehension of that element. While being certainly apprehended, yet, because of posited difference, they appear as if not discriminated, and hence not apprehended. Nor is the difference of the self from the intellect etc. real, so that that (difference) too is apprehended, when the intelligent self is apprehended; for, the intellect etc., being indeter- minable, their difference (from the self) too is indeter- minable (and unreal). Thus, it is for the intelligent self itself, which is self-manifest and undefined, that there is the condition of the jiva, through non-apprehension of the difference from the defined intellect etc., and the (consequent) superimposition of these. Of this, which partakes of the nature of the "not-this (non-object: the intelligent self)" and the "this (the inert object)," being the object of the concept "I" is intelligible. It is thus : the intelligent self appears, in the concept "I," as agent and enjoyer, And for that (self) which is indifferent there cannot occur the capacity either to act or to enjoy. And for that aggregate of the effect (the body) and the organs, i.e., the intellect etc., to which belong the

अध्यास: ४०

इव अकर्तापि कर्तेव अभोक्तापि भोक्तेव अविषयोऽ- प्यस्मत्प्रत्ययविषय इव जीवभावमापन्नः अवभासते, नभ इव घटमणिकमल्लिकाद्युपाध्यवच्छेदभेदेन भिन्न- मिवानेकविधधर्मकमिवेति। न हि चिदेकरसस्यात्मनः चिदंशे गृहीते अगृहीतं किंचिदरिति। न खलु आनन्दनित्यत्वविभुत्वादयः अस्य चिद्रूपाद्वस्तुतो भिद्यन्ते, येन तद्ग्रहे न गृह्येरन्। गृहीता एव तु कल्पितेन भेदेन न विवेचिता इत्यगृहीता इवाभान्ति। न च आत्मनो बुद्धयादिभ्यो भेदसतात्विकः येन चिदात्मनि गृह्यमाणे सोऽपि गृहीत एव भवेत्, बुध्यादीनामनिर्वाच्यत्वेन तद्जेदस्याप्यनिर्वचनीयत्वात्। तस्माच्चिदात्मनः ख- यंप्रकाशस्यैव अनवच्छिन्नरय अवच्छिन्नेभ्यो बुद्धया- दिभ्यो भेदाग्रहात् तदध्यासेन जीवभाव इति। त्य च अनिदमिदमात्मनः अस्मत्प्रत्ययविषयत्व- मुपपद्यते। तथा हि-कर्ता भोक्ता चिदात्मा अहंप्रत्यये प्रत्यवभासते। न च उदासीनस्य तस्य क्रियाशक्तिर्भोगशक्तिर्वा संभवति। यस्य च बुद्धयादेः

11

४१ अध्यास:

कार्यकरणसंघातस्य क्रियाभोगशक्ती न तस्य चैतन्यम्। तस्माच्चिदात्मैव कार्यकरणसंघातेन ग्रथितो लब्धक्रियाभोगशक्ति: स्वयंप्रकाशोऽपि बुद्धयादिविषयविच्छुरणात् कथंचिदस्मत्प्रत्ययविषयः अहंकारासपदं जीव इति च जन्तुरिति च क्षेत्रज्ञ इति च आख्यायते। न खलु जीवश्चिदात्मनो भिद्यते। तथा हि श्रुतिः-'अनेन जीवेनात्मना' इति। तस्माच्चिदात्मनोऽव्यतिरेकात् जीवः स्वयं- प्रकाशोऽपि अहंप्रत्ययेन कर्तृभोक्तृतया व्यवहार- योग्यः क्रियत इत्यहंप्रत्ययालम्बनमुच्यते। न च अध्यासे सति विषयत्वं विषयत्वे च अध्यासः इत्यन्योन्याश्रयत्वमिति सांप्रतम्, बीजाङकुरवदना- दित्वात्, पूर्वपूर्वाध्यासत द्वासनाविषयीकृतस्योत्तरो- त्तराध्यासविषयत्वाविरोधादित्युक्तम्-"नैसर्गि- कोऽयं लोकव्यवहारः" इति भाष्यग्रन्थेन । तस्मात् सुष्टूक्तम्-न तावद्यमेकान्तेनाविषय इति। जीवो हि चिदात्मतया स्वयंप्रकाशतया अविषयोऽपि औपाधिकेन रूपेण विषय इति भावः।

SUPERIMPOSITION 41

capacities to act and enjoy, there is no intelligence. Hence, it is the intelligent self that, linked to the aggregate of the effect (the body) and the organs, gains the capacity to act and enjoy; though self-manifest, yet by intermixture with objects like the intellect etc., it somehow becomes the object of the concept "I," the substrate of "I-ness," and is (variously) designated jtva, creature (jantu), or knower of the field (ksetrajna). The jiva indeed is not different from the intelligent self. For, thus runs Scripture: "in its own nature, as that jiva" etc." Thus, the jiva though self-manifest, because of being non-different from the intelligent self, is yet made by the concept " I" fit for empirical usage as agent and enjoyer; hence it is said to be the basis of the concept"I". Nor is it admissible (to say) that there is reciprocal dependence in that (the jiva) becomes an object if there is super- imposition, and there is superimposition if (he) becomes an object; for, the (process) is beginningless, like the (depen- dence of) seed and sprout, and there is no inconsistency in every subsequent superimposition having for its object that which has been made the content of each earlier super- imposition and its impressions;" this has been said in the text of the commentary: "this natural empirical usage." Hence it has been well-said: "now, this is not invariably a non-object." The jtva though not an object, as (non- different from) the intelligent self and as self-manifest, is yet an object in his conditioned form: this is the idea.

42 SUPERIMPOSITION

Be this so. We do not deny superimposition on the ground that the jtva is not an object, his manifestation not being other-dependent; we maintain ratber that the inner self does not shine either of itself or with the help of another, and is hence not an objeot. Hence on the inner self, which is never manifest, how can there be superimposition? To this he says: "and because of the immediacy of the realisation of the inner self." Prathā is the realisation of the inner self, because of the immediacy thereof. Though, in the inner self, realisation is not some- thing other than that, yet the difference (implied in the words "realisation of the self") is figurative, as in "the in- telligence of the self". This is what is said: the intelligent self should necessarily be admitted to be immediately perceived, since from the non-manifestation thereof would follow the non-manifestation of everything and the blindness of the universe; this has been already said. And there is Scripture to this effect: "That shining, all else shines after it; by its light all this shines." 15 Having given this real answer, he states as a praudha- vadin another answer, assuming the mediacy of the intelligent self: "And there is no rule" etc. "Only on another object present before one," i.e., only on what is immediate (directly perceived). Why is there no such rule? To this he says: "For, upon ether, though not perceptible" etc. The (particle) hi means for the reason that. Ether, though a substance, is yet devoid of form and touch;

अभ्यास: ४२

स्यादेतत्। न वयमपराधीनप्रकाशतया अविषय- त्वेनाध्यासमपाकुर्म:, किं तु प्रत्यगात्मा न स्वतो नापि परतः प्रथत इत्यविषय इति ब्रूमः । तथा च सर्वथाप्रथमाने प्रत्यगात्मनि कुतोऽध्यास इत्यत आह-अपरोक्षत्वाञ्च प्रत्यगात्म प्रसिद्धे: इति। प्रतीच आत्मनः प्रसिद्धि: प्रथा, तस्या अपरोक्षत्वात्। यद्यपि प्रत्यगात्मनि नान्या प्रथारत तथापि भेदोपचारः, यथा 'पुरुषस्य चैतन्यम्' इति। एतदुक्तं भवति-अवश्यं चिदात्मा अपरोक्षोऽभ्युपेतव्यः तदप्रथायां सर्वस्या- प्रथनेन जगदान्ध्यप्रसङ्गादित्युक्तम्। श्रुतिश्चात्र भवति-'तमेव भान्तमनु भाति सर्वे तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति' इति। तदेवं परमार्थपरिहारमुक्त्ा अभ्युपेत्यापि चिदा- त्मन: परोक्षतां प्रौढवादितया परिहारान्तरमाह- न चायमस्ति इति। पुरोवस्थित एव, अपरोक्ष एव। कस्मादयं न नियम इत्यत आह- अप्रत्यक्षेऽ्रपि इति। हिर्यस्मादर्थे। नभो हि द्रव्यं सत् रूपस्पर्शविरहान्न बाह्येन्द्रियप्रत्यक्षम् ।

४३ अभ्यास:

तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अवि- देति मन्यन्ते, तद्विवेकेन च वस्तुसरूपा- वधारणं विद्यामाहुः। तलैवं सति यत्र

नापि मानसम्, मनसोऽसहायस्य बाह्ये अप्रवृत्ते :; तस्मादप्रत्यक्षम्। अथ च तत्र बाला अविवेकिन: परदर्शितदर्शिनः कदाचित्पार्थिवच्छायां श्यामता- मारोप्य, कदाचित्तैजसं शुककत्वमारोप्य, नीलोत्पल- पलाशश्याममिति वा राजहंसमालाघवलमिति वा निर्वर्णयन्ति। तत्रापि पूर्वदष्टस्य तैजसस्य वा तामसस्य वा रूपस्य परत्र नभसि स्मृतिरूपोऽवभास इति। एवं तदेव तलमध्यस्यन्ति अवाङ्मुखी- भूतमहेन्द्रनीलमणिमयमहाकटाहकल्पमित्यर्थः । उप- संहरति-एवम् उक्त्ेन प्रकारेण सर्वाक्षेपपरिहा- रात्, अविरुद्धः प्रत्यगात्मन्यप्यनात्मनाम्- बुद्दयादीनाम्-अध्यासः। ननु सन्ति च सहस्रमध्यासाः, तत्किमर्थमयमे- वाध्यास आक्षेपसमाधानाभ्यां व्युत्पादितः नाध्यास- मात्रमित्यत आह-तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं

SUPERIMPOSITION 43

This aforementioned superimposition of this charac- ter, wise men hold to be Nescience, and as distinct from that, the determination of the nature of the thing, they call knowledge. Here, such being the case, when

hence it cannot be cognised by an external sense. Nor can it be cognised by the mind, since the unaided mind does not act in respect of what is external; hence it is not perceived. Now, in respect of this, "children," i.e., those who possess no discriminative knowledge, those who see what is shown them by others, superimpose sometimes blueness, the colour of the earth, sometimes whiteness, the property of fire, and determine it to be blue like the petals of the nilotpala (blue lily) or white like a row of rāja- hamsas (swans). Here too, there is, in the form of recollec- tion, the appearance of the proporty of the formerly seen brightness or darkness. Thus, even thereon, they "super- impose surface," likening it to a huge inverted bowl made of indrantla gems. He concludes thus : "Similarly," i.e., in the manner set forth above, through answering all objections, "there is no contradiction in the superimposition of the not- solf," i.e., of the intellect etc., "even on the inner self". Now, there are thousands of superimpositions; why should this particular one be expounded through the statement of objection and answer ? Why not the general nature alone of superimposition (be expounded) ? To this he says: "This afore-mentioned superimposition of this

44 SUPERIM POSITION

there is the superimposition of one on another, the latter is not affected, even to the extent of an atom, by the good or bad features produced by the former. It is in the wake of this aforementioned reciprocal superimposition of the self and the not-self, which is designated Nescience, that there proceed all empirical usages of the world relating to valid knowledge and the means thereof, and all the sacred teachings relating to prescription, prohibition and release.

character, wise men hold to be Nescience." It is well-known from Scripture, traditional codes, epics, puranas etc., that Nescience is the seed of all evil; it will be said later that the Vedanta sets out to remove that Nescience. The superimposition of the not-self on the inner self is alone the cause of all evil, not the delusion of silver etc .; hence that alone is Nescience; since, in the absence of the knowledge of its nature, it cannot be removed, that alone is expounded, not superimposition in general. By the words "of this character" there is declared its being the cause of evil, because of its being of that form. It is the cause of evil, because it makes the non-suffering inner self suffer by imposing the adverse internal organ etc., associated with appetite etc., on the inner self free from appetite etc. Nor is superimposition considered to be such by others too, in which case, there would be no need for the exposition. Hence it is said: "wise men hold" etc.

अध्यासः

यदध्यासः तत्कृतेन दोषेण गुणेन वा अणुमात्रेणापि स न संबध्यते। तमेत- मविद्याख्य मात्मानात्मनोरितरेतराध्यासं पुर- स्कृत्य सर्वे प्रमाणप्रमेयव्यवहारा लौकिका: प्रवृत्ताः, सर्वाणि च शास्त्राणि विधिप्रति- षेधमोक्षपराणि।

पण्डिता अविद्येति मन्यन्ते। अविद्या हि सर्वानर्थबीजमिति श्रुतिस्मृतीतिहासपुराणादिषु सु- प्रसिद्दम्, तदुच्छेदाय च वेदान्ताः प्रवृत्ता इति वक्ष्यति। प्रत्यगात्मन्यनात्माध्यास एव सर्वानर्थहेतुः न पुना रजतादिविभ्रमा इति स एवाविद्या, तत्स्वरूपं चाविज्ञातं न शक्यमुच्छेन्तुमिति तदेव व्युत्पाद्यं नाध्यासमात्रम्। अत्र च "एवंलक्षणम्" इति एवंरूपतया अनर्थहेतुतोक्ता। यस्मात्प्रत्यगात्मन्यशना- यादिरहिते अशनायाद्युपेतान्तःकरणाद्यहितारोपेण प्रत्यगात्मानमदुःखं दुःखाकरोति, तस्मादनर्थहेतुः। न चैंं पृथग्जना अपि मन्यन्ते अध्यासम्, येन न व्यु- त्पाद्येतेत्यत उत्तम्-"पण्डिता मन्यन्ते" इति। 12

४५ अध्यास:

ननु इयमनादिरतिनिरूढनिबिडवासनानुबद्दा अविद्या न शक्या निरोडम्, उपायाभावात्, इति यो मन्यन्ते तं प्रति तन्निरोधोपायमाह- तद्विवेकेन च वस्तुस्वरूपावधारणम्, निर्वि- चिकित्सं ज्ञानम्, विद्यामाहुः पण्डिताः । प्रत्य- गात्मनि खलु अत्यन्तविविक्ते बुद्धयादिभ्यः बुद्धयादि- भेदाग्रहनिमित्तो बुद्धयाद्यात्मत्वतद्धर्माध्यासः । तत्र श्रवणमननादिभिर्यद्विवेकविज्ञानं तेन विवेका- ग्रहे निवर्तिते, अध्यासापबाधात्मकं वस्तुस्वरूपाव- धारणं विद्या चिदात्मरूपं स्वरूपे व्यवतिष्ठत इत्यर्थः । स्यादेतत्। अतिनिरूढनिबिढवासनानुविद्दा अविद्या विद्यया अपबाधितापि स्ववासनाव- शात्पुनरुद्भविष्यति प्रवर्तयिष्यति च वासनादिकार्य स्वोचितमित्यत आह-तत्रैवं सति, एवंभूतवस्तु- तत्त्वावधारणे सति, यत्र यदध्यासः तत्कृतेन दोषेण गुणेन वा अणुमात्रेणापि स न संबध्यते, अन्तःकरणादिदोषेणाशनायादिना चि-

SUPERIMPOSITION 45

Now, this Nescience associated with impressions, which are beginningless, deep-rooted and dense, cannot be removed, there being no means therefor; to him who thinks so, the means for removing it is declared thus: "and, as distinct from that, the determination," i.e., know- ledge not subject to doubt "of the nature of the thing, they," i.e., wise men "call knowledge". It is verily in the inner self, which is wholly distinct from the intellect etc., that, because of the non-apprehension of the difference from the intellect etc., there is superimposition of the nature and attributes of the intellect etc. The non-apprehension of difference being removed by the cognition of difference through hearing (i.e., study of the Vedanta), reflection etc., that which sublates Nescience, viz., the ascertainment of the nature of things," knowledge, which is of the nature of the intelligent self, stands forth in its own nature ; this is the meaning. Be this so. Nescience associated with deep-rooted and dense impressions, though sublated by knowledge, will come up again, because of its own impressions, and bring about results suitable to itself, such as (further) impressions etc. To this he says: "Here, such being the case," i.e., there being this kind of ascertainment of the true nature of things, " when there is the superimposition of one on another, the latter is not, even to the extent of an atom, affected by the good or bad features produced by the

46 SUPERIMPOSITION

former"; the intelligent self is not affected by the defects of the internal organ etc., such as appetite etc., nor are the internal organ etc. affected by the good features of the intelligent self-intelligence, bliss etc. This is what is said: it is of the very nature of the repetition of the ascertainment of truth that it removes illusory cognition, though beginningless and having deep-rooted and dense impressions. It is, indeed, of the nature of the intellect to be partial to truth. As even outsiders say: "Of the essential nature of things unaffected by error, there is no sublation; for, the intellect, even though making no effort, has a partiality for it." More particularly (there is the question): "Whence can there be sublation of the wholly internal (intimate) knowledge of the truth, which is of the nature of the intelligent self, by Nescience, which is indeterminable ?" In the statement "coupling the true with the untrue, there is, through non-discrimination of each from the other, the ompirical usage 'I am this,' 'this is mine,'" empirical usage in the nature of verbal designation is expressly mentioned. Ordinary empirical usage, indicated by the word iti is shown in the words: "It is in the wake of the afore-mentioned mutual superimposition of the self and the not-self, designated Nescience" etc .; this is self- explanatory.

अध्यास: ४६

दात्मा, चिदात्मनो गुणेन चैतन्यानन्दादिना अन्तः- करणादि न संबध्यते। एतदुक्तं भवति- तत्त्वावधारणाभ्यासस्य हि स्वभाव एव स तादशः, यदनादिमपि निरूढनिबिडवासनमपि मिथ्याप्रत्यय- मपनयति। तत्त्वपक्षपातो हि स्वभावो घियाम्, यथाहुर्बाह्या अपि-

निरुपद्रवभूतार्थस्वभावस्य विपर्ययैः । न बाधोऽ्यत्नवत्त्वेऽपि बुद्धेस्तत्पक्षपाततः ।

इति। विशेषतस्तु चिदात्मस्वभावस्य तत्त्वज्ञानस्य अत्यन्तान्तरङ्गर्य कुतोऽनिर्वाच्यया अविद्यया बाध इति। यदुक्तम् "सत्यानृते मिथुनीकृत्य, विवेका- ग्रहादध्यस्य, 'अहमिदम्' 'ममेदम्' इति लोकव्यवहार:" इति तत्र व्यपदेशलक्षणो व्यवहारः कण्ठोक्तः। इतिशब्दसूचितं लोक- व्यवहारमादर्शयति-तमेतमविद्याख्यम् इति। निगदव्याख्यातम्।

४७ अध्यास:

कथं पुनरविद्यावद्विषयाणि प्रत्यक्षादीनि प्रमाणानि शास्त्राणि चेति ? उच्यते- देहेन्द्रियादिष्वहंममाभिमानहीनस्य प्रमा- तृत्वानुपपत्तौ प्रमाणप्रवृ्त्त्यनुपपतेः। न हीन्द्रियाण्यनुपादाय प्रत्यक्षादिव्यवहार: संभवति। न चाधिष्ठानमन्तरेण इन्द्रियाणां व्यापारः संभवति। न च अनध्यस्तात्मभावेन देहेन कश्चिद्व्याप्रियते। न चैतस्मिन् सर्वस्मि- न्नसति आत्मनोऽसङ्गस्य प्रमातृत्वमुपपद्यते। न च प्रमातृत्वमन्तरेण प्रमाणप्रवृत्तिरस्ति। तस्मादविद्यावद्विषयाण्येव प्रत्यक्षादीनि प्र- माणानि शास्त्राणि चेति।

आक्षिपति-कथं पुनरविद्यावद्विषयाणि प्रत्यक्षादीनि प्रमाणानि। तत्त्वपरिच्छेदो हि प्रमा विद्या; तत्साधनानि प्रमाणानि कथमविद्यावद्विषयाणि ? नाविद्यावन्तं प्रमाणान्या- श्रयन्ति, तत्कार्यस्य विद्याया अविद्याविरोधित्वात् इति भाव: । सन्तु वा प्रत्यक्षादीनि संवृत्यापि

SUPERIMPOSITION 47

How, again, is it that perception and other means of valid knowledge and sacred teachings have reference to one characterised by Nescience ? The reply is: when one devoid of the conceit of "I" and "mine" in one's body, senses etc., cannot intelligibly be a knower, the functioning of the means of valid knowledge is unintelligible. Indeed, empirical usage relating to perception etc. is not possible without the employment of the senses; and the functioning of the senses is not possible without control; nor by a body on which is not superimposed the nature of the self can anything be operated. And when none of these is present, the unattached self cannot intelligibly be a knower. And without a knower, there can be no functioning of the means of valid knowledge. Therefore, perception and other means of valid knowledge and the sacred teachings have reference to one characterised by Nescience.

An objection is raised: "How, again, is it that percep- tion and other means of valid knowledge have reference to one characterised by Nescience?" Valid knowledge or vidyd is, verily, determination of the truth ; how can the means of valid knowledge which are instruments thereto have for their locus what is characterised by Nescience ? Means of valid knowledge cannot find a locus in what is characterised by Nescience, since their effect, viz., knowledge, is opposed

48 BUPERIMPOSITION

to Nescience: this is the idea. Or let perception etc. be as you say empirically (valid); but sacred teachings, whose purport is to teach what is beneficial to man, being opposed to Nescience, cannot have reference to what is characterised by Nescience; hence he says: "and sacred teachings." He answers : "The reply is." " When one devoid of the conceit of 'I' and ' mine' in the body, senses etc.," devoid of the super- imposition of the nature and attributes of the self, " cannot intelligibly be a knower. the functioning of the means of valid knowledge is unintelligible." This is the meaning: to be a knower is to be an agent in respect of knowledge; and that is independence (in respect of the cognitive act). Independence consists in inciting all causal conditions other than the knower, without being incited by them. By him, therefore, is to be incited the pramana, the means of valid knowledge. Nor can an instrument be incited without acivity on one's part. Nor can the immutable, eternal, intelligent self, which is incapable of transfor- mation, be active of itself. Hence, being active by the superimposition of the nature of the intellect etc., which are active, it can control the means of valid knowledge; therefore, the means of valid knowledge have reference to, i.e., are located in the person characterised by Nescience. Now, let it be that the means of valid knowledge do not function ; what do we lose ? To this he says: "Indeed, empirical usage relating to perception etc. is not possible, without the employment of the senses etc." Vyavahārah, empirical usage, means fruit, because there is usage on account of that; the fruit of the means of valid knowledge,

अध्यास: ४८

यथा तथा ; शास्त्राणि तु पुरुषहितानुशासनपराणि अविद्याप्रतिपक्षतया नाविद्यावद्विषयाणि भवितु- मर्हन्तीत्याह-शास्त्राणि च इति। समाधत्ते- उच्यते इति। देहेन्द्रियादिषु अहंममाभिमान- हीनस्य, तादात्म्यतद्र्माध्यासहीनस्य, प्रमातृत्वा- नुपपत्तौ सत्यां प्रमाणप्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः । अयमर्थः -प्रमातृत्वं हि प्रमां प्रति कर्तृत्वम् । तच्च स्वात- नत्यम्। स्वातन्त्रयं च प्रमातुरितरकारकाप्रयोज्यरय समस्तकारकप्रयोक्तृत्वम्। तदनेन प्रमाकरणं प्रमाणं प्रयोजनीयम्। न च स्वव्यापारमन्तरेण करणं प्रयोक्तुमर्हति। न च कूटस्थनित्यश्चिदात्मा अपरिणामी स्वतो व्यापारवान। तरमात् व्यापार- वद्बुद्धयादितादात्म्याध्यासात् व्यापारवत्तया प्रमाण- मधिष्ठातुमर्हतीति भवत्यविद्यावसपुरुषविषयत्वमविद्या- वत्पुरुषाश्रयत्वं प्रमाणानामिति । अथ मा प्रवर्तिषत प्रमाणानि, किं नश्छिन्न- मित्यत आह-न हीन्द्रियाण्यनुपादाय प्रत्य- क्षादिव्यवहारः संभवति। व्यवहियते अने- नेति व्यवहार: फलम्, प्रत्यक्षादीनां प्रमाणानां 18

४९ अध्यासः

फलमित्यर्थः । इन्द्रियाणि इति इन्द्रियलिङ्गा- दीनीति द्रष्टव्यम्, 'दण्डिनो गच्छन्ति' इतिवत्। एवं हि प्रत्यक्षादि इत्युपपद्यते। व्यवहारक्रियया च व्यवहार्याक्षेपात्समानकर्तृकता। अनुपादाय यो व्यवहार इति योजना। किमिति पुनः प्रमाता उपादत्ते प्रमाणानि? अथ स्वयमेव कस्मान्न प्रवर्तन्ते इत्यत आह-न चाधिष्ठानमन्तरेणेन्द्रियाणां व्यापारः, प्रमा- णानां व्यापारः, संभवति। न जातु करणान्य- नधिष्ठितानि कर्त्रा स्वकार्ये व्याप्रियन्ते, मा भूत्कु- विन्दरहितेभ्यो वेमादिभ्यः पटोत्पत्तिरिति। अथ देह एवाधिष्ठाता कस्मान्न भवति ? कृतमत्रात्माध्यासेनेत्यत आह-न चानध्यस्तात्मभावेन देहेन कश्चि- द्व्याप्रियते ; सुषुप्तेऽपि व्यापारप्रसङ्गादिति भावः । स्यादेतत्। यथानध्यस्तात्मभावं वेमादिकं कुविन्दो व्यापारयन्पटस्य कर्ता, एवमनध्यसतात्मभावं देहेन्द्रियादि व्यापारयन् भविष्यति तदभिज्ञः प्रमाता इत्यत आह-न चैतस्मिन्सर्वस्मिन्, इतरे- तरात्माध्यासे इतरेतरधर्माध्यासे च, असति,

SUPERIMPOSITION 49

like perception etc., is here meant. "The senses" should be taken to denote the senses, the probans (in inference) etc., like the word "dandin (man with the staff)," (which) in "there go men with staves " (denotes those who possess no staves as well); thus is intelligible the expression (" etc.," in) "perception etc." The verb in "empirical usage" implies the agent; hence a common subject (for "usage" and "without the employment "). The construction is : the empirical usage (which results) without the employment. Why should the knower employ the means of valid knowledge? Why should they not function of them- selves ?" To this he says: "and the functioning of the senses," i.e., of the means of valid knowledge "is not possible without control". Never do instruments function in respect of their objects without being controlled by agents, lest cloth should originate from the shuttle etc., without (being controlled by) a weaver. Why, then, should not the body itself be the controller ? Superimposition of the self would, then, be superfluous. To this he says: "nor by a body, on which is not superimposed the nature of the self, can anything be operated"; for, otherwise, functioning would result even in (dreamless) sleep; this is the idea. Be this so. Just as a weaver is an agent in the case of the cloth, without superimposing his nature on the shuttle etc., but by operating them, even so without superimposing his nature on the body, orgar by operating them, he who knows them (the etc.) may become a knower. To this he sr none of these," i.e., reciprocal superimpos attributes "is present, the unattached

50 SUPERIMPOSITION

ways and at all times, from all attributes and substrates, "cannot intelligibly be a knower". It is the active weaver eto. that control the shuttle etc., and operate them, whereas for the self, whose self-hood has not been superimposed on the body etc., there can be no activity, because of its being unattached: this is the meaning. Necessarily, there- fore, the means of valid knowledge are located in superim- position. Thus he says: "And without knowership, there can be no activity of the means of valid knowledge." He, verily, becomes a knower, who is independent in respect of the fruit, valid knowledge. Valid knowledge is a variety of the modification of the internal organ, directed towards the object known, and is of the nature of the intelligence residing in the agent. And how could a modification of the inert internal organ be of the nature of intelligence, if the intelligent self were not superimposed thereon ? How, again, could this have the intelligent self as agent, if the functioning internal organ were not superimposed on the intelligent self ? Hence, from reciprocal superimposition, there results the fruit called valid know- ledge, which resides in the intelligent self as agent ; when that results, there results knowership. With this same valid knowledge as content, there ensues the activity of the means of valid knowledge. By the use of the word " knower- ship," valid knowledge is also implied.69 If the fruit, valid knc-1- ige, were non-existent, the means of valid knowledge he active; and thus the means of valid knowledge to be such: this is the meaning. He refore, perception and other means of valid ference only to what is characterised by

अध्यास: ५०

आत्मनोऽसङ्गस्य, सर्वथा सर्वदा सर्वधर्मधर्मिवि- युक्तस्य, प्रमातृत्वमुपपद्यते। व्यापारवन्तो हि कुविन्दादयो वेमादीनघिष्ठाय व्यापारयन्ति, अनध्य- स्तात्मभावस्य तु देहादिष्वात्मनो न व्यापारयो- गोऽसङ्गत्वादित्यर्थः । आतश्राध्यासाश्रयाणि प्रमा- णानीत्याह-न च प्रमातृत्वमन्तरेण प्रमाण- प्रवृत्तिरस्ति। प्रमायां खलु फले स्वतन्त्रः प्रमाता भवति। अन्तःकरणपरिणामभेदश्र प्रमेयप्रवणः कर्तृस्थश्चित्स्वभावः प्रमा। कथं च जडस्यान्तःकर- णस्य परिणामश्चिद्रूपो भवेत्, यदि चिदात्मा तत्र नाध्यस्येत? कथं चैष चिदात्मकर्तृको भवेत्, यद्यन्तःकरणं व्यापारवत् चिदात्मनि नाध्यस्येत् ? तस्मादितरेतराध्यासाच्चिदात्मकर्तृरथं प्रमाफलं सिध्य- ति, तत्सिद्ौ च प्रमातृत्वम्। तामेव च प्रमामुररी- कृत्य प्रमाणस्य प्रवृत्तिः । प्रमातृत्वेन च प्रमा उपलक्ष्यते। प्रमायाः फलस्याभावे प्रमाणं न प्रवर्तेत । तथा च प्रमाणमप्रमाणं स्यादित्यर्थः । उपसंहरति-तस्मादविद्यावद्विषयाण्येव प्रत्य- क्षादीनि प्रमाणानि।

५१ अध्यास:

पश्चादिभिश्चाविशेषात्। यथा हि पश्चा- दयः शब्दादिभिः श्रोत्रादीनां संबन्धे सति शब्दादिविज्ञाने प्रतिकूले जाते ततो निवर्तन्ते, अनुकूले च प्रवर्तन्ते ; यथा दण्डोद्यतकरं पुरुषमभिमुखमुपलभ्य 'मां हन्तुमयमिच्छति' इति पलायितुमारभन्ते, हरिततृणपूर्णपाणिमुपलभ्य तं प्रति अभि- मुखीभवन्ति; एवं पुरुषा अपि व्युत्पन्न- चित्ताः क्रूरदृष्टीनाक्रोशतः खड्गोद्यत- करान् बलवत उपलभ्य ततो निवर्तन्ते, तद्विपरीतान्प्रति प्रवर्तन्ते। अतः समानः पश्चादिभि: पुरुषाणां प्रमाणप्रमेयव्यवहारः। पश्चादीनां च प्रसिद्ध एव अविवेकपूर्वकः

स्यादेतत्। भवतु पृथग्जनानामेवम् ; आगमोप- पत्तिप्रतिपन्नप्रत्यगात्मतत्त्वानां व्युत्पन्नानामपि पुंसां प्रमाणप्रमेयव्यवहारा दृश्यन्त इति कथमविद्याव- द्विषयाण्येव प्रमाणानीत्यत आह-पश्वादिभि- श्राविशेषात् इति। विदन्तु नाम आगमोपपत्तिम्यां

SUPERIMPOSITION 51

And becauso there is no distinction from beasts etc. Indeed, as beasts etc., when their sense of hearing etc. are brought into relation with sound etc., if there is produced a cognition of sound etc., that is un- favourable, recede from them, and if it is favourable, approach them; and as they, seeing a man approach with a stick held aloft in his hand, begin to run away thinking, "he desires to beat me ", but seeing him with his hand filled with green grass, proceed towards him; in the same way, men too, though of cultivated minds, seeing strong men of fierce mien shouting, sword held aloft in the hand, recede from them, but approach them of an opposite character; the empirical usage relating to means and objects of valid knowledge in the case of men is similar to that of beasts. And for beasts etc., it is well

Be this so. Let this be the case in respect of the ignorant ones. Even for those persons, however, who have understood the true nature of the inner self pro- pounded by Scripture and reasoning (thereon), there is seen the empirical usage relating to means of valid knowledge and objects known thereby; how, then, can means of valid knowledge have reference only to one characterised by Nescience ? To this he says: "And because there is no distinction from beasts etc." It may be that, through Scripture and reasoning, they know the inner self as different from the body, organs etc .;

52 SUPERIMPOSITION

known that empirical usage relating to perception etc. always comes in the wake of non-discrimination. And since we see a similarity to them, it is concluded that even in the case of learned men, empirical usage relat- ing to the perception etc. is, for the time being, similar.

in respect, however, of the empirical usage relating to means of valid knowledge and the objects known, they do not rise above the characteristic of beings that merely bear life. The activity even of these learned ones is seen to be of the same nature as the activity of beasts and birds, whose stupidity is undisputed. Because of this similarity, characterisation by Nescience is inferred even for those (learned ones), at the time of empirical usage. The particle "and" has the sense of linking up (this with the reason already given). The meaning is: the afore- mentioned reasoning together with the above-stated answer to the objeotion establishes in the case of the means of valid knowledge that they have reference to persons characterised by Nescience. This itself is analysed: " Indeed, as beasts" etc. Here, by the words " when their sense of hearing etc. are brought into relation with sound etc.," there is shown perception as the means of valid knowledge. Its fruit is mentioned in the words: "the cognition of sound etc." "If it be unfavourable" states the fruit of inference. It is thus: after cognising the nature of the sound, and remembering the unfavourable nature of that class of sound, unfavourableness is inferred

अभ्यास: ५२

प्रत्यक्षादिव्यवहारः। तत्सामान्यदर्शना- द्वयुत्पत्तिमतामपि पुरुषाणां प्रत्यक्षादिव्यव- हारस्तत्कालः समान इति निश्चीयते।

देहेन्द्रियादिभ्यो भिन्नं प्रत्यगात्मानम् ; प्रमाणप्रमे- यव्यवहारे तु प्राणभृन्मात्रधर्मत्वं नातिवर्तन्ते। यादृशो हि पशुशकुन्तादीनामविप्रतिपन्नमुग्धभावानां व्यवहारस्तादृशो व्युत्पन्नानामपि पुंसां दृश्यते। तेन तत्सामान्यात्तेषामपि व्यवहारसमये अविद्यावत्त्वमनु- मेयम्। चशब्दः समुच्चये। उक्तशङ्कानिवर्तन- सहिता पूर्वोक्तोपपत्तिः अविद्यावत्पुरुषविषयत्वं प्रमा- णानां साधयतीत्यर्थः । एतदेव विभजते -- यथा हि पश्चादय इति। अत्र च शब्दादिभिः श्रोत्रादीनां संबन्धे सते इति प्रत्यक्षं प्रमाणं दर्शितम्। शब्दादिविज्ञाने इति तत्फलमुक्तम्। प्रतिकूले इति च अनुमानफलम्। तथा हि- शब्दादिस्वरूपमुपलभ्य तज्जातीयस्य प्रतिकूलतामनु- स्मृत्य तज्जातीयतयोपलभ्यमानस्य प्रतिकूलता-

14

५३ अध्यास:

शास्त्रीये तु व्यवहारे यद्यपि बुद्धिपूर्व- कारी नाविदित्वा आत्मनः परलोक- संबन्धमधिक्रियते, तथापि न वेदान्तवेद्य- मशनायाद्यतीतमपेतब्रह्मक्षत्रादिभेदमसं - सार्यात्मतत्त्वमधिकारेऽपेक्ष्यते, अनुपयोगात्

मनुमिमत इति। उदाहरति-यथा दण्ड इति। शेषमतिरोहितार्थम्। स्यादेतत्। भवन्तु प्रत्यक्षादीन्यविद्यावद्विषयाणि। शास्त्रं तु 'ज्योतिष्टोमेन स्वर्गकामो यजेत' इत्यादि न देहात्माध्यासेन प्रवर्तितुमर्हति। अन्र हि आमुष्मिकफलोपभोगयोग्यः अधिकारी प्रतीयते। तथा च पारमर्ष सूत्रम्-'शास्त्रफलं प्रयोक्तरि तल्लक्षणत्वात्तस्मात्स्वयं प्रयोगे र्यात्' इति। न च देहादि भस्मीभूतं पारलौकिकाय फलाय कल्पत इति देहाद्यतिरिक्तं कंचिदात्मानमधिकारिणमाक्षिपति शास्त्रम् ; तदवगमश्च विद्या; इति कथमविद्यावद्विषयं शास्त्रमित्याशङ्क्याह-शास्त्रीयेतु इति। तु-शब्दः प्रत्यक्षादिव्यवहाराद्भिनत्ति शास्त्रीयम्। अधिकार-

SUPERIMPOSITION 58

But in the case of empirical usage relating to the sacred teaching, although no person with forethought, unless he knows the relation of the self to the other world, will consider himself eligible for it, still, the true self that can be known only from the Vedāntas, as transcending hunger etc., divested of differentiations like brahmin, kşatriya etc., and non-transmigrating, is not required for eligibility ; for, it (the true self) is of no

of what is perceived to belong to that class. This is exemplified : "and, as they, seeing a man with a stick held aloft" etc. The sense of the rest is not obscure. Be this so. Let it be that perception etc. have reference to one characterised by Nescience. The sacred teaching, however, which teaches that one who desires Heaven should sacrifice with the jyotistoma and so on, cannot induce activity through the super- imposition of the body on the self. Here, verily, the eligible person is known to be one who is fit to enjoy fruit in another world. Hence the aphorism of the great sage: The fruit of (what is enjoined in) the sacred teaching is for the person directed, since it is of that nature (i.e., since it is an injunction understood through verbal testimony, in the form He who desires Heaven is to sacrifice with the jyotistoma') ; hence, one should one- self engage (in the act enjoined)." Bodies etc .. which become ashes, are not fit for (enjoyment) of fruit in another world ; hence the sacred teaching postulates by implication some eligible person other than the body etc .; the understanding of it being knowledge (vidya), how can the sacred teaching have reference to one characterised by Nescience ? Rais- ing this objection, he says: "But in the case of empirical

54 SUPERIMPOSITION

service and is opposed to eligibility. And any sacred teaching that functions before the realisation of the self as of such a nature does not go beyond the reference to one characterised by Nescience. It is thus: texts like, "A brahmin shall sacrifice" function, as based on the superimposition on the self of differentiations like caste, orders of life, age etc.

usage relating to the sacred teaching" etc The parti- cle but" distinguishes from empirical usage like per- ception eto., that which relates to the sacred teaching. Indeed, since, in the absence of a relation to another world for the person who desires Heaven, the sacred teaching relating to eligibility cannot carry on, it has to postulate that much alone by implication, not his freedom from the migratory cycle too; for, this is of no service in respect of eligibility; the person propounded in the Upanisads, being neither agent nor enjoyer, is, rather, opposed to eligibility. It is the person that engages in action and is, verily, the enjoyer of the enjoyments that are the fruit produced by the acts, that is the person eligible to perform the act, the lord (thereof). How can a non-agent be one who engages in activity ? How can a non-enjoyer be the enjoyer of the enjoyments that are the fruit produced by the aots ? Hence, the sacred teaching relating to prescriptions and prohibitions sets out in respeot of that human being, who has a conceit of agency, onjoyership, brahminhood etc., acquired through beginningless Nescience. Thus, the Vedantas too have refe- rence only to the person characterised by Nescience; for, there is not the understanding of their sense, in the absence of the distinotion of the kaower eto. They, instruoting the

अध्यास: ५४

अधिकारविरोधाच्च। प्राक् च तथाभूतात्म- विज्ञानात् प्रवर्तमानं शास्त्रमविद्यावद्विषयत्वं नातिवतते। तथा हि-'ब्राह्मणो यजेत' इत्यादीनि शास्त्राण्यात्मनि वर्णाश्रमवयो- डवस्थादिविशेषाध्यासमाश्रित्य प्रवर्तन्ते।

शास्त्रं हि स्वर्गकामस्य पुंसः परलोकसंबन्धं विना न निर्वहतीति तावन्मात्रमाक्षिपेत्, न त्वस्या- संसारित्वमपि ; तस्याधिकारेऽनुपयोगात् ; प्रत्युत औपनिषदस्य पुरुषरय अकर्तुरभोक्तुरधिकारविरोधात्। प्रयोक्ता हि कर्मणः कर्मजनितफलभोगभागी कर्मण्यधिकारी स्वामी भवति। तत्र कथमकर्ता प्रयोक्ता? कथं च अभोक्ता कर्मजनितफलभोग- भागी ? तस्मादनाद्यविद्यालब्धकर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वब्राह्म- णत्वाद्यभिमानिनं नरमधिकृत्य विधिनिषेधशास्त्रं प्रवर्तते। एवं वेदान्ता अप्यविद्यावत्पुरुषविषया एव। न हि प्रमात्रादिविभागादते तदर्थाधिगमः । ते त्वविद्यावन्तमनुशासतो निर्मृष्टनिखिलाविद्यमनु-

५५ अध्यास:

शिष्टं स्वरूपे व्यवस्थापयन्तीत्येतावानेषां विशेषः । तस्माद विद्यावत्पुरुषविषयाण्येव शास्त्राणीति सिद्धम्। स्यादेतत्। यद्यपि विरोधानुपयोगाभ्यामौप- निषदः पुरुषः अधिकारे नापेक्ष्यते तथाप्युप- निषन्योऽवगम्यमानः शक्रोत्यधिकारं निरोडुम्। ततश्र परस्परपराहतार्थत्वेन कृत्स् एव वेदः प्रामाण्यमपजह्यादित्यत आह-प्राक् च तथा- भूतात्म-इति। सत्यमौपनिषदपुरुषाधिगमः अधि- कारविरोधी; तरमात्तु पुरस्तात्कर्मविधयः खवोचितं व्यवहारमभिनिर्वर्तयन्तो नानुपजातेन ब्रह्मज्ञानेन शक्या निरोडुम्। न च परस्परपराहतिः, विद्याविद्यावत्पुरुषभेदेन व्यवस्थोपपत्तेः। यथा-'न हिंस्यात्सर्वा भूतानि ' इति साध्यांशनिषेधेऽपि 'इयेनेनाभिचरन् यजेत' इति शास्त्रं प्रवर्तमानं 'न हिंस्यात्' इत्यनेन न विरुध्यते ; तत्कस्य हेतोः? पुरुषभेदादिति। अवजितक्रोधा- रातयः पुरुषा निषेधे अधिक्रियन्ते, क्रोधा- रातिवशीकृतास्तु श्येनादिशास्त्रे इति।

SUPERIMPOSITION 55

person characterised by Nescience, establish him in the form taught by them, from which all Nescience has been wiped out; this is their distinction (from the teaching of injunctions, which brings about nc final establishment). Hence, it is established that the sacred teachings have reference only to persons characte- rised by Nescience. Be this so. Though, because of opposition and non-utility, the person propounded in the Upanisads is not needed in respect of eligibility, yet as learnt from the Upanisads (in the course of the normally prescribed study-adhyayana), that (person) is capable of standing in the way of eligibility. Thus, because of the sense of each (part) being destructive of that of the other, the whole of the Veda would lose its authority as a means of valid knowledge. To this he says: "And any sacred teaching which functions before the realisation of the self as of such a nature" etc. True, the understanding of the person propounded in the Upanisads is opposed to eligibility; but prior to that, the prescriptions of acts bring about suitable empirical usage, and they cannot be counteracted by Brahman-knowledge, which has not yet been generated. Nor is there reciprocal annulment, since a differentiation (of their respective spheres) is intelligible, on the basis of the difference in the persons (to whom they relate) as characterised by knowledge or Nescience. For example: though, in respect of the element of what is to be accomplished, there is the prohibition "Injure not any living being, " the sacred teaching which sets forth "He who would kill his enemy (by an evil spell) should sacrifice with the syena" is not contradioted by "Injure not" etc .; wherefore is this ?

56 SUPERIMPOBITION

We have already said that what is called super- imposition is the cognition as something of what is not that. This is how when the son, wife etc. are unsound or sound, one superimposes on oneself the attri- butes of external things, as "I am myself sound or unsound"; similarly the attributes of the body in "I

Because of the difference in the persons (addressed)."1 The persons who have conquered the enemy-anger-are eligible in respect of the prohibition; those, however, who are under the power of the enemy-anger-(are eligible) in respect of the teaching about the syena etc. What was said (about the sacred teaching that) it does not go beyond the reference to the person characterised by Nescience, that itself is made clear in: "It is, thus." Superimposition of caste: "The king is to sacrifice with the rajasuya" etc .; superimposition of orders of life: "The house-holder should obtain a wife of equal status" etc .; superimposition of age: "He whose hair is black is to tend the fires" etc .; superimposition of state: "He whose malady is incurable is to give up his life by plunging into the water etc." and so on. The expression "et cetera" serves to include sins, major and minor, causing intermixture, unworthiness or defilement, and other such superimpositions. Having thus expounded through objection and answer the reciprocal superimposition of the self and the not-self, and strengthened it by the discourse on the means and objects of valid knowledge, he reminds us of its already declared nature, in order to expound elaborately its being the cause of evil : "We have already said that what is called superimposition

मध्यास: ५६ अध्यासो नाम अतस्मिस्तदुद्धिरित्यवो- चाम। तद्यथा-पुत्रभार्यादिषु विकलेषु सकलेषु वा 'अहमेव विकलः, सकलो वा' इति बाह्यधर्मानात्मन्यध्यस्यति; तथा देह-

अविद्यावत्पुरुषविषयत्वं नातिवर्तत इति यदुक्तं तदेव स्फुटयति-तथा हि इति। वर्णाध्यासः 'राजा राजसूयेन यजेत' इत्यादिः। आश्रमा- ध्यास: 'गृहस्थः सदृशीं भार्यो विन्देत' इत्यादिः। वयोऽध्यास: 'कृष्णकेशोऽमीनादधीत' इत्यादिः। अवस्थाध्यासः 'अप्रतिसमाधेय- व्याधीनां जलादिप्रवेशेन प्राणत्यागः' इत्यादिः । आदिग्रहणं पातकोफ्पातकसंकरीकरणापात्रीकरण- मलिनीकरणाद्यव्यासोपसंग्रहार्थम्। तदेवमात्मानात्मनो: पररपराध्यासमाक्षेपसमा- धानाभ्यामुपपाद्य प्रमाणप्रमेयव्यवहारप्रवर्तनेन च दृढीकृत्य तस्यानर्थहेतुत्वमुदाहरणप्रपश्चेन प्रतिपादयन तत्स्वरूपमुक्तं स्मारयति-अध्यासो नाम अतस्मिस्तदुद्धिरित्यवोचाम ।'स्मृतिरूप: परत्र 15

५७ अध्यास: धर्मान् 'स्थूलोऽहम्, कृुशोऽहम्, गौरोऽहम्, तिष्ठामि गच्छामि लड्कयामि च' इति ; तथेन्द्रियधर्मान् 'मूकः काणः क्लीबो बधि- रोऽन्धोऽहम्' इति; तथान्तःकरणधर्मान् कामसंकल्पविचिकित्साध्यवसायादीन्। एव- महंप्रत्ययिनमशेषखप्रचारसाक्षिणि प्रत्य- गात्मन्यध्यस्य तं च प्रत्यगात्मानं सर्व- साक्षिणं तद्विपर्ययेणान्तःकरणादिष्वध्य- स्यति।

पूर्वदृष्टावभासः' इत्यस्य संक्षेपाभिधानमेतत्। तत्र 'अहम् ' इति धर्मितादात्म्याध्यासमात्रम् 'मम' इत्यनुत्पादितधर्माध्यासं नानर्थहेतुरिति धर्माध्यासमेव ममकारं साक्षादशेषानर्थसंसारकारणमुदाहरणप्रपञ्चे- नाह-तद्यथा पुत्रभार्यादिषु इति। देह- तादात्म्यमात्मन्यध्यस्य देहधर्म पुत्रकलत्रादिस्ाम्यं च कृशत्वादिवदारोप्याह-अहमेव विकलः, सकलः इति। स्वस्य खलु साकल्येन स्वाम्यसाकल्यात् स्वामीश्वरः सकलः संपूर्णो भवति ; तथा स्वस्य

SUPERIMPOSITION 57

am fat," "I am lean," "I am fair," "I stand," " I go," "I jump"; similarly the attributes of the senses in " I am dumb, one-eyed, impotent, deaf, blind"; similarly the attributes of the internal organ, like desire, resolve, doubt, determination. In this way after superimposing the denotation of the concept "I" on the inner self that is the witness of its entire activities, by the reverse of that, one superimposes that inner self, the witness of all, on the internal organ etc.

is the cognition as something of what is not that." This is a summary way of stating what was said earlier, that it is "the appearance elsewhere, with a nature like to that of recollection, of what was seen before". Here, "I," which is the superimposition of the nature of the substrate alone, cannot be the cause of evil without generating the "mine," the superimposition of attributes; hence the super- imposition of attributes, the notion of "mine," is alone the direct cause of the entire evil of the migratory cycle; this is elaborately explained in: "It is thus: when the son, wife" etc. Superimposing identity with the body on the self, and superimposing thereon the bodily attribute of the ownership of son, wife etc., in the same way as leanness etc., one says "I am myself unsound or sound." The sense of ownership being complete, when there is a full- ness of wealth, the owner (in this case) becomes complete,

58 SUPERIMPOSITION

perfect; similarly, from the lack of wealth, ownership too becoming incomplete, the owner becomes incomplete, im- perfect. The external attributes, like unsoundness which attach to the body through the channel of ownersbip, these one superimposes on the self: this is the meaning. When this is the case in respect of bodily attributes, like ownership, dependent on external adjuncts, what need be said about bodily attributes, like leanness etc., which do not depend on external adjuncts? In this view, he says: "Similarly, the attributes of the body" etc. He superimposes on the self the attributes of deafness etc., which are the attributes of the senses, which are more intimate than the body, and on which the nature of the self has been superimposed; (he also superimposes on the self) desire, resolve etc., which are attributes of the internal organ, which is even more intimate, and on which the nature of the self has been superimposed: this is the construction. Having in this erposition stated the superimposition of attributes, he states its basis, the superimposition of the substrate: "In this way, after superimposing the denotation of the concept 'I'" etc. That in which the psychosis, the concept "I," occurs, i.e., the internal organ, that is the denotation of the concept "I" (ahampratyayin); that is superimposed on the inner self, which, on account of its intelligence and indifference, is the witness of the processes of the internal organ. Thus are explained agency and enjoyership. Intelligence is explained: "by the reverse

अष्यास: ५८

वैकल्येन स्वाम्यवैकल्यात् रामीश्वरो विकलो- Sसंपूर्णो भवति। बाह्यघर्मा ये वैकल्यादयः स्वाम्यप्रणालिकया संचारिताः शरीरे तानात्मन्य- ध्यस्यतीत्यर्थः । यदा च परोपाध्यपेक्षे देहधर्मे स्वाम्ये इयं गतिः, तदा कैव कथा अनौपाधिकेषु देहघर्मेषु कृशत्वादिषु इत्याशयवानाह-तथा देहधर्मान् इति। देहादप्यन्तरङ्गाणामिन्द्रियाणा- मध्यस्तात्मभावानां धर्मान् मूकत्वादीन, ततोऽप्यन्त- रङ्गर्यान्तःकरणस्य अध्यस्तात्मभावस्य धर्मान् काम- संकल्पादीन् आत्मन्यध्यस्यतीति योजना। तदनेन प्रपश्चेन धर्माध्यासमुक्त्ा तस्य मूलं धर्म्यध्यासमाह-एवमहंप्रत्ययिनम्। अहंप्रत्ययो वृत्तिर्यस्मिन्नन्तःकरणादौ, सोऽयमहंप्रत्ययी; तं स्व- प्रचारसाक्षिणि, अन्तःकरणप्रचारसाक्षिणि, चै- तन्योदासीनताभ्यां प्रत्यगात्मन्यध्यस्य। तदनेन कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वे उपपादिते। चैतन्यमुपपादयति- तं च प्रत्यगात्मानं सर्वसाक्षिणं तद्विपर्ययेण, अन्तःकरणादिविपर्ययेण-अन्तःकरणाद्यचेतनम्, तस्य विपर्ययः चैतन्यम्, तेन, इत्थंभूतलक्षणे तृती-

५९ अध्यास:

एवमयमनादिरनन्तो नैसर्गिकोऽध्यासो मिथ्याप्रत्ययरूपः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वप्रवर्तकः सर्वलोकप्रत्यक्षः । अस्यानर्थहेतोः प्रहाणाय आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये सर्वे वेदान्ता

या-अन्तःकरणादिष्वध्यस्यति। तदनेन अन्त:कारणाद्यवच्छिन्नः प्रत्यगात्मा इदमनिदंरूपश्चे- तन: कर्ता भोक्ता कार्यकारणाविद्याद्वयाधारोऽहंकारा- स्पदं संसारी सर्वानर्थसंभारभाजनं जीवात्मा इतरेत- राध्यासोपादानः तदुपादानश्चाध्यास इत्यनादित्वात् बीजाङ््कुरवन्नेतरेतराश्रयत्वमित्युक्तं भवति । प्रमाणप्रमेयव्यवहारदृढीकृतमेव शिष्यहिताय स्वरूपाभिधानपूर्वकं सर्वलोकप्रत्यक्षतया अध्यासं सुदृढीकरोति-एवमयमनादिरनन्तः, तत्त्व- ज्ञानमन्तरेणाशक्यसमुच्छेदः। अनाद्यनन्तत्वे हेतु- रुक्त :- नैसर्गिक इति। मिथ्याप्रत्ययरूपः मिथ्याप्रत्ययानां रूपमनिर्वचनीयत्वम्; तद्यस्य स तथोक्त: ; अनिर्वचनीय इत्यर्थः ।

SUPERIMPOBITION 59

Thus, this beginningless and endless natural super- imposition, of the nature of illusory cognition, which causes agency, enjoyership etc., is directly experi- enced by the entire world. It is for the removal of this cause of evil, for the attainment of the knowledge

of that," by the reverse of the internal organ etc.,-the internal organ etc. are inert, the reverse of that is intelligence; by that; the instrumental case is used to imply "in this wise"-"one superimposes that inner self, the witness of all, on the internal organ etc." This is what is said hereby: the inner self defined by the internal organ etc., the intelligent being compounded of the "this " and the "not-this," is the jiva, the agent, the en- joyer, the support of the two kinds of Nescience-the result and the cause,-the substrate of "I-ness," the transmigrator, the vessel of the entire host of woes, the material cause of reciprocal superimposition; the material cause of that again is superimposition ; hence, this being beginning- less, like the seed and the sprout, there is not (the defect of) reciprocal dependence. Superimposition, which has been confirmed by the discourse on the means and objects of valid knowledge, is yet further confirmed for the benefit of the pupil, through a declaration of its nature, this being perceived by the whole world: "Thus, this beginningless, endless" etc. ("Endless" means) not being destructible in the absence of true know- ledge. The cause of the beginninglessness and endlessness is stated: "natural." "Of the nature of illusory cognition";

60 SUPERIMPOSITION

of the oneness of the self, that all the Vedāntas are commenced. How this is the purport of the entire Vedānta, we shall show in this Sārīraka- mīmāmsā.

the nature of illusory cognitions is indeterminability ; that to which it belongs is stated here; that means it is indeterminable. He concludes the topic: "It is for the removal of this cause of evil" etc. Whence the removal of this, in the absence of an opposed concept ? To this he says: "for the attainment of the knowledge of the oreness of the self." Pratipattih is attainment; for that purpose, not merely for purposes of incantation nor for engaging in rites. The oneness of the self is entire dissociation from the universe, while existing in the form of bliss. The Vedantas, which indubitably bring about that attainment, destroy super- imposition from its very root. This is what is said: if the concopt "I," whose content is the self, were valid, there would be no desire to know Brahman, on the ground of its being known and (the inquiry) being unprofitable. In the absence of that (desire to know), the Vedanta would not be studied for the knowledge of Brahman, but would only serve the unintended purpose of incantation. Then, the Upanisadic concept of the self would not, indeed, enjoy validity. Nor would this invalid (concept), though oft repeated, avail to remove the real agency, enjoyership etc., of the salf. It is, indeed, an imposed form that is removed by true knowledge, not the real

अध्यासः ६०

आरभ्यन्ते। यथा चायमर्थः सर्वेषां वेदान्तानाम्, तथा वयमस्यां शारीरक- मीमांसायां प्रदर्शयिष्यामः।

प्रकृतमुपसंहरति-अस्यानर्थहेतोः प्रहा- णाय। विरोधिप्रत्ययं विना कुतोऽस्य प्रहाणमित्यत उक्तम्-आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये। प्रति- पत्तिः प्राप्तिः, तस्यै, न तु जपमात्राय, नापि कर्मसु प्रवृत्तये। आत्मैकत्वं विगलितनिखिलप्र- पञ्चत्वम् आनन्दरूपस्य सतः । तत्प्रतिपत्ति निर्विचिकित्सां भावयन्तो वेदान्ताः समूलघात- मध्यासमुपन्नन्ति। एतदुक्तं भवति-अस्मत्प्रत्यय- स्यात्मविषयस्य समीचीनत्वे सति ब्रह्मणो ज्ञातत्वा- न्निष्प्रयोजनत्वाच्च न जिज्ञासा स्यात् ; तदभावे च न ब्रह्मज्ञानाय वेदान्ताः पठचेरन् ; अपि तु अविवक्षितार्था जपमात्रे उपयुज्येरन। न हि तदौपनिषदात्मप्रत्ययः प्रमाणतामश्नुते। न चासावप्रमाणमभ्यस्तोऽपि वास्तवं कर्तृत्वभोक्त- त्वाद्यात्मनोऽपनेतुमर्हति। आरोपितं हि रूपं 16

६१ अव्यास:

तत्त्वज्ञानेनापोद्ते, न तु वास्तवमतत्त्वज्ञानेन। न हि रज्वा रज्जुत्वं सहस्रमपि सर्पधाराप्रत्यया अपवदितुमुत्सहन्ते। मिथ्याज्ञानप्रसञ्जितं तु रूपं शक्यं तत्त्वज्ञानेनापवदितुम्, मिथ्याज्ञानसंस्कारश्र सुदृढोऽपि तत्त्वज्ञानसंस्कारेणादरनैरन्तर्यदीर्घकाला- सेविततत्त्वज्ञानाभ्यासजन्मनेति। स्यादेतत्। प्राणाद्युपासना अपि वेदान्तेषु बहुलमुपलभ्यन्ते। तत्कथं सर्वेषां वेदान्तानामात्मै- कत्वप्रतिपादनमर्थ इत्यत आह-यथा चायमर्थः इत्यादि। शरीरमेव शरीरकम्; तत्र निवासी शारीरको जीवात्मा। तस्य त्वंपदाभिधेयस्य तत्पदाभि- धेयपरमात्मरूपतया या मीमांसा सा तथोक्ता । एतावानत्रार्थसंक्षेप :- यद्यपि स्वाध्यायाध्ययन- विधिना स्वाध्यायपद्वाच्यरय वेदराशे: फलव- दर्थावबोधपरतामापादयता कर्मविधिनिषेधानामिव वेदान्तानामपि स्वाध्यायशब्दवाच्यानां फलवदर्थाव- बोधपरत्वमापादितम्, यद्यपि च 'अविशिष्टस्तु वाक्यार्थः' इति न्यायात् मन्त्राणामिव वेदान्ता- नामर्थपरत्वमौत्सर्गिकम्, यद्यपि च वेदान्तेभ्यः

SUPERIMPOBITION 61

by untrue knowledge. The rope-nature of the rope cannot be negated even by a thousand continuous apprehensions of a snake. The form occasioned by illusory cognition, however, can be negated by true knowledge, and the impression of illusory cognition, though strong, by the impression produced through the repetition of true know- ledge practised with close application, unintermittently and for a long time. Be this so. The meditations on the vital air (prāņa) etc. are also largely seen (to be taught) in the Vedanta. Then, how can all the Vedanta texts have the one object of teaching the oneness of the self? To this he says: "That this is the purport of the entire Vedanta" etc. The body (s'arira) is itself called sartraka; what resides therein is the sariraka, i.e., the jtva-self. That inquiry is mentioned here whose purpose is to show of that self denoted by the "thou" (in "That thou art"), that his nature is that of the supreme self denoted by the "that ". This is the summary of what is meant here: though (1) by the injunction to study one's own section of the Veda, which makes it follow that the entire Veda denoted by the term "one's own section of the Veda " is directed to the fruitful understanding of the sense, it is also made to follow that the Vedantas too, like the prescriptions and prohibitions of acts denoted by the term "one's own section of the Veda," are directed to the fruitful under- standing of the sense, (2) though, in accordance with the maxim" But the sense of a text is not distinguished (from that of ordinary usage"),"2 the significant nature of the Vedantas

62 SUPERIMPOSITION

is universal, as in the case of the hymns (mantras), (3) though from the Vedantas there comes the understanding of the one inner self unconnected with the universe, who is a mass of intelligence and bliss, and is free from agency and enjoyership, yet these Vedantas, coming into conflict with the concept "I,"-which is free from doubt and sublation, and comprehends the self as characterised by agency, enjoyership, misery, grief and delusion,-and slipping away from their meaning, either have a figurative significance or serve only in incantations, and thus have a sense other than the one desired to be declared. Hence, the four-chaptered Sūrtraka-mimūmsu, directed to the inquiry into their sense, is not to be commenced. Nor is the self, which is patent to all men in the experience of the "I" either doubtful or fruitful, in which case, from the desire to know it, an inquiry would result. This is the prima facie view. The final view is this : this would be so, if the concept "I" were valid. Since, in the manner stated above, it cannot sublate Scriptural texts etc., and since its validity is not accepted by Scripture etc. and by the systems of all the preceptors, it is but superimposed. Hence the Vedantas have a sense which is not other than the one desired to be declared or figurative, but is of the character mentioned. The inner self alone is their principal sense.53 Since in respect of that there is, in the manner to be stated, both doubt and profit, the desire to know is appropriate. In this view, the aphorist expresses the desire to know in aphoristic form: Then therefore the desire to know Brahman.

अध्यास: ६२

चैतन्यानन्दघनः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वरहितो निष्पपञ्च एक: प्रत्यगात्मा अवगम्यते, तथापि कर्तृत्व- भोक्तृत्वदुःखशोकमोहमयमात्मानमवगाहमानेनाहंप्र- त्ययेन संदेहबाधविरहिणा विरुध्यमाना वेदान्ताः स्वार्थात्प्रच्युता उपचरितार्था वा जपमात्रोपयोगिनो वा इत्यविवक्षितस्वार्थाः । तथा च तदर्थविचा- रात्मिका चतुर्लक्षणी शारीरकमीमांसा नारब्धव्या। न च सर्वजनीनाहमनुभवसिद्ध आत्मा संदिग्धो वा सप्रयोजनो वा, येन जिज्ञास्यः सन् विचारं प्रयुञ्जीत-इति पूर्वः पक्षः। सिद्धान्तस्तु-भवेदेतदेवं यद्यहंप्रत्ययः प्रमा- णम्। तस्य तु उक्तेन क्रमेण श्रुत्यादिबाधकत्वा- नुपपत्ते:, श्रुत्यादिभिश्र समस्ततीर्थकरैश्र प्रामाण्या- नभ्युपगमादध्यासत्वम्। एवं च वेदान्ता नाविव- क्षितार्थाः, नापि उपचरितार्थाः, किं तु उक्तलक्षणाः। प्रत्यगात्मैव तेषां मुख्योऽर्थः । तस्य च वक्ष्यमाणेन क्रमेण संदिग्धत्वात् प्रयोजनत्वाच्च युक्ता जिज्ञासा इत्याशयवान् सूत्रकार: तज्जिज्ञासामसूत्रय त् , अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा इति।

वेदान्तमीमांसाशास्त्रस्य व्याचिख्यासि- तस्येदमादिमं सूत्रम्-

अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा॥१।।

जिज्ञासया च संदेहप्रयोजने सूचयति। तत्र साक्षादिच्छाव्याप्यत्वाद्गह्मज्ञानं कण्ठोक्तं प्रयोजनम्। न च कर्मज्ञानात्पराचीनमनुष्ठानमिव ब्रह्मज्ञानातपरा- चीनं किंचिदरित, येनैतदवान्तरप्रयोजनं भवेत्। किं तु ब्रह्ममीमांसाख्यतर्केतिकर्तव्यतानुज्ञातविषयै रवेदान्तैराहितं निर्विचिकित्सं ब्रह्मज्ञानमेव समस्तदुः- खोपशमरूपमानन्दैकरसं परमं प्रयोजनम्। तमर्थ- मधिकृत्य हि प्रेक्षावन्तः प्रवर्तन्तेतराम्। तच्च प्राप्तमप्यनाद्यविद्यावशादप्राप्तमिवेति प्रेप्सितं भवति ; यथा सवग्रीवागतमपि ग्रैवेयकं कुतश्चिद्भ्रमान्नास्तीति मन्यमान: परेण प्रतिफादितमप्राप्तमिव प्राप्नोति। जिज्ञासा तु संशयस्य कार्यमिति स्वकारणं संशयं

In the sacred teaching of the Vedanta Enquiry, which is proposed to be explained, this is the first aphorism:

THEN THEREFORE THE DESIRE

TO KNOW BRAHMAN

By the desire to know he indicates (the existence of) both doubt and profit. Here, Brahman-knowledge is the explicitly declared profit, since it is directly pervaded by (i.e., is the object of) desire. Nor, as in the case of observances succeeding to the knowledge of ritual, is there anything suoceeding to Brahman-knowledge, in view of which, that (knowledge) would be a secondary benefit. The supreme benefit, rather, is Brahman-knowledge alone, free from all doubt, this (knowledge), which is of the nature of the cessation of all misery and is of the one essence of bliss, being conveyed by the Vedantas, whose content is known through the mode of argumentation called Brahma-mimamsu. It is in the endeavour towards that end that, verily, the skilled inquirers would more certainly set out. That (end), though already attained, yet becomes an object of desire, as if unattained, because Or beginningless Nescience; just as one, who erroneously imagines the necklace round one's own neck to be non-existent, being shown that by another, attains it, as

64 DESIRE TO KNOW

In this the word then (atha) is accepted as having the sense of "immediate succession," not the sense of "what is begun" (adhikāra); because the desire to know Brahman cannot be what is begun. And

if it had not been attained (before). The desire to know, being the result of doubt, indicates doubt as its cause. The doubt makes the commencement of the inquiry worth while. Thus, as indicating the doubt and the benefit that are the causes of the skilled inquirer setting out on this sacred teaching, it is meet that the aphorism should be at the commencement of the sacred teaching; hence, the revered commentator says: "In the sacred teaching of the Vedanta inquiry, which is proposed to be explained ", by us "this is the first aphorism." The word mimamsa signifies an inquiry that commands respect. The inquiry commands respect, because it bears the fruit, viz., the ascertainment of that extremely subtle sense, which is the cause of the supreme human gcal. Mimamsa-sastra means the sacred teaching relating to that inquiry, and sastra is so-called, because it (the in- quiry) is taught or truthfully explained by that to the pupils thereof. An aphorism is such, because it indicates much meaning. As is said: "Concise, indicative of (the) senses, composed of few letters and words, replete with sense, such are what the wise ones call aphorisms." Having thus explained the purport of the aphorism, he explains the first word of it, "then": "In this, the word 'then' is accepted as having the sense of 'immediate succession'." The word "then," occurring among the words of the aphorism, has the sense of immediate succession; this is the construction.

जिज्ञासा ६४ तत्र अथशब्द: आनन्तर्यार्थः परिगृह्यते, नाधिकारार्थः, ब्रह्मजिज्ञासाया अनधिकार्य-

सूचयति। संशयश्र मीमांसारम्भं प्रयोजयति। तथा च शास्त्रे प्रेक्षावत्प्रवृत्तिहेतुसंशयप्रयोजन- सूचनात् युक्तमस्य सूत्रस्य शास्त्रादित्वम्, इत्या- ह भगवान्भाष्यकार :- वेदान्तमीमांसाशास्त्रस्य व्याचिख्यासितस्य अस्माभिः, इदमादिमं सूत्रम्। पूजितविचारवचनो मीमांसाशब्दः । परमपुरुषार्थहेतुभूतसूक्ष्मतमार्थनिर्णयफलतया च वि- चारस्य पूजितता। तस्या मीमांसायाः शास्त्रम्, सा ह्यनेन शिष्यते शिष्येभ्यो यथावत्प्रतिपाद्यत इति। सूत्रं च बह्वर्थसूचनात् भवति। यथाहुः- लघूनि सूचितार्थानि सवल्पाक्षरपदानि च। सर्वतः सारभूतानि सूत्राण्याहुर्मनीषिणः ॥ इति। तदेवं सूत्रतात्पर्य व्याख्याय तस्य प्रथमपदं अथ इति व्याचष्टे-तत्राथशब्द आनन्तर्यार्थः परिएह्यते। तेषु सूत्रपदेषु मथ्ये योऽयं अथशब्दः स आनन्तर्यार्थ इति योजना। 17

६५ जिज्ञासा

त्वात्। मङ्गलस्य च वाक्यार्थे समन्वया- भावात्। अर्थान्तरप्रयुक्त एव ह्यथशब्द: श्रुत्या मङ्गलप्रयोजनो भवति। पूर्वप्रकृता- पेक्षायाश्च फलत आनन्तर्याव्यतिरेकात्। सति च आनन्तर्यार्थत्वे, यथा धर्मजिज्ञासा पूर्ववृत्तं वेदाध्ययनं नियमेनापेक्षते, एवं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासापि यत्पूर्ववृतं नियमेनापेक्षते, तद्वक्तव्यम्। साध्यायानन्तर्यं तु समानम्।

ननु अधिकारार्थोडप्यथशब्दो दृश्यते, यथा 'अथैष ज्योतिः' इति वेदे, यथा वा लोके 'अथ शब्दानुशासनम्' इति, 'अथ योगानु- शासनम्' इति च; तत्किमत्राधिकारार्थो न गृह्यत इत्यत आह-नाधिकारार्थः। कुतः? ब्रह्मजिज्ञासाया अनधिकार्यत्वात्। जिज्ञासा तावदिह सूत्रे ब्रह्मणश्च तज्ज्ञानाच्च शब्दतः प्रधानं प्रतीयते। न च यथा 'दण्डी प्रैषानन्वाह' इत्यत्र अप्रधानमपि दण्डशब्दार्थो विवक्ष्यते एवमिहापि ब्रह्मतज्ज्ञाने इति युक्तम्, ब्रह्ममीमांसा-

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 65

"auspiciousness" has no syntactical relation with the meaning of the sentence. Indeed, the word 'atha,' only when used in another sense, can bring about auspiciousness by the mere sound of it. And reference to what has gone before does not in effect differ from immediate succession. And when the meaning is "immediate succession," just as the desire to know Religious Duty relates invariably to the study of the Vedas that has gone before, similarly, there must be stated something which has gone before, to which the desire to know Brahman too invariably relates. Im- mediate succession to the study of one's own Veda is, however, common.

Now, the word "then" is also seen in the sense of what is begun, as in "Then (i.e., there is begun) this jyotiştoma " in the Veda, and in "Then (i.e., there is begun) the treatise on sabda" or "Then (i.e., there is begun) the treatise on yoga" in worldly usage; why then is it not here understood in the sense of what is begun? To this he says: "not the sense of ' what is begun'." Why (not) ? "Because the desire to know Brahman cannot be what is begun." In this aphorism, the "desire to know" appears from the wording to be more important than "Brahman" or "knowledge thereof". Nor may it be said that, just as the meaning of the word "baton" is what is intended, though subordinate in the words "The bearer of the baton chants the permission and the reply,"" it may be so even here, in the case of Brahman and the knowledge thereof; for, the "desire to know" is alone intended here, as indicating the doubt and the benefit, which are subsidiary

66 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

to engaging in the sacred teaching relating to the inquiry into Brahman. If that were not intended, those (sub- sidiaries) would not be indicated; hence, prudent inquirers would not set out on the inquiry into Brahman any more than on the examination of the teeth of a crow. Then, verily, Brahman and the knowledge thereof could not be the theme and the benefit; for, being opposed to the concept "I," which is not (known to be) superimposed, in respect of such an object, the validity of the Vedantas would be unintelligible; as for senses other than the one desired to be declared, such as figurative senses that may serve one's engaging in rites, or serve in incantations in the same way as (the syllable) hum etc., these are possible of apprehension, even in dependence on the injunction to study one's own section of the Veda. Hence, the primacy of the "desire to know," which indicates both doubt and benefit, is here intended both by the words and by the sentence (as a whole). Nor can that (word jijnasa) signify what is begun, so that the word " then," which is in proximity thereto, may also be taken to mark what is begun; for, it is not that which is treated (in every section). Brahman-knowledge, which qualifies the desire to know, may, however, be what is begun. And that too does not connect with the word "then," because there is no primacy for that (Brahman-knowledge). Nor is the desire to know (ijnasa) the same as inquiry (mimamsa), so that, like the treatise on yoga, it may be what is begun; the word mimămsa,-being derived with the termination san, but not in the sense of desire, according to the (aphorism) 55 man-badha etc., either from the root man, to measure, with the addition of an "n" or from the root man, to reverence, -signifies an inquiry that commands respeot; while

जिज्ञासा ६६

शास्त्रप्रवृत्त्यङ्गसंशयप्रयोजनसूचनार्थत्वेन जिज्ञासाया एव विवक्षितत्वात्। तदविवक्षायां तदसूचनेन काकदन्तपरीक्षायामिव न ब्रह्ममीमांसायां प्रेक्षावन्तः प्रवर्तेरन्। न हि तदानीं ब्रह्म तज्ज्ञानं च अभिधेयप्रयोजने भवितुमर्हतः, अनध्यस्ताहंप्रत्यय- विरोधेन वेदान्तानामेवंविधेऽर्ये प्रामाण्यानुपपत्तेः; कर्मप्रवृत्त्युपयोगितया उपचरितार्थानां वा जपोप- योगिनां वा 'हुम्' इत्येवमादीनामिवाविवक्षि- तार्थानामपि स्वाध्यायाध्ययनविध्यधीनग्रहणत्वस्य संभवात्। तस्मात्संदेहप्रयोजनसूचनी जिज्ञासा इह पदतो वाक्यतश्र प्रधानं विवक्षितव्या। न च तस्या अधिकार्यत्वम्, अप्रस्तूयमानत्वात्, येन तत्समभिव्याहृतोऽथशब्दोऽधिकारार्थः स्यात्। जि- ज्ञासाविशेषणं तु ब्रह्मज्ञानमधिकार्य भवेत्। न च तदप्यथशब्देन संबध्यते, प्राधान्याभावात्। न च जिज्ञासा मीमांसा येन योगानुशासनवदधिक्रियेत; नान्तत्वं निपात्य 'माङ् माने' इत्यस्माद्वा 'मान पूजायाम् ' इत्यस्माद्वा धातोः 'मान्बघ-' इत्यादिना अनिच्छार्थे सनि व्युत्पादितस्य मीमांसा-

६७ जिज्ञासा

पदस्य पूजितविचारवचनत्वात् ; ज्ञानेच्छावाच- कत्वाज्जिज्ञासापदस्य। प्रवर्तिका हि मीमांसायां जिज्ञासा स्यात्। न च प्रवर्त्यप्रवर्तकयोरैक्यम्, एकत्वे त्भावानुपपत्तेः। न च सवार्थपरत्वस्योपपत्तौ सत्यां अन्यार्थपरत्वकल्पना युक्ता, अतिप्रसङ्गात्। तस्मात्सुध्टूक्तम् 'जिज्ञासाया अनधिकार्यत्वात्' इति। अथ मङ्गलार्थोऽथशब्दः कस्मान्न भवति? तथा च मङ्गलहेतुत्वात् प्रत्यहं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा कर्तव्येति सूत्रार्थः संपद्यत इत्यत आह- मङ्गलस्य च वाक्यार्थे समन्वयाभावात्। पदार्थ एव हि वाक्यार्थे समन्वीयते, स च वाच्यो लक्ष्यो वा। न चेह मङ्गलमथशब्दस्य वाच्यं वा लक्ष्यं वा, किं तु मृदङ्गशङ्गध्वनिवदथशब्दश्रवण- मात्रकार्यम्। न च कार्यज्ञाप्ययोर्वाक्यार्थे समन्वयः शब्दव्यवहारे दृष्ट इत्यर्थः। तत्किमिदानीं मङ्ग- लार्थोऽथशब्दः तेषु तेषु न प्रयोरव्यः? तथा च ओंकारश्राथशब्दश्र द्वावेतौ ब्रह्मण: पुरा। कण्ठं भि्त्वा विनिर्यातौ तस्मान्माङ्गलिकावुभौ।।

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 67

the word "jijnasa" signifies "desire to know". "Desire to know" is indeed what starts one on the "inquiry ". Nor can that which starts be identical with that which is started, that relationship (of starter and started) being unintelligible where they are one. Nor is it proper to assume some other sense (for a word) when its own sense is intelligible, as that will be an undue extension. Hence it is well said: "because the desire to know ... cannot be what is begun." Now, why may not the word atha have the sense of auspiciousness ? Thus, the aphorism comes to mean that the desire to know Brahman is to be undertaken every day as causing auspiciousness. To this he says: "and 'auspiciousness' has no syntactical relation with the meaning of the sentence." It is the meaning of a word that, verily, has syntactical relation with the meaning of the sentence; and that (former) is either expressed or implied. In this case, auspiciousness is not the sense expressed or implied of the word atha, but something effected on the mere hearing of that word, as on hearing the sound of the drum (mrdanga) or the conch. And in the use of words it is not seen that what is effected or recalled (by a word) has any syntactical relation with the meaning of the sentence : this is the mean- ing. (Objection): is not the word atha used here and there to signify auspiciousness ? And there would also be conflict with the text of the traditional Code, which says: "The two words Om and atha burst out of yore from the throat of Brahman; hence both are auspicious." (Reply): to this he says: "Indeed, the word 'atha,' only when used in

68 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

another sense, can bring about auspiciousness by the (mere) sound of it." The word atha, used in the sense of immediate succession etc., produces auspiciousness, like the sound of the flute, the lyre eto., by the sound, i.e., by the mere hearing of it, and thus helps to bring about auspi- ciousness, like the sight of the pitcher of water brought for a different purpose. Thus, there is no conflict with the text of the traditional Code. Therefore, the sense of immediate succession being there, the sense of auspiciousness too (is secured) by the mere hearing : this is the meaning. Be this so. The word atha may depend on an antecedent factor, even without having the sense of "im- mediate succession". This is how: a question may be raised with reference to this very word atha-" Is this word atha (used in the sense of) 'immediate succession' or (atha) 'what is begun'?" Here, the word atha occurring in the interrogative states an alternative view after stating a preliminary view, with reference to the atha occurring earlier. Of that (second) word, " imme- diate succession" is not the sense, since it is separated from the earlier occurring word by the statement of the preliminary view. Nor is there non-dependence on the foregoing (word), for if there were no dependence on that, that (word) would not be the content of this (interrogative), and consequently the disjunction, not referring to the same content, would be unintelligible. Never does it happen (that one asks): "Is the self eternal or is the intellect non- eternal?" Hence, even without the sense of "immediate succession," why should it not be that the word atha

जिज्ञासा ६८

इति स्मृतिव्याकोप इत्यत आह-अर्थान्तर- प्रयुक्त एव ह्यथशब्द: श्रुत्या मङ्गलप्रयोजनो भवति। अर्थान्तरेष्वानन्तर्यादिषु प्रयुक्त: अथ- शब्दः श्रुत्या श्रवणमात्रेण वेणुवीणाध्वनिवन्मङ्गलं कुर्वन् मङ्गलप्रयोजनो भवति अन्यार्थमानीयमानोद- कुम्भदर्शनवत्। तेन न स्मृतिव्याकोपः। तेन च इह आनन्तर्यार्थस्य सतः श्रवणमात्रेण मङ्गलार्थतेत्यर्थः। स्यादेतत्। पूर्वप्रकृतापेक्षोऽथशब्दो भविष्यति विनैवानन्तर्यार्थत्वम्। तद्यथा-इममेवाथशब्दं प्रकृत्य विमृश्यते 'किमयमथशब्द आनन्तर्ये अथाधिकारे' इति। अत्र विमर्शकवाक्येऽथशब्दः पूर्वप्रकृतमथ- शब्दमपेक्ष्य प्रथमपक्षोपन्यासपूर्वकं पक्षान्तरोपन्यासे। न चास्यानन्तर्यमर्थः, पूर्वप्रकृतस्य प्रथमपक्षोपन्यासेन व्यवायात्। न च प्रकृतानपेक्षा, तदनपेक्षस्य तद्वि- षयत्वाभावेन असमानविषयतया विकल्पानुपपत्तेः । न हि जातु भवति-किं नित्य आत्मा, अथ अनित्या बुद्धिरिति। तस्मादानन्तर्य विना पूर्वप्रकृतापेक्ष इहाथशब्दः कस्मान्न भवतीत्यत आह-पूर्व-

18

६९ जिज्ञासा प्रकृतापेक्षायाश्च फलत आनन्तर्याव्यति- रेकात्। अस्यार्थ :- न वयमानन्तर्यार्थतां व्य- सनितया रोचयामहे, किं तु ब्रह्मजिज्ञासाहेतुभूत- पूर्वप्रकृतसिद्धये। सा च पूर्वप्रकृतार्थापेक्षत्वेडप्यथ- शब्दस्य सिध्यतीति व्यर्थ आनन्तर्यार्थत्वावधारणा- ग्रहोऽस्माकमिति। तदिदमुक्तम् 'फलतः' इति। परमार्थतस्तु कल्पान्तरोपन्यासे पूर्वप्रकृतापेक्षा; न चेह कल्पान्तरोपन्यास इति पारिशेष्यादानन्तर्यार्थ एवेति युक्तम्। भवत्वानन्तर्यार्थः, किमेवं सतीत्यत आह- सति चानन्तर्यार्थत्व इति। न तावद्यस्य कस्यचिदत्रानन्तर्यमिति वक्तव्यम्, तस्याभिधान- मन्तरेणापि प्राप्तत्वात्। अवश्यं हि पुरुषः किंचित्कृत्वा किंचित्करोति। न चानन्तर्यमात्रस्य दृष्टमदृष्टं वा प्रयोजनं पश्यामः । तस्मात्त- स्यात्ानन्तर्य वक्तव्यं यद्िना ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा न भवति, यस्मिन्सति तु भवन्ती भवत्येव। तदिद- मुक्तम्-यत्पूर्ववृत्तं नियमेनापेक्षत इति।

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 69

depends on what goes before ? To this he says :"and refe- rence to what has gone before does not, in effect, differ from immediate succession." This is the meaning: we prefer the sense of "immediate succession" not because of eager- ness, but rather in order to secure some antecedent factor, which will serve as the cause of the desire to know Brahman. Since that (sense) results even on the view that the word atha is dependent on what goes before, any eagerness of ours to fix the sense of that word as "immediate succession" would be in vain. That is here expressed by the words: "in effect." But, in reality, it is in stating another view, that there is dependence on what goes before; and since, here, there is no statement of an alternative view, by elimination, "immediate succession" alone is left as the sense; this is the correct view. Let "immediate succession" be the sense; what of it? To this he says: "And when the meaning is 'immediate succession'" etc. Immediate succession is to be declared here not to something or other, since that results even without any statement. A person does something, necessarily after doing something else. Nor do we see any benefit-seen or unseen-from im- mediate succession alone. Hence, there must be declared immediate succession' to that, without which the desire to know Brahman would not be, and in the presence of which it would certainly be generated. That is here mentioned in the words: "something which has gone before to which the desire to know Brahman too invariably relates."

70 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

Now, here, what is distinctive is immediate succes- sion to a knowledge of ritual. No; for, even prior to a desire to know Religious Duty, desire to know

Be this so. Of the desire to know Brahman, as of the desire to know Religious Duty (dharma), there may be immediate succession to the study of one's own section of the Veda because of compatibility, since Brahman, like Religious Duty, is known on the sole authority of Scripture. That not being known, there does not arise cognition of its own content (i.e., Religious Duty and Brahman); and the apprehension of it (Scripture) follows necessarily even from the rule as to study: "one should study one's own section of the Veda." Hence, im- mediate succession to the study of the Veda alone is the meaning of the word atha, even in the case of the desire to know Brahman. To this he says: "Immediate succession to the study of one's own Veda is, however, common" to the desire to know Religious Duty as well as to the desire to know Brahman. And here, by the words "one's own Veda" referring to the content, the content thereof, viz., study, is implied. And this (succession) being understood even from the aphorism "Then, therefore, the desire to know Religious Duty,"" the present aphorism need not be begun at all; for, the word dharma (used in the above sutra) implies the entire sense of the Vedas, and Brahman, like Religious Duty, being equally the sense of the Vedas, the teaching about immediate succession to the study of the Veda applies equally (to both): this is the meaning. Now, the objection is raised: "Now, here, what is distinctive" of the desire to know Brahman in relation

जिज्ञासा ७०

नन्विह कर्मावबोधानन्तर्यं विशेषः । न, धर्मजिज्ञासायाः प्रागपि अधीतवेदान्तस्य ब्रह्मजिज्ञासोपपत्तेः। यथा च हृदयाद्यवदाना-

स्यादेतस्। धर्मजिज्ञासाया इव ब्रह्मजिज्ञासाया अपि योग्यत्वात् स्वाध्यायाध्ययनानन्तर्यम्, धर्म-

गृहीतस्य रवविषये विज्ञानाजननात्, ग्रहणस्य च 'स्वाध्यायोऽध्येतव्यः' इत्यध्ययनेनैव निय- तत्वात्। तस्माद्वेदाध्ययनानन्तर्यमेव ब्रह्मजिज्ञासाया अप्यथशब्दार्थ इत्यत आह-स्वाध्यायानन्तर्यं तु समानं धर्मव्रह्मजिज्ञासयोः। अत्र च स्वाध्यायेन विषयेण तद्विषयमध्ययनं लक्षयति। तथा च 'अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा' इत्यनेनैव गतमिति नेदं सूत्रमारब्धव्यम् ; धर्मशब्दस्य वेदार्थमात्रोपलक्षणतया धर्मवद्रह्मणोऽपि वेदार्थत्वा- विशेषेण वेदाध्ययनानन्तर्योपदेशसाम्यादित्यर्थः । चोदयति-नन्विह कर्मावबोधानन्तर्यं विशेषः धर्मजिज्ञासातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासायाः ।

७१ जिज्ासा

नामानन्तर्यनियमः, क्रमस्य विवक्षितत्वात्, न तथेह क्रमो विवक्षितः; शेषशेषित्वे अधिकृताधिकारे वा प्रमाणाभावात्, धर्म- ब्रह्मजिज्ञासयोः।

अस्यार्थ :- 'विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन' इति तृतीया- श्रुत्या यज्ञादीनामङ्गत्वेन ब्रह्मज्ञाने विनियोगात्, ज्ञानस्यैव कर्मतया इच्छां प्रति प्राधान्यात्, प्रधानसंबन्धाच्चाप्रधानानां पदार्थान्तराणाम्। तत्रापि च न वाक्यार्थज्ञानोत्पत्तावङ्गभावो यज्ञादीनाम्, वाक्यार्थज्ञानस्य वाक्यादेवोत्पत्तेः । न च वाक्यं सहकारितया कर्माण्यपेक्षत इति युक्तम् ; अकृत- कर्मणामपि विदितपदपदार्थसंबन्धानां समधि- गतशाब्दन्यायतत्त्वानां गुणप्रधानभूतपूर्वापरपदार्था- काङ्क्षासंनिधियोग्यतानुसंधानवतामप्रत्यूहं वाक्यार्थ- प्रत्ययोत्पत्तेः । अनुत्पत्तौ वा विधिनिषेधवाक्यार्थ- प्रत्ययाभावेन तदर्थानुष्ठानपरिवर्जनाभावप्रसङ्ग: । तद्बोधतस्तु तदर्थानुष्ठानपरिवर्जने परस्पराश्रयः, तस्मिन् सति तदर्थानुष्ठानपरिवर्जनं ततश्र तद्बोध

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 71 .

Brahman is intelligible in respect of one who has studied the Vedanta. And there is the rule of immediate suc- cession in respect of the cutting of the heart etc., because, there, the sequence is intended to be declared; but here no similar sequence is intended to be declared ; for there is no authority for the relationship of sub- sidiary and principal or of eligibility of the person (already) eligible as between the desire to know Reli- gious Duty and Brahman.

to the desire to know Religious Duty "is immediate succession to a knowledge of ritual". This is its meaning: through the express statement of the instrumental case "They desire to know by sacrifice" etc., sacrifice etc. are applied to the knowledge of Brahman as its sub- sidiaries; for, knowledge alone is primary as the object of desire, and other things which are not primary have to be related to what is primary. Even here, sacrifice etc. are not subsidiary to the production of the knowledge of the meaning of the sentence, since the latter is produced by the sentence itself. Nor does it stand to reason that the sentence requires ritual as an auxiliary ; for, in him who knows the connection of words and their senses, com- prehends the true nature of the principles regulating the use of sounds, who keeps in mind the relationships of subsidiary and principal, earlier and later, among things, and the requirements of expectancy, proximity and compatibility, there is seen the unhindered production of the knowledge of the meaning of the sentence, even though he has not performed any rites. Or, if it did not arise, there would be no knowledge of the meaning of prescriptive

72 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

and prohibitory texts, and there would result the failure of the observances and avoidances, which are the sense of those (texts). If from the knowledge of them arose their observance and avoidance, there would be reciprocal depen- dence, in that that (knowledge) being existent, there is observance and avoidance of their sense, while from them (the observance and avoidance) there is the knowledge thereof. Nor is it admissible that the Vedanta texts alone depend on ritual for the comprehension of their sense, and not other sentences; for, there is no special cause. Now, those whose intellects are impure to start with cannot from the first understand the validity of the identity asserted by the text "That thou art" between the jtva denoted by the "thou," whose nature is that of agent and enjoyer, and the supreme self denoted by the "that," whose nature is eternally pure, intelligent and indifferent, because of the certainty that there is lack of compatibility (between the denotations of the two terms). But those of pure intellect, whose internal impurities have undergone attrition by means of sacrifices, gifts, austerities and fasting, and who are endowed with faith, having understood the compatibility (of "that" and "thou"), will understand their identity. If this be urged, then, of the ascertainment of compatibility, which is the cause of the valid knowiedge, do you resolve to say that it comes from ritual, which is itself not a means of valid knowledge (pramana), or that ritual too is a means of valid knowledge, in addition to perception etc .? If the ascertainment of compatibility is effected by reasoning unopposed to the Vedanta and basod on it, there is no need for ritual. Hence, having apprehended the jtva's nature to be that of the supreme self, through knowledge of the nature of

जिज्ञासा ७२

इति। न च वेदान्तवाक्यानामेव स्वार्थप्रत्यायने कर्मापेक्षा न वाक्यान्तराणामिति सांप्रतम्, विशेषहेतोरभावात्। ननु 'तत्त्वमसि' इति वाक्यात् त्वंपदार्थस्य कर्तृभोक्तृरूपस्य जीवात्मनो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धोदा- सीनस्वभावेन तत्पदार्थेन परमात्मनैक्यमशक्यं द्रागित्येव प्रतिपत्तुं योग्यताविरहविनिश्चयात्। यज्ञदानतपोऽनाश- कतनूकृतान्तर्मलास्तु विशुद्धसत्त्वाः श्रद्दधाना योग्यतावगमपुरःसरं तादात्म्यमवगमिष्यन्तीति चेत्, तत्किमिदानीं प्रमाणकारणं योग्यतावधारणम- प्रमाणात्कर्मणो वक्तुमध्यवसितोऽसि, प्रत्यक्षाद्यति- रिक्तं वा कर्मापि प्रमाणम्। वेदान्ता- विरुद्धतन्मूलन्यायबलेन तु योग्यतावधारणे कृतं कर्मभिः । तस्मात् 'तत्त्वमसि' इत्यादेः श्रुतमयेन ज्ञानेन जीवात्मनः परमात्मभावं गृहीत्वा, तन्मूलया चोपपत्त्या व्यवस्थाप्य, तदुपासनायां भावनापराभि- धानायां दीर्घकालनैरन्तर्यवत्यां ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारफलायां

10

७३ जिज्ञासा

यज्ञादीनामुपयोगः । यथाहुः-'स तु दीर्घकाल- नैरन्तर्यसत्कारासेवितो दृढभूमिः' इति। ब्रह्मचर्य- तपःश्रद्धायज्ञादयश्च सत्काराः । अत एव श्रुति :- 'तमेव धीरो विज्ञाय प्रज्ञां कुर्वीत ब्राह्मणः'। इति। विज्ञाय तर्कोपकरणेन शब्देन प्रज्ञां भावनां कुर्वीतेत्यर्थः । अत्र च यज्ञादीनां श्रेय:परिपन्थि- कल्मषनिबर्हणद्वारेणोपयोग इति केचित्। पुरुष- संस्कारद्वारेणेत्यन्ये। यज्ञादिसंत्कृतो हि पुरुषः आदरनैरन्तर्यदीर्घकालैरासेवमानो ब्रह्मभावनामनाद्य- विद्यावासनां समूलकाषं कषति; ततोऽस्य प्रत्यगात्मा सुप्रसन्नः केवलो विशदीभवति। अत एव स्मृति :- 'महायज्ञैश्र यज्ञैश्र ब्राह्मीयं क्रियते तनुः।' इति, 'यस्यैतेऽष्टाचत्वारिंशत्संस्काराः' इति च। अपरे तु ऋणत्रयापाकरणेन ब्रह्मज्ञानोपयोगं कर्मणामाहुः । अस्ति हि स्मृति :- 'ऋणानि श्रीण्यपाकृत्य मनो मोक्षे निवेशयेत्।' इति। अन्ये तु 'तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 73

hearing texts like "That thou art," and confirmed it by reasoning based thereon, there results intuition of Brahman through the contemplation-otherwise known as bhāvanā- of that (truth), practised for long and unintermittently; sacrifice etc. serve in this (contemplation). As is said: "But that (discipline of mental functioning) practised for long, unintermittently and with satkāras is the sure means (of realising the truth)" Continence, austerity, faith, sacri- fice etc. are the satkuras. Hence it is the Scripture says: "Knowing that alone, the wise brahmin should perform contemplation (rrajna)." Having known through testi- mony aided by argumentation, one is to betake oneself to contemplation. Here, some say that for sacrifice etc., there is utility through their destroying impurities that are the foes of beatitude. Others say it is through purifying the person (that they are useful). It is the person purified by sacrifice etc., who, verily, by the con- templation of Brahman practised with devotion and unintermittently for a long time, plucks out by the root all the impressions of beginningless Nescience; thence, the inner self becomes clear, pure and bright. Hence it is that the traditional Code says: "One creates the capacity to attain Brahman through the mahayajnas (brahma-yajna, deva-yajna, pitr-yajna etc.) and through sacrifices," and " He, for whom there have been these forty and eight purificatory ceremonies". Yet others say of ritual that its service to Brahman-knowledge is through the discharge of the three obligations. There is, indeed, the traditional Code to this effect: "Having discharged the three obligations, one is to set one's mind on release."9 Others, however, say that the various rites, though enjoined with reference to their respective results, yet, because of texts like "That the

74 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

brahmins seek to know through the study of the Vedas, through sacrifice etc.," are subsidiary to the contemplation of Brahman, through the relation of samyoga-prthaktva (two-in-oneness), just as the khādira (ebony) wood, while serving the purpose of the sacrifice (in the capacity of sacrificial stake), serves also to bring about virility (to the sacrificer); for the principle is "when one subserves two ends, (the relation is) samyoga-prthaktva"." Hence too the aphorism of the great sage (Badarayaņa): "Because of the Scriptural text about sacrifice etc., there is need of all (in the contemplation of Brahman), as in the case of a horse." (The word) "all" means sacrifice, gifts, austerities etc .; there is need of these for the contemplation of Brahman; this is the meaning. Hence, whichever be the authority, Scripture etc., or the aphorism of the great sage, in any case, it is contempiation of Brahman as united to sacrifice etc., and possessed of the three properties (devotion, length of time and non-intermission), that is efficient to bring about intuition of Brahman, otherwise known as release, through the destruction of beginningless Nescience and its impres- sions; for this purpose, rites ought to be observed. Nor can these be observed, in the absence of the knowledge of the many different forms of rites in respect of their consequences seen and unseen, of things in relation to them as inherent or as remote causes, of the elements which are taught directly or obtained by transfer, of the host of subsidiaries ending with sequence (krama), as also of the different persons eligible for the respective rites.“ Nor does that knowledge result without a critical study of the inquiry into Religious Duty. Hence it has been well said: 'what is distinctive is immediate succession to a knowledge

जिज्ञासा ७४

विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन' इत्यादिश्रुतिम्यः तत्त- त्फलाय चोदितानामपि कर्मणां संयोगपृथक्त्वेन ब्रह्मभावनां प्रत्यङ्गभावमाचक्षते, ऋत्वर्थस्येव खादिर- त्वस्य वीर्यार्थताम्, 'एकस्य तूभयार्थत्वे संयोगपृथक्त्वम्' इति न्यायातू। अत एव पारमर्ष सूत्रम् 'सर्वापेक्षा च यज्ञादिश्रुतेरश्रवत्' इति। यज्ञतपोदानादि सर्वम्, तदपेक्षा ब्रह्मभावने- त्यर्थः । तस्मात् यदि श्रुत्यादयः प्रमाणं यदि वा पारमर्ष सूत्रं सर्वथा यज्ञादिकर्मसमुच्चिता ब्रह्मो- पासना विशेषणत्रयवती अनाद्यविद्यातद्वासना- समुच्छेदक्रमेण ब्रह्मसाक्षात्काराय मोक्षापरनाम्ने कल्पत इति तदर्थ कर्माण्यनुष्ठेयानि। न चैतानि दृष्टादृष्टसामवायिकारादुपकारहेतुभूतौपदेशिकातिदेशि- कक्रमपर्यन्ताङ्गग्रामसहितपरस्परविभिन्नकर्मस्वरूपतद - धिकारिभेदपरिज्ञानं विना शक्यान्यनुष्ठातुम्। न च धर्ममीमांसापरिशीलनं विना तत्परिज्ञानम्। तस्मात्साधूक्तम् 'कर्मावबोधानन्तर्य विशेषः' इति। कर्मावबोधेन हि कर्मानुष्ठानसाहित्यं भवति ब्रह्मोपासनाया इत्यर्थः ।

७५ जिज्ञासा

तदेतन्निराकरोति-न इति। कुतः? कर्मावबोधात् प्रागप्यधीतवेदान्तस्य ब्रह्मजिज्ञासोपपत्तेः। इदमत्राकूतम्-व्रह्मोपासनया भावनापराभि- धानया कर्माण्यपेक्ष्यन्त इत्युक्तम्। तत्र ब्रूम :- क पुनरस्या: कर्मापेक्षा ? किं कार्ये यथामेयादीनां परमापूर्वे चिरभाविफलानुकूले जनयितव्ये समि- दाद्यपेक्षा? स्वरूपे वा यथा तेषामेव द्विरवत्त- पुरोडाशादिद्रव्यािदेवताद्यपेक्षा ? न तावत्कार्ये, तस्य विकल्पासहत्वात्। तथा हि-ब्रह्मोपासनाया ब्रह्मस्वरूपसाक्षात्कारः कार्यमभ्युपेयः । स चोत्पाद्यो वा स्यात् यथा संयवनस्य पिण्डः, विकार्यो वा यथावघातरय व्रीहयः, संस्कार्यो वा यथा प्रोक्षणस्योलूखलादयः, प्राप्यो वा यथा दोहनस्य पयः । न तावदुत्पाद्यः । न खलु घटादिसाक्षात्कार इव जडस्वभावेभ्यो घटादिभ्यो भिन्न इन्द्रियाद्याधेयो ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारो भावनाधेयः रुंभवति, ब्रह्मणोऽपरा- धीनप्रकाशतया तत्साक्षात्कारस्य तत्स्वाभाव्येन नित्यतयोत्पाद्यत्वानुपपत्तेः । ततो भिन्नस्य वा भावनाधेयस्य साक्षात्कारस्य प्रतिभाप्रत्ययवत्

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 75

of ritual." It is, verily, by the knowledge of ritual that there results for the contemplation of Brahman the co-operation of ritual. This he refutes: "No." Why (not) ? "For, even prior" to the knowledge of ritual, "the desire to know Brahman is intelligible in respect of one who has studied the Vedanta". This is the underlying idea: it is said that rites are needed for the purpose of Brahman-contemplation, other- wise known as bhavana. We ask here "in what way are rites needed?" Is it for the (production of the) effect, just as for the agneya and other (rites) there is need of the samit (a subsidiary rite) in order to produce the final unseen result (parama-'purva), which is favourable to long-delayed fruit ?" Or, is it in respect of its own existence, like the requirement of the material-the purodasa cut into two, and the deity-Agni? Not for the effect, as that cannot stand examination. It is thus: it has to be admitted of the contemplation of Brahman that it effects intuition of the nature of Brahman. That may be a product, as the ball (of flour) is produced by mixing it into a paste; a modification, as rice from pounding ; something purified, like the mortar etc. by sprinkling;" something attained, as milk by milking. Firstly, it is not a product. The intuition of Brahman produced by Brahman-contem- plation does not, verily, result in the same way as perception of the pot etc., which are produced by the senses etc., differ- ent from the pot etc .. inert by nature; for, Brahman, not be- ing illumined in dependence on another, the intuition thereof is of its own nature, eternal, and production is not intelligible in that case. Any intuition different therefrom, brought

76 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

about by contemplation, is infected with doubt, like an imagined idea, and hence cannot be valid ; for, it is seen of that kind (of idea), even with that (contemplation) as acces- sory, that it is often inconstant. The (apparently) direct experience of a fire with huge flames, as the result of the contemplation of a (wrongly) inferred fire, by one whose body is extremely benumbed with intense cold, does not, verily, acoord with other valid knowledge, this non-accord being seen extensively. Hence, since there is not the effect characteristic of valid intuition, ritual is not needed in the generation (of any result) by contemplation. And for Brahman, who is immutably eternal and all-pervasive, modification, purification or attainment cannot result through contemplation. Be this so. Let not the intuition of Brahman result, in the way of generation etc., from contemplation. Purification, however, may come about through the removal of the veil of the two-fold indeterminable Nescience, as the danseuse concealed by the curtain is manifested through the raising of the curtain by the stage-hand. Herein lies the use of ritual. But there is this much of difference: on the raising of the curtain, the danseuse becomes the object of immediate perception to the audience. Here, however, the bare removal of the veil of Nescience is what is generated, and nothing else, since intuition of Brahman cannot be generated, the nature of Brahman being eternal. Here, we ask: "What is this Brahman- contemplation?" Is it a succession of whatever is apprehended through verbal testimony ? or a succession of indubitable cognitions gained through (valid) verbal testi- mony? If it be a succession of whatever is cognised

जिज्ञासा ७६

संशयाक्रान्ततया प्रामाण्यायोगात्, तद्विधस्य तत्सामग्रीकरयैव बहुलं व्यभिचारोपलब्धेः। न खलु अनुमानावगतं सिद्धं वहिं भावयतः शीतार्तस्य शिशिरभरमन्थरतरकायकाण्डरय रफुर- ज्ज्वालाजटिलानलसाक्षात्कारः प्रमाणान्तरेण संवा- द्यते, विसंवादर्य बहुलमुपलम्भात्। तस्मात् प्रामाणिकसाक्षात्कारलक्षणकार्याभावान्नोपासनाया उ- त्पाद्े कर्मापेक्षा। न च कूटस्थनित्यस्य सर्वव्यापिनो ब्रह्मण उपासनातो विकारसंरकारप्राप्तयः संभवन्ति । स्यादेतत्। मा भूद्रह्मसाक्षात्कार उत्पाद्यादिरूप उपासनायाः । संस्कार्यस्तु अनिर्वचनीयाविद्याद्वयपि- धानापनयनेन भविष्यति, प्रतिसीरापिहिता नर्तकीव प्रतिसीरापनयद्वारा रङ््यापृतेन। तत्र च कर्मणा- मुपयोगः। एतावांस्तु विशेष :- प्रतिसीरापनये पारिषदानां नर्तकीविषयः साक्षात्कारो भवति। इह तु अविद्यापिधानापनयमात्रमेव नापरमुत्पाद्यमरित, ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारस्य ब्रह्मस्वभावस्य नित्यत्वेन अनु- त्पाद्यत्वात् । अत्रोच्यते-का पुनरियं ब्रह्मोपासना? किं शाब्दज्ञानमात्रसंततिः, आहो निर्विचिकित्स- 20

जिल्ञामा शाब्दज्ञानसंततिः ? यदि शाब्दज्ञानमात्रसंततिः, न तर्हीयमभ्यस्यमानाप्यविद्यां समुच्छेत्तुमर्हति। तत्त्वविनिश्चयस्तदभ्यासो वा सवासनं विपर्यास- मुन्मूलयेत्, न संशयाभ्यासः, सामान्यमात्र- दर्शनाभ्यासो वा। न हि स्थाणुर्वा पुरुषो वेति वा, आरोहपरिणाहवत् द्रव्यमिति वा शतशोऽपि ज्ञानमन्यस्यमानं पुरुष एवेति निश्चयाय पर्याप्तम्, ऋते विशेषदर्शनात्। ननूक्तं श्रुतमयेन ज्ञानेन जीवात्मनः परमात्मभावं गृहीत्वा युक्तिमयेन च व्यवस्थाप्यत इति। तस्मा-

कारिण्यविद्ाद्वयोच्छेवहेतुः । न चासावतुत्पादित- ब्रह्मानुभवा तदुच्छेदाय पर्याप्ता। साक्षात्काररूपो हि विपर्यासः साक्षात्काररूपेणैव तत्वज्ञानेनोच्छिद्यते, न तु परोक्षावभासेन, दिङ्म्मोहालातचक्रचलद्दक्षमरु- मरीचिसलिलादिविभ्रमेष्वपरोक्षावभासिषु अपरोक्षाव- भासिभिरेव दिगादितत्वप्रत्ययैर्निवृत्तिदर्शनात्। नो खत्याप्तवचनलिङ्गादिनिश्चितविगादित त्वानां दिङ्न्मो- हादयो निवर्तन्ते। तस्मात् त्वंपदार्थस्य तत्पदार्थ-

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 77

through verbal testimony, then, even if practised repeatedly it cannot remove Nescience. It is the ascertainment of truth and the repetition thereof that root out error with its impressions, not the repetition of doubt, nor the repetition of the cognition of what is general. The cognition "post or man" or "a tall big object," even if repeated a hundred times, cannot lead to the certitude that it is but a man, unless there is specifio cognition. Now, it has been said that the jtva's true nature as the supreme self having been apprehended through cognition of the nature of hearing, it is confirmed by (cognition) of the nature of reasoning. Hence, con- templation of the nature of a succession of indubitable cognitions based on (valid) verbal testimony is, as assisted by ritual, the cause of the destruotion of the two-fold Nescience. Nor can this achieve that destruction without bringing about experience of Brahman. Error, which is of the nature of immediate experience, can be removed only by true knowledge of the nature of immediate experience, not by a mediate presentation ; for, it is seen that immediate presenta- tions like confusion of direction, the circle of fire, the moving trees (as seen when one is oneself moving), and the water in the mirage are removed only by immediate presentations in the nature of true cognitions of the directions etc. Confusion of direction etc. are not, verily, removed by the ascertainment of the directions etc. obtained through verbal testimony, inferende etc. Hence, what is to be desired is the intuition of the denotation of the "thou" as of the nature of the denotation of the "that". Only thus and not

78 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

otherwise can there be cessation of the intuition of the denotation of the "thou " as subject to suffering, grief etc. This intuition does not, verily, result from verbal testimony, even though accompanied by inquiry, but from perception, that (intuition) being the invariable result of that (perception) alone, as otherwise it would follow that a banyan shoot could grow even from a kutaja-seed." Hence, it stands to reason that the internal organ perfected by the contemplation of the meaning of sentences of indubitable import, manifests, of the immediately experienced denotation of the " thou," its nature as the denotation of the "that," through negating the various conditioned forms of the former. Nor is this experience itself of the nature of Brahman, in which case it could not be generated ; rather, it is a particular psychosis (urtti) of the internal organ itself, having Brahman for its content. Nor with this does Brahman become other-illu- mined. Because Brahman is illumined by verbal testimony, it does not, verily, become non-self-illumined. Indeed, that which is free from ail adjuncts is declared to be self-efful- gence, not that which is conditioned too." As the revered commentator, verily, says: "now, this is not invariably a non-object." Nor is there freedom from all adjuncts in the intuition of Brahman, though a psychosis of the internal organ, for, it (the intuition) is known to be an adjunct opposed both to itself and to other adjuncts, being itself on the brink of destruction. Otherwise (i.e., if it were not united to intelligence as an adjunct), of the psychosis of the internal organ, itself non-intelligent, self-illumination would be unintelligible, in the absence of

जिज्ञासा ७८

त्वेन साक्षात्कार एषितव्यः । एतावता हि त्वंपदार्थरय दुःखिशोकित्वादिसाक्षात्कारनिवृत्तिः, नान्यथा। न चैष साक्षात्कारो मीमांसासहितस्यापि शब्दप्रमाणस्य फलम्, अपि तु प्रत्यक्षरय, तस्यैव तत्फलत्व- नियमात् ; अन्यथा कुटजबीजादपि वटाङ्कु- रोत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गात्। तस्मान्निर्विचिकित्सवाक्यार्थ- भावनापरिपाकसहितमन्तःकरणं त्वंपदार्थस्यापरोक्षस्य तत्तदुपाध्याकारनिषेधेन तत्पदार्थतामाविर्भावयतीति युक्तम्। न चायमनुभवो ब्रह्मस्वभावो येन न जन्येत, अपि तु अन्तःकरणस्यैव वृत्तिभेदो ब्रह्मविषयः । न चैतावता ब्रह्मणोऽपि पराधीन- प्रकाशता। न हि शाब्दज्ञानप्रकाश्यं ब्रह्म स्वयं प्रकाशं न भवति। सर्वोपाधिविहीनं हि स्वयंज्योतिरिति गीयते, न तूपहितमपि। यथाह स्म भगवान्भाष्यकार :- 'न तावद्यमेकान्तेना- विषयः' इति। न चान्तःकरणवृत्तावप्यस्य साक्षात्कारे सर्वोपाधिविनिर्मोकः, तस्थैव तदुपा- धेर्विनश्यदवस्थस्य स्वपरोपाधिविरोधिनो विद्यमान- त्ात्। अन्यथा चैतन्यच्छायापत्तिं विनान्त :-

७९ जिज्ञासा

करणवृत्तेः स्वयमचेतनायाः सवप्रकाशत्वानुपपत्तौ सा- क्षात्कारत्वायोगात्। न चानुमितभावितवह्नि- साक्षात्कारवत् प्रतिभात्वेनारयाप्रामाण्यम्, तत्र वह्निस्वलक्षणस्य परोक्षत्वात्। इह तु ब्रह्मस्व्र- रूपस्योपाधिकलुषितस्य जीवस्य प्रागप्यपरोक्षत्वात्। न हि शुद्धबुद्धत्वादयो वस्तुतस्ततोऽतिरिच्यन्ते। जीत्र एव तु तत्तदुपाधिरहितः शुद्धबुद्धत्वादिस्वभावो ब्रह्मेति गीयते। न च तत्तदुपाधिविरहोऽपि ततोऽतिरिच्यते। तस्मात् यथा गान्धर्वशास्त्रार्थ- ज्ञानाभ्यासाहितसंस्कारसचिवः श्रोत्ेन्द्रियेण षड्जा- दिर्वर ग्राममूर्छनाभेदमध्यक्षमनुभवति, एवं वेदान्ता- र्थज्ञानाम्यासाहितसंस्कारो जीवः स्वस्य ब्रह्मभाव- मन्तःकरणेनेति। अन्त:करणवृत्तौ ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारे जनयितव्ये अरित तवुपासनायाः कर्मापेक्षेति चेत्, न, तस्याः कर्मानुष्ठानसहभावाभावेन तत्सहकारित्वानुपपत्तेः । न खलु 'तत्त्वमसि' इत्यादेर्वाक्यान्निर्विचिकित्सं शुध्धबुद्धोदासीनस्वभावं अकर्तृत्वाद्युपेतं अपेत- ब्राह्मणत्त्ादिजाति देहाधतिरिक्तं एकमात्मानं प्रति-

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 79

the reflection of intelligence, and henoe it could not intuite. Nor is this invalid as an imagined idea, like the intuition of the (erroneously) inferred and contemplated fire, for, there the nature of fire is mediate, whereas here, there is even from the first, immediate experience of the jtra, whose nature is that of Brahman made impure by adjuncts. The attributes of purity, intelligence etc. do not in truth go beyond that (i.e., are not different from that). It is the jtpa himself that, when free from adjuncts, is said to be Brahman, whose nature is purity, intelligence etc. Nor is freedom from the respective adjuncts something other than that. Therefore, just as through the sense of hearing, aided by the impressions brought about by the repeti- tion of the knowledge gained from the science of music, one experiences directly the different notes, sadja etc., in their different cadences, even so the jtva through the inter- nal organ, aided by the impressions brought about by the repetition of the meaning of the Vedanta texts, experiences its own nature as Brahman. If it be said that there is need of ritual for contempla- tion in respeot of the generation of the psychosis of the internal organ, i.e., intuition of Brahman, no (we roply), for, co-operation with ritual is unintelligible, since there is no co-presence of contemplation and the observance of ritual. Nor, verily, can he, who from texts like " That thou art" indubitably understands the one self, other than the body, whose nature is purity, intelligence and indifference, who is endowed with non-agency etc., who is devoid of caste-distinctions like brahmin etc., understand

80 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

eligibility (for himself) in respect of ritual. He who is not fit (to understand such a eligibility), how can he be an agent or (even) an eligible person ? It may be said that though the truth is ascertained, activity conditioned by error is seen to continue; for example, though it is known for certain that sugar is sweet, yet there is the continued experience of bitter taste for him whose sense is affected by bile, for he tastes sugar, spits it out and thus abandons it. Hence, there is the observance of ritual because of the continuance of the impressions of Nescience; and its destruction by that to which knowledge is the auxiliary will therefore be intelligible. Nor may it be asked: "How can ritual, itself of the nature of Nescience, destroy Nescience? And of its destroyer, ritual, whence the destruction ?" For, instances are extensively seen of entities which destroy them- selves and others of the same class as themselves ; for example, (goat's) milk digests itself and other milk, poison cures other poison as well as itself, the dust of the clearing-nut mixed with muddy water precipitates both itself and the mud and makes the water clear ; even so, ritual, though of the nature of Nescience, drives away other Nescience and itself departs. To this it is said : true; through frequently repeated texts beginning with "Existence alone, this was in the beginning, dear one" and ending with "That thou art," as aided by Brahman-inquiry, there is the dawn of true indubitable knowledge of the inner self, as different from the bodies etc., the material

जिझ्ञासा ८०

पद्यमान: कर्मस्वधिकारमवबोडुमर्हति। अनर्हश्र कथ कर्ता वाधिकृतो वा। यद्युच्येत निश्चितेऽपि तत्त्वे विपर्यासनिबन्धनो व्यवहारोऽनुवर्तमानो दृश्यते, यथा गुडस्य माधुर्य- विनिश्चयेऽपि पित्तोपहतेन्द्रियाणां तिक्ततावभासानुवृ- त्तिः, आस्वाद्य थूत्कृत्य त्यागात्। तस्मादविद्यासंर- कारानुवृत्त्या कर्मानुष्ठानम्, तेन च विद्यासहकारिणा तत्समुच्छेद उपपत्स्यते। न च-कर्माविद्यात्मकं कथमविद्यामुच्छिनत्ति, कर्मणो वा तदुच्छेदकस्य कुत उच्छेद :- इति वाच्यम्, सजातीयरवपर- विरोधिनां भावानां बहुलमुपलब्धेः । यथा पयः पयोऽन्तरं जरयति स्वयं च जीर्यति, यथा विषं विषान्तरं शमयति स्वयं च शाम्यति, यथा वा कतकरजो रजोऽन्तराविले पाथसि प्रक्षिप्तं रजोऽन्तराणि भिन्दत् स्वयमपि भिद्यमान- मनाविलं पाथ: करोति, एवं कर्माविद्यात्मकमपि अविद्यान्तराण्यपगमयत् स्वयमप्यपगच्छतीति। अत्रोच्यते-सत्यम् ; 'सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत्' इत्युपक्मात् 'तत्त्वमसि' इत्यन्ताच्छब्दा- 21

८१ जिज्ञासा

द्यविद्योपादानदेहाद्यतिरिक्तप्रत्यगात्मतत्वाव बोधे जाते- पि अविद्यासंस्कारानुवृत्त्यानुवर्तन्ते सांसारिकाः प्रत्ययास्तद्वयवहाराश्र, तथापि तानप्ययं व्यवहार- प्रत्ययान्मिथ्येति मन्यमानो विद्वान् न श्रद्धत्ते, पित्तोपहतेन्द्रिय इव गुडं थूत्कृत्य त्यजन्नपि तरय तिकताम्। तथा चायं क्रियाकर्तृकरणेतिकर्त- व्यताफलप्रपञ्चमतात्त्विकं विनिश्चिन्वन कथमधि- कृतो नाम ? विदुषो ह्यधिकारः । अन्यथा पशुशूद्रादीनामपि अधिकारो दुर्वारः स्यात् । क्रियाकर्त्रादिस्वरूपविभागं च विद्वरयमान इह विद्वानभिमतः कर्मकाण्डे। अत एव भगवान- विद्वद्विषयत्वं शास्त्रस्य वर्णयांबभूव भाष्यकारः । तस्माद्यथा राजजातीयाभिमानिकर्तृके राजसूये न विप्रवैश्यजातीयाभिमानिनोरधिकार:, एवं द्वि- जातिकर्तृक्रियाकरणादिविभागाभिमानिकर्तृके कर्मणि न तदनभिमानिनोऽधिकारः। न चानधिकृतेन समर्थेनापि कृतं वैदिकं कर्म फलाय कल्पते, वैश्यस्तोम इव ब्राह्मणराजन्याभ्याम्। तेन दृष्टार्थेषु

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 81

cause of which is beginningless Nescience ; in spite of this, there is the continuance of notions of transmigrations and consequent empirical usage, because of the continuance of the impressions of Nescience; yet, the wise one, who holds these empirical usages and notions to be fictitious, does not have faith in them, just as he whose sense is affected by bile does not have faith in the bitterness of sugar, though he spits it out and abandons it. And thus, one who has ascertained that the totality of act, agent, means, modus operandi and fruit is not real, how can he be eligible to act? He who knows them (to be real), he, verily, is the eligible one. Else, it would be difficult to avoid the eligibility even of beasts, sudras etc. In the section treating of ritual, he who knows the varieties of act, agent etc. is considered to be the man who knows. Hence it is that the revered commentator describes the sacred teaching as having reference to one characterised by Nescience. Therefore, just as in respect of the rūjasūya to be performed by those who have the conceit of belong- ing to the caste of kings, there is no eligibility for those who have the conceit of belonging to the brahmin or vaisya caste, even so in respect of ritual to be performed by those who have the conceit of distinctions like double birth, agent, act, means etc., there is no eligibility for those who have no such conceit. Nor is the Vaidic ritual, per- formed by one, ineligible though skilled, capable of bearing fruit, any more than the vais'yastoma performed by brahmins or kşatriyas. Therefore, in respect of rites which have a visible result, he who has capacity and engages therein

82 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

may obtain the fruit, that being seen. In respect of rites with an invisible result, however, the fruit which is known only from the sacred teaching cannot go to him who is not eligible; hence, ritual is not required in the perfor- mance of contemplation. Be this so. Just as, in respect of prescribed acts the eligibility for which includes the conceit of being human, there is no eligibility for one devoid of that conceit, even so, in respect of prohibitions, on the ground that those who are eligible are (those that have the conceit of being) human, there would be no eligibility for those devoid of that conceit, as in the case of beasts etc. Hence, such a person observing what is prohi- bited would not incur sin, any more than the lower animals; thus would result the transgression of the law." (To this objection we reply) not so. This one (who attains realisation even in the present life) is not wholly devoid of the conceit that he is human; rather does that conceit continue in him in slight traces, through the con- tinuance of the impressions of Nescience." It has been said that, considering what continues to be illusory, he has no faith in it (as real). What follows therefrom if this be so ? This follows therefrom. He who has faith in prescriptions is eligible, not he who has no faith. Hence, he who has no faith in the conceit of being human etc., is not eligible in respect of the sacred teaching of prescriptions. Hence too the traditional Code says "The oblation or gift offered without faith "" etc. The sacred teaching of prohibitions, however, does not stand in need of faith ; it functions, rather, only in

जिझासा ८२

कर्मसु शक्त: प्रवर्तमानः प्राप्नोतु फलम्, दृष्टत्वात्। अदृष्टार्थेषु तु शास्त्रैकसमधिगम्यं फलमनधिकारिणि न युज्यत इति नोपासनाकार्ये कर्मापेक्षा। स्यादेतत्। मनुष्याभिमानवदधिकारिके कर्म- णि विहिते यथा तदभिमानरहितस्यानधिकारः, एवं निषेधविधयोऽपि मनुष्याधिकारा इति तदभि- मानरहितस्तेष्वपि नाधिक्रियेत पश्वादिवत् ; तथा चायं निषिद्धमनुतिष्ठन न प्रत्यवेयात् तिर्य- गादिवदिति भिन्नकर्मतापातः । मैवम्। न खल्वयं सर्वथा मनुष्याभिमानरहितः, किं त्वविद्यासंस्कारानु- वृत्त्यास्य मात्रया तदभिमानोऽनुवर्तते। अनुवर्तमानं च मिथ्येति मन्यमानो न श्रद्धत्त इत्युक्तम् । किमतो यद्येवम् ? एतदतो भवति-विधिषु श्राद्धोऽधिकारी नाश्राद्ः । ततश् मनुष्याद्यभिमाने नश्रद्धधानो न विधिशास्त्रेष्वधिक्रियते। तथा च स्मृति :- 'अश्रद्धया हुतं दत्तम् '- इत्यादिका। निषेधशास्त्रं तु न श्रद्धामपेक्षते।

८३ जिज्ञासा

अपि तु निषिध्यमानक्रियोन्मुखो नर इत्येव प्रवर्तते। तथा च सांसारिक इव श्रद्धावगतब्रह्मतत्त्वोऽपि निषेधमतिकम्य प्रवर्तमानः प्रत्यवैतीति न भिन्नकर्मदर्शनाभ्युपगमः । तस्मान्नोपासनायाः कार्ये कर्मापेक्षा । अत एव नोपासनोत्पत्तावपि ; निर्विचिकित्स- शाब्दज्ञानोत्पत्युत्तरकालमनधिकार: कर्मणीत्युक्तम् । तथा च श्रुति :- 'न कर्मणा न प्रजया धनेन त्यागेनैके अमृतत्वमानशुः।' इति। तत्किमिदानीमनुपयोग एव सर्वथेह कर्मणाम् ? तथा च 'विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन' इत्याद्याः श्रुतयो विरुध्येरन्। न, आरादुपकारकत्वात्कर्मणां यज्ञा- दीनाम्। तथा हि-तमेतमात्मानं वेदानुवचनेन नित्यस्वाध्यायेन, ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति, वेदितु- मिच्छन्ति, न तु विदन्ति। वस्तुतः प्रधानस्यापि वेदनस्य प्रकृत्यर्थतया शब्दतो गुणत्वात्, इच्छायाश्च प्रत्ययार्थतया प्राधान्यात्, प्रधानेन च कार्यसंप्रत्य-

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 83

respect of a human being who directs himself to a forbidden act. Hence, even he, who has apprehended the truth about Brahman with faith, as much as he who is bound in the migratory cycle, incurs sin by acting in transgression of prohibitions; therefore, there is not the acceptance of a doctrine involving the transgression of the law. Hence, contemplation does not require ritual in respect of its effect. Hence too (it is) not (required) even in respect of the origination of contemplation; (for), it has been said that there is no eligibility for ritual after the generation of indubitable knowledge through verbal testimony. Thus too Soripture says: "Not by ritual nor by off-spring nor by wealth, but by renunciation alone do they enjoy immortality."7" Are these rites then entirely without any use here? Then would texts like "They seek to know by sacrifice" be contradicted. No (we reply), for, rites like sacri- fice are remote auxiliaries. It is thus: that self, by study of the Veda, i.e., by constant study of one's own Veda, the brahmins seek to know, i.e., they desire to know, not that they do know. Though in fact know- ledge is primary (as compared with the desire therefor), yet, since in the word, it is the meaning of the stem (as compared with the suffix), it is subsidiary, while desire, being the meaning of the suffix, is primary; and activity relates to what is primary. When one says "Bring the king's man," one does not, verily, bring the king, who,

84 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

though primary in fact, is yet subsidiary in the word, as the qualification of "man," but that which is primary in the word, i.e., the man himself. Thus, of sacrifice, as of the study of the Veda, there is prescription as the means to desire. So too of the austerity, which consists in not eating. Not eating as and how one desires, that alone is austerity. He who eats what is good and pure in modera- tion, in him indeed, there is desire to know Brahman, not in one who never eats, as the latter will but die. Nor does austerity consist in the observance of fasts like the Candrayana since, for that kind of person, disturbance of the equilibrium of humours will result. The obligatory rites purify the person by destroying sins (already) incurred. Thus too Soripture says: "He, verily, is the atmayajin (one who pleases the self) who knows 'by this is purified this part (body) of mine, by this is my body made to grow.'"/1 The words "by this" rofer to the sacrifice etc. of the context. The traditional Code too says: "He for whom there have been these forty and eight purificatory ceremonies (sacrifice being included among them)." The following Atharvana text too shows the rise of knowledge, only in that ignorant person of purified intellect in whom the desire to know has arisen through the attrition of impurities by the observance of rites, obligatory and occasioned: "Being of purified intellect, he, then, sees the partless (Brahman) through con- templation."" The traditional Code too says: "Knowledge arises in persons from the consumption of sin through

जिज्ञासा ८४ यात्। न हि 'राजपुरुषमानय' इत्युक्ते वस्तुतः प्रधानोऽपि राजा पुरुषविशेषणतया शब्दत उपसर्जन आनीयते, अपि तु पुरुष एव, शब्दतस्तरय प्राधान्यात्। एवं वेदानुवचनस्येव यज्ञस्यापीच्छासाधनतया विधानम्। एवं तप- सोऽनाशकस्य। कामानशनमेव तपः, हितमित- मेव्याशिनो हि ब्रह्मणि विविदिषा भवति, न तु सर्वथा अनश्नतः, मरणात्। नापि चान्द्राय- णादि तपः, तच्छीलस्य धातुवैषम्यापत्तेः । एतानि च नित्यानि उपात्तदुरितनिबर्हणेन पुरुषं संस्कुर्वन्ति। तथा च श्रुतिः-'स ह वा आत्मयाजी यो वेद इदं मेऽनेनाङ्गं संस्क्रियत इदं मेडनेनाङ्गमुपधीयते' इति। अनेनेति प्रकृतं यज्ञादि परामृशति। स्मृतिश्र-'यस्यैतेऽष्टा- चत्वारिंशत्संस्काराः' इति। नित्यनैमित्तिकानुष्ठान- प्रक्षीणकल्मषस्य च विशुद्धसत्त्वस्याविदुष एव उत्पन्नविविदिषस्य ज्ञानोत्पत्ति दर्शयत्याथर्वणी श्रुति :- विशुद्धसत्त्व- स्ततस्तु तं पश्यति निष्कलं ध्यायमानः' इति। 22

८५ जिज्ञासा

स्मृतिश्र 'ज्ञानमुत्पद्यते पुंसां क्षयात्पापस्य कर्मणः' इत्यादिका। क्लप्तेनैव च नित्यानां कर्मणां नित्येहितेनोपात्तदुरितनिबर्हणेन पुरुषसंस्कारेण ज्ञा- नोत्पत्तावङ्गभावोपपत्तौ न संयोगपृथक्त्वेन साक्षा- दङ्गभावो युक्त:, कल्पनागौरवापत्तेः । तथाहि- नित्यकर्मणामनुष्ठानाड्धर्मोत्पादः, ततः पाप्मा निवर्तते ; स हि अनित्याशुचिदुःखरूपे संसारे नित्यशुचिसुखख्यातिलक्षणेन विपर्यासेन चित्तसत्त्वं मलिनयति ; अतः पापनिवृत्तौ प्रत्यक्षोपपत्ति- द्वारापावरणे सति प्रत्यक्षोपपत्तिभ्यां संसारस्य अनित्याशुचिदु:स्वरूपत्वमप्रत्यूहमवबुध्यते ; ततोऽस्य अस्मिन्ननभिरतिसंज्ञं वैराग्यमुपजायते; ततस्तज्जिहा- सोपावर्तते ; ततो हानोपायं पर्येषते ; पर्येषमाण- श्रात्मतत्त्वज्ञानमस्योपाय इत्युपश्रुत्य तज्जिज्ञासते ; ततः श्रवणादिक्रमेण तज्जानातीत्यारादुपकारकत्वं तत्त्वज्ञानोत्पादं प्रति चित्तसत्त्वशुद्धया कर्मणां युक्तम्। इममेवार्थमनुवदति भगवद्गीता- 'आरुरक्षोर्मुनेर्योंगं कर्म कारणमुच्यते। योगारूढस्य तस्यैव शमः कारणमुच्यते'॥ इति।

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 85

rites" etc. It is settled that obligatory rites destroy incurred sin and thereby purify the person; when the subsidiariness of obligatory rites to the generation of know- ledge is thus intelligible, it is not proper to make out direct subsidiariness by the principle of two-in-oneness, as that would lead to prolixity of assumptions. It is thus: from the observance of obligatory rites merit is generated; thence sin ceases; it is that (sin) which makes impure the sattva, i.e., the intellect, through errors of the nature of the cognition of eternity, purity, pleasure eto., in the migratory cycle, which by nature is transient, impure and miserable; hence, on the cessation of sin, the door of perception and reasoning being opened, one knows unhindered the impermanence, impurity and misery of the migratory cycle, through perception and inference; thence arises renunciation consisting in non-attachment thereto; thence grows the desire to remove it; thence one seeks the means to remove it; hearing that knowledge of the true nature of the self is the means to be sought, one desires to know that; thence, in the order of hearing (study) etc., one knows it. Thus, it stands to reason that rites are remote auxiliaries in respect of the genera- tion of knowledge, through the purification of sattva, i.e., the intellect. This same sense is repeated in the Bhagavadgita "For the silent one who wants to achieve yoga, ritual is said to be the cause; for him who has achieved yoga, equanimity is said to be the

86 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

This being so, he, who, though not performing rites, is yet of purified intellect, because of rites performed in a prior existence, and has non-attachment generated in him through the realisation of the essential worthlessness of the migratory cycle, for him there is no need for the observance of ritual which serves to bring about non-attach- ment, that having resulted even through the observance of ritual in a prior existence. It is with reference to such foremost among men that Scripture sets out: "Or, if other- wise, let him renounce even from the student's order of life."" That is here said: "even prior" to the knowledge of ritual "desire to know Brahman is intelligible in respect of one who has studied the Vedanta." Hence it is, that for one in the student's order of life, there are no obligations for the discharge of which rites would have to be performed. In conformity with this, the statement "He who is born a brahmin is born with three obligations" should be explained as relating to those who become house-holders. Otherwise the Scripture "Or, if otherwise, from the student's order of life" would be contradicted. The discharge of obligations, even by the house.holder, is only for the purification of the intellect. The statements about what is prescribed when one dies of old age, about being reduced to ashes and about the final rite (antyesti)75 relate to those ignorant ones who are inertly fixed in the observance of ritual, not to those learned ones who know the true self. Hence, the word atha connotes immediate succession to that, in the absence of which

जिज्ञासा ८६

एवं च अननुष्ठितकर्मापि प्राग्भवीयकर्मवशात् यो विशुद्धसत्त्व: संसारासारतादर्शनेन निष्पन्नवैराग्यः, कृतं तस्य कर्मानुष्ठानेन वैराग्योत्पादोपयोगिना, प्राग्- भवीयकर्मानुष्ठानादेव तत्सिद्धेः । इममेव च पुरुषधौरेयभेदमधिकृत्य प्रववृते श्रुति :- 'यदि वेतरथा ब्रह्मचर्यादेव प्रव्रजेत्' इति। तदिदमुक्तम्, कर्मावबोधात्, प्रागप्यधीतवे- दान्तस्य ब्रह्मजिज्ञासोपपत्तेरिति। अत एव न ब्रह्मचारिण ऋणानि सन्ति येन तद्पाकरणार्थ कर्मानुतिष्ठेत्। एतदनुरोघाच्च 'जायमानो वै ब्राह्मणस्त्रिभिर्ऋणवा जायते' इति गृहस्थः संपद्यमान इति व्याख्येयम्। अन्यथा 'यदि वेतरथा ब्रह्मचर्यादेव' इति श्रुतिर्विरुध्येत। गृहस्थस्यापि च ऋणापाकरणं सत्त्वशुद्धयर्थमेव। जरामर्यवादो भस्मान्ततावादोऽन्त्येष्टयश्च कर्म- जडानविदुषः प्रति, न त्वात्मतत्त्वविदः पण्डितान्। तस्मात्तस्यानन्तर्यमथशब्दार्थ: यद्विना ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा न भवति यस्मिंस्तु सति भवन्ती भवत्येव।

८७ जिज्ञासा

न चेत्थं कर्मावबोधः । तस्मान्न कर्मावबोधा- नन्तर्यमत्राथशब्दार्थ इति सर्वमवदातम्। स्यादेतत्। मा भूदभिहोत्रयवागूपाकवदार्थः कमः; श्रौतस्तु भविष्यति; 'गृही भूत्वा वनी भवेत् वनी भूत्वा प्रव्जेत्' इति जाबालश्रुतिर्गार्हस्थ्येन हि यज्ञाद्यनुष्ठानं सूचयति। स्मरन्ति च- 'अधीत्य विधिवद्वेदान्पुत्रांश्रोत्पाद्य धर्मतः । इष्टा च शक्तितो यज्ञैर्मनो मोक्षे निवेशयेत्॥' इति। निन्दन्ति च- 'अनधीत्य द्विजो वेदाननुत्पाद्य तथात्मजान्। अनिष्टा चैव यज्ञैश्च मोक्षमिच्छन्त्रजत्यधः'॥ इति ; आह-यथा च हृदयाद्यवदाना- नामानन्तर्यनियम: । कुतः? 'हृदयस्याग्रेऽवद्यति अथ जिह्वाया अथ वक्षसः' इत्यथाग्रशब्दाभ्यां कमस्य विवक्षितत्वात्। न तथेह क्रमो विवक्षितः, श्रुत्या तयैवानन्तरमनियमस्य दर्शितत्वात्, 'यदि वेतरथा ब्रह्मचर्यादेव प्रव्रजेद्गहाद्वा वनाद्वा' इति। एतावता हि वैराग्यमुपलक्षयति।

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 87

there would be no desire to know Brahman, and in the presence of which that (desire) certainly becomes existent. Nor is knowledge of ritual of this nature. It is, therefore, clear that the word atha does not here signify immediate succession to the knowledge of ritual. Be this so. Let it not be that any sequence is settled by the sense (artha), as in the performance of the aynihotra and the preparation of the barley-gruel (therefor); but there is a sequence settled by direct statement (sruti ; here, the -ktva suffix); the following Jubala text "having become a house-holder, one is to become a forest-dweller; having become a forest-dweller, one is to renounce," verily, indicates the observance of sacrifice etc., by the term "house-hoider". There is also the traditional Code (to this effect): "Having studied the Vedas according to rule, having procreated sons in the manner laid down by Religious Duty, having performed sacrifices to the best of one's ability, one is to set one's mind on release." There are also words of censure like: "The twice-born one who, without having studied the Vedas, procreated progeny and offered up sacrifices, desires reiease goes down below." (To this the commentator) says: "And there is the rule of immediate succession in respect of the cutting of the heart" etc. Whence (is this rule) ? (The text reads) : "One should cut the heart first, then the tongue, then the sides." Here, the sequence is intended to be declared by the words first and then. No such sequence is intended to be declared in the present case, for, the absence of a rule (of succession) is shown later, even by the same Scriptural text: "Or, if otherwise, one is to renounce even from the student's order of life or from the householder's or from the forest-dweller's." By all this,

88 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

nonattachment is indicated (as essential). Hence it is that Scripture says : "The day on which there is non-attachment, that very day one is to renounce." The words of censure have in view the person of impure intellect. He of impure intellect desiring release but not setting about the means thereto, because of laziness, verily, fails to observe even the obligatory and occasioned rites characteristic of the house-holder's life, and goes on the downward path with his (load of) sin increasing every instant; this is the

sense. Be this so. Let it be that there is no sequence either by direct statement or by sense; why should there not be a sequence authorised by the text (patha), the position (sthana) the principal (mukhya) or procedure (pravrtti) ?7 To this he says: "for, there is no authority for the relation- ship of subsidiary and principal." Between subsidiaries, like the samit sacrifice, and principal rites, like the agneja, which are known to contribute towards a single result," which are defined by a single result, which are comprehended by a single procedural text," which are to be performed by a single eligible person, and which are related to the same period-full or new moon, sequence results of necessity, because of the impossibility of their simultaneous performance; and since it. is necessary to determine the particular kind of sequence, text, (position) etc. are capable of fixing the variety thereof. Where, however, there is no reiationship of subsidiary and principal, nor even definition by a single eligible person, as in the case of the saurya, aryamana, prujapatya and other such rites, there is no need for any particular sequence ; and, hence, text etc. are of no authority as fixing a narticular sequence. though some (Darticular seanence) is

जिज्ञासा

अत एव 'यदहरेव विरजेत्तदहरेव प्रव्रजेत्' इति श्रुतिः। निन्दावचनं च अविशुद्धसत्त्व- पुरुषाभिप्रायम्। अविशुद्धसत्त्वो हि मोक्ष- मिच्छज्ञालस्यात्तदुपाये ऽपवर्तमानो गृहस्थधर्ममपि नित्यनैमित्तिकमनाचरन्प्रतिक्षणमुपचीयमानपाप्मा अ- धोगतिं गच्छतीत्यर्थः । स्यादेतत्। मा भूच्छ्रौत आर्थो वा क्रमः; पाठ- स्थानमुख्यप्रवृत्तिप्रमाणकस्तु करमान्न भवतीत्यत आह-शेषशेषित्वे प्रमाणाभावात्। शेषाणां समिदादीनां शेषिणां चाेयादीनां एकफलवदुपकारो- पनिबद्धानां एकफलावच्छिन्नानाम् एकप्रयोगवचनोप- गृहीतानाम् एकाधिकारिकर्तृकाणां एकपौर्णमारयमा- वास्याकालसंबद्धानां युगपदनुष्ठानाशक्ते:, सामर्थ्या- त्क्रमप्राप्तौ तद्विशेषापेक्षायां पाठादयस्तन्वेदनियमाय प्रभवन्ति। यत्र तु न शेषशेषिभावः नाप्येकाघिका- रावच्छेद: यथा सौर्यार्यम्णप्राजापत्यादीनाम्, तत्र क्रमभेदापेक्षाभावान्न पाठादिः क्रमविशेषनियमे प्रमाणम्, अवर्जनीयतया तस्य तत्रावगतत्वात्।

28

८९ जिज्ञासा

न चेह धर्मब्रह्मजिज्ञासयोः शेषशेषिभावे श्रुत्यादीनामन्यतमं प्रमाणमस्तीति। ननु शेषशेषिभावाभावेऽपि क्रमनियमो दृष्टः यथा गोदोहनस्य पुरुषार्थस्य दार्शपौर्णमासिकैरङ्गैः सह, यथा वा 'दर्शपूर्णमासाभ्यामिष्टा सोमेन यजेत' इति दर्शपूर्णमाससोमयोरशेषशेषिणोरित्यत आह- अधिकृताधिकारे वा प्रमाणाभावात्-इति योजना। स्वर्गकामस्य हि दर्शपूर्णमासाधिकृतस्य पशुकामस्य सतो दर्शपूर्णमासकत्वर्थाप्प्रणयनाश्रिते गोदोहने अधिकारः। नो खलु गोदोहन- द्रव्यमव्याप्रियमाणं साक्षात्पशून् भावयितुमर्हति। न च व्यापारान्तराविष्टं श्रूयते यतस्तदङ्गकममतिप- तेत् ; अप्प्रणयनाश्रितं तु प्रतीयते, 'चमसेनापः प्रणयेद्रोदोहनेन पशुकामस्य' इति समभिव्याहा- रात्, योग्यत्वाच्चारयापां प्रणयनं प्रति। तस्मात्क्त्व- र्थाप्प्रणयनाश्रितत्वाद्रोदोहनस्य तत्रमेण पुरुषार्थमपि गोदोहनं क्रमवदिति सिद्धम्। श्रुतिनिराकरणेनैव इष्टिसोमक्मवदपि क्रमोऽपास्तो वेदितव्यः ।

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 89

unavoidably understood (because of the impossibility of pronouncing all three at the same time). Nor is there any authority such as direct statement or the like for a relationship of subsidiary and principal, as between the desire to know Religious Duty and the desire to know Brahman. Now, there is seen a rule of sequence, even where there is no relationship of subsidiary and principal, as in the case of the milk-pail (godohana), which secures a human goal,"9 in relation to the subsidiaries of the darsapūrņamāsa sacrifice, or as in the case of the darsapurnamasa and the soma sacrifice mentioned in "Having performed the darsapurņamosa, one should perform the soma sacrifice," which do not stand in the relationship of subsidiary and principal. To this he says: since there is no authority even for the relationship "of eligibility of the person (already) eligible": this is the construction. It is for the person who, as desiring heaven, is eligible for the darsapurņamāsa, that, as desiring cattle, there is eligibility for the milk-pail in connection with the water-sprink- ling, a subsidiary of the darsapurnamasa rite. The milk- pail is not, indeed, capable of producing cattle directly without operating in some way. Nor is there Scriptural mention of its entering into any other operation, in which case it would fall outside the order of subsidiaries of that (darsapurņamasa). It does, however, appear as dependent on the water-sprinkling rite, because of its contiguity thereto in "With a cup one is to sprinkle water; with the milk-pail, one who desires cattle," and because of the suitability of that for the sprinkling of water. Hence, because of the dependence of the milk-pail on the water- sprinkling, which is a subsidiary to the sacrifice, it is

90 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

There is also difference in the fruit and the object of the desire to know. Prosperity is the fruit of the knowledge of Religious Duty, and it depends on obser- vance; but the knowledge of Brahman has beatitude as its fruit; and it does not depend on any other

concluded that, though contributory (only) to a human goal, it belongs to a sequence, through the sequence of that (subsidiary). Such sequence as exists between the soma (sacrifice) and the isti (darsapurnamasa) should be known to have been refuted (in its àpplication to the present case), even by the refutation of direct statement.80 Even if the relationship of subsidiary and princi- pal or the eligibility of the person eligible be absent, sequence may be intended, when defined by the same result, as among the six sacrificial rites-agneya eto.,-all defined by the one end, attainment of heaven; or, if Religious Duty be a part of the Brahman desired to be known, then, just as sequence is intended among the four chapters of the Brahma-sutras, each of which treats of some aspect of the Brahman taught in all the four, which are mutually related by the non-difference of that which is desired to be known, even so, here too, sequence may be intended as between the desires to know Religious Duty and Brahman, because of being objects of a single desire to know. And neither of these (conditions) is here present; thus he says: There is also difference in the fruit and the object of the desire to know." He analyses the difference in the fruit: "Prosperity is the fruit of the knowledge of Religious Duty." Since the desire to know is in fact dependent on knowledge (as its content), the

जिज्वासा ९०

फलजिज्ञास्यभेदाच्च। अभ्युदयफलं धर्म- ज्ञानम्, तच्चानुष्ठानापेक्षम्; निःश्रेयसफलं तु ब्रह्मज्ञानम्, न चानुष्ठानान्तरापेक्षम्।

शेषशेषित्वाधिकृताधिकाराभावेऽपि क्रमो वि- वक्ष्येत यद्येकफलावच्छेदो भवेत्, यथामेया- दीनां षण्णामेकस्वर्गफलावच्छिन्नानाम् ; यदि वा जिज्ञास्यब्रह्मणः अंशो धर्मः स्यात्, यथा चतुर्लक्षणीव्युत्पाद्यं ब्रह्म केनचित्केनचिदंशेनैकेन लक्षणेन व्युत्पाद्यते, तत्र चतुर्णा लक्षणानां जिज्ञास्याभेदेन परस्परसंबन्धे सति क्रमो विवक्षितः, तथेहाप्येकजिज्ञार्यतया धर्मव्रह्म- जिज्ञासयोः क्रमो विवक्ष्येत; न चैतदुभय- मप्यसतीत्याह-फलजिज्ञास्यभेदाच्च। फलभेदं विभजते-अभ्युदयफलं धर्मज्ञानम् इति। जिज्ञासाया वस्तुतो ज्ञानतन्त्रत्वात् ज्ञानफलं जिज्ञासा- फलमिति भावः । न केवलं स्वरूपतः फलभेदः,

९१ जिज्ञासा

भव्यश्च धर्मो जिज्ञास्यो न ज्ञानकालेऽस्ति, पुरुषव्यापारतन्त्रत्वात्। इह तु भूतं ब्रह्म जिज्ञास्यं नित्यवृत्तत्वान्न पुरुषव्यापारतन्त्रम्। चोदनाप्रवृत्तिभेदाच्च। या हि चोदना धर्मस्य लक्षणम, सा स्विषये नियुआ्जानैव पुरुषमवबोधयति। ब्रह्मचोदना तु पुरुष- मवबोधयत्येव केवलम ; अवबोधस्य चोद- नाजन्यत्वान्न पुरुषोऽवबोधे नियुज्यते। यथा अक्षार्थसंनिकर्षेणार्थावबोधे, तद्वत्।

तदुत्पादनप्रकारभेदादपि त्ेद इत्याह-तञ्चा- नुष्ठानापेक्षम्। व्रह्मज्ञानं च नानुष्ठानान्तरा- पेक्षम्। शाब्दज्ञानाभ्यासान्नानुष्ठानान्तरमपेक्षते, नित्यनैमित्तिककर्मानुष्ठानसहभावरय अपास्तत्वात्- इति भाव: । जिज्ञास्यभेदमात्यन्तिकमाह-भव्यश्च धर्म इति। भविता भव्यः; कर्तरि कृत्यः ।

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 91

observance. Religious Duty, the object of the desire to know, has to come into existence, and does not exist at the time of knowing, because it is dependent on the activity of the person. But here the object of the desire to know is the existent Brahman, which, being eternally existent, does not depend on human activity. There is also difference in the operation of the text. That text, which defines Religious Duty, instructs a person only by engaging him in an activity. The text dealing with Brahman, however, merely instructs the person; since the know- ledge is to be produced from the text, the person is not directed (to activity) in respect of knowledge. As in the case of the knowledge of an object produced from the contact of the sense-organ with the object, so (is it here).

words "fruit of knowledge" mean "fruit of the desire to know ": that is the idea. Nor is the difference of fruit one of nature alone; there is difference even in the way in which they are brought about; hence he says:"and it depends on observance." The knowledge of Brahman does not need any other observance, except the continued repeti- tion of knowledge from verbal testimony, for, the co-pre- sence of rites, obligatory or occasioned, has already been refuted : this is the idea. He states the wholesale difference in the objects de- sired to be known: "Religious Duty ... has to come into existence" eto. Bhavyah is "what has to come into existence"; the krtya termination signifies the agent (of the action),91

92 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

What comes into existence has to be brought about by the operation of an operator, is dependent on that, and is hence non-existent prior to that, i.e., when it is known What exists is true; it is invariably real, not unreal at any time; this is the meaning. The difference between the objects desired to be known is not merely because of their nature, but also because of differences in the operation of the respective means which convey knowledge of them. Thus, he says: "There is also a difference in the operation of the text." The term codana here signifies Scriptural text (not merely an injunctive text), the general being secondarily implied by what denotes the particular. He analyses the difference in operation thus: "That text which defines Religious Duty" etc. In Scripture, which is of non-human origin, there is no room for commands etc., which are expressions of diffe- rent forms of the human will; hence codana here means teaching. Hence it is said "The means of knowing that (dharma) is teaching."" And that (teaching) relates to bhavand, i.e., human operations that are taught by itself, and also to the content thereof, i.e., sacrifice etc .; sacrifice etc. are the content of bhavand, since the opera- tion consisting in effort is determined in dependence on that (sacrifice etc.), and since the word vişaya (content) is derived from the root sin, to bind (so that the content is what the effort is bound to). (Scripture) makes known Religious Duty such as sacrifice etc., only as directing a person to them as means subserving his desires, through making known that operations and, through their channel, sacrifices are instrumental to what is desired ; not otherwise (does Scripture function). The teaching about Brahman, however, merely instructs the person, but does not instruct him as directing him to activity. Why ?

जिज्ञासा ९२

भविता च भावकव्यापारनिर्वर्त्यतया तत्तन्त्र इति ततः प्राग्ज्ञानकाले नास्तीत्यर्थः । भूतम्, सत्यम् ; सदेकान्ततः, न कदाचिदस- दित्यर्थः। न केवलं स्वरूपतो जिज्ञास्ययोर्भेदः, ज्ञापकप्रमाणप्रवृत्तिभेदादपि भेद इत्याह- चोदनाप्रवृत्तिभेदाञ्च। चोदनेति वैदिकं शब्दमाह, विशेषेण सामान्यस्य लक्षणात्। प्रवृत्तिभेदं विभजते-या हि चोदना धर्मस्य इति। आज्ञादीनां पुरुषाभिप्रायभेदानामसंभवात् अपौरुषेये वेदे चोदनोपदेशः । अत एवोक्तम्- 'तस्य ज्ञानमुपदेशः' इति। सा च रवसाध्ये पुरुषव्यापारे भावनायां तद्विषये च यागादौ ; स हि भावनाविषयः, तदधीननिरूपणत्वात् प्रयत्नस्य भावनायाः, 'षिञ् बन्धने' इत्यस्मात् घातोर्विषयपदव्युत्पत्तेः। भावनायारतद्द्वारेण च यागादेरपेक्षितोपायतामवगमयन्ती तत्नेच्छोपहारमुखेण पुरुषं नियुञ्जानैव यागादिधर्ममवबोधयति नान्यथा। ब्रह्मचोदना तु पुरुषमवबोधयत्येव केवलं न तु

24

९३ जिज्ञासा

प्रवर्तयन्त्यवबोधयति। कुतः ? अवबोधस्य प्रवृत्ति- रहितस्य चोदनाजन्यत्वात्। ननु 'आत्मा ज्ञातव्यः' इत्येतद्विधिपरैर्वेदान्तैः तदेक्वाक्यतयावबोधे प्रवर्तयन्भिरेव पुरुषो ब्रह्माव- बोध्यत इति समानत्वं धर्मचोदनाभिर्ब्ह्मचोदनाना- मित्यत आह-न पुरुषोऽवबोधे नियुज्यते॥ अयमभिसंधि :- न तावद्वह्मसाक्षात्कारे पुरुषो नियोक्तव्यः, तस्य ब्रह्मस्वाभाव्येन नित्यत्वात् अकार्यत्वात्। नाप्युपासनायाम्, तस्या अपि ज्ञानप्रकर्षे हेतुभावस्यान्वयव्यतिरेकसिद्धतया प्राप्त- त्वेनाविधेयत्वात्। नापि शाब्दबोधे, तस्याप्य- धीतवेदस्य पुरुषस्य विदितपदतदर्थस्य समधि- गतशाब्दन्यायतत्त्वस्याप्रत्यूहमुत्पत्तेः । अत्रैव दृष्टा- न्तमाह-यथाक्षार्थ इति। दार्ष्टान्तिके योज- यति-तद्वत् इति। अपि चात्मज्ञानविधिपरेषु वेदान्तेषु नात्मतत्त्वविनिश्चयः शाब्दः स्यात् । न हि तदा आत्मतत्त्वपरास्ते, किं तु तज्ज्ञान- विधिपराः, यतपराश्च ते त एव तेषामर्थाः ।

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 93

Because knowledge free from the direction to activity is produced by the teaching. Now, it may be said: a person is taught Brahman by Vedanta texts like "The self is to be known,"b which purport to be injunctive, only by directing him to the knowing activity, because of syntactical unity with that (apparently injunctive text); hence, there is similarity of the teaching of Brahman to the teaching of Religious Duty. To this he says: "the person is not directed (to activity) in respect of the knowledge." This is what is intended : a person is not to be directed (to activity) in respect of the intuition of Brahman, for, that, being of the nature of Brahman, is eternal and not to be produced; nor in respect of contemplation, for, that being established, through observation of co-presence and co-absence, to be the causo of excellence in knowledge, cannot be the object of an injunction; nor in respect of knowledge through verbal testimony, since that too arises unhindered in him who has studied the Vedas, knows the words and their senses, and understands the true principles governing knowledge gained through verbal testimony. As an example of this same he says : "as in the case of the knowledge of an object produced from the contact of the sense organ with the object." He links up what is illustrated, in the words:" so (is it here)." Further, in those Vedanta texts, whose purport is to enjoin knowledge of the self, the ascertainment of the true nature of the self cannot be knowledge gained from verbal testimony; for, their purport would then be not the true nature of the self, but injunctions to the knowledge thereof. That which is their purport, that, verily, is

94 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

Therefore, something has to be stated, in immediate succession to which the desire to know Brahman is taught. This is the statement: discrimination of things eternal and non-eternal; non-attachment to the enjoyment of fruit here or hereafter; possession in abundance of calmness, equanimity and other such means; and desire for release. Where, indeed, these exist, even prior to a desire to know Religious Duty, and after that too, it is possible to desire to know Brahman and also to know; not in their absence. Therefore, by the word "then" is taught "immediate succession" to possession in abundance of the means stated before,

their significance. Nor does ascertainment of the true nature of what is taught result even from that, the purport of which is something else, on the ground that knowledge depends on what is known and stands in need of it; for, this (dependence) is intelligible even through super- imposition (i.e., the knowledge need not be of the true nature of what is known). Hence it is settled that the Vedanta has not for purport an injunction to knowledge. The present topic is concluded thus : "Therefore, some- thing has to be stated" etc. That in the absence of which there would be no desire to know Brahman, that in the presence of which, however, that (desire) becomes certainly existent : this is the sense. He states it thus : "This is tho statement: discrimination of things eternal and non-eternal" etc. The eternal, i.e., the inner self ; the non-eternal, i.e., the body, organs, objects eto. If discrimination relating to these

जिज्ञासा ९४

तस्मात्किमपि वक्तव्यम्, यदनन्तरं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासोपदिश्यत इति। उच्यते- नित्यानित्यवस्तुविवेकः, इहामुत्रार्थभोगवि- रागः, शमदमादिसाधनसंपत्, मुमुश्षुत्वं च। तेषु हि सत्सु, प्रागपि धर्मजिज्ञासाया ऊर्ध्वं च शक्यते ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितुं ज्ञातुं च; न विपर्यये। तम्मात् अथशब्देन यथोक्त- साधनसंपत्त्यानन्तर्यमुपदिश्यते॥

न च बोधस्य बोध्यनिष्ठत्वादपेक्षितत्वात्, अन्यपरेभ्योऽपि बोध्यतत्त्वविनिश्चयः, समारोपेणापि तदुपपत्तेः। तस्मान्न बोधविधिपरा वेदान्ता इति सिद्धम्। प्रकृतमुपसंहरति-तस्मात्किमपि वक्तव्यम् इति। यस्मिन्नसति ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा न भवति सति तु भवन्ती भवत्येवेत्यर्थः। तदाह- उच्यते-नित्यानित्यवस्तुविवेक इत्यादि। नित्यः प्रत्यगात्मा, अनित्याः देहेन्द्रियविषया- दयः। तद्विषयश्रेद्विवेको निश्चयः, कृतमस्य

९५ जिज्ञासा

ब्रह्मजिज्ञासया, ज्ञातत्वाद्वह्मणः । अथ विवेको ज्ञानमात्रम्, न निश्चयः ; तथा सति एष विपर्यासादन्यः संशयः स्यात् ; तथा च न वैराग्यं भावयेत् ; अभावयन्कथं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा- हेतुः? तस्मादेवं व्याख्येयम्। नित्यानित्य- योर्वसतीति नित्यानित्यवस्तु तड्डर्म: ; नित्या- नित्ययोर्धर्मिणोस्तद्धर्माणां च विवेको नित्या- नित्यतस्तुविवेकः । एतदुक्तं भवति-मा भूत् इदं ऋतं नित्यम्, इदं तदनृतमनित्यमिति धर्मि- विशेषयोर्विवेक: ; धर्मिमात्रयोर्नित्यानित्ययोर्तद्धर्म- योश्र विवेकं निश्चिनोत्येव। नित्यत्वं सत्यत्वं तद्यस्यारित तन्नित्यं सत्यम् ; तथा चास्थागोचरः । अनित्यत्वमसत्यत्वं तद्यस्यारित तदनित्यमनृतम् ; तथा चानास्थागोचरः। तदेतेष्वनुभूयमानेषु युष्मदस्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरेषु विषयविषयिषु यद्दतं नित्यं सुखं व्यवस्थास्यते तदास्थागोचरो भविष्यति ; यत्त्वनित्यमनृतं भविष्यति तापत्रयपरीतं तत्त्यक्ष्यत इति सोऽयं नित्यानित्यवसुविवेकः प्राग्भवीया- दैहिकाद्वा कर्मणो विशुद्धसत्त्वस्य भवत्यनुभवोप-

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 95

be of the nature of certitude, Brahman being already known, the desire to know Brahman would be superfluous. Then, let it be that discrimination is bare knowledge, not certitude; that being so, it might be doubt, which is other than (truth and) error; that cannot bring about non-attachment; and not bringing that about, how can that be the cause of the desire to know Brahman? Hence it should be explained thus : as residing in things eternal and non- eternal, "things eternal and non-eternal" means their attributes; "discrimination of things eternal and non- eternal" means the discrimination of the substrates which are eternal and non-eternal, as also of their attributes. This is what is said: there need not be specific discrimina- tive knowledge of different substrates, eternal and non-eternal, in the form "this is true, eternal," "this is untrue, non-eternal"; one does determine certainly the difference between substrates in general, as also between their attributes, as eternal and non-eternal. To be eternal is to be true; that in which this is, that is eternal, true; and thus, it is in the sphere of desire. To be non-eternal is to be untrue; that in which this is, that is non-eternal, untrue; and thus, it is not in the sphere of desire. Of these, which are experienced and constitute the spheres of the concepts "Thou " and "I," the object and the subject, that which is established to be true, eternal and pleasant, that comes in the sphere of desire; that, however, which becomes non-eternal, untrue, encompassed by the three-fold misery, that is to be abandoned; this discrimination of things eternal and non- eternal comes to him whose intellect has been purified by the rites performed whether in a prior existence or in this one, as shown by experience and reasoning. Nor may

96 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

it be said that there is no such thing as truth ; for, in the absence of that, even untruth which has that (truth) as substrate would be unintelligible; further, even for the Nihilists, the Void itself is real. Having thus considered wisely in the light of the experience and reasoning of the fore- most among men, having looked at himself, who with the rest of the animate world goes about migrating, constantly being born and dying," in the worlds from Satyaloka down to Avici, is encompassed by the three kinds of misery and is tossed about helplessly on the waves of the migratory cycle through (all divisions of time from) the instant, the muhurta (about an hour), the yama (three hours), the day, the night, the fortnight, the month, the season (two months), the half-year, the year, the wuga, the period of four yugas, the period of a Manu, the deluge and the great deluge (when even the primal elements are destroyed) up to the period of a principal creation and the intermediate creation, there arises (for him) a contemplation of the impermanence, impurity and miserable nature of this migratory world. From the contemplation arising from this kind of dis- crimination of things eternal and non-eternal, there results for him "non-attachment to the enjoyment of fruit here or here- after". Artha (literally, thing) means that which is sought, that is to say, fruit. Non-attachment thereto is indifference due to the realisation of it as not worthy of enjoyment. Thence "the possession in abundance of calmness, equanimity and other such means." It is, verily, the mind, which is intoxicated with the wine of passion and other impurities, that directs the organs to their respective objects, high and low, brings about various activities and their fruit in the nature of merit and demerit, and offers up the self as an oblation in the fearful fire of migration, which is a mass

जिज्ञासा ९६ पत्तिभ्याम्। न खलु सत्यं नाम न किंचिदस्तीति वाच्यम्। तदभावे तदधिष्ठानस्यानृतस्याप्यनुपपत्तेः, शून्यवादिनामपि शून्यताया एव सत्यत्वात। अथास्य पुरुषधौरेयस्यानुभवोपपत्तिम्यामेवं सुनिपुणं निरूपयतः आ च सत्यलोकात् आ चावीचेः जायस्व म्रियस्व इति विपरिवर्तमानं क्षणमुहूर्तयामाहोरा त्रार्धमासमासर्त्वयनवत्सरयुगचतुर्यु- गमन्वन्तर प्रलयमहा प्रलयमहासर्गावान्तरसर्गसंसारसा- गरोर्मिभिरनिशमुह्यमानं तापत्रयपरीतमात्मानं जीव- लोकं चावलोक्य अस्मिन्संसारमण्डले अनित्या- शुचिदुःखात्मकं प्रसंख्यानमुपावर्तते। ततोऽस्येद्दशान्नित्या नित्यवस्तुविवेकलक्षणात्प्रसं - ख्यानात् इहामुत्रार्थभोगविरागः भवति। अर्थ्यते प्रार्थ्यत इत्यर्थः, फलमिति यावत् । तस्मिन्विरागो नामानाभोगात्मिकोपेक्षाबुद्धिः । ततः शमद- मादिसाधनसंपत्। रागादिकषायमदिरामत्तं हि मनः तेषु तेषु विषयेषूच्चाव चमिन्द्रियाणि प्रवर्तयत् विविधाश्र प्रवृत्तीः पुण्यापुण्यफला भावयत् पुरुषमतिघोरे विविधदुःखज्वालाजटाले संसारहुतभुजि 25

९७ जिज्ञासा

जुहोति। प्रसंख्यानाभ्यासलब्धवैराग्यपरिपाकभग्न- रागादिकषायमदिरामदं तु मनः पुरुषेणावजीयते वशीक्रियते। सोऽयमस्य वैराग्यहेतुको मनोविजयः शम इति वशीकारसंज्ञ इति चाख्यायते। विजितं च मनस्तत्त्वविषयविनियोगयोग्यतां नीयते ; सेयमस्य योग्यता दमः, यथा दान्तोऽयं वृषभयुवा हलशकटादिवहनयोग्यः कृत इति गम्यते। आदि-ग्रहणेन च विषयतितिक्षातदु- परमतत्त्वश्रद्धाः संगृह्यन्ते। अत एव श्रुति :- 'तस्माच्छान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षुः श्रद्धावित्तो भूत्वात्मन्येवात्मानं पश्येत्, सर्वमात्मनि पश्यति' इति। तदेतस्य शमदमादिरूपस्य साधनरय संपत्, प्रकर्ष:, शमदमादिसाधनसंपत्। ततोऽस्य संसारबन्धनान्मुमुक्षा भवतीत्याह-मुमुक्षुत्वं च इति। तस्य च नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावब्रह्मज्ञानं मोक्षस्य कारणमित्युपश्रुत्य तज्जिज्ञासा भवति धर्मजिज्ञासायाः प्रागूर्ध्व च; तस्मात्तेषामेवा- नन्तर्य न धर्मजिज्ञासाया इत्याह-तेषु हि इति। न केवलं जिज्ञासामात्रम्, अपि तु ज्ञान-

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 97

of the flames of manifold miseries. That mind, however, in which the intoxication due to the wine of passion eto., has been put an end to by the perfecting of non-attachment gained by the repetition of the contemplation (mentioned above), is subjugated, i.e., is brought under control by the self. This subjugation of the mind occasioned by non- attachment is called calmness (s'ama) or rasīkara-samjna. And the subjugated mind is made fit for application in respect of truth (i.e., to the investigation of truth); this its capacity is (dama) equanimity, just as it is understood that the calm young bull is made fit to draw a plough, a cart etc. In the "etcetera" (of the commentary) are included desire to abandon (titiksa) objects, turning away (uparati) from them, and faith (sraddha) in the truth. Hence it is that Scripture says: "Hence, having become possessed of calmness, equanimity, turning away (from objects), the desire to abandon (them), and faith, one, seeing the self in the self alone, sees everything in the self."*' Sama-damadi-sudhana-sampat is the possession of these means, calmness, equanimity etc., in an abundant degree. Thence arises the desire in him for release from the bondage to the migratory cycle; hence he says: "and desire for release." For this one, who has heard that the knowledge of the eternally pure, intelligent and free Brahman is the cause of release, there comes the desire to know that even before, and (sometimes) after, the desire to know Religious Duty; hence, the immediate succession is to them alone, not to the desire to know Religious Duty; thus, he says: "when indeed, these" etc. Not

98 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

The word " therefore " signifies the reason. Because in the Veda itself, texts, like "Therefore as here the enjoyment acquired by an act perishes, even so, here- after, the enjoyment acquired through Religious Duty perishes," show that agnihotra etc., which are means to prosperity, have an impermanent fruit; and because it is shown that the supreme goal of man results from the knowledge of Brahman, by texts like "One who knows Brahman attains the supreme"; therefore, in immediate succession to the possession in abundance of the means stated above, there should be the desire to know Brahman.

merely the desire to know, he says, but knowledge itself results therefrom: "and also to know." He concludes: "Therefore" etc. The word "atah" which comes next in order is ex- plained thus: "The word 'therefore' signifies the reason." This same sense of the reason connoted by "therefore" he explains thus: "Because in the Veda itself" etc. Here, it is asked: true, there comes the desire to know Brahman after the possession in abundance of the means declared. But this itself is unintelligible, since non-attachment to the enjoyment of fruit here or hereafter is unintelligible. Fruit, being characterised as the object of desire, is what is known to be advantageous. There cannot be for him non-attachment to that which (itself) causes attachment. If it be said that there is

जिज्ञासा ९८ अतःशब्दो हेत्वर्थः। यस्माद्वेद एव अग्निहोत्रादीनां श्रेयःसाधनानामनित्यफलतां दर्शयति 'तद्यथेह कर्मचितो लोकः क्षीयते एवमेवामुत्र पुण्यचितो लोकः क्षीयते' इत्यादिः; तथा ब्रह्मविज्ञानादपि परं पुरुषार्थं दर्शयति 'ब्रह्मविदान्नोति परम्' इत्यादिः; तस्मात् यथोक्तसाधन- संपत्त्यनन्तरं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा कर्तव्या।

मपीत्याह-ज्ञातुं च। उपसंहरति-तस्मात् इति। क्रमप्राप्तमतःशब्दं व्याचष्टे-अतःशब्दो हेत्वर्थः। तमेवातःशब्दस्य हेतुरूपमर्थमाह- यस्माद्वेद एव इति। अत्रैवं परिचोद्यते- सत्यं यथोकसाधनसंपत्त्यनन्तरं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा भवति। सैव त्वनुपपन्ना, इहामुत्रफलभोगविरागरयानुपपत्तेः । अनुकूलवेदनीयं हि फलम्, इष्टलक्षणत्वात्फ- लस्य। न चानुरागहेतावस्य वैराग्यं भवितु- मर्हति। दुःखानुषङ्गदर्शनात्सुखेऽपि वैराग्यमिति

९९ जिज्ञासा

चेत्, हन्त भोः सुखानुषङ्गाद्दुःखेऽप्यनुरागो न कस्मान्भवति ? तस्मात्सुखे उपादीयमाने दुःखपरिहारे प्रयतितव्यम् ; अवर्जनीयतया दुःख- मागतमपि परिहत्य सुखमात्रं भोक्ष्यते। तद्- था-मत्स्यार्थी सशल्कान्सकण्टकान्मत्स्यानुपादत्ते, स यावदादेयं तावदादाय निवर्तते; यथा वा धान्यार्थी सपलालानि धान्यान्याहरति, स यावदादेयं तावदादाय निवर्तते। तस्माद्दुःख- भयान्नानुकूलवेदनीयमैहिकं वामुष्मिकं वा सुखं परित्यक्तुमुचितम्। न हि मृगाः सन्तीति शालयो नोप्यन्ते, भिक्षुकाः सन्तीति स्थाल्यो नाधिश्रीयन्ते। अपि च दृष्टं सुखं चन्दन- वनितादिसङ्गजन्म क्षयितालक्षणेन दुःखेनाघ्रा- तत्वादतिभीरुणा त्यज्येतापि, न त्वामुष्मिकं स्वर्गादि, तस्याविनाशित्वात्। श्रूयते हि- 'अपाम सोमममृता अभूम ' इति ; तथा च 'अक्षय्यं ह वै चातुर्मास्य- याजिनः सुकृतं भवति' इति। न च कृतकत्वहेतुकं विनाशित्वानुमानमत्र संभवति,

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 99

non-attachment evon to pleasure, because of its association with pain, why, alas, should there not be attachment even to pain, because of its association with pleasure? Hence, one should, in accepting pleasure, endeavour to remedy pain; even if pain should come in unavoidably, it should be remedied and the pleasure alone enjoyed. This is how: he who desires fish brings up the fish along with mosses and thorns, takes what is to be taken and abandons the rest; or, he who desires grain brings the grain with the straw, takes what is to be taken and abandons the rest. Hence, it is not proper to abandon the pleasure here or hereafter which is known to be advan- tageous, because of the fear of pain. Verily, one does not refrain from sowing because there are beasts of the field or from putting the pot on to cook because there are beggars. Further, even though the very timid may give up visible pleasure, because the pleasure from sandal-paste or women is tainted with pain consisting in its decrease (by consumption), that cannot apply to pleasures hereafter such as (enjoyment in) heaven etc., these being imperish- able. Scripture indeed says: "We have drunk soma, we have become immortal"; also "The merit of him who sacrifices with the caturmasya cannot, verily, diminish". Nor can there be an inference here as to destructibility on the ground of (its) being produced, since its content is sublated by revelation, like the inference about the purity

100 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

of the human skull (by analogy with conches etc.) Hence, the possession of the above-mentioned means being non-existent, it follows that there cannot be the desire to know Brahman. To meet this result, the revered aphorist uses the word "therefore"; and its meaning is explained by the commen- tator thus: "Because in the Veda itself" etc. This is what is intended : true, beasts, beggars etc. can be set at nought by agriculturists, cooks etc .; pain, how- ever, which is manifold, produced by various causes, cannot be remedied; for, in the long run, the miseries of being dependent on means (external to oneself) and of diminution are constantly and inseparably attendant on all produced happiness. Not even the best of craftsmen can remove the poison alone from food which is mixed with honey and poison, and eat (the food) in conjunction with the honey alone. In conjunction with the inference as to dimi- nution, the texts like "Therefore, as here the enjoyment acquired by an act" etc.," which declare diminution, bring about a secondary sense for texts like "We have drunk soma" etc., because the primary sense is impossible. As the Pauranikas say: "Permanence till the dissolution of the primal elements is called immortality." And here, by the word brahma the valid means of knowledge thereof, i.e., the Veda, is brought to mind." And, because of suitability, such texts as "Therefore, as here the enjoyment acquired by an act" etc. are referred to by the

जिज्ञासा १००

नरशिरःकपालशौचानुमानवदागमबाधित विषयत्वात्। तस्माद्यथोक्तसाधनसंपत्यभावान्न ब्रह्मजिज्ञासेति प्रा- पम्। एवं प्राप्ते आह भगवान्सूत्रकारः 'अतः' इति ; तस्यार्थ व्याचष्टे भाष्यकार :- यस्माद्वेद एव इति। अयमभिसंधि :- सत्यं मृगभिक्षुकादयः शक्याः परिहर्तु पाचककृषीवलादिभिः ; दुःखं त्वनेक- विधानेककारणसंपातजमशक्यपरिहारम् ; अन्ततः साधनपारतन्त्र्यक्षयितालक्षणयोर्दुःखयोः समस्त- कृतकसुखाविनाभावनियमात्। न हि मधुविष- संपृक्तमन्नं विषं परित्यज्य मधुमिश्रं शक्यं शिल्पिवरेणापि भोक्तुम्। क्षयितानुमानोपोद्दलितं च 'तद्यथेह कर्मचितः' इत्यादिवचनं क्षयिता- प्रतिपादकम्, 'अपाम सोमम्' इत्यादिकं वचनं मुख्यासंभवे जघन्यवृत्तितामापादयति। यथाहुः पौराणिका :- 'आभूतसंप्वं स्थानममृतत्वं हि भाष्यते' इति। अत्र च ब्रह्मपदेन तत्प्रमाणं वेद उपस्थापितः । स च योग्यत्वात् 'तद्यथेह कर्मचितः' इत्यादिः 26

१०१ जिज्ञासा

ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासा ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा। ब्रह्म च वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणम् 'जन्माद्यस्य यतः' इति। अत एव न ब्रह्मशब्दस्य जात्याद्य- र्थान्तरमाशङ्गितव्यम्। ब्रह्मण इति कर्मणि षष्ठी, न शेषे; जिज्ञास्यापेक्षत्वाजिज्ञासायाः,

'अतः' इति सर्वनाम्ना परामृश्य हेतुपञ्चम्या निर्दिश्यते। स्यादेतत्। यथा स्वर्गादेः कृतकस्य सुखस्य दुःखानुषङ्ग: तथा ब्रह्मणोऽपीत्यत आह- तथा ब्रह्मविज्ञानादपि इति। तेनायमर्थ :- अतः स्वर्गादीनां क्षयिताप्रतिपादकात् ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य च परमपुरुषार्थताप्रतिपादकात् आगमात् यथोक्त- साधनसंपत् ; ततश्र जिज्ञासेति सिद्धम् । ब्रह्मजिज्ञासापदव्याख्यानमाह-ब्रह्मण इति। षष्ठीसमासप्रदर्शनेन प्राचां वृत्तिकृतां ब्रह्मणे जिज्ञासा ब्रह्मजिज्ञासेति चतुर्थीसमासः परास्तो वेदितव्यः। 'तादर्थ्यसमासे प्रकृतिविकृतिग्रहणं

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 101

Brahma-jijnisā is desire to know in respect of Brahman. And Brahman is that whose definition will be stated as "That whence for this what begins with origination". For this very reason, for the word "Brahman" there cannot be the doubt of any other meaning like that of caste etc. "Of Brahman" is in the sixth case in the sense of object, not in the residuary sense; because what is desired to be known is needed for the desire to know, and because of the non-designa- tion of anything else as desired to be known.

pronoun "therefore," and indicated as the reason by the fifth case termination (the tas suffix in atah). Be this so. Just as misery is attendant on produced happiness like heaven etc., even so it may be in the case of Brahman. To this he says: " And because it is shown that the supreme goal of man results from the knowledge of Brahman." This is what is meant thereby: therefore, because of revelation, which declares the diminution of (enjoyment in) heaven etc., and the knowledge of Brahman as the supreme human goal, there results the possession of the above-mentioned means in abundance; and thence it is settled there is the desire to know (Brahman). The (compound-) word brahma-jijnasa is thus explained : "Desire to know in respect of Brahman." By showing the compound (to be) of the sixth case, the refutation is to be understood of the explanation of this by earlier com- mentators as a fourth case compound-brahmane jijnasd. For, by the dictum of Katyayana "In the dative compound, both the basic object and the modification should be

102 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

apprehended," it is a rule that there are dative compounds only in respect of a basic object and its modifications, as in the case of wood and the sacrificial stake; where the compounded elements are not related as basic object and modification, that (dative) compound is ruled out; further the possessive compound is clearly laid down in the case of "horse-fodder" etc., in the words "Horse-fodder etc. are sixth case compounds"." Even in the possessive compound, the primacy in fact of Brahman (as compared with the verbal primacy of "the desire to know") is intelligible. Be this so. When it is said "desire to know in res- pect of Brahman," since "Brahman" is used in many senses, there is this doubt: of which Brahman is there this desire to know? The word "Brahman" is used of the brahmin caste, as in brahmahatti (brahminicide), of the Veda, as in brahmojjham (forgetting the Veda once studied), and of the supreme self, as in "He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself". This doubt he removes: "And Brahman is that whose definition will be stated" etc. Since after premising the desire to know Brahman, he defines the supreme self, in order to bring that to mind, we understand that the desire to know mentioned here is the desire to know the supreme self alone, not the brahmin caste etc .; this is the sense. Even accepting the compound to be of the sixth case, it is the sixth case not in the sense of object, but in a resi- duary sense ; since the residuary sense signifies relationship in general, not merely that of being the object, when it is said "desire to know in respect of Brahman," it amounts to saying "desire to know (all) that is connected with

जिज्ञासा १०२

कर्तव्यम्' इति कात्यायनीयवचनेन यूपदार्वादिष्वेव प्रकृतिविकारभूतेषु चतुर्थीसमासनियमात् अप्रकृति- विकारभूते इत्येवमादौ तन्निषेधात्, 'अश्वघासादयः षष्ठीसमासा भविष्यन्ति' इत्यश्रघासादिषु पष्ठी- समासप्रतिविधानात्। षष्ठीसमासेऽपि च ब्रह्मणो वास्तवप्राधान्योपपत्तेरिति । स्यादेतत्। ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासेत्युक्ते तत्राने- कार्थत्वाद्वह्मशब्दस्य संशयः-कस्य ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासा ?- इति। अरिति ब्रह्मशब्दो विप्रत्वजातौ, यथा-ब्रह्महत्येति ; अरि्ति च वेदे, यथा- ब्रह्मोज्झमिति ; अरिति च परमात्मनि, यथा- 'ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति' इति। तमिमं संशयमपाकरोति-ब्रह्म च वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणम् इति। यतो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासां प्रतिज्ञाय तज्ज्ञापनाय परमात्मलक्षणं प्रणयति ततोऽवगच्छामः परमात्म- जिज्ञसैवेयं न विप्रत्वजात्यादिजिज्ञासा, इत्यर्थः । षष्ठीसमासपरिग्रहेऽपि नेयं कर्मषष्ठी, किं तु शेषलक्षणा; संबन्धमात्रं च शेष इति ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासेत्युक्ते ब्रह्मसंबन्धिनी जिज्ञासेत्युक्तं भवति।

१०३ जिज्ञासा

तथा च ब्रह्मस्वरूपप्रमाणयुक्तिसाधनप्रयोजन- जिज्ञासाः सर्वा ब्रह्मजिज्ञासार्था ब्रह्मजिज्ञासयावरुद्धा भवन्ति, साक्षात् पारम्पर्येण वा ब्रह्मसंबन्धात्। कर्मणि षष्ठयां तु ब्रह्मशब्दार्थ: कर्म; स च स्वरूपमेवेति तत्प्रमाणादयो नावरुध्येरन ; तथा चाप्रतिज्ञातार्थचिन्ता प्रमाणादिषु भवेत्-इति ये मन्यन्ते तान्प्रत्याह-ब्रह्मण इति कर्मणि इति। अत्र हेतुमाह-जिज्ञास्य इति। इच्छायाः प्रतिपत्यनुबन्धो ज्ञानम्, ज्ञानस्य च ज्ञेयं ब्रह्म । नो खलु ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं विना निरूप्यते, न च जिज्ञासा ज्ञानं विना, इति प्रतिपत्त्यनुबन्धत्वात् प्रथमं जिज्ञासा कर्मैवापेक्षते, न तु संबन्धिमात्रम्, तदन्तरेणापि सति कर्मणि तन्निरूपणात्। न हि चन्द्रमसमादित्यं वोपलभ्य कस्यायमिति संबन्ध्यन्वेषणा भवति। भवति तु ज्ञानमित्युक्ते विषयान्वेषणा किंविषयमिति। तरमात्प्रथममपेक्षि- तत्वात् कर्मतयैव ब्रह्म संबध्यते, न तु संबन्धितामात्रेण, तस्य जघन्यत्वात्। तथा च कर्मणि षष्ठी, इत्यर्थः ।

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 103

Brahman". Thus, the things that serve the desire to know Brahman, such as the nature of Brahman, the valid means of knowing it, reasoning, the means (of attainment) and the fruit, all signified by the name "desire to know Brahman," are comprehended under the name "desire to know Brahman," since they are related to Brahman directly or indirectly. In the sixth case with the sense of object, however, what is signified by "Brahman" is the object; that is only the nature (of Brahman); and the means of knowledge etc. would not be comprebended; hence, in respect of the means of knowledge etc., the in- quiry would be into what was not premised. To those who think thus, he says: "'Of Brahman' is in the sixth case in the sense of object." He states the reason: "because what is desired to be known is needed for the desire to know." Knowledge is bound up with the attainment of the desire; and for knowledge, what is to be known is Brahman. Knowledge is not, verily, determined in the absence of what is to be known, nor the desire to know in the absence of knowledge; hence, because of being bound up with the attainment (of it), the desire to know primarily needs an object alone, not what is related in general; for, even in the absence of this (latter), that (desire) is determined, when the object exists. Verily, there is not, after seeing the sun or the moon, a search for what is related, in the form "Of what is this"? There is, however, when one says "knowledge", the search for the object, in the form "What is its object?" Hence, because of being primarily needed, Brahman is related as object alone, not as what is related in general, this (sense) being secondary. And thus, (the compound is in) the sixth case with the sense of object; this is the meaning.

104 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

Now, even on the acceptance of the sixth case in the residuary sense, Brahman's being the object of the desire to know is not contradicted; for relationship in general is based on some particular relationship. Even thus, for one who, discarding the direct object- ness of Brahman, assumes indirect objectness through the channel of general relationship, the effort is in vain.

Now, it is true that tha desire to know is not determined in the absence of what is desired to be known; but there may be some other object for this desire, while Brahman may be related to it as a residuary. To this he says: "and because of the non-designation of anything else as desired to be known." With some unrevealed view one asks: "Now, even on the acceptance of the sixth case in the residuary sense" etc .; since relationship in general is not opposed to a particular relationship, and since the determination of the desire to know is intelligible without contradicting (Brahman's) being the object: this is the sense. Himself with an unrevealed view, he criticises: "even thus, for one who discarding the direct objectness of Brahman" etc. Well indeed have you followed the true principles of interpretation in abandoning the relationship of expressed objectness, which is primarily needed by the desire to know, and which is fit to be related primarily, and (adopting) the relationship of what is related in general, which is needed somehow at a later stage, (thus making) the secondary primary and the primary secondary ! The designation (of the relationship) as "direct" and "indirect"

जिझ्ञासा १०४ ननु शेषषष्ठीपरिग्रहेऽपि ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञा- साकर्मत्वं न विरुध्यते; संबन्धसामान्यस्य विशेषनिष्ठत्वात्। एवमपि प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्मणः कर्मत्वमुत्सज्य सामान्यद्वारेण परोक्षं कर्मत्वं कल्पयतो व्यर्थः प्रयासः स्यात् ।

ननु सत्यं न जिज्ञास्यमन्तरेण जिज्ञासा निरूप्यते ; जिज्ञास्यान्तरं त्वस्या भविष्यति ; ब्रह्म तु शेषतया संभन्त्स्यत इत्यत आह- जिज्ञास्यान्तर इति। निगूढाभिप्रायश्चोदयति-ननु शेषषष्ठी- परिग्रहेऽपि इति। सामान्यसंबन्धस्य विशेष- संबन्धाविरोधेन कर्मताया अविघातेन जिज्ञासा- निरूपणोनपत्तेरित्यर्थः । निगूढाभित्राय एव दूष- यति-एत्रमपि प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्मण इति। वाच्यरय कर्मत्वरय जिज्ञासया प्रथममपेक्षितस्य प्रथमसंबन्धार्हस्य चान्वयपरित्यागेन पश्चात्कथंचिद- पेक्षितस्य संबन्धिमात्रस्य संबन्धो, जघन्यः प्रथम: प्रथमश्र जघन्यः, इति सुव्याहृतं 27

१०५ जिज्ञासा

नतु न व्यर्थ:, ब्रह्माश्रिताशेषविचार- प्रतिज्ञानार्थत्वादिति चेत्, न, प्रधानपरि- ग्रहे तदपेक्षितानामप्यर्थाक्षिप्त्वात्। ब्रह्म हि ज्ञानेनाप्तुमिष्टतमत्वात्प्रधानम्। तस्मि- न्प्रधाने जिज्ञासाकर्मणि परिगृहीते, यैर्जि- ज्ञासितैर्विना ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितं न भवति, तान्यथौक्षित्ान्येवेति न पृथक्सूत्रयितव्या- नि। यथा 'राजासौ गच्छति' इत्युक्ते सपरिवारस्य राज्ञो गमनमुक्तं भवति, तद्वत्। श्रुत्यनुगमाच्च। 'यतो वा इमानि

न्यायतत्त्वम्। प्रत्यक्षपरोक्षताभिधानं च प्राथम्या- प्राथम्यसफुटत्वासफुटत्वाभिप्रायम्। चोदकः स्वाभिप्रायमुद्घाटयति-न व्यर्थः ब्रह्माश्रिताशेष इति। व्याख्यातमेतदधस्तात्। समाधाता स्वाभिसंधिमुद्घाटयति-न, प्रधान- परिग्रह इति। वास्तवं प्राधान्यं ब्रह्मणः । शेषं सनिदर्शनमतिरोहितार्थम्। श्रुत्यनुगमश्राति- रोहितः ।

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 105

Now, it is not in vain, since it would have the purpose of premising inquiry into everything, without residue, that is dependent on Brahman; if this be said, no; because on the acceptance of the principal, whatever is dependent on it will be presumptively implied. Brahman, indeed, being what is most desired to be attained by knowledge, is the principal. That principal one, which is the object of the desire to know, being accepted, those things, without a desire to know which there will not be the desire to know Brahman, will certainly be presumptively implied; hence they are not to be separately stated in the aphorism. Just as when it is said, "Here goes the king," wbat is stated is the going of the king along with his retinue, so is it here. And it is so, also because of conformity with Scripture. The Scriptural passages beginning with

(in the commentary) is in the sense of "primary " and "non-primary," "manifest " and " non-manifest ". The objector now reveals his view: "not in vain, since it would have the purpose of premising inquiry into everything, without residue, that is dependent on Brahman." This has been explained above. The respondent too reveals his own view: "no; because on the acceptance of the principal" etc. The principal position belongs, in fact, to Brahman (though it is not so in the sentence). The sense of the rest (of the commentary) along with the illustration is not obscure; the support of Scripture too is not obscure in sense.

106 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

"That whence these beings originate," in the passage, "Desire the knowledge of that; that is Brahman," quite explicitly show that Brahman is the object of the desire to know. And that will conform to the aphorism, if the sixth case is accepted in the sense of object. Therefore, "Of Brahman" is in the sixth case in the sonse of object. Jijnasa is desire to know. The knowledge culminating in realisation is the object of the desire expressed by the san-suffix; because fruit is the content of desire. Indeed, Brahman is the object desired to be realised through valid knowledge. The realisation of Brahman is, indeed, the human goal, because it exterminates evils, Nescience etc., the seeds of all transmigration whatsoever. Therefore Brahman is what is to be desired to be known.

Having thus established the compound (as of the character) acceptable to him, he states the meaning of the word jijnusd: "jijnasa is desire to know." Be this so. Knowledge is not the content of desire. The attainment of happiness or the remedying of misery is, verily, the sphere of desire, or, through these, the means therefor. Knowledge of Brahman is not such. It is not, indeed, experienced as advantageous or as the cessation of what is disadvantageous. Nor is it a means to those two; for, even when that exists, no special happiness is seen, while the misery that continues does not cease. Hence, merely

जिज्ञासा १०६ भूतानि जायन्ते' इत्याद्या: श्रुतयः 'तद्वि- जिज्ञासस्व तद्भह्म' इति प्रत्यक्षमेव ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासाकर्मत्वं दर्शयन्ति। तच्च कर्मणि षष्ठीपरिग्रहे सूत्रेणानुगतं भवति। तस्मा- द्रह्मण इति कर्मणि षष्ठी॥ ज्ञातुमिच्छा जिज्ञासा। अवगतिपर्यन्तं ज्ञानं सन्वाच्याया इच्छाया: कर्म, फल- विषयत्वादिच्छायाः । ज्ञानेन हि प्रमाणे- नावगन्तुमिष्टं ब्रह्म । ब्रह्मावगतिर्हि पुरुषार्थः, निःशेषसंसारबीजाविद्यादनर्थनिबर्हणात्। तस्माद्रह्म जिज्ञासितव्यम् ।।

तदेवमभिमतं समासं व्यवस्थाप्य जिज्ञासा- पदार्थमाह-ज्ञातुम् इति। स्यादेतत्। न ज्ञानमिच्छाविषयः । सुखदुःखावाप्तिपरिहारौ वा तदुपायो वा तद्द्वारेणेच्छागोचरः। न चैवं ब्रह्मज्ञानम्। न खल्वेतदनुकूलमिति वा प्रति- कूलनिवृत्तिरिति वानुभूयते। नापि तयोरुपायः; तस्मिन्सत्यपि सुखभेदस्यादर्शनात्, अनुवर्तमानस्य

१०७ जिज्ञासा

च दुःखस्यानिवृत्तेः। तस्मान्न सूत्रकारवचन- मात्रादिषिकर्मता ज्ञानस्येत्यत आह-अवगति- पर्यन्तम् इति। न केवलं ज्ञानमिष्यते किं त्ववगति साक्षात्कारं कुर्वदवगतिपर्यन्तं सन्वाच्याया इच्छायाः कर्म। करमात्? फलविषयत्वादिच्छायाः तदुपायं फलपर्यन्तं गोचरयतीच्छेति शेषः । ननु भवत्ववगतिपर्यन्तं ज्ञानम् ; किमेतावता- पीष्टं भवति ? न ह्यनपेक्षणीयविषयमवगतिपर्यन्तमपि ज्ञानमिष्यत इत्यत आह-ज्ञानेन हि प्रमाणे- नावगन्तुमिष्टं ब्रह्म। भवतु ब्रह्मविषयावगतिः, एवमपि कथमिष्टेत्यत आह-ब्रह्मावगतिर्हि पुरुषार्थः। किमभ्युदयः ? न, किं तु निःश्रेयसं विगलितनिखिलदुःखानुषङ्गपरमानन्दघनब्रह्मावगति- र्ब्रह्मण: स्वभाव इति सैव निःश्रेयसं पुरुषार्थ इति। स्यादेतत्। न ब्रह्मावगतिः पुरुषार्थः । पुरुषव्यापारव्याप्यो हि पुरुषार्थः । न चारया ब्रह्मस्वभावभूताया उत्पत्तिविकारसंस्कारप्राप्तयः सं- भवन्ति, तथा सत्यनित्यत्वेन तत्स्वाभाव्यानुपपत्तेः। न चोत्पत्याद्यभावे व्यापारव्याप्यता। तस्मान्न

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 107

because of the aphorist's words, being the object of desire does not result for knowledge. To this he says: "The know- ledge culminating in realisation" etc. Not bare knowledge is desired; rather, it is the knowledge, which as bringing about realisation or intuition culminates in realisation, that is the object of the desire expressed by the san-suffix. Why ? "Becausa fruit is the content of desire"; desire has the means for its sphere till the fruit is attained; this is the complement (to be understood). Now, let it be that knowledge culminates in realisation ; does it even then become a desired object? Knowledge of what is not required is not, verily, desired, even if it culminate in realisation. To this he says: "Indeed, Brahman is the object desired to be realised through valid knowledge." Let it be that there is realisation whose content is Brahman; even thus, how is it what is desired ? To this he says: "The realisation of Brahman is, indeed, the human goal." Is it prosperity ? No; it is, rather, beatitude, which is of the nature of Brahman, the mass of supreme bliss whence has been expelled all taint of misery ; hence it is the unexcelled human goal. Be this so. The realisation of Brahman is not the human goal. For the human goal is what is pervaded by human activity; and to this (realisation), which is of the nature of Brahman, generation, modification, purification or attainment cannot happen, as, being non-eternal in that caso, it could not intelligibly be of that nature (of Brahman). And when generation etc. are absent, there is no pervasion by (human) activity. Hence, realisation of Brahman is not the human goal. To this he says:

108 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

"because it exterminates evils, Nescience etc., the seeds of all transmigration whatsoever." True, in the realisation of Brahman, which is of the nature of Brahman, generation etc. do not occur; yet, under the influence of the indeterminable beginningless Nescience, the nature of Brahman, though not iliumined by another and though shining, appears as if not shining and as if illu- mined by another; though different from the body, organs etc., it appears as if not different from them; hence, prior to the extermination of the evils, Nescience etc., the seeds of transmigration, it is unattained, as it were, and when that (extermination) exists, it becomes attained, as it were: consequently, being thus sought by men, it is appropriately the human goal. The word "etcetera" after "Nescience" comprehends the impressions thereof. The cessation of Nescience etc., however, should be known to come from the effect of contemplation, viz., intuition, which is a variety of psy- chosis of the internal organ. He concludes: "Therefore, Brahman is what is to be desired to be known " by the person who is of the character stated above and desires release. Not, verily, without that knowledge is Nescience, which with its impressions is the primal cause of manifold miseries, destroyed. Nor without its destruction is there the mani- festation of the intuition of the jtva as of the nature of Brahman, the mass of bliss whence has been expelled all taint of misery. Hence, by those who desire (to realise) the nature of Brahman, the mass of bliss, the means there- to, i.e., knowledge, should be desired. And that results from the Vedanta texts not of themselves, but as aided by the

जिज्ञासा १०८ ब्रह्मावगतिः पुरुषार्थ इत्यत आह-निः- शेषसंसारबीजाविद्यादयनर्थनिबर्हणात्। स- त्यम्, ब्रह्मावगतौ ब्रह्मस्वभावे नोत्फत्त्यादयः संभवन्ति; तथाप्यनिर्वचनीयानाद्यविद्यावशाङ्गह्म- स्वभावोऽपराधीनप्रकाशोऽपि प्रतिभानपि न प्रति- भातीव पराधीनप्रकाश इव देहेन्द्रियादिभ्यो भिन्नोऽप्यभिन्न इव भासत इति संसारबीजा- विद्याद्यनर्थनिबर्हणात्प्रागप्राप्त इव तस्मिन्सति प्राप्त इव भवतीति पुरुषेणार्थ्यमानत्वातपुरुषार्थ इति युक्तम् । अविद्यादीत्यादिग्रहणेन तत्संस्कारोऽवरुध्यते। अविद्यादिनिवृत्तिस्तूपासनाकार्यादन्त: करणवृत्तिभे - दात् साक्षात्कारादिति द्रष्टव्यम्। उपसंहरति- तस्माद्रह्म जिज्ञासितव्यम् उक्तलक्षणेन मुमु- क्षुणा। न खलु तज्ज्ञानं बिना सवासनविविधदुः- खनिदानमविद्योच्छिद्यते। न च तदुच्छेदमन्तरेण विगलितनिखिलदुःखानुषङ्गानन्दघनब्रह्मात्मतासाक्षा- त्काराविर्भावो जीवस्य। तस्मादानन्द्घनव्रह्मात्म- तामिच्छता तदुपायो ज्ञानमेषितव्यम्। तच्च 28

१०९ जिज्ञासा

तत्पुनर्ब्रह्म प्रसिद्धमप्रसिद्धं वा स्यात् ; यदि प्रसिद्धं न जिज्ञासितव्यम्; अथा- प्रसिद्धं नैव शक्यं जिज्ञासितुमिति।

न केवलेभ्यो वेदान्तेभ्यः अपि तु ब्रह्ममीमांसोप- करणेभ्य इति इच्छामुखेन ब्रह्ममीमांसायां प्रवर्त्यते, न तु वेदान्तेषु तदर्थविवक्षायां वा; तत्र फलवदर्थावबोधपरतां स्वाध्यायाध्ययनविधेः सूत्रयता 'अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा' इत्यनेनैव प्रवर्तितत्वात्, धर्मग्रहणरय च वेदार्थोपलक्षण-

धर्ममीमांसावत् वेदार्थमीमांसया ब्रह्ममीमांसाप्याक्षेप्तुं शक्यते, तथापि प्राच्या मीमांसया न तद्दयुत्पाद्यते, नापि ब्रह्ममीमांसाया अध्ययनमात्रानन्तर्यमिति ब्रह्ममीमांसारम्भाय नित्यानित्यविवेकाद्यानन्तर्यप्रदर्श- नाय चेदं सूत्रमारम्भणीयमित्यपौनरुक्त्यम्। स्यादेतत्। एतेन सूत्रेण ब्रह्मज्ञानं प्रत्युपायता मीमांसायाः प्रतिपाद्यत इत्युक्तम् ; तद्युक्तम्, विकल्पासहत्वात्, इति चोदयति-तत्पुनर्ब्रह्म

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 109

That Brahman, again, should be either known or unknown. If known, it is not to be desired to be known; if not known, it cannot at all be desired to be known.

inquiry into Brahman; consequently, through desire, one is directed to the inquiry into Brahman, not to the Vedanta texts or to the intention to declare their sense. For, this (latter) is already attained by (the aphorism) " Then, there- fore, the inquiry into Religious Duty," which aphoristi- cally expresses the injunction to study one's own Veda, this (study) signifying the fruitful understanding of the sense; and the apprehension of Religious Duty, since it implies the (entire) sense of the Veda, secondarily implies Brahman too, in the same way as (it implies) what is not Religious Duty (adharma). Though, like the inquiry into Religious Duty, the inquiry into Brahman too may be implied by the inquiry into the sense of the Veda, yet, that is not set forth in the earlier inquiry (into dharma). Nor does the inquiry into Brahman follow immediately on the mere study of the Veda. Hence, in order to start the inquiry into Brahman and also to show that it follows immediately on the discrimination of the eternal from the non-eternal etc., this aphorism has to be stated; thus, there is no repetition. Be this so. By this aphorism, it has been said, instru- mentality to the knowledge of Brahman is taught of inquiry ; that does not stand to reason, since it cannot bear exami- nation; thus, one asks: "That Brahman, again" etc. From

110 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

The reply is: There does exist Brahman who is by nature eternally pure, intelligent and free, omniscient and endowed with all powers. By him who analyses the meaning of the word Brahman, there are cognised the meanings eternal, pure etc, because of conformity with the sense of the root "Brh". And because of being the self of all, the existence of Brahman is well-known. Everyone, verily, cognises the existence of himself; he does not cognise "I do not exist". If indeed the existence of the self were not well-known, the entire world would cognise " I do not exist". And the self is Brahman.

the Vedanta texts, which as not of human origin are self- evidently valid, (Brahman) should be either known or not known. If it be known, it has been made the content of ascertained knowledge arising out of the Vedanta texts; therefore, it is not to be desired to be known; for, the means which, having produced its fruit, (yet) makes no distinction to its object, transgresses the definition of means. Or else, if it be not known from the Vedantas, then, since the Vedantas do not teach it, it would ever be unknown and could not be desired to be known. Desire arises for what has been experienced and liked, not for what has never been experienced before. Nor, even if it were liked, could it be known, there being no means of valid knowledge (in respect thereof). Verbal testimony should

जिज्ञासा ११०

उच्यते-अस्ति तावद्रह्म नित्यशुद्धबुद्ध- मुक्तस्व्भावं सर्वज्ञं सर्वशक्तिसमन्विितम्। ब्रह्मशब्दस्य हि व्युत्पाद्यमानस्य नित्य- शुद्धत्वादयोऽर्थाः प्रतीयन्ते, बृहतेर्धातो- रर्थानुगमात्। सर्वस्यात्मत्वाच्च ब्रह्मास्तित्व- प्रसिद्धिः। सर्वो ह्यात्मास्तित्वं प्रत्येति न 'न अहमस्मि' इति। यदि हि नात्मास्ति- त्वप्रसिद्धिः स्यात्, सर्वो लोकः 'नाह- मस्मि' इति प्रतीयात्। आत्मा च ब्रह्म ॥।

इति। वेदान्तेभ्योऽपौरुषेयतया स्वतःसिद्धप्रामाण्येभ्यः प्रसिद्धमप्रसिद्धं वा स्यात्। यदि प्रसिद्धम्, वेदान्तवाक्यसमुत्थेन निश्चयज्ञानेन विषयीकृतम् ; ततो न जिज्ञासितव्यम्, निष्पादितक्रिये कर्मणि अविशेषाधायिनः साधनस्य साधनन्यायातिपातात्। अथाप्रसिद्धं वेदान्तेभ्यः, तर्हि न तद्देदान्ताः प्रतिपादयन्तीति सर्वथाप्रसिद्धं नैव शक्यं जिज्ञा- सितुम्। अनुभूते हि प्रिये भवतीच्छा न तु सर्वथाननुभूतपूर्वे। न चेष्यमाणमपि शक्यं

१११ जिज्ञासा

ज्ञातुम्, प्रमाणाभावात्। शब्दो हि तस्य प्रमाणं वक्तव्यम्। यथा वक्ष्यति 'शास्त्रयोनित्वात्' इति। स चेत्तन्नावबोधयति, कुतस्तस्य तत्र प्रामाण्यम् ? न च प्रमाणान्तरं ब्रह्मणि प्रक्रमते। तस्मात्प्रसिद्दस्य ज्ञातुं शक्यरयाप्यजिज्ञासनात् अप्रसिद्धस्येच्छाया अविषयत्वात् अशक्यज्ञानत्वाच्च न ब्रह्म जिज्ञास्यमित्याक्षेपः। परिहरति- उच्यते-अस्ति तावद्रह्म नित्यशुद्धबुद्ध- मुक्तसवभावम्। अयमर्थ :- प्रागपि ब्रह्ममीमां- साया अधीतवेदस्य निगमनिरुक्तव्याकरणादि- परिशीलन विदितपदतदर्थसंबन्धर्य 'सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत् ' इत्युपक्रमात् 'तत्त्वमसि' इत्यन्तात्सं- दर्भात् नित्यत्वाद्युपेत ब्रह्मस्वरूपावगमरतावदापाततो विचाराद्विनाप्यरिति। अत्र च ब्रह्मेत्यादिनावगम्येन तद्विषयमवगमं लक्षयति, तदस्तित्वस्य सति विमर्शे विचारात्प्रागनिर्णयात्। नित्येति क्षयिता- लक्षणं दुःखमुपक्षिपति। शुद्धेति देहाद्युपाधिकमपि दुःखमपाकरोति। बुद्धेत्यपराधीनप्रकाशमानन्दात्मानं दर्शयति, आनन्दप्रकाशयोरभेदात्।

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 111

be said to be the means of knowing it; as will be said : "Because of the sacred-teaching-source." If that does not give knowledge of it, whence then its (the sastra's) authoritativeness in that respect? Nor does any other means of valid knowledge apply in respect of Brahman. Hence, since in the case of what is known, though it can be known, there is no desire to know, and in the case of what is not known, it is not the object of desire and cannot be known, Brahman cannot be the object of the desire to know; this is the objection. He remedies it: "The reply is: there does exist Brahman, who is by nature eternally pure, intelligent and free." This is the sense : even prior to the inquiry into Brahman, for him, who has studied the Veda, who has by a study of Etymology (nirukta), Grammar (vyakarana) etc., understood the relation of words and their import, there is even without the inquiry a general understanding of the nature of Brahman endowed with eternality etc. from the string of texts beginning with "Existence alone this was in the beginning, dear one " and ending with "That thou art". Here, by the words "Brahman" etc. (in the commentary) signifying the object of knowledge, there is indicated secondarily the knowledge whose content is Brahman, since the existence of that (Brahman) is not settled prior to inquiry, when there is & doubt. By the word "eternal," misery characterised by diminution is excluded. By the word " pure," misery due to adjuncts like the body eto., is excluded. The word

112 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

"intelligent" exhibits it as blissful and not illumined by another, since bliss and effulgence are non-different. Be this so. It release existed, then would shine forth these, its (qualities) purity etc .; but, prior to that, there is conjunction with misery through the bodily attributes of birth, old age, death etc., due to non-difference from the body etc. To this he says: "free". Always free, always pure, it yet appears so (i.e., non-different from the body etc.), because of delusion due to the influence ef beginningless Nescience. Having thus shown the adjunct- less form of Brahman, he declares its form as with the adjunct of Nescience: "omniscient and endowed with all powers." By this is shown its being the cause of the universe, since being or not being the cause is depen- dent on the presence or absence of power and know- ledge. Whence, again, the realisation of Brahman as of this nature? To this he says:"By him who analyses the meaning of the word 'Brahman' etc. The realisation of Brahman as of this nature comes not merely from considera- tion of texts like "Existence alone" etc., taken together with what goes before and after, but the word " Brahman" itself gives us this very sense through its etymology. He gives the derivation : "because of conformity with the sense of the root 'brh'." The root "brb," meaning growth, signifies excellence. This undefined excellence permits of it (Brahman) (the attribution of) eternality, purity, intelligence etc., conveyed through other words : this is the sense.

जिज्ञासा ११२ स्यादेतत्। मुक्तौ सत्यामस्यैते शुद्धत्वादयः प्रथन्ते, ततस्तु प्राक् देहाद्यभेदेन तद्र्मजन्मजरा- मरणादिदुःखयोगादित्यत उक्तम्-मुक्त इति। सदैव मुक्तः सदैव केवलोऽनाद्यविद्यावशाततु भ्रान्त्या तथावभासत इत्यर्थः। तदेवमनौपाधिकं ब्रह्मणो रूपं दर्शयित्वा अविद्योपाधिकं रूपमाह- सर्वज्ञं सर्वशक्तिसमन्वितम्। तदनेन जग- त्कारणत्वमस्य दर्शितम्, शक्तिज्ञानभावाभावानु- विधानात्कारणत्वभावाभावयोः । कुतः पुनरेवं- भूतव्रह्मस्वरूपावगतिः इत्यत आह-ब्रह्मशब्दस्य हि इति। न केवलम् 'सदेव सोम्येदम् ' इत्यादीनां वाक्यानां पौर्वापर्यपर्यालोचनया इत्थं- भूतब्रह्मावगतिः । अपि तु ब्रह्मपदमपि निर्वचन- सामर्थ्यादिममेवार्थ स्वहस्तयति। निर्वचनमाह- बृहतेर्धातोरर्थानुगमात्। वृद्धिकर्मा हि बृहति- रतिशायने वर्तते। तच्चेदमतिशायनमनवच्छिन्नं पदान्तरावगमितं नित्यशुद्धबुद्धत्वाद्यस्याभ्यनुजाना- तीत्यर्थः ।

20

११३ जिक्ञासा

तदेवं तत्पदार्थस्य शुद्धत्वादेः प्रसिद्धिमभिधाय त्वंपदार्थर्याप्याह-सर्वस्यात्मत्वाच्च ब्रह्मास्ति- त्वप्रसिद्धिः । सर्वस्य पांसुलपादकस्य हालि- कस्यापि ब्रह्मारितित्वप्रसिद्धि :; कुतः ? आत्मत्वात् । एतदेव स्फुटयति-सर्वो हि इति। प्रतीतिमेव अप्रतीतिनिराकरणेन द्रढयति-न न इति। न न प्रत्येति 'अहमस्मि' इति, किं तु प्रत्येत्येवेति योजना। ननु 'अहमस्मि' इति च ज्ञास्यति मा च ज्ञासीदात्मानमित्यब आह-यदि इति। अहमस्मीति न प्रतीयात्। अहंकारारपदं हि जीवात्मानं चेन्न प्रतीयात् 'अहम् ' इति न प्रतीयादित्यर्थः । ननु प्रत्येतु सर्वो जन आत्मानमहंकारास्पदम्, ब्रह्मणि तु किमायातम् इत्यत आह-आत्मा च ब्रह्म ; तदः त्वमा सामानाधिकरण्यात्। तस्मात्तत्पदार्थस्य शुद्धबुद्ध- त्वादेः शब्दतः त्वंपदार्थरय च जीवात्मनः प्रत्यक्षतः प्रसिद्धे:, पदार्थज्ञानपूर्वकत्वाच्च वाक्यार्थ- ज्ञानस्य, त्वंपदार्थस्य ब्रह्मभावावगमः 'तत्त्वमसि' इति वाक्यादुपपद्यत इति भावः ।

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 113

Having thus declared that purity etc. are well-known of the denotation of the word "that," he says also of the denotation of the word "thou": "And, because of being the self of all, the existence of Brahman is well-known." The existence of Brahman is well-known to ail. even to the ploughman with his dust-covered feet; whence? Because it is himself. This itself is explained : "Every one, verily" etc. He confirms this cognition itself, by the refuta- tion of non cognition: "not not" etc .; does not fail to cognise "I exist," but certainly does (so) cognise: this is the construction. Now, one may know "I exist," but may not know the self. To this he says: "If, indeed " etc. He would not have the cognition "I exist". If he did not cognise the jtva-self, which is the substrate of "I-ness," he would not have the cognition of "I"; this is the sense. Now, let it be that all men have the cognition of the self, the substrate of "I-ness"; what of it for Brahman ? To this he says : "And the self is Brahman"; because of the apposi- tional relation of "that" to "thou". Hence, the purity, intelligence etc. of the denotation of the "that" being well-known from Scripture, and the jteu denoted by the "thou" being well-known from perception, and since the cognition of the word-significance precedes the cognition of the sentence-significance, it is intelligible that the realisation of the denotation of the "thou " as of the nature of Brahman results from the text "That thou art ": this is the idea.

114 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

If, then, in the world, Brahman is well-known as the self, in that case, since it is already known, it follows again that it is not to be desired to be known. No; because there are conflicting views as to its particular nature. The ordinary man and the Lokāyatikas conceive of the self as the mere body qualified by intelligence. Others hold that the self is only the intelligent sense-organs. Yet others say that it is the mind. Some say that it is mere momentary cognition. Others say that it is the void. Still others say that there is a being different from the body, who migrates, who is agent and enjoyer. Some say that

The objector declares the defect in the first of these alternatives: "If, then, in the world " etc. The " world" means the succession of teacher and taught. If from the text "That thou art," Brahman be well-known to be the self-where one ought to say "The self (be understood) as Brahman," the statement "Brahman as the self" is to be understood (as made) in view of the intention to declare non-difference-(it would again follow that being known it cannot be the object of the desire to know). He answers this: "No." Why not? "Because there are conflicting views as to its particular nature." Such conflicting views are said to be the seeds of doubt, in the absence of any means of valid knowledge to confirm or confute. And because of

जिज्ञासा ११४ यदि तर्हि लोके ब्रह्म आत्मत्वेन प्रसिद्धमस्ति, ततो ज्ञातमेवेत्यजिज्ञास्यत्वं पुनरापन्नम्। न, तद्विशेषं प्रति विप्रतिपत्तेः। देहमात्रं चैतन्यविशिष्टमात्मेति प्राकृता जना लौकायतिकाश्च प्रतिपन्नाः। इन्द्रि- याण्येव चेतनान्यात्मेत्यपरे। मन इत्यन्ये। विज्ञानमात्रं क्षणिकमित्येके। शून्यमित्य- परे। अस्ति देहादिव्यतिरिक्तः संसारी कर्ता भोक्तेत्यपरे। भोक्तैव केवलं न कर्ते-

आक्षेप्ता प्रथमकल्पाश्रयं दोषमाह-यदि तर्हि लोक इति। अध्यापकाध्येतृपरम्परा लोकः। तत्र 'तत्त्वमसि' इति वाक्याद्यदि ब्रह्म आत्मत्वेन प्रसिद्धमरिति। 'आत्मा ब्रह्मत्वेन' इति वक्तव्ये 'ब्रह्म आत्मत्वेन' इति अभेद- विवक्षया गमयितव्यम्। परिहरति-न; कुतः? तद्विशेषं प्रति विप्रतिपत्तेः। तदनेन विप्रतिपत्तिः साधकबाधकप्रमाणाभावे सति संशय- बीजमुक्तम्। ततश्र संशयाज्जिज्ञासोपपद्यत इति

११५ जिज्ञासा

त्येके। अस्ति तद्वयतिरिक्त ईश्वरः सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिरिति केचित्। आत्मा स भोक्तु- रित्यपरे। एवं बहवो विप्रतिपन्ना युक्ति- वाक्यतदाभाससमाश्रयाः सन्तः । तत्रावि- चार्य यत्किंचित्प्रतिपद्यमानो निःश्रेयसा- त्प्रतिहन्येत, अनर्थ चेयात्। तस्माद्रह्म- जिज्ञासोपन्यासमुखेन वेदान्तवाक्यमीमांसा तदविरोधितर्कोपकरणा निःश्रेयसप्रयोजना प्रस्तूयते।।

भाव: । विवादाधिकरणं धर्मी सर्वतन्त्रसिद्धान्त- सिद्धोऽभ्युपेयः ; अन्यथा अनाश्रया भिन्नाश्रया वा विप्रतिपत्तयो न स्युः । विरुद्धा हि प्रतिपत्तयो विप्रतिपत्तयः ; न चानाश्रयाः प्रतिपत्तयो भवन्ति, अनालम्बनत्वापत्ते: ; न च भिन्नाश्रया विरुद्धाः । न हि 'अनित्या बुद्धि:' 'नित्य आत्मा' इति प्रतिपत्तिविप्रतिपत्ती। तस्मात्तत्पदार्थस्य शुद्धत्वा- देर्वेदान्तेभ्यः प्रतीतिः, त्वंपदार्थस्य च जीवात्मनो लोकतः सिद्धि: सर्वतन्त्रसिद्धान्तः। तदाभा-

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 115

he is enjoyer alone, not agent. There is, as different from that, the Lord, omniscient and omnipotent, say some. The self he is of the enjoyer, say others. Thus many people hold different views, basing themselves upon reasoning and texts (both sound and) fallacious. Of these, he, who without inquiry accepts any, will fall from beatitude and attain to evil. Therefore beginning with a statement of the desire to know Brahman, there is begun a respectful inquiry into the Vedanta texts, whose auxiliary is reasoning not inconsistent therewith, and whose purpose is beatitude.

that doubt the desire to know is intelligible : this is the idea. The substrate, which is the basis of dispute, should be admitted to be established by the conclusions of all systems; else, there would be no conflicting views, these having either no basis or different bases. "Vipratipattis" are, verily, conflicting views ; and views cannot have no basis, as then they would have nothing to rest on. Nor do those (views) conflict which have different bases. The views that the intellect is non-eternal and that the soul is eternal are not, truly, conflicting views. Hence, it is the con- clusion of all systems that the purity etc. of the denota- tion of the "that" are known from the Vedantas, while the jiva deuoted by the "thou " is established by experience. The conflicting views relate merely to their manifestation or non-manifestation and to the various modes thereof. Therefore, since, in respect of the substrate known in a general way, there are conflicting views as to the

116 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

particulars (of its nature), doubt in respect of these particulars is reasonable. Of these, he shows first the conflicting views about the denotation of the "thou," in the words beginning with "The ordinary man" and ending with "enjoyer alone, not agent". Here, on the views of intelligence as body, sense, mind or momentary cognition, the eternality etc. of the denotation of the "that " cannot relate to the denotation of the "thou," because of lack of compatibility. On the nihilist view too, how can that which is incapable of being spoken of and is not a word-sense be the sphere (of denotation) of the "that" and "thou"? Of the forms of agent and enjoyer too, there is certainly lack of consonance with the eternality etc. of the denotation of the "that," because of mutability. ()n the view that (the self) though not an agent is an enjoyer, there is lack of consonance with eternality etc., because of mutability. On the view that selves though not enjoyers are many, there continues the same lack of consonance with the denotation of the word "that," because of the non-eternality etc. resulting from definition as a plurality and because of the abandonment of non-duality. Through the conflicting views in respect of the denotation of the word "thou," there are shown similar views in respect of the denotation of the word "that"; that is to say, the Lokayatikas and others who contend that the Vedas are unauthoritative, verily, hold the cognition of the denotation of the "that" to be illusory, while those who maintain the Vedas to be authoritative, hold that the denotation of the "that " is either figurative or not (primarily) intended (as the object of the teaching),

जिज्ञासा ११६ सत्वानाभासत्वतत्तद्विशेषेषु परमत्र विप्रतिपत्तयः । तस्मात्सामान्यतः प्रसिद्धे धर्मिणि विशेषतो विप्रतिपत्तौ युक्तस्तद्विशेषेषु संशयः । तत्र त्वंपदार्थे तावद्विप्रतिपत्तीर्दर्शयति-देह- मात्रमू इत्यादिना भोक्तैव केवलं न कर्त्ता इत्यन्तेन। अत्र देहेन्द्रियमनःक्षणिकविज्ञानचैतन्यपक्षे न तत्पदार्थनित्यत्वादयः त्वंपदार्थेन संबध्यन्ते, योग्य- ताविरहात्। शून्यपक्षेऽपि सर्वोपाख्यारहितमपदार्थः कथं तत्त्वमोर्गोचरः ? कर्तृभोक्तृरवभावर्यापि परिणामितया तत्पदार्थनित्यत्वाद्यसंगतिरेव। अकर्तृ- त्वेऽपि भोक्तृत्वपक्षे परिणामितया नित्यत्वाद्यसंगतिः। अभोक्तृत्वेऽपि नानात्मत्वपक्षे नानात्वेनावच्छिन्न- त्वादनित्यत्वादिप्रसक्ताव द्वैतहानाच्च तत्पदार्थासंगति- स्तदवस्थैव। त्वंपदार्थविप्रतिपत्या च तत्पदार्थेऽपि

कायतिकादयस्तत्पदार्थप्रत्ययं मिथ्येति मन्यन्ते, वेदप्रामाण्यवादिनोऽप्यौपचारिकं तत्पदार्थमविवक्षितं वा मन्यन्त इति। तदेवं त्वंपदार्थविप्रतिपत्तिद्वारा तत्पदार्थे विप्रतिपत्ति सूचयित्वा साक्षात्तत्पदार्थेऽपि 8U

११७ जिज्ञासा

विप्रतिपत्तिमाह-अस्ति तद्वयतिरिक्त ईश्वरः सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिरिति केचित्। तत् इति जीवात्मनः परामृशति। न केवलं शरीरादिग्यः जीवात्मभ्योऽपि व्यतिरिक्तः। स च सर्वरयैव जगत ईष्टे। ऐश्वर्यसिद्धयर्थ राभाविकमरय रूपद्दयमुक्तम् 'सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिः' इति। तश्यापि जीवात्मभ्योऽपि व्यतिरेकात् न त्वं- पदार्थेन सामानाधिकरण्यमिति रवमतमाह- आत्मा स भोक्तुरित्यपरे। भोक्तुर्जी- वात्मनोडविद्योपाधिकरय स ईश्वरः तत्पदार्थ आत्मा; तत ईश्वरादभिन्नो जीवात्मा, परमाकाशादिव घटाकाशादय इत्यर्थः । विप्रतिपत्तीरुपसंहरन विप्रतिपत्तिबीजमाह- एवं वहव इति। युक्तियुक्त्याभासवाक्यवाक्या- भाससमाश्रयाः सन्त इति योजना। ननु सन्तु विप्रतिपत्तयः तन्निमित्तश्र संशयः; तथापि किमर्थ ब्रह्ममीमांसा आरभ्यते इत्यत आह- तत्राविचार्य इति। तत्त्वज्ञानाच्च निःश्रेयसाधिगमः, नातत्त्वज्ञानाङ्भवितुमर्हति। अपि च अत्त्त्व-

THE DESIRE TO KNOW 117

Thus, having, through the conflicting views about the denotation of the "thou," indicated the conflicting views about the denotation of the "that," he states the conflicting views directly relating to the denotation of the "that": "There is, as different from that, the Lord, omniscient and omnipotent, say some." "That" re'ates to the jira-selves. He is different not merely from the body etc., but also from the jiva-selves. And he is also the ruler of the whole universe. His two natural attributes of omni- science and omnipotence are mentioned to establish rulership. Even this (ruler), being different from the jira-selves, cannot have an appositional relation with the denotation of the "thou"; hence, he states his own view thus: "The self, he is of the enjoyer, say others." Of the enjoyer i.e., of the jiva-self conditioned by Nescience, he, the Lord, the denotation of the "that," is the self; hence, non-different from the Lord is the jira-self, as the pot-ether etc. from the ether at large; this is the sense. In finishing with the conflicting views, he states the cause of these views: "Thus, many" etc. They base themselves on reasoning, sound or fallacious, and on texts, soundly or unsoundly interpreted; this is the construction. Now, let there be conflicting views, and let doubt be their cause; even so, why should the inquiry into Brahman be commenced ? To this he says: "Of these, he, who without inquiry" eto. Beatitude can come from knowledge of the truth, not of untruth. Further, if

118 THE DESIRE TO KNOW

because of untrue knowledge there is loss of faith, evil too follows, he says : "and attain to evil" etc. He concludos the purport of the aphorism: "Therefore" etc. The inquiry into the Vedantas is but reasoning; other reason- ing, which does not conflict therewith, such as is mentioned in the Purva-mlmamsa and in the Nyaya-sutras, in discussing the authoritativeness of the Vedas, of perception etc .; that of which these are auxiliaries is thus mentioned. Hence, it is established that the inquiry into Brahman, which brings about the knowledge of Brahman, the means to supreme beatitude, should be commenced.

जिज्वासा ११८

ज्ञानान्नास्तिक्ये सति अनर्थप्राप्तिरपीत्याह- अनर्थ च इति। सूत्रतात्पर्यमुपसंहरति- तस्मात् इति। वेदान्तमीमांसा तावत्तर्क एव, तदविरोधिनश्च येऽन्येऽपि तर्का अध्वरमीमांसायां न्याये च वेदप्रत्यक्षादिप्रामाण्यपरिशोधनादिषूत्ता: ते उपकरणं यस्याः सा तथोकता। तस्मात्परमनिः- श्रेयससाधनब्रह्मज्ञानप्रयोजना ब्रह्ममीमांसा आरब्ध- व्येति सिद्धम् ।

ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितव्यमित्युक्तम्। किंलक्षणं पुनस्तद्रह्म इत्यत आह भगवान्सूत्रकार :-

जन्माद्यस्य यतः ॥२॥

तदेवं प्रथमसूत्रेण मीमांसारम्भमुपपाद्य ब्रह्म- मीमांसामारभते-जन्माद्यस्य यतः । एतरय सूत्रस्य पातनिकामाह भाष्यकारः-ब्रह्म जिज्ञासि- तव्यमित्युक्तम् ; किंलक्षणं पुनस्तद्धह्म । अत्र यद्यपि ब्रह्मस्वरूपज्ञानस्य प्रधानस्य प्रतिज्ञया तद्ङ्गान्यपि प्रमाणादीनि प्रतिज्ञातानि, तथापि स्वरूपस्य प्राधान्यात्तदेवाक्षिप्य प्रथमं समर्थ्यते। तत्र यद्यावदनुभूयते तत्सर्व परिमितमविशुद्धमबुद्धं विध्वंसि च; न तेनोपलब्धेन तद्विरुद्धरय नित्यशुद्धबुद्धस्वभावस्य ब्रह्मण: स्वरूपं शक्यं लक्षयितुम्। न हि जातु कश्चित्कृतकत्वेन नित्यं लक्षयति। न च तद्धर्मेण नित्यत्वादिना

Brahman, it has been said, is to be desired to be known. What is the definition, then, of this Brahman ? To this the venerable aphorist says --

THAT, WHENCE FOR THIS WHAT BEGINS

WITH ORIGINATION

Having thus justified in the first aphorism the com- mencement of the inquiry, he commences the inquiry into Brahman: That, whence for this what begins with origination. The commentator says by way of introduction to this aphorism: "Brahman, it has been said, is to be desired to be known. What is the definition, then, of this Brahman?" Here, though, from the premising of the knowledge of the nature of Brahman as the principal, its sub- sidiaries such as the means of valid knowledge etc. are also premised, yet since its nature is the princi- pal, that alone is first established by objection (and answer). Whatever is experienced in any way is limited, impure, non-intelligent and destructible; by the knowledge of these cannot be defined the nature of Brahman, which is opposed to them, being of the nature of eternal purity and intelligence. No one ever defines the eternal by what is produced. Nor can it be defined by its own attributes

120 DEFINITION

What begins with janma, i.e. origination; thus it is an adjectival compound indicating its own attribute. The meaning of the compound is: origination, sustenta- tion and destruction. And of origination the primacy depends on both statements of Scripture and the nature of things. It is thus stated in Scripture : "That whence these beings originate." In this passage the

such as eternality, since these are not already known. What is well-known is, indeed, a definition, not what is absolutely unknown. And similarly, not even verbal testimony obtains here, since Brahman being absolutely unknown is not the meaning of a word and hence cannot be the meaning of a sentence.89 Hence, in the absence of a definition, Brahman cannot be desired to be known; this is the view of the objector. This objection the revered aphorist answers: "That, whence" etc. Let not this experienced universe be the definition of Brahman, either as its attribute or through identity with it; but it may well be (the definition) as originated by the latter, just as the attainment of different localities is (a definition) of the motion of the sun; this is the purport. He analyses the parts of the aphorism: "what begins with janma, i.e., origination " otc. For the sake of parsimony, the aphorist uses the neuter janmadi; and the commentator, in order to justify this, gives the samahara-dvandva (in the neuter): janma-sthiti- bhangam (origination, sustentation and destruction).90

लक्षणम् १२०

जन्म उत्पत्तिः आदिः अस्य-इति तद्गुणसंविज्ञानो बहुव्रीहिः। जन्मस्थिति- भङ्गं समासार्थः। जन्मनश्चादित्वं श्रुति- निर्देशापेक्षं वस्तुवृत्तापेक्षं च । श्रुतिनिर्देश- स्तावत्-'यतो वा इमानि भूतानि

तल्लक्ष्यते, तस्यानुपलब्धचरत्वात्। प्रसिद्धं हि लक्षणं भवति, नात्यन्ताप्रसिद्धम्। एवं च न शब्दोऽप्यत्र प्रक्रमते, अत्यन्ताप्रसिद्धतया ब्रह्म- णोऽपदार्थस्यावाक्यार्थत्वात्। तरमाल्लक्षणाभावात् न ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितव्यमित्याक्षेपाभिप्रायः । तमिममाक्षेपं भगवान् सूत्रकारः परिहरति- 'जन्माद्यस्य यतः' इति। मा भूदनुभूयमानं जगत्तद्धर्मतया तादात्म्येन वा ब्रह्मणो लक्षणम् ; तदुत्पत्त्या तु भविष्यति देशान्तरप्राप्तिरिव सवितुर्वज्याया इति तात्पर्यार्थः । सूत्रावयवान् विभजते -- जन्मोत्पत्तिरादिरस्य इति। लाघवाय सूत्रकृता जन्मादीति नपुंसक- प्रयोग: कृतः; तदुपपादनाय समाहारमाह- 81

१२१ लक्षणम

जायन्ते' इति, अस्मिन्वाक्ये जन्म- स्थितिप्रलयानां क्रमदर्शनात्। वस्तुवृत्त- मपि जन्मना लब्धसत्ताकस्य धर्मिणः स्थितिप्रलयसंभवात्। अस्येति प्रत्यक्षादि- संनिधापितस्य धर्मिण इदमा निर्देशः। षष्ठी जन्मादिधर्मसंबन्धार्था। यत इति कारणनिर्देशः। अस्य जगतो नामरूपाभ्यां व्या- कृतस्य अनेककर्तृभोक्तृसंयुक्तस्य प्रति- नियतदेशकालनिमित्तक्रियाफलाश्रयस्य म-

जन्मस्थितिभङ्गम् इति। जन्मनश्च इत्यादिः कारणनिर्देशः इत्यन्तः संदर्भो निगदव्याख्यातः । स्यादेतत्। प्रधानकालग्रहलोकपालक्रियाय- दच्छास्वभावाभावेषूपप्लवमानेपु सत्सु सर्वज्ञं सर्व- शक्तिस्वभावं ब्रह्म जगज्जन्मादिकारणमिति कुतः संभावनेत्यत आह-अस्य जगत इति। अत्र नामरूपाभ्यां व्याककतस्य इति चेतन- भावकर्तृकत्वसंभावनया प्रधानाद्यचेतनकर्तृकत्वं नि-

DEFINITION 121

sequence is shown among origination, sustentation and dissolution. And the nature of things is such that sustentation and dissolution occur in respect of a substrate that has become existent through origination. In the expression "for this," by "this" is designated the substrate cognised through perception etc. The sixth case has the sense of relating it to origination etc. "Whence" is the designation of the cause. Of this universe, differentiated by name and form, containing many agents and enjoyers, the abode of what are definitely regulated in respect of place, time, cause, action and fruit, the nature of whose design cannot even

The passage beginning with "And of origination" and ending with "the designation of the cause" is self- explanatory. Be this so. When there are so many (likely causes of the universe) floating about, such as primal nature, time, the activity of planetary deities or guardian deities (iike Indra, guarding the directions), chance, the nature (of things), and non-existence, why postulate an omniscient and omnipotent Brahman as the cause of the origination etc., of the universe ? To this he says: "Of this universe differentiated by name and form" etc. Here, by the qualification "differentiated" etc., causation by an in- telligent being is postulated, whereby is ruled out causation by non-intelligent entities like the pradhana or by what

122 DEFINITION

be conceived by the mind, that omniscient and omnipotent cause whence there is the origination, sustentation and destruction-"that is Brahman" is the complement of the sentence (in the aphorism).

is non-existent. That, verily, which is differentiated by name and form, like pot etc. is seen to be caused by an intelligent being. The universe, which is under dispute, is differentiated by name and form ; hence, causation by an intelligent being is postulated. The intelligent one, verily, having considered the name and form in his intellect, creates the external pot, with the name "pot," and the form of a narrow neck etc. Hence it is that the pot to be brought into being, only if it exists already in resolve, is the object-causal-condition, in the form "He makes a pot". As they say: "But what is present in the intellect, that is not non-existent." And thus, it cannot be postulated that a non-intelligent entity creates what it cannot consider in the intellect; this is the idea. Be this so. The intelligent planetary deities or the guardian deities may create the universe, having con- sidered names and forms in their intellects; Brahman of the nature mentioned above is unnecessary. To this he says: "con!aining many agents and enjoyers," Some are agents like cooks, sacrificial priests (rtviks) etc., not

लक्षणम १२२

नसाप्यचिन्त्यरचनारूपस्य जन्मस्थितिभङ्गं यतः सर्वज्ञात्सर्वशक्तेः कारणाद्भ्वति, तद्भह्मेति वाक्यशेषः ।

रुपाख्यकर्तृकत्वं च व्यासेधति। यत्खलु नाम्ना रूपेण च व्याक्रियते तच्चेतनकर्तृकं दृष्टम्, यथा घटादि। विवादाध्यासितं च जगन्नाम्ना रूपेण च व्याकृतम् ; तस्माच्चेतनकर्तुकं संभाव्यते। चेतनो हि बुद्धावालिख्य नामरूपे घट इति नाम्ना रूपेण च कम्बुग्रीवादिना बाह्यं घटं निष्पादयति। अत एव घटस्य निर्वर्त्यस्याप्यन्त :- संकल्पात्मना सिद्धस्य कर्मकारकभावः 'घटं करोति' इति। यथाहुः-'बुद्धिसिद्धं तु न तदसत्' इति। तथा चाचेतनो बुद्धावनालिखितं करोतीति न शक्यं संभावयितुमिति भावः । स्यादेतत्। चेतना ग्रहा लोकपाला वा नामरूपे बुद्धावालिख्य जगज्जनयिष्यन्ति, कृतम् उक्तस्वभावेन ब्रह्मणेत्यत आह-अनेककर्तृ- भोक्तृसंयुक्तस्य इति। केचित्कर्तारो भवन्ति, यथा

१२३ लक्षणम

सूदर्त्विगादयः, न भोकारः । केचित्तु भोक्तारः, यथा श्राद्धवैश्वानरेष्ट्यादिषु पितापुत्रादयः, न कर्तारः। तस्मादुभयप्रहणम्। देशकालनिमित्त- क्रियाफलानि इतीतरेतरद्वन्द्ः। देशादीनि च तानि प्रतिनियतानि चेति विग्रहः। तदाश्रयो जगत् ; तस्य । केचित्खलु प्रतिनियतदेशोतपादाः, यथा कृष्णमृगादयः । केचित्प्रतिनियतकालोत्पादाः, यथा कोकिलारवादयः । केचित्प्रतिनियतनिमित्ताः, यथा नवाम्बुदृध्यानादिनिमित्ता बलाकागर्भादयः । केचित्प्रतिनियतक्रियाः, यथा ब्राह्मणानां याज- नादयः, नेतरेषाम्। एवं केचित्प्रतिनियतफलाः, यथा केचित्सुखिन: केचिद्दुःखिनः, एवं य एव सुखिनस्त एव कदाचिद्दुःखिनः। सर्वमेतदा- कस्मिकापरनाम्नि यादृच्छिकत्वे न स्वाभाविकत्वे चासर्वज्ञासर्वशक्तिकर्तृकत्वे च न घटते, परिमित- ज्ञानशक्तिभिर्ग्रहलोकपालादिभिर्ज्ञातुं कर्तु चाशक्य- त्ात्। तदिदमुक्तम्-मनसाप्यचिन्त्यरचना- रूपस्य इति। एकस्या अपि हि शरीररचनाया रूपं मनसा न शक्यं चिन्तयितुं कदाचित्,

DEPINITION 123

enjoyers. Some others, however, are enjoyers, as the fathers in the sraddhas, and the sons in the Vaisvanaresti, -- not agents.90 Hence the mention of both, The compound- place-time-cause-act-fruit -- is an itaretara-dvandva; and it has to be split up into: place etc., these being defined with respect to each. The abode of these is the universe; of this (universe, the cause etc.). Some, indeed, are created in definite places, e.g., black antelopes etc. Some are created at definite times, e.g., the warbling of the cuckoo etc. Some are occasioned by definite causes, e.g., the impregnation of storks occasioned by the thunder-clap of the early clouds (of the rainy season). Some perform definite acts, e.g., such acts as the performance of sacrifices (for others) belong to brahmins alone, not to others. Similarly, some enjoy definite fruit, e.g., some are happy, some are miserabie, likewise those who are happy are themselves at other times miserable. All this does not fit in with creation by yadrccha, which is another name for chance, or by the nature (of things), or (even) by one who is not omniscient and omnipotent, since the planetary and guardian deities, whose knowledge and capacity are limited, cannot know and produce (the universe).2 That is thus said: "the nature of whose design cannot even be conceived by the mind." The nature of the design even of a single body cannot be conceived by the mind at any time; remote indeed is (the possibility of conceiving) the design of the universe; how then to

124 DEFINITION

Of all other modifications of being, there is inclusion even in the three; hence are mentioned here origination, sustentation and destruction. But if what are enumerated by Yāska, namely, "originates," "exists" etc., were taken, since they occur in the period of the world's sustentation, the origination, sustentation and destruction of the world from its primal cause would not be apprehended: this doubt may arise; lest one should doubt so, that origination from Brahman, the cause, and sustentation and dissolu- tion even in that, these alone are apprehended.

create ? This is the sense. He completes the text of the " aphorism: "'that is Brahman' is the complement of the sentence. Be this so. Why should origination, sustentation and destruction alone be understood here by " what begins with," not growth, transformation and decrease as well ? To this he says: "Of all other modifications of being" i.e., of growth etc., "there is inclusion even in the three". Growth is the increase of parts. Thereby, from that which has few parts, e.g., from two threads, there arises another being, the big cloth ; hence, growth is but origination. Transformation, which is of three kinds as defined by dharma-laksaņa,

लक्षणम् १२४ अन्येषामपि भावविकाराणां त्रिष्वे- वान्तर्भाव इति जन्मस्थितिनाशानामिह ग्रहणम्। यास्कपरिपठितानां तु 'जाय- तेऽस्ति' इत्यादीनां ग्रहणे तेषां जगतः स्थितिकाले संभाव्यमानत्वान्मूलकारणा- दुत्पत्तिस्थितिनाशा जगतो न गृहीताः स्युरित्याशङ्कयेत; तन्मा शङ्कि इति या उत्पत्तिर्ब्रह्मणः कारणात्, तत्रैव स्थितिः प्रलयश्च, त एव गृह्यन्ते।

प्रागेव जगद्रचनायाः ; किमङ्ग पुनः कर्तुमित्यर्थः । सूत्रवाक्यं पूरयति-तद्धह्मेति वाक्यशेषः। स्यादतेत्। कस्मात्पुनर्जन्मस्थितिभङ्गमात्र मिहा- दिग्रहणेन गृह्यते न तु वृद्धिपरिणामापक्षया अपीत्यत आह-अन्येषामपि भावविकाराणां वृद्धयादीनां त्रिष्वेवान्तर्भाव इति। वृद्धिस्तावद- वयवोपचयः । तेनाल्पावयवादवयविनो द्वितन्तुका- देरन्य एव महान्पटो जायत इति जन्मैव वृद्धिः। परिणामोऽपि त्रिविधः धर्मलक्षणावस्थालक्षण: 32

१२५ लक्षणम्

उत्पत्तिरेव। धर्मिणो हि हाटकादेर्धर्मलक्षणः परिणामः कटकमुकुटादिः तरयोत्पत्तिः। एवं कटकादेरपि प्रत्युत्पन्नत्वादिलक्षणः लक्षणपरिणाम उत्पत्तिः । एवमव्रस्थापरिणामो नवपुराणत्वादि- रुत्पत्तिः । अपक्षयरतु अवयवहासो नाश एव। तस्माज्जन्मादिषु यथास्वमन्तर्भावाद्दद्यादयः पृथङ्- नोकता इत्यर्थः । अथैते वृद्धयादयो न जन्मा- दिष्वन्तर्भवन्ति, तथाप्युत्पत्तिस्थितिभङ्गमेवोपादा- तव्यम्। तथा सति हि तत्प्रतिपादके 'यतो वा इमानि भूतानि' इति वेदवाक्ये बुद्धिस्थीकृते जगन्मूलकारणं ब्रह्म लक्षितं भवति। अन्यथा तु जायते अस्ति वर्धते इत्यादीनां ग्रहणे तत्प्रतिपादकं नैरुत्तवाक्यं बुद्धौ भवेत ; तच्च न मूलकारणप्रतिपादनपरम्, महासर्गादूर्ध्व स्थितिकालेऽपि तद्वाक्योदितानां जन्मादीनां भावविकाराणामुपपत्तेः,-इति शङ्कानिराकरणार्थ वेदो कोत्पत्तिस्थितिभङ्गग्रहणमित्याह-यास्कपरि - पठितानां तु इति।

DEFINITION 125

arastha, and lakșana, 93 is but origination. For, of the substrate, gold, the dharma-laksana transformation into bracelet, crown etc., is the origination of these. So too, the presentness etc. of the bracelet etc. is lakşana transformation; that too is origination. Avastha trans- formation lies in the distinction of newness, oldness etc. (even in what is present etc.); that (too) is origination. Decrease is the decrease of parts and is but destruction. Thus, being included under various appropriate heads, in origination etc., growth etc. are not mentioned separately ; this is the sense. Now, even if these were not included in origination etc., then too origination, sustentation and de- struction alone should be mentioned. For, in that case, verily, the Scriptural text teaching these, viz., "That whence these beings originate""4 etc., is brought to mind, and Brahman as the primal cause of the universe becomes defined. Else, by the comprehension of origination, existence, growth etc., there would come to mind the text of the Nirukta which teaches these; 95 and that (text) does not intend to teach the primal cause, since the modifications of being, such as origination, taught by that text, are intelligible even in the period of sustentation subsequent to the primal creation. In order to remove this objection, there is understood the origination. sustentation and destruction declared in the Veda: thus he says: "But if what are enumerated by Yaska" etc.

126 DEFINITION

Of the universe with the above-mentioned qualities, origination etc. cannot be postulated from the non-senti- ent Pradhāna, primal atoms, non-existence, a transmi- grating being, or (in fact) from anything other than a Lord with the above-mentioned qualities. Nor can it be by its own nature ; because here we have to accept parti- cular places, times and causes. This very inference, those, who uphold the causality of the Lord, regard as a proof for the existence etc. of the Lord, distinct from a transmigrating being.

Now, even thus, let origination alone be indicated ; therefrom are inevitably understood sustentation and destruction. To this he says: "that origination from Brahman, the cause" etc. By the three, there is indicated its material causality; bare origination, being common to the efficient cause as well, cannot indicate material causality. That is thus said: "even in that" etc. The purpose served by the special causes and effects mentioned above is now declared: "Of the universe with the above-mentioned qualities, " etc. By this (part of the) writing, the postulation has been declared of the content premised, the nature of Brahman, by way of definition (thereof). The means of knowledge thereof

लक्षणम् १२६ न यथोक्तविशेषणस्य जगतो यथोक्त- विशेषणमीश्वरं मुक्का, अन्यतः प्रधानाद- चेतनात् अणुभ्यो वा अभावाद्वा संसारिणो वा उत्पत्त्यादि संभावयितुं शक्यम्। न च स्वभावतः, बिशिष्टदेशकाल- निमित्तानामिहोपादानात्। एतदेवानुमानं संसारिव्यतिरिक्तेश्वरास्तित्वादिसाधनं म- न्यन्ते ईश्वरकारणवादिनः ।

नन्वेवमपि उत्पत्तिमात्रं सूच्यताम् ; तन्नान्त- रीयकतया तु स्थितिभङ्गं गम्यत इत्यत आह- योत्पत्तिर्ब्रह्मणः कारणात् इति। त्रिभिरस्यो- पादानत्वं सूच्यते ; उत्पत्तिमात्रं तु निमित्तकारण- साधारणमिति नोपादानत्वं सूचयेत् ; तदिद- मुक्तम् -- तत्रैव इति। पूर्वोक्तानां कार्यकारणविशेषणानां प्रयोजन- माह-न यथोक्त इति। तदनेन प्रबन्धेन प्रतिज्ञा- विषयस्य ब्रह्मस्वरूपस्य लक्षणद्वारेण संभावनोक्ता । तत्र प्रमाणं वक्तव्यम्। यथाहुनैयायिका :-

१२७ लक्षणम् नन्विहापि तदेवोपन्यस्तं जन्मादिसूत्रे; न, वेदान्तवाक्यकुसुमग्रथनार्थत्वात्सूत्रा- णाम्। वेदान्तवाक्यानि हि सूत्रैरुदाहृत्य विचार्यन्ते। वाक्यार्थविचारणाध्यवसाननि-

'संभावितः प्रतिज्ञायां पक्षः साध्येत हेतुना। न तस्य हेतुभिस्राणमुत्पतन्नेव यो हतः ॥ यथा च वन्ध्या जननी' इत्यादिरिति।

इत्थं नाम जन्मादि संभावनाहेतुः। यदन्ये वैशेषिकादय इत एवानुमानादीश्वरविनिश्चय- मिच्छन्ति, इति संभावनाहेतुतां द्रढयितुमाह- एतदेव इति। चोदयति-नन्विहापि इति। एतावतैवाधि- करणार्थे समाप्ते वक्ष्यमाणाधिकरणार्थमनुवदन्सुह- ्हावेन परिहरति-न, वेदान्त इति। वेदान्त- वाक्यकुसुमग्रथनार्थत्वमेव दर्शयति-वेदान्त इति। विचारस्याध्यवसानं सवासनाविद्याद्वयोच्छेदः । ततो हि ब्रह्मावगतेर्निर्वृत्तिराविर्भावः। त्त्किं ब्रह्मणि

DEFINITION 127

Now, here too that same thing has been premised in the aphorism, "That, whence for this what begins with origination". No; because the aphorisms have the purpose of stringing together the Vedanta texts like flowers. For, it is the Vedanta texts that are cited and considered by the aphorisms. Brahman-realisation,

has to be declared. As the Naiyayikas say:"That subject which has been postulated (as possible) in the premise can be established by means of a probans; that which is con- tradicted even at the moment it arises cannot be saved by means of a probans, e.g., the barren woman is a mother'" and so on. Thus, origination etc. are the grounds for postulation. Others, like the Vaisesikas, desire to esta- blish Isvara by inference from these very grounds. This, he mentions, in order to strengthen them as grounds for postulation: "This very inference" etc. He questions : "Now, here too" etc. The subject-matter of the section (adhikarana) being concluded even with this, he answers the question, in the capacity of a friend, with reference to the subject-matter of the succeeding section: "No; because the aphorisms have the purpose" etc. This very purpose of stringing together the flowers of the Vedanta texts is shown: "For, it is the Vedanta texts" etc. The end of the inquiry is the destruction of the twofold Nescience along with the impressions. Thence, verily, the accomplishment, i.e. manifestation of Brahman, realisation.

128 DEFINITION

indeed, is accomplished at the end of the inquiry into the meaning of the texts, and is not accomplished by other means of valid knowledge like inference. While, however, there are the Vedanta texts which declare the cause of the origination of the universe, in order to confirm the apprehension of their meaning, inference too, such as is not opposed to the Vedānta texts, becomes a means of valid knowledge, and as such it is not avoided; because argumentation is accepted as an auxiliary even by Scripture. It is thus: the Scriptural texis, "It is to be heard, to be reflected on " (Brh., II, iv, 5), and "A learned and intelligent man reaches the Gandhāra country ; even so here, a man knows when he has a teacher " (Chand., VI, xiv, 2), show of the self that it is helped by the human intellect.

In respect of that Brahman, is no means of know- ledge to be followed other than verbal testimony ? Then, whence reflection ? And whence the intuition which is the experience thereof? To this he says: "While, however, there are the Vedanta texts" etc. Inference should be understood to be of that variety which is not in conflict with the Vedanta and also dependent on it. Discrimination by reasoning, not in conflict with verbal testimony, and dependent thereon, is called reflection. Reasoning is either presumption or inference.

लक्षणम १२८ र्वृत्ता हि ब्रह्मावगतिः, नानुमानादिप्रमा- णान्तरनिर्वृत्ता। सत्सु तु वेदान्तवाक्येषु जगतो जन्मादिकारणवादिषु, तदर्थग्रहण- दाढ्याय अनुमानमपि वेदान्तवाक्याविरोधि प्रमाणं भवत् न निवार्यते, श्रुत्यैव च सहाय- त्वेन तर्कस्याप्यभ्युपेतत्वात्। तथा हि- 'श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यः' इति श्रुतिः, 'पण्डितो मेधावी गान्धारानेवोपसंपद्येतैव मेवेहा चार्य- वान् पुरुषो वेद' इति च पुरुषबुद्धिसाहाय्य- मात्मनो दर्शयति।

शब्दादते न मानान्तरमनुसरणीयम्? तथा च कुतो मननम् ? कुतश्र तदनुभवः साक्षात्कारः ? इत्यत आह-सत्सु तु वेदान्तवाक्येषु इति। अनुमानं वेदान्ताविरोधि तदुपजीवि चेत्यपि द्रष्टव्यम्। शब्दाविरोधिन्या तदुपज,विन्या च युक्त्या विवेचनं मननम्। युक्तिश्र अर्थापत्ति- रनुमानं वा।

88

१२९ छक्षणम् न धर्मजिज्ञासायामिव श्रुत्यादय एव प्रमाणं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासायाम्; किं तु श्रुत्या- दयोऽनुभवादयश्च यथासंभवमिह प्रमा-

त्वाञ्च ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य। कर्तव्ये हि विषये

स्यादेतत्। यथा धर्मे न पुरुषबुद्धिसाहाय्यम, एवं ब्रह्मण्यपि कस्मान्न भवतीत्यत आह- न धर्मजिज्ञासायामिव इति। श्रुत्यादय इति; श्रुतीतिहासपुराणस्मृतयः प्रमाणम्। अनुभवः अन्तःकरणवृत्तिभेदो ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारः; तस्या- विद्यानिवृत्तिद्वारेण ब्रह्मस्वरूपाविर्भावः प्रमाण- फलम्। तच्च फलमित्र फलमिति गमयितव्यम्। यद्यपि धर्मजिज्ञासायामपि सामग्रयां प्रत्यक्षादीनां व्यापारः तथापि साक्षान्नारित। ब्रह्मजिज्ञासायां तु साक्षादनुभवादीनां संभवोऽनुभवार्था च ब्रह्म- जिज्ञासेत्याह-अनुभवावसानत्वात्। बह्मानु- भवो ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारः परमपुरुषार्थः, निर्मृष्ट- निखिलदुःखपरमानन्दरूपत्वादिति।

DEFINITION 129

Nor is it that, as in the desire to know Religious Duty, Scripture etc. alone are the authority, in the case of the desire to know Brahman; on the contrary, here Scripture etc., as also experience etc. are means of valid knowledge, as and when applicable, since the knowledge of Brahman culminates in experience

Be this so. As the human intellect is of no aid in the knowledge of Religious Duty, why should it not be likewise in respect of Brahman also ? To this he says: "Nor is itthat, as in the desire to know Religious Duty" etc. "Scripture etc.": Scripture, epics, puranas and traditional Codes are the means of valid knowledge. Experience is a particular psychosis of the internal organ, riz., the intuition of Brahman; the fruit of that means of valid knowledge is the manifestation of the nature of Brahman through its removal of Nescience. It is to be understood to be the fruit, as it were (since it is not like other fruit created, purified etc.). Though even in the desire to know Religious Duty there is the functioning of the accessories of experience, like perception etc., yet it is not there directly. In the desire to know Brahman, however, experience (i.e., intuition) etc. occur directy; and the desire to know Brahman has experience for its object; thus, he says: "since the knowledge of Brahman culminates in experience" etc. The experience of Brahman, i.e., the intuition of Brahman, is the supreme human goal, being of the nature of supreme bliss whence has been wiped out all misery.

130 DEPINITION

and has an existent object for content. Indeed, in respect of what is to be done, authoritativeness can belong only to Scripture etc., since there is no dependence on experience, and since what is to be done derives its existence in dependence on a person. An action, worldly or scriptural, may be done, or not done, or done in a different way; for example, one goes on horse-back, or on foot, or otherwise or does not go at all. Similarly, "In the Atiratra one should use the sixteenth cup," "In the Atiratra one should not use the sixteenth cup"; "One is to offer oblation after sun- rise, " "One is to offer oblation before sun-rise." And prescriptions and prohibitions would be purportful in these cases, as options or as general rules and exceptions.

Now, let it be that the desire to know has the experience of Brahman for its object; that experience itself is not possible, since Brahman cannot be the object thereof. To this he says: "and (since the knowledge of Brahman) has an existent object for content. " The relation- ship of object and subject is an illusory form of the intuition of (the form indicated by) the absence (of the universe). Not in this way does the knowledge of Religious Duty culminate in experience, since the experience of that is not in itself a human goal, the human goal being realised by the observance of that (duty), and observance being established by mere verbal testimony, even in the absence of experience; this he says in: "Indeed, since, in respect of what is to be done," etc. Nor is it capable of being the content

लक्षणम् १३०

नानुभवापेक्षास्तीति श्रुत्यादीनामेव प्रा- माण्यं स्यात्, पुरुषाधीनात्मलाभत्वाच्च कर्तव्यस्य। कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तुं शक्यं लौकिकं वैदिकं च कर्म; यथा अश्वेन गच्छति, पद्धयाम्, अन्यथा वा, न वा गच्छतीति। तथा 'अतिरात्रे षोडशिनं ृह्णाति' 'नातिरात्रे षोडशिनं गृह्णाति', 'उदिते जुहोति' 'अनुदिते जुहोति' इति। विधिप्रति- षेधाश्च अत्र अर्थवन्तः स्युः, विकल्पो-

ननु भवतु ब्रह्मानुभवार्था जिज्ञासा; तदनुभव एव त्वशक्यः, ब्रह्मणस्तद्विषयत्वायोग्यत्वात् इत्यत आह-भूतवस्तुविषयत्वाच्च ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य इति। व्यतिरेकसाक्षात्कारस्य विकल्परूपो विषय- विषयिभावः । न त्वेवं धर्मज्ञानमनुभवावसानम्, तदनुभवस्य स्वयमपुरुषार्थत्वात्, तदनुष्ठान- साध्यत्वात्पुरुषार्थरय, अनुष्ठानस्य च विनाप्यनुभवं शाब्दज्ञानमात्रादेव सिद्धेः इत्याह-कर्तव्ये

१३१ लक्षणम् रसर्गापवादाश्च। न तु वस्तु 'एवम्, नैवम्', 'अस्ति, नास्ति' इति वा विकल्प्यते। विकल्पनास्तु पुरुषबुद्धय- पेक्षाः। न वस्तुयाथात्म्यज्ञानं पुरुषबुद्धय- पेक्षम। किं तर्हि? वस्तुतन्त्रमेव तत्। न हि स्थाणावेकस्मिन् 'स्थाणुर्वा, पुरुषोऽन्यो वा' इति तत्वज्ञानं भवति। तत्र 'पुरुषोऽन्यो वा' इति मिथ्याज्ञानम् ; 'स्थाणुरेव' इति तत्वज्ञानम्, वस्तुतन्त्र- त्वात्। एवं भूतवस्तुविषयाणां प्रामाण्यं वस्तुतन्त्रम्।

हि इत्यादिना। न चायं साक्षात्कारविषयता- योग्योऽपि, अवर्तमानत्वात्, अवर्तमानश्चान- वस्थितत्वादित्याह-पुरुषाधीन इति। पुरुषाधीन- त्वमेव लौकिकवैदिककार्याणामाह-कर्तुमकर्तु इति। लौकिकं कार्यमनवस्थितमुदाहरति- यथाश्वेन इति। लौकिकेनोदाहरणेन सह वैदिक- मुदाहरणं समुच्चिनोति-तथातिरात्र इति।

DEFINITION 131

But a thing does not admit of options like, " thus, not thus," " exists, does not exist ". Options, however, are dependent on the human intellect. The knowledge of the true nature of a thing is not dependent on the human intellect. What then? It depends on the thing itself. Indeed, in respect of one and the same post, true cognition does not arise in the form, 'It is a post, or something else, a man". In this case, "or something else, a man" is an illusory cognition; "It is certainly a post," is the true cognition, because it depends on the thing. Thus, authoritativeness of what have existent things as content depends on the thing.

of intuition, since it is non-existent in time present, and it is non-existent in time present, not being settled; thus, he says: "and since what is to be done derives its existence in dependence on a person (who acts)." This very dependence of acts, worldly and Vaidic, on a person, he states: many be done or not done etc. He exemplifies the unsettled nature of worldly acts: "e.g., one goes on horse-back" etc. He combines a Scriptural illustra- tion with the one from experience: "Similarly 'in the atiratra one should use the sixteenth cup'" etc. 96 This illustration is cited to show that it is possible to do or not to do. He gives an illustration of doing in one way or another: "One is to offer oblation after sunrise" etc.

132 DEFINITION

Be this so. Because of man's freedom in respect of what is to be done, there results the futility of (these) pres- criptions and prohibitions, since a person's engaging in and desisting from activity are not dependent thereon. To this he says: "And prescriptions and prohibitions would be purportful in these cases" etc. "One should use" is the prescription; "one should not use" is the prohibition. The offering of oblation is injunctive both when mentioned before dawn and after dawn. Similarly, there is prohibition about touching human bones, as also a prescription to wear them in respect of one who has killed a brahmin. Prescriptions and prohibitions of this kind are purportful. How? To this he says: " as options or as general rules and exceptions." The ca (at the end of the sentence, in the com- mentary) signifies a reason. Combination being impossible in the case of using and not-using, or of offering before and after dawn, because of their contradiction, and the relation of sublater and sublated being impossible between alterna- tives which are equally strong, option is inevitable. The prohibited contact of human bones and the wesring of them are opposed to each other, but are not equally strong ; hence, there is no option; but of the general rule prohibiting contact, there is sublation by the special rule, the content of the prescription to wear. This is what is said: by prescriptions and prohibitions alone is that unrealised-but- to-be-created thing brought about, whereby there results human freedom even in respect of engaging in and desisting from activity dependent on prescriptions and prohibitions.97

लक्षणम् १३२

कर्तुमकर्तुमित्यरयेदमुदाहरणमुक्तम्। कर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तुमित्यस्योदाहरणमाह-उदित इति। स्यादेतत्। पुरुषस्वातन्त्रयात् कर्तव्ये विधि- प्रतिषेधानामानर्थक्यम्, अतद्धीनत्वात् पुरुष- प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्त्योः इत्यत आह-विधिप्रतिषेधा- श्वात्रार्थवन्तः स्युः। गृह्णातीति विधिः ; न गृह्णातीति प्रतिषेधः । उदितानुदितहोमयोर्विधिः । एवं नारास्थिस्पर्शननिषेधो ब्रह्मम्श्च तद्धारण- विधि :- इत्येवंजातीयका विधिप्रतिषेधा अर्थवन्तः। कुत इत्यत आह-विकल्पोत्सर्गापवादाश्च। चो हेतौ। यस्माद्ग्रहणाग्रहणयोरुदितानुदितहोम- योश्च विरोधात् समुच्चयासंभवे तुल्यबलतया च बाध्यबाधकभावाभावे सति अगत्या विकल्पः । नारास्थिस्पर्शननिषेधतद्धारणयोश्च विरुद्धयोरतुल्य- बलतया न विकल्पः ; किं तु सामान्यशास्त्रस्य स्पर्शननिषेधस्य धारणविधिविषयेण विशेषशास्त्रेण बाधः। एतदुक्तं भवति-विधिप्रतिषेधैरेव स तादृशो विषयोऽनागतोत्पाद्यरूप उपनीतः येन पुरुषस्य विधिनिषेधाधीनप्रवृत्तिनिवृत्त्योरपि स्वा- 84

१३२ लक्षणम्

तन्त्र्यं भवतीति। भूते वस्तुनि तु नेयमरिति विधा, इत्याह-न तु वस्त्वेवं नैवम् इति। तदनेन प्रकारविकल्पो निरस्तः। प्रकारिविकल्पं निषेधति-अस्ति नास्ति इति। स्यादेतत्। भूतेऽपि वस्तुनि विकल्पो दृष्टः, यथा 'स्थाणुर्वा पुरुषो वा' इति। तत्कथं न वस्तु विकल्प्यते, इत्यत आह-विकल्पनास्तु इति। पुरुषबुद्धिः अन्तःकरणं ; तदपेक्षा विकल्पनाः संशयविपर्यासाः। सवासनमनोमात्रयोनयो वा यथा सवप्ने ; सवासनेन्द्रियमनोयोनयो वा यथा 'स्थाणुर्वा पुरुषो वा' इति स्थाणौ संशयः, 'पुरुष एव' इति च विपर्यासः ; अन्यशब्देन वस्तुतः स्थाणोरन्यस्य पुरुषस्याभिधानात्। न तु पुरुषतत्त्वं वा स्थाणुतत्त्वं वापेक्षन्ते, समानधर्मधर्मिदर्शन- मात्राधीनजन्मत्वात्। तस्मादयथावस्तवो विकल्पना न वस्तु विकल्पयन्ति वा अन्यथयन्ति वेत्यर्थः । तत्त्वज्ञानं तु न बुद्धितन्त्रम्, किं तु वस्तुतन्त्रम् ; अतस्ततो वस्तुविनिश्चयो युक्तः, न तु बिकल्पनाभ्य इत्याह-न वस्तुयाथात्म्य इति।

DEFINITION 133

But this is not so in the case of existent things; thus he says : " But a thing does not admit of options like 'thus,' 'not thus'." By this is refuted option as to the mode (of being). Option as to the substance itself (lit. the possessor of the mode) is refuted: "'exists,' 'does not exist'. " Be this so. Even among existent things, option is seen, as in a post or a man." How, then, can it be said that a thing does not admit of option ? To this he says: "Options, however" etc. The "human intellect" is the internal organ; options, i.e., doubt and error, are de- pendent thereon. Either they originate from the mind alone with its impressions, as in dreams; or, they originate from the mind and the senses together with their impressions, as in the doubt about the post whether it is a post or a man, or in the erroneous cognition of it as certainly a man; by the words "something else " (in "or, something else, a man") there is denoted a man, who is in fact other than a post. And they (doubt and error) do not depend on the real man or the real post, since they arise in dependence merely on the perception of substrates with common attributes. Hence, options (doubt, error etc.) which are not of things as they are, do not introduce option into things or change their nature; this is the sense. As for the knowledge of the truth, that is dependent not on the intellect, but on the thing; hence, it is appropriate to ascertain the nature of things therewith, not through doubt etc .; thus, he says: "The knowledge of the true nature of a thing is not" etc.

134 DEFINITION

Then, this being the case, the knowledge of Brahman too depends on the thing itself, because its content is an existent thing. Now, if the content be an existent thing, then Brahman is certainly the object of other means of valid knowledge; and hence a consideration of the Vedanta texts would certainly be pur- poseless. No, because, not being a content of the senses, the relation is not apprehended. By nature, the senses have objects as their content, and do not have Brahman as their content. Indeed, if Brahman were a content of the senses, there would be the apprehension that this effect is related to Brahman. When the effect alone is

Having made clear in this fashion that the validity of knowledge in respect of existent things is dependent on the things, he declares the objectivity of the knowledge of Brahman: "Then, this being the case" etc. Here, he asks: "Now, if the content be an existent thing" etc. That statement which relates to existent things is, verily, seen to be a re-statement, having an object which is within the sphere of other means of valid knowledge, e.g., "there are fruit on the banks of the river". So too are the Vedanta texts. Hence, these would but re-state what is known through other means of valid knowledge, since they (the texts) refer to existent objects. It has been said that in respect of Brahman, inference with origination eto. of the universe as probans, is another means of valid

लक्षणम् १३४

तत्रैवं सति ब्रह्मज्ञानमपि वस्तुतन्त्र- मेव, भूतवस्तुविषयत्वात्। ननु भूत- वस्तुविषयत्वे ब्रह्मणः प्रमाणान्तरविषय- त्वमेवेति वेदान्तवाक्यविचारणा अनर्थि- कैव प्राप्ता। न, इन्द्रियाविषयत्वेन संबन्धाग्रहणात्। स्वभावतो विषयविषया- णीन्द्रियाणि, न ब्रह्मविष्याणि। सति हीन्द्रियविषयत्वे ब्रह्मणः, इदं ब्रह्मणा संबद्धं कार्यमिति गृह्येत। कार्यमात्रमेव तु गृह्य- माणं किं ब्रह्मणा संबद्धम्, किमन्येन

एवमुक्तेन प्रकारेण भूतवस्तुविषयाणां ज्ञानानां प्रामाण्यस्य वस्तुतन्त्रतां प्रसाध्य ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य वस्तुतन्त्र- तामाह-तत्रैवं सति इति। अत्र चोदयति-ननु भूत इति। यत्किल भूतार्थ वाक्यं तत्प्रमाणान्तर- गोचरार्थतयानुवादकं द्ृष्टम्, यथा-नद्यास्तीरे फलानि सन्तीति। तथा च वेदान्ताः । तस्मात् भूतार्थतया प्रमाणान्तरदृष्टमेवार्थमनुवदेयुः। उक्तं च ब्रह्मणि जगज्जन्मादिहेतुकमनुमानं प्रमाणान्तरम्। एवं च मौलिकं तदेव परीक्षणीयम्, न तु वेदान्त-

१३५ लक्षणम्

केनचिद्वा संबद्धम्, इति न शक्यं निश्रेतुम्। तस्माजन्मादिसुत्रं नानुमानो- पन्यासार्थम्। किं तर्हि? वेदान्तवाक्य- प्रदर्शनार्थम। किं पुनस्तद्वेदान्तवाक्यं यत् सूत्रेणेह लिलक्षयिषितम्? 'भृगुर्वै वा- रुणि: वरुणं पितरमुपससार, अधीहि भगवो ब्रह्मेति' इत्युपक्रम्याह-'यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते ; येन जातानि जीवन्ति ; यत्प्रयन्त्यभिसंविशन्ति ; तद्विजिज्ञासस्व ; तद्धह्म' इति। तस्य च

वाक्यानि तद्धीनसत्यत्वानीति कथं वेदान्त- वाक्यग्रथनार्थता सूत्राणामित्यर्थः । परिहरति- न, इन्द्रियाविषयत्वेन इति। कस्मात्पुनर्नेन्द्रिय- विषयत्वं प्रतीच इत्यत आह-स्वभावत इति। अत एव श्रुतिः-'पराञ्चि खानि व्यतृणत्स्वयं- भूस्तस्मात्पराङ् पश्यति नान्तरात्मन्' इति। सति हीन्द्रिय इति प्रत्यगात्मनस्त्वविषयत्वमुप- पादितम्। यथा च सामान्यतो दृष्टमप्यनुमानं ब्रह्मणि न प्रवर्तते तथोपरिष्टान्निपुणतरमुपपाद-

DEFINITION 135

apprehended, it cannot be ascertained whether it is related to Brahman or related to something else. Therefore, the aphorism, "That, whence for this what begins with origination " is not for the purpose of suggesting in- ference. What then? It is for the purpose of showing the Vedånta texts. What then is that Vedanta text, which is desired to be marked out by this aphorism ? " Bhrgu, the son of Varuna, approached his father Varuņa, saying 'Teach me Brahman, Venerable One'" ; beginning thus, it is said, "That whence these beings originate, that by which, being originated, they live, that to which they return: desire to know that; that is Brahman." And of

knowledge. Therefore, that (means of knowledge) which is basic is alone to be investigated, not the Vedanta texts, which are true as dependent thereon ; how, then, can the aphorisms have the object of stringing together the Vedanta texts like flowers ? This is the sense. He answers : "No, because, not being a content of the senses" etc. Again, why is the inner self not a content of the senses ? To this he says: "By nature" etc. Hence it is that Soripture says: "The Creator forced the senses outwards; therefore, they see what is without, not the self within." 98 By the words, "Indeed, if Brahman were a content of the senses" etc., there is explained the inner self not being an object of the senses. We shall explain quite clearly later, 99 how even samanyato-drsta inference 100 does not apply to Brahman.

136 DEFINITION

this, this is the definitive text. "From Bliss alone, verily, these beings originate; being originated, by Bliss do they live; unto Bliss do they return." There are to be cited other texts too of this class, whose content is by nature eternally pure, intelligent and free, and is a cause omniscient in character.

And it has been explained by us extensively in the Nyāya- kaņika. We shall also explain lator how the texts are not restatements merely because of having existent contents. Therefore, everything is clear. And Scripture exhibits origi- nation in "That whence" etc., life or sustentation in "that by which, being originated, they live," and absorption thore- in in "that to which they return" etc. "And of this, this is the definitive text ": there being a doubt as to the content (of the text) being the pradhana etc., the definitive text is: "From Bliss alone" etc. 102 This is what is said: it is established that just as the stream, which has for its material cause the rope in conjunction with the ignorance of the rope, exists if the rope exists, and is absorbed in the rope itself, even so the universe, which has for its material cause Brahman in conjunction with Nescience, exists in Brahman alone and is absorbed even in that.

लक्षणम् १३६ निर्णयवाक्यम्-'आनन्दाद्धयेव खल्वि- मानि भूतानि जायन्ते ; आनन्देन जातानि जीवन्ति ; आनन्दं प्रयन्त्यभि- संविशन्ति' इति। अन्यान्यप्येवंजातीय- कानि वाक्यानि नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभाव- सर्वज्ञस्वरूपकारणविषयाणि उदाहर्तव्यानि।

यिष्यामः। उपपादितं चैतदस्माभिर्विस्तरेण न्याय- कणिकायाम्। न च भूतार्थतामात्रेणानुवाद- तेत्युपरिष्टादुपपादयिष्यामः। तस्मात्सर्वमवदातम्। श्रुतिश्र 'यतो वा' इति जन्म दर्शयति, 'येन जातानि जीवन्ति' इति जीवनं स्थितिम्, 'यत्प्रयन्ति-' इति तत्रैव लयम्। तस्य च निर्णयवाक्यम्। अत्र च प्रधानादिविषयत्वसंशये निर्णयवाक्यम्-आनन्दाद्भयेव इति। एतदुक्तं भवति-यथा रज्ज्वज्ञानसहितरज्जूपादाना धारा रज्ज्वां सत्यामरिति रञ्ज्वामेव च लीयते, एवम- विद्यासहित ब्रह्मोपादानं जगत् ब्रह्मण्येवारित तत्रैव च लीयत इति सिद्दम्। 35

जगत्कारणत्वप्रदर्शनेन सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्मेत्यु- पक्षिप्तम् ; तदेव द्रढयब्राह- शास्त्रयोनित्वात॥ ३॥ महत ऋग्वेदादेः शास्त्रस्य अनेक- विद्यास्थानोपबृंहितस्य प्रदीपवत्सर्वार्था- वद्योतिनः सर्वज्ञकल्पस्य योनिः कारणं ब्रह्म। न हीदृशस्य शास्त्रस्य ऋग्वेदादि- लक्षणस्य सर्वज्ञगुणान्वितस्य सर्वज्ञादन्यतः संभवोडस्ति। यद्यद्विस्तरार्थ शास्त्रं यस्मात् पुरुषविशेषात्संभवति, यथा व्याकरणादि

सूत्रान्तरमवतारयितुं पूर्वसूत्रसंगतिमाह-ज- गत्कारणत्वप्रदर्शनेन इति। न केवलं जगदो- नित्वादस्य भगवतः सर्वज्ञता, शास्त्रयोनित्वादपि बोद्धव्या। शास्त्रयोनित्वस्य सर्वज्ञतासाधनत्वं समर्थ- मते-महत ऋग्वेदादेः शास्त्रस्य इति। चातु-

Through the exposition of causality in respect of the universe it has been indicated that Brahman is omni- scient. To strengthen this itself, it is said:

BECAUSE OF THE SACRED-TEACHING-SOURCE

Of the great body of sacred teaching comprising the Rgveda etc., supplemented by innumerable disci- plines, illuminating all things like a torch, resembling the omniscient, the source, i.e., the cause, is Brahman. Indeed, of such sacred teaching, comprising the Rgveda etc., endowed with the quality of omniscience, the origin can be from nothing but an omniscient being. When a sacred teaching with an extensive theme originates from a particular person, for example, the sacred teaching of Grammar etc. from Paņini ete.,

In order to introduce the next aphorism, he states the relationship with the preceding aphorism: "Through the exposition of causality in respect of the universe" etc. The omniscience of the Lord follows not merely from His being the cause of the universe, but is to be understood also from His being the source of the sacred teaching (here, Scripture). He shows how being the source of

138 SORIPTURE-SOUROE

although its content be only a part of what is to be known, he possesses more extensive knowledge than that-this is well known in experience. That great being, the source from whom there is, even without effort, on the analogy of sport, like human breath, the origination of that, which is differentiated into various branches, which is the cause of such distinctions as gods, lower animals, men, castes, and orders of life, which is the ocean of all knowledge called the Rgveda etc.,- because of scriptural texts like "Of that great being this is the breath, which is the Rgveda "-is it necessary to say that for that (great being) there is unsurpassed omniscience and omnipotence ?

Scripture establishes omniscience: "Of the great body of sacred teaching comprising the Rg-veda etc." Rg-veda etc. are sustras (sacred teachings) inasmuch as they teach disci- ples the procedure in regard to all obligatory, occasioned and optional rites belonging to the four castes and four orders, from impregnation to cremation, (all acts) to be performed from the hours of dawn to those of the evening, as also the truth about Brahman; hence too, since they relate to great themes, they are great. Nor is their greatness due merely to the greatness of the themes, but also to their having many angas and upangas as subsidiaries; hence he says: "supplemented by innumerable disciplines." Puraņa, reasoning (nydya), inquiry (mimamsa) etc. are the ten disciplines ; supplemented by them in their respective ways.

साजयोनित्वम १३८ पाणिन्यादेः, ज्ञेयैकदेशार्थमपि, स ततो- ऽ्प्यधिकतरविज्ञान इति प्रसिद्धं लोके। किमु वक्तव्यम्-अनेकशाखाभेदभिन्नस्य

ऋग्वेदाद्याख्यस्य सर्वज्ञानाकरस्य अप्रयत्ने- नैव लीलान्यायेन पुरुषनिःश्वासवत् यस्मा- न्महतो भूतात् योने: संभव :- 'अस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतत् यद्दग्वेदः' इत्यादिश्रुते :- तस्य महतो भूतस्य निरति- शयं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वेशक्तिमत्वं चेति।

रवर्ण्यस्य चातुराश्रम्यरय च यथायथं निषेकादिश्मशा- नान्तासु ब्राह्ममुहूर्तोपकमप्रदोषपरिसमापनीयासु नित्य- नैमित्तिककाम्यकर्मपद्धतिषु च ब्रह्मतत्त्वे च शिष्या- णां शासनात् शास्त्रमृग्वेदादिः; अत एव महा- विषयत्वात् महत्। न केवलं महाविषयत्वेनास्य महत्त्वम्, अपि त्वनेकाङ्गोपाङ्गोपकरणतयापीत्याह -अनेकविद्यास्थानोपबृंहितस्य। पुराण- न्यायमीमांसादयो दश विद्यास्थानानि; तैः तया

१३९ शाख्रयोनित्वम्

तया द्वारोपकृतस्य। तदनेन समस्तशिष्टजनपरि- ग्रहेणाप्रामाण्यशङ्काप्यपाकृता। पुराणादिप्रणेतारो हि महर्षयः शिष्टाः; तैः तया तया द्वारा वेदान् व्याचक्षाणैस्तदर्थ चादरेणानुतिष्ठद्िः परिगृहीतो वेद इति। न चायमनवबोधको नाप्यरपष्टबोधको येनाप्रमाणं स्यादित्याह-प्रदीपवत्सर्वार्थावद्यो तिनः। सर्वमर्थजातं सर्वथावबोधयन् नानवबोधको नाप्यस्पष्टबोधक इत्यर्थः । अत एव सर्वज्ञकल्पस्य सर्वज्ञसदृशस्य। सर्वज्ञस्य हि ज्ञानं सर्वविषयं शास्त्रस्याप्यभिधानं सर्वविषयमिति सादृश्यम्। तदेवमन्वयमुक्त्वा व्यतिरेकमाह-न हीदृश- स्य इति। सर्वज्ञस्य गुण: सर्वविषयता; तदन्वितं शास्त्रम्, अस्यापि सर्वविषयत्वात्। उक्तमर्थ प्रमाणयति-यद्यद्विस्तरार्थं शास्त्रं यस्मा- त्पुरुषविशेषात्संभवति स पुरुषविशेष: ततोऽपि शास्त्रात् अधिकतरविज्ञानः इति योजना। अद्यत्वेऽप्यरमदादिभिर्यत्समीचीनार्थविषयं शास्त्रं वि- रच्यते तत्रास्माकं वक्तृणां वाक्याज्ज्ञानमधिक- विषयम्। न हि ते ते असाधारणधर्मा अनुभूय-

SCRIPTURE-SOURCE 139

Thereby is removed even the doubt as to its (Scripture's) authoritativeness, because of its being recognised by all worthy men (sistas). Worthy men, verily, are the great sages, the authors of the puranas eto .; by them who elaborated the Vedas through their respective (teachings) and practised with devotion the sense taught therein, (the authoritativeness of) the Veda is accepted. Nor does this fail to instruct or instruct but not clearly, in which case its authoritativeness would be suspect; thus he says: "illuminating all things like a torch." Illuminating all things in all ways, they are neither non-instructive nor not-clearly-instructive: this is the sense. Hence it is they are sarvajña-kalpa, i.e., like the omniscient one. The knowledge of the omniscient one extends to all things; the subject-matter of the sacred teaching extends to all things; hence the likeness. Having thus stated the co-presence (of cause and effect) he states their co-absence: "Indeed, of such sacred teaching" etc. The attribute of the omniscient one is knowledge of all themes; that attribute pertains to Scripture, since all themes belong to that too. He proves the said sense: "When a sacred teaching with ar extensive theme originatcs from a particular person, he," that particular person, "possesses more extensive knowledge than that" sacred teaching : this is the construction. Even to-day, when those like us declare a body of sacred teaching which contains valid sense, there is knowledge of more themes in us, the speakers, than in

140 8CRIPTURE-SOURCE

our expressions. The distinctive attributes of various things cannot, indeed, be declared, though experienced. The difference in the sweetness of sugar-cane, milk and jaggery cannot, verily, be given expression to even by Sarasvati. The use of the word "extensive" is to indicate that though the sense of a statement may be extensive, yet its content is not equal to that of the knowiedge of him who makes it. He declares the conclusion along with the application (upanaya): "Is it necessary to say" etc. That great being, from which source there is the origination of the Veda, what need be said of the unsurpassed omniscience and omni- potence of that great being, Brahman? That is the construction. "Of that which is differentiated into various branches": the appiication (upanaya) is from "Of that differentiated" up to " origination"; the conclusions begins with "of him, that great being" and ends with " omnipo- tence". "Even without effort": i.e., with very slight effort, as when one says: "The barley porridge is saltless." What divine sages too cannot compass even with great effort, He effects that with very slight effort, as if in sport ; thus are declared His unsurpassed omniscience and omnipotence. For His creation of the Vedas without effort there is cited Scripture: "Of this great being" etc." Even by those who recognise the eternality of letters (the Mimamsakas), the non-eternality of words and sentences should be admitted. A word is, indeed, composed of letters differentiated by sequence. A sentence is composed of words differentiated

शास्रयोनित्वम् १४० माना अपि शक्या वक्तुम्। न खल्विक्षुक्षीर- गुडादीनां मधुररसभेदाः शक्याः सरस्वत्याप्याख्या- तुम्। विस्तरार्थमपि वाक्यं न वक्तृज्ञानेन तुल्य- विषयमिति कथयितुं विस्तरग्रहणम्। सोपनयं निगमनमाह-किमु वक्तव्यम् इति। वेदस्य यस्मात् महतो भूतात् योने: संभवः, तरय महतो भूतस्य ब्रह्मणो निरतिशयं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं च किमु वक्तव्यमिति योजना। अनेकशाखा इति। अत्र च अनेकशाखाभेदभिन्नस्य इत्यादिः संभव इत्यन्त उपनयः । तस्य इत्यादि सर्वशक्तित्वं च इत्यन्तं निगमनम्। अप्रयल्नेनैव इति। ईषत्प्रयलेन, यथा 'अलवणा यवागूः' इति। देवर्षयो हि महा- परिश्रमेणापि यत्राशक्ता: तदयमीषत्प्रयत्नेन लीलयैव करोतीति निरतिशयमस्य सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं चोक्तं भवति। अप्रयल्नेनास्य वेदकर्तृत्वे श्रुतिरुक्त्ता 'अस्य महतो भूतस्य' इति। येऽपि तावत् वर्णानां नित्यत्वमास्थिषत तैरपि पदवाक्यादीना- मनित्यत्वमभ्युपेयम्। आनुपूर्वीभेदवन्तो हि वर्णाः पदम्। पदानि चानुपूर्वीभेदवन्ति वाक्यम्। व्यक्ति- 36

१४१ शास्त्रयोनित्वम धर्मश्रानुपूर्वी न वर्णधर्मः, वर्णानां नित्यानां विभूनां च कालतो देशतो वा पौर्वापर्यायोगात्। व्यक्तिश्रा- नित्येति कथं तदुपगृहीतानां वर्णानां नित्यानामपि पदता नित्या ? पदानित्यतया च वाक्यादीनामप्य- नित्यता व्याख्याता। तस्मान्नृत्तानुकरणवत् पदा- द्यनुकरणमपि। यथा हि यादशं गात्रचलनादि नर्तकः करोति तादृशमेव शिक्ष्यमाणानुकरोति नर्तकी, न तु तदेव व्यनक्ति, एवं यादृशीमानुपूर्वी वैदिकानां वर्णपदादीनां करोत्य- ध्यापयिता तादृशीमेवानुकरोति माणवक:, न तु तामेवोच्चारयति, आचार्यव्यक्तिभ्यो माणवक- व्यक्तीनामन्यत्वात्। तरमान्नित्यानित्यवर्णवादिनां न लौकिकवैदिकपदवाक्यादिपौरुषेयत्वे विवाद :; केवलं वेदवाक्येषु पुरुषस्वातन्त्र्याखवातन्रये विप्रतिपत्तिः । यथाहुः-'यत्नतः प्रतिषेध्या नः पुरुषाणां स्वतन्त्रता' इति। तत्र सृष्टिप्रलयमनिच्छन्तो जैमिनीया वेदाध्ययनं प्रत्यसमादृशगुरुशिष्यपरम्पराम- विच्छिन्नामनादिमाचक्षते। वैयासिकं तु मत- मनुवर्तमाना: श्रुतिस्मृतीतिहासादिसिद्धसृष्टिप्रल-

SORIPTURE-SOURCE 141

by sequence. Sequence, which is a property of manifestation, is not a property of letters, since for letters, which are eternal and all-pervasive, there can be no relationship of before and after, in respect of time or space. Manifestation being non-eternal, how can word-ness be eternal, though the manifested letters be eternal ? By the non-eternality of words, the non-eternality of sentences etc. is also explained. Hence the repetition of words etc. is like the (imitative) repetition of dancing. Just as the danseuse, who is instructed, performs movements and gestures like to those performed by the dancing instructor, and does not exhibit the very same gestures, even so the pupil follows the same sequence among the letters, words etc. of the Veda as that adopted by the instructor, but does not pronounce the very same (sequence) ; for, the manifestations (the sounds) of the pupil are different from the manifestations (sounds) of the teacher. Thus, there is no dispute between those who uphold the eternality or non-eternality of letters as to the creation of words and sentences, whether ordinary or Scriptural; there is difference of view only with reference to the (absolute) liberty of man in respect of Scriptural sentences. As they say: "With effort should we refute (only) the (absolute) liberty of man." The Jaiminiyas, who do not believe in a creation or destruction, teach a beginningless and uninterrupted study of the Veda, through a succession of teachers and pupils like ourselves. But those who follow the teaching of Vyasa say that, though, according to the doctrine of creation and destruction established in

142 SORIPTURE-SOURCE

Soripture, the traditional Code, epics etc., the supreme self, who because of His association with beginningless Nescience is omnipotent and omniscient, is the creator of the eternal Vedas, He is not entirely free in respect of them, since He creates their sequence in such manner as to conform to the earlier ones; (this is) in the same way as sacrifice and brahminicide, which, though illusory effects of Brahman, do not change their nature in a fresh creation, in respect of their leading respectively to good and evil. Not in any creation is brahminicide the cause of good nor the horse-sacrifice the cause of evil, any more than fire can wet or water burn. Just as, in this creation, the study of the Veda in the settled sequence is the cause of prosperity and beatitude, and (studied) otherwise is the cause of evil even as a verbal thunder-bolt,104 even so does it happen in another creation ; hence, the creator, who, though omniscient and omnipotent, creates the Vedas in accordance with what they were in earlier creations, has not a free hand. The Jaiminiyas too prefer to understand by "not being of human origin (apauruşeyatva)" the absence of entire freedom for the person (who creates). That is common to us too, with a different purpose. Nor is it proper (to urge) that, if revealed by one person, there would be no faith (in Scripture). What is revealed even by many persons,-ignorant or wise, yet affected by some defect-is, indeed, not worthy of faith ; that revela- tion, however, is worthy of faith which is made by him, who possesses knowledge of the truth and from whom all defects

शाजयोनिस्वम् १४२ यानुसारेण अनाद्यविद्योपधानलब्घसर्वशत्तिसर्वज्ञान- स्यापि परमात्मनो नित्यस्य वेदानां योनेरपि न तेषु स्वातन्त्र्यम्, पूर्वपूर्वसर्गानुसारेण तादृशानुपूर्वीविरचनात्; यथा हि यागादि- ब्रह्महत्यादयोऽर्थानर्थहेतवो ब्रह्मविवर्ता अपि न सर्गान्तरे विपरियन्ति। न हि जातु क्वचित्सर्गे ब्रह्महत्यार्थहेतुरनर्थहेतुश्चाश्रमेधो भवति, अभिर्वा क्लेदयति, आपो वा दहन्ति, तद्वत्। यथात्र सर्गे नियतानुपूर्व्य वेदाध्ययनमभ्युदयनिःश्रेयसहेतुः, अन्यथा तदेव वाग्वज्रतयानर्थहेतुः, एवं सर्गान्त- रेष्वपीति तदनुरोधात् सर्वज्ञोऽपि सर्वशक्तिरपि पूर्वपूर्वसर्गानुसारेण वेदान्विरचयन्न स्वतन्त्रः । पुरुषास्वातन्त्र्यमात्रं चापौरुषेयत्वं रोचयन्ते जैमिनीया अपि। तच्चास्माकमपि समानम्, अन्यत्राभि- निवेशात्। न चैकस्य प्रतिभाने अनाश्वास इति युक्तम्। न हि बहूनामप्यज्ञानां विज्ञानां वा आशयदोषवतां प्रतिभाने युक्त आश्वासः ; तत्त्वज्ञानवतस्त्वपास्तसमस्तदोषस्यैकस्यापि प्रतिभाने

१४३ शास्त्रयोनित्वम् अथ वा यथोक्तमृग्वेदादिशास्त्रं योनिः कारणं प्रमाणमस्य ब्रह्मणो यथावत्स्व- रूपाधिगमे। शास्त्रादेव प्रमाणात् जगतो जन्मादिकारणं ब्रह्माधिगम्यत इत्यभि- प्रायः। शास्त्रमुदाहृतं पूर्वसूत्रे-'यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते' इत्यादि। किमर्थं तर्हीदं सूत्रम्, यावता पूर्वसूत्रेणैव एवंजातीयकं शास्त्रमुदाहरता शास्त्रयो- नित्वं ब्रह्मणो दर्शितम्? उच्यते-तत्र सूत्राक्षरेण स्पष्टं शास्त्रस्यानुपादाना-

युक्त एवाश्वासः । सर्गादिभुवां च प्रजापति- देवर्षीणां धर्मज्ञानवैराग्यैश्वर्यसंपन्नानामुपपद्यते तत्स्व- रूपावधारणम् ; तत्प्रत्ययेन चार्वाचीनानामपि तत्र संप्रत्यय इत्युपपन्नं ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रयोनित्वम्, शास्त्रस्य चापौरुषेयत्वम्, प्रामाण्यं चेति। इति प्रथमवर्णकम्। वर्णकान्तरमारभते-अथ वा इति। पूर्वेणाधि- करणेन ब्रह्मस्वरूपलक्षणासंभवाशङ्कां व्युदस्य

SCRIPTURE-BOURCE 143

Or else, the sacred teaching comprising the Rgveda etc., as described above, is the source, i.e., the cause or the authority for understanding correctly the nature of this Brahman. It is only from the sacred teaching as authority that Brahman is understood to be the cause of the origination etc. of the universe : this is the idea. In the previous aphorism has been cited the sacred teaching beginning with "That whence these beings originate". Then for what purpose is this aphorism, inasmuch as in the previous aphorism itself the source of Brahman was shown to be the sacred teaching, through the citation of sacred teachings of this class ? The reply is: there, the sacred teaching has not been

have been banished, even though he is but one. In the case of those who existed at the first creation, like Prajapati and the divine sages, who possess in abundance virtue, wisdom, non-attachment and lordly power, the ascertain- ment of His nature is intelligible; through their faith follows the faith of later ones; hence, Brahman's being the sacred-teaching-source is intelligible, as also the non-human origin and validity of the sacred teaching. This is the first explanation (of the aphorism). He begins another explanation : "Or else" etc. In the previous section, the impossibility of a definition of Brahman's nature was refuted and the possibility of a defini- tion stated. Of that same definition the doubt is removed,

144 SORIPTURE-SOURCE

explicitly stated in the words of the aphorism; so it may be doubted that in the aphorism "That, whence for this what begins with origination " mere inference was suggested; to remove such a doubt, this aphorism sets out "Because of the Sacred-Teaching-Source."

that by this may be inferred (the existence of Brahman, e.g., on the analogy of products within our experience which require a creator), and it is said that in respect of Brahman taught by revelation Scripture is the (only) means of valid knowledge. The meaning of the text (of the commentary) is not obsoure.

शास्त्रयोनित्वम् १४४ जन्मादिसूत्रेण केवलमनुमानमुपन्यस्त- मित्याशङ्गघेत ; तामाशङ्कां निवर्तयितुमिदं सूत्रं प्रववृते 'शास्त्रयोनित्वात्' इति।

लक्षणसंभव उक्त: । तस्यैव तु लक्षणस्यानेन अनुमानत्वाशङ्कामपाकृत्य आगमोपदर्शनेन ब्रह्मणि शास्त्रं प्रमाणमुक्तम्। अक्षरार्थस्तु अतिरोहितः ।

कथं पुनर्ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रप्रमाणकत्वमुच्यते, यावता 'आम्नायस्य क्रियार्थत्वादानर्थक्य- मतदर्थानाम्' इति क्रियापरत्वं शास्त्रस्य

शास्त्रप्रमाणकत्वमुक्तं ब्रह्मणः प्रतिज्ञामात्रेण; तदनेन सूश्रेण प्रतिपादनीयम्; इत्युत्सूत्रं पूर्वपक्ष- मारचयति भाष्यकार :- कथं पुनः इति। किम् आक्षेपे-शुद्धबुद्धोदासीनरवभावतया उपेक्षणीयं ब्रह्म भूतमभिदधतां वेदान्तानामपुरुषार्थोपदेशि- नामप्रयोजनत्वापत्ते :; भूतार्थत्वेन च प्रत्यक्षादिभि: समानविषयतया लौकिकवाक्यवत्तदर्थानुवादकत्वेना- प्रामाण्यप्रसङ्गात्। न खलु लौकिकानि वाक्यानि प्रमाणान्तरविषयमर्थमवबोधयन्ति स्वतः प्रमाणम् ; एवं वेदान्ता अपीत्यनपेक्षत्वलक्षणं प्रामाण्यमेषां व्याहन्येत। न च तैरप्रमाणैर्भवितुं युक्तम्। न चाप्रयोजनैः, स्वाध्यायाध्ययनविध्यापादित

How, again, can Brahman be said to have the sacred teaching as authority, inasmuch as sacred teachings are shown to refer to rituals in "Since Scripture is for the purpose of ritual, there is futility for whatever has not that purpose"? Therefore, there is futility for

That the sacred teaching is the means of valid knowledge in respect of Brahman has been but premised (in the second explanation of the last aphorism) ; that is to be taught by the present aphorism ; hence, the commentator prefaces the aphorism with a statement of the prima facie view: "How, again" etc. "How" signifies an objection: because there would result non-utility for the Vedantas, which teach what is not the human goal, declaring (as they do) the existent Brahman, which, being pure, intelligent and indifferent by nature, should be treated with indifference; and because there would result non-authoritativeness for them (the Vedantas) since, having existent objects for their content, they have the same content as perception etc., and are consequently but re-statements, like worldly statements. Worldly statements, which teach the same content as other means of valid knowledge, are not, verily, of themselves authoritative; similarly of the Vedantas too; hence, their authoritativeness consisting in their non-dependence (on any other means of valid knowledge) would be destroyed. Nor is it meet that they should become unauthoritative. Nor unfruitful, for, it is

146 HARMONY

the Vedantas since they are not for the purpose of ritual; or they may be subsidiaries to the injunction of rituals with the purpose of making known the agent, the deity etc., or they may have the purpose of pres- cribing other acts like contemplation etc. Indeed, there cannot possibly be the teaching of the nature of already existent things, because a thing already existent is the content of perception etc .; and in the teaching thereof,

settled that they have the fruit brought about by the prescription to study one's own Veda. Hence, they subserve acts, their only purport being the teaching of agent, deity etc., required by the respective prescribed rites. If, how- ever, that purport be not accepted, because of non- proximity, then of the Vedantas, there is at least reference to acts like contemplation etc., which are proximate. Thus, indeed, as having for its sphere what is not understood by perception etc., and hence as not depen- dent on those (pramanas), validity and utility result (for the Vedantas): this is the sense intended (by the ob- jector). The citation of the aphorism of the great sage (Jaimini) is for strengthening the prima facie view (and making clear the necessity to refute it, not for creating faith in it as the final view). "Futility" means non-utility and non-generation of valid knowledge, being dependent (on other pramānas), be- cause of being re-statements. From "therefore" up to "or, they may have the purpose of prescribing other acts like con- templation etc., " is the compendious statement (of this view). The analytical commentary on this begins with "Indeed, there cannot" and ends with "or is intelligible".

समन्वयम १४६ प्रदर्शितम्। अतो वेदान्तानामानर्थक्यम्, अक्रियार्थत्वात्; कर्तृदेवतादिप्रकाशनार्थ- त्वेन वा क्रियाविधिशेषत्वम्, उपासनादि- क्रियान्तरविधानार्थत्वं वा । न हि परि- निष्ठितवस्तुस्वरूपप्रतिपादनं संभवति, प्र- त्यक्षादिविषयत्वात्परिनिष्ठितवस्तुनः, तत्प्र-

प्रयोजनवत्त्वनियमात्। तस्मात्तत्तद्विहितकर्मापेक्षित- कर्तृदेवतादिप्रतिपादनपरत्वेनैव क्रियार्थत्वम्। यदि त्वसंनिधानात्तत्परत्वं न रोचयन्ते, ततः संनिहितो- पासनादिक्रियापरत्वं वा वेदान्तानाम्। एवं हि प्रत्यक्षाद्यनधिगतगोचरत्वेनानपेक्षतया प्रामाण्यं च प्रयोजनवत्त्वं च सिध्यतीति तात्पर्यार्थः । पारमर्ष- सूत्रोपन्यासस्तु पूर्वपक्षदार्ढ्याय। आनर्थक्यं च अप्रयोजनवत्त्वम, सापेक्षतया प्रमानुत्पादकत्वं चानुवादकत्वादिति। अतः इत्यादि वान्तं ग्रहणकवाक्यम्। अस्य विभागभाष्यं न हि इत्यादि उपपन्ना वा इत्यन्तम् ।

समस्ययम्

तिपादने च हेयोपादेयरहिते पुरुषार्था- भावात्। अत एव 'सोऽरोदीत्' इत्येव- मादीनामानर्थक्यं मा भूदिति 'विधिना त्वेकवाक्यत्वात्स्तुत्यर्थेन विधीनां स्युः' इति स्तावकत्वेनार्थवत्वमुक्तम्। मन्ताणां च 'इषे त्वा' इत्यादीनां क्रिया- तत्साधनाभिधायकत्वेन कर्मसमवायित्व- मुक्तम्। न क्वचिदपि वेदवाक्यानां विधिसंस्पर्शमन्तरेणार्थवत्ता दृष्टा उपपन्ना वा। न च परिनिष्ठिते वस्तुस्वरूपे विधिः संभवति, क्रियाविषयत्वाद्विधेः ।

स्यादेतत्। अक्रियार्थत्वेऽपि ब्रह्मस्वरूप- विधिपरा वेदान्ता भविष्यन्ति; तथा च 'विधिना त्वेकवाक्यत्वात्-' इति राडान्त- सूत्रमनुग्रहीष्यते। न खल्वप्रवृत्तप्रवर्तनमेव विधि :; उत्पत्तिविधेरज्ञातज्ञापनार्थत्वात् ; वेदान्तानां चा- ज्ञातं ब्रह्म ज्ञापयतां तथाभावात्, इत्यत आह- न च परिनिष्ठित इति। अनागतोत्पाद्य-

HARMONY 147

there being nothing to be rejected or accepted, there is no human goal. For this very reason, lest there be futility in the case of "He howled" etc., they are stated to be purposeful as being praises, (in the aphorism), " But by syntactical unity with an injunction, they may have the purpose of praising the injunction". And Mantras like "Thee for food" etc. are said to be related to ritual, mentioning as they do rituals or the instru- ments therefor. (Therefore), nowhere has the purpose- fulness of the Vedic sentences without association with an injunction been seen or is intelligible. And in respect of the nature of a thing already existent there can be no injunction, because an injunction has ritual as

Be this so. Though not subserving acts, the Vedantas have for purport an injunction in respect of Brahman's nature; that is favoured by the aphorism stating the final view (for the Mimamsakas): "But by syntactical unity with an injunction" etc." Verily, not that alone is an injunction which induces activity where there was none before; for, the originative injunction has the purpose of making known what was unknown; and the Vedantas, which make known the unknown Brahman, have this nature. To this he says: "And in respect of the nature of a thing already existent" etc. All injunctions are admitted to have for content only a becoming which is not yet existent and is to be originated; for, the various forms of injunction-the qualificatory (stating the fruit), the applicatory (showing the subsidiariness of the rite to tho

148 HARMONY

content. Therefore, the Vedantas are subsidiary to injunctions of rituals, illuminating as they do the nature of the agent, the deity etc. required by ritual. If now because of the fear that the context is different (from that of ritual), this be not accepted, even then they have for purport the act of contemplation present in their own sentences. Therefore for Brahman the sacred teaching cannot be the source. When this results, the reply is :

BUT THAT, BECAUSE OF THE HARMONY

fruit), the procedural, and the originative (showing the form, i.e., the material and the deity for the rite)-are inseparable one from another, and they do not occur in respect of the existent. But they differ in respect of the purport of the respective statements. For example, the statement "he is to perform the agnihotra" is a statement which is only originative in significance, since by the statement "he who desires heaven is to sacrifice with the agnihotra" there are obtained the eligible person, the application, and the procedure. Nor is it that the applica- tion etc. are not present there (in "he is to sacrifice with the agnihotra"); though present, they are merely unintended, being otherwise obtained. Hence, an injunc- tion, which has a volition for its content, cannot result in the case of an existent object. He concludes : "Therefore" etc.

समन्वय: १४८

तस्मात्कर्मापेक्षितकर्तृदेवतादि स्वरूपप्रकाश- नेन क्रियाविधिशेषत्वं वेदान्तानाम्। अथ प्रकरणान्तरभयान्नैतदभ्युपगम्यते, त- थापि स्ववाक्यगतोपासनादिकर्मपरत्वम्। तस्मान्न ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रयोनित्वमिति प्राप्ते, उच्यते-

तत्तु समन्वयात् ॥४॥

भावविषय एव हि सर्वो विधिरुपेयः, अधिकार- विनियोगप्रयोगोत्पत्तिरूपाणां परस्परमविनाभावात्, सिद्धे च तेषामसंभवात्। तद्वाक्यानां त्वैदंपर्य भिद्यते। यथा 'अभिहोत्रं जुहुयात्रवर्गकामः' इत्यादिभ्योऽधिकारविनियोगप्रयोगाणां प्रतिलम्भात्, 'अभिहोत्रं जुहोति' इत्युत्पत्तिमात्रपरं वाक्यम्। न त्वत विनियोगादयो न सन्ति; सन्तोऽप्यन्यतो लब्धत्वात्केवलमविवक्षिताः । तस्मात् भावना- विषयो विधिर्न सिद्धे वरतुनि भवितुमर्हतीति। उपसंहरति-तस्मात् इति। 88

१४९ समन्वयः

तुशब्द: पूर्वपक्षव्यावृत्त्यर्थः। तद्रह्म सर्वज्ञं सर्वशक्ति जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिलय- कारणं वेदान्तशास्त्रादवगम्यते। कथम्? समन्वयात्। सर्वेषु हि वेदान्तेषु वाक्यानि

अत्रारुचिकारणमुक्त्वा पक्षान्तरमुपसंक्रमते- अथ इति। एवं च सति उक्तरुपे ब्रह्मणि शब्दस्यातात्पर्यात् प्रमाणान्तरेण यादृशमस्य रूपं व्यवस्थाप्यते न तच्छब्देन विरुध्यते; तस्योपासना- परत्वात्, समारोपेण चोपासनाया उपपत्तेरिति। प्रकृतमुपसंहरति-तस्मान्न इति। सूत्रेण सिद्धान्तयति-उच्यत इति। तदेतद्वयाचष्टे-तुशब्द इति। तदित्युत्तर- पक्षप्रतिज्ञां विभजते -- तद्रह्म इति। पूर्वपक्षी कर्कशाशयः पृच्छति-कथम् इति। कुतः प्रकारादित्यर्थः । सिद्धान्ती स्वपक्षे हेतुं प्रकार- भेदमाह-समन्वयात्। सम्यगन्वयः समन्वयः; तस्मात्। एतदेव विभजते-सर्वेषु हि वेदान्तेषु इति। वेदान्तानामैकान्तिकीं ब्रह्म-

HARMONY 149

The word " but" is to exclude the prima facie view. That Brahman, omniscient and omnipotent, the cause of the creation, sustentation and dissolution of the universe, is understood from the sacred teaching, the Vedanta (alone). How ? Because of the harmony. Indeed, in all the Vedantas, the sentences run together as having for

Stating the cause of dissatisfaction with that, he ends with another view: "If, now" etc. This being the case, since verbal testimony has no purport in respect of Brahman of the nature declared, that form thereof which has been established by other means of valid knowledge cannot be contradicted by verbal testimony; for, that (verbal testimony) relates to contemplation, and contempla- tion is compatible even with superimposition. He concludes the present topic: "Therefore, for Brahman" etc. Beginning with "The reply is," he states the final view through the aphorism. He explains this: "The word'but " etc. The word tat (in the aphorism) premises the final view; this he analyses: "That Brahman" etc. The upholder of the prima facie view, whose mind is hard (and impenetrable), asks: "How?" i.e., "In what way?" The upholder of the final view states the ground of his own view, which is the particular way (demanded by the opponent): "Because of the harmony." Right (full) relation is harmony (samancaya); thereby (is the reference to Brahman established). This itself he analyses: "Indeed, in all the Vedantas" etc. He cites many texts, in the desire to declare that the Vedantas refer solely to Brahman:

150 HARMONY

purport the teaching of this sense: " Existence alone, dear one, this was in the beginning " (Chand., VI, ii, 1); "One alone without a second"; "The Self, verily, exis- ted in the beginning as one alone" (Ait., II, i, 1 (i)); "Such this Brahman without an earlier and a later, without an inside and an outside" (Brh., II, v, 19); "This Self is Brahinan, the experiencer of all " (Mund., II, ii, 11); "Brahman alone, the immortal in front";

"Existence alone" etc. As for the text "That, verily, whence these beings originate" etc., that was cited earlier and refers to the cause of the origination, sustentation and destruction of the universe; since it will be thus recalled here, it is not mentioned (again). Indeed, that with which a statement begins and that with which it ends, that alone is considered to be the meaning of the statement, by those who understand the nature of the knowledge resulting from verbal testimony. For example, in respect of the text about the upūmsu sacrifice, it is acknowledged to be injunctive of that novel upamsu sacrifice, on the strength of the syntactical unity with the injunction of the upamsu sacrifice, preceded by the statement of the defect of apathy (occasioned by) the continuous (oblation of) purodasa, as also with the concluding (part stating) the remedying of that (defect) .; even so, here too, because of the text "Existence alone, dear one, this was" etc., commencing with Brahman, and the text "That thou art " concluding with Brahman as the self of the jtva, the (whole) text has that alone for purport. In the same way it is to be

समन्वय: १५०

तात्पर्येणैतस्यार्थस्य प्रतिपादकत्वेन समनु- गतानि-'सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत् ', 'एकमेवाद्वितीयम्', 'आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत्', 'तदेतद्भह्मापूर्वमनपरम- नन्तरमबाह्यम्', 'अयमात्मा ब्रह्म सर्वानु- भूः', 'ब्रह्मैवेदममृतं पुरस्तात्' इत्या-

परतामाचिख्यासुर्बहूनि वाक्यान्युदाहरति-सदेव- इति। 'यतो वा इमानि भूतानि' इति तु वाक्यं पूर्वमुदाहृतं जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिनाश- कारणमिति चेह स्मारितमिति न पठितम् । येन हि वाक्यमुपक्रम्यते येन चोपसंहियते स एव वाक्यार्थ इति शाब्दाः। यथोपांशुयाज- वाक्येऽ्नूचोः पुरोडाशयोर्जामितादोषसंकीर्तनपूर्व- कोपांशुयाजविधानेन तत्प्रतिसमाधानोपसंहारेण चा- पूर्वोपांशुयाजकर्मविधिपरता एकवाक्यताबलादाश्रिता, एवमत्रापि 'सदेव सोम्येदम्' इति ब्रह्मोपक्रमात् 'तत्त्वमसि' इति च जीवस्य ब्रह्मात्मनोपसंहारात् तत्परतैव वाक्यस्य। एवं वाक्यान्तराणामपि

१५१ समन्वयः

दीनि। न च तद्रतानां पदानां ब्रह्म- स्वरूपविषये निश्चिते समन्वयेऽवगम्यमाने अर्थान्तरकल्पना युक्ता, श्रुतहान्यश्रुत- कल्पनाप्रसङ्गात्। न च तेषां कर्तृ- देवतादिस्वरूपप्रतिपादनपरता अवसीयते, 'तत्केन कं पश्येत्' इत्यादिक्रियाकारक- फलनिराकरणश्रुतेः। न च परिनिष्ठितवस्तुस्वरूपत्वेऽपि प्रत्यक्षादिविषयत्वं ब्रह्मणः, 'तत्वमसि' इति ब्रह्मात्मभावस्य शास्त्रमन्तरेणान-

पौर्वापर्यालोचनया ब्रह्मपरत्वमवगन्तव्यम्। न च तत्परत्वस्य दृष्टस्य सति संभवेऽन्यपरता अदृष्टा युक्ता कल्पयितुम्, अतिप्रसङ्गात्। न केवलं कर्तृपरता तेषामदृष्टा, अनुपपन्ना चेत्याह-न च तेषाम् इति। सापेक्षत्वेनाप्रामाण्यं पूर्वपक्षबीजं स्मारयित्वा दूषयति-न च परिनिष्ठितवस्तुस्वरूपत्वेऽपि इति। अयमभिसंधि :- पुंवाक्यनिदर्शनेन हि

HARMONY 151

and so on. Nor, when for the words in these texts the ascertained harmony is understood to have for content the nature of Brahman, is it proper to assume any other content ; for there would result the abandon- ment of what is directly stated and the assump- tion of what is not directly stated. Nor may one conclude that their purport is to teach the nature of the agent, the deity etc .; because there are scriptural texts like, "Then by what and whom could one see?" (Brh., II, iv, 13) which refute action, causal condition and result. Nor is Brahman, though of the nature of an already existent thing. the content of perception etc .; because, that Brahman is the self, as stated in "That thou art" (Chand., VI, viii, 7), cannot be understood

understood, through the consideration of what goes before and after, that other texts too have Brahman for purport. Nor, when there is the possibility of a seen purport in reference thereto, is it proper to posit an unseen purport in reference to something else, that being an undue extension. Their purport in reference to agents is not merely unseen, but also unintelligible; thus he says : "Nor may one" etc. Recalling the causo of the prima facie view about unauthoritativeness due to dependence, he condemns it : "Nor is Brahman, though of the nature of an already existent thing" etc. This is what is intended : it is, indeed, on the analogy of human statements, that, as referring to existent things, the dependence of the Vedantas (on other pramanas) is suspected. Here, you being questioned will

152 HARMONY

have to explain this: is the dependence of human statements because of their reference to existent things or because of their being human? If because of the reference to existent things, then would result non- authoritativeness even for perception etc., as reciprocally dependent ; for, they too certainly refer to existent things. If now human statements are dependent as due to the human intellect, then, of the Vedantas not due to that, though referring to existent things, there is no non- authoritativeness, as for perception etc., (which are valid) as generated by constant causes like the senses, the probins etc. It may be said: if, indeed, non-human origin were established, then, for the Vedantas as non-dependent, validity would result; but that itself is not established, because of the reference to existent things; for, since of an existent thing a person can have knowledge, without depending on verbal testimony, through other means of knowledge, the making (of a statement about such a thing) as due to the intellect is intelligible; and the inference as to the human origin of the Vedas can arise unhindered, the probans being (their being composed of) sentences etc. (which are artificial combinations of letters etc.). Hence, dependence is unavoidable, on the ground of human origin, but not on the ground of referring to an existent thing. In the case, however, of that which refers to what is to be done, since what is to be done is novel and not the sphere of any other means of knowledge, and since what has never been experienced before cannot enter the human intellect, either in its own nature or as superimposed, for the Vedantas signifying this, there can be no creation, and consequently no human origin; hence results (for them) authoritativeness

समन्वयः १५२ भूतार्थतया वेदान्तानां सापेक्षत्वमाशङ्कयते। तत्रैवं भवान् पृष्टो व्याचष्टाम्, किं पुंवाक्यानां सापेक्षता भूतार्थत्वेन, आहो पौरुषेयत्वेन ? यदि भूतार्थत्वेन ततः प्रत्यक्षादीनामपि परस्परा- पेक्षत्वेनाप्रामाण्यप्रसङ्ग :; तान्यपि हि भूतार्थान्येव। अथ पुरुषबुद्धिपूर्वकतया पुंवाक्यं सापेक्षम्, एवं तर्हि अतत्पूर्वकाणां वेदान्तानां भूतार्थानामपि नाप्रामाण्यं प्रत्यक्षादीनामिव नियतेन्द्रियलिङ्गादि- जन्मनाम् । यद्युच्येत-सिद्धे किलापौरुषेयत्वे वेदान्ताना- मनपेक्षतया प्रामाण्यं सिध्येत्; तदेव तु भूतार्थत्वेन न सिध्यति; भूतार्थरय शब्दानपेक्षेण पुरुषेण मानान्तरतः शक्यज्ञानत्वाद्बुद्धिपूर्व विरचनोपपत्तेः; वाक्यत्वादिलिङ्गकस्य वेदपौरुषे- यत्वानुमानस्याप्रत्यूहमुत्पत्तेः । तस्मात्पौरुषेयत्वेन सा- पेक्षत्वं दुर्वारम्, न तु भूतार्थत्वेन। कार्यार्थत्वे तु कार्यस्यापूर्वस्य मानान्तरागोचरतया अत्यन्ता- ननुभूतपूर्वस्य तत्त्वेन समारोपेण वा पुरुषबुद्धाव-

89

१५३ समन्वयः

समारोहात् तदर्थानां वेदान्तानामशक्यरचनतया पौरुषेयत्वाभावादनपेक्षं प्रमाणत्वं सिध्यतीति प्रामाण्याय वेदान्तानामपि कार्यपरत्वमातिष्ठामहे। अत्र ब्रूम :- किं पुनरिदं कार्यमभिमतमायुष्मतः यदशक्यं पुरुषेण ज्ञातुम्? अपूर्वमिति चेतु , हन्त कुतस्त्यमस्य लिडाद्यर्थत्वम् ? तेनालौकिकेन संगतिसंवेदनविरहात् ; लोकानुसारतः क्रियाया एव लौकिक्याः कार्यतया लिडदेरवगमात्। 'स्वर्गकामो यजेत' इति साध्यरवर्गविशिष्टो नियोज्योऽवगम्यते ; स च तदेव कार्यमवगच्छति यत्स्वर्गानुकूलम्। न च क्रिया क्षणभङ्गुरा आमुष्मिकाय स्वर्गाय कल्पत इति पारिशेष्याद्वेदत एवापूर्वे कार्ये लिडादीनां संबन्धग्रह इति चेत्, हन्त चैत्यवन्दनादिवाक्येष्वपि रवर्ग- कामादिपदसंबन्धादपूर्वकार्यत्वप्रसङ्ग :; तथा च तेषामप्यशक्यरचनत्वेनापौरुषेयत्वापातः । स्पष्टदृष्टेन पौरुषेयत्वेन वा तेषामपूर्वार्थत्वप्रतिषेधे वाक्यत्वादिना लिड्गेन वेदान्तानामपि पौरुषेयत्वमनुमितमित्य-

HARMONY 153

without dependence; therefore, in order to secure authorita- tiveness, we recognise even of the Vedantas that their purport is what is to be done. To this we say: what, again, O long-lived one l, is this which is to be done, which cannot be known by man ? If it be said to be the unseen potentiality (apurva), how, alas, does it come to be the significance of the imperative suffix (lin) etc. ? For, that (apurva) being trans-experiential, there is no knowledge of the relation (of the word) to that ; in conformity with ordinary language, from the imperative suffix etc. there are understood only acts within experience, as what is to be done. (It may be said that) from the statement "He who desires heaven is to sacrifice," the one, who is qualified by heaven which is to be attained, is understood to be the one directed; and he understands that alone has to be done which is beneficial in securing heaven. Nor are acts, which are destroyed momentarily, capable of securing heaven hereafter; hence, by elimination, it is only from the Veda that there is understood the relation of the imperative suffix etc. to the unseen potentiality, (which is) what is to be done. If this be said, it would follow, alas, that even in texts enjoining obeisance in a caitya (a Buddhist shrine), there is, because of relation to such words as desire for heaven etc., the unseen potentiality (which is) to be done ; and thus, creation even of these being impossible, non- human origin would result (for them too). Or, if because their human origin is clearly seen, their signifying an unseen potentiality be denied, then, since human origin may be inferred of the Vedantas too, (their being composed of) sentences etc. being the probans, (for them too) there

154 HARMONY

except by sacred teaching. As for what has been said that, being devoid of what is to be rejected or accepted, the teaching is futile, there is not this defect ; for, even from the realisation of the self as Brahman, which is devoid of what is to be rejected or accepted, there results, through the destruction of all hindrances, the attainment of the human goal. But of that which teaches the deity etc., there is no opposition even to its subserving the contemplation mentioned in its own text.

cannot be the signification of an unseen potentiality. If the inference from (being composed of) sentences etc. is shown to be fallacious on some other ground, (that ground itself will do, and) the justification (of non-human origin) on the ground of an unseen potentiality being signi- fied is superfluous. And non-human origin has been ex- pounded by us in the Nyāyakanika; here, however, it is not set forth for fear of prolixity.107 Non-human origin being thus established, there is not for the Vedantas, though referring to existent things, any detriment to their authoritativeness on the ground of de- pendence (on other means of knowledge). Nor is it that there is not the understanding of what has not been under- stood, in which case, there would be no authoritativeness; for, the jtva's being Brahman is not otherwise understood. That is thus said: "Nor is Brahman, though of the nature of an existent thing" etc. Recalling the second cause of the prima facie view, he condemns it: "As for what has been said that, being devoid of what is to be rejected or accepted" etc. From the understanding of the sense of injunctions the attainment

समल्वयः १५४ वगम्यमानत्वात्। यन्तु हेयोपादेयरहि- तत्वादुपदेशानर्थक्यमिति, नैष दोषः; हेयोपादेयशून्यब्रह्मात्मतावगमादेव सर्व- क्लेशप्रहाणात्पुरुषार्थसिद्धेः। देवतादिप्रति- पादनस्य तु स्ववाक्यगतोपासनार्थत्वेऽपि

पूर्वार्थता न स्यात्। अन्यतस्तु वाक्यत्वादीना- मनुमानाभासत्वोपपादने कृतमपूर्वार्थत्वेनात्र तदुप- पादकेन। उपपादितं चापौरुषेयत्वमस्माभिर्न्याय- कणिकायाम ; इह तु विस्तरभयान्नोक्तम् । तेनापौरुषेयत्वे सिद्धे भूतार्थानामपि वेदान्तानां न सापेक्षतया प्रामाण्यविघातः । न चानधि- गतगन्तृता नारित येन प्रामाण्यं न स्यात्, जीवस्य ब्रह्मताया अन्यतोऽनधिगमात्। तदिद- मुक्तम्-न च परिनिष्ठितवस्तुस्वरूपत्वेऽपि इति। द्वितीयं पूर्वपक्षबीजं स्मारयित्वा दूषयति- यन्तु हेयोपादेयरहितत्वात् इति। विध्यर्था- वगमात् खलु पारम्पर्येण पुरुषार्थप्रतिलम्भः ।

१५५ समन्वय:

न कश्चिद्विरोधः। न तु तथा ब्रह्मण उपासनाविधिशेषत्वं संभति, एकत्वे हेयोपादेयशून्यतया क्रियाकारकादिद्वैत- विज्ञानोपमर्दोपपत्तेः। न हि ब्रह्मैकत्व- विज्ञानेनोन्मथितस्य द्वैतविज्ञानस्य पुनः संभवोऽस्ति, येनोपासनाविधिशेषत्वं ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपाद्येत।

इह तु 'तत्त्वमसि' इत्यवगतिपर्यन्ताद्वाक्यार्थ- ज्ञानात् बाह्यानुष्ठानायासानपेक्षात्साक्षादेव पुरुषार्थ- प्रतिलम्भः, 'नायं सर्पो रज्जुरियम्' इति ज्ञानादिवेति। सोऽयमस्य विध्यर्थज्ञानात् प्रकर्षः । एतदुक्तं भवति-द्विविधं हीप्सितं पुरुषस्य ; किंचिदप्राप्तम्, यथा ग्रामादि; किंचित्पुनः प्राप्तमपि भ्रमवशादप्राप्तमित्यवगतम्, यथा स्वग्रीवावनद्धं ग्रैवेयकम्। एवं जिहासितमपि द्विविधम् ; किंचिदहीनं जिहासति, यथा वलयितचरणं फणिनम् ; किंचित्पुनर्हीनमेव जिहासति, यथा चरणाभरणे नूपुरे फणिनमारोपितम्। तत्रा-

HARMONY 155

It does not, however, happen thus in the case of Brahman that it is subsidiary to the injunction of contemplation ; because, being one and devoid of what is to be rejected or accepted, it is intelligible that all cognition of duality such as action, causal condition etc. is quashed. And for the cognition of duality once crushed by the know- ledge of the oneness of Brahman, there cannot be a resur- rection, in which case there may be taught for Brahman subsidiariness to the injunction of contemplation.

of the human goal is, verily, indirect. Here, however, from the understanding of texts like "That thou art" culminating in realisation, there is, without dependence on the effort of any external observance, the direct attain- ment of the human goal, as from the knowledge " This is not a snake, but a rope". This is its superiority to the knowledge of the sense of injunctions. This is what is said: what is desired by man is, indeed, of two kinds-some unattained, e.g., a village etc .; others, again, which, though attained, yet under the influence of delusion are understood to be unattained, e.g., the necklace round one's own neck. Similarly, what would be abandoned is also two-fold-some which not already got rid of are desired to be got rid of, e.g., the snake encircling one's feet; others, again, which having been already got rid of are desired to be got rid of, e.g., the snake superimposed on the anklet adorning the feet. Here, since the attainment of the unattained and the

156 HARMONY

abandonment of the unabandoned result from the observance of extrinsic means, there is, subsequent to the true knowledge of these means, the need for their observance. Never does knowledge alone remove a thing. Even a thousand rope-cognitions cannot, indeed, alter the character of the really present snake. In the case, however, of those, which being superimposed are desired to be either attained or abandoned, it is possible to attain as it were or abandon as it were, by the mere intuition of the truth, without dependence on any extrinsic observances. For, they exist by the superimposition alone; and intuition of the truth plucks out the superimposed by the roct and destroys it. Thus, here too, in the bliss of Brahman, which through the superimposition due to Nescience has attained the state of the jtva, which is in reality devoid of grief, misery etc., this state conditioned by superimposition is removed by the true knowledge of the sense of the text "That thou art" culminating in realisation. On the removal of that, the blissful nature, though (eternally) attained, becomes attained, as if not attained (already); grief, misery etc., though (eternally) abandoned, become abandoned, as if unabandoned (already). This is said thus: "for, even from the realisation of the self as Brahman", though the removal in an eminent degree of all the hindrances of the jtva, i.e., of error together with its impressions,-that, verily, hinders beings ; hence it is the hindrance-"there is the attainment of the human goal" characterised by the removal of misery and the attainment of happiness.

समन्वय: १५६ प्राप्तप्राप्तौ चात्यक्तत्यागे च बाह्योपायानुष्ठान- साध्यत्वात् तदुपायतत्त्वज्ञानादरित पराचीना- नुष्ठानापेक्षा। न जातु ज्ञानमात्रं वरत्वपनयति । न हि सहस्रमपि रज्जुप्रत्यया वस्तुसन्तं फणिन- मन्यथयितुमीशते। समारोपिते तु प्रेप्सितजिहासिते तत्त्वसाक्षात्कारमात्रेण बाह्यानुष्ठानानपेक्षेणैव शक्येते प्राप्तुमिव हातुमिव। समारोपमात्रजीविते हि ते; समारोपितं च तत्त्वसाक्षात्कारः समूलघातमुपह- न्तीति। तथेहाप्यविद्यासमारोपितजीवभावे ब्रह्म- ण्यानन्दे वस्तुतः शोकदुःखादिरहिते समा- रोपितनिबन्धनस्तद्भावः 'तत्त्वमसि' इति वाक्यार्थ- तत्त्वज्ञानादवगतिपर्यन्तान्निवर्तते। तन्निवृत्तौ प्राप्त- मप्यानन्दरूपमप्राप्तमिव प्राप्तं भवति; त्यक्तमपि शोकदुःखाद्यत्यक्तमिव त्यक्तं भवति। तदिद- मुक्तम्-ब्रह्मात्मावगमादेव जीवस्य सर्वक्ेशस्य सवासनस्य विपर्यासस्य-स हि क्विश्नाति जन्तूनतः क्ेशः-तस्य प्रकर्षेण हानात् पुरुषार्थस्य, दुःखनिवृत्तिसुखाप्तिलक्षणस्य सिद्धे: इति। 40

१५७ समन्वयः

यत्तु 'आत्मेत्येवोपासीत', 'आत्मानमेव लोकमुपासीत' इत्युपासनावाक्यगतदेवतादिप्रति- पादनेनोपासनापरत्वं वेदान्तानामुक्तं तद्दूषयति- देवतादिप्रतिपादनस्य तु आत्मेत्येतावन्मात्रस्य स्ववाक्यगतोपासनार्थत्वेऽपि न कश्चिद्वि- रोधः । यदि न विरोधः, सन्तु तर्हि वेदा- न्ता देवताप्रतिपादनद्वारेणोपासनाविधिपरा एवेत्यत आह-न तु तथा ब्रह्मण इति। उपास्यो- पासकोपासनादिभेदसिद्धयधीनोपासना न निरस्त- समस्तभेदप्रपञ्चे वेदान्तवेद्ये ब्रह्मणि संभवतीति नोपासनाविधिशेषत्वं वेदान्तानां तद्विरोधित्वात् इत्यर्थः । स्यादेतत्। यदि विधिविरहेऽपि वेदान्तानां प्रामाण्यम्, हन्त तर्हि 'सोऽरोदीत्' इत्या- दीनामप्यस्तु स्वतन्त्राणामेवोपेक्षणीयार्थानां प्रा- माण्यम् ; न हि हानोपादानबुद्धी एव प्रमाणस्य फले, उपेक्षाबुद्धेरपि तत्फलत्वेन प्रामाणिकैरभ्यु- पेतत्वात्; इति कृतम् 'बर्हिषि रजतं न

HARMONY 157

As for what has been said about the Vedantas having contemplation for purport, because of the teaching of the deity etc., in such texts about contemplation as " Contemplate as the self alone," "contemplate the self alone, as the true enjoyment" etc., " he condemns it: "But of that which teaches the deity etc.," i.e., of the word "self" alone, "there is no opposition even to its subserving the contemplation mentioned in its own text". If there is no conflict, let it be, then, that the Vedantas have only injunctions to contemplation for purport, through the channel of teaching the deity. To this he says: "It does not, however, happen thus in the case of Brahman" etc. Contemplation, which depends on the establishment of differences of the con- templated, the contemplator, the contemplation etc., cannot occur in the case of Brahman, which is devoid of all kinds of difference and is to be known only through the Vedanta; hence, the Vedantas cannot be subsidiary to the injunctions to contemplation, being opposed thereto; this is the sense. Be this so. If there be authoritativeness for the Vedantas, though not of the nature of injunctions, alas, then, even for texts like "he howled" etc.,1 which refer of themselves (independently of linking up with any injunction) to things to which one should be indifferent, let there be authoritativeness; for, the determination to reject or accept is not alone the fruit of valid knowledge, since the determination to be indifferent is also admitted to be the fruit thereof, by those who know the means of valid knowledge; hence the reference of these (texts) to

158 HARMONY

Though in other places Vedic statements are not seen to be authoritative except in association with an injunc- tion, yet, since the knowledge of the self culminates in the fruit, the authoritative nature of the sacred teaching with that as content cannot be denied. And not

prohibitions like "silver is not to be given (as dakşiņā) in the barhis (sacrifice)" is superfluous. To this he says: "Though, in other places, Vedic statements" etc. It is, indeed, understood that the entire Veda is a means to the human goal, because of its being apprehended in con- sequence of the injunction to study one's own Veda. Not a single letter of it may fail to contribute to the human goal; what, then, of such a combination of words as "he howled" etc. ? And no human goal is seen to follow from the very comprehension of their sense, as from the (com- prehension of the) Vedantas. Hence, such combinations of words, desiring to generate a human goal, are certainly expectant (of something else to complete them). The prohibition too "silver is not to be given (as daksiņa) in the barhis (sacrifice)" is expectant of the censure of what is prohibited by itself; for, not otherwise is it possible to turn away an intelligent being therefrom. Hence, if no (text conveying) censure be available, even at a distance (from itself), the prohibition itself would create for itself & two-fold capacity, in respect of the prohibition of silver and in respect of the censure, like (the injunction of) the darvi-homa.1 Thus, of the two combinations of words "he howled" and "silver is not to be given (as dakiņā)

समल्वय: १५८

यद्यप्यन्यत्र वेदवाक्यानां विधिसंस्पर्श- मन्तरेण प्रमाणत्वं न दृष्टम्, तथाप्यात्म विज्ञानस्य फलपर्यन्तत्वान्न तद्विषयस्य शास्त्रस्य प्रामाण्यं शक्यं प्रत्याख्यातुम्। न

देयम् इत्यादिनिषेधविधिपरत्वेनैतेषामित्यत आ- ह-यद्यपि इति। स्वाध्यायविध्यधीनग्रहणतया हि सर्वो वेदराशि: पुरुषार्थतन्त्र इत्यवगतम्। तत्रैकेनापि वर्णेन नापुरुषार्थेन भवितुं युक्तम् ; किं पुनरियता 'सोऽरोदीत्' इत्यादिना पद्प्रबन्धेन। न च वेदान्तेभ्य इव तदर्थावगम- मात्रादेव कश्चित्पुरुषार्थ उपलभ्यते। तेनैष पदसंदर्भ: साकाङ़क्ष एवास्ते पुरुषार्थमुदीक्षमाणः । 'बर्हिषि रजतं न देयम्' इत्ययमपि निषेधविधि: स्वनिषेध्यस्य निन्दामपेक्षते; न ह्यन्यथा ततश्रेतनः शक्यो निवर्तयितुम। तद्यदि दूरतोऽपि न निन्दामवाप्स्यत्ततो निषेधविधिरेव रजतनिषेधे च निन्दायां च दर्विहोमवत्स्वस्य सामर्थ्यद्वयम- कल्पयिष्यत्। तदेवमुत्तप्तयोः 'सोऽरोदीत्' इति

१५९ समन्वयः

चानुमानगम्यं शास्त्रप्रामाण्यम्, योनान्यत्र दृष्टं निदर्शनमपेक्ष्येत। तस्मात्सिद्धं ब्रह्मणः शास्त्र प्रमाणकत्वम्।

च 'बर्हिषि रजतं न देयम्' इति च पदसंदर्भयोर्लक्ष्यमाणनिन्दाद्वारेण नष्टाश्वदग्धरथवत् परस्परं समन्वयः। न त्वेवं वेदान्तेषु पुरुषार्थापेक्षा, तदर्थावगमादेवानपेक्षात्परमपुरुषार्थ- लाभादित्युक्तम् । ननु विध्यसंसपर्शिनो वेदस्यान्यस्य न प्रामाण्यं दृष्टमिति कथं वेदान्तानां तदसपृशां तन्विष्यतीत्यत आह-न चानुमानगम्यं इति। अबाधितानधिगतासंदिग्धबोधजनकत्वं हि प्रमाणत्वं प्रमाणानाम् ; तच्च स्वत इत्युपपादितम् । यद्यपि चैषामीदग्बोधजनकत्वं कार्यार्थापत्तिसमधि- गम्यम्, तथापि तद्बोधोपजनने मानान्तरं नापेक्षन्ते नापीमामेवार्थापत्तिम्, परस्पराश्रयप्रसङ्गादिति स्वत इत्युक्तम्। ईद्ग्बोधजनकत्वं च कार्ये इव विधीनाम्, वेदान्तानामपि ब्रह्मण्यस्तीति दृष्टान्ता-

HARMONY 159

through inference is understood the authoritative nature of the sacred teaching, in which case there would be the need for an example seen elsewhere. Therefore it is established that the authority for Brahman is the sacred teaching.

in the barhis (sacrifice)," which are on fire as it were (to be completed each by the other), there is, through the chan- nel of the censure implied secondarily, mutual syntactical relation, as between the horseless (chariot) and (the horse) whose chariot has been burnt. Not thus, however, is there dependence on the human goal in the Vedantas. since, from the very comprehension of their sense, without dependence (on any thing else), the supreme human goal is attained ; this has been said. Now, since authoritativeness is not seen for any other part of the Veda, which is not related to an injunction, how could this (authoritativeness) occur for the Vedantas, which are not related thereto? To this he says: "And not through inference is understood" etc. For, the autho- ritativeness of the means of valid knowledge consists in their generating knowledge which is unsublated, not already understood, and indubitable; and that, it has been explained, is intrinsic (not made known by anything else, e.g., inference based on practical efficiency). Though the generation of this kind of knowledge is known by presump- tive implication from the nature of the effect, yet, in the generation of that knowledge, they do not depend on any other means of valid knowledge, not even this presumptive implication, as (otherwise) reciprocal dependence would result; hence it is said to be intrinsic. The generation of

160 HARMONY

Here some others confront us: even though the authority for Brahman is the sacred teaching, yet Brahman is intimated by the sacred teaching only as the content of the injunction of contemplation ; just as

this kind of knowledge, like that of injunctions in res- pect of what is to be done, exists for the Vedantas too in respect of Brahman; hence results their authoritativeness in respect of Brahman, without the need of an example. Otherwise, since it is not seen that colour is manifested by any other sense, (it would follow that) the sense of sight too could not manifest colour. He concludes the present topic: "Therefore" etc. He sets up the view of some of the preceptors : "Here some others contront us" etc. It is thus: "The ascertain- ment of Brahman is from that whose purport is what is to be done, because of the relation (to what is signified) not being known, because of its being sacred teaching, because of its being purposeful, and because of reflection etc. being cognised (as enjoined in connection therewith)." Verily, the Vedantas cannot have the existent Brahman for purport, their relation thereto (as the signi- fied) not being known. That with reference to which words are not used by a worldly wise person, the relation of them thereto is not apprehended. Nor does the prudent inquirer desire to declare some form alone, which is neither to be rejected nor accepted, as that is not desired to be cognised. In conveying knowledge of that, the cognition of which is not desired, there would be detriment to his prudence. Hence, this worldly wise person, desiring to declare that which is desired to be known, would declare

समल्वय: १६०

अत्रापरे प्रत्यवतिष्ठन्ते-यद्यपि शास्त्र- प्रमाणकं ब्रह्म, तथापि प्रतिपत्तिविधि- विषयतयैव शास्त्रेण ब्रह्म समर्प्यते;

नपेक्षं तेषां ब्रह्मणि प्रामाण्यं सिद्धं भवति। अन्यथा नेन्द्रियान्तराणां रूपप्रकाशनं दृष्टमिति चक्षुरपि न रूपं प्रकाशयेदिति। प्रकृतमुप- संहरति-तस्मात् इति। आचार्यैकदेशीयानां मतमुत्थापयति-अत्रा- परे प्रत्यवतिष्ठन्ते इति। तथा हि- अज्ञातसंगतित्वेन शास्त्रत्वेनार्थवत्तया। मननादिप्रतीत्या च कार्यार्थाद्वह्मनिश्रयः ॥ न खलु वेदान्ताः सिद्धब्रह्मरूपपरा भवितुमर्हन्ति, तत्राविदितसंगतित्वात्। यत्र हि शब्दा लोकेन न प्रयुज्यन्ते न तत्र तेषां संगतिग्रहः । न चाहेयमनुपादेयं रूपमात्रं कश्चिद्विवक्षति प्रेक्षावान, तस्याबुभुत्सितत्वात्। अबुभुत्सितावबोधने च प्रेक्षावत्ताविघातः स्यात्। तस्मात् प्रतिपित्सितं प्रतिपिपाद्यिषन्नयं लोकः प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिहेतुभूत- 41

१६१ समन्वयः

मेवार्थ प्रतिपादयेत्, कार्य चावगतं तद्देतुरिति तदेव बोधयेत्। एवं च वृद्दप्रयोगात् पदानां कार्यपरतामवगच्छति। तत्र किंचित्साक्षात् कार्याभिधायकम्, किंचित्तु कार्यार्थस्वार्थाभि- धायकम् ; न तु भूतार्थपरता पदानाम्। अपि च नरान्तरस्य व्युत्पन्नस्यार्थप्रत्ययमनुमाय तस्य च पदशब्दभावाभावानुविधानमवगम्य शब्द- स्य तद्विषयबोधकत्वं निश्चेतव्यम्। न च भूतार्थरूपमात्रप्रत्यये परनरवर्तिनि किंचिल्लिङ्गमरित। कार्यप्रत्यये तु नरान्तरवर्तिनि प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ती स्तो हेतू इत्यज्ञातसंगतित्वान्न ब्रह्मरूपपरा वेदान्ताः । अपि च वेदान्तानां वेदत्वाच्छास्त्रत्वप्रसिद्धि- रस्ति। प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिपराणां च पदसंदर्भाणां शास्त्रत्वम्। यथाहु :-

प्रवृत्तिर्वा निवृत्तिर्वा नित्येन कृतकेन वा। पुंसां येनोपदिश्येत तच्छास्त्रमभिधीयते॥

इति। तस्माच्छास्त्रत्वप्रसिद्धया व्याहतमेषां रवरूप- परत्वम्।

HARMONY 161

that thing alone which is the cause of engaging in or desisting from activity, and, since what is to be done when known is the cause thereof, would teach that alone. And thus, from the usage of elderly persons one understands of words that they have for purport what is to be done. Of these, some are directly expressive of what is to be done, while some, however, express their own sense as subsidiary to what is to be done; but (in any case) words do not have for purport an existent thing. Further, it has to be ascer- tained in the case of a word that it conveys knowledge of a content, by inferring the cognition of the sense in another man who knows the meaning (of the word), and by under- standing the concomitance of that (cognition) with the existence or non-existence of the word. And there is not any probans in respect of a cognition existing in another man and relating to the bare form of an existent thing. In the case, however, of the cognition of what is to be done, existing in another man there are probans, viz., the engaging in or the cessation from activity ; hence, because of the relation (to the signified) not being known, the Vedantas do not have the form of Brahman for purport. Further, of the Vedantas, as part of the Veda, it is well known that they constitute sacred teaching. And the character of sacred teaching belongs to such com- binations of words as have the engaging in or cessation from activity for their purport. As is said: "Engaging in or cessation from activity in respect of the obligatory or the occasioned, that by which these are taught to men is called a sacred teaching." Therefore, their having for purport the (bare) nature (of Brahman) is annulled by their well-known character of being sacred teaching.

162 HARMONY

Further, we do not see any purposefulness for these, whose purport is the teaching of the nature of Brahman. Nor, just as, from the ascertainment, somehow through secondary implication, of the true sense of the sentence "this is a rope, not a snake," there is the cessation of fear, trembling etc., is there, similarly, from the under- standing of the sense of the text "That thou art," the cessation of the attributes of transmigration; for, there is continuance as before of those (attributes) even for the person who has heard the sense of the text. Further, if for him who has heard of Brahman there occurs the cessation of the attributes of transmigration, why is it, then, that on top of the hearing, reflection etc. are found declared ? Hence, because of this too, that there would result their futility, the Vedantas have not the nature of Brahman for purport, but have for purport what is to be done, whose content is the contemplation of the self. And this which is to be done as enjoining him who is enjoined in respect of itself is called an injunction (niyoga), and, as not seen through any other means of knowledge, it is called the unseen (apūrva). And since that cannot result without the practice of its content (contemplation), for the sake of its own establishment, that very thing to be done implies the practice of contemplation of the self, which is its content and instrument. Just as the thing to be done, since it has to be determined in dependence on its own content, is determined by that content-contemplation, even so, since contemplation cannot be determined without its content- the self, for the sake of its determination, this very thing

समल्वय: १६२

अपि च न ब्रह्मरूपप्रतिपादनपराणामेषा- मर्थवत्त्वं पश्यामः । न च 'रज्जुरियं न भुजङ्ग:' इति यथाकथंचिल्लक्षणया वाक्यार्थ- तत्त्वनिश्चयाद्यथा भयकम्पादिनिवृत्तिः, एवम् 'तत्त्वमसि' इति वाक्यार्थावगमान्निवृत्तिर्भवति सांसारिकाणां धर्माणाम्, श्रुतवाक्यार्थस्यापि पुंसस्तेषां तादवस्थ्यात्। अपि च यदि श्रुतब्रह्मणो भवति सांसारिक- धर्मनिवृत्तिः कस्मात् पुनः श्रवणस्योपरि मननादयः श्रूयन्ते? तस्मात्तेषां वैयर्थ्यप्रसङ्गादपि न ब्रह्मस्वरूपपरा वेदान्ताः, किं त्वात्मप्रतिपत्ति- विषयकार्यपराः। तच्च कार्य स्वात्मनि नियोज्यं नियुञ्जानं नियोग इति च मानान्तरापूर्वतया- पूर्वमिति चाख्यायते। न च विषयानुष्ठानं विना तत्सिद्धिरिति स्वसिद्धयर्थ तदेव कार्य स्वविषयस्य करणस्यात्मज्ञानस्यानुष्ठानमाक्षिपति। यथा च कार्य स्वविषयाधीननिरूपणमिति ज्ञानेन विषयेण निरूप्यते, एवं ज्ञानमपि स्वविषय-

१६३ समन्वय:

यथा यूपाहवनीयादीन्यलौकिकान्यपि वि- धिशेषतया शास्त्रेण समर्प्यन्ते, तद्वत्। कुत एतत् ? प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिप्रयोजनपरत्वा- च्छास्त्रस्य। तथा हि शास्त्रतात्पर्यविदा-

मात्मानमन्तरेणाशक्यनिरूपणमिति तन्निरूपणाय तादृशमात्मानमाक्षिपति तदेव कार्यम्। यथा- हु :- 'यत्तु तत्सिद्धयर्थमुपादीयते आक्षिप्यते तदपि विधेयमिति तन्त्रे व्यवहारः' इति। विधेयता च नियोगविषयस्य ज्ञानस्य भावार्थ- तयानुष्ठेयता ; तद्विषयरय त्वात्मनः स्वरूप- सत्ताविनिश्चितिः । आरोपिततद्भावस्य त्वन्यस्य निरूपकत्वे तेन तन्निरूपितं न स्यात्। तस्मात्तादृटगात्मप्रति- पत्तिविधिपरेभ्यो वेदान्तेभ्यः तादृगात्मविनिश्चयः । तदेतत्सर्वमाह-यद्यपि इति। विधिपरेभ्योऽपि वस्तु- तत्त्वविनिश्चय इत्यत्र निदर्शनमुक्तम्-यथा यूप इति। 'यूपे पश्चुं बभ्नाति' इति बन्धनाय

HARMONY 163

the sacrificial post, the ahavaniya fire etc., even though they are supra-mundane, are intimated by the sacred teaching (only) as subsidiary to an injunction. Whence is this? Because the sacred teaching has for purport the fruit of engaging in an activity or desisting therefrom. So indeed is the quotation from those who know the purport

to be done implies that kind of self. As is said: "But that, which is accepted, i.e., implied for the establishment of that (other, which is enjoined), that too is enjoined ; this is the usage of the tantra (the Purca-mimamsa- s'astra)." And for knowledge, the content of the injunc- tion, injunctiveness consists in the practice of it, in the sense of contemplation; for the self, however, as the content of that (contemplation), (injunctiveness consists in) the certitude of its own existence. (Objection: it has been said that contemplation may be of what is superimposed; how then can there be the certitude of the existence of what is contemplated ?) (Reply): that on which the nature of that (self) has been superimposed would be the determinant of another (knowledge); hence that (knowledge of the self) would not be determined thereby. Hence, through the Vedantas which have for purport the injunction of the contemplation of that kind of self, there is the ascertainment of that kind of self. All this he says in "even though" eto. In the matter of the ascertainment of the true nature of a thing, even from those which have an injunction for purport, an example is given: "just as the sacrificial post" etc. In

164 HARMONY

of the sacred teaching, "Its purport is indeed seen to be what is called the teaching of ritual" (S'a .- Bh., I, i, 1); " An injunction is a statement which prompts to action " (Sa .- Bh., I, i, 2) ; " Of this the knowledge comes from an injunction " (PM., I, i, 5); "Of (words) denoting those (existent things), there is relation with that whose purport is ritual." (PM., I, i, 25.) "Since Scripture is for the purpose of ritual, there is futility for whatever has not that purpose." (PM., I, ii, 1.) Hence the sacred teaching is purposeful as prompting a man to a particular object and

respect of the stake enjoined for the tying up in "he is to tie up the beast to the stake," since it is out of the ordinary, there is the question "what is this stake (in substance and shape) ?"; from the texts "khadira (ebony) becomes the stake," "he fashions the stake," "he is to make the stake octagonal" etc., though having for purport the injunction of acts of carpentry, it is understood that a particular kind of wood purified and fashioned in a particular shape is the stake. Similarly are to be under- stood the ahavaniya etc. The character of sacred teaching belongs to that whose purport is engaging in or cessation from activity, not to that whose purport is the nature (of an existent); the relation (of a significant word) is only to what is to be done, not to the nature; these two grounds are explained by the words of the commentary beginning with "Because the sacred teaching has for purport" etc., and ending with "And because of similarity thereto, for the Vedantas too, there can be purposefulness only in the same

समन्वय: १६४ मनुक्रमणम-'दष्टो हि तस्यार्थः कर्माव- बोधनं नाम' इति; 'चोदनेति क्रियायाः प्रवर्तकं वचनम', 'तस्य ज्ञानमुपदेशः', 'तन्टरतानां क्रियार्थेन समाम्नायः', 'आम्ना- यस्य क्रियार्थत्वादानर्थक्यमतदर्थानाम्' इति च। अतः पुरुषं क्वचिद्विषयविशेषे प्रवर्तयत्कुतश्चिद्विषयविशेषान्निवर्तयच्चार्थव -

विनियुक्ते यूपे, तस्यालौकिकत्वात्कोऽसौ यूप इत्यपेक्षिते 'खादिरो यूपो भवति', 'यूपं तक्षति', 'यूपमष्टाश्रीकरोति' इत्यादिभिर्वाक्यै- स्तक्षणादिविधिपरैरपि संसकाराविष्टं विशिष्टसंस्थानं दारु यूप इति गम्यते। एवमाहवनीयादयोऽप्यव- गन्तव्याः । प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिपरस्य शास्त्रत्वं न स्वरूपपरस्य, कार्य एव च संबन्धो न स्वरूपे, इति हेतुद्वयं भाष्यवाक्येनोपपादितम्-प्रवृत्ति- निवृत्तिप्रयोजनत्वात् इत्यादिना तत्सामान्या- द्वेदान्तानामपि तथैवार्थवत्त्वं स्यात् इत्यन्तेन। न च स्वतन्त्रं कार्य नियोज्यमधिकारिण- 48

१६५ समल्वय:

चछास्त्रम्। तच्छेषतया चान्यदुपयुक्तम् । तत्सामान्याद्वेदान्तानामपि तथैवार्थव्त्वं स्यात्। सति च विधिपरत्वे, यथा

यते, एवममृतत्वकामस्य ब्रह्मज्ञानं विधीयत इति युक्तम्।

मनुष्ठातारमन्तरेणेति नियोज्यभेदमाह-सति च विधिपरत्वे इति। 'ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति' इति सिद्धवदर्थवादादवगतरयापि ब्रह्मभवनस्य नियोज्यविशेषाकाङक्षायां ब्रह्म बुभूषोर्नियोज्य- विशेषस्य रात्रिसत्रन्यायेन प्रतिलम्भः । पिण्ड- पितृयज्ञन्यायेन तु स्वर्गकामस्य नियोज्यस्य कल्पनायामर्थवादस्यासमवेतार्थतयात्यन्तपरोक्षा वृत्ति: स्यादिति। ब्रह्मभावश्चामृतत्वमिति अमृतत्व- कामस्य इत्युक्तम् । अमृतत्वं च अमृतत्वादेव न कृतकत्वेन शक्यमनित्यमनुमातुम्, आगम- विरोधादिति भावः ।

HARMONY 165

as withholding him from a particular object. Others are useful as subsidiary thereto. And because of similarity thereto, for the Vedantas too, there can be purposefulness only in the same way. And there being purport in respect of an injunction, just as for him, who desires heaven, agnihotra etc. are enjoined as the means, similarly for him, who desires immortality, the know- ledge of Brahman is enjoined : this stands to reason.

way". And since what is to be done is not independent of him who is enjoined, the eligible person who is to prac- tise, he states the particular class of the person enjoined : "And there being purport in respect of an injunction" etc. Be- coming Brahman is present as already established in the eulogistic passage "He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself"; yet, because of the expectancy of the particular class of person enjoined for this (becoming) there results, on the analogy of the ratrisatra," the particular class of person enjoined, iz,, he who desires to become Brahman. For, if, on the analogy of the pinda-pitr-yajna,12 the person enjoined be assumed to be he who desires heaven, that would be the signification of the absolutely remote, as being a sense not related to the eulogistic passage. And since to become Brahman is to be immortal, it is said (in the commentary) "For him who desires immortality". And immortality, even because of its being immortality, cannot be inferred to be non-eternal on the ground of being effected, because of conflict with Scripture (otherwise); this is the idea.

166 HARMONY

Now, here the distinctness of what is desired to be known has been stated: in the ritual section Reli- gious Duty, which is to come into being, is what is desired to be known; but here Brahman, which is existent, which is eternally fulfilled, is what is desired to be known. Of these, the fruit of the know- ledge of Brahman should be distinct from the fruit of the knowledge of Religious Duty, which requires an observance. It cannot possibly be thus; because Brahman is taught only as occasioned by an injunction about some- thing to be done. "The self verily is to be seen" (Brh., IV, iv, 5); "That self whose sins are destroyed he is to be sought for, he is to be desired to be known" (Chand., VIII, vii, 1); " Contemplate as the self alone" (Brh., I, iv, 7); "Contemplate the self alone as the true enjoyment " (Brh., I, iv, 15); "He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself" (Mund., III, ii, 9) ; there being such injunctions, when there is a desire to know, " Who is this self?", "What is that Brahman?", the entire

Through the aforementioned difference in nature be- tween the desires to know Religious Duty and Brahman, he raises the question of (the latter) not being the content of injunctions: "Now, here" etc. He answers: " It cannot possibly be thus" etc. And here, the intuition of the self is not what is enjoined. For, that, because of the verb "see," signifying cognition, should be of the nature of

समन्वयः १६६ नन्विह जिज्ञास्यवैलक्षण्यमुक्तम्- कर्मकाण्डे भव्यो धर्मो जिज्ञास्यः इह तु भूतं नित्यनिर्वृत्तं ब्रह्म जिज्ञास्यमिति। तत्र धर्मज्ञानफलादनुष्टानसापेक्षाद्विलक्षणं ब्रह्मज्ञानफलं भवितुमर्हति। नार्हत्येवं भवितुम्, कार्यविधिप्रयुक्त- स्यैव ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपाद्यमानत्वात्। 'आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः'; 'य आत्मापहत- पाप्मा .... सोऽन्वेष्टव्यः स विजि- ज्ञासितव्यः'; 'आत्मेत्येवोपासीत'; 'आ- त्मानमेव लोकमुपासीत'; 'ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति' इत्यादिषु विधानेषु सत्सु, 'कोऽसावात्मा?', 'कि तद्भह्म?'

उक्त्ेन धर्मब्रह्मजिज्ञासयोर्वैलक्षण्येन विध्य- विषयत्वं चोदयति-ननु इति। परिहरति- नार्हत्येवम् इति। अत्र चात्मदर्शनं न विधेयम्। तद्धि दृशेरुपलब्धिवचनत्वात् श्रावणं वा स्यात् प्रत्यक्षं वा। प्रत्यक्षमपि लौकिकमहंप्रत्ययो

१६७ सम्वयः

इत्याकाह्कायां तत्स्वरूपसमर्पणेन सर्वे वेदान्ता उपयुक्ता :- नित्यः सर्वज्ञः सर्व- गतो नित्यतृप्तो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावो विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म इत्येवमादयः। तदुपा- सनाच्च शास्त्रदष्टोऽदष्टो मोक्ष: फलं भविष्य- ति। कर्तव्यविध्यननुप्रवेशे तु वस्तुमात्र- कथने हानोपादानासंभवात् 'सप्तद्वीपा वसुमती', 'राजासौ गच्छति' इत्यादि वाक्यवद्वेदान्तवाक्यानामानर्थक्यमेव स्यात्।

वा, भावनाप्रकर्षपर्यन्तजं वा। तत्र श्रावणं न विधेयम्, स्वाध्यायविधिनैवास्य प्रापितत्वात्, कर्मश्रावणवत्। नापि लौकिकं प्रत्यक्षम्, तस्य नैसर्गिकत्वात्। न चौपनिषदात्मविषयं भावनाधेयवैशदं विधेयम्, तस्योपासनाविधानादेव वाजिनवदनुनिष्पादितत्वात्। तस्मादौपनिषदात्मो- पासना अमृतत्वकामं नियोज्यं प्रति विधीयते। 'द्रष्टव्यः' इत्याद्यस्तु विधिसरूपा न विधय इति। तदिदमुक्तम्-तदुपासनाञ्च इति।

HARMONY 167

Vedanta is useful in intimating its nature-that Brahman is eternal, omniscient, all-pervasive, eternally contented, eternally pure, intelligent and free by nature, knowledge, bliss and so on. And from the contemplation thereof there will result the invisible fruit, final release, as seen from the sacred teaching. If, however, they do not enter into an injunction of something to be done, and if they be the mere statements of fact, since there can be neither rejection nor acceptance, there would only be futility for the Vedanta texts, as for the statements, "The earth has seven islands," " Here goes the king ".

hearing or of perception. And perception too should be either the concept "I," found in ordinary experience, or that which is produced when contemplation attains excellence. Of these, hearing cannot be the object of an injunction, since that, like hearing in respect of rites, is established even by the injunction to study one's own Veda. Nor (can) perception found in ordinary experience (be the object of the injunction), since that is natural. Nor may the object of the injunction be that clarity brought by contemplation to its content, the self propounded in the Upanisads, since that (clarity) follows as a by-product even from the injunction of contemplation, like whey." Therefore, the contemplation of the self propounded in the Upanigads is prescribed in res- pect of him who desires immortality, who is the person en- joined. As for the texts "is to be seen" etc., they are what have the appearance of injunctions, not (real) injunctions. This is thus said : " And from the contemplation thereof" etc.

168 HARMONY

Now, even in the case of a mere statement of fact, as in "This is a rope, this is not a snake" etc., purpose- fulness is seen through the removal of fear generated by delusion. Similarly, here too by the state- ment of the fact of the self not being a transmi- grator, there may be purposefulness through the removal of the delusion of his being a transmi- grator. This would be so, if the delusion of his being a transmigrator could be removed by merely hearing about the nature of Brahman, like the delusion of snake by merely hearing about the nature of the rope. But it is not so removed; because even for him who has heard of Brahman there are found the attributes of a transmigrator, like happiness and misery, as before, and because there is found the injunction of reflection and contemplation subsequent to hearing, in "He is to be heard about, to be reflected on, to be contemplated." Therefore, Brahman should be acknowledged to have sacred teaching as authority only as the content of an injunction of realisation.

"Because of its being purposeful, and because of reflection etc. being cognised": the elaboration of this in the rest (of the commentary) is self-explanatory.

समन्वय: १६८

ननु वस्तुमात्रकथनेऽ्रपि 'रज्जुरियम् नायं सर्पः' इत्यादौ भ्रान्तिजनितभीति- निवर्तनेनार्थवत्त्त्वं दृष्टम्। तथेहाप्यसंसार्या- त्मवस्तुकथनेन संसारित्वभ्रान्तिनिवर्तने- नार्थवत्वं स्यात्। स्यादेतदेवम्, यदि रज्जुस्वरूपश्रवण- मात्रेणेव सर्पभ्रान्तिः, संसारित्वभ्रान्ति- र्ब्रह्मस्वरूपश्रवणमात्रेण निवर्तेत। न तु निवर्तते; श्रुतब्रह्मणोऽ्पि यथापूर्वं सुखदुः- खादिसंसारिधर्मदर्शनात्, 'श्रोतव्यो म- न्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः' इति च श्रवणोत्तरकालयोर्मनननिदिध्यासनयोर्विधि- दर्शनात्। तस्मात्प्रतिपत्तिविधिविषयतयैव शास्त्रप्रमाणकं ब्रह्माभ्युपगन्तव्यमिति।

अर्थवत्तया मननादिप्रतीत्या चेत्यस्य शेषः प्रपश्चो निगदव्याख्यातः ।

48

१६९ समन्वय:

अत्राभिधीयते-न, कर्मब्रह्मविद्याफल- योर्वैलक्षण्यात्। शारीरं वाचिकं मानसं च कर्म श्रुतिस्मृतिसिद्धं धर्माख्यम्, यद्विषया जिज्ञासा 'अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा' इति सूत्रिता। अधर्मोडपि हिंसादि: प्रतिषेधचो- दनालक्षणत्वाज्ज्ञास्यः परिहाराय। तयो- श्वोदनालक्षणयोरर्थानर्थयोर्धर्माधर्मयोः फले

तदेकदेशिमतं दूषयति-अत्राभिधीयते- न एकदेशिमतम्। कुतः ? कर्मब्रह्मविद्याफल- योर्वैलक्षण्यात्। पुण्यापुण्यकर्मणोः फले सुखदुःखे। तत्र मनुष्यलोक्मारभ्य आ ब्रह्मलोकात्सुखरय तारतम्यमधिकाधिकोत्कर्षः। एवं मनुष्यलोक- मारभ्य दुःखतारतम्यमा चावीचिलोकात्। तन्न सर्व कार्य च विनाशि च। आत्यन्तिकं त्वशरीरत्वमनतिशयं स्वभावसिद्धतया नित्यम- कार्यमात्मज्ञानर्य फलम्। तद्धि फलमिव फलम्, अविद्यापनयनमात्रेणाविर्भावात्। एतदुक्तं भवति- त्वयाप्युपासनाविधिपरत्वं वेदान्तानामभ्युपगच्छता

HARMONY 169

To this it is replied : no, because of the difference in nature between ritual and Brahman, in respect of their knowledge and fruit. Ritual performed by the body, speech or mind is what is called Religious Duty, as established by Scripture and tradi- tional Codes, and the desire to know this object is declared in the aphorism "Then therefore the desire to know Religious Duty". Vices too like killing are to be desired to be known for rejection, being defined by prohi- bitory injunctions. The fruit of this injunction-defined

This view of some he condemns: "To this it is replied; no," the view of some (is not sound); why not? "Because of the difference in nature between ritual and Brahman in respect of their knowledge and fruit." The fruits of action, meritorious or sinful, are (respectively) happiness and misery. Of these, there are gradations of happiness, rising in degrees of superiority, from the world of men up to that of Brahma. Similarly, there are degrees of misery, from the world of men down to the hell known as Avici. And all that is both produced and destructible. The fruit of the knowledge of the self, however, is final, unembodied, unsurpassable, and, being naturally established, it is eternal and unproduced. That, verily, is fruit, as it were, because it is manifested even with the bare removal of Nescience. This is what is said: by you too, who admit the injunction of contemplation as the purport of the Vedantas, there is recognised what is understood from the Vedanta, niz., the jiva naturally being of the nature of Brahman, eternally pure, intelligent etc. And that is not the fruit of an injunction whose content is contemplation,

170 HARMONY

good and evil, religious1 duty and vice, are percepti- ble happiness and misery, which are experienced through the body, speech and the mind, generated by the association of sense-organs with objects, and are well-known from Brahmå down to the immovable objects. In all corporeal beings starting from man and rising to Brahma, the gradation of happiness is scripturally declared. And therefrom is understood the gradation of its cause, viz., merit. From the gradation of merit follows the gradation of the eligible persons. And the gradation of the eligible persons brought about by desire for fruit, capacity, learning etc. is well-known. Thus, only those who perform

since it is eternal and unproduced. Nor (is the fruit of the injunction) the removal of the veil of beginning- less Nescience, since that happens even with the rise of its opposite, viz., knowledge." Nor is the rise of know- ledge (the fruit), since that too results for the mind even from its being aided by the impressions produced by con- templation preceded by hearing and reflection. Like the impression of the contemplation, the unseen result of the contemplation too is an auxiliary to the mind; it is, verily, seen that of what is enjoined there is fruit even here (not in a hereafter alone), for example, the fruitfulness even here of the injunctions to the Citra and Kariri sacrifices, whose fruits are respectively undefined and defined (in respect of time);" if this be said, no (we reply); for, like (the capacity) of the impressions of the contemplation of the meaning of the science of music to produce the intuition of the notes sadja etc., without the need for an

समन्वयः १७० प्रत्यक्षे सुखदुःखे शरीरवाउ्मनोभिरेवोप- भुज्यमाने विषयेन्द्रियसंयोगजन्ये ब्रह्मादिषु स्थावरान्तेषु प्रसिद्धे। मनुष्यत्वादारभ्य ब्रह्मान्तेषु देहवत्सु सुखतारतम्यमनुश्रूयते। ततश्च तद्धेतोर्धर्मस्यापि तारतम्यं गम्यते। धर्मतारतम्यादधिकारितारतम्यम्। प्रसिद्धं चार्थित्वसामर्थ्यविद्वत्तादिकृतमधिकारितार-

नित्यशुद्धबुद्धत्वादिरूपव्रह्मात्मता जीवरय स्वा- भाविकी वेदान्तगम्यारथीयते। सा चोपासना- विषयस्य विधेर्न फलम्, नित्यत्वादकार्यत्वात्। नाप्यनाद्यविद्यापिधानापनयः, तरय स्वविरोधि- विद्योदयादेव भावात्। नापि विद्योदयः, तस्यापि श्रवणमननपूर्वकोपासनाजनितसंस्कारसचि- वादेव चेतसो भावात्। उपासनासंस्कारव- दुपासनापूर्वमपि चेतःसहकारि ; दृष्टं च खलु नैयोगिकं फलमैहिकमपि, यथा चित्राकारीर्यादिनि- योगानामनियतनियतफलानामैहिकफलतेति चेत्, न; गान्धर्वशास्त्रार्थोपासनावासनाया इवापूर्वान-

१७१ समन्वयः

तम्यम्। तथा च यागाद्यनुष्ठायिनामेव विद्यासमाधिविशेषादुत्तरेण पथा गमनम्, केवलैरिष्टापूर्तद त्तसाधनैर्धूमादिक्रमेण दक्षि- णेन पथा गमनम्, तत्रापि सुखतारतम्यम, तत्साधनतारतम्यं च शास्त्रात् 'यावत्संपात- मुषित्वा' इत्यस्माद्गम्यते। तथा मनुष्यादिषु स्थावरान्तेषु सुखलवश्चोदनालक्षणधर्मसाध्य एवेति गम्यते तारतम्येन वर्तमानः।

पेक्षायाः षड्जादिसाक्षात्कारे वेदान्तार्थोपासना- वासनाया जीवस्य ब्रह्मभावसाक्षात्कारेऽनपेक्षाया एवर सामर्थ्यात्। तथा चामृतीभावं प्रत्य- हेतुत्वादुपासनापूर्वस्य, नामृतत्वकामरतत्कार्यमवबोद्ु- मर्हति। अन्यदिच्छत्यन्यत्करोतीति हि विप्रति- षिद्धम्। न च तत्काम: क्रियामेव कार्यमवग- मिष्यति नापूर्वमिति सांप्रतम् ; तस्या मानान्तरादेव तत्साधनत्वप्रतीतेर्विधेवैयर्थ्यात्। न चावघातादि- विधितुल्यता, तत्रापि नियमापूर्वस्यान्यतोऽनवगतेः । न च ब्रह्मभूयादन्यदमृतत्वमार्थवादिकं किंचिदरित,

HARMONY 171

sacrifices etc., can go by the northern path on account of the excellence of knowledge and meditation ; through the instrumentality afforded by mere offerings, works of public utility and alms-giving, there is passage along the southern path in the order of smoke etc. Here too the gradation of happiness and the gradation of means thereto are understood from this sacred teaching " After living there till there is consumption ". Similarly it is understood that the smallest happiness is possible for beings starting from man down to the inanimate beings only from Religious Duty defined by injunctions, and that it exists in gradations. In the

unseen potentiality, there is, for the impressions of the contemplation of the meaning of the Vedanta, the capacity to produce the intuition of the jiva being of the nature of Brahman, even without the need (of an unseen potentiality). And thus, since, for the unseen potentiality of the contem- plation, there is no causality in respect of immortality, it is not meet that he who desires immortality should learn that (apurva) as what is to be done. Desiring one thing, he (yet) works for another; this is, indeed, a contradiction. Nor is it admissible to say that he who desires that will understand the act (of contemplation) itself as what is to be done, not its unseen potentiality; for, since the in- strumentality of that (contemplation) thereto is cognised even through other means of knowledge, the injunction would be futile. Nor is there parallelism to the injunction to pound (the paddy) etc., since even here the unseen potentiality consequent on the restriction is not under- stood from any other (text). And there is not any

172 HARMONY

same way, for corporeal beings, starting either upwards or downwards, since there is found a gradation of misery, there is understood a gradation in respect of its cause, viz., vice, as defined by prohibitory injunc- tions, and also in respect of those who practise them. Thus in the case of those who have the defect of Nescience etc., gradations of happiness and misery, which are brought about by the gradations of merit and demerit, which are generated in the wake of embodiment, and which are non-eternal and of the nature of transmigration, are well-known from Scripture, traditional Codes and reasoning. And thus the Scripture,

immortality taught by an eulogistic passage, other than the becoming Brahman, whereby he who desires it would be eligible for contemplation. In assuming, however, on the analogy of the vis'rajit sacrifice,"heaven (as the fruit), because of its surpassability and liability to decrease, there will be no permanent fruit of contemplation. Since, therefore, becoming Brahman is manifested even with the removal of the veil of Nescience, since the removal of Nescience occurs even with the knowledge of the sense of the Vedanta culminating in realisation, and since the causing of an impression by contemplation and the im- pression being an auxiliary to the mind in producing an intuition are established by other means of knowledge, the text "contemplate but as the self" is not an injunction; but it is only what has the appearance of an injunction; just as, for example, texts like "Visnu is to be sacrificed to with the upamsu" are what have the appearance of injuno- tions, but are not injunctions; this is the sense intended.

समन्वयः १७२ तथोर्ध्वगतेष्वधोगतेषु च देहवत्सु दुःखतार- तम्यदर्शनान्तद्वेतोरधर्मस्य प्रतिषेधचोदना- लक्षणस्य तदनुष्ठायिनां च तारतम्यं गम्यते। एवमविद्यादिदोषवतां धर्माधर्म- तारतम्यनिमिनं शरीरोपादानपूर्वकं सुख- दुःखतारतम्यमनित्यं संसाररूपं श्रुतिस्मृति- न्यायप्रसिद्धम्। तथा च श्रुतिः 'न ह वै

येन तत्काम उपासनायामधिक्रियेत। विश्व- जिन्न्यायेन तु स्वर्गकल्पनायां तरय सातिशयत्वं क्षयिष्णुत्वं चेति न नित्यफलत्वमुपासनायाः। तस्माद्वह्म भूयस्याविद्यापिधानापनयमात्रेणाविर्भावात्, अविद्यापनयस्य च वेदान्तार्थविज्ञानादवगतिपर्यन्ता- देव संभवात्, उपासनायाः संस्कारहेतुभावस्य संस्कारस्य च साक्षात्कारोपजनने मनःसाचिव्यरय च मानान्तरसिद्धत्वात्, 'आत्मेत्येवोपासीत' इति न विधिः; अपि तु विधिसरूपोऽयम् ; यथोपांशुयाजवाक्ये 'विष्णुरुपांशु यष्टव्यः' इत्या- दयो विधिसरूपा न विधयः-इति तात्पर्यार्थः । 44

१७३ समल्वय:

सशरीरस्य सतः प्रियाप्रिययोरपहतिरस्ति' इति यथावर्णितं संसाररूपमनुवदति। 'अशरीरं वाव सन्तं न प्रियाप्रिये स्पृशतः' इति प्रियाप्रियस्पर्शनप्रतिषेधाच्चोदनाल- क्षणधर्मकार्यत्वं मोक्षाख्यस्याशरीरत्वस्य प्रतिषिध्यते इति गम्यते। धर्मकार्यत्वे हि प्रियाप्रियस्पर्शनप्रतिषेधो नोपपद्येत। अशरीरत्वमेव धर्मकार्यमिति चेत्, न; तस्य साभाविकत्वात्-'अशरीर शरीरेषु अनवस्थेष्ववस्थितम्। महान्तं विभुमात्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति', 'अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्र:', 'असङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुषः' इत्यादि श्रुतिभ्यः । अत एवानुष्ठेयकर्मफलविलक्षणं मोक्षाख्यमशरीरत्वं नित्यमिति सिद्धम्।

श्रुतिस्मृतिन्यायप्रसिद्धम् इत्युक्तम्। तत्र श्रुति दर्शयति-तथा च श्रुतिः इति। न्यायमाह- अत एव इति। यत्किल स्वाभाविकं तन्नित्यम्, यथा चैतन्यम् ; स्वाभाविकं चेदम ; तस्मान्नित्यम्।

HARMONY 173

"Not verily for him who exists as embodied can there be the destruction of what is pleasing and non-pleasing," restates the nature of transmigration as described above. "Him verily who is non-embodied, what is pleasing and not pleasing do not touch" (Chand., VIII, xii, 1); since here there is the denial of the touch of what is pleasing and not pleasing, it is understood that for the non-embodiment called final release, there is denied its being the fruit of Religious Duty defined by injunctions. Indeed, if it were the fruit of Religious Duty, the denial of the touch of what is pleasing and not pleasing would be unintelligible. If it be said that non-embodiment itself is the fruit of Religious Duty, no, because it is natural, as understood from Scriptures like "The intelligent one, knowing the self as non- embodied in the body, as permanent in the transient, as great and all-pervasive, does not come to grief" (Katha., II, 22); "Indeed he is without breath, without mind, pure" (Mund., II, i, 2); " Indeed this self is non- attached." (Brh., IV, iii, 15.) Hence it is that the non- embodiment called final release, which is distinct from the fruit of ritual to be observed, is established to be eternal.

It has been said: "well known from Scripture, tradi- tional Codes and reasoning." Of these, he cites Scripture: "And thus the Scripture" etc. He states the reasoning: "Hence it is" etc. Verily, that which is natural is eternal, for example, intelligence; and this is natural; there- foro, it is eternal.

174 HARMONY

Of these, some may be eternal in evolution, in which though subject to transformation, the cognition "This is but that" is not destroyed; for example, earth etc., for those who uphold the universe to be eternal, or, for example, the constituents (gunas), for the Sankhyas. This, however, is absolute, immu- tably eternal, all-pervasive like the ether, devoid of all modifications, eternally contented, without parts, self-luminous by nature, which merit and demerit together with their fruit do not approach, nor the three times. This is the non-embodiment called final release, because of Scriptures like, "Other than

Others, indeed, mention two kinds of eternality-the immutable eternality and the evolving eternality. When (immortality) is said to be eternal, lest it be taken to be eternality of the evolving kind, he says: "Of these, some" etc. For, evolving eternality is not absolute. It is thus: does it evolve as a whole or in part? If it evolve as a whole, how can there be no destruction of its nature? If it evolve in part, is that part different from it or non- different? If it be different, how can the transformation be of that (eternal entity)? Indeed, when one thing is transformed, a different thing is not also transformed, as that would be an undue extension. Or, if it be non-different, how can the transformation be not of the whole ?

समन्वय: १७४ तत्र किंचित्परिणामिनित्यं स्यात्, यस्मि- न्विक्रियमाणेऽपि तदेवेदमिति बुद्धिर्न विहन्यते; यथा पृथिव्यादि जगन्नित्यत्व- वादिनाम्, यथा वा सांख्यानां गुणाः। इदं तु पारमार्थिकं कूटस्थनित्यं व्योमव- तसर्वव्यापि सर्वविक्रियारहितं नित्यतृप्तं निरवयवं स्वयंज्योतिःस्भावम्, यत्र धर्मा-

परे हि दयीं नित्यतामाहु :- कूटर्थनित्यतां परिणामिनित्यतां च। तत्र नित्यमित्युक्ते मा भूदस्य परिणामिनित्यतेत्याह-तत्र किंचित् इति। परिणामिनित्यता हि न पारमार्थिकी। तथा हि-तत्सर्वात्मना वा परिणमते एकदेशेन वा ? सर्वात्मना परिणामे कथं न तत्तवव्याहतिः ? एकदेशपरिणामे वा स एकदेशस्ततो भिन्नो वा अभिन्नो वा? भिन्नश्चेत् कथं तरय परिणामः ? न ह्यन्यस्मिन् परिणममानेऽन्यः परिणमति, अतिप्रसङ्गात्। अभेदे वा कथ न सर्वात्मना परिणाम: ?

१७५ समन्वयः

धर्मो सह कार्येण कालत्रयं च नोपावर्तेते। तदेतदशरीरत्वं मोक्षाख्यम 'अन्यल धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मादन्यत्रास्मात्कृताकृतात् । अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च' इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। अतस्तद्रह्म, यस्येयं जिज्ञासा प्रस्तुता। तद्यदि कर्तव्यशेषतवेनोपदिश्येत, तेन च कर्तव्येन साध्यश्चेन्मोक्षोऽभ्युपगम्येत, अ- नित्य एव स्यात्। ततैवरं सति यथोक्त- कर्मफलेष्वेव तारतम्यावस्थितेष्वनित्येषु कश्चिदतिशयो मोक्ष इति प्रसज्येत। नित्यश्च मोक्षः सर्वैर्मोक्षवादिभिरभ्युप- गम्यते। अतो न कर्तव्यशेषत्वेन ब्रह्मो- पदेशो युक्तः ।

भिन्नाभिन्नं तदिति चेत् ; तथा हि-तदेव कारणात्मनाभिन्नम्, भिन्नं च कार्यात्मना, कटकादय इवाभिन्ना हाटकात्मना भिन्नाश्र कटकाद्यात्मना। न च भेदाभेदयोर्विरोधान्नैकत्र समवाय इति युक्तम्। विरुद्धमिति नः क्व संप्रत्ययः ? यत्प्रमाणविपर्ययेण

HARMONY 175

virtue, other than vice, other than this that is done and not done, other than what has been and what is to be" (Katha., II, 14.) Therefore such is Brahman, the desire to know which is here the context. If that be taught as subsidiary to something to be done, and if final release be acknowledged to be something to be accomplished by that which is to be done, then it would be certainly non-eternal. Then, this being the case, the result would be that final release is only an excellent stage among the graded non-eternal fruits of ritual described above. And final release is acknowledged to be eternal by all who uphold a doctrine of final release. Therefore the teaching of Brahman as subsidiary to what is to be done does not stand to reason.

It may be said to be different and non-different; it is thus: that itself, in its causal aspect is non- different, and is different in the effect-aspect, like bracelets etc., which are non-different in respect of their nature as gold, and different in respect of their nature as bracelets etc. Nor is it meet to say that, because of the opposition of difference and non- difference, there cannot be the inherence of the two in one. Where is it that we have the right cognition of opposition ? (In that) whioh is opposed to the means of valid knowledge.117

176 HARMONY

But that which is understood through the means of valid knowledge, for that that nature alone (is true). In the appositional cognition "This ear-ring is gold," both difference and non-difference are clearly manifest; it is thus: if non-difference were absolute, there would result the appearance of one twice (as subject and as predicate); and if difference were absolute, there would be no apposi- tion, any more than between cow and horse; there is no apposition, where there is a relationship of support and supported or of having the same locus; the pot is never (said to be) the cherry (therein); nor is it said of Caitra and Maitra present on one seat that "Caitra is Maitra"; and it is this unsublated, indubitable, universal appositional cognition that establishes difference and non-difference between the effect and the cause; and thus, since the effects are of the nature of the cause, and since of the cause, whose nature is existence, there is persistence every- where, there is in the aspect of existence non-difference of the effect, the universe (from the cause); in the effect-aspect as cow, pot etc., there is difference. As is said: "In the effect-aspect, there is difference; non-difference in the causal aspect; for example, in the gold-aspect there is non-difference, in the aspect of ear-ring etc., there is difference." To this the reply is : what, then, is this which is called difference, which should exist along with non-difference in one place? If it be said to be reciprocal non-existence, does this exist or not between effect and cause, bracelet

समन्वयः १७६

वर्तते। यत्तु यथा प्रमाणेनावगम्यते तस्य तथाभाव एव। 'कुण्डलमिदं सुवर्णम्' इति सामानाधिकरण्यप्रत्यये व्यक्तं भेदाभेदौ चकारतः; तथा हि-आत्यन्तिकेSभेदेऽन्यतरस्य द्विरव- भासप्रसङ्ग: ; भेदे चात्यन्तिके न सामानाधि- करण्यं गवाश्रवत् ; आधाराधेयभावे एकाश्रयत्वे वा न सामानाधिकरण्यम् ; न हि भवति कुण्डं बदरमिति; नाप्येकासनस्थयोश्रैत्रमैत्रयोश्चैत्रो मैत्र इति ; सोऽयमबाधितोऽसंदिग्धः सर्वजनीनः सामानाधिकरण्यप्रत्यय एव कार्यकारणयोर्भेदाभेदौ व्यवस्थापयति; तथा च कार्याणां कारणात्मत्वात् कारणस्य च सद्रूपस्य सर्वत्रानुगमात, सद्रूपेणा- भेदः कार्यस्य जगतः; भेदः कार्यरूपेण गोघटादिनेति ; यथाहु :- कार्यरूपेण नानात्वमभेद: कारणात्मना। हेमात्मना यथाभेदः कुण्डलाद्यात्मना भिदा॥ इति। अत्रोच्यते-कः पुनरयं भेदो नाम, यः सहाभेदेनैकत्र भवेत्? परस्पराभाव इति चेत्, किमयं कार्यकारणयोः कटकहाटकयोररिति न 45

१७७ समन्वयः

वा? न चेत्, एकत्वमेवारित, न च भेदः । अरि्ति चेत् भेद एव, नाभेदः । न च भावा- भावयोरविरोधः, सहावरथानासंभवात्। संभवे वा कटकवर्धमानयोरपि तत्त्वेनाभेदप्रसङ्ग:, भेद- स्याभेदाविरोधात। अपि च कटकस्य हाटकादभेदे यथा हाटकात्मना कटकमुकुटकुण्डलादयो न भिद्यन्ते एवं कटकात्मनापि न भिद्येरन्, कटकर्य हाटकादभेदात्। तथा च हाटकमेव वस्तुसत् न कटकादयः, भेदस्याप्रतिभासनात्। अथ हाटकत्वेनैवाभेदो न कटकत्वेन ; तेन तु भेद एव कुण्डलादेः । यदि हाटकादभिन्नः कटकः कथमयं कुण्ड- लादिषु नानुवर्तते? नानुवर्तते चेत् कथं हाटकाद- भिन्न: कटकः? ये हि यस्मिन्ननुवर्तमाने व्यावर्तन्ते ते ततो भिन्ना एव, यथा सूत्रात्कुसुमभेदाः। नानुवर्तन्ते चानुवर्तमानेऽपि हाटकत्वे कुण्डलादयः; तस्मात्तेऽपि हाटकान्िन्ना एवेति। सत्तानुवृत्त्या च सर्ववस्त्वनुगमे 'इदमिह नेदम्, इदमस्मान्नेदम्, इदमिद्ानीं नेदम्, इदमेवं नेदम्' इति विभागो

HARMONY 177

and gold? If not, there is oneness alone, not difference. If it does exist, there is difference alone, not non-difference. Nor is there no opposition between existence and non- existence, as their co-existence is impossible. Or, if it were possible, there would result non-difference as such between the bracelet and the vardhamuna, difference not being opposed to non-difference. Further, the bracelet being non- different from gold, just as, in the gold-aspect, bracelets, crowns, ear-rings etc. are not different, so even in the bracelet-aspect they should not differ, because of the non- difference of the bracelet from gold. And thus, gold alone is real, not the bracelet etc., since of the difference there is no manifestation. Now, (it may be said) only as gold is there non- difference, not as bracelet; as that (bracelet), however, there is but difference from ear-ring etc. (We ask in reply) if the bracelet is non-different from gold, how is it that this (former) does not recur in ear-ring etc .? And if it does not recur, how is the bracelet non- different from gold? For, those, which are variable when something is recurrent. are certainly different from that, as the different flowers from the string. And though goldness is recurrent, ear-ring etc. are not recurrent; hence, they too are certainly different from gold. If, because of the recurrence of existentiality, all things were non- different, there would be no distinctions like " this is here, not that," "this is from this, not that," "this is now, not that," "this is so, not that" etc., because of the non- existence of any ground for discrimination of anything, in

178 HARMONY

any place, at any time, in any manner. Further, when from a distance it is understood to be gold, its particulari- ties, as ear-ring etc., would not be desired to be known, because of their non-difference from gold, and because of the latter being known. Now, since there is difference too of ear-ring etc. from gold, even when gold is known, they are unknown. Now, since there is non-difference too, why are they not known? On the contrary, knowledge alone is appropriate in their case; for, the absence of the effect (knowledge), in the absence of the cause (non-difference), is the general rule; and that is set aside (here) by the existence of the cause. And since in non-difference there is the existence of the cause, when gold is known, ear-ring etc. are certainly known; hence the desire to know them and the cognitions of them would be futile. Therefore, that which on the apprehension of another is not (itself) apprehended is different from that (other); for example, when the camel is apprehended, the ass, which is not apprehended, (differs) from the camel. And when gold is apprehend- ed from a distance, its particularities, ear-ring etc., are not apprehended; therefore they are different from gold. How, then, is there the apposition "ear-ring (is) gold" ? If this be asked, it has been said that there is no appo- sition, where there is & relationship of support and supported or of having the same locus. Then, how (to explain) the distinction of recurrence and variability, and the desire to know ear-ring etc., even when gold is known ?

समन्वयः १७८ न स्यात्, कस्यचित् क्वचित् कदाचित् कथं- चिद्विवेकहेतोरभावात्। अपि च दूरात्कनकमित्य- वगते न तस्य कुण्डलादयो विशेषा जिज्ञास्येरन, कनकादभेदात्तेषाम्, तस्य च ज्ञातत्वात्। अथ भेदोऽप्यरित कनकात् कुण्डलादीनामिति कनकावगमेऽप्यज्ञातारते। नन्वभेदोऽप्यस्तीति किं न ज्ञाताः ? प्रत्युत ज्ञानमेव तेषां युक्तम् ; कारणाभावे हि कार्याभाव औत्सर्गिक :; स च कारणसत्तया अपोद्यते। अरित चाभेदे कारणसत्तेति कनके ज्ञाते ज्ञाता एव कुण्ड- लादय इति तज्जिज्ञासाज्ञानानि चानर्थकानि स्युः । तेन यस्मिन् गृह्यमाणे यन्न ग्ृह्यते तत्ततो भिद्यते ; यथा करभे गृह्यमाणेऽगृह्यमाणो रासभः करभात्। गृह्यमाणे च दूरतो हेम्नि न गृह्यन्ते तस्य भेदाः कुण्डलादयः; तस्मात्ते हेम्नो भिद्यन्ते। कथं तर्हि हेम कुण्डलमिति सामानाधिकरण्यम् इति चेत्, न ह्याधाराधेयभावे समानाश्रयत्वे वा सामानाधिकरण्यमित्युक्तम्। अथानुवृत्तिव्यावृत्तिव्य- वस्था च हेम्नि ज्ञाते कुण्डलादिजिज्ञासा च कथम्?

समन्वयः

न खल्वभेदे ऐकान्तिकेSनैकान्तिके चैतदुभयमुपपद्यते इत्युक्तम्। तस्माद्व्ेदाभेदयोरन्यतरस्मिन्नवहेये डभेदो- पादानैव भेदकल्पना, न भेदोपादानाभेदकल्पनेति युक्तम्। भिद्यमानतन्त्रत्वाद्जेदश्य, भिद्यमानानां च प्रत्येकमेकत्वात्, एकाभावे चानाश्रयस्य भेदस्या- योगात्, एकत्वस्य च भेदानधीनत्वात्, नाय- मयं इति च भेदग्रहस्य प्रतियोगिग्रहसापेक्षत्वात्, एकत्वग्रहस्य चान्यानपेक्षत्वात्, अभेदोपादानैवा- निर्वचनीयभेदकल्पनेति सांप्रतम्। तथा च श्रुतिः 'मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्' इति। तस्मात् कूटस्थनित्यतैव पारमार्थिकी, न परिणामिनित्यतेति सिद्धम्। व्योमवत् इति च दृष्टान्तः परसिद्धः, अस्मन्मते तस्यापि कार्यत्वेनानित्यत्वात्। अत्र च कूटस्थनित्यम् इति निर्वर्त्यकर्मतामपाकरोति। सर्वव्यापि इति प्राप्यकर्मताम्। सर्वविक्रिया- रहितम् इति विकार्यकर्मताम्। निरवयवम् इति संस्कार्यकर्मताम्। व्रीहीणां खलु प्रोक्षणेन संरकारा- ख्योंऽशो यथा जन्यते, नैवं ब्रह्मणि कश्चिदंशः

HARMONY 179

It has been said that these two, verily, are not intelligible, if there be non-difference, absolute or non-absolute (i.e., cum difference). Therefore, one of the two, difference and non-difference, having to be abandoned, it is on the basis of non-difference that there is the positing of difference; it does not stand to reason that non-difference is posited on a basis of difference. For, difference is dependent on what is differentiated; those which are differentiated are each one; if there were not one, there could be no difference because there would be no locus; and of unity there is no dependence on difference; the apprehension of difference, in the form "not this, (but) this," has need of the ap- prehension of the counter-correlate, while the apprehension of unity has no need of anything else: for these reasons it is admissible that only on a basis of non-difference is there the positing of indeterminable difference." So too Scripture: "only as clay is this true." Hence, immutable eternity alone is absolute, not evolving eternity; this is established. The illustration "like the ether" is according to the doctrine of others, since in our system that too, being produced, is non-eternal. And here, by the words "im- mutably eternal," he refutes its being an object of achieve- ment ; by the words "all-pervasive," its being an object of attainment; by the words " devoid of all modifications," its being an object of change; by the words "without parts," its being an object of purification. Just as, verily, for the rice-grains there is generated, by the sprinkling, an element called purification, not thus is there any element in Brahman, produced by (ritualistic) action, since it has no members (arayavas); that is to say, since it has no parts.

180 HARMONY

Further, there are scriptural texts which, showing final release to follow immediately on the knowledge of Brahman, exclude anything else to be done in between : "He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself" (Mund., III, ii, 9); " And his actions perish when he, the higher and the lower, is seen " (Mund., II, ii, 8); " He who knows the bliss of Brahman has no fear from any- where " (Taitt., II, 9); "Verily thou hast, oh Janaka, reached fearlessness " (Brh., IV, ii, 4); "Therefore, one knew only the self in the form, 'I am Brahman'; from that all this sprang" (Vajasaneyibrāhmanopanişad,

He states its being the human goal: "eternally contented." By contentment is implied happiness devoid of misery. Contentment, indeed, is happiness conjoined with the cessation of the misery of appetite. And happiness, if not cognised, cannot be a human goal; to this he says: " self-luminous. "' Having thus shown through Scripture etc., that the fruit called release, in his own view, is eternal, he elaborates the non-eternality of the release achieved by action: "If that be taught" etc. Nor is there sublation by Scripture, since there is intelligibility of Scripture, in the manner mentioned. Further, there are numerous texts, which stand in the way of the view that release, as generated by the unseen potentiality born of knowledge, is consequent on an injunction; thus, he says: "Further, there are Scriptural texts" etc. The instrumentality of knowledge in respect of release consists only in the removal of the hindrance of the two kinds of Nescience, not in itself, nor

समन्वय: १८० अपि च 'ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति', 'क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्टष्टे परावरे', 'आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान्न विभेति कुतश्चन', 'अभयं वै जनक प्राप्तोऽसि', 'तदात्मानमेवावेदहं ब्रह्मास्मीति तस्मात्त-

क्रियाधेयोऽरित, अनवयवत्वात्; अनंशत्वादित्यर्थः । पुरुषार्थतामाह-नित्यतृप्तम् इति। तृप्त्या दुःख- रहितं सुखमुपलक्षयति। क्षुद्दुःखनिवृत्तिसहितं हि सुखं तृप्तिः। सुखं चाप्रतीयमानं न पुरुषार्थ इत्यत आह-स्वयंज्योतिः इति। तदेवं स्वमतेन मोक्षाख्यं फलं नित्यं श्रुत्यादि- भिरुपपाद्य क्रियानिष्पाद्यस्य तु मोक्षस्यानित्यत्वं प्रसञ्जयति-तद्यदि इति। न चागमबाघः, आग- मस्योक्ेन प्रकारेणोपपत्तेः । अपि च ज्ञानजन्या- पूर्वजनितो मोक्षो नैयोगिक इत्यस्यार्थर्य सन्ति भूयस्यः श्रुतयो निवारिका इत्याह-अपि च ब्रह्म वेद इति। अविद्याद्वयप्रतिबन्धापनयमात्रेण च विद्याया मोक्षसाधनत्वम्, न स्वतोऽपूर्वोत्पादेन वा 46

१८१ समन्वयः

त्सर्वमभवत्', 'तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः' इत्येवमाद्याः श्रुतयो ब्रह्मविद्यानन्तरमेव मोक्षं दर्शयन्त्यो मध्ये कार्यान्तरं वारयन्ति। तथा 'तद्दैतत्प- शयन्नृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवं सूर्यश्च' इति ब्रह्मदर्शनसर्वात्मभावयोर्मध्ये कर्तव्यान्तरवारणायोदाहार्यम्, यथा 'तिष्ठ- न्गायति' इति तिष्ठतिगायत्योर्मध्ये तत्कर्तृकं कार्यान्तरं नास्तीति गम्यते। 'त्वं हि नः पिता योऽस्माकमविद्यायाः परं पारं तार- यसि', 'श्रुतं ह्येव मे भगवद्दृशेभ्यस्तरति शोकमात्मविदिति; सोऽहं भगवः शोचामि;

इत्यत्रापि श्रुतीरुदाहरति-त्वं हि नः पिता इति। न केवलमस्मिन्नर्थे श्रुत्यादयः, अपि त्वक्षपादाचार्य- सूत्रमपि न्यायमूलमस्तीत्याह-तथा चाचार्य- प्रणीतम् इति। आचार्यश्रोक्तलक्षण: पुराणे- आचिनोति च शास्त्रार्थमाचारे स्थापयत्यपि। स्वयमाचरते यस्मादाचार्यस्तेन चोच्यते।।

HARMONY 181

I, iv, 10); "Then, what delusion is there, what sorrow is there, for one who has uniformly seen this oneness ?" (Isa., 7) etc. Similarly the following may be cited in order to exclude anything else which has to be done in between the sight of Brahman and becoming the self of all: "Verily, the sage Vāmadeva, seeing him, realised, 'I became Manu and the sun'" (Brh., I, iv, 10); just as in "standing, he sings," one understands that between standing and singing there is nothing else for him to do. "Thou indeed art our father, thou who carriest us to the other shore of ignorance "(Pr., VI, 8); "I have indeed heard from those like Your Reverence that one who knows the self crosses sorrow; Your Reverence, I am one in grief; this me, may Your Reverence take across sorrow" (Chand., VII, i, 3); "To him whose sins are squeezed out,

in the production of an unseen potentiality ; for this too, he cites Scriptures: "Thou indeed art our father" etc.1* To this effect, there are not merely Scripture etc., but also the aphorism of the preceptor, Aksapada, based on reason- ing; thus he says: "Similarly, there is the aphorism" etc. And the preceptor is he who has been thus defined in the puraņa: "Because he explains the meaning of the sacred teaching, confirms (his pupils) in the observances, and himself conforms to those observances, he is called preceptor." By such a one has been formulated this

182 HARMONY

the revered Sanatkumara shows the other side of darkness" (Chand., VII, xxvi, 2); these and other scriptural passages show the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman to be merely the cessation of the obstacles to final release. Similarly there is the aphorism written by the preceptor and supported by reasoning "Of misery, birth, activity, defect and illusory knowledge, by the destruction of each subsequent one, there is the destruc- tion of each earlier one, and consequently final release ". And the destruction of illusory knowledge results from the cognition of the oneness of Brahman and the self.

aphorism: "Of misery, birth, activity, defect and illusory knowledge, by the destruction of each subsequent one, there is the destruction of each earlier one, and consequent- ly final release."12] In the order of mention, the cause is the subsequent, the effect the earlier; on the destruction of the cause there is the destruction of the effect, as when phlegm is destroyed, the fever generated by phlegm is destroyed. On the destruction of birth, there is the des- truction of misery; on the destruction of activity, the destruction of birth; on the destruction of defect, the destruction of activity; on the destruction of illusory knowledge, the destruction of defect. And illusory know- ledge, which is Nescience, is the primal cause of transmi- gration, even in the visible manner of generating desire etc.

समन्वय: १८२ तं मा भगवाञ्छोकस्य पारं तारयतु', 'तस्मै मृदितकषायाय तमसः पारं दर्श- यति भगवान्सनत्कुमारः' इति चैवमाद्याः श्रुतयो मोक्षप्रतिबन्धनिवृत्तिमात्रमेवात्म- ज्ञानस्य फलं दर्शयन्ति। तथा च आचार्यप्रणीतं न्यायोपबृंहितं सूत्रम्-'दुःखजन्मप्रवृत्तिदोषमिथ्याज्ञाना- नामुत्तरोत्तरापाये तदनन्तरापायादपवर्गः' इति। मिथ्याज्ञानापायश्च ब्रह्मात्मैकत्व- विज्ञानान्द्रवति।

इति। तेन हि प्रणीतं सूत्रम् -- 'दुःखजन्म- प्रवृत्तिदोषमिथ्याज्ञानानामुत्तरोत्तरापाये तदनन्तरापा- यादपवर्गः' इति। पाठापेक्षया कारणमुत्तरम्, कार्य च पूर्वम् ; कारणापाये कार्यापायः, कफापाये इव कफोद्वस्य ज्वरस्यापायः । जन्मापाये दुःखापायः ; प्रवृत्त्यपाये जन्मापायः ; दोषापाये प्रवृत्त्यपायः; मिथ्या- ज्ञानापाये दोषापायः । मिथ्याज्ञानं चाविदया रागाद्ु-

१८३ समन्वय:

पजननक्रमेण दृष्टेनैव संसारस्य परमं निदानम्। सा च तत्त्वज्ञानेन ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानेनैवावगतिपर्यन्तेन विरोधिना निवर्त्यते। ततोऽविद्यानिवृ्त्या ब्रह्मस्व- रूपाविर्भावो मोक्ष :; न तु विद्याकार्यस्तज्जनितापूर्व- कार्योवा-इति सूत्रार्थः। तत्त्वज्ञानान्मिथ्याज्ञानापाय इत्येतावन्मात्रेण सूत्रोपन्यासः; न त्वक्षपादसंमतं तत्त्वज्ञानमिह संमतम्। तदनेनाचार्यान्तरसंवादे- नायमर्थो दृढीकृतः । स्यादेतत्। नैकत्वविज्ञानं यथावस्थितवस्तु- विषयम्, येन मिथ्याज्ञानं भेदावभासं निवर्तयन्न विधिविषयो भवेत् ; अपि तु संपदादिरूपम्। तथा च विधे: प्रागप्राप्तं पुरुषेच्छया कर्तव्यं सत् विधि- गोचरो भविष्यति; यथा वृत्त्यनन्तत्वेन मनसो विश्वेदेवसाम्याद्विश्वान्देवान्मनसि संपाद्य मन आल- म्बनमविद्यमानसमं कृत्वा प्राधान्येन संपाद्यानां विश्वेषामेव देवानामनुचिन्तनम्, तेन चानन्तलोक- प्राप्तिः; एवं चिद्रूपसाम्याज्जीवे ब्रह्मरूपं संपाद्य जीवमालम्बनमविद्यमानसमं कृत्वा प्राधान्येन ब्रह्मानु-

HARMONY 183

And that is removed only by its opposite, viz., knowledge of the truth, the cognition of the unity of Brahman and the self, culminating in realisation. Hence, release is the mani- festation of the nature of Brahman, through the removal of Nescience; but it is not the effect of vidya (i.e., contem- plation) or the effect of an unseen potentiality generated thereby; this is the meaning of the aphorism. The citation of the aphorism is only to this extent-that from knowledge of the truth there is the destruction of illusory knowledge; that, however, which is acceptable to Aksapāda as knowledge of the truth, is not here acceptable. Hereby, i.e., by the accord of another preceptor, this sense is confirmed. Be this so. The cognition of unity does not have for content a thing as it exists, in which case, it would remove illusory knowledge, i.e., the presentation of difference, and itself not be the content of an injunction; but it is of the nature of an imagined identification etc. And thus, being non-established prior to an injunction, and to be accom- plished through the desire of the person, it would become the sphere of an injunction; for example, because of the likeness of the mind, through the infinity of its modifica- tions, to the All-gods, the latter are imagined in the mind, the mind which is the support is ignored as if not cognised, and the imagined All-gods alone are principally contem- plated, infinite worlds being attained thereby; similarly, because of likeness in the nature of intelligence, the nature of Brahman is imagined in the jīva, the jiva which is the

184 HARMONY

Nor is this cognition of the oneness of Brahman and the self of the nature of an imagined identification, as in the case of " Mind verily is infinite, the All-gods are infinite; therefore he conquers an infinite world ". Nor is it of the nature of superimposition as in the case of "Contemplate the mind as Brahman," "The sun is Brahman : this is the teaching," where there is super- imposition of the contemplation of Brahman in the mind, the sun etc. Nor is it caused by association with a distinctive mode of activity, as in the case of "The air is the devourer," "The vital air is the devourer". It is not also of the nature of purification subsidiary to a ritual like the glance at the ghee. If the cognition

support is ignored as if not cognised, and Brahman is contemplated principally, the fruit of immortality being attained thereby. In superimposition, however, the support being the principal, there is contemplation of that as having the nature superimposed ; for example, "Contemplate the mind as Brahman," "The sun is Brahman, this is the teaching"; similarly, in respect of the jtva, who is not Brahman, "Contemplate but as Brahman". Or (the meditation may be) from the association with a distinctive mode of activity; for example "The air, verily, is samvarga," "The vital air, verily, is samvarga"; the external air-deity is, indeed, the samvarga; that, indeed, devours fire etc .; for, at the time of the final

समन्वयः १८४ न चेदं ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानं संपद्रूपम- यथा 'अनन्तं वै मनोऽनन्ता विश्वे देवा अनन्तमेव स तेन लोकं जयति' इति। न चाध्यासरूपम, यथा 'मनो ब्रह्मेत्यु- पासीत', 'आदित्यो ब्रह्मेत्यादेशः' इति च मनआदित्यादिषु ब्रह्मदृष्टयध्यासः । नापि विशिष्टक्रियायोगनिमित्तम् 'वायुर्वाव सं- वर्गः', 'प्राणो वाव संवर्गः' इतिवत्। नाप्याज्यावेक्षणादिकर्मवत्कर्माङ्गसंस्काररू-

चिन्तनम्, तेन चामृतत्वफलप्राप्तिः। अध्यासे त्वाल- म्बनस्यैव प्राधान्येनारोपिततन्भावस्यानुचिन्तनम् ; यथा 'मनो ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत', 'आदित्यो ब्रह्मे- त्यादेशः'; एवं जीवमब्रह्म 'ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत' इति। क्रियाविशेषयोगाद्वा, यथा 'वायुर्वाव संवर्गः', 'प्राणो वाव संवर्ग:'; बाह्या खलु वायुदेवता संवर्ग :; स हि वह्नयादीन् संवृङ्क्ते ; महाप्रलयसमये

47

१८५ समल्वय:

हि वायुर्वह्नयादीन्संवृत्य संहृत्यात्मनि स्थापयति । यथाह द्रविडाचार्य :- 'संहरणाद्दा संवरणाद्दा स्वात्मीभावाद्वायुः संवर्ग:१ इति। अध्यात्मं च प्राणः संवर्ग इति; स हि सर्वाणि वागादीनि संवृङ््क्ते ; प्रायणकाले हि स एव सर्वाणीन्द्रियाणि संगृह्योत्क्ा- मतीति। सेयं संवर्गदृष्टिर्वायौ प्राणे च दशा- शागतं जगद्दर्शयति यथा, एवं जीवात्मनि बृंहणक्रियया ब्रह्मदृष्टिस्मृतत्वाय फलाय कल्पत इति। तदेतेषु त्रिष्वपि पक्षेष्वात्मदर्शनोपासनादयः प्रधानकर्माणि, अपूर्वविषयत्वात्, स्तुतशस्त्रवत् ; आत्मा तु द्रव्यं कर्मणि गुण इति। संस्कारो वात्मनो दर्शनं विधीयते। यथा दर्शपूर्णमासप्रकरणे 'पत्न्यवेक्षितमाज्यं भवति' इति समाम्नातम्, प्रकरणिना च गृहीतमुपांशुयागाङ्गभूताज्यद्रव्य- संस्कारतया, अवेक्षणं गुणकर्म विधीयते, एवं कर्तृत्वेन ऋत्वङ्गभूते आत्मनि 'आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः' इति दर्शनं गुणकर्म विधीयते, 'यैस्तु द्रव्यं चिकीर्ष्यते गुणस्तत्र प्रतीयेत' इति न्यायात्। अत आह-न चेदं ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानम्

HARMONY 185

deluge, it devours fire etc., destroys them and establishes them in itself. As the Dravidacarya says: "Because by destruction or by devouring it makes (all things) into itself, the air is samvarga." And the internal vital air is samvarga; that, indeed, devours all, speech etc .; for, at the time of death, it is that alone, which goes forth collecting together all the organs in itself. Just as the meditation on the air or the vital air as samvarga reveals the universe in all ten directions, even so, the meditation of the jiva as Brahman, because of the (former's) act of causing to grow, is capable of (producing) the fruit of immortality. On all these three views, contemplation etc. in respect of the intuition of the self, are principal acts, since they have an unseen potentiality for content, like the stutis and s'astras;" but the self is a substance subsidiary to the act. Or, intuition may be prescribed as a purification of the self. For example, in the topic concerning the darsapurnamasa, the glance, which is mentioned in "Ghee is that which has been glanced at by the (sacrificer's) wife", and which is required by the subject of the topic as a purification of the material, ghee, an accessory of the upamsu sacrifice, is prescribed as a subsidiary rite; even so, in respect of the self, which as agent is an accessory to the rite, intuition is enjoined as a subsidiary rite, in the words "The self, verily, is to be seen," because of the principle "Those by which the principal substance is desired to be purified, in respect of that (substance), subsidiariness is cognised for them". Hence, he says: "Nor is this cognition of the oneness of the Brahman and the self" etc. Why not? "If the cognition of the oneness of

186 HARMONY

of the oneness of Brahman and the self were to be admitted to be of the form of an imagined identification etc., then in the case of statements like "That thou art", "I am Brahman," and "This self is Brahman" violence would be done to the syntactical relation of words whose purport is to declare the fact of the oneness of Brahman and the self. There would be contradiction of scriptural passages like "The knot of the heart is cut, all doubts are resolved " (Mund., II, ii, 8), which declare the fruit, viz., the cessation of Nescience. If it were of the nature of an imagined identification etc., the statements of one becoming Brahman in "He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself" (Mund., III, ii, 9) would not be satisfactorily intelligible. Therefore the cognition of the oneness of Brahman and the self is not of the nature of an imagined identification etc.

Brahman and the self were admitted to be of the form of an imagined identification etc." and so on. Indeed, of the glance at the ghee mentioned in the topic of the darsapūrņa- masa, it is meet that it should be a purification of the ghee, which is an accessory thereto. And texts like " The self, verily, is to be seen " are not mentioned in any particular topic. The text "He, for whom the ladle is of parna-wood" etc., is not mentioned in the course of any particular topic; yet the word "ladle" recalls the sacrifice by the sentence, through the channel of the ladle, which has & non-inconstant connection with the sacrifice, (and thus)

समन्वय: १८६ पम्। संपदादिरूपे हि ब्रह्मात्मैकत्ववि- ज्ञानेऽभ्युपगम्यमाने, 'तत्वमसि', 'अहं ब्रह्मास्मि', 'अयमात्मा ब्रह्म' इत्येवमादीनां वाक्यानां ब्रह्मात्मैकत्ववस्तुप्रतिपादनपरः पदसमन्वयः पीड्येत; 'भिद्यते हृदय- ग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते सर्वसंशयाः' इति चैव- मादीन्यविद्यानिवृत्तिफलश्रवणान्युपरुध्ये - रन् ; 'ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति' इति चैवमादीनि तन्भावापत्तिवचनानि संपदा- दिरूपत्वे न सामअ्जस्येनोपपद्येरन्। तस्मान्न संपदादिरूपं ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानम्।

इति। कुतः ? संपदादिरूपे हि ब्रह्मात्मै- कत्वविज्ञाने इति। दर्शपूर्णमासप्रकरणे हि समाम्नातमाज्यावेक्षणं तदङ्गभूताज्यसंस्कार इति युज्यते। न च 'आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः' इत्यादि कस्यचित्प्रकरणे समाम्नातम्। न चानार- भ्याधीतमपि 'यस्य पर्णमयी जुहूर्भवति' इत्य- व्यभिचरितक्रतुसंबन्धजुहूद्दारेण जुहूपदं क्रतुं स्मार-

१८७ समल्वय:

अतो न पुरुषव्यापारतन्त्रा ब्रह्मविद्या। किं तर्हि? प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणविषयवस्तुज्ञान- वद्वस्तुतन्त्रैव। एवंभूतस्य ब्रह्मणस्तज्ज्ञा- नस्य च न कयाचिद्युक्त्या शक्य: कार्यानु- प्रवेश: कल्पयितुम्। न च विदिक्रियाकर्म- त्वेन कार्यानुप्रवेशो ब्रह्मणः, 'अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि' इति विदि- क्रियाकर्मत्वप्रधिषेधात्, 'येनेदं सर्वं

यद्दाक्येन यथा पर्णतायाः करतुशेषभावमापादयति, नैवमात्माप्यव्यभिचरितकतुसंबन्धः, येन तद्दर्शनं ऋत्वङ्गं सदात्मानं ऋत्वर्थ संस्कुर्यात्। तेन यद्यप्ययं विधि:, तथापि 'सुवर्ण हिरण्यं भार्यम्' इतिवत् विनियोगभड्गेन प्रधानकर्मैव, अपूर्वविषयत्वात्, न गुणकर्मेति स्थवीयस्तयैतद्दूषणमनभिधाय सर्वपक्ष- साधारणं दूषणमुक्तम्। तदतिरोहितार्थतया न व्याख्यातम् । किं च ज्ञानक्रियाविषयत्वविधानमस्य बहुश्रुति- विरुद्धमित्याह-न च विदिक्रिय इति।

HARMONY 187

For this reason, the knowledge of Brahman is not dependent on human activity. What then is it? It is dependent on the thing alone, like the know- ledge of things which are the content of valid cogni- tions like perception etc. And, of Brahman of this nature and of the cognition thereof, it is not possible by any reasoning to assume entrance into (the field of) what is to be done. Nor as the object of the act of cognition does Brahman enter into what is to be done; because there is the denial of its being the object of the act of knowing in " It is different from the known, also from the unknown" (Kena., I, 3) and

brings about subsidiariness to the sacrifice for being- made-of-parna-wood. There is not similarly a non-incon- stant connection of the self with the sacrifice, whereby the intuition thereof, being subsidiary to the sacrifice, would purify the self for the sake of the sacrifice. There- fore, though this be an injunction, yet because of the failure of the application, as in "Bright gold is to be worn," 125 and because of having unseen potentiality as its content, this is only a principal rite, not a subsidiary rite (like purification etc.); this criticism being too patent is not stated, only the criticism common to all the positions being stated. Since its sense is not obscure, it is not commented on. Further, its being an injunction with the act of cognition as content is opposed to numerous Scriptural texts; thus he says: "Nor as the object of the act of

188 HARMONY

"By whom one knows all this, how can one know him ?" (Brh., II, iv, 14). Similarly, there is also the denial of its being the object of the act of contemplation: after premising the non-objectness of Brahman in "That which is not expressed by speech, by which speech is expressed," (Scripture says), "Know then that alone to be Brahman, not this which is contemplated." (Kena., I, 4). If it be said that if Brahman be not an object, the sacred teaching cannot intelligibly be the source there- of, no; for the sacred teaching has for purport the cessation of the difference posited by Nescience. Indeed, the sacred teaching does not intend to declare its content, Brahman, as "this". What then? It declares Brahman to be a non-object, as being the inner self,

cognition" etc. He objects: "If Brahman be not an object" etc. And thence it would be as if an evil spirit arose in the midst of a ceremony to appease (evil spirits); this is the idea. He refutes this: "No." Why not? "Since the sacred teaching has for purport the cessation of the difference posited by Nescience." Indeed, all sentences are not capable of making known differences among things as "this " or "this". For, the differences of sweetness among sugar-cane, milk and jaggery cannot be expressed in words. It must be seen to be similar in all other cases too. Hence, if, even in respect of worldly things established by other means of valid knowledge, this be the fate of words, what then need be said in respect of the inner self, which is transcendent? As for the predication, somehow, in a

समन्वय: १८८ विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात्' इति च। तथोपास्तिक्रियाकर्मत्वप्रतिषेधोऽ्पि भवति, 'यद्वाचानभ्युदितं येन वागभ्यु- द्यते' इत्यविषयत्वं ब्रह्मण उपन्यस्य, 'तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि, नेदं यदिद- मुपासते' इति। अविषयत्वे ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रयोनित्वानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्, न ; अविद्याकल्पितभेदनिवृत्तिपरत्वाच्छास्त्रस्य । न हि शास्त्रमिदंतया विषयभूतं ब्रह्म प्रतिपिपादयिषति। किं तर्हि? प्रत्य-

शङ्कते-अविषयत्वे इति। ततश्र शान्तिकर्मणि वेतालोदय इति भावः । निराकरोति-न। कुतः? अविद्याकल्पितभेदनिवृत्तिपरत्वात् इति। सर्व- मेव हि वाक्यं नेदंतया वस्तुभेदं बोधयितुमर्हति। न हीक्षुक्षीरगुडादीनां मधुररसभेदः शक्य आख्या- तुम्। एवमन्यत्रापि सर्वत्र द्रष्टव्यम्। तेन प्रमाणान्तरसिद्धे लौकिके एवार्थे यदा गतिरिदृदशी शब्दस्य, तदा कैव कथा प्रत्यगात्मन्यलौकिके। 48

१८९ समन्वय:

गात्मत्वेनाविषयतया प्रतिपादयत् अविद्या- कल्पितं वेद्यवेदितृवेदनादिभेदमपनयति। तथा च शास्त्रम-'यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः। अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातमविजानताम्', 'न दष्टेर्द्रष्टारं पश्येर्न श्रुतेः श्रोतारं शृणुया न मतेर्मन्तारं मन्वीथा न विज्ञातेर्विज्ञा- तारं विजानीयाः' इति चैवमादि। अतोऽविद्याकल्पितसंसारित्वनिवर्तनेन नि- त्यमुक्तात्मस्वरूपसमर्पणान्न मोक्षस्यानित्य- त्वदोषः ।

अदूरविप्रकर्षेण तु कथंचित्प्रतिपादनमिहापि समानम्। त्वंपदार्थो हि प्रमाता प्रमाणाधीनया प्रमित्या प्रमेयं घटादि व्याप्नोतीत्यविद्याविलसितम्। तदस्य अ- विषयीभूतोदासीनतत्पदार्थप्रत्यगात्मसामानाधिकरण्येन प्रमातृत्वाभावात् तन्निवृत्तौ प्रमाणादयरितिस्त्रो विधा निवर्तन्ते। न हि पक्तुरवस्तुत्वे पाक्यपाक- पचनानि वस्तुसन्ति भवितुमर्हन्तीति। तथा हि-

HARMONY 189

and removes differences like the known, knower, and knowledge posited by Nescience. And thus the sacred teaching: "Conceived of by him by whom it is not conceived of; he, by whom it is conceived of, does not know it; not known to them who (say they) know; known to them who (say they) do not know." (Kena., II, 3); "Thou canst not see the seer of sight, canst not hear the hearer of hearing, canst not think the thinker of the thought, canst not know the knower of the knowledge" (Brh., III, iv, 2) and so on. Therefore through the cessation of migratoriness posited by Nescience, there is the restoration of the nature of the self eternally free; hence for final release there is not the defect of non-eternality.

manner not too remote, that holds equally here. That the denotation of the "thou," the cogniser, through valid knowledge dependent on the means of valid knowledge, pervades the object of knowledge, the pot etc .- this is a manifestation of Nescience. Being in apposition with the inner self, the denotation of the "that," which is not an object and is indifferent, there cannot be cognisership for it; hence, on the cessation of that, there cease the threefold distinctions of the means of valid knowledge etc. Verily, when the cook is unreal, the object, the result and the process of cooking cannot be real." It is, indeed, thus that there is a verse occurring elsewhere: "When, of the word

190 HARMONY

But, for him to whom release is something to be produced, it stands to reason, there is the need for something to be done, mental, verbal or physical. So too, if it be a modification. For these two views the non-eternality of release is a certainty. In the world, neither modifications like curd etc., nor things produced like a jar etc. are found to be eternal.

'that,' cured of its external reference, there is identity of significance with the word 'thou,' then, the word 'thou' too, getting the same significance as 'that,' i.e., the pure intelligent self, abandons all the impurities, such as agency, that affect the true substance." To the same effect he cites Scriptures: "And thus the sacred teaching: 'Conceived of by him'" etc. He concludes the present topic: "There- fore, through the cessation of the migratoriness posited by Nescience" etc. He deduces the non-eternality of release on the opponent's view : "But, for him to whom" etc. What is to be done, i.e., the unseen potentiality, is generated by the operation in respect of sacrifice etc .; that, release needs for its origination. "For those two views," i.e., for the two (views) of achievement and modification. That the momentary cognition is the self, say the Bauddhas. And thus, since the origination of a pure cognition is release, release is what is achieved. For others, however, the

समन्वयः १९० यस्य तूत्पाद्यो मोक्षः, तस्य मानसं वाचिकं कायिकं वा कार्यमपेक्षत इति युक्तम्। तथा विकार्यत्वे च। तयोः पक्षयोर्मोक्षस्य ध्रुवमनित्यत्वम्। न हि दध्यादि विकार्यम, उत्पादं वा घटादि नित्यं दृष्टं लोके।

विगलितपराग्वृत्यर्थत्वं पदस्य तदस्तदा त्वमिति हि पदेनैकार्थत्वे त्वमित्यपि यत्पदम् । तदपि च तदा गत्वैकार्थ्य विशुद्धचिदात्मतां त्यजति सकलान्कर्तृत्वादीन्पदार्थमलान्निजान्॥ इत्यान्तरश्षलोकः । अत्रैवार्थे श्रुतीरुदाहरति,-तथा च शास्त्रम्-यस्यामतम् इति। प्रकृतमुप- संहरति-अतोऽविद्याकल्पित इति। परपक्षे मोक्षस्यानित्यतामापादयति-यस्य तु इति। कार्यमपूर्व यागादिव्यापारजन्यम्; तदपेक्षते मोक्ष: स्वोत्पत्ताविति। तयोः पक्षयोः इति; निर्वर्त्यविकार्ययोः । क्षणिकं विज्ञानमात्मेति बौद्धाः । तथा च विशुद्धविज्ञानोत्पादो मोक्ष इति निर्व्त्यों

१९१ समन्वयः

न च आप्यत्वेनापि कार्यापेक्षा ; सात्म- स्वरूपत्वे सत्यनाप्यत्वात् ; स्वरूपव्यतिरिक्त- त्वेऽपि ब्रह्मणो नाप्यत्वम्; सर्वगतत्वेन नित्याप्तस्वरूपत्वात्सर्वेण ब्रह्मण आकाशस्येव।

मोक्षः । अन्येषां तु संसाररूपावस्थामपहाय या कैवल्यावस्थावाप्तिरात्मनः स मोक्ष इति विकार्यो मोक्ष: ; यथा पयसः पूर्वावस्थापहानेनावस्थान्तर- प्राप्तिर्विकारो दधीति। तदेतयोः पक्षयोर्न नित्यता मोक्षस्य, कार्यत्वात्, दधिघटादिवत्। 'अथ यदतः परो दिवो ज्योतिर्दीप्यते' इति श्रतेर्ब्रह्मणो विकृताविकृतदेशभेदावगमादविकृतदेश- ब्रह्मप्राप्तिरुपासनादिविधिकार्या भविष्यति ; तथा च प्राप्यकर्मता ब्रह्मण इत्यत आह-न चाप्यत्वे- नापि इति। अन्यदन्येन विकृतदेशपरिहाण्याविकृत- देशं प्राप्यते। तद्यथोपवेलं जलधिरतिबहलचपल- कल्लोलमालापरस्परास्फालनसमुल्लसत्फेनपुञ्जस्तबकतया विकृतः, मध्ये तु प्रशान्तसकलकल्लोलोपसर्गः स्वच्छः स्थिरतयाविकृतः, तस्य मध्यमविकृतं

HARMONY 191

Nor even as what is to be attained is there the need for something to be done; for if it be of the nature of one's own self, it is not what is to be attained ; even if different from one's own nature, Brahman is not what is to be attained; because, being all-pervasive, Brahman by nature is eternally attained by all, like the ether.

self's attainment of the state of isolation, after getting rid of the state of transmigration, is release; hence, release is a modification; for example, for milk, the attainment of another state by the abandonment of the former state, is the modification, curd. On these two views, there is no eternality for release, because of (its) being produced, like curd, pot etc. From the scriptural text " Then, the light which shines beyond the heavens " etc., there are understood of Brahman differences of place, where it is modified and where it is unmodified; hence, the reaching to that place where Brahman is unmodified might become what is to be done by the injunction of contemplation etc .; and thus, there is for Brahman object-ness in respect of attainment. To this he says : "Nor even as what is to be attained" etc. By means different from oneself, one abandons the place where there is modification and reaches that where there is none. Thus, for example, the sailor in his boat (leaving behind him) the shores of the sea, which are subject to modifica- tion, being characterised by groups of foam produced by the

192 HARMONY

Nor is final release the purified, in which case there would be the need for an activity. Indeed what is called purification may be either by the addition of merits to what is to be purified, or by the removal of defects. Now, it cannot be by the addition of merits, since final re- lease is of the nature of Brahman, to which no excellence can be added ; nor by the removal of defects, since final release is of the nature of Brahman eternally pure.

dashing of countless waves, reaches the central portion, which, untroubled by any waves, is calm, pure, steady and consequently unmodified. Since, however, the jiva is but Brahman, what is to be attained and by what means? For, attainment is based on difference; this is the meaning. If, now, the jtva be different from Brahman, even then, Brahman is not attained, since Brahman, because of his pervasiveness, is eternally attained; thus he says: "even if different from one's own nature " etc. He refutes the object-ness in respect of purification : "Nor is final release the purified" etc. Purifiedness is, indeed, of two kinds: (i) either by the addition of merits; for example, the colouring of the citron flower with the juice of the lac; the flower being purified thereby gives rise to fruit of the same colour as lac; (ii) or by the removal of defects; for example, the impure surface of a mirror becomes purified and bright through being rubbed with powdered brick. Of these (ways), there cannot be any addition of merits to Brahman. For, is this

समन्वय: १९२ नापि संस्कार्यो मोक्षः, येन व्यापार- मपेक्षेत। संस्कारो हि नाम संस्कार्यस्य गुणाधानेन वा स्यात्, दोषापनयनेन वा। न तावद्गुणाधानेन संभवति, अनाधेयाति- शयब्रह्मस्वरूपत्वान्मोक्षस्य ; नापि दोषा- पनयनेन, नित्यशुद्धब्रह्मसरूपत्वान्मोक्षस्य ।

पौतिकः पोतेन प्राप्नोति। जीवस्तु ब्रह्मैवेति किं केन प्राप्यताम्? भेदाश्रयत्वात्प्राप्तेरित्यर्थः । अथ जीवो ब्रह्मणो भिन्नस्तथापि न तेन ब्रह्माप्यते, ब्रह्मणो विभुत्वेन नित्यप्राप्तत्वादित्याह- स्वरूपव्यतिरिक्तत्वेऽपि इति। संस्कारकर्मतामपाकरेति-नापि संस्कार्य इति। दयी हि संस्कार्यता, गुणाधानेन वा, यथा बीजपूरकुसुमस्य लाक्षारसावसेक: ; तेन हि तत्कुसुमं संस्कृतं लाक्षारससवर्ण फलं प्रसुते; दोषापनयेन वा : यथा मलिनमादर्शतलं निघृष्टमिष्टकाचूर्णेनोद्भा- सितभास्वरत्वं संस्कृतं भवति। तत्र न तावद्ह्मणि गुणाधानं संभवति। गुणो हि ब्रह्मणः स्वभावो 49

१९३ समन्वयः स्वात्मधर्म एव सन् तिरोभूतो मोक्ष: क्रिययात्मनि संस्क्रियमाणेडभिव्यज्यते, यथा आदर्शे निघर्षणक्रियया संस्क्रियमाणे भाखरत्वं धर्म इति चेत्, न; क्रिया- श्रयत्वानुपपत्तेरात्मनः । यदाश्रय। क्रिया, तमविकुर्वती नैवात्मानं लभते। यद्यात्मा

वा भिन्नो वा? स्वभावश्चेत् कथमाधेयः, तस्य नित्यवात्। भिन्नत्वे तु कार्यत्वेन मोक्षस्यानित्यत्व- प्रसङ्गः । न च भेदे धर्मधर्मिभावः, गवाश्ववत्। भेदाभेदश्र व्युदस्तः, विरोधात्। तदनेनाभिसंधि- नोकम्-अनाधेयातिशयब्रह्म स्वरूपत्वान्मो- क्षस्य इति। द्वितीयं पक्षं प्रतिक्षिपति-नापि दोषापनयनेन इति। अशुद्धिः सती दर्पणे निवर्तते ; न तु ब्रह्मणि असती निवर्तनीया, नित्यनिवृत्तत्वादित्यर्थः । शङ्कते-स्वात्मधर्म एव इति। ब्रह्मस्वभाव एव मोक्षोऽनाद्यविद्यामलावृत उपासनादिक्रिययात्मनि संस्क्रियमाणेऽभिव्यज्यते, न तु क्रियते। एतदुक्तं

HARMONY 193

If it be said, "Final release, being of one's own nature, yet having been obscured, becomes manifest on the purification of the self through acts, as, for example, when a mirror is purified through the act of rubbing, its attribute of lustre (becomes manifest)," no ; because of the unintelligibility of the self being the locus of an act. That which is the locus of an act, not without modify- ing it, does that act get its being. If the self were

merit of the nature of Brahman or different ? If it be of its nature, how can it be added, that being eternal? If, however, they be different, then, because of being produced, there would result non-eternality for release. Nor can there be the relation of attribute and substrate between differents, like cow and horse. And difference cum non-difference has been refuted as contradictory. Because of these considerations, it is said: "since final retease is of the nature of Brahman to which no excellence can be added." He refutes the second alternative: "Nor by the removal of defects" etc. Impurity, being present in the mirror is removed; but not being present in Brahman, it cannot be removed, being eternally removed (therefrom): this is the sense. Heobjeots "final release, being of one's own nature" etc. Release, which is of the very nature of Brahman, being enveloped y beginningless impurity, Nescience, is mani- fested when the self is purified by acts of contemplation

194 HARMONY

to be transformed through any act having that as the locus, non-eternality of the self would result. Statements like "This is spoken of as non-transformable" would be sublated. And that is unacceptable. There- fore for the self, there cannot be an act having that as the locus. And since the self is not the object of an act having some other locus, it is not purified thereby.

etc .; but it is not produced. This is what is said: cternal purity is not established of the (individual) self, that being defiled by Nescience in the state of transmigration. He refutes the objection: "no." Why not? "Because of the unintelligibility of the self being the locus of an act." Nescience is located not in Brahman, but in the jiva; but that has been said to be indeterminable; hence, Brahman is certainly eternally pure. Admitting impurity, however, he condemns (the view of) its being purified by an act. Indeed, an act may purify Brahman either as inherent in Brahman, just as the rubbing (consisting in) the extensive conjunction and disjunction of brick powder is always inherent in the surface of the mirror; or, as inherent in another. The act is not an attribute of Brahman, since, that (act) being the cause of modification in its locus, there would be destruction of Brahman's eternality. As for what is inherent in another, how can that be of service to something else, since there

समन्वय: १९४ स्वाश्रयक्रियया विक्रियेत, अनित्यत्वमात्मनः प्रसज्येत । 'अविकार्योऽयमुच्यते' इति चैवमादीनि वाक्यानि बाध्येरन्। तच्चा- निष्टम्। तस्मान्न साश्रया क्रिया आत्मनः संभवति। अन्याश्रयायास्तु क्रियाया अ- विषयत्वान्न तयात्मा संस्क्रियते।

भवति-नित्यशुद्धत्वमात्मनोडसिद्धम्, संसारा- वस्थायामविद्यामलिनत्वादिति। शङ्गं निराकरोति- न। कुतः? क्रियाश्रयत्वानुपपत्तेः। नाविद्या ब्रह्माश्रया, किं तु जीवे; सा त्वनिर्वचनीयेत्युक्तम् ; तेन नित्यशुद्धमेव ब्रह्म। अभ्युपेत्य त्वशुद्धिं क्रिया- संस्कार्यत्वं दूष्यते। क्रिया हि ब्रह्मसमवेता वा ब्रह्म संस्कुर्यात्, यथा निघर्षणमिष्टकाचूर्णसंयोगविभाग- प्रचयो निरन्तर आदर्शतलसमवेतः; अन्यसमवेता वा। न तावद्रह्मधर्मः क्रिया, तस्याः स्वाश्रय- विकारहेतुत्वेन ब्रह्मणो नित्यत्वव्याघातात्। अन्या- श्रया तु कथमन्यस्योपकरोति, अतिप्रसङ्गात्। न

१९५ समन्वय:

ननु देहाश्रयया स्नानाचमनयज्ञोपवी- तधारणादिकया क्रियया देही संस्क्रिय- माणो दृष्टः । न ; देहादिसंहतस्यैवाविद्या- गृहीतस्यात्मनः संस्क्रियमाणत्वात्। प्रत्यक्षं हि स्नानाचमनादेर्देहसमवायित्वम। तया देहाश्रयया तत्संहत एव कश्चिदविद्य- यात्मत्वेन परिगृहीतः संस्क्रियत इति युक्तम्। यथा देहाश्रयचिकित्सानिमित्तेन धातुसाम्येन तत्संहतस्य तदभिमानिन आरोग्यफलम्, 'अहमरोगः' इति यत्र

हि दर्पणे निघृष्यमाणे मणिर्विशुद्धो दृष्टः। तञ्चानिष्टम् इति। तदा बाधनं परामृशति। अत्र व्यभिचारं चोदयति-ननु देहाश्रयया इति। परिहरति-न देहसंहतस्य इति। अनाद्- निर्वाच्याविद्योपधानमेव ब्रह्मणो जीव इति च क्षेत्रज्ञ इति चाचक्षते। स च स्थूलसूक्ष्मशरीरेन्द्रियादि-

HARMONY 195

Now, by acts having the body as their locus, such as bathing, sipping, wearing of the sacred thread etc., the embodied is seen to be purified. No; because what is purified is only that self which is associated with the body etc., which is caught hold of by Nescience. Indeed, it is a matter of perception that bathing, sipping etc. inhere in the body. It stands to reason that what is purified by the act having the body as its locus is something which is associated with that (body), and is apprehended as the self through Nescience. Just as through the equilibrium of the humours brought about by treatment having the body as the locus, there is the fruit of health for that which is associated with that body, and has the conceit (in itself) of that (body), where there arises the cognition "I am free from

would be undue extension? When the mirror is rubbed, the gem is not, indeed, seen to be purified. "And that is unacceptable": by the "that" he refers to the sublation. He raises the question of an inconstancy here : "Now, by acts having the body as their locus" etc. He answers : "No." It is only the conditioning of Brahman by beginningless indeterminable Nescience that is called the jtva or the knower of the field (ksetrajna). And that

196 HARMONY

disease," similarly, that wherein, through bathing, sipping, wearing of the sacred thread etc,, there arises the cognition "I am clean, purified," that (alone) is purified. And that is certainly associated with the body. It is only by him who has the conceit "I," who is the object of the concept "I," who is the knower, that all the actions are fulfilled. And their fruit he alone enjoys, because there is the Mantra passage, "One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other, not eating, looks on " (Rv., I, 164, 20-Mund., III, i, 1),

is associated with bodies, subtle and gross, with organs etc .; it is placed in the midst of their aggregate; through non-difference therewith, it is made the content of the concept "I"; therefore, the purification of the body etc., though the attribute of the body etc., may apply to the self, because of the determination of non-difference there- from; just as the fragrance of the cosmetics is predicated of the damsel. Therefore, here too, the purification is of that alone which is made the content of empirically valid means of knowledge, not of anything else; hence there is no inconstancy. In truth, however, there is neither act nor purification. Since the rest (of the commentary) along with the illustration has been explained even in (explaining) the commentary on superimposition, it is not explained here. "One of them eats the sweet fruit": one

समन्वय: १९६ बुद्धिरुत्पद्यते, एवं स्नानाचमनयज्ञोपवीत- धारणादिकया 'अहं शुद्धः संस्कृतः' इति यत्र बुद्धिरुत्पद्यते, स संस्क्रियते। स च देहेन संहत एव। तेनैव अहंकर्त्रा अहं- प्रत्ययविषयेण प्रत्ययिना सर्वाः क्रिया निर्वत्यन्ते। तत्फलं च स एवाश्ाति, 'तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्ति अनश्नन्नन्यो- Sभिचाकशीति' इति मन्त्रवर्णात्; 'आ-

संहतस्तत्संघातमध्यपतितस्तदभेदेनाहमितिप्रत्ययविष- यीभूतः; अतः शरीरादिसंस्कारः शरीरादिधर्मो- डरप्यात्मनो भवति, तदभेदाध्यवसायात् ; यथा अङ्गरागघर्मः सुगन्धिता कामिनीनां व्यपदिश्यते। तेनात्रापि यदाश्रिता क्रिया सांव्यवहारिकप्रमाण- विषयीकृता तस्यैव संस्कारो नान्यस्येति न व्यभि- चारः। तत्त्वतस्तु न क्रिया न संस्कार इति। सनिदर्शनं तु शेषमध्यासभाष्ये एव कृतव्याख्यान- मिति नेह व्याख्यातम्। तयोरन्यः पिप्पलम्

60

१९७ समल्वय:

त्मेन्द्रियमनोयुक्तं भोक्तेत्या हुर्मनीषिणः' इति च। तथा 'एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा। कर्माध्यक्षः सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च' इति, 'स पर्यगाच्छुकमकायम- व्रणमस्नाविरं शुद्धमपापविद्धम्' इति च; एतौ मन्त्रावनाधेयातिशयतां नित्यशुद्धतां च ब्रह्मणो दर्शयतः। ब्रह्मभावश्च मोक्षः। तस्मान्न संस्कार्योडपि मोक्षः ।

इति। अन्यो जीवात्मा। पिप्पलं कर्मफलम्। अनश्नन्नन्य इति। परमात्मा। संहतस्यैव भोक्तृत्वमाह मन्त्रवर्ण :- आत्मेन्द्रिय इति। अनुपहितशुद्धसवभावब्रह्मप्रदर्शनपरौ मन्त्रौ पठति- एको देव इति। शुक्रं दीप्तिमत् ; अव्रणं दुःखरहितम् ; अस्नाविरं अविगलितम्, अविना- शीति यावत्। उपसंहरति-तस्मात् इति।

HARMONY 197

also "(The self) as associated with the body, the organs, and the mind, the wise men call the enjoyer". (Katha., I, iii, 4). Similary,"The one God, concealed in all beings, pervading all, the inner self of all beings, the watcher of acts, living in all beings, the witness, the intelligent, alone and free from attributes" (S'vet., VI, 11), "He per- vaded all, he who is effulgent, non-embodied, free from misery, indestructible, pure and non-afflicted by sin" (Isa., 8): these two Mantras show that Brahman cannot have any excellence added to it and that it is eternally pure. And becoming Brahman is final release. Therefore, final release is not also the purified.

is the jtva-self; "fruit" is the fruit of karma. "The other not eating" etc .; the supreme self. The words of the hymn (mantra) declare enjoyership only of what is associated (with the body etc.): "The self, as associated with the organs, the mind" etc. He cites two hymns which have the object of showing the unassociated Brahman of pure nature: "The one god" etc. Sukram means effulgent; avranam means free from misery; asnaviram means undissolved, that is to say, indestructible. He concludes : "Therefore " etc.

198 HARMONY

Other than these, no one can point out any channel through which an act may enter into final release. Therefore, apart from the one (means) knowledge, there cannot intelligibly be any entrance here even for the shadow of an act. Now, what is called knowledge is a mental act. No; because of difference. Indeed that is what is called an act, wherein there is an injunction even without regard to the nature of the thing, and in dependence

Now, let there not be one of the four forms of object- ness like being achieved etc .; there may be some fifth way in which the object-ness of release may be explained. To this he says: "Other than these" etc. Other than these modes, there is no mode, whereby action may come in to (secure) release. This is what is said: being the fruit of action is pervaded by one among the four forms; and this (pervasion), being excluded from release because of the pervader not being seen, excludes (the possibility of) release being the fruit of action. Is there, then, in release no action at all? In that case, all sacred teaching for that purpose and all engaging in activity for that purpose would be futile. To this he says by way of conclusion: "Therefore, apart from the one (means), knowledge" etc.

समन्वय: १९८ अतोऽन्यन्मोक्षं प्रति क्रियानुप्रवेशद्वारं न शक्यं केनचिदर्शयितुम्। तस्माज्ज्ञानमेकं मुक्त्वा क्रियाया गन्धमात्रस्याप्यनुप्रवेश इह नोपपद्यते। ननु ज्ञानं नाम मानसी क्रिया। न; वैलक्षण्यात्। क्रिया हि नाम सा, यत्र वस्तुस्वरूपनिरपेक्षैव चोदते, पुरुषचित्त-

ननु मा भून्निर्वर्त्यादिकर्मताचतुष्टयी; पञ्चमी तु काचित् विधा भविष्यति, यया मोक्षर्य कर्मता घटिष्यत इत्यत आह-अतोऽन्यत् इति। एम्यः प्रकारेभ्यो न प्रकारान्तरमन्यदरित, यतो मोक्षस्य क्रियानुप्रवेशो भविष्यति। एतदुक्तं भवति- चतसृणां विधानां मध्येऽन्यतमतया क्रियाफलत्वं व्याप्तम् ; सा च मोक्षाद्वयावर्तमाना व्यापकानु- पलब्ध्या मोक्षस्य क्रियाफलत्वं व्यावर्तयतीति। तत्किं मोक्षे क्रियैव नारिति ? तथा च तदर्थानि शास्त्राणि तदर्थाश्र प्रवृत्तयोऽनर्थकानीत्यत उपसंहार- व्याजेनाह-तस्माज्ज्ञानमेकम् इति।

१९९ समन्वयः व्यापाराधीना च। यथा 'यस्यै देवतायै हविर्गहीतं स्यानां मनसा ध्यायेद्वषट्- करिष्यन्' इति, 'संध्यां मनसा ध्यायेत्' इति चैवमादिषु। ध्यानं चिन्तनं यद्यपि मानसम्, तथापि पुरुषेण कर्तुमकर्तु- मन्यथा वा कर्तुं शक्यम्, पुरुषतन्त्रत्वात्।

अथ ज्ञानं करिया मानसी कस्मान्न विधिगोचर: ? कस्माच्च तस्याः फलं निर्वर्त्यादिष्वन्यतमं न मोक्ष :? इति चोदयति-ननु ज्ञानम् इति। परिहरति- न । कुतः ? वैलक्षण्यात् । अयमर्थ :- सत्यम्, ज्ञानं मानसी क्रिया; न त्वियं ब्रह्मणि फलं जनयितुमर्हति, तस्य स्वयंप्रकाशतया विदिक्रिया- कर्मभावानुपपत्तेरित्युक्तम्। तदेतस्मिन्वैलक्षण्ये स्थिते एव वैलक्षण्यान्तरमाह-क्रि्या हि नाम सा इति। यत्र विषये वस्तुस्वरूपनिरपेक्षैव चोदते- यथा देवतासंप्रदानकहविर्ग्रहणे देवतावस्तुरवरूपान- पेक्षा देवताध्यानक्रिया ; यथा वा योषिति अभि- वम्ननपेशागरिबदि-या मा किया दि नाम

HARMONY 199

on the mental activity of a person. For example, in cases like "That deity for whom there should be taken up the oblation, that one should contemplate in mind, uttering the word, 'vasat'" (Ait. Brah., III, viii, 1), "The Evening (deity), one should contemplate in mind" and so on. Contemplation, i.e., thinking about, even though this is mental, still since it is dependent on a person, it may be effected, or not effected, or effected in a dif- ferent way, by the person. Knowledge, however, is

Now, how can it be that knowledge, which is a mental act, is not the sphere of an injunction ? And how can it be that its fruit, release, is not one of those achieved etc .? Thus he asks: "Now, what is called knowledge" etc. He answers : "No." Why not ? "Because of differ- ence." This is the sense: true, knowledge is a mental act; but this cannot generate fruit in (the nature of) Brahman, since, being self-luminous, that (Brahman) cannot intelligibly be in the relation of an object to an act of cognition; this has been said before. Even when there is this difference, he mentions another difference: "Indeed, that is what is called an act" etc. "Wherein," in respect of a content, "there is an injunction even without regard to the nature of the thing"-for example, while taking up the oblation intended for the deity who is to receive it, there is no regard for the true nature of the deity in the act of contemplating it; or, in the meditation of fire in (relation to) woman, there is no regard for the real fire-"indeed that is what is called an act"; this is

200 HARMONY

generated by a means of valid knowledge. And a means of valid knowledge has for its content the thing as it exists. Therefore, knowledge cannot be effected or not effected or effected in a different way; it is dependent purely on the thing; it is not dependent on an injunction, nor is it dependent on a person. There- fore, for knowledge, though mental, there is great difference in nature (from an act). In cases like " Man verily is fire, Gautama", "The woman verily is fire Gautama" (Chand., V, vii, and viii, 1), there arises the cognition, which is mental, of fire in respect of man

the construction. The meditation on the deity is not, verily, established prior to the injunction "To whichever deity the offering is made, let him meditate on that, when he is about to say vasat"." But, for him who has studied the Vedanta, who knows words, their sense and the relation (between the two), and understands the true principles relating to verbal testimony, there does result a knowledge of Brahman as the self, from the discourse beginning with "Existence alone" etc., and ending with "That thou art," because of the capacity of testimony to convey valid knowledge, just as from the capacity of the contact between sense and object, there is for the man of attentive mind the experience of the jar present in bright light. This, which is generated by the capacity of its own (causal) aggregate, cannot, verily, be effected in a different way or not effeoted, at the will of man, like the meditation on the deity, in which case an injunction would be

समल्वय: २००

ज्ञानं तु प्रमाणजन्यम। प्रमाणं च यथा- भूतवस्तुविषयम्। अतो ज्ञानं कर्तुमकर्तु- मन्यथा वा कर्तुं न शक्यम् ; केवलं वस्तु- तन्त्मेव तत्; न चोदनातन्त्रम्, नापि पुरुषतन्त्रम्। तस्मान्मानसत्वेऽपि ज्ञानस्य महद्वैलक्षन्यम्। यथा च 'पुरुषो वाव गौतमाभिः', 'योषा वाव गौतमाभिः' इत्यत्र योषित्पुरुषयोरभिबुद्धिर्मानसी भवति।

इति योजना। न हि 'यस्यै देवतायै हविर्गृहीतं स्यात्तां ध्यायेद्दषट्करिष्यन्' इत्यस्माद्विधे: प्राग्देवताध्यानं प्राप्तम्। प्राप्तं त्वधीतवेदान्तस्य विदितपदतदर्थ- संबन्धस्याधिगतशब्दन्यायतत्वस्य 'सदेव सोम्येदम्' इत्यादेः 'तत्त्वमसि' इत्यन्तात्संदर्भात् ब्रह्मात्म- भावज्ञानम्, शब्दप्रमाणसामर्थ्यात्, इन्द्रियार्थ- संनिकर्षसामर्थ्यादिव प्रणिहितमनसः स्फीतालोक- मध्यवर्तिकुम्भानुभवः। न ह्यसौ सवसामग्रीबललब्ध- जन्मा मनुजेच्छयान्यथाकर्तुमकर्तु वा शक्य:, देव- ताध्यानवत्, येनार्थवानत्र विधिः स्यात्। न 51

२०१ समन्वयः

केवलचोदनाजन्यत्वानु क्रियैव सा पुरुष- तन्त्रा च। या तु प्रसिद्धेSमावभिबुद्धिः, न सा चोदनातन्त्रा; नापि पुरुषतन्त्रा। किं तर्हि? प्रत्यक्षविषयवस्तुतन्त्रैवेति ज्ञानमे- वैतत् ; न क्रिया। एवं सर्वप्रमाणविषय- वस्तुषु वेदितव्यम्।

चोपासना वानुभवपर्यन्तता वास्य विधेर्गोचरः, तयोरन्वयव्यतिरेकावधृतसामर्थ्ययोः साक्षात्कारे वा अनाद्यविद्यापनये वा विधिमन्तरेण प्राप्तत्वेन पुरुषेच्छ- यान्यथाकर्तुमकर्तु वा अशक्यत्वात्। तस्माद्वह्मज्ञानं मानसी क्रियापि न विधिगोचरः। पुरुषचित्तव्या- पाराधीनायास्तु क्रियाया वस्तुस्वरूपनिरपेक्षिता क्चि- दविरोघिनी, यथा देवताध्यानक्रियायाः ; न ह्यन्न वस्तुस्वरूपेण कश्चिद्विरोधः; क्वचिद्वस्तुस्वरूपविरो- घिनी, यथा योषित्पुरुषयोरभिबुद्धि :- इत्येतावता भेदेन निदर्शनमिुनद्वयोपन्यासः । क्रियैव इत्येव- कारेण वस्तुतन्त्रत्वमपाकरोति।

HARMONY 201

and woman. This, however, is only an act, dependent on a person, because it is generated solely by an injunction. But the cognition of fire in respect of the well-known fire, that is not dependent on an injunction, nor is it dependent on a person. What then? Being dependent only on the thing which is the content of perception, it is certainly know- ledge ; it is not an act. One should understand the same in respect of things which are the contents of all means of valid knowledge.

purportful here. Nor is contemplation nor its culmination in experience the sphere of the injunction, since intuition or the removal of beginningless Nescience is established through the capacity of these two (contemplation and . culmination in experience) as ascertained by co-presence and co-absence, even in the absence of an injunction, and consequently they cannot be effected in a different way or not effected, at the will of man. Hence, the knowledge of Brahman, though a mental act, is not the sphere of an injunction. Of acts dependent on the functioning of the mind of man, the non-regard for the nature of things, is sometimes not opposed (to that nature), as in the case of the meditation on the deity; there is not, indeed, any opposition here to the nature of the thing; sometimes it is opposed to the nature of the thing, like the meditation of fire in man and woman. Because of this much of difference, there are cited the two pairs

202 HARMONY

This being the case, even the knowledge, whose content is Brahman and the self as they really are, is not dependent on an injunction. Although, in respect of that content, imperatives etc. are found used, yet as having for content that which cannot be enjoined, they become blunt like the edge of a razor etc. applied to a stone etc .; because the content is a thing which cannot be rejected or accepted. For what purpose then are there such passages like, "The self verily, should be seen, heard about," etc., which are shadows of injunctions? We say that they are for the purpose of turning one away from the objects of natural

of illustrations. By the word "only" in "this is only an act" he denies dependence on the thing. Now, there are declared injunctions like "Contemplate but as the self". They are'not deluded declarations ; for, whatever is handed down by successive tradition is alike (in authority); hence, they must be injunctive. To this he says : "Although in respect of that content imperatives etc." and so on. True, imperatives etc. are used; they are not, however, those whose content is the enjoined (vidhi- vişayah)," as, if they referred to those, there would result non-authoritativeness. An injunction is, indeed, that whose content is what is to be rejected or accepted. And that alone is what is to be rejected or accepted, which a person can effect or not effect or effect in a different way. And it is he, who is capable in respect of that, that becomes

समन्वय: २०२

तत्रैवं सति यथाभूतब्रह्मात्मविषयमपि ज्ञानं न चोदनातन्त्रम्। तद्विषये लिडादयः श्रूयमाणा अपि अनियोज्यविषयत्वात्कुण्ठी- भवन्ति उपलादिषु प्रयुक्तक्षुरतैक्ष्ण्यादिवत्, अहेयानुपादेयवस्तुविषयत्वात्। किमर्थानि तर्हि 'आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यः' इत्यादीनि विधिच्छायानि वचनानि? स्वा- भाविकप्रवृत्तिविषयविमुखीकरणार्थानि इति

ननु 'आत्मेत्येवोपासीत' इत्यादयो विधयः श्रूयन्ते। न च ते प्रमत्तगीताः ; तुल्यं हि सांप्रदायि- कम् ; तस्माद्विधेयेनात्र भवितव्यमित्यत आह- तद्विषये लिडादय इति। सत्यं श्रूयन्ते लिडादय: ; न त्वमी विधिविषयाः, तद्विषयत्वेऽप्रा- माण्यप्रसङ्गात्। हेयोपादेयविषयो हि विधिः । स एव च हेय उपादेयो वा, यं पुरुषः कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तु शक्ोति। तत्रैव च समर्थ: कर्ताधिकृतो

२०३ समन्वय:

ब्रूम:। यो हि बहिर्मुखः प्रवर्तते पुरुषः 'इष्टं मे भूयात्, अनिष्टं मा भूत्, इति, न च तत्रात्यन्तिकं पुरुषार्थ लभते, तमात्यन्तिक- पुरुषार्थवाञ्छिनं स्वाभाविककार्यकरणसंघा- तप्रवृत्तिगोचराद्विमुखीकृत्य प्रत्यगात्मस्त्रो- तस्तया प्रवर्तयन्ति 'आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः' इत्यादीनि। तस्यात्मान्वेषणाय प्रवृत्तस्याहेयमनुपादेयं चात्मतत्त्वमुपदि- इयते 'इदं सर्वं यद्यमात्मा', 'यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत् ... केन कं विजानीयात् ... 'विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयात्', 'अयमात्मा ब्रह्म' इत्यादिभिः।

नियोज्यो भवति। न चैवंभूतान्यात्मश्रवणमननो- पासनदर्शनानीति विषयतदनुष्ठात्रोर्विधिव्यापकयोर- भावाद्विधेरभाव इति प्रयुक्ता अपि लिडादयः प्रवर्तनायामसमर्था उपल इव क्षुरतैक्ष्ण्यं कुण्ठम-

HARMONY 203

activity. That extrovert, the person who engages in activity saying, " Let me have pleasant things, let me have no unpleasant things," and does not attain there- with the final human goal, him, who desires the final goal, passages like "The self verily is to be seen," turn away from the objects of natural activity, namely the assemblage of effect and cause (i.e., objects and sense- organs) and make him active along the current of the inner self. And for him who engages in the activity of the quest of the self, there is taught by the following passages the true nature of the self, as what cannot be rejected or accepted : "All this, which is that self" (Brh., II, iv, 6), " But when all of this is only the self, then by what and whom shall one see ... by what and whom shall one know ?... The knower, by what shall one know?" (Brh., IV, v, 15), "This self is Brahman " (Brh., II, v, 19) etc.

the agent, the eligible person, the person enjoined. And since the hearing, reflection, contemplation and intuition of the self are not of this nature, there is non-existence of the content and the person who observes, which are the pervaders of an injunction; hence, there is the non-existence of the injunction; hence, the imperative suffix etc., though used, are not capable of impelling to activity, and become non-authoritative, as the edge of a

204 HARMONY

razor (applied) to a stone becomes blunt. "As having for content that which cannot be enjoined"; he, indeed, who is capable, is the agent, the eligible person, the person enjoined; but where there is no capacity, there is no agency ; hence, he is not eligible, and consequently not the person enjoined; this is the sense. If, because of the non-existence of an injunction, these are not injunctive statements, for what purpose, then, are these statements, which are the shadows of injunctions ? Thus he asks: "For what purpose, then" etc. Nor is it meet that they should be futile, as their purport being apprehended in consequence of the injunction to study one's own Veda would, then, be unintelligible; this is the idea. The reply is: "Wesay" etc. It is, indeed, the otherwise established hearing etc., that are re-stated by texts which have the appearance of injunc- tions. Nor is it, though a re-statement, fruitless, since it produces excellence of activity. It is thus: he, whose heart is distracted by the desire to obtain or avoid what is pleasant or unpleasant, and who is (thus) an extrovert, cannot fix his mind calmly on the inner self. Damming up the current of the mind towards objects by the texts about hearing of the self etc., which have the appearance of injunctions, he opens up the current towards the inner self ; hence, for re-statements there is the production of excellence of activity; they being consequently fruitful, their being apprehended in consequence of the injunction to study one's own Veda is certainly intelligible.

समल्वय: २०४

प्रमाणीभवन्तीति। अनियोज्यविषयत्वात् इति ; समर्थो हि कर्ताधिकारी नियोज्यः ; असामर्थ्ये तु न कर्तृता; ततो नाधिकृतः, अतो न नियोज्य इत्यर्थः। यदि विधेरभावान्न विधिवचनानि, किमर्थानि तर्हि वचनान्येतानि विधिच्छायानीति पृच्छति- किमर्थानि इति। न चानर्थकानि युक्तानि, स्वाध्यायविध्यधीनग्रहणत्वानुपपत्तेरिति भावः । उत्त- रम्-स्वाभाविक इति । अन्यतः प्राप्ता एव हि श्रवणादयो विधिसरूपैर्वाक्यैरनूद्यन्ते। न चानु- वादोऽप्यप्रयोजनः, प्रवृत्तिविशेषकरत्वात्। तथाहि- तत्तदिष्टानिष्टविषयेप्साजिहासापहृतहृदयतया बहि- र्मुखो न प्रत्यगात्मनि मनः समाधातुमर्हति। आत्म- श्रवणादिविधिसरूपैस्तु वचनैर्मनसो विषयस्त्रोतः खिलीकृत्य प्रत्यगात्मस्रोत उद्घाट्यत इति प्रवृत्ति- विशेषकरता अनुवादानामस्तीति सप्रयोजनतया स्वाध्यायविध्यधीनग्रहणत्वमुपपद्यत इति।

52

२०५ समन्वय:

यदप्यकर्तव्यप्रधानमात्मज्ञानं हानायो- पादानाय वा न भवतीति, तत्तथैवेत्यभ्यु- पगम्यते। अलंकारो ह्ययमस्माकम्, यद्रह्मात्मावगतौ सत्यां सर्वकर्तव्यताहानिः कृतकृत्यता चेति। तथा च श्रुतिः 'आत्मानं चेद्विजानीयादयमस्मीति पूरुषः । किमिच्छन्कस्य कामाय शरीरमनुसंज्वरेत्' इति। 'एतह्ुद्दा बुद्धिमान् स्यात्कृतकृत्यश्च भारत' इति च स्मृतिः। तस्मान्न प्रति- पत्तिविधिशेषतया ब्रह्मणः समर्पणम्।

यच्च चोदितमात्मज्ञानमनुष्ठानानइगत्वादपुरुषार्थ इति तदयुक्तम् ; स्वतोऽस्य पुरुषार्थत्वे सिद्धे यद्नुष्ठानानङ्गत्वं तन्रूषणं न दूषणमित्याह- यदपि इति। अनुसंज्वरेत् शरीरं तप्यमानमनु- तप्येत। सुगममन्यत्। प्रकृतमुपसंहरति-तस्मान्न प्रतिपत्ति इति।

HARMONY 205

Again, as for the statement that the knowledge of the self, not relating primarily to what is to be done, serves neither for acceptance nor rejection, this is acknowledged to be even so. This is indeed an ornament to us, that, when there is the realisation of Brahman, there is the destruction of all obligations and the accomplishment of everything that is to be accomplished. So too says Scripture: "If a person should know the self as 'I am that,' desiring what, for the sake of what, should he suffer in sympathy with the body (that suffers)?" (Brh., IV, iv, 12). And there is the traditional Code: "Knowing that, one can become the knower and one who has accomplished all that is to be accomplished, Oh Bhārata." (Gită, XV, 20.) Therefore, not as subsidiary to the injunction of contemplation is there the intimation of Brahman.

As for what was objected that the knowledge of the self, not being subsidiary to an observance, is not a human goal, that does not stand to reason; its being a human a goal being established in its own right, its not being subsidiary to an injunction is a merit, not a defect; thus he says: "Again, as for" etc. Anusañjvaret, will suffer in sympathy with the body that suffers. The rest is easily understood. He concludes the present topic : "Therefore, not as subsidiary to the injunction of contemplation" eto.

206 HARMONY

That too which some say, "There is no portion of the Veda, which deals with bare things, other than injunc- tions for engaging in and desisting from activity and what is subsidiary thereto," that is not so; for the self propounded in the Upanisads is not subsidiary to any- thing else. Of that self, understood from the Upa- nișads alone, who does not transmigrate, who is of the nature of Brahman, who is distinct from the four kinds of substances, i.e., the produced etc., who occurs in a topic of his own, who is not subsidiary to any other, it cannot be said that such a one does not exist or that he is not known ; because there is the word " self " in " That self is not this, not that," (Brh., III ix, 26), and because it is not possible to deny the self; for, even he who denies, even for him there is self-hood.

In order to establish the subject of the topic (i.e., the authoritativeness of the Vedanta in respect of what is existent), he restates the view of some to condemn it: "That too which some say" etc. He condemns it: "that is not so," This is the underlying idea: "Just as activity is the probans in the knowledge of what is to be done, even so are pleasure ete. in the knowledge of what is existent; thus is purportfulness (for the Vedanta); there is the character of sacred teaching since it teaches what is beneficial." If the capacity of words in respect of the expres- sion of what is to be done or the expression of their own

समन्वयः २०६ यदपि केचिदाहुः, प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिविधि- तच्छेषव्यतिरेकेण केवलवस्तुवादी वेदभागो नास्तीति, तन्न ; औपनिषदस्य पुरुषस्यान- न्यशेषत्वात्। योऽसावुपनिषत्स्वेवाधिगतः पुरुषोसंसारी ब्रह्मस्वरूप: उत्पाद्यादिचतु- र्विधद्रव्यविलक्षणः स्वप्रकरणस्थोऽनन्यशेषः, नासौ नास्तीति नाधिगम्यत इति वा शक्यं वदितुम्; 'स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा' इत्यात्मशब्दात्, आत्मनश्च प्रत्याख्यातुम- शक्यत्वात् ; य एव निराकर्ता तस्यैवा- त्मत्वात्।

प्रकृतसिद्ध र्थमेकदेशिमतं दूषयितुमनुभाषते- यदपि केचिदाहुः इति। दूषयति-तन्न इति। इद्मत्राकूतम्- कार्यबोधे यथा चेष्टा लिङ्गं हर्षादयस्तथा। सिद्धबोधे ऽर्थवत्तैवं शास्त्रत्वं हितशासनात्।। यदि हि पदानां कार्याभिधाने तदर्थस्वार्था- भिधाने वा नियमेन वृद्धव्यवहारे सामर्थ्यमबधृतं

२०७ समल्वयः

भवेत्, न भवेदहेयानुपादेयभूतव्रह्मात्मतापरत्वमुप- निषदाम् ; तत्राविदितसामर्थ्यत्वात्पदानां लोके, तत्पूर्वकत्वाच्च वैदिकार्थप्रतीतेः । अथ तु भूतेऽप्यर्थे पदानां लोके शक्यः संगतिग्रहः, तत उपनिषदां तत्परत्वं पौर्वापर्यपर्यालोचनयावगम्यमानमपहूनुत्य न कार्यपरत्वं शक्यं कल्पयितुम्, श्रुतहान्य- श्रुतकल्पनाप्रसङ्गात्। तत्र तावदेवमकार्येऽर्थे न संगतिग्रहः, यदि तत्परः प्रयोगो न लोके दृश्येत, तत्प्रत्ययो वा व्युत्पन्नस्योन्नेतुं न शक्येत। न तावत्तत्पर: प्रयोगो न दृश्यते लोके, कुतूहलभया- दिनिवृत्त्यर्थानामकार्यपराणां पदसंदर्भाणां प्रयोगस्य लोके बहुलमुपलब्धेः। तद्यथा-आखण्डलादिलोक- पालचक्रवालाधिवसतिः सिद्धविद्याधरगन्धर्वाप्सर :- परिवारो ब्रह्मलोकावतीर्णमन्दाकिनीपाथःप्रवाहप्रपात- धौतकलधौतमयशिलातलो नन्दनादिप्रमदावनविहा- रिमणिमयशकुन्तकमनीयनिनदमनोहरः पर्वतराजः सुमेरुरिति; नैष भुजङ्गो रज्जुरियमित्यादिः । नापि भूतार्थबुद्धिर्व्युत्पन्नपुरुषवर्तिनी न शक्या समुन्नेतुम्, हर्षादेरुन्नयनहेतो: संभवात्। तथा हि-अविदितार्य-

HARMONY 207

subsidiary to that (which is to be done) were settled as a rule in the usage of elderly persons, then, the Upanisads would not have for purport Brahman as the self, which is not what is to be rejected or accepted ; for such capacity is not known of words in experience, and the cognition of Vaidic sense is preceded by that (i.e,, the cogni- tion of their sense in experience). If, however, there can be in experience the apprehension of the relation of words even to existent things, then, in the case of the Upanisads, it will not be possible to conceal their having for purport that (existent) as understood from the consideration of what goes before and after, and assume for purport what is to be done; for, thence would result the abandonment of what is directly declared and the assumption of what is not so declared. First, then, there would be no apprehension of a relationship in respect of a sense which is not to be done, (only) if there were not seen in experience any usage with that purport, and if it were not possible to infer the cogni- tion of that in the case of him who knows (the meaning of words). It is not the case that the usage with that as pur- port is not seen in experience, since there is extensively seen in experience the usage of combinations of words, which have the purpose of (creating) joy or the cessation of fear etc., but have not for purport what is to be done. This is how: the king of mountains, Sumeru, is the abode of the host of guardians of the world, beginning with Indra, to- gether with the retinue of siddhas, vidyadharas, gandharvas and apsaras, is composed of rocks of gold washed by the torrent of waters of the Mandakini falling down from Brahmaloka, and is attractive with the notes of crystalline birds playing in the pleasure gardens like Nandana; (or) this is not a snake, this is a rope; and so on. Nor is it that

208 HARMONY

there cannot be inferred in the person who knows (the meaning of words) the cognition of an existent thing, since there do occur joy etc., the grounds of inference. It is thus: a Dravidian ignorant of the meaning of the Aryan language, and intent on going to the city, is seated in the house of Devadatta, near the highway ; he knows the birth of a son which is a cause of delight to the father; he goes with the herald to Devadatta in the city ; he hears the herald say "May thy prosperity increase, Devadatta, a son is born to thee," after making the offering of the pata-vasa (a cloth dipped in saffron water in which the infant's feet have been washed) ; he sees at once the hairs (of Devadatta) stand on end, the eyes and the face bloom like the fully blown lotus; he infers the joy generated in Devadatta and also (infers) of the joy, which was non-existent earlier but arises immediately after hearing these words, that it is caused thereby ; he understands that a sense has been stated which is the cause of joy, since this (statement) is not capable of creating joy without teaching a sense which is the cause of joy ; and since no other cause of joy is cognised, while the birth of a son as a cause thereof is understood, he determines that that alone was declared by the herald. Similarly are to be exemplified fear, grief etc. And thus because of its being fruitful, the usage of that which expresses the existent thing even by the prudent inquirer is intelligible. This being so, because the knowledge of the nature of Brahman is the cause of the supreme human goal, and because, though not teaching a person's engaging in or desisting from activity, the Vedantas do teach what is beneficial to man, the character of being sacred teaching is established (for them). Thereby is this established: the texts about which there is dispute have for content what

समन्वयः २०८

जनभाषार्थो द्रविडो नगरगमनोद्यतो राजमार्गा्यर्ण देवदत्तमन्दिरमध्यासीनः प्रतिपन्नजनकानन्दनिबन्धन- पुत्रजन्मा वार्त्ताहारेण सह नगरस्थदेवदत्ताभ्याशमा- गतः पटवासोपायनार्पणपुरःसरं 'दिष्टया वर्धसे देवदत्त पुत्रस्ते जातः' इति वार्त्ताहारव्याहारश्रवणसमनन्तर- मुपजातरोमाञ्चकञचुकं विकसितनयनोत्पलमतिस्मेरमु- खमहोत्पलमवलोक्य देवदत्तमुत्पन्नप्रमोदमनुमिमीते ; प्रमोदस्य च प्रागभूतस्य तद्दयाहारश्रवणसमनन्तरं प्रभवतस्तद्ेतुताम् ; न चायमप्रतिपादयन् हर्षहेतु- मर्थ हर्षाय कल्पत इत्यनेन हर्षहेतुर्थ उक्त इति प्रतिपद्यते ; हर्षहेत्वन्तरस्य चाप्रतीतेः पुत्रजन्मनश्च तद्धेतोरवगमात्तदेव वार्त्ताहारेणाभ्यघायीति निश्चि- नोति। एवं भयशोकादयोऽप्युदाहार्याः। तथा च प्रयोजनवत्तया भूतार्थाभिधानस्य प्रेक्षावत्प्रयो- गोऽप्युपपन्नः । एवं च ब्रह्मस्वरूपज्ञानस्य परम- पुरुषार्थहेतुभावादनुपदिशतामपि पुरुषप्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ती वेदान्तानां पुरुषहितानुशासनाच्छास्त्रत्वं सिद्धं भवति। तत्सिद्धमेतत्-विवादाध्यासितानि वचनानि भूता- र्थविषयाणि, भूतार्थविषयप्रमाजनकत्वात् ; यद्य- 53

२०९ समन्वयः

द्विषयप्रमाजनकं तत्तद्विषयं, यथा रूपादिविषयं चक्षुरादि ; तथा चैतानि ; तस्मात्तथेति। तस्मात्सु- धूक्तम्-तन्न; औपनिषदस्य पुरुषस्यानन्य- शेषत्वात् इति। उपनिपूर्वात्सदेर्विशरणार्थात्किप्यु- पनिषत्पदं व्युत्पादितम्, उपनीय अद्दयं ब्रह्म सवास- नामविद्यां हिनस्तीति ब्रह्मविद्यामाह ; तद्धेतुत्वा- द्वेदान्ता अप्युपनिषदः; ततो विदितः औपनिषदः पुरुषः । एतदेव विभजते-योऽसावुपनिषत्स्वेव इति। अहंप्रत्ययविषयाद्िनत्ति-असंसारी इति। अत एव क्रियारहितत्वाच्चतुर्विधद्रव्यविलक्षणः । अतश्र चतुर्विधद्रव्यविलक्षणो यदनन्यशेषः। अन्यशेषं हि भूतं द्रव्यं चिकीर्षितं सदुत्पत्त्याद्याप्यं संभवति, यथा 'यूपं तक्षति' इत्यादि। यतपुनरनन्यशेषं भूतभाव्युपयोगरहितम, यथा 'सुवर्ण भार्यम्', 'सक्तून् जुहोति' इत्यादि, न तस्योत्पत्त्याद्याप्यता। कस्मात्पुनरस्यानन्यशेषतेत्यत आह-यतः स्वप्रकरणस्थः । उपनिषदामनारभ्याधीतानां पौर्वा- पर्यपर्यालोचनया पुरुषप्रतिपादनपरत्वेन पुरुषस्यैव

HARMONY 209

is existent, because of their generating valid knowledge about existent things; that which generates valid know- ledge about an object bas that (object) for its content, for example, the sense of sight etc., having colour etc. for content; so too are these (texts); hence they are so. Therefore, it has been well said: " that is not so, since the self propounded in the Upanisads is not subsidiary to anything else." The word "Upanisad " is derived from sat, with upa and ni as prefixes meaning destruction and a kvip suffix ; it declares the knowledge of Brahman, since, taking the non-dual Brahman near (one), it destroys Nescience together with its impressions; because of being the cause thereof, the Vedantas too are Upanisads ; he who is known therefrom is the person propounded in the Upanisads. This itself he analyses : " of that self, understood from the Upanisads alone" etc. He distinguishes it from the content of the concept "I": "who does not transmigrate." For that very reason, being devoid of activity, he is distinct from the four kinds of substances (the generated, the modified etc.). And therefore, that which is distinct from the four kinds of substances is not subsidiary to anything else. For, it is the existent substance that is subsidiary to another, which, being desired to be done, may be what can be attained (i.e., accomplished) by generation etc., for example, "He fashions the stake" etc. That, again, which is not subsidiary to another, is of the nature of the existent, and devoid of use, for example, "Gold is to be worn," "He is to offer flour (as an oblation)" etc., for that there is no attainment (i.e., accomplishment) by generation etc. For what other reason, (again), is it not a subsidiary to another? To this he says: For the reason that he "occurs in a topic of his own". Of the Upanisads which occur

210 HARMONY

not in the course of any particular topic (other than their own), (it being seen) through the consideration of what goes before and after that the purport is propounding the person, this topic is principally that of the person alone. And it has been explained that there is not for the person, as in the case of the ladle, a non-inconstant relation with sacrifice. Therefore, it is not possible to say of this one, who occurs in his own topic, who is of that nature (non- transmigrating etc.), who is cognised throngh Upanisads, that he does not exist; this is the sense. Be this so. Of Brahman, as not the sphere of other means of knowledge, the relation (to words) is not apprehended ; hence it is not the meaning of a word ; hence, it cannot intelligibly be the meaning of a sentence; how, then, can it be the significance of the Upanisad ? To this he says : "because there is the word ' self ' in ' that self is not this, not that'." Though for the self there is not, as for cow etc., being the sphere of other means of knowledge, yet, being, as it is, the luminous self, it is possible to indicate it as the significance of the sentence, through the destruction of the respective adjuncts, in the same way as gold through the destruction of bracelets, ear-rings etc. It is not, verily, that the luminous self-consciousness does not shine; nor is it that even the aggregate of body and organs which is the defining condition (does not shine). Hence, through the destruction of the respective adjuncts, because of the text "that self is not this, not that," this self-luminous one, because of its greatness and pervasiveness, can be indicated by the sentence as Brahman and the self (Atma); this is the sense. Now, like the refutation of the adjunct, why is there not also refuted the existence of the self that gets conditioned ?

समन्वयः २१०

प्राधान्येनेदं प्रकरणम्। न च जुह्वादिवदव्यभि- चरितऋरतुसंबन्धः पुरुष इत्युपपादितम्। अतः स्वप्रकरणस्थः सोऽयं तथाविध उपनिषद्धयः प्रतीय- मानो न नास्तीति शक्यो वक्तुमित्यर्थः । स्यादेतत्। मानान्तरागोचरत्वेनागृहीतसंगति- तया अपदार्थस्य ब्रह्मणो वाक्यार्थत्वानुपपत्तेः कथमु- पनिषदर्थतेत्यत आह-स एष नेति नेत्यात्मे- त्यात्मशब्दात्। यद्यपि गवादिवन्मानान्तरगो- चरत्वमात्मनो नारित, तथापि प्रकाशात्मन एव सतस्तत्तदुपाधिपरिहाण्या शक्यं वाक्यार्थत्वेन निरू- पणम्, हाटकस्येव कटककुण्डलादिपरिहाण्या। न हि प्रकाश: सवसंवेदनो न भासते; नापि तद- वच्छेदकः कार्यकरणसंघातः । तेन 'स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा' इति तत्तदवच्छेदपरिहाण्या बृहत्त्वा- दापनाच्च स्वयंप्रकाशः शक्यो वाक्यात् ब्रह्मेति चात्मेति च निरूपयितुमित्यर्थः । अथोपाधिनिरासवदुपहितमप्यात्मरूपं कस्मान्न निरस्यत इत्यत आह-आत्मनश्च प्रत्या- ख्यातुमशक्यत्वात्। प्रकाशो हि सर्वस्यात्मा

२११ समन्वयः

नन्वात्मा अहंप्रत्ययविषयत्वादुपनिषत्स्वेव विज्ञायत इत्यनुपपन्नम्। न, तत्साक्षित्वेन प्रत्युक्तत्वात्। न ह्यहंप्रत्ययविषयकर्तृव्य- तिरेकेण तत्साक्षी सर्वभूतस्थः सम एक: कूटस्थनित्यः पुरुषो विधिकाण्डे तर्कसमये वा केनचिदधिगतः सर्वस्यात्मा। अतः स

तदधिष्ठानत्वाच्च प्रपञ्चविभ्रमस्य। न चाघिष्ठानाभावे विभ्रमो भवितुमर्हति ; न हि जातु रज्ज्वभावे रज््वां भुजङ्ग इति वा धारेति वा विभ्रमो दृष्टपूर्वः । अपि चात्मनः प्रकाशस्य भासा प्रपञ्चस्य प्रभा । तथा च श्रुतिः 'तमेव भान्तमनु भाति सर्वे तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति' इति। न चात्मनः प्रकाशस्य प्रत्याख्याने प्रपञ्चप्रथा युक्ता। तस्मा- दात्मनः प्रत्याख्यानायोगाद्वेदान्तेभ्यः प्रमाणान्त-

उपनिषत्स्वेवावगत इत्यवधारणममृष्यमाण आ- क्षिपति-नन्वात्मा इति। सर्वजनीनाहंप्रत्यय- विषयो ह्यात्मा कर्ता भोक्ता च संसारी, तत्रैव

HARMONY 211

Now, since the self is the content of the concept "I," it is unintelligible that he can be understood from the Upanișads alone. No, because, as the witness thereof, this has been refuted. Indeed, as distinct from the agent who is the content of the concept "I," the witness thereof, that self which is present in all, equal, one, immutably eternal, which is the self of all, has not been understood by anyone either through the liturgi- cal portion (of the Veda) or through ratiocination.

To this he says: " and because it is not possible to deny the self." Luminosity is, indeed, the self of all, since the world-delusion has that for its substrate. Nor can there be a delusion when the substrate is non-existent; never when the rope is non-existent is there seen the delusion as to the rope that it is a snake or a stream. Further, by the light of the self's luminosity is there light for the world. And thus says Scripture: "That shining, all else shines after it; by its light all this shines." Nor when the luminosity of the self is denied, is the manifestation of the world appropriate. Therefore, because of the impossibility of denying the self, there results from the Vedantas the realisation of the nature of Brahman, which is not the sphere of other means of valid knowledge and is devoid of all adjuncts ; this is the sense. He who cannot put up with the restriction that it is understood from the Upanisads alone objects: " Now, since the self" etc. The self is, indeed, the content of the

212 HARMONY

Therefore, him it is not possible for anyone to refute, nor to link up as subsidiary to an injunction. And even because of being the self of all, he is not what is to be rejected or accepted. The entire host of perishable modifications, up to the self, does indeed perish. The self, indeed, because of the non-existence of a cause for perishing, is imperishable; and because of the non- existence of any cause for modification, it is immutably eternal; for this very reason, it is by nature eternally pure, intelligent, free; therefore in (texts like) "There is nothing higher than the self, that is the limit, that is the highest goal", (Katha, I, iii, 11), "But I ask about that self propounded in the Upanișads "(Brh., III, ix, 26), the qualification " propounded in the Upanișads " is in- telligible (only) when the self is what is revealed princi- pally in the Upanișads. Therefore, the statement that there is no part of the Veda which deals with existent things is mere rashness.

concept "I" common to all people; it is agent, enjoyer and transmigrator; for, it is only in this (sense) that the word "self" is used both by the man in the street and by inquirers. The words which are used in experience, the same are used in the Veda too, and the meanings are the same (in both cases); hence, the word " self" in the Upanișads too should apply in that (sense) alone, not in any other sense opposed to it; this is the sense.

समन्वय: २१२ न केनचित्प्रत्याख्यातुं शक्य:, विधिशेषत्वं वा नेतुम्। आत्मत्वादेव च सर्वेषाम, न हेयो नाप्युपादेयः। सर्वं हि विनश्यद्विकार- जातं पुरुषान्तं विनश्यति। पुरुषो हि विना- शहेत्वभावादविनाशी ; विक्रियाहेत्वभावाच्च कूटस्थनित्यः ; अत एव नित्यशुद्धबुद्ध- मुक्तस्वभावः; तस्मात् 'पुरुषान्न परं किं- चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः', 'तं त्वौ- पनिषदं पुरुषं पृच्छामि' इति चौपनिष- दत्वविशेषणं पुरुषस्योपनिषत्सु प्राधान्येन प्रकाश्यमानत्वे उपपद्यते। अतो भूतवस्तु- परो वेदभागो नास्तीति वचनं साहस- मात्रम्।

च लौकिकपरीक्षकाणामात्मपदप्रयोगात्। य एव लौकिका: शब्दाः, ते एव वैदिकाः, ते एव च तेषामर्था इत्यौपनिषदमप्यात्मपदं तत्रैव प्रवर्तितुमर्हति, नार्थान्तरे तद्विपरीते इत्यर्थः ।

64

२१३ समन्वयः समाधत्ते-न अहंप्रत्ययविषय औपनिषदः पुरुषः । कुतः? तत्साक्षित्वेन-अहंप्रत्ययविषयो यः कर्ता कार्यकरणसंघातोपहितो जीवात्मा-तत् साक्षित्वेन, परमात्मनोऽहंप्रत्ययविषयत्वस्य प्रत्युक्त- त्वात्। एतदुक्तं भवति-यद्यपि 'अनेन जीवे- नात्मना' इति जीवपरमात्मनो: पारमार्थिकमैक्यम्, तथापि तस्योपहितं रूपं जीवः; शुद्धं तु रूपं तस्य साक्षि; तच्च मानान्तरानधिगतमुपनिषद्रोचर इति। एतदेव प्रपञ्चयति-न ह्यहंप्रत्ययविषय इति। विधिशेषत्वं वा नेतुं न शक्यः । कुतः? आत्मत्वादेव। न ह्यात्मा अन्यार्थ:, अन्यत्तु सर्वमात्मार्थम् । तथा च श्रुतिः 'न वा अरे सर्वस्य कामाय सर्व प्रियं भवति आत्मनस्तु कामाय सर्व प्रियं भवति' इति । अपि चातः सर्वेषामात्म- त्वादेव न हेयो नाप्युपादेयः । सर्वस्य हि प्रपञ्चजा- तस्य ब्रह्मैव तत्त्वमात्मा; न च स्वभावो हेयः, अशक्यहानत्वात् ; न चोपादेयः, उपात्तत्वात्। तस्माद्धेयोपादेयविषयौ विधिनिषेधौ न तद्विपरीत- मात्मतत्त्वं विषयीकुरुत इति सर्वस्य प्रपञ्चजात-

HARMONY 213

He answers: "No"; the Person of the Upanisads is not the content of the concept "I". Why not? "Because as the witness thereof"-he who is the content of the concept "I," the agent, he who is conditioned by the aggregate of body and organs, the jtva-self,-as the witness of this, the supreme self's "this," being the content of the concept "I", has been refuted. This is what is said : though in the words of the text "Having entered in its true nature as the jiva, the self" etc., the identity of the jiva and the supreme selves is absolute, yet its conditioned form is the jtva; but the pure form is its witness; and this, not being under- stood through other means of knowledge, is the sphere of the Upanisad. This itself he elaborates: "Indeed, as distinct from the agent who is the content of the concept 'I'" etc. It is not possible "to link (it) up as subsidiary to an injunction". Why not? "Even because of being the self." The self, indeed, is not for the sake of another, but all others are for the sake of the self. And thus says Scripture: "Verily, not for the love of everything is everything dear, but for the love of the self is everything dear." Further, for that very reason of being the self of all, it is not what is to be rejected or accepted. Indeed, of the entire universe, Brahman alone is the true self; nor is one's nature what is to be rejected, since it cannot be rejected; nor is it what is to be accepted, being already attained. Hence, prescriptions and prohibitions, whose contents are what are to be rejected or accepted, do not have the true nature of the self, which is opposed to that,

214 HARMONY

as their content; consequently, of the entire universe, the self alone is the truth. This he explains: "The entire host of perishable modifications up to the self does, indeed, perish." This is the sense: the self, indeed, is absolutely real, being established by Scripture, traditional Code, epios, puranas and reasoning not opposed to these; the world, however, which is exhibited by beginningless Nescience, is not absolutely real. And that which is absolutely real is the material cause of this, as the real rope is of the modification, viz., the delusion of the snake. Hence it is that there is the perishing of this, which, as indeterminable, is of un- stable nature. The self, however, is absolutely real; nor can this be made unreal even by a thousand causes. Not even a thousand craftsmen can make a cloth of a pot; this has been said. Therefore, there is the perishing of all modifications stopping the imperishable self, just as there is the perishing of the silver and the snake stopping at the real nacre and rope. The self, indeed, is the sole truth of the entire host of modifications in the universe. Nor for the self is there perishability, for the reason that it is infinite. To him who says that there may be destruction, he says : "The self, indeed, because of the non-existence of a cause for perishing" etc. Indeed, even a thousand causes are not capable of turning one thing into another; this has been said. Now, let not the self in its own nature be what is to be rejected or accepted ; but some attribute thereof may be rejected, and some may be accepted; to this he says: "And because of the non-existence of any cause for modifica- tion, it is immutably eternal." It has been said that not one

समल्वयः २१४ स्यात्मैव तत्त्वमिति। एतदुपपादयतिसर्वं हि विनश्यद्विकारजातं पुरुषान्तं विनश्यति। अयमर्थ :- पुरुषो हि श्रुतिस्मृतीतिहासपुराणतद- विरुद्धन्यायव्यवस्थापितत्वात्परमार्थसन; प्रपश्चरत्व- नाद्यविद्योपदर्शितोऽपरमार्थसन्। यश्च परमार्थसन् असौ प्रकृति: रज्जुतत्त्वमिव सर्पविभ्रमस्य विकाररय। अत एवास्यानिर्वाच्यत्वेनादृढस्वभावस्य विनाशः । पुरुषस्तु परमार्थसन ; नासौ कारणसहस्रेणाप्यसन् शक्य: कर्तुम्। न हि सहस्रमपि शिल्पिनो घटं पटयितुमीशत इत्युक्तम्। तस्मादविनाशिपुरुषान्तो विकारविनाशः शुक्तिरज्जुतत्त्वान्त इव रजतभुजङ्ग- विनाश: । पुरुष एव हि सर्वस्य प्रपश्चविकारजातस्य तत्त्वम्। न च पुरुषस्यारित विनाशो यतोऽनन्तः । विनाश: स्यादित्यत आह-पुरुषो हि विनाश- हेत्वभावात् इति। न हि कारणानि सहस्रमप्य- न्यदन्यथयितुमीशत इत्युक्तम्। अथ मा भूत्ख- रूपेण पुरुषो हेय उपादेयो वा; तदीयस्तु कश्चिद्धर्मो हास्यते, कश्चिच्चोपादास्यत इत्यत आह-विक्रि- याहेत्वभावाच्च कूटस्थनित्यः। त्रिविधोऽपि

२१५ समन्वय:

यदपि शास्त्रतात्पर्यविदामनुक्रमणम्, 'दृष्टो हि तस्यार्थः कर्मावबोधनम्' इत्येव- मादि, तत् धर्मजिज्ञासाविषयत्वाद्विधिप्रति षेधशास्त्राभिप्रायं द्रष्टव्यम। अपि च 'आ- म्नायस्य क्रियार्थत्वादानर्थक्यमतदर्थानाम्' इत्येतदेकान्तेनाभ्युपगच्छतां भूतोपदेशा- नामानर्थक्यप्रसङ्ग: । प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिव्यति- रेकेण भूतं चेद्वस्तूपदिशति भव्यार्थत्वेन, कूटस्थनित्यं भूतं नोपदिशतीति को हेतुः? न हि भूतमुपदिश्यमानं क्रिया भवति।

धर्मलक्षणावस्थापरिणामलक्षणो विकारो नारतीत्युक्तम्। अपि चात्मनः परमार्थसतो धर्मोऽपि परमार्थसन्निति न तस्यात्मवदन्यथात्वं कारणैः शक्यं कर्तुम्। न च धर्मान्यथात्वादन्यो विकारः। तदिदमुक्तम्- विक्रियाहेत्वभावात् इति। सुगममन्यत्। यत्पुनरेकदेशिना शास्त्रविद्दचनं साक्षित्वेनानु- क्रान्तं तदन्यथोपपादयति-यदपि शास्त्रतात्पर्य- विदामनुक्रमणम् इति। 'दृष्टो हि तस्यार्थः

HARMONY 215

That quotation too from those who know the purport of the sacred teaching, "Its purport is indeed seen to be the teaching of rituals" and so on, that has to be understood to refer to sacred teachings of prescriptions and prohibitions, since the content is the desire to know Religious Duty. Further, for those who accept in- variably the text, "Since the purpose of the Scripture" etc., there would result the futility of the teaching about existents. If, besides the engaging in and desisting from activity, it teaches existent things, as for the sake of what is to come into being, what is the cause for saying that it does not teach the immutably eternal existent ? Indeed the existent that is taught does not turn out to be an act. If it be said that

of the three kinds of modification-consisting of dharma, lakşana, and avastha-exists here. Further, since of the absolutely real self the attribute too is absolutely real, the alteration of that, as in the case of the self, cannot be effected by any cause. Nor is there any modification other than the alteration of the attribute. Hence, this is said: "because of the non-existence of any cause for modification." The rest is easily understood. That statement, again, of those who know the sacred teaching, which was cited by some as evidence (of their position), that he explains otherwise: "That quotation too from those who know the purport of the sacred teaching." Where it ought to be said "Its purport is, indeed, seen to be the fruitful teaching of the sense," since

216 HARMONY

since, though not an act, the existent is instrumental to an act, the teaching about an existent is only for the sake of an act, this is not a difficulty ; even though for the sake of an act, there is certainly taught the thing which has the capacity to accomplish an act ; that itis for the sake of an act is, however, its purpose; with this much alone, the thing does not turn out to be untaught. If it be said to be taught, what (good) will that be to you? The reply is: the teaching about the unknown self-substance too certainly deserves to be of that kind. By the knowledge thereof there results the profit, the cessation of illusory knowledge which is the cause of transmigration; hence there is no difference, from the teaching of objects that are in- strumental to an act, in respect of purposefulness.

the desire to know Religious Duty constitutes the topic, and since Religious Duty is of the nature of rites, it is said "the teaching of rites". But it (the statement cited) does not stand in the way of the function of teaching the existent Brahman. Indeed, when Soma Sarman constitutes the topic, the expression of his good qualities does not exclude Vișnu Sarman's possession of good qualities. The sacred teaching of prescription has for content the rites prescribed, and the sacred teaching of prohibition has for content the rites prohibited ; thus, both have for pur- port the teaching of rites. Further, there is the statement of the author of the sacred teaching (Jaimini) that "Since

समन्वयः २१६ अक्रियात्वेऽपि भूतस्य क्रियासाधनत्वात्कि- यार्थ एव भूतोपदेश इति चेत्, नैष दोष :; क्रियार्थत्वेऽपि क्रियानिर्वर्तनशक्तिम- द्वस्तूपदिष्टमेव; क्रियार्थत्वं तु प्रयोजनं तस्य; न चैतावता वस्त्वनुपदिष्टं भवति। यदि नामोपदिष्टं किं तव तेन स्यादिति। उच्यते-अनवगतात्मवस्तूपदेशश्च तथैव भवितुमर्हति ; तद्वगत्या मिथ्याज्ञानस्य संसारहेतोर्निवृत्तिः प्रयोजनं क्रियत इत्य- विशिष्टमर्थवत्वं क्रियासाधनवस्तूपदेशेन।

प्रयोजनवदर्थावबोधनम्' इति वक्तव्ये, धर्मजिज्ञा- सायाः प्रकृतत्वाद्धर्मस्य च कर्मत्वात् 'कर्माव- बोधनम्' इत्युक्तम्। न तु सिद्धरूपब्रह्मावबोधन- व्यापारं वेदस्य वारयति। न हि सोमशर्मणि प्रकृते तद्रुणाभिधानं परिसंचष्टे विष्णुशर्मणो गुण- बत्ताम्। विधिशास्त्रं विधीयमानकर्मविषयम् ; प्रति- षेघशास्त्रं च प्रतिषिध्यमानकर्मविषयमित्युभयमपि कर्मावबोधनपरम्। अपि च 'आम्नायस्य क्रियार्थ- 55

२१७ समन्वयः

त्ात् ' इति शास्त्रकृद्दचनम्। तत्रार्थग्रहणं यद्य- भिधेयवाचि ततो भूतार्थानां द्रव्यगुणकर्मणा- मानर्थक्यमनभिधेयत्वं प्रसज्येत ; न हि ते क्रियार्था इत्यत आह-अपि चास्नायस्य इति। यद्युच्येत- न हि क्रियार्थत्वं क्रियाभिधेयत्वम्, अपि तु क्रिया- प्रयोजनत्वम् ; द्रव्यगुणशब्दानां च क्रियार्थत्वेनैव भूतद्रव्यगुणाभिधानम्, न स्निष्ठतया। यथाहुः शास्त्रविदः 'चोदना हि भूतं भवन्तम्' इत्यादि। एतदुक्तं भवरति, कार्यमर्थमवगमयन्ती चोदना तदर्थ भृतादिकमप्यर्थ गमयतीति-तत्राह-प्रवृत्ति- निवृत्तिव्यतिरेकेण भूतं चेत् इति। अयमभि- संघि :- न तावत्कार्यार्थ एव स्वार्थे पदानां संगति- ग्रहो नान्यार्थ इत्युपपादितं भूतेऽप्यर्थे व्युत्पत्तिं दर्शयन्गिः। नापि स्वार्थमात्रपरतैव पदानाम्। तथा सति न वाक्यार्थप्रत्ययः स्यात्। न हि प्रत्येकं स्वप्रधानतया गुणप्रधानभावरहितानामेक- वाक्यता दृष्टा। तस्मात्पदानां स्वार्थमभिद्धतामेक- प्रयोजनवत्पदार्थपरतयैकवाक्यता। तथा च तत्त- दर्थान्तरविशिष्टैकवाक्यार्थप्रत्यय उपपन्नो भवति।

HARMONY 217

Scripture signifies rites" etc. Here, if the use of the word "signification (artha)" expressed what is denoted, thence would result for substance, quality and action (the defect of) meaninglessness consisting in not being denoted ; for, they do not signify what is to be done. To this he says: "Further, for those who accept invariably the text" etc. It may be said: to be significant in relation to what is to be done is not to denote what is to be done, but to be of service to that which is to be done; and words relating to substances and qualities denote existent substances and qualities only as subsidiary to what is to be done, not as abiding in themselves. So those who know the sacred teaching say: "An injunctive statement can, indeed, make known the already existent, that which exists, that which will come into being and others of this class. " 11 This is what is said (thereby): an injunctive statement, while making known the thing that is to be done, makes known for the sake of that even objects already existent etc. To this he says: "If, besides the engaging in and desist- ing from activity, it teaches existent things" etc. This is what is intended: it has been taught by those who have shown the meaning of words even with reference to existent things that the apprehension of relation (of word to sense) is not in respect of that sense alone of its own which subserves what is to be done, and not in any other sense. Nor is the purport of words only in respect of their own sense (unrelated to that of other words). " If that were so, there would be no cognition of the sense of a sentence. For, syntactical unity is not seen among those which are each independently primary and are devoid of the relation of primary and secondary (among themselves). Hence, there is syntactical unity for words, which express their own

218 HARMONY

sense, through their having for purport a common fruitful word-significance. And thus becomes intelligible the cogni- tion of the single sentence-significance, which is qualified by each respective significance (of the words). As is said by those who know the sacred teaching: "Though the letters directly effect the teaching of the word-signifi- cance, yet they do not terminate there fruitlessly ; in their activity towards valid knowledge of the sentence-signifi- cance, the teaching of the word-significance is an inevitable (intermediary), like the flame of the fuel in cooking." 133 And thus, the cognition of the sentence-significance being intelligible even with words having for purport the con- junction with other significances, there is no rule as to their having for purport the conjunction with what is to be done. And this being the case, there is no defect even in having for purport the nature of the immutably eternal Brahman. Bhavyam (what is to come into being) is what is to be done. Now, that existent which is taught for the sake of what is to come into being, that is not an existent, since, in the form of what is conjoined to what is to come into being, that is also what is to come into being. To this he says : "Indeed, the existent that is taught" etc. Con- junction does not consist in identity ; it is, rather, a relation with what is to be done, in the form of what is brought about (the fruit) and that which brings it about. With the process of becoming, however, which has that (relation) for content, (the relation) of existent things is of the form of (that between) activity and causal agent ; hence, for existent things there is not the nature of activity; this is the sense. He objects : "though not an act " etc. And thus there is the unintelligibility of the teaching of Brahman, which does not subserve activity and is immutably eternal ; this

समन्वय: २१८

यथाहुः शास्त्रविद :- साक्षाद्यद्यपि कुर्वन्ति पदार्थप्रतिपादनम्। वर्णास्तथापि नैतस्मिन्पर्यवस्यन्ति निष्फले॥ वाक्यार्थमितये तेषां प्रवृत्तौ नान्तरीयकम्। पाके ज्वालेव काष्ठानां पदार्थप्रतिपादनम् ॥ इति। तथा चार्थान्तरसंसर्गपरतामात्रेण वाक्यार्थ- प्रत्ययोपपत्तौ न कार्यसंसर्गपरत्वनियमः पदानाम्। एवं च सति कूटस्थनित्यब्रह्मरूपपरत्वेऽप्यदोष इति। भव्यं कार्यम्। ननु यद्भ्व्यार्थ भूतमुपदिश्यते न तन्ूतम्, भव्यसंसर्गिणा रूपेण तस्यापि भव्य- त्वादित्यत आह-न हि भूतमुपदिश्यमानम् इति। न तादात्म्यलक्षणः संसर्ग :; किं तु कार्येण सह प्रयोजनप्रयोजनिलक्षणोऽन्वयः । तद्विषयेण तु भावार्थेन भूतार्थानां क्रियाकारकलक्षण इति न भूतार्थानां क्रियात्मत्वमित्यर्थः । शङ्गते-अक्रियात्वेऽपि इति। एवं चाक्ि- यार्थकूटस्थनित्यव्रह्मोपदेशानुपपत्तिरिति भावः । परि- हरति-नैष दोषः; क्रियार्थत्वेऽपि इति। न हि क्रियार्थ भूतमुपदिश्यमानमभूतं भवति, अपि तु

२१९ समन्वयः

क्रियानिर्वर्तनयोग्यं भूतमेव तत्। तथा च भूतेऽर्थेऽवधृतशक्तयः शब्दाः क्वचित्खवनिष्ठभूतविषया दृश्यमाना मृत्वा शीर्त्वा वा न कथंचिल्कियानिष्ठतां गमयितुमुचिताः । न ह्युपहितं शतशो दृष्टमप्यनु- पहितं क्वचिदृष्टमद्ृष्ट भवति। तथा च वर्तमाना- पदेशा अस्तिक्रियोपहिता अकार्यार्था अप्यटवी- वर्णकादयो लोके बहुलमुपलभ्यन्ते। एवं क्रियानिष्ठा अपि संबन्धमात्रपर्यवसायिनः ; यथा "कस्यैष पुरुषः" इति प्रश्ने उत्तरं "राज्ञ:" इति। तथा प्रातिपदि- कार्थमात्रनिष्ठाः; यथा "कीदशास्तरवः" इति प्रश्ने उत्तरं "फलिन:ः" इति। न हि पृच्छता पुरुषस्य वा तरूणां वास्तित्वनास्तित्वे प्रतिपित्सिते; किं तु पुरुषस्य स्वामिभेदस्तरूणां च प्रकारभेदः । प्रष्टुर- पेक्षितं चाचक्षाण: स्वामिभेदमेव प्रकारभेदमेव च प्रतिवक्ति, न पुनरस्तित्वम्, तस्य तेनाप्रतिपित्सि- तत्वात्। उपपादिता च भूतेऽप्यर्थे व्युत्पत्तिः प्रयो- जनवति पदानाम्। चोदयति-यदि नामोपदिष्टं भूतं किं तव, उपदेष्टः श्रोतुर्वा प्रयोजनं स्यात्? तस्मा-

HARMONY 219

is the idea. He answers: "this is not a difficulty; even though for the sake of an act" etc. Indeed, the existent, taught as for the sake of activity, does not become other than existent; rather is this, which is capable of achieving the activity, certainly existent. And thus, words, which have been determined to signify existent things, which are seen in some cases to have for content the existent abiding in itself (i.e., without syntactical relation to an act), cannot properly be tortured to signify somehow relation to activity. Verily, though the conditioned be seen a hundred times, the unconditioned seen somewhere does not become unseen (as it were). And thus are extensively seen in experience statements of what is existent, conditioned by the activity (only) of being, though not subservient to activity, such as descriptions of forests etc. Thus, even those which are related to activity terminate with (signify- ing) a relation alone; for example, to the question " Whose is this man ?" the reply is " The king's." Similarly, there are those which are related to the significance of the stem alone ; for example, to the question "Of what kind are these trees ?" the reply is "Fruit-bearing"." Indeed, the existence or non-existence of the man or the trees is not desired to be known by the questioner; rather is it the particular master of the man and the particular kind of the trees. And he who knows what is desired by the questioner replies only as to the particular master or the particular kind, not as to existence, that not being desired to be known by him. And it has been explained that for words there is significance even in respect of fruitful existent things. He questions: "If it" the existent "be said to be taught, what " good " will that be to you " whether teacher or

220 HARMONY

listener ? Therefore, only that existent which is fruitful should be taught, not that which is fruitless ; and Brahman is fruitless, since to that which is indifferent, as devoid of all activity, no serviceability can belong ; this is the idea. He answers : "The reply is : the teaching of the unknown self- substance too certainly deserves to be of that kind," i.e., certainly fruitful. The word "and (ca) " has the sense of "too (api)". This is what is said: though Brahman is indifferent, yet knowledge from verbal testimony relating to that content, such knowledge culminating in realisation, cuts away its opposite, Nescience, the primal cause of transmigration, and is thus fruitful; this is the sense. Further, even by those who recognise in the case of all words that their purport is what is to be done, it is not possible to recognise in the case of (statements like) "A brahmin is not to be killed," " Liquor is not to be drunk " etc., that they have for purport what is to be done. That which is to be done, having its limits defined by volition, is pervaded by volition, and ceases on the cessation of that, like simsapa-ness on the cessation of tree-ness. Volition, indeed, is human effort; and that is determined in dependence on the content. And its content, being of the nature of something to be accomplished, must be a process of becoming, which has an earlier and a later, and helps to bring about something else; (it can be) neither a substance nor a quality. For, the content of volition is that which is directly pervaded by volition ; and of substance and quality, which are existent, there is no pervasion by volition. Therefore it is that the author of the sacred teaching says: "Verbs have the sense of becoming; through them is activity to be known."35 Though for words signifying substance and

सम्वय: २२०

हूतमपि प्रयोजनवदेवोपदेष्टव्यं नाप्रयोजनम्; अप्र- योजनं च ब्रह्म, तस्योदासीनस्य सर्वक्रियारहितत्वे- नानुपकारकत्वात् इति भावः । परिहरति-उच्यत इति। अनवगतात्मवस्तूपदेशश्च तथैव प्रयोजनवानेव भवितुमर्हति। अप्यर्थश्रकारः । एतदुक्तं भवति-यद्यपि ब्रह्मोदासीनम्, तथापि तद्विषयं शाब्दज्ञानमवगतिपर्यन्तं विद्या स्वविरोधिनीं संसारमूलनिदानमविद्यामुच्छिन्दत्प्रयोजनवदित्यर्थः । अपि च येपि कार्यपरत्वं सर्वेषां पदाना- मास्थिषत, तैरपि 'ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः', 'न सुरा पातव्या' इत्यादीनां न कार्यपरता शक्या आस्थातुम्। कृत्युपहितमर्यादं हि कार्य कृत्या व्यापं तन्निवृत्तौ निवर्तते, शिंशपात्वमिव वृक्षत्वनिवृत्तौ। कृतिर्हि पुरुषप्रयत्नः ; स च विषयाधीननिरूपणः । विषयश्रास्य साध्यस्वभावतया भावार्थ एव पूर्वापरी- भूतोऽन्योत्पादानुकूलो भवितुमर्हति, न द्रव्यगुणौ। साक्षात्कृतिव्याप्यो हि कृतेर्विषयः ; न च द्रव्य- गुणयोः सिद्धयोरस्ति कृतिव्याप्यता। अत एव शास्त्रकृद्दच :- 'भावार्थाः कर्मशब्दास्तेभ्यः क्रिया 56

२२१ समन्वय:

प्रतीयेत' इति। द्रव्यगुणशब्दानां नैमित्तिकाव- स्थायां कार्यावमर्शेडपि, भावस्य स्वतः द्रव्यगुण- शब्दानां तु भावयोगात्कार्यात्रमर्श इति भावार्थेभ्य एवापूर्वावगतिः, न द्रव्यगुणशब्देभ्य इति। न च 'दभ्ना जुहोति', 'संततमाघारयति' इत्यादिषु दध्यादीनां कार्यविषयता; तत्रापि हि होमाघार- भावार्थविषयमेव कार्यम्। न चैतावता 'सोमेन यजेत' इतिवत् दधिसांतत्यादिविशिष्टहोमाघार- विधानात्, 'अभिहोत्रं जुहोति', 'आघारमाघारयति' इति तदनुवादः। यद्यप्यत्रापि भावार्थविषयमेव कार्यम्, तथापि भावार्थानुबन्धतया द्रव्यगुणाव- विषयावपि विधीयेते। भावार्थो हि कारकव्यापार- मात्रतयाविशिष्टः कारकविशेषेण द्रव्यादिना विशेष्यत इति द्रव्यादिस्तदनुबन्धः। तथा च भावार्थे विधीयमाने स एव सानुबन्धो विधीयत इति द्रव्यगुणावविषयावपि तदनुबन्धतया विहितौ भवतः। एवं च भावार्थप्रणालि- कया द्रव्यादिसंक्रान्तो विधिर्गौरवाद्बिभ्यत्खवविषयरय चान्यतः प्राप्ततया तदनुवादेन तदनुबन्धीभूत-

HARMONY 221

quality there is relation to what is to be done in the stage when they are occasioned, yet, since there is for becoming, of itself, the relation to what is to be done, while for words signifying substance and quality that is only through their conjunction with becoming, the understanding of the novel (rite eto.) is only through words signifying becoming, not through words signifying substance or quality. Nor is it that curds etc. are the contents of what is to be done in (statements like) "He is to offer oblation with curds," "He is to sprinkle continuously" ; for, even there, what is to be done has for its content only the process of becoming-the offering of oblation or the sprinkling. Nor with this does it follow that, because of the prescription of the oblation as qualified by curds and the sprinkling as qualified by continuity, as in "He is to sacrifice with soma (-juice)," the statements "He is to offer the agnihotra oblation," "He is to sprinkle with ghee" become re-statements thereof. Though here too what is to be done has certainly for content the process of becoming, yet substance and quality, even though not contents, are prescribed as complementary to the process of becoming. Indeed, the process of becoming, uncharacterised as being the bare operation of a causal condition (kāraka), is characterised (i.e., defined) by particular causal conditions, such as substance etc .; hence, substance etc. are complementary to that. And thus, when the process of becoming is prescribed, that itself is prescribed together with its complements ; hence, substance and quality, though not contents, get prescribed as complements thereto. And thus, the prescription attaches to substance and quality through the channel of the process of becoming; and because of the fear of

222 HARMONY

prolixity, its own content being otherwise established, through a re-statement thereof it comes to have for purport substance etc., which are complements thereto; consequently, in all cases, prescription has for content the process of becoming alone. Hereby is refuted the view that in "That agneya (rite) which is on eight potsherds " etc., the prescription has for content the connection (of the rite with its material and deity). Now, the object of prescription cannot be the process of becoming; for, if the agent of the becoming is existent, then, that which has its existence accomplished cannot be an agent in respect of the becoming ; verily, the sky does not become; nor, if (the agent is) non-existent, since an injunction cannot be laid on what is non-existent, like a sky-flower; therefore the object of the prescription is the operation of the productive agent, that which brings about, this (operation) being implied by the becoming, the operation of what is brought about; and this operation is productive force (bhavana), volition, effort; of this, if contentless, there can be no cognition; hence, because of the need for a content, it is only the connection with material and deity brought to mind by the word agneya that is its content. Now, how can human effort which has an operation for content have for its sphere a connection not of the nature of an operation ? Indeed, even in "Make a pot," human effort has not for its sphere the pot which is the direct signifi- cance of the noun; rather does it operate the staff etc. through the hand etc. Therefore, that (sentence) declares only that volition which has for content the operation and is for the sake of the pot, but not that which has direotly the pot as content. The pot is there (in the volition) as

समन्वय: २२२

द्रव्यादिपरो भवतीति सर्वत्र भावार्थविषय एव विधि: । एतेन 'यदामेयोऽष्टाकपालो भवति' इत्यत्न संबन्ध- विषयो विधिरिति परास्तम्। ननु न भवत्यर्थो विधेयः; सिद्धे भवितरि लब्धरूपस्य भवनं प्रत्यकर्तृत्वात् ; न खलु गगनं भवति; नाप्यसिद्धे, असिद्धस्यानि- योज्यत्वात्, गगनकुसुमवत् ; तस्माद्जवनेन प्रयो- ज्यव्यापारेणाक्षिप्तः प्रयोजकस्य भावयितुर्व्यापारो विधेयः ; स च व्यापारो भावना, कृतिः, प्रयत्न इति; निर्विषयश्चासावशक्यप्रतिपत्तिः ; अतो विषया- पेक्षायामामेयशब्दोपस्थापितो द्रव्यदेवतासंबन्ध एवारय विषयः । ननु व्यापारविषयः पुरुषप्रयत्नः कथम- व्यापाररूपं संबन्धं गोचरयेत्? न हि 'घटं कुरु' इत्यत्रापि साक्षान्नामार्थ घटं पुरुषप्रयत्नो गोचरयति ; अपि, तु दण्डादि हस्तादिना व्यापारयति। तरमाद्घ- टार्था कृति व्यापारविषयामेव प्रतिपद्यते, न तु स्वरूपतो घटविषयाम्। उद्देश्यतया त्वस्यामरिति घटो न तु विषयतया। विषयतया तु हस्तादि- व्यापार एव। अत एव 'आमनेयः' इत्यत्रापि

२२३ समन्वयः

द्रव्यदेवतासंबन्धाक्षिप्तो यजिरेव कार्यविषयो विधेयः। किमुक्तं भवति "आमेयो भवति" इति ? आमेयेन यागेन भावयेदिति। अत एव 'य एवं विद्वान् पौर्णमास्यां यजते', 'य एवं विद्वानमावास्यां यजते' इत्यनुवादो भवति 'यदामेयः' इत्यादिविहितस्य यागषट्कस्य। अत एव च विहितानूदितस्य तस्यैव 'दर्शपूर्णमासाभ्यां स्वर्गकामो यजेत' इत्यधिकार- संबन्धः । तस्मात्सर्वत्र कृतिप्रणालिकया भावार्थविषय एव विधिरित्येकान्तः। तथा च 'न हन्यात्', 'न पिबेत्' इत्यादिषु यदि कार्यमभ्युपेयेत, ततस्तद्दयापिका कृतिरभ्युपेतव्या, तद्वयापकश्च भावार्थो विषयः। एवं च प्रजापतिव्रतन्यायेन पर्युदासवृत्त्याहननापानसंकल्पलक्षणया तद्विषयो विधि: स्यात्। तथा च प्रसज्यप्रतिषेधो दत्त- जलाञ्जलि: प्रसज्येत। न च सति संभवे लक्षणा न्याय्या। 'नेक्षेतोदन्तम्' इत्यादौ तु 'तस्य व्रतम् ' इत्यधिकारात्प्रसज्यप्रतिषेधासंभवेन पर्युदास- वृत्यानीक्षणसंकल्पलक्षणा युक्ता। तस्मात् 'न

HARMONY 223

what is intended, but not as the content. As content, however, there is only the operation of the hand etc. Hence it is that even in "That ūgneya" etc., what is en- joined is only the thing to be done, viz., the sacrifice implied by the connection with material and deity. What is it that is said in "That agneya which is offered " etc. ? (What is said is) "One should bring about (what is desired) through the agneya sacrifice". Hence it is that the statements "He who, knowing thus, performs the full moon sacrifice," "He who, knowing thus, performs the new moon sacrifice" become re-statements of the six sacrifices prescribed in "That agneya" etc. Hence it is that only for this re- statement of what is enjoined is there the connection with the fruit in "He who desires heaven is to sacrifice with the new moon and full moon sacrifices ". Hence it is invariable that in every case the injunction has for content the operation alone, through the channel of volition. And thus in "Kill not," "Drink not" etc., if there be admitted something to be done, then, its pervader, volition, would have to be admitted, as also the becoming which pervades that (volition) as content. And thus, on the analogy of the Prajūpati-vrata, the injunction would, as signifying exclusion through the implication of the resolve not to kill or not to drink, have that (resolve) as content. And thus it would follow that the final obsequies have been performed for (that function of negation which consists in) the denial of that for which there is an occasion. Nor when there is a possibility (of direct significance) is implication proper. In the case, however, of "See not the rising sun" etc., since they commence with "His vow," there is not the possibility of the denial of that for which

224 HARMONY

Further by statements like " A brahmin is not to be killed," desisting from activity is taught. Nor is that an act, nor even a means to an act. If the teaching of those which are not for the sake of an act be purpose- less, there would result the futility of teachings of desisting from activity like " A brahmin is not to be killed". And that is not acceptable. Nor is it possible to assume for the negative particle the signification of a non-established act, as distinct from the indifference consisting in desisting from the act of killing, because of the connection with the sense of killing that is established through one's own nature. And this is the

there is an occasion; hence, it is proper, through the signification of exclusion, to imply the resolve not to see. Therefore, in "Kill not," "Drink not " etc., which are denials of what there is an occasion for, since the process of becoming is non-existent, volition pervaded thereby is non-existent; and that being non-existent, there is non-existence of what is pervaded thereby, viz., what is to be done; hence there is no rule that all state- ments have for purport what is to be done; thus he says: "by statements like 'A brahmin is not to be killed'" etc. Now, why does not cessation itself become what is to be done, or the means to that (cessation)? To this he says: "Nor is that an act." The word "act" expresses what is to be done. This itself he analyses : "If the teaching of those which are not for the sake of an act" etc.

समन्वयः २२४

अपि च 'ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः' इत्येव- माद्या निवृत्तिरुपदिश्यते। न च सा क्रिया, नापि क्रियासाधनम्। अक्रियार्थानामुपदे- शोऽनर्थकश्चेत्, 'ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः' इत्यादिनिवृत्त्युपदेशानामानर्थक्यं प्राप्तम्। तञ्चानिष्टम। न च स्वभावप्राप्तहन्त्यर्थानु- रागेण नञ्रः शक्यमप्राप्तक्रियार्थत्वं कल्प- यितुं हननक्रियानिवृत्त्यौदार्सीन्यव्यतिरे- केण। नन्रश्चैष स्वभावः, यत्ससंबन्धि-

हन्यात्', 'न पिबेत्' इत्यादिषु प्रसज्यप्रतिषेधेषु भावार्थाभावात्तद्वयाप्तायाः कृतेरभावः; तदभावे च तद्वयाप्तस्य कार्यस्याभाव इति न कार्यपरत्वनियमः सर्वत्र वाक्ये इत्याह-ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्य इत्येवमाद्या इति। ननु कस्मान्निवृत्तिरेव कार्य न भवति, तत्साधनं वेत्यत आह-न च सा क्रिया इति। क्रिया- शब्द: कार्यवचनः। एतदेव विभजते-अक्रि- यार्थानाम् इति। 57

२२५ समन्वयः

नोऽभावं बोधयतीति। अभावबुद्धिश्चौदा- सीन्ये कारणम। सा च दग्धेन्धनाभि- वत्स्वयमेवोपशाम्यति। तस्मात्प्रसक्तक्रिया- निवृत्त्यौदासीन्यमेव 'ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः' इत्यादिषु प्रतिषेधार्थं मन्यामहे, अन्यत्र प्रजापतिव्रतादिभ्यः। तस्मात्पुरुषार्थानुप- योग्युपाख्यानादिभूतार्थवादविषयमानर्थ - क्याभिधानं द्रष्टव्यम्।

स्यादेतत्। विधिविभक्तिश्रवणात्कार्य तावदत्र प्रतीयते; तच्च न भावार्थमन्तरेण; न च रागतः प्रवृत्तस्य हननपानादावकस्मादौदासीन्यमुपपद्यते विना विधारकप्रयत्नम् ; तस्मात्स एव प्रवृत्त्युन्मुखानां मनोवाग्देहानां विधारकः प्रयत्नो निषेधविधिगोचरः क्रियेति नाक्रियापरमरिति वाक्यं किंचिदपीति आह- न च हननक्रियानिवृत्त्यौदासीन्यव्यतिरेकेण नञः शक्यमप्राप्तक्रियार्थत्वं कल्पयितुम्। केन हेतुना न शक्यमित्यत आह-सभावप्राप्त- हन्त्यर्थानुरागेण नञः । अयमर्थ :- हननपानपरो

HARMONY 225

nature of the negative particle, that it makes known the non-existence of that to which it is related. And the cognition of non-existence is the cause of indifference. And that subsides of its own accord like the fire whose fuel has been consumed. Therefore, it is but the in- difference consisting in the desisting from activity for which there is occasion, which we consider to be the meaning of the prohibition, "A brahmin is not to be killed " etc., in all cases other than the Prajapati-vow etc. Therefore, the declaration of futility is to be under- stood to have for content such praises of the existent, in the form of narratives etc., as do not serve the human goal.

Be this so. Because of the injunctive suffix being heard, there is cognised here what is to be done ; and that cannot be without a process of becoming; nor in the case of him who because of passion engages in killing, drinking etc., is indifference intelligible by chance, without voluntary effort; therefore, that voluntary effort of the mind, speech and body intent on engaging in activity is the act which is the sphere of the prohibitory injunction ; hence, there is no statement whatsover which does not have an act for purport. (To this) he says : "Nor is it possible to assume for the negative particle the signification of a non- established act, as distinct from the indifference consisting in desisting from the act of killing." For what reason is it not possible? To this he says: "because of the connection" of the negative particle " with the sense of killing that is established through one's own nature". This is the sense: indeed, the injunctive suffix cognised as having

226 HARMONY

for purport killing and drinking prescribes them alone; this is the general rule. And these cannot be prescribed, since they result (even) from passion. Nor is there enjoined the denial, by the negative particle, of that for which there is occasion, since of that too, whose nature is indifference, there is establishment as already existent (in the form of antecedent non-existence, prūg- abhava). Nor is voluntary effort (what is to be enjoined), since that, not being expressly mentioned, would have to be implied, since where there is a possibility (of direct signification) implication is not proper, and since that (effort) cannot be the content of the injunction, because of the injunctive suffix being a re-statement of the activity that results from passion. Therefore, what is restated as "one might drink or kill," and is prohibited in the form "that is not (to be done)", its non-existence (i.e., unprofitable nature) is brought to mind; but the sense of the negative particle is not prescribed. And since non-existence is determined by the existent that is opposed to itself, and takes on the colour of the existent, it appears as if existent in the case of the existent, and as if to be accomplished in the case of what is to be accomplished ; hence, the sense of the negative particle, whose content is what is to be accomplished, appears as if itself to be accomplished; hence the delusion that the sense of the negative particle is something to be done. This he says thus: "And this is the nature of the negative particle " etc. Now, let the negative particle make known the non- existence of what is related to itself (as counter-correlate) ; but, for the mind, speech and the body intent on activity, how can there be the desisting therefrom by chance?

समन्वय: २२६

हि विधिप्रत्ययः प्रतीयमानस्ते एव विधत्ते इत्युत्सर्गः। न चैते शक्ये विधातुम्, रागतः प्राप्तत्वात्। न चात्र नञः प्रसज्यप्रतिषेधो विधेयः, तस्याप्यौ- दासीन्यरूपस्य सिद्धतया प्राप्तत्वात्। न च विधा- रक: प्रयत्न:, तस्याश्रुतत्वेन लक्ष्यमाणत्वात्, सति संभवे च लक्षणाया अन्याय्यत्वात्, विधिविभक्तेश्र रागतः प्राप्तप्रवृत्त्यनुवादकत्वेन विधिविषयत्वा- योगात्। तस्माद्यत्पिबेद्धन्याद्वेत्यनूद्य तन्नेति निषि- ध्यते, तद्भावो ज्ञाप्यते; न तु नजर्थो विधीयते। अभावश्र स्वविरोधिभावनिरूपणतया भावच्छायानु- पातीति सिद्धे सिद्धवत्, साध्ये च साध्यवन्भासत इति साध्यविषयो नञर्थः साध्यवद्भासत इति नञर्थ: कार्य इति भ्रमः । तदिदमाह-नञ्रश्चैष स्वभाव इति। ननु बोधयतु स्वसंबन्धिनोSभावं नञू ; प्रवृत्त्यु- न्मुखानां तु मनोवाग्देहानां कुतोऽकस्मान्निवृत्तिरित्यत आह - अभावबुद्धिश्चौदासीन्य-परिपालन -

२२७ समन्वय:

कारणम्। अयमभिप्रायः-'ज्रितः पथ्यम- श्रीयात्', 'न सर्पायाङ्गुलिं दद्यात्' इत्यादिवचन- श्रवणसमनन्तरं प्रयोज्यवृद्दस्य पथ्याशने प्रवृत्ति भुजगाङ्गुलिदानोन्मुखस्य च ततो निवृत्तिमुपलभ्य बालो व्युत्पित्सुः प्रयोज्यवृद्दर्य प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिहेतू इच्छाद्देषावनुमिमीते। तथा हि-इच्छाद्वेषहेतुके वृद्दस्य प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ती, स्वतन्त्रप्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तित्वात्, मदीयस्वतन्त्रप्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिवत्। कर्तव्यतैकार्थसम- वेतेष्टानिष्टसाधनभावावगमपूर्वकौ चास्येच्छाद्वेषौ, प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिहेतुभूतेच्छाद्वेषत्वात्, मत्प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ति- हेतुभूतेच्छाद्वेषवत्। न जातु मम शब्दतद्दयापार- पुरुषाशयत्रैकाल्यानविच्छन्नभावनापूर्वप्रत्ययपूर्वावि - च्छाद्वेषावभूताम् ; अपि तु भूयो भूयः स्वगत- मालोचयत उक्तकारणपूर्वावेव प्रत्यवभासेते। तस्मा- दवद्धस्य स्वतन्त्रप्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ती इच्छाद्वेषभेदौ च कर्तव्यतैकार्थसमवेतेष्टानिष्टसाधनभावावगमपूर्वावित्या- नुपूर्व्या सिद्ध: कार्यकारणभाव इतीष्टानिष्टसाधन-

HARMONY 227

To this he says : "And the cognition of non-existence is the cause" of the perpetuation " of indifference". This is the idea: on hearing the words "Diet yourself when there is fever," "Offer not your finger to the serpent," the elderly person so addressed starts to put himself on diet, or, if intent on offering his finger to the serpent, desists there- from; the infant, i.e., the learner, on seeing this, infers for the elderly person addressed the causes of engaging in and desisting from activity, viz., desire and aversion. It is thus: the elderly person's engaging in and desisting from activity have desire and aversion for cause, since they are independent acts of engaging in and desisting from activity, like my own independent acts of engaging in and desisting from activity. And his desire and aversion are preceded by the understanding of the instrumentality to what is desired or not desired inherent in the same thing as the obligation, since they are desire and aversion which are causes of engaging in and desisting from activity, like the desire and aversion which are causes of my own engaging in and desisting from activity. Never do desire and aversion result for me as preceded (only) by the cognitions of the word, its operation, the intention of the person (who speaks), and the unseen potentiality of an injunction, as undefined by the three times; rather do they appear on repeated introspection as preceded by the above-mentioned causes alone. Therefore, the elderly person's independent engaging in and desisting from activity, as also his desire and aversion, are pervaded by the understanding of the instrumentality to what is desired or not desired, inherent in the same thing as the obligation; because of this sequence, the relation of cause and effect is established ; hence, it is established that the elderly person's engaging

228 HARMONY

in and desisting from activity are from the understanding of the instrumentality to what is desired or not desired. And this understanding, which was non-existent earlier and is generated immediately after the hearing of the word, has the hearing of the word for its cause; hence in statements like "He is to sacrifice," which prompt to activity, it is the word itself, which, making known the operation that is to be done and that is instrumental to what is desired, also makes known its instrumentality to what is desired and the obligation to do it ; for, these two are not otherwise obtained, and what is not otherwise obtained is the sense of the word. Where, however, the obligatoriness is obtained even other- wise, as in "Kill not," "Drink not" etc., since engaging in killing and drinking are obtained even from passion, there, the imperative suffix etc., associated with the negative particle, re-state this and make known only the causality of the two in respect of evil, which (causality) is not otherwise established. Indeed, their instrumentality to what is desired, is directly known, as otherwise they could not be objects of desire. Therefore, statements like "Kill not," "Drink not", have for purport the making known of the instru- mentality to evil, through re-stating the obligatori- ness established by passion etc., but they do not have obligatoriness for purport; hence it has been well said that prohibitions are not related to what is to be done. It is the cognition of the instrumentality to evil in the case of what are prohibited that is the cognition of the non-existence of what are prohibited. Thus, indeed, this intelligent being, though seeing what is superficially attractive, yet considers the future, cognises the

समन्वय: २२८

तावगमात्प्रयोज्यवृद्दप्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ती इति सिद्धम्। स चावगम: प्रागभूतः शब्दश्रवणानन्तरमुपजायमानः शब्दश्रवणहेतुक इति प्रवर्तकेषु वाक्येषु 'यजेत' इत्यादिषु शब्द एव कर्तव्यमिष्टसाधनं व्यापार- मवगमयंस्तस्येष्टसाधनतां कर्तव्यतां चावगमयति ; अनन्यलभ्यत्वादुभयो:, अनन्यलभ्यस्य च शब्दार्थ- त्वात्। यत्र तु कर्तव्यतान्यत एव लभ्यते, यथा 'न हन्यात्', 'न पिबेत्' इत्यादिषु, हननपान- प्रवृत्त्यो रागतः प्रतिलम्भात्, तत्र तदनुवादेन नञ्समभिव्याहता लिडदिविभक्तिरन्यतोऽप्राप्तमन- योरनर्थहेतुभावमात्रमवगमयति। प्रत्यक्षं हि तयो- रिष्टसाधनभावोऽवगम्यते, अन्यथा रागविषयत्वा- योगात्। तस्माद्रागादिप्राप्तकर्तव्यतानुवादेनानर्थ- साधनताप्रज्ञापनपरम् 'न हन्यात्', 'न पिबेत्' इत्यादिवाक्यम्, न तु कर्तव्यतापरमिति सुध्ूक्तम- कार्यनिष्ठत्वं निषेधानाम्। निषेध्यानां चानर्थ- साधनताबुद्धिरेव निषेध्याभावबुद्धिः । तया खल्वयं चेतन आपाततो रमणीयतां पश्यन्नप्यायतिमालोच्य

58

२२९ समन्वयः

प्रवृत्त्यभावं निवृत्तिमवबुध्य निवर्तते। औदासीन्य- मात्मनोऽवस्थापयतीति यावत्। स्यादेतत्। अभावबुद्धिश्रेदौदासीन्यस्थापन- कारणम्, यावदौदासीन्यमनुवर्तेत ; न चानुवर्तते ; न हयुदासीनोऽपि विषयान्तरव्यासक्तचित्तस्तदभाव- बुद्धिमान ; न चावस्थापककारणाभावे कार्यावस्थानं दृष्टम्; न हि स्तम्भावपाते प्रासादोऽवतिष्ठते। अत

शाम्यति। तावदेव खल्वयं प्रवृत्त्युन्मुखो न यावदस्यानर्थहेतुभावमधिगच्छति। अनर्थहेतुत्वाधिग- मोऽस्य समूलोद्धारं प्रवृत्तिमुद्त्य दग्धेन्धनाभि- वत्स्वयमेवोपशाम्यति। एतदुक्तं भवति-यथा प्रासादावस्थानकारणं स्तम्भो नैवमौदासीन्यावस्थान- कारणमभावबुद्धि: ; अपि त्वागन्तुकाद्विनाश- हेतोस्त्राणेनावस्थानकारणम्, यथा कमठपृष्ठनिष्ठुरः कवचः शस्त्रप्रहारत्राणेन राजन्यजीवावस्थानहेतुः । न च कवचापगमे च असति च शस्त्र- प्रहारे, राजन्यजीवनाश इति। उपसंहरति-

HARMONY 229

non-existence of activity, which is desisting from activity, and desists; that is to say, he establishes himself in an attitude of indifference. Be this so. If cognition of non-existence be the cause of establishment in indifference, that should persist so long as there is indifference; but that does not persist; for, he who, though indifferent, has a mind strongly attached to other objects, is not one who cognises their non-existence; nor, in the absence of the cause which establishes, is there seen the establishment of the effect; not, verily, when the pillar has fallen does the top floor stand. Therefore he says: "And that subsides of its own accord, like the fire whose fuel has been consumed." This being is intent on activity only so long as he does not understand its instrumentality to evil. The understanding of its instrumentality to evil plucks out activity by the root, and itself subsides like the fire whose fuel has been consumed. This is what is said: the cognition of non- existence is the cause of the establishment in indifference not in the same way as the pillar (is the cause) of the stability of the top floor ; rather is it the cause of establish- ment, as protecting from adventitious causes of destruction, just as the armour impenetrable as tortoise-shell is the cause of the stability of the warrior's life by protecting him from the attack of missiles. And it is not that there is loss of the warrior's life, when the armour is removed and there is no attack of missiles. He concludes: "Therefore, it is but indifference consisting in the desisting from activity for which there is occasion" etc. Since indifference exists even in the absence of knowledge (of instrumentality to evil), it is distinguished by the upalaksana, viz.,

230 HARMONY

As for that too which has been said, that the bare thing mentioned without entry into an injunction of what is to be done would be futile, like the statement "The Earth has seven islands" etc., that has been refuted; because profit is seen even in the statement about a bare object "This is a rope, this is not a snake". Now, it has been said that since, even for him who has heard (the texts relating to) Brahman, transmigratoriness is seen as before, there is not purposefulness as in the case of the statement about the nature of the rope. To this the reply is: not in the case of him who has realised Brahman as the self is it possible to show transmigratoriness

desisting from an activity for which there is occasion. Is the view then of the Jaiminiyas wholly absurd, (the view) which suspects futility because of non-subsidiariness to what is to be done and makes out (the existence of) subsidiariness to what is to be done ? (Raising this ques- tion), he answers it by way of conclusion: "Therefore, the declaration of futility is to be understood " etc. The prima facie and final views based on non-subsidiariness and subsidiariness to what is to be done have for content narratives etc., which do not serve the human goal; but they do not have the Upanisads for content, since the Upanisads lead up to the realisation of Brahman, which is of itself the human goal; this is the sense. "As for that too which has been said " by those who think the knowledge of the self propounded in the Upanișads not to be the human goal, (in the words) "the bare thing mentioned without entry into an injunction of what is to be

समल्वय: २३०

यदप्युक्तम-कर्तव्यविध्यनुप्रवेशमन्त- रेण वस्तुमात्रमुच्यमानमनर्थकं स्यात्, 'सपद्वीपा वसुमती' इत्यादिवदिति, तत्परिहृतम्; 'रज्जुरियम्, नायं सर्पः' इति वस्तुमात्रकथनेऽ्पि प्रयोजनस्य दृष्ट- त्वात्। ननु श्रुतब्रह्मणोऽपि यथापूर्वं संसारित्वदर्शनान्न रज्जुस्वरूपकथनवदर्थ- वत्वमित्युक्तम। अत्रोच्यते-नावगतब्रह्मा- त्मभावस्य यथापूर्वं संसारित्वं शक्यं

औदासीन्यमजानतोऽप्यस्तीति प्रसक्तक्रियानिवृत्त्यो- पलक्ष्य विशिनष्टि। तत्किमक्रियार्थत्वेनानर्थक्य- माशङ्क्य क्रियार्थत्वोपवर्णनं जैमिनीयमसमञ्जसमेवे- त्युपसंहारव्याजेन परिहरति-तस्मात्पुरषार्थ इति। पुरुषार्थानुपयोग्युपाख्यानादिविषयावक्रियार्थतया क्रिया- र्थतया च पूर्वोत्तरपक्षौ; न तूपनिषद्दिषयौ, उपनिषदां स्वयं पुरुषार्थरूपब्रह्मावगमपर्यवसानादित्यर्थः । यदपि औपनिषदात्मज्ञानमपुरुषार्थ मन्यमानेन उक्तम्-कर्तव्यविध्यनुप्रवेशमन्तरेण इति,

२३१ समन्वय:

दर्शयितुम्, वेदप्रमाणजनितब्रह्मात्मभाव- विरोधात्। न हि शरीराद्यात्माभिमानिनो दुःखभयादिमत्वं दृष्टमिति, तस्यैव वेद- प्रमाणजनितब्रह्मात्मावगमे तदभिमाननि- वृत्तौ तदेव मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तं दुःख- भयादिमत्वं भवतीति शक्यं कल्पयितुम। न हि धनिनो गृहस्थस्य धनाभिमानिनो धनापहारनिमित्तं दुःखं दष्टमिति, तस्यैव प्रवजितस्य धनाभिमानरहितस्य तदेव धनापहारनिमित्तं दुःखं भवति। न च

अत्र निगूढाभिसंधि: पूर्वोक्तं परिहारं स्मारयति- तत्परिहृतम् इति। अत्राक्षेप्ता स्वोक्तमर्थ स्मारयति-ननु श्रुतब्रह्मणोऽपि इति। निगूढ- मभिसंधिं समाधातोद्घाटयति-अत्रोच्यते- नावगतब्रह्मात्मभावस्य इति। सत्यं न ब्रह्म- ज्ञानमात्रं सांसारिकधर्मनिवृत्तिकारणम्, अपि तु साक्षात्कारपर्यन्तम्। ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारश्रान्तःकरण- वृत्तिभेदः श्रवणमननादिजनितसंस्कारसचिवमनो-

HARMONY 231

as before; because it is opposed to (the knowledge of) Brahman-as-the-self generated by the Veda as the means of valid knowledge. Indeed, because in respect of a man, who has the conceit of self in his body etc., there is found possession by misery, fear etc., it is not possible to assume that, in respect of the same man, when, in consequence of the realisation of Brahman as self produced by the Veda as the means of valid knowledge, there is the cessation of such a conceit, there continues the same possession by misery, fear etc., caused by illusory knowledge. Verily, because for the rich house- holder, having the conceit of wealth, there is found fear caused by the (possible) theft of the wealth, there does not continue for the same man, when he renounces and becomes freed from the conceit of wealth, the same fear caused by the (possible) theft of the wealth. Nor,

done" etc., here, with a concealed view, he recalls the answer mentioned earlier: "that has been refuted." Here, the objector recalls the sense mentioned by himself: "Now, it has been said that since even for him who has heard (the texts relating to) Brahman" etc. The respondent reveals the concealed view: "To this the reply is: not in the case of him who has understood Brahman as the self" etc. True, not the knowledge alone of Brahman is the cause of the cessation of the attributes of transmigration, but rather its culmina- tion in intuition. And the intuition of Brahman is a

232 HARMONY

because for a man having ear-rings there is seen happiness in the conceit of having ear-rings, is there for the same man, when he gives up the ear-rings and is freed from the conceit of having ear-rings, happiness in having ear-rings. This is declared by Scripture, "Him, verily, who is non-embodied, pleasure and pain do not touch." (Chand., VIII, xii, 1). If it be said that when the body is destroyed, there may be non-embodiment, not when

particular psychosis of the internal organ, generated in the mind as aided by the impressions produced by hearing, reflection etc., like the intuition of the different notes, sadja etc., whose source is the mind purified by the hearing and practice of the science of music. And this, while rooting out the perception of the stupendous magical presentation of the entire universe, roots itself out as well, not being distinct from that universe; this has been explained above. Hence, it is established that there is but similarity to the declaration of the true nature of the rope (as rope, not snake). And here, being based on the Veda as the means of valid knowledge, it is spoken of as "generated by the Veda as the means of valid knowledge". In this very matter, he mentions two examples, divided into the non-origination of happiness and of misery: "Verily, because for the rich house-holder" etc. He cites Scripture to this effect: "This is declared by Scripture" etc. He asks: "when the body is destroyed" etc. He answers : "no; because being embodied is caused" etc. If

समन्वय: २३२ कुण्डलिन: कुण्डलित्वाभिमाननिमित्तं सुखं दष्टमिति, तस्यैव कुण्डलवियुक्तस्य कुण्ड- लित्वाभिमानरहितस्य तदेव कुण्डलित्वा- भिमाननिमिनं सुखं भवति। तदुक्ततं श्रुत्या 'अशरीरं वाव सन्तं न प्रिया- प्रिये स्पृशतः' इति। शरीरे पतितेऽशरी- रत्वं स्यात्, न जीवत इति चेत्, न ;

जन्मा, षड्जादिभेदसाक्षात्कार इव गान्धर्वशास्त्र- श्रवणाभ्याससंस्कृतमनोयोनिः । स च निखिल- प्रपञ्चमहेन्द्रजालसाक्षात्कारं समूलमुन्मूलयन्नात्मा- नमपि प्रपश्चत्वाविशेषादुन्मूलयतीत्युपपादितमधस्तात्। तस्माद्रज्जुस्वरूपकथनतुल्यतैवात्रेति सिड्म्। अत्र च वेद प्रमाणमूलतया वेदप्रमाणजनित इत्युक्तम्। अत्रैव सुखदुःखानुत्पादभेदेन निदर्शनद्दयमाह- न हि धनिन इति। श्रुतिमत्रोदाहरति- तदुक्तम् इति। चोदयति-शरीरे पतिते इति। परिहरति- न ; सशरीरत्वस्य इति। यदि वास्तवं 59

२३३ समन्वयः

सशरीरत्वस्य मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तत्वात्। न ह्यात्मनः शरीरात्माभिमानलक्षणं मिथ्या- ज्ञानं मुक्त्ा अन्यतः सशरीरत्वं शक्यं कल्पयितुम्। नित्यमशरीरत्वम, अकर्मनि- मित्तत्वात् इत्यवोचाम। तत्कृतधर्माधर्मनिमि- नं सशरीरत्वमिति चेत्, न ; शरीरसंबन्ध- स्यासिद्धत्वात्, धर्माधर्मयोरात्मकृतत्वा- सिद्धेः, शरीरसंबन्धस्य धर्माधर्मयोस्तत्कृत- त्वस्य चेतरेतराश्रयत्वप्रसङ्गात्। अन्धपरम्परै-

सशरीरत्वं भवेत्, न जीवतस्तन्निवर्तेत ; मिथ्याज्ञान- निमित्तं तु तत् ; तच्चोत्पन्नतत्त्वज्ञानेन जीवतापि शक्यं निवर्तयितुम्। यत्पुनरशरीरत्वं तदस्य स्वभाव इति न शक्यं निवर्तयितुम, स्वभावहानेन भाव- विनाशप्रसङ्गादित्याह-नित्यमशरीरत्वम् इति। स्यादेतत्। न मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तं सशरीरत्वम् अपि तु धर्माधर्मनिमित्तम्; तच्च स्वकारणधर्मा- धर्मनिवृत्तिमन्तरेण न निवर्तते; तन्निवृत्तौ च प्रायणमेवेति न जीवतोऽशरीरत्वमिति शङ्कते-

HARMONY 233

alive, no; because being embodied is caused by illusory knowledge. Indeed, in respect of the self, it is not possible to assume its being embodied in any other way than through illusory knowledge, consisting in the conceit of self in the body. Non-embodiment is eternal, because it is not caused by an act : so we have said. If it be said that being embodied is caused by the merit and demerit acquired by that, no; because relation (of that) to a body is not established, because it is not established that merit and demerit are acquired by the self, and because there would result reciprocal dependence between the relation to a body and the acquisition of merit and demerit by that. The assump- tion of beginninglessness in this is (like) a chain of the

being embodied were real, that would not cease during life ; it is, however, caused by illusory knowledge; and that can be removed even during life by the rise of true knowledge. As for non-embodiment, since that is of his nature, it cannot be removed, as by destruction of nature there would result destruction of existence; thus he says: "Non-embodiment is eternal " etc. Be this so. Being embodied is not caused by illusory knowledge, but caused by merit and demerit ; and it cannot cease except with the cessation of its causes, merit and demerit; and on the cessation of these, there is but death ;

234 HARMONY

blind. And because there is no inherence of activity in the self, agency is unintelligible. If it be said that by mere proximity there is agency for kings and others, no; because their agency is intelligible through the relationship to servants procured through payment of money etc. Not for the self, however, is it possible to assume anything like the payment of money etc. as the cause of the relationship of master and servant with reference to the body etc. Illusory conceit, however, is the perceived cause of the relation. By this is explained the self being the sacrificer.

hence there is no non-embodiment during life; thus he objects: "If it be said that being embodied is caused by the merit and demerit acquired by that" etc. "That" relates to the self. He refutes this : "no, because relation to a body " etc. Not directly can the self acquire merit and demerit, for, those two, which arise from the exertion of speech, the intellect and the body, do not occur when there is no relation to a body; he who desires (to establish) being embodied (as resulting) from them lands clearly in the defect of reciprocal dependence; that is thus said: "because there would result reciprocal dependence between the relation to a body" etc. It may be said :" True, there is reciprocal dependence, but it is not a defect, because of beginninglessness, as between seed and sprout." To this he says: "The assumption of beginninglessness in this is (like)

समन्वय: २३४

षा अनादित्वकल्पना। क्रियासमवायाभावा- च्चात्मनः कर्तृत्वानुपपत्तेः। संनिधानमात्रेण राजप्रभृतीनां दृष्टं कर्तृत्वमिति चेत्, न; धनदानादुपार्जितभृत्यसंबन्धित्वात्तेषां कर्तृत्वोपपत्तेः; न त्वात्मनो धनदानादि- वच्छरीरादिभिः सवखामिभावसंबन्धनिमित्तं किंचिच्छक्यं कल्पयितुम्। मिथ्याभिमानस्तु प्रत्यक्ष: संबन्धहेतुः। एतेन यजमानत्व- मात्मनो व्याख्यातम्।

तत्कृत इति। तत् इत्यात्मानं परामृशति। निराकरोति-न; शरीरसंबन्धस्य इति। न तावदात्मा साक्षाद्धर्माधर्मौ कर्तुमर्हति, वाग्बुद्धि- शरीरारम्भजनितौ हि तौ नासति शरीरसंबन्धे भवतः; ताभ्यां तु शरीरसंबन्धं रोचयमानो व्यक्तं परस्पराश्रयत्वं दोषमावहति; तदिदमाह- शरीरसंबन्धस्य इति। यद्युच्येत सत्यमस्ति पर- स्पराश्रयत्वम्, न त्वेष दोषः, अनादित्वात्, बीजाङ़- कुरवत् इत्यत आह-अन्धपरम्परैषानादित्व-

२३५ समन्वय:

अत्राहु: - देहादिव्यतिरिक्तस्यात्मनः आत्मीये देहादावहमभिमानो गौणः, न मिथ्येति चेत्, न; प्रसिद्धवस्तुभेदस्य गौणत्वमुख्यत्वप्रसिद्धेः । यस्य हि प्रसिद्धो

कल्पना। यस्तु मन्यते-नेयमन्धपरम्परातुल्या अनादिता ; न हि यतो धर्माधर्मभेदाद्य आत्म- शरीरसंबन्धभेदर्तत एव शरीरसंबन्धात् स धर्मा- धर्मभेदः; किं त्वेष पूर्वस्मादात्मशरीरसंबन्धात्पूर्व- धर्माधर्मभेदजन्मनः; एव त्वात्मशरीरसंबन्धोऽन्यस्मा- दधर्माधर्मभेदात्-इति, तं प्रत्याह-क्रियासम- वायाभावात् इति। शङ्कते-संनिधानमात्रेण इति। परिहरति-न इति। उपार्जनं स्वीकरणम्। न त्वियं विधात्मनीत्याह-न त्वात्मन इति। ये तु देहादावात्माभिमानो न मिथ्या, अपि तु गौणः, माणवकादाविव सिंहाभिमान इति मन्यन्ते, तन्मतमुपन्यस्य दूषयति-अत्राहुः इति। प्रसिड्धो वस्तुभेदो यस्य पुरुषस्य स तथोक्तः । उपपादितं चैतदस्माभिरध्यासभाष्य इति नेहोपपाद्यते। यथा

HARMONY 235

Here they say : in respect of the self that is distinct from the body etc., the conceit of " I" in its own body etc., is secondary, not illusory ; if this be said, no; for, secondariness and primariness are well-known to him to whom the difference between the things is well-known. For him to whom the difference between the things is

a chain of the blind." One may think thus: "This begin- ninglessness is not like a chain of the blind; when from a particular merit and demerit, there is a particular relation between a self and a body, it is not, indeed, from that same relation to a body that there result that particular merit and demerit ; rather do these (merit and demerit) result from a prior relation of the self to the body, which had its rise from earlier merit and demerit; while this relation of the self to the body results from another merit and demerit"; to this one he says: "because there is no inherence of activity" etc. He objects: "If it be said that by mere proximity " etc. He answers "no." "Procuring" is making one's own. That is not the case, he says, with the self : "Not for the self, however" etc. As for those who think that the conceit of the self in the body etc. is not illusory, but is secondary, like the conceit of the lion in the pupil etc., he introduces their view and condemns it : "Here they say" etc. That person to whom differences between things are well-known, he is thus mentioned (in the words: prasiddha-vastu- bhedah). And since this has been explained by us under the commentary on superimposition, it is not explained here. In the twilight, in respect of a thing not apprehended

236 HARMONY

well-known-for example, if a certain thing possessing a mane etc., and having a particular configuration is established through co-presence and co-absence as the principal signification of the word and concept "lion," and another, a man, established as possessing cruelty, courage etc., which are the ordinary qualities of a lion- for that one, the word and concept " lion " have secon- dary signification in respect of that man, not for him to whom the difference between the things is not well- known. For this (latter) one, however, (the use of) one word and concept in the place of another can be caused only delusively, not secondarily ; for example, in respect of that whose particularity has not been apprehended in twilight, in the form "This is a post," the word and concept of "man" have the post as content; or for example, in the nacre, the word and concept which for some unknown reason are determined in the form "This is silver". In the same way, how can the word

as distinct from a man in the form "this is a post," the word and the concept of a man due to doubt have the post for content; there, indeed, the attribute of being a man, though not certain, is but superimposed. Having thus illustrated the superimposition of the uncertain in cases of doubt, he illustrates (the superimposition of) the certain in cases of erroneous cognition : "or, for example, in the nacre" etc. When for the white shining substance in front, there is similarity to nacre and silver, while there is the ascertainment of silver, why is there not the

समन्वयः २३६ वस्तुभेद :- यथा केसरादिमानाकृतिवि- शेषोऽन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां सिंहशब्दप्रत्यय- भाङ्मुख्योऽन्यः सिद्धः; ततश्चान्यः पुरुषः प्राथिकैः क्रौर्यशौर्यादिभिः सिंहगुणैः संपन्नः सिद्ध :- तस्य तस्मिन्पुरुषे सिंहशब्दप्रत्ययौ गौणौ भवतः, नाप्रसिद्धवस्तुभेदस्य । तस्य त्वन्यलान्यशब्दप्रत्ययौ भ्रान्ति- निमित्तावेव भवतः, न गौणौ; यथा मन्दान्धकारे स्थाणुरयमित्यगृह्यमाणविशेषे पुरुषशब्दप्रत्ययौ स्थाणुविषयौ ; यथा वा शुक्तिकायामकस्माद्रजतमिदमिति निश्चितौ

मन्दान्धकारे स्थाणुरयमित्यगृह्यमाणविशेषे वस्तुनि पुरुषात् सांशयिकौ पुरुषशब्दप्रत्ययौ स्थाणुविषयौ; तत्र हि पुरुषत्वमनियतमपि समारोपितमेव। एवं संशये समारोपितमनिश्चितमुदाहृत्य विपर्ययज्ञाने निश्चितमुदाहरति-यथा वा शुक्तिकायाम् इति। शुक्लभारवरस्य द्रव्यस्य पुरःस्थितस्य सति शुक्तिकारजतसाधारण्ये यावदत्र रजतविनिश्चयो 60

२३७ समन्वयः

शब्दप्रत्ययौ, तद्वद्देहादिसंघाते अहं इति निरुपचारेण शब्द प्रत्ययावात्मानात्माविवे- केनोत्पद्यमानौ कथं गौणौ शक्यौ वदितुम् ? आत्मानात्मविवेकिनामपि पण्डि- तानामजाविपालानामिवाविविक्त्ौ शब्द- प्रत्ययौ भवतः। तस्माद्देहादिव्यतिरिक्ता- त्मास्तित्ववादिनां देहादावहंप्रत्ययो मि-

भवति तावत्करमाच्छुक्तिविनिश्चय एव न भवति ? संशयो वा द्वेधा युक्त :; समानधर्मधर्मिणो दर्शनात् उपलब्ध्यनुपलब्ध्यव्यवस्थातः ; विशेषद्वय- स्मृतेश्र संस्कारोन्मेषहेतोः सादृश्यस्य द्विष्ठत्वेनो- भयत्र तुल्यमेतदिति। अत उक्तम्-अकस्मात् इति। अनेन दृष्टस्य हेतोः समानत्वेऽप्यदृष्टं हेतुरुक्तम् ; तच्च कार्यदर्शनोन्नेयत्वेनासाधारणमिति भाव:। आत्मानात्मविवेकिनाम् इति। श्रवण- मननकुशलतामात्रेण पण्डितानाम्; अनुत्पन्नतत्त्व- साक्षात्काराणामिति यावत्। तदुक्तम्-पश्चादि- भिश्चाविशेषात् इति। शेषमतिरोहितार्थम्।

HARMONY 237

and concept of " I," which arise in respect of the assem- blage of the body etc., non-figuratively through the non-discrimination of the self and the not-self, be said to be secondary ? Even by the learned men who have discriminative knowledge of the self and the not-self, the word and the concept fail to be discriminated, just as by shepherds and goatherds. Therefore for those who maintain that there is a self distinct from the body etc., the concept of " I" in respect of the body is but illusory,

ascertainment of nacre itself? Or there may be doubt, which is appropriate in two ways; for, there is seen a sub- strate with common attributes, while there is absence of cognition or non-cognition (i.e., of any means of valid knowledge, favourable or unfavourable); also because there is memory of both particulars, since similarity, which arouses the impressions, being located in both, is common to both. Therefore it is said: "for some unknown reason." Though the seen cause is common, there is hereby mentioned an unseen cause; and since that has to be inferred from the perception of its effect, it is not common (to both): this is the idea. "Even by the learned men who have discriminative knowledge of the self and the not-self"; for those who are learned, merely in respect of their proficiency in hearing and reflection ; that is to say, for those in whom the intuition of the truth has not risen. That has been said: "And because there is no distinction from beasts" etc. The sense of the rest is not obscure.

238 HARMONY

not secondary. Hence, since "being embodied" is caused by illusory knowledge, it is established that for the wise one, even while alive, there is non-embodiment. And thus there is Scripture whose content is the Brahman-knower: "Therefore, as the slough of a snake lies dead and cast off on the ant-hill, in the very same way lies this body; then that non-embodied, immortal life, is Brahman alone, light alone " (Brh., IV, iv, 7); "Having eyes but without eyes as it were, having ears but without ears as it were, having speech but without speech as it were, having mind but without mind as it were, having breath, but without breath as it were." There is the traditional Code also, " What is the language of him who is firm in knowledge?" (Gita, II) etc., which, while declaring the distinctive marks of one firm in knowledge, shows that for the wise one there is no relation with engaging in any activity. Therefore, not in the case of him who has realised Brahman as the self, is there transmigratoriness as before; he, however, who has transmigratoriness as before, has not realised Brahman as the self; this is faultless.

And in the matter of non-embodiment during life for the wise one, he cites Scripture and traditional Code : "And thus" etc. This is easily understood. He concludes the present topic : "Therefore, not in the case of him who has realised Brahman as the self " etc.

समन्वय: २३८

थ्यैव, न गौणः। तस्मान्मिथ्याप्रत्यय- निमित्तत्वात्सशरीरत्वस्य सिद्धं जीवतोऽपि विदुषोऽशरीरत्वम्। तथा च ब्रह्मविद्विषया श्रुतिः 'तद्यथाहिनिर्ल्वयनी वल्मीके मृता प्रत्यस्ता शयीतैवमेवेद ५शरीरं शेते अथा- यमशरीरोऽमृतः प्राणो ब्रह्मैव तेज एव' इति; 'सचक्षुरचक्षुरिव सकर्णोडकर्ण इव सवागवागिव समना अमना इव स- प्राणोऽप्राण इव' इति च। स्मृतिरपि 'स्थितप्रज्ञस्य का भाषा' इत्याद्या स्थित- प्रज्ञस्य लक्षणान्याचक्षाणा विदुषः सर्व- प्रवृत्त्यसंबन्धं दर्शयति। तस्मान्नावगत- ब्रह्मात्मभावस्य यथापूर्वं संसारित्वम् ; यस्य तु यथापूर्वं संसारित्वं नासाववगत- ब्रह्मात्मभाव इत्यनवद्यम्।

जीवतो विदुषोऽशरीरत्वे च श्रुतिस्मृती उदा- हरति-तथा च इति। सुबोधम्। प्रकृतमुप- संहरति-तस्मान्नावगतब्रह्मात्मभावस्य इति।

२३९ समन्वय:

यत्पुनरुक्तं श्रवणात्पराचीनयोर्मनननि- दिध्यासनयोर्दर्शनाद्विधिशेषत्वं ब्रह्मणः, न स्वरूपपर्यवसायित्वमिति, तन्न; श्रवण- वदवगत्यर्थत्वान्मनननिदिध्यासनयोः । य- दि ह्यवगतं ब्रह्मान्यत्र विनियुज्येत, भवेत्तदा विधिशेषत्वम्; न तु तदस्ति, मनननिदिध्यासनयोरपि श्रवणवद्वगत्य-

ननूक्तं यदि जीवस्य ब्रह्मात्मत्वावगतिरेव सां- सारिकधर्मनिवृत्तिहेतु:, हन्त मननादिविधानानर्थ- क्यम् ; तस्मात्प्रतिपत्तिविधिपरा वेदान्ता इति, तदनुभाष्य दूषयति-यत्पुनरुक्तं श्रवणात्परा- चीनयोः इति। मनननिदिध्यासनयोरपि न विधि:, तयोरन्वयव्यतिरेकसिद्धसाक्षात्कारफलयोर्वि- धिसरूपैर्वचनैरनुवादात् ; तदिदमुक्तम्-अवग- त्यर्थत्वात् इति। ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारोऽवगतिः; तदर्थत्वं मनननिदिध्यासनयोरन्वयव्यतिरेकसिद्धमित्यर्थः। अथ कस्मान्मननादिविधिरेव न भवतीत्यत आह- यदि ह्यवगतम् इति। न तावन्मनननिदिध्यासने

HARMONY 239

Again, as for the statement that since reflection and contemplation are seen subsequent to hearing, Brahman is subsidiary to an injunction and does not stop with its own existence, that is not so ; because, like hearing, reflection and contemplation are for the purpose of realisation. If the realised Brahman were employed elsewhere, then there would be subsidiariness to an injunction; but it is not so ; because reflection and contemplation too are, like hearing, for the purpose

Now, it has been said" If the jiva's realisation of Brahman as the self were alone the cause of the cessation of the attribute of transmigration, there would be, alas ! the futility of the prescription of reflection etc .; hence, the Vedantas have for purport the injunction of contempla- tion"; restating this, he condemns it: "Again, as for the statement" etc. Even of reflection and contemplation there is no prescription, since of these two which are established by co-presence and co-absence to have the fruit of intui- tion, there is (but) re-statement by sentences which have the appearance of injunctions ; that is thus said: "because they are for the purpose of realisation." Intuition of Brahman is realisation; the subsidiariness thereto of reflection and contemplation is established by co-presence and co-absence; this is the sense. Why, then, should it not be an injunction alone in respect of reflection etc .? To this he says: "If the realised Brahman" etc. That reflection and con- templation are not principal rites with an unseen content, viz., the fruit of immortality, has been stated above.

240 HARMONY

of realisation. Therefore Brahman does not come to have the sacred teachings as the means of valid knowledge in virtue of being the content of an injunction of contemplation ; and for this reason it is established that Brahman even independently has sacred teaching as the means of valid knowledge, because of the harmony of the Vedånta texts. And this being the case, the com- mencement of a distinct sacred teaching dealing with that, in the form "Then therefore the desire to know Brahman," is intelligible. If it had for purport an

Therefore, there remains for them the character of subsi- diary rites, like pounding, sprinkling etc .; that too is unsuitable, since to the self does not belong (the attribute of) having been used or being about to be used elsewhere; for (the self propounded in) the Upanisad, in particular, there is opposition to the observance of rites: this is the sense. He concludes the present topic : "Therefore " etc. And thus, the Upanisads having for purport the existent Brahman, since Brahman, the object of the sacred teaching, is other than Religious Duty, and since through difference of content there is difference in the sacred teaching, the commencement of the sacred teaching " Then, therefore, the desire to know Brahman" is intelligible; thus he says: "And this being the case " etc. If, however, it were otherwise, it would be but the desire to know Religious Duty, not another sacred teaching; consequently, there would not be the commencement of another sacred teaching; thus he says: "If it had for purport an injunction

समन्वयः २४०

र्थत्वात्। तस्मान्न प्रतिपत्तिविधिविषयतया शास्त्रप्रमाणकत्वं ब्रह्मणः संभवतीत्यतः स्वतन्त्रमेव ब्रह्म शास्त्रप्रमाणकम, वेदान्त- वाक्यसमन्वयादिति सिद्धम्। एवं च सति 'अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा' इति तद्विषयः पृथक् शास्त्रारम्भ उपपद्यते।

प्रधानकर्मणी अपूर्वविषये अमृतत्वफले इत्युक्त- मधस्तात्। अतो गुणकर्मत्वमनयोरवघातप्रोक्षणादि- वत्परिशिष्यते; तदप्ययुक्तम्, अन्यत्रोपयुक्तोपयो- क्ष्यमाणत्वाभावादात्मनः ; विशेषतरत्वौपनिषदस्य कर्मानुष्ठानविरोधात्-इत्यर्थः । प्रकृतमुपसंहरति- तस्मात् इति। एवं च सिद्धरूपब्रह्मपरत्वे उपनिषदाम्, ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रार्थस्य धर्मादन्यत्वात्, भिन्नविषयत्वेन शास्त्र- भेदात्, 'अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा' इत्यस्य शास्त्रारम्भ- त्वमुपपद्यत इत्याह-एवं च सति इति। इतरथा तु धर्मजिज्ञासैवेति न शास्त्रान्तरमिति न शास्त्रा- न्तरारम्भत्वं स्यादित्याह-प्रतिपत्तिविधिपरत्व 61

२४१ समन्वयः प्रतिपत्तिविधिपरत्वे हि 'अथातो धर्म- जिज्ञासा' इत्येवारब्धत्वान्न पृथक् शास्त्र- मारभ्येत। आरभ्यमाणं चैवमारभ्येत 'अथातः परिशिष्टधर्मजिज्ञासा' इति 'अथातः करत्वर्थपुरुषार्थयोर्जिज्ञासा' इति- वत्। ब्रह्मात्मैक्यावगतिस्त्वप्रतिज्ञातेति त- दर्थो युक्त: शास्त्रारम्भः 'अथातो ब्रह्म- जिज्ञासा' इति। तस्मात् 'अहं ब्रह्मास्मि' इत्येतदवसाना एव सर्वे विधयः सर्वाि चेतराणि प्रमाणानि। न ह्यहेयानुपादे-

इति। न केवलं सिद्धरूपत्वाद्वह्मात्मैक्यस्य धर्मा- दन्यत्वम्, अपि तु तद्विरोधादपीत्युपसंहार्याजे- नाह-तस्मादहं ब्रह्मास्मि इति। इतिकरणेन ज्ञानं परामृशति। विधयो हि धर्मे प्रमाणम् । ते च साध्यसाधनेतिकर्तव्यताभेदाघिष्ठाना धर्मो- त्पादिनश्र तदधिष्ठाना न ब्रह्मात्मैक्ये सति प्रभ- वन्ति, विरोधात् इत्यर्थः । न केवलं धर्मप्रमाणस्य शास्त्रस्येयं गतिः, अपि तु सर्वेषां प्रमाणानामि-

HARMONY 241

injunction of contemplation, a distinct sacred teaching would not be commenced, that (study) having been com- menced even with "Then therefore the desire to know Religious Duty". And if it had to be begun, it would have been begun thus: "Then therefore the desire to know the rest of the Religious Duty," like "Then therefore the desire to know what subserves the purpose of the sacrifice and what subserves the goal of man". (PM, IV, i, 1.) The realisation of the unity of Brahman and the self is not premised (in that sacred teaching); hence it stands to reason that (another) sacred teaching is begun for that purpose in the form "Then therefore the desire to know Brahman". There- fore, "I am Brahman": in this alone terminate all

of contemplation" etc. Not merely because of being of the nature of an existent is the oneness of Brahman and the self other than Religious Duty, but also because of opposi- tion thereto ; thus he says by way of conclusion: "There- fore, 'I am Brahman': in this alone" etc. By the word "this" he refers to the knowledge. Injunctions, indeed, are the means of valid knowledge in respect of Religious Duty. And these, which are based on (i.e., have as content) differences of end, means, and modus operandi, and give rise to Religious Duty (through teaching it), cannot, when there is oneness of Brahman and the self, be based on those (differences), because of opposition; this is the sense. This is the fate not alone of the sacred teaching that is the

242 HARMONY

injunctions and all other means of valid knowledge. Not, indeed, when there is the realisation of the non-dual self, which is to be neither rejected nor accepted, can those which are contentless and are devoid of a knower be fit to be means of valid knowledge. Further, they say: When the secondary and the illusory selves are non-existent, then, because of the sublation of son, body etc., how can the thing to be done, the enlightenment that I am of the nature of the real Brahman, come about? Prior to the cognition of the self that is to be sought, there is knowership for the self. What is to be sought is the knower alone, as free from sin, defect etc. As the cognition of the self in the body is assumed to be valid know- ledge, even so is this empirically valid knowledge (assumed to be valid) up to the ascertainment of the self.

means of valid knowledge in respect of Religious Duty, but of all means of valid knowledge; thus he says; "and all other means of valid knowledge." Why ? "Not, indeed, when there is the realisation" etc. In non-duality, indeed, there is not the relationship of object and subject; nor agency, since there is nothing to be done; nor instrumental- ity, for the same reason. That is thus stated by the "and" in "and which are devoid of a knower". To this very effect he cites the verses of a Brahman- knower: 138 " Further, they say" etc. The conceit of the self in son, wife etc., is secondary. As one feels miserable by

समन्वयः २४२

याद्वैतात्मावगतौ सत्याम्, निर्विषयाण्य- प्रमातृकाणि च प्रमाणानि भवितु- मर्हन्तीति। अपि चाहु :- 'गौणमिथ्यात्मनोऽसत्वे पुत्रदेहादिबाधनात्। सद्भह्मात्माहमित्येवं बोधि कार्य कथं भवेत्॥ अन्वेष्टव्यात्मविज्ञानात्प्राक्प्रमातृत्वमात्मनः। अन्विष्टः स्यात्प्रमातैव पाप्मदोषादिवर्जितः॥ देहात्मप्रत्ययो यद्वत्प्रमाणत्वेन कल्पितः । लौकिकं तद्वदेवेदं प्रमाणं त्वात्मनिश्चयात्।' इति।

त्याह-सर्वाणि चेतराणि प्रमाणानि इति। कुतः? न हि इति। अद्वैते हि विषयविषयि- भावो नास्ति ; न च कर्तृत्वम्, कार्याभावात् ; न च करणत्वम्, अत एव। तदिदमुक्तम्- अप्रमातृकाणि च इति चकारेण। अत्रैव ब्रह्मविदां गाथा उदाहरति-अपि चाहुः इति। पुत्रदारादिष्ात्माभिमानो गौणः। यथा

२४३ समन्वय:

स्दुःखेन दुःखी, यथा स्वसुखेन सुखी, तथा पुत्रादि- गतेनापीति सोऽयं गौणः । न त्वेकत्वाभिमानः, भेदस्यानुभवसिद्धत्वात्। तस्मात् 'गौर्वाहीकः' इतिवद्धौणः । देहेन्द्रियादिषु त्वभेदानुभवान्न गौण आत्माभिमान :; किं तु शुक्तौ रजतज्ञानवन्मिथ्या। तदेवं द्विविधोऽयमात्माभिमानो लोकयात्नां वहति। तदसत्त्वे तु न लोकयात्रा, नापि ब्रह्मात्मै- कत्वानुभवः, तदुपायस्य श्रवणमननादेरभावात्। तदिदमाह-पुत्रदेहादिबाधनात्। गौणात्मनो- Sसत्त्वे पुत्रकलत्रादिबाधनम्; ममकाराभाव इति यावत्। मिथ्यात्मनोऽसत्त्वे देहेन्द्रियादिबाधनं श्रवणादिबाधनं च। ततश्र न केवलं लोकयात्रा- समुच्छेद :; सद्धह्माहमित्येवं बोधि बोधशीलं यत् कार्यम्, अद्वैतसाक्षात्कार इति यावत्, तद्पि कथं भवेत्? कुतस्तदसंभव इत्यत आह- अन्वेष्टव्यात्मविज्ञानात्प्राक्प्रमातृत्वमात्मनः। उपलक्षणं चैतत् ; प्रमाप्रमेयप्रमाणविभाग इत्यपि द्रष्टव्यम्। एतदुक्तं भवति-एष हि विभागोऽद्वैत-

HARMONY 243

one's own misery, and happy by one's own happiness, so too does one (feel) by what is present in the son etc. ; hence it is secondary. But there is not the conceit of oneness, since difference is established in experience. Hence, it is secon- dary (figurative) as in "The Vahika (the inhabitant of a country of that name) is an ox". But the conceit of the self in the body, organs etc., is not secondary, because of the experience of non-difference (from them); it is an illusion, rather, like the cognition of silver in nacre. Thus, it is this twofold conceit of the self that sustains the march of the world. If that, however, were non-existent, there would be no march of the world, nor even the experi- ence of the oneness of Brahman and the self, because of the non-existence of the means thereto, viz., hearing, reflection etc. That is thus said : " because of the sublation of son, body etc." When the secondary self is non-existent, there is sub- lation of son, wife etc .; that is to say, the non-existence of the sense of "mine". When the illusory self is non-existent, there is the sublation of body, organ etc., as also the sublation of hearing etc. And thence, there is not alone the destruction of the march of the world; "the enlighten- ment that I am of the nature of the real Brahman, this thing to be done" which is of the nature of an awakening, that is to say, the intuition of non-duality, that too, "how can (it) come about"? Whence its impossi- bility ? To this he says: "Prior to the cognition of the self that is to be sought, there is knowership for the self." This (knowership) is a synecdoche; the distinction

244 HARMONY

of valid knowledge, object of valid knowledge and means of valid knowledge is also to be understood. This is what is said : this distinction, indeed, is the cause of the intuition of non-duality, since it invariably precedes it; therefore, when that is non-existent, the effect is not produced. Nor is the self to be sought other than the knowing self; thus he says: "What is to be sought is the knower alone, as free from sin, defect etc." The illustra- tion of the necklet round one's neck has, indeed, been stated. Be this so. From what is non-valid, how can there be the origination of the absolutely real experience of non- duality ? To this he says: "As the cognition of the self in the body is assumed to be valid knowledge, even so is this empirically valid knowledge (assumed to be valid)." The terminus of this he states: "up to the ascertainment of the self"; up to the intuition of the nature of Brahman ; this is the sense. This is what is said; even by those who maintain the absolute reality of the world, it must be said that the conceit of the self in the body etc. is illusory, since it is sublated by valid knowledge. And of this it should be admitted that it is the cause of all valid knowledge, and that it sustains the real march of the world. This is the mode for us too in respect of the intuition of non-duality. Nor is this intuition of non-duality, a particular psychosis of the internal organ, absolutely and invariably real.130 As for that intuition which is real, that is not something to be done, since it is of the nature of Brahman. As for Nescience,

समल्वय: २४४

साक्षात्कारकारणम्, ततो नियमेन प्राग्भावात् ; तेन तदभावे कार्य नोत्पद्यत इति। न च प्रमातुरात्मनोऽन्वेष्टव्य आत्मान्य इत्याह-अन्विष्टः स्यात्प्रमातैव पाप्मदोषादिवर्जितः। उक्तं हि ग्रीवास्थग्रैवेयकनिदर्शनम्। स्यादेतत्। अप्रमाणात्कथं पारमार्थिकाद्वै- तानुभवोत्पत्तिरित्यत आह -देहात्मप्रत्ययो यद्वत्प्रमाणत्वेन कल्पितः। लौकिकं तद्व- देवेदं प्रमाणं तु। अस्यावधिमाह-आ आत्म- निश्चयात् ; आ ब्रह्मस्वरूपसाक्षात्कारादित्यर्थः । एतदुक्तं भवति-पारमार्थिकप्रपश्चवादिभिरपि देहा- दिष्वात्माभिमानो मिथ्येति वक्तव्यम्, प्रमाण- बाधितत्वात्। तस्य च समस्तप्रमाणकारणत्वं भाविकलोकयात्रावाहित्वं चाभ्युपेयम्। सेयमस्मा- कमप्यद्वैतसाक्षात्कारे विधा भविष्यति। न चाय- मद्दैतसाक्षात्कारोऽप्यन्तःकरणवृत्तिभेद एकान्ततः परमार्थः। यस्तु साक्षात्कारो भाविकः, नासौ कार्य:, तस्य ब्रह्मस्वरूपत्वात्। अविद्या तु

62

२४५ समन्वय: यद्यविद्यामुच्छिन्दाज्जनयेद्वा, न तत्र काचिद्नु- पपत्तिः । तथा च श्रुति :- विद्यां चाविद्यां च यस्तद्ेदोभयं सह। अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विद्ययामृतमश्नुते॥ इति। तस्मात्सर्वमवदातम् ।।

इति चतुःसूत्री समाप्ता।

HARMONY 245

whether it destroy or generate (other) Nescience, there is no unintelligibility whatever. So too says Scripture: "Knowledge and Nescience, he, who knows both together, passing byond death by Nescience, enjoys immortality through Knowledge." 140 ' Hº Therefore, everything is clear.

HERE ENDS THE CATUH-SŪTRĪ-BHĀMATĪ

NOTES

PAGE 2

1. Vacaspati, like Padmapāda, the author of the Pañcapadika, recognises two kinds of Nescience. These are the karaņā-'vidyā and the karya-'vidyas. The former is beginningless; the latter too are beginningless, but in the same sense as a continuous stream. Kāraņā-'vidyā is one, on the view of some, but not according to Vacaspati. Another name for it is mula-'vidya. As contrasted with it, the others are called tula-'vidyas or avastha-'jnanas, modal ignorances. See further, Introduction, section V. 2. The world, movable and immovable, has to be created through Hiranyagarbha, and thus requires greater effort than the elements; hence their comparison to the smile, which requires greater effort than a mere glance: so says the Kalpataru. 3. This is a joint salutation to the Vedas and to Paramasiva, whom Vacaspati would appear to identify with the Saguna-Brahman, possibly following the lead of Sankara; see the Sivadvaitanirņaya, para 3. 233, and the paras immediately preceding. The six angas of the Veda are phonetics, prosody, etymology, grammar, astrology and ritual; the avyayas (indeclinables) like the particle ca (meaning 'and') are innumerable. The six angas of Paramasiva (Bhava) are omniscience,

248 NOTES [Pp. 2-3, N. 4-7

contentment, eternal wisdom, independence, eternal illimi- table resources, and unimaginable power; the avyayas (imperishable properties) are ten: knowledge, non- attachment, lordly power, austerity, truth, mercy, firmness, creatorship, self-knowledge and controllership: thus the Kalpataru. 4. Amalānanda takes this expression to refer to a deity fond of sesamum. From a verse quoted in the Kalpataru the word "Martanda " would seem to refer to the Sun. Das Gupta says Tilakasvāmin is another name for Kārttikeya or Skanda (see HIP, II, 107); in this identification, he has also the support of the Rjuprakāsika. 5. Secondary Creator (apara-vedhas). Vyāsa is said to be so, because of a boon granted to him, in common with Daksa and others, in virtue of which they are known as Prajapatis (creators). The Rjuprakāsika justifies the attribution of creatorship to Vyasa on the ground of bis being an incarnation of Visnu's cognitive energy, as stated in the Puranas; the second line of the verse would thus be a justification of the second half of the first line. 6. The bhasya of Sankara is clear to outward appearance; but the depth of thought revealed on analysis shows its might and majesty.

PAGE 3

7. I.e., condition or cause ; fire is the pervader and smoke the pervaded (vyapya). That which is more extensive (adhika-desa-vrtti) is the pervader, and that wbich is less extensive (nyuna-des'a-vrtti) is the pervaded. They are, of course, co-extensive, where the relation is reciprocal. The pervader in the present case is the

Pp. 4-8, N. 8-14] NOTES 249

condition of the inquiry, i.e., lack of knowledge plus the existence of profit from the knowledge. 8. That is to say, the body whereon the attributes of the self have been superimposed.

PAGE 4

9. The intellect is the determinative faculty; certitude belongs to it, while doubt belongs to the mind (manas). It is essential to remember that all these psychical factors are in their own nature unconscious.

PAGE 5

10. The usage "You are myself " does exist, but it is very rare; hence the word "extensive " is used advisedly.

PAGE 6

11. That is to say, present it (avabhasayanti) as of the same nature as themselves : Rjuprakāsikā. 12. What is here meant is the cognition of the one being of the nature of the other (itaretaratva-pratitih), not the actual identity of the one with the other. The latter is never doubted and its non-existence needs no proof.

PAGE 7

13. For the superimposition of attributes there must be either superimposition of their substrates or snch a relationship between the latter that one may reflect the other. Neither of these being possible as between subject and object, whence the superimposition of attributes ? The quotation is from the Slokavarttika, V, 39 (p. 280).

PAGE 8 14. Knowledge through perception necessarily comes before knowledge through any other means, such as

250 NOTES [Pp. 9-10, N. 15-18

inference etc., and certainly long before knowledge through verbal testimony. Herein consists the priority (jyestatva) of perception. Further, words can convey knowledge only when they are perceived. For his arguments in meeting this contention, Vacaspati is indebted to Mandana Misra; see the Brahmasiddhi, pp. 39-41, esp. p. 41. The example given for the origination of valid knowledge from what is empirically, but not absolutely, real may be paralleled by the difference of significance brought about by emphasis. Emphasis does not belong to the nature of the words; but when imposed on different words in a sentence, the sense of the sentence differs; the difference in sense is validly apprehended, though resulting from what is superimposed. PAGE 9 15. This is a statement of Sabarasvamin. The "other " is the implied sense (laksyārtha). 16. PM, VI, v, 54. The archetypal rite is that all of whose subsidiaries have been explicitly laid down by Scrip- ture. There are other rites modelled on these; they are called vikrtis; their subsidiaries are as a rule taken over from the injunctions as to the prakrti rite. Where, however, a particular subsidiary has been laid down for the vikrti, the corresponding subsidiary from the prakrti will not be taken over; the subsequent prescription in the vikrti sublates the earlier injunction in the prakrti. Thus, the prescrip- tion of kusa grass as an auxiliary in the prakrti is sublated when there is an express prescription of sara in the vikrti. 17. Tantravarttika, p. 819.

PAGE 10

18. The word " agnihotra " is the name of a particular rite, an obligatory rite. There is another rite called the

Pp. 11-13, N. 19-22] NOTES 251

"kundapayinam ayana" which is not obligatory, though the injunction in that regard uses the word "agnihotra ". The object of using this word is to indicate not the identity of the rites, but the need for transferring from the obliga- tory rite all such subsidiaries as are not expressly laid down for the other. On the whole topic see PM, I, iv, 4; II, iii, 24; and VII, iii, 1-4.

PAGE 11

19. That is, in the cognition "I am in this very abode, but cognising".

PAGE 13

20. There is no cognition of the form "I am the body "; but the cognition "I" is none the less due to the erroneous identification of the self with the non-self; that is why it is said that the identification is a fact, though not present in cognition. 21. The Sanskrit "adhyasya vyavaharab " involves the use of the participial suffix (-ktva) in "adhyasya" (superimposing). This is justifiable only where there is a common agent for both activities. See Paņini: 3.4.21. Vacaspati says there is this justification. 22. While Vacaspati identifies mithyajnana with adhyasa, treating prior superimpositions as the causes of subsequent ones, Padmapada sees here a reference to the primal cosmic ignorance. He splits up the compound into mithyā and ajñana. There are undoubtedly diffi- culties in treating Primal Nescience as a cause; see the Introduction. The author of the Vivarana, a commentary on the Pañcapadika, justifies Padmapada's explanation on the ground that to allege superimposition as the cause 63

252 NOTES [Pp. 15-18, N. 23-25

of superimposition would be to commit the fallacy of self-dependence (atmasraya). But as Mandana and Vacas- pati are never tired of pointing out, full intelligibility is just what one may not expect in the case of Nescience; non-intelligibility is constitutive of its very nature.

PAGE 15

23. The bhasya says that the empirical usage (vyavaharah) is natural and beginningless. But if that were so, it could not have a cause Hence, the beginning- lessness should be taken really to qualify the cause, viz. superimposition. But this is itself an effect of prior superimpositions. How, then, can that be said to have no beginning? The reply is that what is here intended is not the absence of any beginning, but the absence of any beginning that may be said to be the first; in other words, we have a continuous process like that of a perennial stream. Such beginninglessness is called kārya-'nāditva or pravaha-'naditva, as contrasted with svarupa-'naditva, such as belongs to the jiva, Isvara, Pure Intelligence, the difference between the jiva and Isvara, Nescience, and its relation to Intelligence. 24. According to Vacaspati, sattā (reality) consists in unsublated self-luminosity. The other views, e.g. the inherence of reality as a genus, and practical efficiency, are maintained by the Naiyayikas and cannot appeal to the advaitin for the reasons mentioned, viz. the introduc- tion of duality and the infinite regress involved.

PAGE 18

25. This view (or something very much like it) comes in for criticism at the hands of Kavitārkika

P. 18, N. 26-27] NOTES 253

Cakravarti Nrsimha Bhattopadhyāya, of whom we know nothing beyond the summary given of his views in the first chapter of the Siddhantalesasangraha. The point of the criticism is this : does the yellow, which goes forth with the rays of light, pervade the object ? If it does not, there is no possibility of its superimposition; if it does, then, even others who are near by should perceive the shell to be yellow, as if it were gilded. What the Cakravarti is criticising is the notion of two psychoses in an illusion, one cognising the "this" and the other the "yellow " or the "silver"; neither the existence nor the functioning of two such psychoses is intelligible, according to him. It is not clear from the Bhamatī whether Vacaspati recognises two psychoses, though his language suggests such recognition; but Appayya Dikşita who briefly refers in the Parimala to the Cakravartin's criticism, makes out that it applies only to the Tārkikas. 26. An interesting question in relation to this experience is "whence the previous experience of bitterness for an infant, who has not yet tasted anything bitter, but turns away from the mother's milk, because of the delusion caused by biliousness that it is bitter?" One explanation is that the bitterness is imported from the experiences of a prior life. Cf. SLS., pp. 204-205 (Kumbakonam edition). 27. There has been more than one theory of reflection in advaita philosophy. Vacaspati seems to hold in common with Padmapada and the Vivaranacarya that the image which appears to be apprehended is but the original face. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the original itself is apprehended but in a

254 NOTES [P. 18, N. 27

different place or the original that is present in its own proper place. Padmapada holds the former view and says that those who maintain the latter are patently contradicted by experience (see the Pancapādika, p. 23). The latter view is that maintained by Vacaspati, and must be part of his inheritance from another, possibly Mandana, as otherwise it could not have come in for criticism even in Padmapada's days. The Bhūmatt view is that the reflected rays go back to the original image where it is and apprehend it, but not as where it is. In support of the view that what is apprehended is the original image itself, the Vivaranacarya points to the form of the sublating cognition "The face is not there" not "The face is not". As regards Vacaspati's own exposition, Appayya Diksita rightly remarks in the Parimala that the element of "non-apprehension of the location of the original" is not essential to all reflection, since it is absent from the cognition of the reflection of a tree, for instance, which may co-exist with the cognition of the tree where it is really located. The doctrine that the rays from the sense of sight are turned back by the stronger rays of the sun does not seem to be shared by the Vivaranacarya, who says they are turned back by the reflecting medium, the mirror etc. Neither version of the theory, of course, corresponds to the modern physicist's notion of reflection, according to which the rays of the sun or other illuminant are reflected, not rays from the sense of sight. The most powerful criticism of the theory that the reflected image is identical with the original comes from the Advaita- vidyacārya (probably Rangaraja Dīkșita, Appayya's father) who holds that the reflected image is a fictitious

P. 19, N. 28-30] NOTES 255

creation of Nescience, like the water of the mirage. These are some of the points urged by him. (i) It is not true that there is no notion of an independent face in the mirror. Children and other unsophisticated persons take the reflection to be an independent entity. (ii) The reflection does not have the properties of the original. The reflection of the sun does not burn, nor does the reflection of the moon cool. (iii) When we look at a calm sheet of water, we see not merely the reflections of our faces, but also the sandy bed. The only possible explanation is that some rays from the sense of sight pass through the reflecting medium while others are turned back. Whence this difference in the strength of the rays? Again, the rays which are admittedly weaker than water and are consequently turned back therefrom, are yet said to be stronger than the much stronger rays of the sun, so that they go up to the solar orb and enable us to see its reflection in the water! See further SLS., pp. 268-280 (Kumbakonam edition).

PAGE 19

28. "gandharva-nagara" is a delusion of cities, buildings etc., seen in the clouds. 29. It is said that the eye treated with the vasa (a bilious substance) from a frog, sees a bamboo as a snake and the colour of a snake in the colour of the bamboo. See the relevant portion of the Kalpataru and the Parimala thereon. 30. "maruşu marīcika-nicayam" is literally a body of son's rays (shining) over a desert (and giving the appearance of water); it is therefore rendered here as "mirage". The Rjuprakasika takes "uccavacam"

256 NOTES [Pp. 20-21, N. 31-33

(understood in our translation to mean " high and low" as qualifying "waves ") along with "maricika-nicayam," the whole compound meaning "the unspeakably intense rays of the sun shining over a desert"; according to this commentary "uccavacam " means "vacam agocaram " or "atyadhikam".

PAGE 20

31. "bhava-'ntaram abhavo hi." This part of the line occurs in the Slokavarttika, p. 566, where, however, it is follbwed by "purastat pratipaditah " not by "kayacit tu vyapekşaya". The whole line as here quoted occurs in the Vibhramaviveka of Mandana Misra (see v. 129, p. 14, Madras edition). It is not unlikely that Vacaspati's own quotation is from Mandana.

PAGE 21

32. Cp. kārya-kāraņa-bhāvād vă svabhāvād vā niyāmakāt avinabhava-niyamo 'darsanan na na darsanat. 33. The verse is from the Slokavarttika, p. 476. This view of Kumarila, which treats existence and non- existence as co-existent aspects of everything, is to be distinguished from the view of Prabhakara, which denies any kind of reality to non-existence, since the non- existence of anything, say a pot, is nothing more than the bare locus, i.e., the ground itself. The line "bhava- 'ntaram abhāvo 'nyo na kascid anirūpaņāt" seems to some extent to be reminiscent of this view; and it is not infrequently mistaken for an expression of the Prabhakara view; see, for instance, D. M. Datta, The Six Ways of Knowing, p. 160 and the foot-note. The ascription,

Pp. 22-32, N. 34-39] NOTES 257

however, is erroneous, since that line is Kumarila's descrip- tion of his own position. See the Slokavārttika, p. 245; also the Vibhramaviveka, v. 127, p. 14, where this line is cited in the exposition of the Varttika-kara's own position.

PAGE 22

34. See Note 33.

PAGE 25

35. Expressions like "long-lived one " and "beloved of the Gods " are applied to the opponent, more particularly to the Buddhist, sarcastically, to indicate his folly.

PAGE 27

36. "True," that is, literally, "correspond to their objects." Correspondence for the Naiyayikas and for the Prabhakaras (whose view is set forth in the present passage) seems to have meant nothing more than "practical effici- ency". It is difficult to determine whether the Naiyayikas ever understood it to mean "resemblance" and could be characterised as representationists.

PAGE 30

37. For the criticism of akhyati-vada Cp. the Brahma- siddhi, pp. 136-147, esp. p. 137.

PAGE 31

38. Bhasmaka, morbid appetite due to over-digestion ; seems to have been known as Yanaittt in Tamil; Cp. Maņi- mēkalai, patikam, line 66.

PAGE 32

39. The Nyūyakanika is Vacaspati's Commentary on Mandana's Vidhiviveka. Amalananda in the relevant part

258 NOTES [Pp. 34-36, N. 40-41

of the Kalpataru gives a summary of Vacaspati's arguments in the Nyayakanika. The main argument is this. Truth is self-evident, not made known by constancy of the cogni- tion to its object. If cognition does require constancy, for what purpose does it need it-for the presentation of the object cognised or for successful practical activity ? Not the first, since cognition does not arise first and then present the object; rather does it arise as the presentation of an object. Nor the second; for, in order to apprebend con- stancy, practical officiency etc. should be first appre- hended. Is this effected by another cognition ? Then the constancy of that cognition comes in question and we have an infinite regress. If another cognition be not needed for the second cognition, validity would be ascertained neither for that cognition nor for the first cognition, de- pendent thereon for its validity. And if the validity of the second cognition be self-evident, why not that of the first as well ? The Brahmatattvasamīksa referred to three lines later is Vacaspati's commentary on the Brahmasiddhi of Maņdana.

PAGE 34

40. The Rjuprakāsikā reads "ātmā 'jado" taking the two words "self" and "non-inert" in apposition, so that the sentence means: "If it is manifest, it stands to reason that the self, which is non-inert, is not, like pot etc., manifested in dependence on another."

PAGE 36

41. That is to say, we are left only with the fact of the relatedness of consciousness to objects and the self;

Pp. 38-45, N. 42-47] NOTES 259

and with this we got no further forward, as the analogy of the ignorant father and the scholarly son still applies.

PAGE 38

42. For, then, the plurality of reflections of the sun would introduce difference into the sun. It is to be noted that this demonstration of self-luminosity is offered by the objector, with a view to show the impossibility of superimposition.

PAGE 41

43. Chūnd., VI, iii, 2. 44. There is a continuous stream of superimposition, wherein jiva-hood and object-ness (visayatva) alternate, without the defect of reciprocal dependence. The content of an earlier superimposition may be jiva-hood; and this jīva may become the object of the next superimposition.

PAGE 42

45. S'vet., VI, 14. 46. "Praudhi-vada" is sometimes rendered as "an extravagant argument". It is in the nature of a supple- mentary argument, which proceeds by conceding the op- ponent's assumptions though really untenable as sug- gested by its synonym. It has no strict relevance to the main thesis as its establishment. Thus the denial of God in the Samkhya Sutras is said by Vijnana Bhikșu to be a "praudhi-vada".

PAGE 45

47. That the inner self, which is pure intelligence, is different from intellect etc., this is what is to be 64

260 NOTES [P. 49, N. 48

apprehended ; this apprehension constitutes the final cogni- tion, which is of the same class of reality as what is removed thereby, though it is of a higher degree in that it requires nothing else for its own removal. The rise of this cognition is of itself the removal of Nescience, since nothing else remains to be acquired or done for this removal. But even the final cognition is other than the knowledge which is the self; it only helps to reveal the latter, through remov- ing the obscuration caused by Nescience; hence that cognition may be spoken of as "knowledge" only deri- vatively or secondarily.

PAGE 49

48. The reading in all printed texts is "pravartate," though "pravartante " seems obviously to be called for. As the text stands, the meaning would seem to be "why should he (the knower) not function of himself"? But it is evident both from what follows and from the com- mentaries that it is the functioning of the senses and of the pramanas generally which is here in question. The reading 'pravartante" has been adopted in the present text on the strength of two MSS. in the Adyar Library : 30 L 22 (Ģrantha script) and 40 B 19 (Malayalam script). It is interesting to note that the Kalpataru takes the second question to relate to a different objector and not to be merely explanatory of the first question. The first question is " why should the knower utilise the pramanas ?" The atmanepada in "upadatte" implies that the utilisation is for his own benefit. The obvious complement of that question is "why should not the pramanas function for his benefit without being utilised by him ?" This would be the question of a follower of the Sankhya, according to which, primal

Pp. 50-53, N. 49-50] NOTES 261

nature functions of itself in the presence of Spirit, for the benefit of Spirit. But there is another possibility-that prakrti and its evolutes may function, not for any one's benefit, but just because it is their nature. The second question is based on this possibility. This interpretation, says the author of the Abhoga, is justified, nay demanded, by the force of "eva" in "svayam eva kasmat" etc. One may also note in this connection that, while for Vacaspati adhișthanam (in the Bhașya) means "controller" Padmapada, Ānandagiri and Govindānanda take it to mean "locus". The sentence in the Bhasya would thus mean : "and without the locus of the senses (that is to say, the body) there is no functioning."

PAGE 50

49. The words of the Bhasya "And without a knower" etc. imply also "and without valid knowledge ". The need for a knower who can control the pramanas has been already explained, and there is no need to repeat it. What is shown here is the need for superim- position, because of the nature of valid knowledge, vi :. , the combination of intelligence and non-intelligence (cid- acid-rūpa-garbhiņi).

PAGE 53

50. PM, III, vii, 18. The question is whether the sacrificer (yajamana) should personally engage in each act of sacrificial ritual, including all subsidiaries or whether it will suffice if he makes the dedication of the sacrificial material. The prima facie view is that the sacrificer should himself engage in all the rites, since the fruit is declared to go to him; and the

262 NOTES [Pp. 56-62, N. 51-53

fruit necessarily goes to that agent who is implied by the activity of engaging in the rites. The final view is that the services of the officiating priests (rtviks) have been formally purchased by the yajamana and that this purchase would be futile if the yajamana had to perform all the rites himself. The aphorism cited here is the statement of the prima facie view ; but in both views, the fruit is understood to go to him who engages in activity for its sake ; and this is all that is intended to be illustrated here.

PAGE 56

51. Cp. Brahmasiddhi, p. 43. There are three expect- ancies for every operation prompted by an injunction: what is to be accomplished ? wherewith ? and how ? In the case of the syena or hawk sacrifice (so called because it injures the enemy even as quickly as a hawk would pluck out the enemy's eyes) injury to the enemy is what is to be accomplished. But this cannot be in the last resort a Scripture-ordained end, since it conflicts with the prohibition of injury to all beings. It is at best a Scripture-permitted end. One of the expectancies, there- fore, is not fulfilled from an absolute point of view. Despite this, the injunction of the hawk sacrifice is observed by those who are eligible for it, i.e. those who have not conquered anger.

PAGE 61

52. PM, I, ii, 40.

PAGE 62

53. "The inner self alone is their principal sense." The word mukhya-'rthah would ordinarily mean "primary"

P. 65,, N. 54] NOTES 263

or "expressed " as opposed to "secondary" or "implied sense". The inner self, however, is not the primary or expressed sense of the words " That " and "thou " in " That thou art". Hence, the word mukhya here means nothing more than "non-figurative"; see the Rjuprakāsika.

PAGE 65

54. "daņdī preșān anvāha." Scripture says "maitrā- varuņah presati ca 'nvaha ca." While the adhvaryu actually offers the oblations, the maitra-varuna has the task of preparing them and the hotr priests have the function of calling on the deities to come up as soon as the offerings are ready. On the adhvaryu satisfying himself from the maitra-varuna that the offerings are ready, the latter, with the former's consent, gives permission to the hotr priests, in the formula "asravaya," to call the deities. When the invitation has been made, that fact is communicated to the adhvaryu by the maitra-varuņa in the formula "astu srausat". The first of these formulæ is called the praisa and the second the anuvacana. That the uttering of both of these belongs to the maitra-varuņa results from the text already mentioned. When, therefore, it is said later "dandi presan anvaha (the priest with the baton chants the permission and the reply)," this should be taken to be a restatement in respect of the chanter and the chanting, being injunctive only in respect of the qualification of having a baton. If the emphasis were not on the baton, the statement would be wholly futile. Hence the importance of what is not primary in the sentence. But this is not so in the case of " brahma-jijnasa ".

264 NOTES [Pp. 66-74, N. 55-60

PAGE 66

55. "man-badha" etc .; see Paņini, III, i, 6. This aphorism says that the stems mentioned, viz., man, badha etc., undergo a duplication and a lengthening of the initial consonant. Thus, from man we get maman; this, in accordance with another rule, becomes miman; and this with san-suffix, which, however, does not mean "desire" in the present case, becomes mimamsa.

PAGE 70

56. PM, I, i, 1.

PAGE 73

57. YS,, I, 14. 58. Brh., IV, iv, 21. 59. Manusmrti, VI, 35. The three obligations are (1) to the Gods, (discharged by sacrifices), (2) to the fathers, (discharged by the creation of progeny), and (3) to the sages, (discharged by study of the Veda and observance of brahmacharya). The two smrtis cited a few lines earlier are respectively Manu, II, 28 and Gautama, VIII, 22. On the whole subject of the relation of karma to jñāna Cp. Brahmasiddhi, pp. 27-37.

PAGE 74

60. "samyoga-prthaktva " is literally a two-foldness (i.e., a difference) of relation. The subsidiary happens to be in two relations, one with the rite of which it is a necessary part, and the other with the fruit specifically enjoined. E.g., there are two texts "khadire pasum badhnati (he is to tie the beast to the ebony stake)" and "khādiram vīryakāmasya yūpam karoti (he who

P. 75, N. 61-63] NOTES 265

desires virility is to make the stake of ebony)". As subserving the sacrifice, ebony would be a constant factor thereof; but, as subserving the desire for virility, it would be a variable factor. There is no inconsistency in the same subsidiary having this twofold relation (sam- yoga-prthaktva). 61. Ved. Su., III, iv, 32. It is worth noting that Mandana's interpretation of the horse-analogy is both distinctive and interesting. He who wants to go quickly gets hold of a horse, though he can otherwise foot the distance. The use of ritual is analogous to the service rendered by a horse ; see Brahmasiddhi, pp. 36-37. 62. Proximate and remote contributories " are the results of two varieties of auxiliaries, which are distinguish- ed as they subserve the rite and indirectly the fruit, or the fruit alone directly, not the rite; the fruit being distant in time, what subserves that alone is said to be a remote auxiliary (ārādupakāraka); what subserves the rite directly, e.g., the material used or to be used, is a proximate contri- butory (sannipatya- or samavāyika-upakāraka). Where the subsidiaries of a rite are expressly mentioned by Scripture, they are said to be obtained by direct teaching (upadesa); where, however, they have to be derived from another rite which is its model, they are said to be obtained by transfer (atidesa). For a full list of subsidiaries (angani) see Mīmāmsu-nyaya-prakasa, (Edgerton) : sections 182-191. See list of corrections.

PAGE 75

63. The agneya and two other rites constitute the darseșți; similarly the agneya with still two other rites constitutes the paurnamasesti. The two groups of three

266 NOTES [P. 78, N. 64-65

bring about heaven as the ultimate fruit. But since this fruit comes after much delay, while the rites perish as soon as they are performed, an unseen potency (apūrva) has to be assumed; this is produced by the rites and it in turn produces heaven. But each rite does not produce heaven; it is only the six rites together with their subsidiaries that produce that result; each of these perishable rites, however, should produce an apurva, while the ultimate result, heaven, is the result of an apurva which is final (parama-'purva) and to which all the other apūrvas (known as utpatty-apūrvas) contri- bute. Now, the samit is the name of one of the rites subsidiary to the three main rites of the darsa or paurņamasesti; it produces its own apūrva which is contributory to the parama-'purva generated by the agneya etc. It is only in order that the agneya etc. may produce their fruit, that the due performance of the samit etc. and the generation of their appropriate apurvas are necessary. But it is possible to perform the agneya etc. even without performing the samit etc. In the case of the purodasa, the sacrificial cake made of rice flour, we have a different relationship ; in the absence of purodasa, the agneya etc. could not be performed; these depend on the purodasa for their very existence, not merely for their fruitfulness. 64. The mortar in which the rice-grains for the sacrificial cake are pounded is purified by sprinkling.

PAGE 78

65. For the school of Mandana and Vacaspati, verbal testimony is not of itself a means of immediate know- ledge. The internal organ (which, according to them, is a

P. 78, N. 65] NOTES 267

sense-organ) intuites the real, as aided by knowledge gained through testimony, reasoning thereon and so on. As against this, the Vivarana school holds that knowledge through verbal testimony may of itself be immediate. An example given of this is the statement "Thou art the tenth" addressed to the proverbial party of ten fools who, on crossing a river, reckoned up their total number as nine, each enumerator leaving himself out of the counting. When the enumerator is pointed to by an outsider with the words "Thou art the tenth " there arises the full and immediate certitude of his being the tenth man and of the whole party being safe. Verbal testimony would thus seem to be a cause of immediate knowledge. The follow- ing free rendering of a passage from the Kalpataru will be of interest in this connection: "This is the idea. Of Brahman, though of itself immediate, mediacy is apprehend- ed because of delusion. Hence, the intuition thereof can be only through a means of valid immediate cognition. And since the internal organ generates in the conditioned self the immediate psychosis of 'I,' that (organ) is established to be the cause of immediate cognition in the self. That (organ), however, as aided by the succession of cognitions of the unity of Brahman and the self, intuites in the case of the jiva its being of the nature of Brahman, which is secondarily implied by the word 'That,' in the same way as the sense of sight aided by the retenta of prior experience is the cause of the recognition of the oneness implied by 'that-ness' and 'this-ness' (in the recognition ' This is that Devadatta'). But verbal testimony is not settled to be the cause of valid immediate cognition. If cognition were intuitive because of the object cognised being capable of immediacy (as is maintained by some 65

268 NOTES [P. 78, N. 66

advaitins, e.g., the author of the Istasiddhi), that (immediacy) would result even for the inference whose content is the difference between the body and the self. Even in the case of 'Thou art the tenth,' the intuition results only from the sense-organ as aided by that (statement). Further, the immediate cognition generated by contemplation of the knowledge resulting from the Vedantas cannot be delusive, because of the strength of the basic means of knowledge (i.e., Scripture). Nor does it follow that validity is extrin- sic; for, confirmation by the basic means of knowledge is sought (only) to remove the suspicion of invalidity. This has to be admitted because of such texts supported by rea- soning as 'But it is seen by the concentrated intellect'. Cognition from verbal testimony arises only in the form 'that which is directly immediate,' not in the form 'Brahman is mediate'; yet, the cognition remains mediate, because of the nature of the instrument (verbal testimony), and is not delusive; thus, everything is clear." Cp. Brahmasiddhi, p. 134. One is tempted to think that between the two rival views, there is but a distinction without a difference. Even where verbal testimony is held to cause immediate cognition, the object, it is said, should be proximate or immediate. May not this proximity mean proximity to a sense-organ, i.e., the mind ? 66. According to Vacaspati, what is veiled by Nescience is the conditioned Brahman; for, the uncondi- tioned is flawless; it can be neither veiled nor revealed. What is revealed by the final intuition must, therefore, also be the conditioned Brahman. In veiling and in manifestation there is the relation of content and container, and what enters into any relation cannot be the un- conditioned. But at the stage of the final cognition

P. 82, N. 67-68] NOTES 269

the conditioning is such that the condition does not appear; the pure Brahman itself seems to appear; the condition is the psychosis, which, as has been said, is itself on the brink of destruction. This condition operates by its very existence, constituting an exception to the general rule that a condition operates as such only when known to be such. See further the Kalpataru on this topic. Here, again, the difference between the Bhamati and Vivarana schools tends to be verbal rather than material; for, the distinction is difficult to make out between what is said to be the intuition of pure Brahman and what is said to be the intuition of the conditioned Brahman, but without any awareness of the condition or the conditioning.

PAGE 82

67. The expression "bhinna-karmata " means the per- formance of action suited to those who are different, i.e., who have not the conceit of being human beings ; actions, in other words, which are suitable to beasts etc. It has been translated rather freely as "transgression of the law". 68. Vacaspati's account of release while embodied (jIvan-mukti) is not very satisfactory. In the present exposition he seems to hold to the view of Mandana (Cp. the Brahmasiddhi, p. 130), that the so-called perfected saint is not wholly perfect; he is only a sadhaka, not & siddha. But later on, in commenting on IV, i, 15, Vacaspati echoes Sankara and maintains expressly that the jivan-mukta is a siddha, not a sadhaka. He also stands there for the continuance of a part of Nescience, in the form of prarabdha-karma, while in the present context, he postulates, like Mandana, the continuance of

270 NOTES [Pp. 83-84, N. 69-71

impressions alone. As noted in the Introduction, to postulate the continuance of a body is not the same as to postulate continuance of the conceit of identity with the body. If the latter be a necessary element of jivan-mukti, it would indeed be difficult to avoid Ramanuja's criticism that the assertion of jivan-mukti is like the son's assertion of his mother's barrenness. Vacaspati's ingenious explanation of how prohibitions, though not prescriptions, hold good in the case of the jivan-mukta has obvious leanings towards Mandana's doctrine that jivan-mukti is at best figurative, a predication based on the close proximity of final release. The more usual explanation is that the psycho-physical mechanism of the released self is so attuned that it cannot possibly go wrong. This is simpler and perhaps more satisfactory. That Vacaspati is far from consistent will be apparent from what he says under II, iii, 48 (p. 626):"For him, however, who knows the difference from everything beginning with the intellect, for him who is devoid of the conceit of the enjoyership of karma, there is no eligibility in respect of karma. And thus, there is not (for him) acting as he likes, since, for him who is devoid of conceit, there is not even that." This is very different from the position that prohibitions are binding, because they do not call for an act of faith in the same manner as prescriptions. 69. Bhagavad-Gitā, XVII, 28.

PAGE 83

70. Kaivalya Upa., I, 3; Mahānārāyaņa, XII, 28.

PAGE 84

71. Satapatha Brahmaņa XI, ii, 6, 13.

Pp. 85-88, N. 72-761 NOTES 271

72. Mund., III, i, 8.

PAGE 85

73. Bhagavad-Gitā, VI, 3.

PAGE 86

74. Jābūla., 4. 75. Jara-marya-vada etc. When one is about to die of old age (or illness for the matter of that), an expiatory ceremony (prayascitta) is prescribed ; this is what is meant by the prescription about jara-marana. The cremation of dead bodies is also a prescribed rite; this is what is referred to in the words "being reduced to ashes". In the case of those who have performed sacrifices during their life-time, the son is enjoined to perform a final sacrifice (antyeșți). Jara (old age) is synecdochic for illness and the like as well. There seems to have been a reading "jara-marya- 'rthavada," which is explained by the Rjuprakāsika to mean that which is enjoined (vădhyate=vidhiyate) in the case of (=arthe) death due to old age etc.

PAGE 88

76. Sequence may be settled by direct statement (sruti), sense (artha), the order of mention in the texts (patha), the position of that whose seguence is to be settled (sthana), the sequence adopted in the principal (mukhya), or the sequence adopted in the first procedure (pravrtti). The first of these is, of course, the clearest indication. Direct statement may be by the participial -ktva suffix, as in "Having become & householder (grhi bhutva), he is to become a forest-dweller" etc. It has been said in the text (of the Bhamatt) that such sequence

272 NOTES [P. 88, N. 76

is sublated by the disregard of sequence in "Or, if otherwise, let him renounce from the student's order of life " and so on. The next determinant of sequence is artha. The text about the preparation of barley gruel occurs after that about the performance of agnihotra. Since the latter requires some material, and barley gruel appears to be the material, it would be natural to prepare this before performing the oblation. Those who stick to the order of mention would, however, maintain that the oblation should come first, some other material being assumed therefor and that the preparation of the gruel should be assumed to have some other unseen result. This involves the abandonment of the visible material and the visible result and the assumption of something invisible in both cases. Rather than incur this defect of prolixity (gaurava), it is preferable to recognise the sequence warranted by the sense (artha) and prepare the gruel first so that it may be offered in the agnihotra. The next determinant is the order of mention (pațha). The darsa-purnamasa consists of six rites, three to be performed at the fullmoon and three at the new moon. They are (1) the agneya, the agnisomiya, and the anubandhya, and (2) the agneya, the aindram dadhi and the aindram payah. For either set of three, there is a set of subsidiaries called fore-sacrifices (prayaja). These are mentioned in the following order: "samido yajati, tanūnapātam yajati, ido yajati, barhir yajati, svahakaram yajati." Should they be performed in this order alone or in any other? The answer is that since the names of these rites occur to the mind in the order of mention, they should be performed in that order.

P. 88, N. 76] NOTES 273

They are learnt in that order, in accordance with the injunction to study one's Veda; and the texts serve the purpose not only of making known the rites, but also of recalling them to mind for the sake of their observance. Of the Jyotistoma as archetypal rite, there is a modification called the sadhyaskra, in which all the three animals,-the agnişomiya, the savaniya and the anu- bandhya-have to be offered up on the same day, not on three different days, as in the archetype. On which day, then, are they all to be offered ? On the second day -- the day to which the savaniya animal belongs in the archetype-after collecting the soma in the cup dedicated to the Asvins. For, in this way, each of the other animals is moved out of its place by one day alone; whereas in any other way, there would be a disturbance of two days for one or other of the animals. And on the second day, the savaniya animal is to be approached first, because the offering of that animal belongs eminently to that day; and from the originative injunction in the archetype, it is understood to follow immediately on the filling of the cup dedicated to the Asvins. The other two animals may be approached either in the order belonging to them in the archetype, or without regard for any special sequence. Thus is sequence settled by position (sthana). Sequence among the subsidiaries may be settled in conformity with that in the principal rite (mukhya). When such an order is adopted, the inter- vals between the subsidiaries and their respective principals would be equal; otherwise, there would be a larger interval in some cases, and in others none at all. The offerings in the agneya etc. have to be sprinkled with

274 NOTES [P. 88, N. 76

the ghee left over from the fore-sacrifices. The agneya comes first and the aindram dadhi comes next; the sprink- ling of the respective materials should follow the same order. If the latter were sprinkled first and then the former, since the agneya has to be offered up first. between the sprinkling of it and its offering there would be no interval at all, while there would be too long an interval in the case of the aindram dadhi. In the Vajapeya, seventeen animals are to be offered up on the same day. These have to be approached, sprink- led, tied up and so on. It is a matter of indifference which animal is approached first. But the whole series of opera- tions should not be finished in the case of one animal before the next one is approached ; for, then, it would not consti- tute the offering of the seventeen together. What interval there is should be only such as is unavoidable. Hence, each stage of each operation should be gone through with all the animals. Now, when the first stage (sprinkling) is over, is there any order to be observed for the next stage ? The prima facie view is that it is an unnecessary tax on the mind to remember the original order and that the second stage may begin with any animal ready to hand. The final view is that the sequence adopted in the first opera- tion should be preserved throughout the series of operations. When simultaneity is enjoined and succession is adopted only because it is inevitable, delay in each operation should be reduced to a minimum; for each animal there may be only sixteen intervals between one operation and the next; and this can be secured only by adhering to the original order. This is sequence settled by pravrtti. It is, of course, understood that these determinants have been mentioned in the order of superiority and that

Pp. 89-90, N. 77-80] NOTES 275

each subsequent one is less conclusive than the preceding one. 77. The single result is the final supreme unseen result, the parama-'purva, to which the fruit of subsidiary rites, the utpatty-apurvas as they are called, are contri- butory. 78. E.g., "He who desires heaven should sacrifice with the darsa and purnamasa," wherefrom it is understood that all the six sacrifices comprised under darsa and purņa- masa are contributory to heaven.

PAGE 89

79. I.e., a specific human object, say, the securing of cattle in plenty; this is distinguished from what is kratv- artha, subsidiary to the rite itself as serving its due accomplishment. When the same subsidiary fulfils both ends, we have two-in-one-ness (samyoga-prthaktva). As part of the darsa-purnamasa there is a water-sprinkling ceremony called ap-pranayana; this ceremony is by itself merely kratv-artha. But he who desires cattle is to sprinkle from a godohana (milking) vessel; in this case, the sprink- ling becomes purușa-'rtha. See PM, IV, i, 2.

PAGE 90

80. It has been shown that even where is explicit use of the participial (-ktva) suffix, indicative of sequence, no sequence is intended, as shown for instance in the case of the Jabula Upanişad. In the case of the desire to know Brahman there is not even such a suffix to be explained away. Therefore, the existence of sequence as between the soma sacrifice and the darsapurnamasa-isti has no applica- tion here, that being a case of the explicit use of the 66

276 NOTES [Pp. 91-100, N. 81-87

participial suffix: "Having performed the darsapurņamasa- işți" etc.

PAGE 91

81. Kartari krtyah. The -ya suffix generally signi- fies the object of an act. But "become" is an intransitive verb and no object thereof can be signified. To this objec- tion it is said that the suffix in bhavyah is really a krtya suffix, which signifies the agent (kartr) of an act, not its object.

PAGE 92

82. PM. I, i, 5.

PAGE 93

83. Brh., II, iv, 5.

PAGE 96

84. "Jayasva mriyasva " is apparently in the impera- tive mood meaning "be born and die ". Here, however, the sva-suffix is used to signify mere repetition. They are repeatedly born and they repeatedly die: this is the sense. This is illustrated by Appayya Diksita through the Sanskrit equivalent of the common Tamil expression vettu vettenru vetținan which apparently means "He cut saying cut, cut,'" but really means "He cut in the' cut, cut' manner (i.e., repeatedly) ". PAGE 97 85. Brh .. IV, iv, 23.

PAGE 100 86. Chand., VIII, i, 6. 87. This paragraph is commenced, says the Kalpa- taru, as a reply to Bhaskara, who holds that though the

Pp. 102-120, N. 88-90] NOTES 277

reason given for the desire to know Brahman may be good enough in itself, there is yet no indication in the aphorism that this is what was present to the aphorist's mind. The reply makes out that the word brahma itself brings to mind the Veda, and not the whole of it, but those parts of it (i.e., the Upanisads) which may suitably come after the preliminaries understood by the word " then (atha)".

PAGE 102 88. This is in answer to the objection that " horse- fodder" is a dative compound, meaning "fodder for the horse," though the compounded elements are not related as basic object (prakrti) and its modification. The answer is that Katyayana himself declares "horse-fodder" and the like to be possessive compounds, in spite of their dative sense.

PAGE 120

89. This is the idea: a thing may be defined if it is known in experience or if its attributes at least are known; or verbal testimony may apply to it; but in none of these ways is Brahman susceptible of being defined. 90. The terms "samahara-dvandva " and "itaretara- dvandva " are difficult to render adequately into English. "Collective compound " and "distributive compound " may serve as a near approximation : that is to say, in the case of the "samahara-dvandva," any predication made would apply to the collection as a whole, the collection being the principal (visesya) in that compound; in the "itaretara- dvandva," however, the predication would apply to each member of the whole, the collection here being but an attribute (visesana) of each member of the aggregate, The latter compound is well exemplified in the text, where the

278 NOTES [Pp. 123-125, N. 91-93

predicate, niyata," applies to each member of the compound-time, place, fruit etc. A "samahara-dvandva" is always in the neuter.

PAGE 123 91. The son performs the annual ceremonies (sraddha) for his departed ancestors. Here, the son is agent alone, not enjoyer, while the fathers are enjoyers alone, not agents. Similarly, the vaisvanara-isti, offered on twelve potsherds, by the father on the birth of a son, is for the welfare of the son; here, the son is not agent, but enjoyer alone ; the father is agent, but enjoyer only remotely, through the welfare of his son; see PM, IV, iii, 38-39. 92. Planetary and guardian deities. The reason urged for their non-creatorship is the fact that the world contains many agents, enjoyers etc. It is not the plurality that is important here, but the diversity. If the world were at least of a uniform nature, its creation by those of limited knowledge and power might be intelligible; what precludes their creatorship is the diversity of the world and the finitude of the capacity of these deities. Being themselves jivas, says the Kalpataru, they cannot create a world full of jivas like themselves; here too the essential defect is finitude. One may also expect the cause to differ in some way from the effect; there would be no such difference, if these deities were the cause.

PAGE 125

93. On the three varieties of parināma, see Yoga Sūtras, III, 13. Dharma-parinama is exemplified by clay ceasing to be a lump and becoming a pot. Lakşaņa- parinama belongs to the dharmas : e.g., the lump of clay ceases to be present and comes to belong to the past ; the

Pp. 131-132, N. 94-97] NOTES 279

pot ceases to be of the future and comes to belong to the present. Avastha-pariņama belongs to the lakșaņas : e.g., even the pot that is present attains each moment different states as new or old. By laksaņa is understood temporal characteristic or, as Woods renders it, time-variation; avastha is a mode. Prof. Keith following Prof. Jacobi suggests that the treatment of these three varieties in the Yogabhaşya gives clear indications of indebtedness to Vasubandhu. See Some Problems of Indian Philosophy, IHQ, VIII, pp. 431-432. The word lakşana in dharma- lakşana is used in the sense of rūpa, "consisting in ". 94. Taitt., III, 1. 95. Nirukta, I, 2 (p. 29, Sarup's edition). PAGE 131

96. The soma juice is collected and kept in cups called "grahas". In a particular sacrifice called the 66 atiratra," the use of sixteen cups is prescribed; but elsewhere in Scripture, there is also the prohibition of the use of the sixteenth cup in the atiratra sacrifice. In the face of such contradiction, it is understood that there is option for the sacrificer to use or not to use the sixteenth cup.

PAGE 132 97. The Srirangam edition reads "svatantryam iva bhavati," meaning that human activity and non-activity, though dependent on prescriptions and prohibitions, seem to be free. This discrediting of freedom is not required or supported by the text. The Kalpataru too seeks not to deny freedom, but to show and justify the dependence on prescriptions etc .: "Though capable of acting of his own free will, yet, because of his not knowing the

280 NOTES [P. 135, N. 98-100

instrumentality (of particular acts) to what is beneficial or harmful, there is need of the prescriptions and prohibi- tions that give that knowledge."

PAGE 135

98. Katha., IV, 1. 99. In the tarkapāda (II, ii). 100. Inference sāmanyato drsta is the third of the traditionally recognised three classes of inference. It is essentially inference by analogy. Thus, the sun is inferred to move, on the analogy of Caitra, for the sun changes its position and similar change of position for Caitra is accounted for by motion. Its special value lies in dealing with a probandum which is beyond the reach of the senses (atindriya). That Brahman is not in the sphere of the senses has been already stated. Now, Vacaspati goes on to say that it is not even in the sphere of inference, even that variety of it which is applicable to what is super-sensuous. The argument of the Nydya- kaņikā is explained at some length by the Kalpataru. The inference of a creator may establish at best a human creator; for, in the case of some human beings extra- ordinary powers of creation have been observed, as in Visvamitra who created a whole universe. It is possible for one or more human beings, therefore, to create a world, acting simultaneously or in succession. If you say that you argue to & creator with knowledge of the means employed, do you mean some knowledge of them ? If so, omniscience is not established and your inference of the Lord fails. If, however, you claim omniscience to be your probandum, again the inference fails, since the probandum is not present in any co-subject (sapakşa).

Pp. 136-142, N. 101-104] NOTES 281

You may say that the potter knows everything in connection with the pot he makes and that, similarly, God knows everything in connection with the world he makes. But the potter knows not who will buy his pot nor what uses it will be put to; and if God's knowledge were similar, it would fall far short of omniscience. Further, God, who has no mind, can have no knowledge. If you say that, because of his lordship, he has knowledge even without a mind, you may as well say that, because of his lordship, he creates the universe, though he has no knowledge; and thus, like the moneylender who in his greed for interest loses the principal, you cut at the very root of the argument for an intelligent creator.

PAGE 136

101. Under I, i, 4. 102. Taitt., III, 6.

PAGE 140

103. Brh., II, iv, 10.

PAGE 142

104. Recitation of the Veda, if defective in respect of the hymns, words or due inflection of the voice (svara) is said to be productive of evil, even as if the words were a thunder-bolt. The legendary instance of this is that of Tvastha who performed a sacrifice to obtain a son who would vanquish Indra. But since he misplaced the stress in the compound "Indra-satrub," what he actually said amounted to a prayer for a son of whom Indra would be the vanquisher; thus was born Vrtra, who was slain in due course by Indra.

282 NOTES [Pp. 147-150, N. 105-106

PAGE 147

105. PM., I, ii, 7.

PAGE 150

106. In respect of the upamsu sacrifice, scripture says "He is to perform the upamsu sacrifice at intervals," and goes on to say "Visnu is to be sacrificed to with the upamsu, for the avoidance of jamita (monotony) " etc. Two other deities are also mentioned as to be sacrificed to with the upamsu. The deity and the material constitute the form of the rite. The latter set of texts "Vișnu is to be sacrificed to" etc. mentions the deities; another text says that where the material is not specifically mentioned, the ghee in the darvi is the material. Thus, the latter set of texts would seem to be really injunctive, the first being mere- ly a collective restatement; further, the imperative suffix is to be found only in the second set. Nevertheless, the final view is that the first text alone is injunctive. If the second set were injunctive, then, for the same purpose and with the same material, there would be the prescription of three rites to three deities, though the unity of purpose would suggest a single rite. If the first text is injunctive, the second set may be taken to contain restatements thereof combined with eulogistic passages mentioning the fruit. There can be no syntactical unity, if several rites be taken to be enjoined. Further, in "Vişņu is to be sacrificed to" etc., Vișņu etc. appear to be the principals, while the rite is secondary, whereas the rite is primary in the first text, its mention there being novel (apürva). In the second set of texts, we have to construe Vișnu etc. as secondary and relate them as deities to the rite which is really primary. Rather

P. 154, N. 107] NOTES 283

than do this, it is simpler to take the first text as injunctive. Though the verb there is in the present indicative mood, it may be interpreted as an imperative. As for the form of the rite, even the second set is not self-contained; and the co-operation of the general text declaring the material is available for the first text too, which text has the further advantages of parsimony and novelty. For such reasons, the second set is treated as containing restatements, having the force "so great is the upamsu that Vișnu etc. are the deities thereof". The governing principle is that of syntactical unity for the whole passage beginning with "jami va etad yajnasya kriyate" up to "agnīşomāv upamsu yaştavya 'jamitvaya ". The same principle is applied to the Vedanta texts beginning with "Existence alone, dear one, this was in the beginning " etc.

PAGE 154

107. The following is the Kalpataru summary of the arguments of the Nyūyakanika: (1) Religious duty, which is what is to be done, cannot be the sphere of perception, which is born of the contact of sense with what is. (2) Even the perception of Yogins can claim excellence only in respect of sense-objects; hence perception is inapplicable to dharma, the content of the Veda. (3) And since it has no probans etc., it cannot be the sphere of inference etc. (4) And no person can utter intelligible statements when he is ignorant of what he is to speak about. Hence the Vedas are not of human origin. It should be remembered that the word "human" in this context applies to all beings short of the omniscient one, and not to men alone. 67

284 NOTES [Pp. 157-165, N. 108-111

PAGE 157

108. The reference is to Brh-Upa., I, iv, 15; the immediately preceding text is from the same Upanisad I, iv, 7. The word "lokam" is translated by some as "state" or "true state". But the word "enjoyment" seems to accord better with Sankara's understanding of the passage in his bhasya on that Upanișad. 109. The reference is to TS, I, v, 1. The story goes that the devas handed over their wealth for safe- keeping to Agni, who in a fit of greed ran away with it and hid himself in the waters. When he was caught by the other devas, he howled and his tears became silver. The statement is good as a fairy tale but is of no practical value. It is therefore explained to be subsidiary to the prohibition of the offering of silver as daksiņa, a prohibition which occurs later in the same Sruti. PAGE 158 110. Darvihoma (PM, VIII, iv, 1-9) is the name of a rite; it is not the injunction of an accessory, in which case it would mean an injunction of a sacrifice with the darvi. It is not a sacrifice (yajña) but an oblation (homa). No special accessories are prescribed, the same accessories- spoon etc .- being used as are prescribed for other enjoined rites. It has no archetype. Besides the text enjoining its performance, there are no other texts laying down the fruit or praising it and so on. Hence that one text is to be taken to perform all the functions, particularly those of praising and prescribing the homa. PAGE 165 111. The text is "well established (long-lived) are they who meditate on the ratri". The fruit of long life,

P. 167, N. 112-113] NOTES 285

being mentioned only in an eulogistic passage, is not really its fruit; that fruit is understood to be heaven, on the analogy of the Visvajit sacrifice. But the final view is that the fruit is whatever is mentioned nearest, in the order of express statement, eulogistic passage, what is carried over from another and so on. In the case of the Ratrisattra, no fruit is expressly stated; but the eulogistic passage mentioning long life as the fruit is only next in authority ; hence, this is the fruit, not heaven, which, even in the case of the Visvajit, is not expressed, but is assumed ; see PM, IV, iii, 17-19. 112. Pinda-pitr-yajna is an offering to the manes, to be made on the afternoon of the new moon day. This is an independent, not a subsidiary, rite, since a particular time is prescribed and that time is also seen to be prohibited for other rites; further, it is enumerated along with other principal rites. This being the case, it ought to have a fruit of its own ; no fruit, however, is mentioned ; hence, on the analogy of the Visvajit, its fruit is taken to be heaven. That the fruit is heaven, in such cases, is ascertained in PM, IV, iii, 15-16, in connection with the Visvajit sacrifice; yet the analogy of the Pinda-pitr- yajña is mentioned here, since in fact the Visvajit has another fruit; for, it is prescribed as an expiatory rite for him who undertakes a sattra sacrifice, performs the sankalpa, but fails to go through with the sacrifice.

PAGE 167

113. PM, IV, i, 22-24. It is enjoined that curds should be poured into hot milk. The object of the pouring is the production of cream (amiksa). Whey too results, however, as a by-product.

286 NOTES [Pp. 170-179, N. 114-119

PAGE 170

114. The removal of Nescience is not something over and above knowledge; Cp. Brahmasiddhi, p. 32: vidyo-'daya eva 'vidya-nivrttiḥ. 115. If a sacrifice is enjoined, it does not follow that it should bear fruit either here alone or only in a hereafter. Thus, the Kariri is performed to secure rain, so that the crops may be luxuriant; if that is fruitful at all (and not obstructed by some unknown cause), it should bring its fruit in this life, almost immediately after the sacrifice. The Citra is performed for obtaining cattle; there is no restriction as to when this should bear fruit; a man may become prosperous as the result of that sacrifice, whether in this life or the next.

PAGE 172

116. See note 112 on Piņda-pitr-yajña.

PAGE 175

117. Cp. Brahmasiddhi, pp. 63 ff.

PAGE 177

118. Vardhamana would appear to have been a gold ornament in the form of a svastika.

PAGE 179

119. "Difference is dependent" etc. This one sentence seeks to summarise a good part of the interesting and rather stiff dialectic of the second chapter of the Brahma- siddhi. Interested readers should turn to that for fuller information. A slight expansion of the argument of the Bhamatt is, however, attempted here. Our knowledge of difference is nocessarily bound up with that of the correlates

P. 179, N. 119] NOTES 287

which are different. The cognition is of the form " A is different from B"; and this would not be possible, if there were no prior knowledge of A and B; and this cognition of A and B cannot be of them as non-different, as otherwise the subsequent cognition of their difference could not arise; therefore, the cognition of difference, which we seek to explain, is based on a cognition of differents, which would not be cognised as such but for a cognition of their difference; thus we have reciprocal dependence. Further, the cognition relates to several units, each of which is different from the others. Now, if there were no units, there would be no difference either. But your contention that difference is real tends to abolish the unit. For, difference is either an attribute of the units or it is of their very constitution (svabhava). If it be an attribute, is it identical with the differents or not identical? Obviously, an attribute cannot be identical with that which is said to possess it; else, it would be of the very constitution of that which possesses it. If the attribute is not identical, is, in other words, different, what is the nature of this second difference ? Is that too an attribute, as it obviously should be? Is it, then, different from the elements it differentiates ? The answer must be in the affirmative ; and thus, we get an infinite regress of differences, each resting on the next without any finality. Let us say, then, that difference is of the very constitution of things. Two difficulties present themselves: (1) A and B are the alleged differents. They agree in this, that what is called " diffe- rence" is of the very constitution of both. Now, if two things agree in some particular aspect, so far forth they are identical. Because "difference " is of the constitution of both A and B, the two are so far identical. But this

288 NOTES [Pp. 181-184, N. 120-122

was just the reason alleged for their non-identity. Thus, if difference be of the nature of things, it abolishes itself. (2) We must have A and B before we can say that they are different. But we cannot have these or any other units; for, of each alleged unit, difference is the very nature. Hence, whatever may be set up as a unit, down to the primal atom, tends to break down indefinitely. There is nothing which can be called one. A single thing is not single either in itself or as a combination of simpler elements, since there can be no units to combine. These objections apply not merely to the cognition of difference, but to its very existence. Unity, on the other hand, cannot be shown to be thus dependent on difference for its exis- tence. True, in respect of cognition, there does seem to be such dependence. But this may be explained on the basis of a posited difference. A phenomenon need not be explained by external causes in every case, since internal defects like those of a sense-organ (jaundice, joy, fear eto.) may be the causes in many cases. Since difference and non-difference cannot both be real, one of them must be treated as posited. For the reasons here stated and on grounds of parsimony (Occam's razor), it is proper to assume difference to be posited on non-difference.

PAGE 181

120. Pr., VI, 8.

PAGE 182

121. Nyāya Sutras, I, i, 2.

PAGE 184

122. In the imagined identification (sampat), pri- macy belongs to what is imagined, not to that on which

P. 185, N. 123-124] NOTES 289

it is imposed; it is aropyapradhana, not alambanā or adhișthanapradhana, like superimposition (adhyāsa); the distinction is stated almost in the same terms in the Pancapadika. For the identification of the Dravidacarya mentioned on page 185, see Mm. S. Kuppuswami Sastri in Proceedings of the Oriental Conference, Madras, pp. 468-473, where a plausible case is made out for the equation with Tirumalisai Ālvār.

PAGE 185

123. Stuta-sastravat. The mention of the deities in a musical chant is a stuti; where the mention is not in a musical chant, it is called a sastra. Since both of these serve to make clear the relation of subsidiaries (the deities) to the principal (the sacrifice), and since they have the visible result of mentioning the nature of the deities, they are but subsidiary rites; this is the prima facie view. The final view holds that they are principal rites with an unseen potentiality as their fruit, as otherwise the expressly stated injunction "stauti," samsati" etc. would be futile. Further, a stuti, e.g., "this kşatriya youth has large eyes" is intended to be a praise, not a description; hence, description, denotation etc. of the deities may not be said to be the visible result of stuti etc. Similarly, here too, the contemplation of the self may be the principal; this is the sense. On stuti and sastra as principals, see PM, II, i, 13-29. For the punctuation of this sentence, we have relied on the Kalpataru and the Nirnayasagar edition of the Bhamatt with the Ratnaprabha. The punctuation in other editions is clearly erroneous. See also additional notes. 124. PM, II, i, 8.

290 NOTES [Pp. 187-189, N. 125-126

PAGE 187

125. "Bright gold is to be worn." This is one of the stray sayings which occur without being related to any particular sacrificial rite. It is contended as a prima facie view that since the material and the deity for an in- dependent rite are not mentioned, since it is mentioned in the Adhvaryava Veda presumably as something to be done by the adhvaryu, since the wearing must be intended as a purification of the wearer or the gold or both, and since the purification must be intended for the sake of some other rite, the injunction to wear gold should be subsidiary to the agnihotra and other such rites. The final view is that since an independent result is declared-disfiguring the enemy, and since there is no application (niyoga) of the wearing in the context of any other rite, it is an independent duty. The second of these reasons is more important, since the declaration of fruit may be discounted on the ground of the absence of the usual formula "He who desires this is to do such and such". Hence it is that the Bhamatt has the words "viniyoga-bhangena, because of failure of the appli- cation". Nor may subsidiariness be established on the analogy of the ladle made of parna wood, for, unlike the ladle, this wearing is not invariably related to a sacrifice, gold being worn even for purposes other than sacrificial. See PM, III, iv, 20-24.

PAGE 189

126. The Srirangam edition reads vaktr, vakya, vācaka and vacanāni, instead of paktr, pākya, pāka and pacanani. What is intended in either case is the denial of agency, whether as a speaker or as a cook, though the latter is, perhaps, the more forceful illustration. The

Pp. 200-209, N. 127-130] NOTES 291

Rjuprakasika would appear to support the Srirangam reading.

PAGE 200

127. Aitareya Brāhmaņa, III, viii, 1. PAGE 202

128. The compound might mean " those which are the contents of injunctions"; in the present context, however, the meaning is "those whose content is an injunction, i.e. something to be done " ; see the Kalpataru. PAGE 207

129. The process of learning assumed by the Prabha- karas is rather elaborate. They say that when A asks B to bring the cow, and B brings it, C, who hears A's words and sees B's action, infers B's understanding of the sense of the words, and thus comes to know that those words mean that action. But how does C know that the under- standing of the sense of the words should have preceded B's actions ? The relation of words to sense in this case he comes to know only later. If it be said that he knows from prior conditioning of action by knowledge of the word- sense, since the process of learning is the same there too, the question is but pushed one stage back, and we have an infinite regress. The only way to get out of the difficulty is to hold that the meaning of words is original and natural, and that the meaning is conveyed even independently of relation to what is to be done.

PAGE 209 130. "He is to offer flour (as an oblation)." Flour, here, has not been used in the rite up to this stage ; there- fore, it has not been purified; nor after the oblation does it 68

292 NOTES [P. 217, N. 131-132

survive, since it is reduced to ashes; hence, then too, it cannot be treated as purified by the rite ; it must therefore be understood that what is primary in this injunction is the oblation, not the flour, and that the latter, though in the accusative case, should be interpreted in the instrumental case (saktuna juhoti); there is viniyoga- bhanga in the case of flour, in the same way as in the gold that is to be worn.

PAGE 217

131. This is from Sabarasvamin's bhașya on PM, I, i, 2. 132. Vacaspati follows Kumārila in his view of the relation of language to meaning. He rejects the sphota doctrine of the grammarians and Mandana Misra, holding to the possibility of an ordered recollection of the audible sounds which manifest the different letters ; from such a recollection may arise word-sense. The word-senses which rise thus are, however, not independent. They are fundamentally parts of a sentence-sense; this latter is their purport. Hence each word, while expressing its own sense, reaches forward to the sentence-sense, which is secondarily implied (laksita) by all the words together. While thus the integrity of the sentence is recognised, it is not exalted at the expense of the independence of the words. It would appear that while some form of associationism is beld to in the explanation of how different audible sounds come to constitute a word, this view-point is transcended in considering the relation of word senses to the sentence-sense. One wonders why advaitins like Sankara and Vacaspati did not favour the doctrine of pada-sphota and vākya-sphota, based as

Pp. 218-223, N. 133-136] NOTES 293

it is on a psychology which is truer and has more in common with advaita principles. See further the Bhamatt, I, iii, 28, Vacaspati's Tattvabindu and an article on "Vacas- pati's criticism of the Sphota-vada, " Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, VI, 311.

PAGE 218 133. Slokavārttika, VII, vv. 342, 343 ; p. 943.

PAGE 219

134. Cp. Brahmasiddhi, p. 99; Pancapādikā, p. 97.

PAGE 220

135. PM, II, i, 1. PAGE 223

136. Ordinarily, the negative particle should be construed with the verb-ending, to signify a prohibition. There are, however, two exceptions : (1) when the sentence is introduced with words relating to something positive, such as "His vows are" etc .; and (2) when otherwise an option would result. (1) An example of the former is the Prajapati-vrata, where it is said to be part of a vow not to look on the rising nor on the setting sun. The premising of a vow raises the expectation of something to be done; not looking at the sun must be understood to mean something to be done, not merely something to be avoided. Hence, the negative statement is taken to enjoin the formation of a resolve not to see the rising or the setting sun. The negative particle is detached from the optative verb-ending and attached to the root of the verb, so that it may signify not-seeing, i.e., the resolve not to see. When combined thus with verbal roots or with nouns, the negative indicates not prohibition, but exclusion,

294 NOTES [P. 229, N. 137

e.g. non-brahmin. (2) It is said in Scripture "Not in the after sacrifice (anuyaja) shall he say ye-yajamahe". If this be taken to be a prohibition, it would imply the prior establishment of the saying of ye-yajamahe in all sacrifices; for, only of the contingent can there be any denial, as otherwise negation would be futile. No such rule is established as to saying ye-yajamahe; and if it be assumed, option would result, just as there is, for instance, between He is to offer oblation before sun-rise " and " He is to offer oblation after sun-rise". Nor can the negation wholly annul the assumed rule so that option may not result; for, such wholesale annulment is possible only between independent statements, but not between state- ments one of which is presupposed by the other; here, the rule is presupposed by the negation. Because of this contingence of option, the negation is related not to the word "say," but to "after-sacrifice, " so that the meaning is "He shall say ye-yajamahe not at the after- sacrifice". See the Mimāmsā-nyāya-prakasa, (Edgerton), pp. 168-174. Students of Western Logic will note the insist- ence on relevance to the context in both prohibition and exclusion. Denial can be only of that which is possible; exclusion is only of that which is similar and falls into the universe of discourse (nañ iva yuktam anya-sadrsa- 'dhikaraņe),

PAGE 229

: 137. "Upalaksana " may be rendered as a "qualifica- tion per- accidens". It is diffoult to render into English so as to bring out its difference from viseșana (proprium) on the one hand and upadhi (conditioning adjunct) on the other. The distinotion is well explained in the

P. 242, N. 138) NOTES 295

Kalpataru, p. 420 (under I, iv, 22). That which inheres in the product and serves to distinguish it, like the blueness of the nilotpala, is a visesana. What is not inherent may be either an upādhi or an upalakșaņa. Of these, that which lasts as long as the product and serves to distinguish it is an upadhi; that which is occasional and causes the cognition of difference is an upalakşana. The distinction between these two corresponds to that between inseparable accidens and separable accidens. Redness is not inherent in the crystal nor the crow in the house. But when one is asked to fetch the red crystal, the redness is present in the crystal till it is brought; but when a house is pointed to Caitra as that which has a crow perched on it, the crow does not necessarily remain there till Caitra reaches the house; redness is an upadhi, the crow is an upalakşaņa.

PAGE 242

138. This Brahman-knower has been identified as one Ācarya Sundara Pandya, on the strength of references in Atmasvarupa's Prabodhaparisodhint, (R. No. 3225 of the Govt. MSS. Library, Egmore), an unpublished Commentary on the Pañcapadika, and in Madhavamantrin's Tātparya- dipika, a Commentary on the Sutasamhita; see Mm. S. Kuppuswami Sastri in the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, I, p. 5 ff. The learned author of this paper suggests the identification of Sundara Pandya with (1) Kun Pandya, reputed to have been a learned king, who was cured of his illness and reconverted to Saivism by the famous Saiva Saint, Tirujnanasambandha, or (ii) Tirujnanasambandha himself, or (iii) some other pre-Kumarila scholar of the Purva and Uttara Mimamsās. The first two of these

296 NOTES [P. 244, N. 139

suggestions suffer from the difficulty of having to reconcile the advaita taught in these verses with the Saivism of the reputed author; the characterisation of the latter as Sivadvaita is of little help, for, between Sivadvaita and what we may for convenience call Sankaradvaita, there is a wide enough gap to bridge. And while there is a tradition that Kun Pandya was a Jaina before his reconver- sion, there is no tradition that he was an advaitin, either earlier or later; and the difference between the positions ascribed to him is not so slight as to be glossed over. The same diffculty applies to the second identification. The third is too vague to need acceptance or rejection. Whether the ascription of the verses to an Ācarya Sundara Paņdya is itself correct is a question that merits further conside- ration, since the ascription seems to appear only in com- paratively late works. It is within the bounds of possibility that a quotation is mistaken for one's own composition ; thus, verses quoted by a comparatively obscure and late Sundara Pandya may have been wrongly ascribed to him by Atmasvarupa and Madhavamantrin; but in the absence of any knowledge of a later Sundara Pandya or about the trustworthiness of Atmasvarupa, this is nothing more than a bare possibility. An attempt has been made in the Jignyasa, I, ii, 1-6 to traverse the arguments of Mm. S. Kuppuswami Sastriar; but most of the contentions are rather puerile and unconvincing.

PAGE 244

139. The advaitin cannot insist too strongly that the cognition which destroys Nescience is also a psychosis and that it possesses only the same class of reality as what it destroys; it is not absolutely real. Though in &

P. 245, N. 140] NOTES 297

sense the product of Nescience, (for it is based on distinc- tions of pramatr, pramana and prameya, which distinc- tions are products of Nescience) it has yet the capacity to destroy its generatrix and itself at the same time. The fire born of the friction of bamboos in a forest does not spare the bamboos which generated it; and, when the whole forest is consumed, it dies out of itself. Nor is it true that what is not absolutaly real has no practical efficiency. Even a dream, though unreal, causes effects physical and psychical, besides serving as an indicator of future events, auspicious or otherwise. Indeed, the advaitin maintains that practical efficiency belongs only to the empirically valid, neither to the wholly real nor to the wholly unreal. The latter cannot be efficient, since it itself is not; the former, being eternally accomplished, has no activity and hence cannot be efficient. That is why Vacaspati says "As for that intuition which is real, that is not something to be done, since it is of the nature of Brahman."

PAGE 245 140. Isa., 11.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

[The following additional notes relate to pages: 10, 20, 27, 46, 49, 71, 95, 122, 147,: 153, 162-165 and 220-223, 227-228, 237, 239.]

PAGE 10 "prakaraņā-'ntara" is difference of context (see the list of corrections). This is the last of the six pramaņas given by Jaimini (PM II, iii, 24) for differentiating rituals.

298 ADDITIONAL NOTES

It is defined thus: anupadeya-guņa-sahakrta-'nupasthitiķ prakaranā-'ntaram. In essence it consists in non-proximity to the intellect. The term occurs again on page 148, and the same idea is expressed by Vacaspati as "asannidhana" on page 146

PAGE 20

"tadguņa-samvijnano bahuvrihih. " Adjectival com- pounds are of two kinds-the inclusive and the non-in- clusive. In the present case the denotation of the com- pound "janmadi" is "origination, sustentation and destruction"; this denotation includes that of the com- ponent parts "janma and adi"; thus this compound is of the inclusive type. In a compound, however, like "citragu" in sentences like "citragum anaya (bring the man with spotted cows)" the spotted cows which are signified by the component parts are not included in the signification of the compound; for what is intended is the arrival of the owner of the cows, not his arrival with the cows ; hence this compound is of the non-inclusive type.

PAGE 27

"abheda-vyavahara samanadhikaranys-vyapades'as ca" has been rendered as "empirical usage as non-different and appositional designation". Vyavahāra (usage) ordi- narily includes vyapadesa (verbal designation) too; here, however, they are distinguished, "vyavahara" signifying practical activity alone. Hence the denotation of "empiri- cal usage" is narrower in the present context, excluding what is mentioned in "appositional designation;" it is, in other words, equivalent to "pravrtti (activity), " which is the word used by Vacaspati in the middle of p. 28.

ADDITIONAL NOTES 299

PAGE 46

"nirupadrava-bhutartha-svarupasya " etc. The out- siders here cited are the Bauddhas, who teach the doctrine of nairatmya. The apprehension of this truth costs some effort. But once there is the apprehension and contempla- tion thereof, there is increasing clarity, which, however, does not call for increased effort, in the same way as each increased success in jumping calls for a bigger effort than before. Nor is there subsequent sublation by error, the impressions of which too persist; for knowledge has a bias for truth, and disturbances due to error exist only till truth is attained, not thereafter. This is a favourite verse with Vacaspati; see, for instance, the Sankhyatattvakaumudi on verse 64. The word "intellect" in the translation has to be understood as synonymous with knowledge ; see also list of corrections.

PAGE 49

The reading "pravartante" adopted by us seems to have the support of the Bhamatitilaka and the Rjupraka- s'ika. The Parimala, which uses the analogy "yatha pradhanam pravartate" etc., may possibly prefer the read- ing "pravartate". On either reading, the subject of the sentence "atha svayam eva kasmat " etc. has to be sup- plied from without; but on the reading "pravartate " it is possible to understand that the subject is neither the self (which does not fit in) nor pramanas (which requires the plural), but "yat pravartate tat (that which is active)". Such usage may be taken to be idiomatic, and it agrees with what comes before and after. But we prefer the reading "pravartante" since it has the support of two commentaries besides that of the MSS. mentioned in Note 48. 69

300 ADDITIONAL NOTES

PAGE 71

"adhikrta-'dhikara" is rendered as " eligibility of the per- son already eligible ". Two components enter into adhikāra- the possession of certain qualities, connate, acquired or both (this alone is what is understood by fitness or eligibility ordi- narily), and the possession of interest in the fruit to be at- tained. The former is more in the foreground when, for in- stance, a Brahmin is said to be the adhikarin for a particular rite. In adhikrta-'dhikara, interestedness is more to fore; it is a person, interested in a particular result, that is further interested in another result accruing from a further subsidiary. PAGE 95

"nitya-'nitya-vastu-vivekah." Vacaspati's position is this. What is eternal is not already known as distinct from what is non-eternal, as then there can be no further inquiry ; nor can indefinite knowledge, of the nature of doubt, avail to generate non-attachment. What does exist is the distinction of eternality from non-eternality, the discrimi- nation of the attributes (which are called vastu, since they dwell therein, vasatt 'ti). This knowledge of eternality and non-eternality is linked up with the knowledge of desirability and non-desirability. And thus he knows that among the denotations of the "Thou " and the "I, " that which will be established as eternal will be that which turns out to be desirable and the non-eternal that which turns out not to be desirable. This much of knowledge can account for both non-attachment and the desire to know Brahman. PAGE 122 "yatha 'huh : buddhi-siddham tu na tad asat." This quotation has been traced by Mm. S. Kuppuswami Sastriar to the Nuaya Sutras (IV, i, 50), where, however, the

ADDITIONAL NOTES 301

reading is "buddhi-siddham tu tad asat". Vacaspati himself interprets this aphorism thus in the Tatparyattka: tad asad bhāvi kāryam anenai ' va kāraņena janyate nā 'nyene 'ty anumanad buddhi-siddham eve 'ty arthah. The aphorism thus interpreted fits in naturally with the rest of the Bhamati context. And the comment of the Kalpataru is almost a paraphrase of the words of the Tātparyațīkā: yad asad iti prasiddham tad buddhy- arudhena rupena sad eva, anyatha turanga-srngavat karmatva-nirdesa-'yogat. In the light of this, therefore, it seems necessary to amend the text by leaving out the "na " and correct the translation thus: "That, however, which is non-existent (i.e., to be produced), is (certainly) existent in the intellect." In regard to this suggestion of the learned Professor, certain difficulties have to be pointed out. The Kalpataru, at the end of the sentence quoted above, goes on to say : iti sat-kārya-vādina ahuḥ. The aphorism, as it occurs in the Nydya Sutras, is the statement of the final view of asat-karya-vada held by the Naiyayika. The words of the Kalpataru would, therefore, suggest that the citation here is not of a Nyaya aphorism, but of the aphorism of some school professing sat-karya-vada. The suggestion is reinforced by the Bhamatitilaka, which says : atra sat-karya-vadi-sammatim aha. Once this possibility is conceded, there is the further possibility that the aphorism here cited by Vacaspati has a "na" in it. That this is more than a bare possibility seems made out by the Rjuprakāsika, which implies the presence of a "na" in the aphorism: na hy asan nara-srngadi buddhav alikhya vyākriyate; buddhi-sattve 'sattva-yogac ca ; tatra vrddha-sammatim aha-yatha 'hur iti. The words of the Kalpataru too do

302 ADDITIONAL NOTES

not rule out the reading with a "na". The least that is necessary to support the suggested correction is the further correction of the Kalpataru and the Bhāmatitilaka so as to make them read "asat-karya-vadina ahu " and "asat- karya-vadi-sammatim aha". Such procedure involving a double correction may seem condemned by the law of parsimony. But there are at least two counter- vailing considerations of some weight. The first is that no other source has been traced, while the Nyaya aphorism as interpeted by Vacaspati fits into the present context. The other is that there is comparatively little point in the advaitin appealing for support to the sat-karya-vadin, as he himself is of that persuasion; on the contrary, his reliance even on the asat-karya-vadin would be just and purportful. As against this it must be noted that the point at issue in the Bhamati is the possibility of creation by a non- intelligent being. The pürvapaksin in this case is not the follower of the Nyaya (which admits an intelligent creator), but the follower of the Sankhya (well known as sat-karya-vada), according to whom the world is not before creation buddhi-siddha for an Isvara. Thus, though the suggested source and corrections are extremely plausible, it is difficult to accept them outright at the present stage ; further, neither the printed editions of either book nor the MSS. that we have been able to consult warrant the correction. The MSS. consulted for the Kalpataru are 20 H 14 and 20 H 19 of the Adyar Library; for the Bhamati, MSS. mentioned in Note 48 were consulted, and for the Bhamatitilaka. MS. No. 39 C 14 of the same Library. Of course, scribal errors leading to the perpetua- tion of wrong readings are not uncommon.

ADDITIONAL NOTES 303

PAGE 147

The expressions "heya " and "upadeya, " which occur very frequently in the Bhasya and the Bhamati, have been rendered uniformly as "to be rejected" and "to be accepted ". It should be noted, however, that, except in a few cases (as in the present one), what is meant is avoidance and seeking, not mere intellectual rejection or acceptance. When, for instance, it is said that Brahman, being one's own self, is neither "heya " nor "upadeya, " it means that it is neither to be avoided nor sought.

PAGE 153

66 caitya-vandanadi-vakya. " It would appear from the Rjuprakasika that the "statement " is "caityam vandeta," not "caitye vandeta," so that the obeisance is to the caitya, not in the caitya. Conformably to this, caitya would mean not a shrine, but the consecrated fig-tree to which Buddhists offer worship.

PAGES 162-165 and 220-223

These pages contain statements of the Prabhakara position based on the doctrine of anvitabhidhana. Certain terms, though common to the Bhatta school, are used in special senses. The equivalents used in the translation are such as would apply throughout the book; the peculiarities of Prabhakara usage will, therefore, not be clear therefrom. In the following translation, terms distinctively suitable to Prabhakara's system are employed ; it may be used along with or in the place of the translation on the above-mentioned pages. For this school, kārya, niyoga and apurva are synonyms. What is to be done (karya) is that which prompts (niyoga), and this is

304 ADDITIONAL NOTES

the trans-experiential potency (apurva) which secures heaven. The determinant of karya is volition (krti), and of this the determinant is the particular act (kriya). The fruit (bhavya or phala, e.g., heaven) is emphatically not what prompts nor the determinant. The person prompted is called the niyojya; he is not the person enjoined, since niyoga means apurva, not an injunction, as in the Bhatta school.

TRANSLATION

[P. 162] Further, if for him who has heard (studied) about Brahman there occurs the cessation of the attributes of transmigration, why is it, then, that, on top of hearing, reflection etc. are found declared ? Therefore, even because of the contingence of the futility of these, the Vedantas do not have for purport the nature of Brahman, but have for purport what is to be done, whose determinant is the contemplation of the self. And this, which is to be done, as prompting him who is to be prompted in respect of itself is called niyoga (the prompter), and as not previously experienced through other means of knowledge, it is called the trans-experiential. And since there is not the establishment of this without the observance of its determinant (contemplation), that itself, which is to be done, implies for its own establishment the observance of the contemplation of the self, (this being) the determi- nant and instrument of that. And what is to be done, since its definitive knowledge depends on (that which defines) its own determinant [its own determinant is volition, and the determinant of that is the particular act, contemplation in the present instancel, is defined by

ADDITIONAL NOTES 305

the determinant, contemplation; similarly, since of con- templation too there cannot be definitive knowledge in the absence of its determinant, the self, [P. 163] that itself, which is to be done, implies, for the sake of the determina- tion of that (contemplation), the self as that (determinant). As they say: "That, however, which is introduced, i.e., implied, for the establishment of that (which is to be done), that too falls within the scope of the injunction ; this is the usage of the Tantra (the Prabhakara school of Mimamsa)." And, in the case of contemplation, the determinant of the prompter (niyoga), its falling within the scope of the injunction consists in the observance of it as an act; for the self, however, which is the determinant of that (contemplation), (falling within the scope of the injunction consists in) the certitude of its own existence.

[P. 165] And, since what is to be done is not independent of him who is prompted, the eligible (interested) person who is to practise, he states the particular class of person prompted : "And there being purport in respect of an injunction " etc. Becoming Brahman is present as already established in the eulogistic passage "He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself"; yet (because of this statement of the existent being changed into a statement of what is to be accomplished), there being the expectancy of the particular class of person prompted, on the analogy of the ratrisatra, he who desires to become Brahman comes to be understood as the particular person prompted. For, if on the analogy of the pinda-pitr-yajna, the person prompted be assumed to be he who desires heaven, that would be the signification of the absolutely remote by the

306 ADDITIONAL NOTES

eulogistic passage, which would then have a sense wholly unrelated to itself. And, since to become Brahman is to be immortal, it is said (in the commentary) "For him * * who desires immortality." *

[P. 220] Further, even by those who recognise the purport of all words to be what is to be done, it is not possible in the case of (texts like) "A brahmin is not to be killed," "Liquor is not to be drunk," to recognise what is to be done as purport. For, what is to be done, having its limits defined by volition, is pervaded by volition, and ceases with the cessation of that, like Simsapa-ness on the cessation of tree-ness [simsapa being the name of a particular kind of tree]. Volition, indeed, is human effort; and its definitive knowledge depends on its determinant. And its determi- nant, being of the nature of what is to be accomplished, can be only a doing, which has a before and an after, and helps to bring about something else; (it can be) neither a substance nor a quality. It is, indeed, what is directly pervaded by volition that is the determinant of volition; and, in the case of substance and quality, which are already existent, there is no pervasion by volition. Therefore it is there is the statement of the author of the sacred teaching: "Vorbs signify doing; through their instrumentality can be known what is to be done (kriya)." [P. 221] Though for words signifying substance and quality there is relation to what is to be done, in their effect-stage [i.e., in the stage when complete sentence-sense arises, with what is to be done as the main elementl, yet, since relation to what is to be done is direct in the case of (words signifying) doing, while for words signifying substance and quality it is

ADDITIONAL NOTES 307

through their conjunction with doing, the understanding of the trans-experiential (apurva) is only from those which signify doing, not from words signifying substance or quality. Nor is it that in statements like " He is to offer oblation with curds," "He is to pour diagonally and continuously," curds etc. are the determinants of what is to be done; for, even there, what is to be done has as its determinant the doing alone-the offering of oblation or the diagonal pouring. Nor on this score, because of the injunction (being) of the oblation and the diagonal pouring as qualified by curds and continuity, as in (the injunction of the qualified in) "He is to sacrifice with the soma (-juice), " do (the texts) "He is to offer the agnihotra oblation," "He is to pour ghee diagonally " become restatements of that (injunction of the qualified). Though, here too what is to be done has for determinant doing alone, yet, substance and quality, as complements of the doing, though not determinants, fall within the scope of the injunction. The doing, indeed, being undefined, as the bare functioning of a karaka (causal correlate of doing), is defined by the particular causal correlate -substance etc .; hence, substance etc. are complements thereto. And thus, when doing falls within the scope of the injunction, that falls within the scope of the injunction certainly together with its complements ; hence, substance and quality, though not determinants, yet as complements thereto, come to be within the scope of the injunction. And thus, the injunction which goes over to substance and quality through the channel of doing, because of the fear of prolixity and because its own content is otherwise established, comes, through a restatement thereof, to have for purport substance etc., which are complements thereto; 70

308 ADDITIONAL NOTES

[P. 222] hence, in all cases, what is enjoined (i.e., what is to be done) has doing alone for its determinant. Hereby is refuted the view that in "There is that agneya (cake) which is prepared on eight (earthen) plates" what is enjoined has for determinant the connection of the material and the deity. Now, (it may be said), the meaning of the root "bhu (to become)," (in "bhavati" of the text) cannot fall within the scope of an injunction; for, if what becomes be already existent, then that which has its existence (already) accomplished cannot be that which becomes; ether, indeed, does not become; nor, if non-existent, since what is non-existent cannot be what is prompted, like a sky-flower; therefore, what falls within the scope of the injunction is the operation which belongs to him who brings about, the producer, and which is implied by the becoming, the operation to be brought about ; and, since this operation is activation, volition, effort, it cannot be cognised without a determinant; therefore, there being the need for a determinant, its determinant is only the connection of material and deity brought to mind by the word "agneya". (To this the Prabhakaras say) now, how can human effort, which has an operation for its determinant, refer to a connection, which is not of the nature of an operation ? Truly, even in "Make a pot," human effort does not directly refer to the meaning of the noun, pot; rather does it cause the hand etc. to manipulate the staff etc. Therefrom one understands that volition alone, which is for the sake of the pot and has a manipulation for determinant, but not that (volition) whose determinant is directly the pot. The pot comes within the scope of that (volition) as what is desired, not as a determinant. [P. 223] As determinant, however, there is only the manipulation

ADDITIONAL NOTES 309

by the hand etc. For the same reason, even in "There is that agneya " eto., what falls within the scope of the injunction is only the sacrificial act, which is implied by the connection of material and deity, and which is the determinant of what is to be done. What is it that is said in "There is that agneya (cake) " eto. ? (It is said) "One should bring about (what is to be done) through the sacrifice with agni as deity." Hence it is that the texts "He who, knowing thus, performs the full moon sacrifice," "He who, knowing thus, performs the new moon sacrifice " become restatements of the six sacrifices prescribed in "There is that agneya " etc. Hence too for that (group of sacrifices) itself, which falls within the scope of the injunction and is restated, there is the relation to fruit, in "He who desires heaven is to sacrifice with the new and full moon sacrifices ". Hence it is an invariable rule that in every case what is enjoined has for determinant doing alone, through the channel of volition. And thus, in "Kill not," "Drink not" etc., if there be admitted something to be done, then, its pervader, volition, would have to be admitted, as also the doing which pervades that (volition) as determinant. And thus, on the analogy of the Prajapati-vrata, what is enjoined would, as signifying exclusion through the implication of the resolve not to kill or not drink, have that (resolve) as determinant. And thus it would follow that (that function of negation which consists in) the denial of what there is occasion for is wholly abandoned. Nor when there is a possibility (of direct significance) is implication proper. In the case, however, of "See not the rising sun" eto., since they commence with "His vow," there is not the possibility of the denial of that for which

310 ADDITIONAL NOTES

there is an occasion; [P. 224] hence it is proper through the signification of exclusion, to imply the resolve not to see. Therefore, in "Kill not," "Drink not" eto., which are denials of what there is an occasion for, since doing is non-existent, volition pervaded thereby is non-existent; and that being non-existent, there is non-existence of what is pervaded thereby, viz., what is to be done ; hence there is no rule that all statements have for purport what is to be done; thus he says ....

PAGE 165 "brahma veda brahmai'va bhavati' iti" etc. The sentence as it stands may imply that the fruit "brahma- bhavana (becoming Brahman)" has a need for the particular person prompted (niyojya-visesa). This, however, does not fit in with the Prabhakara doctrine, which acknowledges efficiency for the apurva alone, not for the fruit. Becoming Brahman, though stated as siddha, has to be understood as sadhya (what is to be accomplished); and for this change (viparinama) there is an expectancy (akanksa), which is satisfied by the statement of the particular class of person prompted. The genitive in "brahma-bhavanasya" would be thus a case of anadare şasthi, this being indicated in the translation by "yet"; this construction is mentioned in the Bhamatitilaka too. See also list of corrections.

PAGES 227 and 228 The word "kartavyata" has been translated as "obligation" or as "obligatoriness". There is, of course, no question of moral obligation here; what is present is, at best, a mechanical urge or impulsion consequent on a person's natural desires and passions. Because of these a

ADDITIONAL NOTES 311

person is tempted to drink or kill; it is this temptation or impulsion which is restated by the prohibition and negatived. The object of the negation is to make it known that what is restated, the tempting act, is instrumental to evil. Throughout this context the reader is requested to remember that no ethical significance attaches to the words "obligation " and "obligatoriness ".

PAGE 237

The punctuation of lines 8-12 of the text is unsatis- factory in all the printed editions ; the present punctuation is based on the explanation given in the Kalpataru. "dvedha" in "samsayo va dvedha yuktaḥ " means "as between two possibilities"; this qualification is purportful, as, in other cases, the doubt may be among more than two possibilities. The translation has therefore to be corrected ; see the list of corrections.

PAGE 239

"That contemplation and reflection are not principal rites " etc. The word "principal" here is not to be contrasted with "subsidiary"; it means rather that which has an apurva result; even subsidiaries, like stutis and sastras (mentioned on p. 185), have apurva results, and should, therefore, be classed as "principal" in this sense; in this context, therefore, a guna-karma is not what is subsidiary in general, but what is proximately subsidiary, subserving the rite itself, not the apurva generated ; it is, in other words, a sannipatyo-'pakaraka.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Ait., Aitareya Upanişad. Ait. Brah., Aitareya Brahmaņa. Brh., Brhadāraņyaka Upanişad. Chānd., Chandogya Upanişad. Gilā, Bhagavad Gitā. HIP., History of Indian Philosophy by S. N. Das Gupta (Cambridge University Press). IHQ., Indian Historical Quarterly, Calcutta. Isa., Īsāvāsya Upanișad. Jābāla., Jabalopanişad. Katha., Kațhopanişad. Kena., Kenopanişad. Mund., Muņdakopanișad. PM., Pūrva-mīmāņsa-sūtras. Pr., Prasnopanişad. Rv., Rgveda. Sa-Bh., Sabara-bhāşya. Svet., Svetāsvatara Upanișad. SLS., Siddhantalesasangraha by Appayya Dīkşita. Taitt:, Taittiriya Upanişad. TS., Taittiriya Samhita. Upa., Upanişad. Ved. Su., Vedanta Sutras. YS., Yoga Sutras.

CORRECTIONS

PAGE LINE FOR READ

२९ 12, 13 भवति। प्रतिपत्तुरत्यन्त भवति प्रतिपत्तुः । अत्यन्त ३७ 10 अन्त- आन्त-

४५ 3 मन्यन्ते मन्यते

८५ 11 दुःस्रूप दुःखरूप

१८५ 8 ब्रह्मदृष्टिस्मृतत्वाय ब्रह्मदृष्टिरमृतत्वाय

१८७ 18 विदिक्रिय विदिक्रिया

१९१ 16 परस्पर परम्पर

१९३ 8 नित्यवात् नित्यत्वात्

२०० 6 लक्षन्यम् लक्षण्यम्

२२२ 10 इति ; निर्विषयः इति निर्विषय:

२२३ 4 पौर्णमास्याम् पौर्णमासीम्

7 2,3 take on the be reflected in reflection of 7 14 concealment condemnation

8 23,24 its origination (perception so far as (by perception) it is) what originates 10 13,14 in another con- ascertained through text ascertained difference of context 71

316 CORRECTIONS

PAGE LINE FOR READ

14 7, 8 of the attributes of attributes absolutely ... distinct distinct (among them- selves) as also of sub- strates (similarly dis tinct) c.

25 23, 24 non-proximate non-proximate to re

. . . the cogniser cogniser ; wh',, 0

then the exti proximity (to cogniser) 28 9-11 And ... appre- And, for memory and hension apprehension, delu. siveness consists ir the appositional de- signation

46 11 sublation sublation by error no effort no (further) effort 12 it the truth

56 as something as that

3 This is how This is how : when when

57 10 as something as that

61 13 That How

64 9 skilled prudent 13 explained ; by us explained by us 63 19 skilled prudent 74 4 khādira being made of khadira 24-28 in respect of together with the host .. : krama of subsidiaries end- ing with sequence

CORREOTIONS 317

PAGE LINE FOR READ

(krama), which are taught directly or obtained by transfer, and which bring about proximate or remote contributo- ries, seen or unseen, 25 in the conceit under the conceit

5 is established will be established

26 comes will be

27 becomes turns out to be

120 2 indicating its of the type which own attribute signifies (the inclu- sion of the sense of the parts) as compo- nents of that (i.e., the sense of the compound). 127 7 That subject That

131 19 many may

137 4 The Sacred Being-Sacred-Teach- Teaching-Source ing-Source

150 22 apathy monotony

156 24 though through 164 14 khadira what is made of kha- dira

25 nature existent

165 16 enjoined for this enjoined, (becoming)

318 OORREOTIONS

PAGE LINE FOR READ

165 22 as ... passage by the eulogistic pas- sage, since it has a

sense wholly un- related to it. 193 11 they that

206 26 their own their own sense as 209 20-22 And therefore And for this reason tog .. . anything that it is not sub else sidiary to anything else, it is distinct from the four kinds of substances. 225 16 process of be- doing coming 237 10, 11 Or there may be Or, doubt may be ... two ways appropriate, as be- tween the two

239 28 viz., the fruit and with the (ultimate) fruit

Printed by A. K. Sitarama Shastri, at the Vasanta Press, Adyar, Madras.