1. Critique Of Brahma Sutras Modi P.M. Part 2

ITY

OELHI

DELHI UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

DELHI UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

Cl. No RG6:51:1:9 Ac No 95969 Date of relcase for loan

This book should be returned on or before the date last stufped bclow An overdue charge of 5 Pawe will be collected for each day the book is kept overtirne.

A CRITIQUE

of

THE BRAHMASUTRA (III. 2. 11-IV)

(With specral reference to Sankaracarya's Commentary)

PART II

SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAS ( III. 2. 11-IV ).

By

P. M. Modi B. A. ( Bom. Um. ), M. A. ( B. H. U. ), Ph. D. ( Kiel ), Zala Vedanta Prizeman ( Bom, Um. ), Ex-Professor of Sanskrit, and Principal, Samaldas College, Bhavnagar, Ex-Fellow, Senates of the University of Bombay and the Gujarat University, Dean of Vallabha Vedanta and Director-in-charge, Vaishnava Research Institute, V. T. Umversity, Vrindaban. With a Preface by : DI, B. L. ATREYA, M A., D, Litt , Kt. Com, Kt. Temp, Darshanacharya, Profespor of Philosophy and Bead of the Departments of Philosophy, Psychology, and Indian Philosophy and Religion, Banaras Hindu University; Birla Visiting Professor to Foreign Countries; and Member of the International Institute of Philosophy.

With a Foreword by Prof. Dr. T. M. P Mahadevan, M. A., Ph. D, Professor of Philosophy and Head of tho Department of Philosophy, Umversity of MADRAS.

इदमेव (श्रह्सूत्रशास्त्रम्) सर्वशास्त्राणां मूर्धन्यं, शास्त्रान्तरं स्वैमस्यैव शेषभूतमितीदमेव मुशुक्षुभिरादरणीयम्। Madhusūdana Sarasvatī in his Prasthāpabhe

Price : Rs. 20/ All Rights Reserved

लोके येध्वर्थेषु प्रसिद्धानि पदानि तानि सति संभवे तदर्थान्येव सूत्रे ष्वित्यवगन्तव्यम्। नाध्याहारादिभिरेषां परिकल्पनीयोर्ऽर्थः परि- भाषितव्यो वा। एवं वेदवाकयान्येवैभिर्व्याख्यायन्ते; इतरथा वेदवाक्यानि व्याख्येयानि सपदार्थाश्च व्याख्येया इति प्रयत्नगौरवं प्रसज्येत। Beginnıng of Sabara's Bhāşya

By the same author

1 Translation of Siddhantabindu of Madhusudana Sarasvati (being Zala Vedanta Prize Essay). Rs. 5-0-0

2. AkSara : A Forgotten Chapter in the History of Indian Philosophy Rs. 5-0-0

3. A Critique of the Brahmasutra: Part I: Interpretation of the Sutras (III.2.11-IV) Rs. 12-0-0

4. Bhagavadgita: A Fresh Approach Rs. 80-0-0

In the Press

5. Bhagavadgita: Abhinava Drstbindu (mn Guj.) Under Preparation 6. A Critique of the Brahmasūtra : Part III : A Fresh Approach.

Printed by Shree K. V. Marathe B.A., at the Ramvijay Prenting Press, Baroda and Published by P. M. Modi, Raopmra, Baroda, 14-10-1956

PREFACE

When I was writing my Thesis for Ph.D. under Prof. Dr. F. Otto Schrader at Kiel in 1929-31 I came to realise the impor- tance of the Brahmasutra for the history of Indian Philosophy. My earlier study of the Bhasyas, particularly that of the Sankara Bhasya on the Brahmasutra, under Pandit Achyutji and Pandit Chinnuswämi, and Prof. Schrader's guidance enabled me to dis- cover the meaning of the Sutras, while my study of the Tibetan translation of the Buddhacarita and the textual criticism on it under Prof. Schrader helped me in making out the Text of the Brahmasutra. I could discover much more than I needed then and Prof. Schrader encouraged me to devote myself to the study of the Brahmasutra after my return to India. In course of time I contributed several Papers and prepared a work on ( a substantial part of ) the Brahmasutra to be called " A Critique of the Brahmasutra". Scholars like Acarya A. B. Dhruva, Prof. S. N. Dasgupta, Prof. M. Hiriyanna, Dr. Ganga Nath Jha and Prof. R. D. Ranade whom I consulted, asked me to prepare a separate book about the " System " of Badarayana from the book which was ready for the Press and which they advised me to publish as "Part I : Interpretation of the Sutras". This is how I came to write the present volume, which gives in a nutshell the results of Part I both as regards Bādarayana's System and the critical method of interpretation as applied to his work. It is hardly possible to give a briefer account of Bādarā- yana's System than the one given in the Introduction and in Chapter 18. I may mention here only what appears to me to be the most striking feature of his Doctrine. According to him Brahman has two aspects, a-purusavidha and purusavidha, like the same two aspects of the Rgvedic deities, according to Yaska. They are both of equal status. He calls them "Avyakta" and "Purusa." Each has its own attributes (gunas). The Srutis

disenssed in Bra.Su.L.1 are those of the Avyakta while the Srutis considered in Bra.Sn.I.2 and 3 belong to the Purua and "optionally to the Avyakta", because "the Seripture describes each aspect ot the Supreme One with the attributes of the other" and, thus, in the Scripture itself we have an "Interchange of the attribntes" of the two aspects of the Reality (Bra.Su.III. 8.11 and 37-39).

The most important portion of the Brahmasutra is Bra.Su. III 8, called Gunopasamhara Pada which must mean, like the Pada of the same name in the Jaiminisūtra ( II.4 ), a "collected statement of the minor items (gunas)" ( of the meditation on Brahman). About the history of the earlior Vedanta thought wo know from the sixtysix Sutras of this Pada much more than from any other existing work. Bra.Su.III.o is the Key to Bāda- rayana's work (Bra Su I.1-3) and System,

The present study has enabled the author to make a number of major and minor discoveries; only some of which are men- tioned here. (a) Jnana is an "Act to be performed" (anustheya). (b) Badarayana believes in the Grace of God. (c) Upanisads were interpreted differently in the days of Bādarāyana. (d) There were many Oppositional Vedanta Schools besides those of the sages named by Badarayana, based upon different Upanisads. (c) The correct tradition of the visayavakyas of Bra.Su IIT and IV was not known oven to Sankara. (f) The Text of the Brahma- sütra, came to Sankara in a mutilated condition. (g) Ample Internal Evidence for the recovery of the Meaning as well as the Text of the Brahmasnitra is available. (h) Strict adherence to the context in filling up the ellipses of the Sutras leads to wonderful results as regards the meaning of the Sūtras. ( i) Sankara's Method in this respect is not satisfactory. details and illustrations of all these points will be found in the Introduction and in the book proper under various chapters. Bādarāyaņa has worked ont his System sticking to the very word of the Upanisadic Srutis. He rarely twists their sense. He knows the literal and straightforward sense and in- terpretation of the Oldest Prose Upanisads, the Earlier Metrical

5

Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita. He refutes several Vedantic Pürvapaksas based upon the latter two and seems to establish boldly a Siddhanta supported by the Chandogya and the Brha- daranyaka Upa. and more on the former than on the latter. He rejects from the Upanisads what he finds unsuitable to his System and re-interprets in the light of the Upanisads the non-Upanisadie principles and views of the Gita as far as possible; otherwise he openly rejects them also. He has saved the Vedanta School from being a purely theistio doctrine or a dualistic one with one lower and one higher aspect of Brahman itself, as in the Katha Upant- sad and the Gita. He was the first to establish a Vedenta Schoolin place of the many schools of the many Upanisads. His Brahman is simultaneously both Monistic (believing in the Avyakta) and Monotheistic (believing in the Purusa), like a serpent which is simultaneously both ahi (sorpent as such) and kundala (the coiled serpent).

I have taken Sankara, with whose Bhasya I happen to be uite familiar, as an Interpreter of tho Brahmasutra. I believe, we have reached a stage in Oriental Scientific Research, when we can and should distinguish, appreciate and evaluate distinctly and duly the ioll of an Acarya as an Interpreter of the Scripture trom his other roll as the Leader of the Religious'and Philoso- phical Thought of his Age. The constructive side of the modern scholarship lies in the search after the possible non- sectarian meaning of a Text, arrived at through several means and helps, one of which only is naturally a comparison of the fresh interpretation with that of an Acarya and a critical study of the latter.

While I offor a fresh interprotation and an account of the System of a substantial part of the Brahmasutra, I must confess that I myself do not as yet fully understand some Sūtras, as has been admitted by me in my Notes in Part I. There are ather handicaps also, one of which is my ignorance of the Jaiminisutras. I am still in search of a better meaning of some

6

of the Sutras, I have interpreted. I offer my conclusions as only tentative. I may hear draw the attention of the reader to some Papers! on various problems of the Brahmasutra, already published in Research Journals, which deal with portions of Badarayana's book (Bra.Su. I and II), and thus at least partly remove the incompleteness of my work on these Sutras. I have planned and partly finished one more volume on the Brahmasutra which contains only a fresh running interpretation of all the Sūtras without the back-ground of a Bhasya. I feel very grateful to Prof. Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan, M A., PH. D., Professor and Head of the Department of Philosophy, University of Madras, who has kindly contributed the Foreword to the present volume. His blessings have immensely enhen- ced the worth of my work. I respectfully remember on this occasion Pandit Achyutji and Pandıt ( now Mahamahopādhyaya ) Chinnuswami Shastri who taught me the Sankara Bhasya, line by line and word by word, at B. H. U., Banaras, 1921-1923. I also remember with humble and respectful homage Acharya A. B. Druva who initiated me in In- dian Philoscphy (both at the Gujarat College, Ahmedabad, and at B. H. U., Banaras) and under whom I prepared the whole of Part I and the first draft of Part II. Prof. Dr. F. Otto Schrader, + A list of the author's Papers on the Brahmasutra, published in Journals :- (1) Problem of the Tad uktam Sutras in the Brahmasutra. cal Quarterly, Calcutta, Vol. XIII, 1987, PP. 514-520. Indian Histor-

(2) Badarayana's Conception of Brahman ( A Fresh Interpretation of Bra. Su, I2 ), Journal of the University of Bombay, Volume XXIII, Part 2, September 1954. (s) Badaraynna's Conception of Brahman ( A Fresh Interpretation of Bra, Su, I.8 ); Journal of B. B. R. A. Society, Vol. 29, Part II, Dec. 1954. (4) Meaning of " Smrti " in the Brahmasutra, Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. XII, No. 4, 1986. (5) The Scheme of Brahamasutra I. 1-3 : A Rapprochement. The Journal of the University of Bombay, (Vol, IV, Part III) 1935. (6) Pee-S'ankara Mutilation of the Text of the Brahmasutra: Some suggestions for its correction. Preceedings of All India Oriental Conference Baroda, 1933.

7

Kiel University, who taught me the application of the modern critical method as regards both the Interpretation and the Text of our Senptures in general and the Brahmasuitra in particular, comes to my mind and I get overcome with feelings of gratitnde love and respect. He has also inspired me with a living faith in the modern scientific approach. I also acknowledge thankfully my indebtedness to Prof. S. N. Dasgupta and Prof. M. Hiriyanna, who encouraged me in my viewpoint re: the Brahmasūtra. I have also derived great benefit from the works on the Bra.Su, by Thibaut, Deussen, Teliwala, Prof. M. G. Sastri, Dr. Ghate and specially Dr. S. K. Belvalkar (Poona). It is the close personal touch with Prof. Dr. R. D. Ranade at Nimbal that has made me look to our Scriptures, particularly the Brahmasutra, with a view to understand and to try to adopt in my hfe the doctrine of the Vedanta which I have been ccnti- nuously for several years studying from these works. I always remember with loving respect for this saintly Professor the question by which he made me, not a pandit, but if I may be allowed to put the word, a muni. The question which he once asked me was this :- "Well, Modi, you have told me how you understand the conception of Brahman according to Badarayana and Sankara, according to the Upanisads and the Gita; now, tell me your own idea about Brahmanl" I cannot adeqately describe the effect of this question of Dr. Ranade on my study and on me ever since. This happened when I saw him and saught his advice with reference to my study of the Brahmasutra in 1942. I cannot but remember him and pay my homage to this sage-saint here. The author acknowledges his indebtedness to the Univer- sity of Bombay for the grant-in-aid received by him from the University towards the cost of publication of this work. I am also under deep obligation to Shree B. G. Mehta the Ex-Chief Minister, Bhavnagar State, during the Popular Government, 1948, and to Shree J. K. Modi, the present Minister for Edueation, Saurashtra State, who respettively sanctioned and paid a solid grant for this publication of mine, from the Bhavnagar Darbar

8

Granthottejan Fund. Both these learned gentlemen are great lovers of scholarship and I owe a great deal to them for my publications as well as in many other matters. The Preface by Dr. B. L. Atreya is really an Appreciation from one who is a great scbolar and at the same time a loving friend of mine, intimately knowing both myself and my work, since my College days in 1921-23 I owe a great deal to him. Besides these there are a few good sincere friends of mine, my own colleagues both in the College and in my studies, whom I may call my sahabramacarins, who have helped me in the preparation of this volume. I always remember them with deep love and gratitude.

I thank sincerely also Shree K. V. Marathe, B. A., the learned proprietor of the Ram Vijay Printing Press, Baroda, who helped me a great deal in bringing out this volume. Lastly, I earnestly crave indulgence of the learned reader for the mistakes which could have been avoided, but which have remained here due to my inability to rectify them.

हिरण्मयेन पात्रेण सत्यस्यापिहितं मुखम् । तत्वं पूषन्नपावृणु सत्यधर्माय दष्टये।।

Giridhar Niwas, Raopura, गुरुपूर्णिमा, Baroda, वि. स. २०१२. P. M, MODI. Dt. 22-7-56. वन्दावन.

PREFACE

By Dr. B. L. ATREYA

Dr. P. M. Modi and I have been co-pupils of late Professor A. B. Dhruva, have lived together in the same hostel of the Banaras Hindu University and for some time in the sume room; and have onjoyed life-long friendship. In the year 1923 he took his Master's Degree in Samskrit and I in Philosophy. The subjeet which we studied in common with our reverved teacher was the Brahmasuta, with its various Commentaries. While I was mainly interested in the philosophical aspect of it, Dr. Modi (then Mr. Modi) was also interested in the textual aspect of it. He was a very painstaking, porsevering, earnest and mtelligent siudent, and had no other interest in life than study. Even a third of a century has not brought any change in the interests of Dr. Modi who continues te be a student. And as a consequence of his erudite labour he has given to the world, among others, three great works, vis., Algara . A Forgotten Chapter in the Hstory of Indian Philosophy, The Bhagavadgita : A Fresh Approach, and A Onihque of the Brahmasutra. Although on account of a pernicious practice of retiring Professors at an age when they are most capable of intellectual work, Dr. Modi has retired from his job as a Professor of Samskrit, in reality, however, he has not retired, and refuses to retire from work. He still continues to be a student, a research worker, and a writer, and as such he has settled in a small hut in the Vaishnava Research Institute at Vrindaban to which several retired scholars have flocked. Ever since we were together at Banaras I have been in close academic touch with Dr. Modi, and I have nothing but admiration for his pure, simple and scholarly life. In ' his literary career he has always been free from bias and dogma, and has been ( a seeker of truth and a frank teller of it. His name, I am sure, will go down the ages as a great scholar of the Prasthana-traya and as one who has made a « valuable contribution to their understanding.

The present volume, to which Dr. Modi has asked me to write a Foreword, is a part of his erudite work on the Brahmasutra. It deals with the third and the fourth Adhyayas of the work mainly. A perusal of the book will raveal the labour Dr. Modi has done and the great contribution he has made to our understanding of the real meaning of the Sutras. He has tried to follow not the footsteps of any known Acharvas who have commented on the Prasthana-

haya ( Upanishads, Bhagavadgtta, and Brahmasutra ) mn order to get support from them for their traditional schools of philosophy, but "the modern, histor- cal, critical, comparative, and scientific method of interpretation". Honestly and patiently pursued, this method has enabled Dr Modi to discover the real views of Badaiayanla and to piesent them to the reader with great conviction. Earlier modern writers on the Brahmasutra have tried to find out in vain which of the great commentators presesnted the philosophy of Badarayana more correcily than others, and in their attempt they too were consciously or uncons- ciously under the influence of a wish to support one or the other of the great Acharyas. Dr. Modi's is perhaps the first attempt to appioach the Brahmasutra directly and objectively keeping the historical background in view. He has been thus able to give us (1) the salient points of Badarayana's own philosophy, (2) Badarayana's own mnterpretation of the Upamishads, and (3) the Vedanta Schools known to Badarayana. About Shankaracharya's commentary on the third Pada of the third Adhyaya of the Brahmasutra, which Dr. Modi regards as "the very key of the entire work of Badarayana", he thinks, on the basis of his study, that "Shankara had the correet tradition neither of the Meaning nor of the Tent of this Pada" (Italics are mine). Dr. Modi claims, and I think, rightly, to have discovered "the lost meaning of a number of the Sutras" and he has tried to fix a proper reading of the Sutras and a correot classification of them under proper Adhikaranas in accordance with purely scientific method.

I leave it to the scholarly erities to judge the merits of the present work. I have only to congratulate my friend and old class-fellow, Dr. P. M. Modi on his great and valuable attempt which, I hope, will be highly appreciated bỳ posterity of scholars of the Vedanta philosophy, and I wish him a long and healthy life to continue to work,

Atreya-niwas, October 10, 1956 B. L. Atreya

FOREWORD

Dr. P. M. Modi requires no introduction to the world of Vedantic scholarship. The books that he has already published have achieved for him a high place among the interpreters of Vedantic texts.

In Part I of the present work, printed in 1945, Dr. Modi gave us his interpretation of the Brahmasutra, III.2.11-IV. In the preface to that Part he promised to present "The System of the Sutrakara" in Part II. It is that promise that is being fulfilled now. Dr. Modi summarises here the conclusions he has arrived at as a result of his interpretation of the sutras considered in Part I. There is no particular reason why the sutras, III,2.11-IV should have been chosen, and not the earlier sutras. As Dr. Modi has made it clear, the choice is a matter of accident: Regarding the the importance of Brahmasutra III.3, however, he is very definite. According to him, it provides the key to the entire work of Badarayana.

The method of study adopted by Dr. Modi is what has come to be called the historico-critical method. He himself styles it as the historico-critical-cum-philological method. The orienta- lists of the West have, in general, favoured this method; and Dr. Modi's early training under Dr. Schrader in Germany has evidently set the model for him. The application of this method to ancient Indian philosophical classics has certainly yielded rich results. What Dr. Modi attempts here is to use this method for reconstructing Badarayana's system of philosophy from the words of the sutras themselves, without relying on any of the commentaries.

Any construction has to be through some criticism, Dr. Modi selects for criticism Sankara's Brahmasutra-bhasya, for, as he says, he is most acquainted with it, and probably because

2

it is the most outstanding of all the classical commentaries. The classical commentators assume that the three prasthanas of Vedanta, viz., the Upanisads, the Bhagavad-gita, and the Brahmasutra, teach the same philosophy, although each of them has his own view as to what that philosophy is. In other words, so the modern critical scholar thinks, each bhasyakara starts with a system of his own, and seeks to fit in every statement made in the prasthanas with that system. This has led him to a great deal of text-torturing, and tortuous interpretation of express statements whose plain meaning is inconvenient. The critical scholar claims to go to the text without any initial bias for a System. He seeks to understand the mind of the author or authors of the text from the structure of the state- ments made, the type of the words used, the context, etc. To study even the Upanisads or the Bhagavadgita with the help of the critical method is a difficult task. Just as the traditional commentators have differed among themselves regarding the interpretation of these texts, even so the critical scholars disagree on the meanings they assign to passages in these prasthanas. The difficulty of interpreting the Brahmasutra is all the greater because the aphorisms are cryptic, often consisting of two or three words. Probably, they were designed to serve as memory- aids to those who had actually listened to discourses bearing on the topics. Even in regard to certain verses of Sureśvara's Brhadāranyakopanısad-bhāsya-varlika, for instance, comment- ators are not sure whether they express the prima facie view (purvpaksa) or the final position (siddhanta). It is no wonder therefore, that there should be similar uncertainties with regard to the sutras. The merit of Dr. Modi's work is that, for the first time, he has employed the critical apparatus to a study in detail, of the Brahmasutra. The true scholar that he is he is candid enough to say that his conclusions are not final. Also his criticism of Sankara's interpretation does not mean any dis- respech to the Acarya or belittling the greatnes of his bhāsya This is in the true spirit of even the traditional Indian scholar ship. Suresvara, one of Sankara's most beloved disciples, differs

3

from bis Master in certain contexts, while interpreting the Brhadaranyaka for example; but he differs respectfully. So, Dr. Modi's procedure is perfectly legitimate; and he is right in following the lead of his own light. Everyone has to do this if he is to be honest with himself. And, Dr. Modi is also aware that he may not expect everyone to agree with him in every respect. That is the mark of a great mind and a good scholar.

The problem with which Dr. Modi is concerned is to recons- truct the text of the Brahmasutra and to understand from the text what should have been the doctrines taught by Badarāyana. As a result of his investigation he finds that Sańkara has not always interpreted the text correctly. It is only fair to point out that there is another problem which does not come under the purview of Dr. Modi's prosent work. That problem relates to the soundness or otherwise of Sankara's philosophy taken by itself. Great as he was as a commentator, Sankara was even greater as a constructive and original thinker. His independent contribution to the philosophy of India still remains to be pro- perly assessed. But Dr. Modi's task which is different has been well performed. The amount of work he has put in is prodigous. He writes clearly, and always gives reasons for what he writes. His work is a significant contrbution to our understanding.of the Brahmasutra.

University of Madras, MADRAS-5. T. M. P. MAHADEVAN. 24th Angust 1956.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface 3-8

Foreword .... 1- .... .... Table of Contents 1-6 INTRODUCTION 1-13 .... . Bādaraynna's System 1-5 II. Badarayana's Interpretation of the Upanisads 5-8 III. Vedanta Schools known to Badarayana 8-10 IV. Importance of Brahmasūtra III.3 10-11 V. The Critical Approach 11-13

Chapter I. Conception of Brahman and Meditation on it 1-82 Badarayana's place as Acārya of the Vedanta School .... 1-2 Main features of his System. Two aspects of Brahman; the Arupavat (nirakara), Pradhana, or the Avyakta, and the Rūpavat (sakara), Purușavidha, or the Purusa 3-8 Further evidence for the two aspects 8-10 Sūtras for the Purusa aspect 11-14 ... Relation of the two aspects .... 15-22 Attributes of each of the two aspects 20-32 Method of Meditation on Brahman and its Effect 32-35 Nature of the knowledge of Brahman 35-39 Relation of the two Kandas of Veda 87-42 Various Meditations on Brahman including Kamya Meditation on-It 42-54 Meditation on OM, the Symbol of Brahman 64-57 Vrddhi and Hrasa of Brahman 67-61 Moksa, obtained from Brahman .... ,62 Doctrine of Grace .... 62-68 .... Time of attainment of mukti, not fixed 62 Seeker, reborn 'not once' 62 No absolute identity of Jiva and Brahman ... 64-65

2

Several Important Purvapaksas in the' Brahmasutra, rediscovered 65-79 ... .... .... Badarayana, as the Founder of the Vedanta School 80-82 Chapter 2. Action as Help to Knowledge in Achieving Moksa .... 83-102 Jñana leads to Moksa. Nature of Jñana .... 83 88 "Upanisads" are "Eulogy" or "meant for Pariplava Rite"-Jaimini. Refutation by Badarayana 88-89 Two types of Karmans, Compulsory for all seekers 90-92 A third set of Karmans, Compulsory for the house- holder-seeker ... 12-13 A House-holder-Seeker must do also "Wordly Dutios" 94 Some minor topics 94-101 .... No definite time for Mukti-phala 102

Chapter 3. Before and After the Attainment of the Knowledge of Brahman .... 103-113 State of Advanced Seeker .... 103-106 "Sins and Merits" of the Seeker, on his Attainment of Knowledge .... 106-109 Good Deeds co-operate with Knowledge for Moksa ... 109-110 Individual Soul, a real Kartr ... 110-111 Sankara's Interpretation ... 111-113 Chapter 4. Departure of the Seeker from the Body .... 114-121 Departure of the Subtle body and the soul of the seeker after he becomes a seeker on the Devayāna Path and before he attains the knowledge of Brahman 114-116 Final Departure of the seeker ... 116-117 Sankara's View of IV.2 .... 117-121 Chapter 5. Journey of the Brahmajnanin on the Devayana Path ... .... 122-134 Worlds on the Devayana Path .... 122-124 .... The Rays, etc., are "Conductors" .... .... 124-125 How far can the Vaidyuta Conductor go (Asya yaty- upapatteb) ? ... 125-134

3

Chapter 6. State of Union with Brahman .... 135-141 Union (Sampatti) is "reaching" (Upasampatti) ... 135 Manifestation of the Soul's Own Form ... .... 136 -Non-Separation from Brahman .... .... 137 Soul's Nature, Brahma or Cititanmatra ... ... 138 Mukta's Enjoyment of Objects ... .4. ... 139 Mukta's Pervasion or Omnipresence .... 140 No worldly transactions. Permanence of the Mukta-Form ... .... 141 No Return of the Mukta to this World ... ... 141 Chapter 7. The Sutrakara's Interpretation of Certain Srutis ... .... 142-173 Śrutis about the two aspects. " Śrutis describe the arupavat aspect with the attributes of the rupavat and vice verse. " Interchange of attributes in the Śrutis. .... ... ... .... 142-147 The Two Kandas of the Sruti are independent .... 147 Srutis about the Prajapatiloka, which is the Kärana Brahman ... ... ... 147-148 Srutis describing Brahman as two-fold (ubhayalinga) .... 148-149 Srutis describing Brahman negatvely .... .... 149-150 Mu. Upa.Sruti about Aksara-Purusa .... 150 Srutis which seem to place the Purusa above the ... .. 151-158 Srutis about the various meditations on Brahman Avyakta ... 158-159 Māņdūkya Upa. about the various states (Sthanas) of Jiva and Brahman, refuted ... ... .... 159-160 Chā. Upa. VII. 26.1 (Vrddhi-hrāsa) ... .... 161-163 Tai. Upa.II.5 (Priyaśiraslvādi) .... Śrutis with Upāsīta, drstavya, veda, etc. .... 163-164 ... ... 164 Sruti about the non-departure of the Pranas of the Jñanin from the body .... .... 164-165 Cha. Upa.II.23.1 lays down the áśramas of a seeker of Moksa ... ... .... 165 Br. Upa. IV.2.22-23 ( Sama-damādi ) are subsidiary to Yajñādi ... ... ... .... 165-166

4

'Upa' in Upopavivesa in Chā. Upa.I. 10.8 ... .... 166 Srutis about priestly duties done ( to be done by a seeker ) for a Yajamāna ... ... .... 166 Srutis about brahmacharya, tapas, etc. as means to Moksa, ... ... .... 166-167 Chã. Upă.I.1.10 .... .... 167 Śrutis about the (negative) attributes of the Aksara .... 167-168 Meaning of "Aham Brahmasmi" Srutı .... 168 Sruti describing Brahman as 'of a limited size' .... 168 Śrutis about Jñana as superior to Karman .... 168-169 Śrutis about Relation of the two Kāndas .... 169 Srutis re. Meditation on OM ... 169-170 Chã. Upa. IV. 15.5 (sa enān Brahma gamayati) ... 171 Srutis and Smrtis about Brahman as Light ... 171 Bha.Gită VIII.24-25 ... 172 The Sūtrakara seems to give preference to the Chändogya Upa. ... .... 178 Cbapter 8. The Sutrakara and Sankaracarya ... 174-186 Two aspects of Brabman .... 174-177 Brahman and Vidhi (Injunction) ... 177-178 Use of the negative attributes ... 178 Change in Brahman ... 178-179 "Atmagrahīti" .. 179-180 ... Brahman, the Giver of Moksa ... ... 180 Union of the subtle body, etc. of the Jñanin .... 130-181 Enjoyment in Liberation .... 181 Eelp of Actions for Liberation .... 182-183 Nature of Jñana . Sh .... .... 184 Aśramas of a seeker .... 184-185 Relation of the two Kandas of Sruti ... ... 185-186 Chapter 9. Importance of Brahmasutra III.3 .... 187-214 Traditional View ... ... 187-190 Sankara's difficulties, weaknesses, and defects in his Bhāsya .. 191-195 Loss of Tradition re. the Text and Meaning of III 3 ... 195

5

Readings suggested ... 195-196 .... Crucial Sutras in III. 3 .... 196-197 "Tad Uktam" Sütras in III.3 ... ... ... 197-198 Reconstruction of the Meaning of Bra.Su.III.3 ... 198-213 Supreme Importance of Bra.Sū.III.3 ... 213-214 Chapter 10. Traditional Method of Interpretation : Sankara's Method ... 215-290 ... Three-fold division of Sütras into those of Avidyā, Aparā Vidyā and Parā Vidyā ... .... 216-223 Subjects, irrelevent to Brahmajijnasa ... ... 223-228 Cases of Cross References in the Sutras ... ... 228-232 Double interpretation of the same Srutis and Smțtis ... ... ... 238-235 Sankara, not sticking to the scheme in the Brah- masütra ... ... ... 235-239 Śankara's References to the Śrutis as Visayavākyas of the Sūtras ... 239-248 Sankara's free additions to the words of the Sutras ... 249-257 Wrong divisions of the words in a Sutra ... ... ,257-260 Wrong meanings of the words in a Sūtra ... ... 261-264 Two meanings, given to the same word ... ... 264 No meaning given to a word in a Sutra ... ... 265 Wrong construction of words in a Sutra ... ... 266 Sankara's Impossible or Absurd Pūrvapaksas and Siddhāntas ... 266-290 ... ... Chapter 11. Method of Interpretation: Some Sug- gestions ... 291-318 Difficulties in interpreting the Sūtras ... ... 291-294 "Tad Uktam" Sutras are a help ... 295-296 Bahuvrīhi compounds are a help .... 296-297 Recovery of Visāyavākyas .... ... 298-300 Study of the same words is a help ... .... 300-302 Study of synonyms, Comparison of expressions and doctrines, contrast between Sutras, are a help ... 802-304 Strict adherence to the context is a great help ... 805-808

6

Practical suggestions re: the discovery of the Context. 309-313 Chapter 12. The Text of the Brahmasutra ... 814-843 Śankara, Prof. Belvalkar, Dr. Ghate ... ... 314-315 Sutras with hi and tathāhi ... ... .... 316-319 Sūtras with tu ... ... 319-827 Sūtras with ca and without ca .... ... 827-834 Sütras with words in the ablative in the sense of hetu or without such words but giving a hetu only ... 334-837 Sutras with a Proposition ... ... ... 338-841 Change of Reading in certain Sütras, suggested on eritical grounds ... ... ... ... 342 Sūtrapatha and Adhikaraņapātha ... 342 Chapter 13. The System of the Sutrakara. Resume ... .... ... ... 343-383 Chapter I Conception of Brahman ... 344-352 Chapter II Action as Help ... ... 352-854 Chapter III Before and After Knowledge ... 354-356 Chapter IV Departure of the Seekor .... 856-357 Chapter V Journey of the Brahmajnanin .. 857-858 Chapter VI State of Union with Brahman ... 359-360 Chapter VII The Sutrakara's Interpretation ... 860-364 Chapter VIII The Sūtrakara and Sankara ... 364-865 Chapter IX Importance of Brá.Sū.III.8 ... 365-368 Chapter X Śańkara's Method ... ... 368-375 Chapter XI Method of Interpretation ... 375-378 Chapter XII The Text of the Bra, Su. ... 878-383

INTRODUCTION

In the Preface I have stated how this volume came to be written I would now say a few words about the System and the Text of the Brahma- sütra, setting aside the technicalities in the chapters of Parts I and II

I. BADARAYANA'S SYSTEM.

I would present hore in bare outlines a few salient points of Bādarā- yanas System(a) which, I think, I have rediscovered for the first time :- (i ) Brahman has two aspects, the purusavidha (rūpavat, or sakara) and the a-purusavidha (a-rupavat, or nirakara)1. They are both of equal status and a complete option of choice between the two is given by the Sūtrakāra to the seeker because both lead directly to the same Moksa2. ( ii ) Both these aspect of the Supreme One have their own attributes. (See (i) under Sec.II of this Introduction), (iii ) The Strakāra rejects the negative attributes of the Aksara, viz., a-sthūlam, ananu, a-hrasvam, a-dirgham, a-lohitam, etc., etc. (emphasised too much by S'ankara), as not useful for meditation on Brahman3. He also rejects the priyasirastvadi attributes of Brahman4. (iv) The apurusavidha aspect is the fundamental ( Pradhana, mukhya) aspect5. The Sutrakara explains the relation between the aprusavidha and the purnsavidha aspects by saying that the Supreme One is like both ahi (the serpent as such) and kundala (the coiled serpent)6. (v) The Sutrakara calls the apurusavidha aspect by the name of the Avyakta7 and the purusavidha by the name of the Purusa®.

(a) For all refeiences to the Sutras and for their interpretations by the auther, see the corresponding portions of Part II and also Part I for dotails on the latter. 1. Bra.Su.III.2.14. (अरूपवदेव हि तत्प्रधानत्वात्). 2. Bra.Su.III.3.28 (छन्दतः उभयाविरोधातू) 29,30, and III.3.45 (नदपि पूर्व विकल:)eta. 3. Bra.Sa.III.3.14 (आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभवात्); see also Bra.Su.III.3.33 (अक्षरधियां त्ववरोध:) 4. Bra.Sū III.8.12. 5. Vide 1 supra. 6. Bra.Su.III.2.27 (उभयन्प्रपदशा्वाहिकुण्डलवत्), 7. Bra.Su.III.2.23 ( तदव्यक्तमाह हि). 8. Bra.Su.III.3,24 ( पुरुषविद्यायामिव चेतरेषामनाम्नानात).

2

(vi) The Prajapatiloka is the pursavidha aspect of the Supreme Reality. It is an aspect of Karana Brahman; it is not Karya Brahman9. Sankara does not seem to be right in adding 'Prajapatiloka' to the S'utrakara's list of the worlds, and as situated above the Varunaloka I0 (vii) The Sutrakara mentions three kinds of meditations on Brah- man, two of which lead directly to Moksa, while the third consists of the kamya upasanas of Brahman11. One of the former two is a medita. tion on Brahman not concerved as consisting of angas (limbs or parts), e. g. Bhuman, Aksara, etc. while in the other Brahman is meditated upon as consisting of angas12, e. g., the Vaiśwanara conceived as possessing limbs.

(viii) It is here discovered for the first time that several Sūtras deal with the meditation on the Pranava the only symbol of Brahman13.

(ix) The Sutrakara discusses parinama, 'change', vrddhi, increment, and hrusa, decrement, three out of the six states of an entity (sadbhava- vikarah) mentioned by Yaska, with reference to Brahman. He' says that the karya or krti, the effect, of Brahman is Brahman Itself. Brahman appears to grow, to increase or to evolve, and to decrease or decay, according as Brahman conceals Itself in Its effect-forms respec- tively to a lesser and a greater degree14. (x) In the above consideration and in taking purusavidha and apurusa- vidha as the two aspects of the Supreme One Bādarayana seems to be influenced by Yaska, the author of the Nirukta. (xi) The Sūtrakāra mentions the Grace ( anugraha ) of Brahman (as purusavidha or as a-purusavidha ) on two occasions15. He also seems to mean that the Lord Himself gives the fruit of Moksa out of His Grace16, (xif) The fruit in the form of liberation comes to the seeker from the Supreme One; and that fruit is nothing else but the Supreme One Itself17.

(xiii) The Jnana ( the act of the knowing ) of Brahman is something to be performed ( anustheya ), and there is a Vidhi ( Injunction ) laying down

9. Bra.Sū.IV.8.7-16. 10. Vide S'a. Bhasya Bra.Su.IV.3.3. 11. Bra.Su.III 3.60 (काम्यास्तु यथाकामं समुच्चीयेरन्न वा पूर्वहवेत्वभावात्) 12. Bra.Su III.3.55 (अङ्गावबद्धास्तु न शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदस्). 13. Bra.Sü.III.3.25-27, IV.1.4-5, IV.3.15. 14. Bra.Su.III 2.20 (वृद्धिहासभाकत्वमन्तर्भावात् ...... ) 15. Bra,Su.III.4.38 (विशेषानुग्रदृक्ष); IV.2.17 (हार्दानुगृहीत:). 16. Bra.Su.III.2.38 (फलमतः उपपत्तेः) 17, Bra.Su.III.2.41 (पूर्व तु बादरायणो हेतुव्यपदेशास्).

3

the Jnana18. The meditation on Brahman produces an effect called Apurva, (the extra-ordinary Principle)10. The identity of the Injunction (codana) etc. in all the Vedantas proves that all of them teach the same Brahman.

(xiv) There is Scriptural Unanimity ( ekavākyatā ) of the Karmakānda and the Jnanakanda of the S'ruti in so for as both Karman and Jhana are anustheya, "to be permormed"; both are laid down by the respective Injunctions21, and both produce their respective Apūrvas.

(xv) Brahman is not the topic of the knowledge in the Pūrvakanda; only the Upanisads teach Brahman22. (xvi) In achieving Moksa Karman co-operates23 with Jhäna which is the primary means of Moksa, says Badarayana. Jaimini holds the reverse view. Both of them hold that all other means of Moksa stated in the Upanisads are subsidiary (to Karman, acc. to Jaimini and to Jñana, acc. to Badarāyana34). The Sutrakara rejects or rather refutes the Disintere- sted Action (Yoga) which the Gita declares to be the means to Moksa25.

(xvii) A seeker (mumuk§u) may belong to any stage of life26. The two sets of actions (1) yajña-dana-tapas and (2) the duties of one's asrama must be performed by every seeker. But a householder-seeker must also perform a third set of actions as helpful to the jnana, such as silence, (mauna), etc. The grhastha-mumuksu must also perform his worldly duties, not as a help to jñana, but "in order that there be no obstruction to what has been already begun by him" (aprastuta- pratibandhe)27. (xviii) A mumuksu may have performed both Jhana (which the Sutrakara understands to be "antetheya" and Karman in this very birth, but even so there is no fixed rule that he would surely get the fruit 18. Bra.Su.III.4.18-20 (अनुष्ठेयं बादरायण: Bra,Su.III.4.19). 19. Bra.Su III.3.18 ( कार्याख्यानादपूर्वम्) 20. Bra.Su.III.3.1 (सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययं चोदनाद्यविशेपात). 21. Bra.Su.II1.4.24 (तथा चकवाक्यतोपनिबन्धात्). 22. Bra.Su.III.3.20-23, and 34. 23 Bra.SQ.III,4.33 (सहकारित्वेन च) 24. Bra.Su.III.4.1-2 (शेपत्वात्पुरुपार्थवादो यथान्येष्विति जमिनि: Bra.SQ.III.4.2) 25. Bra.Su.II.1.3 (एतेन योग प्रत्युक्त:) 26. Bra,SuIII.4. (कृत्स्नमावातत गृहिणोपसदार :- Bra.Su.III.4.48.) 27. Bra Su.III.4.47-51, Bra. Su,III.4.39-46. (ऐहिकमप्यप्रस्तुतप्रतिबन्धें तद्र्शनास्- Bra.Su.III.4.51. )

4

of Mukti immediately on leaving the body or at a particular period after he has performed Jhana and Karman prescribed for Mukti. 28 Hence the Sutrakara describes the movements, the residence, the work, and the functions, of an advanced seeker who has carried out all the means of Moksa, but has not yet got perfection, but goes on reincarnating on this earth in the state of an almost liberated seeker, matured in spiritual progress. 29 (xix) There is no Jivan-mukti because there can be no Mukti unless the jnanin reaches (upasampadyate) the Supreme One 30 (xx) Only those who seek Moksa (and not the istadikarins and the ignorant) persue and proceed on the Devayana Path, and, from the mo- ment they start persuing this Path (asrtyupakramat), everytime they leave the gross body they do so after the components of the subtle body unite together in a regular order31. The Sutrakara explains the S'ruti saying "His pranas do not depart", by interpreting it in a veiy strange way.32 The subtle body of the jnanin who reaches Brahman seems then to unite with the Supreme Light and to be dissolved there, because only the soul of the mukta becomes manitest after his union with and merger into Brahman.33 (xxi) The reaching (upasampatti) of Brahman by the jnanin is explained by the Sutrakara as non-separation (avibhaga) of the Mukta Atman from the Supreme One.a* Thus he enjoys all objects in company of Brahman which even then appears to the mukta soul to be two-fold, viz., purusavidha and also at the same time a-puruSavidha; and the mukta eternally enjoys in Its company, either with a body or without a body.35 When the Sūtra kāra gives option as regards the mukta possessing a body or not, he seems to imply that when the mukta feels the presence of the Purusa and enjoys in His company, he does so with a body; and when he feels the presence of the Avyakta and enjoys in Its company, he does so without a body. He compares the Enjoyment in company with the purusavidha aspect with 28. Bra.Su,IJI.4.52 (ए,वं मुक्तिफलानियमस्तववरथावधृतेस्तदवस्थावधृनेः). 29. Bra.S.IV.1.1-12. 80 Bra.Sū.IV.1.18-19. 81. Bra Sū.IV.2.1-7,8-11,15-21. 32 Bra.Su,IV.2.12 (प्रतिषेधादिति चेन्न शरीरात्); 13, 14. He iterprets नतस्य प्राणा: उत्क्रामन्ति in the light of न तस्मात् प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति which is the reading in another Sakha and which he construes to mean that tTuTs do not go out of him but they go along with him, 33 Bra. SD.IV.4. 34, Bra.Su.IV 4.4. 35. Bra.Su.IV.4.10, 13-14. 36. Bra.Sū.IV 4.13-14.

5

the enjoyment in the waking state and the Enjoyment in company with apurufavidha aspect of the Supreme Being with that in the dream state.36

(xxii) The form of the liberated one is free from all entanglements of worldly transactions and relations, such as the relationship of father and son, sinner and sinless, criminal and righteous, the caste-system, the asrama-system, the different religions and schools of philosophy, even the followers of the Vedas and the non-followers, etc37. One of the arguments for this statement is that the form of the liberated one is beyond any modification (vikaravartin) because the S'ruti mentions the permanence of that form38. Another argument is that the only common characteristic between the mukta-state and the state in this jagat is that of enjoyment3 0. In one Sutra the author of the Brahmasutra refutes the "lokapatti" dosa on Brahman even though bhoga ( Enjoyment) is a characteristic common ( samanya ) to It and to our world40. Also, it appears, as I have already noticed above in (vi) that acc. to Badarāyaņa the Prajāpatiloka is an aspect of the Karana Brahman, i.e., it is the purusavidha Brahman. Sankara is not right in asking us to add Prajapatiloka to the list of lokas and as situated above the Varuņaloka41.

In the above I have summed up in a somewhat popular way the more important points in the System of the author of the Brahmasūtra redis- covered by me. There are many more found out and stated by me in the respective chapters of this book and in the notes in Part I. The respective interpretations of the Sutras from which the above information has been gathered have been fully given in Part I along with the relevant arguments, and have been summarised in detail in the chapters of this Part in their proper place. II, BADARAYANA'S INTERPRETATION OF THE UPANISADS

The above discovery of the System of the Brahmasutra throws light on Badarayana's interpretation of a number of Upanisadic S'rutis. I have collected them from Part I and also stated their meanings as they appear to me to have been understood by Badarayana, in chapter 7 of this book.

37. Bra.Su IV.4.17 ( जगद्वयापार वर्जम्). 38. Bra Su.IV.4.19 (विकारावर्ति च तथाहि स्थिनिमाह). 39. Bra.Su.IV.4.21 (भोगमान्नसाम्यलिङ्गाचत) which must refer to the साम्य between मुक्त (IV.4.2) and जगत (IV.4.17). 40. Bra.Su III.3.51 (न सामान्य।दप्युपलब्धेमृत्युवन्र हि लोकापत्तिः) 41. Vide (vi.) supra.

6

I shall here very briefly present only some of them just to illustrate the importance of the problem.

(1) The most important point for the history of the Vedanta Philo- sophy, noteworthy as discovered from the Brahmasutra, is the fact that Badarayana interprets only a few S'rutis, viz, the S'rutis discussed by him in Bra.Su.L.I, as S'rutis dealing with only the a-purusavidha aspect,43 while, the Srutis and the thoughts ( on Brahman ) discussed by him in Bra.Su.1.2 and 3 deal, according to him, with both the apurusavidha and the purusavidha aspects simultaneously "These Srutis distinguish the apurufavidha with attributes of the purusavidha and the purusavidha with those of the apurusavidha; and hence there is an "interchange of the attributes" of the two aspects in the Scripture"48. In Bra.Su.I.2 and 3 he has inter- preted the S'rutis under consideration as those of the Purusa, but in Bra. Su III.3 38-39 he says that the same S'rutis may also be taken as the S'rutis of the Avyakta, the impersonal aspect of Brahman,44

(ii) The S'rutis of cogita oppositorum, e g. apānipado javano gralītā, sa pasyaty acakşuh sa srunoty akarņah1 5 and similar Smrtis, e.g., sarvendriyaguņā- bhasam sarvendriyavivarjitam,46 are understood by Badarayana as proving that Brahman is stmultaneously both purusavidha and a-purusavidha,47 that Brah- man has to aspects, but there are not two Brahmans (higher and lower)18, that both the aspects are of equal status8, and also that the liberated soul is in the state of nonseparation with Brahman having thesetwo aspects.50

(iii ) According to Badarayana the S'rutis mentioning the negative thoughts known as the "thoughts of the Aksara", e.g., asthulam, ananu, ahrasvam, adir gham, alohitam, etc ( emphasised too much by S'ankara) deny only the rupa o1 akara of Brahman. He says that these thoughts of the Aksara are not to be collected (avarodha) because they are not useful for meditation on Brahman61.

42. Bra.Su.III.3.11 (आनन्दादय' प्रधानस्य) 48. Bra.Su,III.3-37 (व्यतिहारो विशिपन्ति हीतरवत्) 44. Bra.Su.III.3.38-39. (सत्यादय, कामादितरत्र तत्र व चायतनादिभ्यः) 45. S've. Upa. 46. Bha, Gi.XIII. 47. Bra.Su.ITI.2.13 (arfd aada) and Bra.Su,III.2.17. 48. Bra.SuIII.2.36 (तथाडन्य प्रतिषेधात). 49. Bra.Su.III.2.27 ( उभयव्यपदेशात्वहिकुण्डलवत्). 50, See Bra.Su IV 4.4,10-12 and 13-14. 61. BraSt.III.S.13 (इतरे त्वर्थसामान्यात्) and 14 (आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभावात); Bra,Su. III.3.33 (अक्षरधियां त्ववरोध.).

7

(iv ) The Katha Upanisad S'ruti which mentions the Purusa as higher than the Avyakta, ie., the purusavidha aspect as "higher" than the a-purusavidha aspect of Brahman and which was so interpreted by an Opponent is set aside by Bādarayana 52 (v) The Mandukya Upanisad was interpreted by an Opponent as holding that Brahman is pnrusavidha in Its states (sthanas) of waking and dreaming (ja garītasthana and svapnasthana ), while It is apurusavidha in Its state of dreamless sleep and in the fourth state ( susupta-sthana and turiyavastha ), The Opponent also interpreted other S'rutis mentioning the Purusa and His attributes as dealing with the Supreme One (para, i. e., Brahman Itself ) in Its waking and dreaming states (sthana) and S'rutis mentioning the Avyakta and Its attributes as dealing with the Supreme One in Its state of dreamless sleep and in the turiy@vastha. The Opponent taking the Mandukya Upa. as his authority thus explained the two-fold attributes and S'rutis (of rupavat and arupavat aspects) of the Supreme One 'by referring them to Its four states' (sthanatah). The S'utra kara rejects this view with the help of the Chandogya Upanişad which he interprets rightly as meaning that Brahman is both Avyakta and Purusa (nirakāra and sākara) in all states because Prajapati teaches Indra that Brahman is the same in all the states53.

( vi ) Badarayana interprets the sukla and krsna gatis of the Bhagavad- gita as dealing with Brahmajnanins who are yogins and rejects them as being smarta only. It may also be noted here that Badarayana rejects the Yoga of the Gita as means to Moksa54, because he identifies the Prakrti of the Gita with Brahman Itself5; and the Yoga of the Gita traces all actions to the Prakrti and asks man to return them to Prakrti. This identity of the Prakrti with Brahman leads to Smrtyanavakas'a1 5 (no scope for the Gita Smrti), and hence naturally the Yoga, (Disinterested Action) of the Gita, has to be rejected. I have already shown elsewhere that the Smrti Pada of the Brahmasutra gives Badarayana's interpretation of those

52. Bra.Sū.III.2.31 37. 53. Bra,Su.III.2.11 (न स्थानतोऽपि परस्योभयालिङ्गं सर्वत्र हि), and Bra.Su.III.2.12 (न भेदादिति चेन्न प्रत्येकमनद्वचनात्) 54. Bra Su,II.1.3 (एतेन योग, प्रत्युक्त:) 55. Bra.Su.I.4.23 (प्रकृतिश्च प्रतिज्ञादृष्टान्तानुपरोधात); 1.4.24-27, This Adhikarana means : "And Prakrti of the S've. Upa. and the Gita is Brahman Itself because, ...... " 56. Bra.Su.II.1.1 is closely connected with Bra.Su.I.4.23-27.

8

principles and views of the Gita which are not found in the Principal Upanișads 57. Badarayana's interpretations of other S'rutis, discovered by me, are collected in Chapter 7 of this book.

III. VEDANTA SCHOOLS KNOWN TO BADARAYANA. It will be easily imagined that those who differed from Badarāyana as regards the interpretation of the several S'rutis and Smrtis had their own views as to the nature of Brahman, the two aspects of the Supreme One, their characteristics, the means to Moksa, and other problems of the Vedanta Philosophy. There is no doubt that among the Opponents of Badarayana in his own days there were many philosophical schools and many philosophers besides those whose names ( Karsnajini, Badari, Kās'akrtsna, Jaimini, etc. ) are mentioned by Bādarāyaņa. Their names are not stated in the Bra.Su., but their views are certainly mentioned and refuted by Badarayana. Some of these we have already mentioned above in presenting the Purvapaksa-interpretation of several S'rutis, We shall here add only some of the more important Puirvapaksas, (i) One School of Opponents objected to bringing all the Vedantas under ONE System, viz, that of Badarayana. It held that every Vedanta or Upanisad was self-sufficient, In fact it argued that there were as a many independent Vedanta ( or rather philosophical ) schools, as there were Upanişads (Bra Sū.III.3.1-5). (ii) One S'rauta Vedanta School wanted to interpret the Pūrvakanda ( Samhita and Brahmana ) in the light of the Uttarakanda by extending the Apurva of the latter to the former also, simply on the ground that the two Kandas are linked up together (sambandhat). Badarayana admitted the connection of the two Kandas, but emphasised the speciality (visesą) of each Kanda and said that he would not collect in his Brahmasutra even such attributes given in the Purvakānda, as clearly belong to Brahman, e.g., sambhrti and dyuvyapti58. He also argued that the Pūrvakanda did not mention such other attributes ( other than sambhrti and dyuvyapti ) as are mentioned in the Purusa Vidya of the Upanisads (iii) Jaimini was the leader of the Opposition which sought to inter- pret the Uttarakanda in such a manner that it was subordinate to the Purvakanda. According to him the knowledge of Brahman was merely of the nature of a thought (paramarsa, drsti only ); the greatness of Brahman was mere stuti "mere praise", and the stories and dialogues about 57. Vide my Paper on "Smrti" in the Brahmasutra in JHQ, 1936, 58 Bra.SulIT.3.20-23. (सभभृतिद्यव्यापत्येषि चातः)

9

Brahman were meant for the sacrificial ceremony called Pariplava. Badarayana has refuted all these arguments and established his view that the knowledge of Brahman is 'an act to be performed' 'anustheya' and that there 'is Vidhi in the Uttarakanda for Brahman only,59 and that the knowledge of Brahman produces its own Apūrva. (iv) Jaimini also held that the knowledge of Brahman was subordi- nate to Action ( Karmaśeşa ). Bādarāyana held that Mokșa ( Purușārtha ) would result from the Jhana of Brahman helped by Karman co-operating with that Jñana.

(v) There were three Vedantin Oppositions, all of which have been refuted by Badarāyaņa. One held (a) that Purusa is different from the Avyakta, on account of sabda, prakarana and samjna"o. Badarayaņa admitted a difference between the two only on the ground of "two different names (samjna)" of the same Brahman,61 Avyakta and Purusa, which are like the two names of the same serpent viz., ahi (the serpent as such) and kundala (the coiled serpent).83

Probably this very Purvapaksa argued that the Purusa is higher than the Avyakta.68 All the arguments are from the Katha Upanisad. We have already noticed this above (II. iv.) According to Badarāyana as "Puruşa" and "Avyakta" are only two names of the same Brahman, neither the Purusa nor the Avyakta can be higher (para) than the other.64 He also gives other arguments.

(vi) Another Oppositional Vedanta School, probably, the Māndūkya Upanisad is important specially in so far as it takes the ultimate reality to be Purusa (or sakara) only (Vide II. v above).

(vii) The third Pürvapaksa did not admit the Purusa at all. It said that the Purusa was a mere mental image projected on the Avyakta and that its conception was subject to lokapatti dosa. Perhaps Badari might have been the leader of this view. He took the Purușa or Prajāpati as a Karya of the Para65. Badarayana has refuted this view and said that the Puruşa Vidyā is Brahma Vidya; that it is taught in the Sruti which is the strongest proof; that there is no lokapatti even though bhoga is a feature common to the attainment of the Purusa and that of the lokas. Thus, an option (vikalpa) of a choice between the Purusa and the Avyakta was

59. Bra.Sü.III.4.18-26. 60. Bra.Su.III.3.6-8. 61. Bra.Su.III.8.9-10. 62. Bra.ST.III.8.8 which refers to Bra.Su.III.2.27-30. 63. Bra.Su.III.2.26 and III,3.31. 64. Bra.SQ III.2.27-30 and III,2.21-37. 65. Bra.Su.IV.3.7

10

asscrted and maintained by Badarayana even though he said that (I) the Avyakta o1 a-purusavidha is "stronger ( has a stronger claim to recognition ) than the Purusa, "because a majority of the S'rutis mention the a-purusavidha,66 and (b) that Brahman is a-rupavat only in the sense that it is "fundamentally arupavat"1 (viri) The view that the pranas of the Brahmajnanin do not depart trom the body is a Pūrvapaksa in the Brahmasūtra, as already noted,6 8 These are some of the very important Purvapaksas discovered in my study ot the Bnthmasutra (Vide chapter I). We may also note that there was no Opposition on many occassions which would have been serious enough in the days as S'ankara and other Ācaryas Thus, Badarāyaņa does not mention any opposition (a) when he sets aside the "thoughts or attributes of Aksara (asthulam, ananu, etc )", saying that they are "not useful 'for meditation",69 (c) when he teaches his view regarding the interpretation ot the S'ruti, viz, that there is an Interchange of the Attributes ot the two aspects of Brahman, in these S'rutis"10 and (c) when he rejects priysiarastvad on a logical ground 11 Perhaps in the days ot Badarayana the correct interpretations of the Upanisads and the Gita and the exact knowledge of the difference of doctrines among (a) the Oldest Prose Upanisads, particularly the Chandogya and the Brhada- ; ranyaka Upa. and (b) the Earlier Metrical Upanisads, particularly the the Katha and the :Mandukya Upanisads and (c) the Bhagavadgita, were not yet forgotten by the philosophers.

IV IMPORTANCE OF BRAHMASUTRA III 3

The most important part out of Bra Su III.2.II -IV trom which all the above information re. the Brahmasūtra has been derived is in my opinion Brahmasntra III 3

(a) S'ankara's own remarks in this Bhasya on this Pada (III 3), (b) the strange topics of some Sutras of this Pada as interpreted by S'ankara, (c) S'ankara's free additions of words not warranted by the words of the Sutras, all these make us doubt the accuracy of this portion of the S'ankara Bhasya. The application of the critical method has amply shown that S'ankara had the correct tradition neither of the Meaning nor of the Text of this Pada. This Pada as interpreted by me contains the

66. Bin.Sh III.3.44-52. 67 Brş.Su III 2 14. 68 Bra,Su IV.2.12-13. 69. Bra.Su.III.8.33 which refers to Bra.Su III 3.12-15 70. Bra Su III.8 37, 38-39 71. Bra.Sū.III 3.12.

11

most important statements re, the Vedanta Doctrine establiched by Badarayana. Ample illustrations ot all this have been given by us in Chapter10.

Above all, the regular sequence ot the topics ot the sixtysix Sūtras of this Pada (III. 3) as per the interpretation offered by me will speak for itself. This Pada gives a continuous account of the meditation on Brahman, item by item, in its sixtysix Sutras, the total number of such items being eighteen. I have shown this by comparing the interpietation suggested by me, Sutra by Sutra, with that of Sankaracarya (chapter 9) Bra.sü.III.3 is called Gunopasamhara Pada, and, like the Pada of the Jaiminisūtra bearing the same name, it must contain a "collection of Minor Details (gunas)" (about the meditation on Brahman) and not "the mutual transfer ot the attributes of the Vidyas in two of more Upanisads" as under- stood by the Acaryas. V THE CRITICAL APPROACH.

The above conclusions regatding the System of Badarayana and the Interpretation of S'rutis and the Importance of Bra.Su.III.3, have all been discovered by us by studying a substantial part of the Brahmasutra ( III,2 II-IV ) according to what has now come to be known as the modern historical, critical, comparative, scientific method of interpreta- tion I shall here say a tew words regarding its application to the Brahmasutra and regarding the method ot S'ankaracarya.

(A) By studying the nature of the relation between a Sūtra and its visayavakya wherever such a visayavakya exists, a number of the correct visayavakyas in the case ot the Sutras of Bra. Su. III and IV have been discovered. An effort has been made to find out whether the Strakāra refers in the Brahmastra to the Brahmasntra itself. It is found out that tad uktam Sutras always reter to some peceding Sutras, and not to the Upanisads, the Jaiminisutras, the Puranas, etc., as taken by some of the Acaryas. It is also tound that the bahuvrihi compounds, anandadayh ( III.3.11 ), satyādayah, āyatanādtbhyah ( Bra.Su,III. 3 38-39 ) refer to Bra. Sũ. I1, 1.2, and [.3 respectively, as also some other bahuvrihi compounds do. Similarly, a comparison of important words ( pradhana, sthana, etc ), a study of synonyms ( pradhana and mukhya; arīpavat, avyakta, and sīkļma; etc ), a comparison of expressions ( e. g. ekasyam in III.3 2 and s'ākhasu in III.3 55, etc ), a contrast of terms ( e. g. aritpaval in 1II.2.14 and rūpa in I.2.23 ), a study of the exact context of words ( like atah, pūrva, tad, asya, anya, anyatra, anvatha, itara, ime, etc ), the use of api-all these have been very helpful in recovering what may be called the Lost Meaning of a

12

number of the Sutras Above all, the context must be strictly adhered to. Ample illustrations of these and several other "rules" of critical interpretation will be found in Chapter 11.

(B) The above critical method has been applied also to the Text of the Brahmasutra to reconstruct its Sutra Patha and Adhikarana Patha.

In fixing the Text a study of the particles hi, tathahi, tu and ca, has proved very useful. A Sutra with hi as giving an argument in support of a preceding statement can be an independent Sutra and can begin an Adhikarana only if it has in it a " statement " ( Pratijña ); otherwise it must belong to the same Ahikarana to which the preceding Sūtra belongs. Thus a number of Sutras with ht, which are the first Sutras or the only Sutra of an Adhikarana in the S'ankara Patha, become the last Sütra of the preceding Adhikarana. "Tu" signifies the rejection of a Pürvapaka stated or implied in a preceding Sutra in which the tu occurs. It has been found out that several Sutras with tu which are the first or only Sutras of an Adhikarana in the Sankara Patha, belong to the preceding Adhikarana, As the use of ca is more frequent than that of hi and tu, the help derived from the study of the interpretation and the textual significance of ca is numerically the greatest. It is found out that several Sutras with ca, which Sankara takes as beginning a new Adhikarana, do not really do so, that there are several cases where a Sutra with ca is, in the S'ankara Patha, followed by a Sutra without ca which also belongs to the same Adhikarana, that the latter must begin a new Adhikarana, There are some other rules about the significance of ca in settling the Text of the Brahnasutra,

Among other tests for fixing the Adhikarana Patha I may mention what should be called hetusitras, which are like the Sutras with hi or tathähi, Thus when a Sutra gives only an argument (hetu) in the abla- tive, it cannot be taken as beginning a new Adhikarana, By a reverse process I have tried to fix the nature of a Sutra which would begin a new Adhikarana. I have thus differed from S'ankara's view in several cases. While trying to fix the Adhikarana Patha I had twelve occasions to suggest a change in the very reading in the Sutra Patha (vide Bra.Sū III. 2.34,35;III 3.38,39,42,43,44,45,62,63,IV.I.17,18), in about 227 Sutras I have stated the reasons for these changes in their proper places. If we apply these tests for the readings of the Sutras and for their groupings into Adhikaranas we have the same number of Sutras (viz.,227) as S'ankara in Bra Su.III.2.II to IV 4 22; but the number of Adhikarana

13

acc. to us would be 58, in place of S'ankara's 95 Adhikaranas12. In Part I the text of the Brahmasutra has been printed and translated by us as reconstructed with the help of the new method (vide Chapter 12). (C) I have tried to study the method ot the Bhasya of S'ankara. He divides the Sutras as those of Avidya, Apara Vidyā and Para Vidyā, without giving any explanation re: the proportion or the order of such Sutras. In fact no such classification seems to be in the mind of the Sūtrakāra. Sankara takes some Sūtras as discussing topics like acamana, prānāgmhotra, mahapātaka or upapataka, which have nothing to do with Brahmajijnasa. The titles of the Adhyayas and of some of the Padas have been preserved by S'ankara, but there are cases where his Bhasya does not follow that tradition According to the S'ankara Bhasya several Sutras involve cross references, some times noted by S'ankara and some times not. On several (about 15) occasions S'ankara openly differs from Badarayana. In a good number of cases (of course, in Bra.Su III 2 12-IV) S'ankara has not got the correct visayavakya or gives a visayavakya where none is intended by Bādarayana or gives a wrong visayavakya which does not exactly support him. He has therefore got no correct tradition about the visayavakyas in Bra.Su III and IV. In filling up the natural ellipses in the Sūtras, Sankara makes too many unwarranted additions, which mostly help him in making out his System from the Sutras. Occasionaly he splits up the padas in a Sūtra wrongly, so, he makes two sentences out of only two words. There are cases where he does not give the exact sense to a word in a Sutra. Some bahuvrihi compounds are explained by him in such a way that they are no more bahuvriht. Some times he gives two or more meanings to a word. In a few cases his Pūrvapaksas or Siddhāntas are either impossible or even absurd. Several 'examples of all these kinds will be found in Chapter 10 S'ankara's method may be taken as an example of the method of the Acaryas. It has been rightly called the "system-making method" by Prof. Strauss. CONCLUSION By this brief Introduction I could only hope to tell the reader just what he may expect to find in the present book, I should have illus- trated both the Modern Method and the Method of Sankara by examples, But it became impossible for me to do so due to the great bulk of the work even otherwise. Moreover a brief summary with a few illustra- tions of each has been given in Chapter 13. 72 S'ankara has 4,36,17,14,11,6,7 Adhikaranas, while I have suggested 7,18,8, 6,5,6,8 respectively in Bra.Sū.III.2,3,4,IV,1.2.3 and 4,

CHAPTER. 1.

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN

AND

MEDITATION ON IT

BEFORE we begin the subject proper, it will not be out of place to draw our attention to the position of Badarayana in the history of the Vedanta philosophy. From the days of S'ankaracarya, or perhaps even of his predecessors, whose views he quotes, the Brahmasutra has been regarded as one of the three Canons (Prasthanas) of the Vedanta School and as such it has been commented upon by the various Acāryas who have tried to make out from it a system consistent with the principal Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita and, one may add, with their own individual sects of the Vedanta School. But, in the light of modern scholarship, it is not now necessary to prove that Badarayana should be looked upon as an Acarya of the Vedanta School, and his work as a record of the doctrine of his sect of the Vedanta School. It was the aim of Bādarayana to interpret the Scripture consisting of certain Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita which he refers to as authority and to evolve out of the same a system of Vedanta as conceived by him. The subsequent Acäryas also have each of them tried not only to offer a system founded upon the Upanisads and the BhagavadgIta but they have also tried to support it by interpreting the Bra- hmasutra in thoir own way. Though Badarayana has not writ- ten a bhasya on any Vedantasutra, he should be regarded only as an Acarya because his Sutras were originally meant to be only a bhasya on the Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita, which were the only Canons known to him. It should have been possible and permissible for Sankaracarya and the succeeding Acaryas to

2 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER I

differ openly from and even reject the views of Bādarayana,1 while professing to base their system only upon the Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita as did Badarayana; bnt instead of availing themselves of this freedom they preferred to revere Badarayana by raising his work to the status of a Prasthana. This reverence must have been due to two facts : (1) Badarayana was the first known Acarya of the Vedanta School and therefore every subse- quent Acarya must, in the opinion of the followers of the Vedanta School, follow (or profess to follow) Badarayana, and (2) secondly, when the exact meaning of each Sutra and the very doctrine of Badarayana's work were forgotten, it was easy for each subse- quent Acarya to interpret Badarayana's work in his own way and thereby to assert his allegiance to the first Acarya of the Vedanta School. It is likely that Gaudapada did not profess to follow Badarayana but rather criticised his views.2 All this points to the fact that we should study Badarayann's Brahma- sütra as embodying Badarayana's system, which was the first Vedanta system, rather than as interpreted by Sankara or any other Acārya. Here we shall state in brief the Sutrakara's conception of Brahman as it can be recovered from the Sutras discussed in this work.$ As this discussion includes the Sutrakara's Scheme4

(1) This the Acaryas have actually sometimes done Cf. S'ankara's bhāsya on Bra. Su I.1.19, III.4 11;III.3.12. (2) Of. Gaudapāda Karıkā IV, 12. Gaudapāda here seems to criticise 'tadananyatvam arambhatasabdadibhyah (Bra. Su. II.1.14). Gaudapada also criticises the illustration of the seed and its plant given by Sankara to explain Bra. Sū. II.1.85 ( Vido Gaudapāda Kārikā IV. 20). Vide the author's Paper on Gaudapada and Badarayana in the Proceedings of the Lahore Session of the All India Oriental Conference. (3) Only Bra. Su. III.2.11-IV are discussed in this work. Their de- tailed explanations will be found in Part I. (4) We believe, Sutras III.3.11 and III 3.38-39 reveal the Sutrakara's Scheme of the division of the Srutis selected and grouped for discussion in the first three Padas of the first Adhyaya, Vide our Notes on these Sutras.

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT

of the discussion of the Sintis chosen for consideration in Bra. Sü. I. 1-3 our statement will not suffer from being seriously incomplete. The most striking characteristic of the conception of Bra- hman in Badarayana's System is that of its two aspects. It is this characteristic of the doctrine, which stands at the bottom of the three groups of Srutis in the first three padas of the first Adhyaya and which is also discussed in detail in Bra. Sū. III. 2 and 3. With Bādarāyana the two aspects of Brahman are arupavat or nirakara and rupavat or sakara. As each of these aspects has its pecuhar attributes,5 neither of them, not even the nirakara, is nirguna and therefore the arupavat and the rupavat do not correspond to the nirguna and saguna aspects of the Sankara School. The rupa or form of Brahman meant by the Sutrakara is that of the Purusa given in the Mundaka Upanisad, the Sruti referred to by Bra. Su. I. 2. 23.6 In that Adhikarana (Bra. Sü, I. 2. 21-23) it is decided that the topic of Mu. Upa. I. 1. 5-6 is the Purusa, 'because the rupa is introduced in the Upanisad.' Again, in Bra. Sū, III. 2. 147 Bādarāyaņa says that " Brahman or the Para is arupavat only because the arupavat aspect is the chief aspect of Brahman". We must consider these two Sutras (rupopanyasacca and arupavad eva hi tatpra- dhanatvat) together, because then only we can get the exact sense of 'pradhāna' in tatpradhānatvāt (Bra. Sū. IĻI. 2. 14,".

(5) Bra. Su III. 3. 37-42 deal with the yunas of both these aspeots. (6) The Mundaka Upanisad S'ruti runs as follows :- "अग्निमूंर्शा चक्षुपी चन्द्रसूरयों दिशः श्रोत्रे वाग्विवृताश्ष वेदाः। वायु: प्राणो हृदय विश्वमस्य पद्ध्यां पृथ्वी ह्येष सर्वभूतान्तरातमा॥ Mu. Upa. II. 1. 4. The Sutra in question is :- रूपोपन्यासान्च। Bra. Su. I. 2. 23. (7) अरूपवदेव हि नत्प्रधानत्वात्। Bra. Su III. 2. 14. (8) Sankara explains tatpradhanatvat by saying 'अस्थूलमनण्वहस्वमदीर्घम् (Br. Upa. III. 8. 8), अशब्दमस्पशर्मरूपमव्गयम्। ( Katha Upa. III. 15) इत्येवमादानि वाक्यानि निष्प्रपव्नब्रह्मात्मत्त्रप्रधानानि नार्थान्तर प्रधानानि।

4 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CIAPTER I

If these two Sutras are thus considered, they hardly leave any doubt about the nature of the two aspects of Brahman according to Badarayana. He admits both these aspocts, but believes that "the arupavat aspect is the chief (pradhana) of the two and that, therefore, Brahman may be said to be only arupa- vat". That the Sutrakara takes the arupavat aspect as the chief aspect of Brahman is clear not only from the Sutra mentioning expressly the rupavat aspect ( Bra. Su. I. 2. 28) but also from the word pradhana or its synonyms in other Sūtras besides Bra. Sū. III. 2. 14 (tatpradhānatvāt). Bra. Sū. III. 3. 11 says that "the attributes dnanda and those that follow it belong to the pradhana or arupavat aspect of Brahman.9 Elsewhere10 we have shown that Bra. Su. III. 3.43 which is traditionally read as pradanavad eva tad uktam should have been originally pradhanavad eva tad uktam and should then mean that the meditation on the rupavad aspect or the Purusa should be practised by the method of atmagrhiti, the same method as that for the meditation on the Pradhana or arupavat aspect.11 The word mukhya in param Jaiminir mukhyatvat (Bra. Su. IV. 3. 12) is a synonym of the word pradhana used three times in Bra. Su. as just shown.

Another synonym of 'arupavat' is the word 'suksmam' in Bra. Su. I. 4. 2,13 which, in our opinion, means that the prin- ciple called avyakta in Katha Upa. III. 10-11 and VI. 7-8 is not

(9) Cf. प्रधान in अरूपवदेव हि तत्प्रधानत्वात् । (Bra. St, III. 2. 14) with प्रधान in आनन्दादय: प्रधानस्य। (Bra. Si III. 3. 11) and in प्रधानवदेव तदुक्तम the proposed read- ing for Bra. SO, III. 3. 43. (10) Vide the author's Paper on Pre-Sankara Mutilation of the Text of the Brahmastitra, p. 483, Proceedings of the Seventh All India Oriental Conference.

(11) For a further disoussion of this Sutra (III. 3. 43) vide Notes on it. (12) सृक्ष्म तु तदईत्वात्। (Bra. Su. I. 4.2).

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 5

the smärta avyakta but it is the sūksma or arupavat (formless or subtle) aspect of Brahman18 in the Sutrakara's System. We have shown above14 that by the rupa of Brahman the Sutrakara means the rupa mentioned in Mu. Upa. II. 1. 4, 1. e., the rupa of the Purusa, which consists of head, eyes, ears, speech, breath, heart and feet. This rupavat aspect is appro- priately called by the Sūtrakāra the Purusavidha aspect, e. g., in Bra. Sū. I. 2. 26.18 The Adhikaraņa ( Bra. Sū. I. 2. 24-32 ) to which this Sutra belongs follows immediately the Adhikarana ( Bra. Sü. I. 2. 21-23 ) about the Purusa Sruti of the Mundaka Upanisad and discusses the Vaisvanara Sruti of the Chandogya Upansad which also mentions the head, the eyes, the breath, the body, the bladder, the feet, the chest, the hair on the body, the heart, etc. A comparision of the two Adhikaranas and the two visaya vakyas16 would leave no doubt that according to

(13) The Purusa higher than the avyakta mn the Sruti (Katha Upa. III.10-11) would be the vupavat aspect and the migherness of the Purusa is, like the higherness of the objects which are higher than the senses, due to the fact that tho Purusa is dependent (adhina) on the arupavat. Of. तदधीनत्वादर्थबत्। (Bra. ST. 1. 4. 3). For a detailed discussion of Katha Upa. III. 10-11 vide our Notes on Bra. Su. III. 2. 23-30, 31, 37. (14) Vide (6) supra (15) Sanikara reads the part of the Sutra in question as पुरुषमपि चैनमधीयते but she himself notices in his commentary that some of his predecessors read the part of the सूत्र as 'पुरुपविधमपि चनमधायते which is perfectly in agreement with the विषयवाक्य quoted by Sanikara, viz., स एपोनिवेश्वानरो यत्पुरुष: स यो हैतमवममि वैश्वानर पुरुषविध पुरुषेन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद।" (Satapatha Bra. X. 6. 1.11). (16) The one Adhikarana (Sutras I. 2. 21-23) emphasises the rupa of the Purusa in deciding the topic of Mu. Upa. I. 1. 5-6, while the other Adhikarana (Sutra I. 2. 24) stresses the word youfay in the coriesponding text of another Sakha of the same Veda. The misayavakyas of the two Adhikaranas are respeotively .- अझिर्मूधी चक्षुषी चन्द्रसूर्यो दिशः श्रीत्रे वाग्विवृताश्च वेदाः । वायु: प्राणो हृदयं विश्वमस्य पद्धयां पृथिवी ह्येप सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा।(Mu. Upa. II. 1.4); and तस्य ह वा एतस्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्य मूर्धव सुतेजाश्चक्षुविश्वरूपः प्राणः पृथ्वत्मात्मा सदेहो बहुलो बस्तिरेव रथि: पृथिव्येव पाशवुर एव वेदिलोमानि बहिर्हृदयं गार्हपत्यो मनोऽन्वाहार्यपचन आस्यमाहवनीयः। (Chã. Upa. V. 18. 2).

6 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER I

the Sutrakara the rupavat is the same as the Purusavidha aspect and that he is really emphasising these pomts in order to decide that the topic of the Srutis in question ( Mu. Up. I. 1. 5-6 and Cha, Upa. V. 11. 1, 6 ) is the Purusa the personal ( or we may call it super-personal ) aspect of Brahman,17 and not the imper- sonal one.

Bra. Sū. III. 3. 2418 uses the word purusavidya to dis- tinguish the purusavidha aspect from the Pradhana or the aru- pavat aspect. This Sutra, as we have shown,19 belongs to an Adhikarana ( Bra. Su III 3.20-24 ), the purpose of which is the extension of the rule of the Extra-ordinary Principle (called Apürvam-Bra. Sū. III. 3. 18) established in the case of the Jñānkāņda or the Upanisads, to the Karmakanda or the Mantra and Brahmana portion of the Sruti.2 The Sutrakara says that sambhrti and dyuvyapti mentioned mn the Ranayaniya Khila of the Samaveda are attributes of the Pradhana and yet he has not collected them in Bra. Su. I, because they occur in the portion of the Sruti which is not called Vedantas or the Upanisads. Similarly, another reason for separating the discussions of the Karmakanda and the Jnanakanda and not extending to the Karmakanda the principle called Apurvam (established in the case of the Upanisads) is that the Karmakānda does not men- tion (anamnanāt) the gunas other than sambhrti and dyuvyāpti ( itaresam, 1. e., the gunas belonging properly to the Purusa only) as are mentioned in the Purusavidya, the Science of the Purusa

(17) Sankara, who in his bhasya on the Mu. Upa. explains Mu. Upa 1. 1. 5-6 as dealing with the nargung Brahman, has to interpret the same in the Brahmasutra (I. 2. 21-23) as pertaining to the saguna Brahman. About this and similar other inconsistencies of Sankara's bhasyas, vide Chapter X. (18) पुरुषविद्यायामिव चेतरेपामनाम्नानात् ।Bra. St, III. 3. 24. (19) Vide our Notes on HHHH and -a in Sutra III. 3. 19 and 20 respectively. (20) About the relation of the two Kandas of the Sruti according to Bādarãyaņa vide infra

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 7

or the super-personal aspect of Brahman taught in the Upaursads (purusavidyāyāmiva). "1 We believe, the word purusavidya in the Sūtra in question has the same importance as the word 'purusavidha' in Bra. Su. I. 2. 26. Not less emphatic than the use of the word 'purusa' as distmnguished from that of 'pradhana' is a series of arguments in Bra. Su. 1. 3, which all menn that the topic of the Sruti, which forms the visayavakya of the particular Adhikarana is the Purusa or the rupavat (sakara) aspect of Brahman, because the Purusa is mentioned expressly in the Srutr in question42. Thus, to give a few illustrations : (1) In Bra. Su. I. 3. 2 the Sutrakara says that the topic of Mu. Upa. II. 2. 5 is the Purusa aspect of Brahman because that topic "is called muktopasrpya or Purusa"~ an argument which refers to Mu. Upa. III. 2. 8. 98. (2) In Bra. Su.I 3.13 the Sutrakara seems to argue that the jivaghana Brahmaloka (a doubtful term in the Upanisadic literature and, therefore, requiring to be explained) of Pra. Upa. V. 5 is Purusa because the jivaghana Brahmaloka is called īksatikarma or purusa." 24 (3) The topic of Katha Upa. IV. 13 is declared by

(21) This is the interpretation of Brahmasutra III. 3. 24 proposed by us. (22) Vide the author's Paper on the Scheme of Brahmasutra 1. 1-3: A Reapproachement, Bombay University Journal Vol. IV, Pt. III, November, 1935. (23) The Adhikarana (Sutras I. 3. 1-7) discussos Mu. Upa. II. 2. 5, viz., यस्मिन्धौः पृथिवी चान्तरिक्षमोतं गनः सह प्राणेश्च सवैंः। तमेकं जानथ आत्मानमन्या वाचो विमुग्चथामृतस्यैष सेतुः। Sutra 1.3. 2 reads मुक्तोप सृप्यव्यपदेशात् and refers to तथा विद्वान् नामरूपाद् विमुक्त परात्परं परुपसुपैति दिव्यम्। (Mu. Upa. III.2.8). 'सुक्तोपसृप्यव्यपदेशात्' means 'पुरुपव्यपदेशात्' because 'the One to be reached by the released in the Sruti is ya. It would be wrong to explain 'मुक्तोपसृप्यव्यपदश' as मुक्तोपसप्यत्वव्यपदेश as done by Saikara. (24) The Sutra reads ईक्षतिकर्मव्यपदेशात्स: (Bra. Su.I.3.13) and refers to स एतस्माज्जीवघनात्परात्पर पुरिशयं पुरुषमीक्षते (Pra. Upa. V. 5). The one who is the object of iksati (seeing) is the Purusa. Here also Sankara seems to us to miss the exact point of argument, (which is to emphasise the fact that the topic of the S'ruti is called purusa and therefore it is Purușa), because he explains ईक्षततिकर्मव्यपदेश as 'ईक्षतिकर्मत्वेन अस्य अभिध्यातव्यस्य पुरुषस्य वाक्यशेषे व्यपदेशो भवति." ,ईक्षति- कर्मल्वेन व्यपदेशः" is different from "ईक्षतिकर्मव्यपदेशः".

8 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER I

the Sütrakara in Bra. Su. 1.3.24 to be the Purnsa aspect "be- cause the very term purusa occurs in that S'ruti." 25 It seems to us that all these hetus, muktopasrpyavyadesa, īksatikarma- vyapadesa and sabda have only one meaning, viz., purusa and not pradhana or arupavat aspect. We believe that the above study of the Sutras with the words arūpavat, rūpopanyāsa, pradhāna, and its synonyms mukhya, suksma, and puausavidha or purusa, and words lıke muktopasrpya, etc. which are coined to mean purusa and at the same time to refer to the Sruti in question, will not be insufficient to bring home to us the Sutrakara's view about the two aspects of Brahman. But, if further evidence for this twofold doctrine of Badarayana is required, it is not wanting. There are several Sütras in his work, which throw ample light on the nature and relation of these two aspects of Brahman in his System. We have fully discussed and explained these Sutras in Part I. We will here give briefly the mnformation that can be culled out from them. In Bra. Sū. III.2.23-80 the Sūtrakāra seems to us to distinguish between the arupavat and rupavat aspects of Brah- man.27 In Bra. Su. III. 2. 2328 he declares that Brahman is the Unmanifest (avyakta) because the Sruti says so.29 In Sutra

(25) The Sutra reads 'शब्दादव प्रमित. '(Bra. Su. I. 3. 24) and refers to अङ्गुष्ठमात्र : पुरुषो मध्ये आत्मानि तिष्ठति' (Katha Upa. IV.13). The sabda is the term in the S'ruti. (26) As to how the other Sutras of Bra. Su. I. 3 decide that the topio of the respeotive Sruti is the Purusa, vide fnfra. (27) We have proposed to take Sūtras III. 2. 23-30 as forming one Adhikarana. According to Sankara Sutra III,2.23 is closely connected with Sūtra III. 2. 22. (28) तदव्यक्तमाह हि। (Bra. Su. III.2.23). (29) In Notes on Bra. Su, IIT. 2.23 we have shown that generally all the Sutras with a fe refer to a S'ruti which invariably contains the parti- cular word in the Sutra. Thus, we take Sutra 23 as referring to sf in महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुष:परः। पुरुषान्न पर किश्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः। (Katha Upa. III. 11). S'ankara does not quote any Sruti with the word o4sf.

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 9

III. 2. 26 30 an Opponent argnes that "From this Unmanifest the knower of Brahman is united with the Infinite". This Sutra, as we have shown, refers to Katha Upa. VI. 881 which says that 'higher than the Unmanifest there is Purusa, the Omnipresent One'. The Purvapaksa implies that the Unmanifest is not the Omnipresent one but the Purusa is Omnipresent and that from "the Unmanifest a knower of Brahman unites with (ekatam gacchati - Sankara's bhasya ) the Omnipresent One, i. e., the Puruşa. In Sūtra III. 2.27 the Siddhantin refers to two names (ubhayavyapadesr) and these two names are (1) the Unmanifest (avyakta) and (2) the Super-person (purusa). This also shows that Sutra III. 2 26 refers to a Sruti with two names, and justi- fies our vişayavākya. The Sūtrakāra replies to the Pūrvapaksa of Sutra III. 2. 26 by sayingt hat "becanse Brahman has both the names, viz.s avyakta and purusa, it is like ahi and kundala, a serpent and its coil" (Bra. Su. III. 2. 27) or "It is lke the light and its resort", e. g., the light (of the Sun) and the solar orb in which that light rests (asraya, Bra. Su. III. 2. 28).82 These similes illustrate how one and the same principle has tao aspects one of which is arupavat and the other rupavat. The words ahi and kundala are both used as names of a serpent, but ahi is used without any reference to the form of the serpent while 'kundala' is used only in the sense of the coiled form of the serpent. Similarly, prakasa will be a common name for all (30) We have taken Sūtra III.2. 26 as a PürvapakȘa Sūtra, because Sutra I1I. 2. 27 has 'a' which means the refutation of a PūrvapakSa. (31) अव्यक्का-तु परःपुरुषो व्यापकोऽलिङ्ग एव च। ( Katha Upa. VI. 8). Here व्यापक corresponds to sara in the Sutra. We have shown that Sutra III, 2,31 refers to the Katha Upa. (IIT. 10-11, VI. 8) and that amaca in Sutra III. 2.37 is a refutation of the argrare of gay only in Sutra III. 2. 26, Had is the same as r44. The Purvapaksa in Sutra III. 2. 26, implies that the saysh is not T4a but Ty is T4 because such is the sense of Katha Upa. VI. 8. This part of the PurvapakSa's implication is refuted in Sutra III. 2 87. (32) उभयव्यपदेशात्वदिकुण्डलवत्। (Bra. Su. III. 2.27), and प्रकाशश्रयद्वा तेजरत्वात्। ( Bra. Su. III. 2. 28 ). For the latter simile and the argument arr vide infra .. 2

10 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : OIIAPTER I

luminous objects and would rofer to no foum of a particular object but prakasasrayas denoted by such words as the Sun, the Moon, the lamp, would undoubtedly refer to the particular forms of those objects. It is in this sense that Brahman is arupavat and also rupavat or purusavidha (as already explained above) and is respoctively called avyakta and purusa. The ar upavat aspeet may be described as apurusavidha because rupa means the rūpa of murusa We have shown that these two names, avyakta and purusa, are meant by samjñe (in samjñātah) in Sūtra III. 3. 8 88 and that tad uktam34 m that Sutra refers to Bra. Su. III. 2. 27. We have also suggested that ime in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 10 refers to this form '(dve ) samjne' in Bra. Su. III 3. 8. Bra. Sū III. 3. 8 appears to us to mean that an Opponent asserted a difference about the principle 'Brahman' (arthabheda) based upon the two names of Brahman and that the Sutrakara accepted that difference and said that he had already stated it in Bra Su III. 2.27. Sutra III. 3. 10 makes it clear that the Sūtrakara would treat these two names or aspects of Brahman as distinct from each other. $6 Thus, according to the Sutrakara, the difference between the two aspects of Brahman, arupavat and rupavat or auyakta and purusa, is the difference between the two names of one and the same object, as between ahi and kundala or prakasa

(33) We have taken Bra. Su. III. 3. 5-9 as one Adhikarana. Gar mn Bra. Su- III. 3. 8 corresponds to vyapadesa in Bia Su. III. 2. 27 and tad uktam in the former refers to the statement in the latter. (34) We believe that tad uktam in all the Sutras where it occurs refers to some Sutra preceding the particular Sutra in which it occurs. (35) According to our suggestion uanaa' in Sutra III. 3. 8, is & Purvapaksa against the upasamhara proposed by the Sutrakara in*Bra. Su, III. 3. 5 and 'nafo' means that "Even though the Sutrakara accepts this difference, the upsumhara stands (afta)." (36) 'सर्वोमेदादन्यत्रेमे' (Bra. Su, III. 3. 10). 'अन्यत्र' means 'भेदे' because 'aIFaa' should mean "t". Vide onr Notes in Part I. How the Eart has treated these bwo aspects as different from each other will be clear also from our interpretation of the Sutras that follow Bra. Su. III. 8.10.

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 11

and its āśraya. Brahman is called in the Sruti by two (sets of) names and these two names imply a difference; therefore, the Sutrakara admits two aspects of Brahman.

There are several Sutras which greatly help to under- stand the purasa or rupavat aspect of Brahman according to the Sutrakara. Particularly, we will here notice Bra Su. III. B. 45-49 and Bra. Sü. IV. 8. 7-15. We have given our argum- ments for our interpretation of these Sutras in Part I. We will here make a statement embodying only the result of these arguments.

In Bra. Su. III. 3. 15-4637 an Opponent says that Parusa or the rupavat aspect may be taken as only a projeetion (krrya) on Brahinan which is only arupavat. This projection is like a mentation (manasavat) known in the Purvamimamsa,38 The discussion here seems to us to be based upon the Muņdaka Upanisad.39 When the Srati says, "येनाक्षरं पुरुषं वेद सत्यम्" it means one should "know Aksara or the impersonal Brahman as Purusa (by projecting the latter idea on Brahman)".40 This Opponent advanced two arguments, viz., (1) the Context41 shows that the topic is only the impersonal Brahman, because we have only the impersonal mentioned in Mu. Upa. I. 1. 5-6; and (2) we have

(37) We read 'yadaey:' as part of Sutra III. 3. 44 and Sutra III. 3.45 as प्रकरणात्स्यात्किया मानसवस For the Gransference of पूवविकरप: to Sutra III. 3. 44 vide Note on Sutra III. 3. 45. (38) There arc sevoral मानस acts in the पूर्वमामांसा. The Opponent does not accept the yer as an aspect of Brahman, but he takes it only as a fain, a projection on Brahman which is, in his opinion, only impersonal.

(39) Vide Note on III.3.45.

(40) तस्मै स विद्वानुपसन्नाय सम्यक् प्रशान्तचित्ताय क्षमान्विताय। येनाक्षरं पुरुषं वेद सत्य प्रोवाच तां तत्त्वतो ब्रह्मविद्याम् । (Mu. Upa. I.2.13). (41) प्रकरणात् in सूत्र III.3.45 refers to 'अथ परा यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यते। यत्तदवेश्य- मशाह्यमगोत्रमवर्णमचक्षुःश्रोत्रं तदपाणिपाद नित्यं विभुं सर्वगतं सुसूक्ष्मं तद्धतयोनिं परिपश्यन्ति धीरा; ॥(Mu. Upa, I. 1. 5-6).

12 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER I

an afaau (Bra. Su. I1I.3. 46; vide Notes) in which the nature of gEy is transferred to aet (according to the Pūrvapaksa's inter- pretation of that Sruti). On account of these two arguments the Purușa taught in the Upanisads, e. g., in Mu. Upa. I. 2. 1142 is only fsut ( projection of an idea ) on the Alsara. To these arguments of the Opponent the Sutrakara replies by saying, "But ( the teaching about ) the Purusa is Vidyā, i. e., Brahmavidyā only, and not a fiar48." The Sutrakara's arguments are (1) that in the Upanisad44 we have an asserlion that the knowledge of "अक्षर पुरुष" is Brabmavidya, and (2) that we find (दर्शनात् Bra. Su. III.8.48) that the Upanisad calls its teaching "(this) Brahmavi- dya".45 Though the faot of Brahman having two aspects one of which is asyaa and the other suad-by which (fact) the Sūtr- kara disproves the Opponent's contention that the Purusa is only a faT on the Aksara-involves an apparent contradiction (aT: in Sūtra III.3.49); really there is no such self-contradiction because the Sruti and S'mrti are stronger than Perception and Inforence.46 Thus, Brahman is not to be regarded only as impersonal or aryad and geq as merely a projection on it, as the Opponent here thinks it to be. The syaa or the Purusa partakes of the nature of Brahmavidya as much as the qaa or

(42) सूर्यद्वारेण ते विरजा: प्रयान्ति यत्राभृतः स पुरुषो ह्वयव्ययात्मा (Mu. Upa. I.2.11). (48) विद्यैव तु निर्धारणात्। (Bra. Su. III.3.47). (44) This refers to ब्रह्मविद्या in 'येनाक्षरं पुरुषं वेद सत्यं प्रोवाच तां तत्त्वतो ब्रह्मविद्याम्। (Mu. Upa. I.2.18). If one were asked by the Sruti to meditate on aar as gay, it would be a क्रिया and not विदया, but here a seeker is asked to know अक्षर पुरुष the immutable yr (aspeet) and that knowledge is called Brahmavidya. 'aa' & 'at' show the faiT" referred to in the T. (45) This refers to नेषामेवतां ब्रह्मविद्यां वदेत शिरोव्रतं विधिवदैस्तु चीर्णम्। (Mu. Upa. III. 2. 10). (46) अत्यादिवलीयस्त्वाच्च न बाघ: । (Bra. Su. IlI. 3. 49).

About the other argument of the Sutrakara in Sutra III. 3. 50 vide ou1 interpretation of the Sutra in Part I.

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 13

Avyakta.47 The Purusa is not inferior to the Avyakta so far as the attainment of Moksa is concerned.

In the second group of the Sūtras, 48 which we propose to examine with regard to the nature of the purusa aspect of Bra- hman, we have two Purvapaksa views from which we learn that both Badari and Jaimin hold that the Purusa or the rupavat aspect (here the Prajapatiloka) is a karya 'an effect of Brahman'. The Sutrakara holds that what Badari and Jaunini regard to be Karya of Brahman is nothing but the Karana 'the Cause', viz., Brahman. Thus the Purusa or the rupavat aspect is an aspect of Brahman the Cause, the Para. The Sutrakara emphasises the difference between the two aspects as stated in Pra. Upa, V. 5.4º To us the Sutrakāra seems to correct both Bādari and Jaimini inasmuch as he looks upon the Purusa or 4a4 and the 'जावघन ब्रह्मलोक' or the अरूपवत् 60 as aspects of the Cause itself.

(47) This avyakta aspect is the topic in Bra. Su. III. 3. 43 and 44. The masculine form of दृष्ट: in प्रज्ञान्तरपृथक्तवद्दष: (Sutra III. 3. 50) should be taken as a sure indication that the subject of 'स्थात्' in Sutra III. 3. 45 is पुरुष, not अव्यक्तम्, (48) These Sutras are Bra. Su, IV. 3. 7-15. Vide our interpretation. We have drawn attention to the fact that the question here is "How far can the conductor take the knower of Brahman ?" The question is not whother Brahman is an object to be reached by going to it. We take ara in कार्य बादरिरस्य गत्युपपत्ते. (Bra. Su. IV. 3. 7) as referring to the वैद्युत आतिवाहिक men- tioned in सूत्र IV. 3.6 and गति as गमनम् Sankara seems to be wrong in taking अस्य as ब्रह्माण: and गति. as गन्तव्यता. (49) विशेषं च दर्शयति (Bra. Su. IV.3.16) refers to Pra. Upa. V. 5, viz, स सामभिरुन्नीयते ब्रह्मलोकं स एतरमाज्ीवघनात्परात्पर पुरिशयं पुरुपमाक्षते। In this section of the Pra. Upa., we have four goals, viz., (1) मनुष्यलोक, (2) सोमलोक, '3) जीवघन- ब्रह्मलोक (=प्रजापतिलोक), and (4) परात्पर पुरुष, The first two cannot bo regarded as Brahman; therefore, the पर ब्रह्मन् would be जीवधनब्रह्मलोंक and अपर ब्रह्मन् would be the पुरुष (Vide our Notes). "नयति" in Sutra IV.3.15 refers also to सामभि: नीयते in Pra. Upa. V.5. गनुष्यलोक and सोमलोक are कार्य of ब्रह्मन् ; but जीवधनब्रह्मलोक and परात्पर पुरुष are both the कारण ब्रह्मन् i, e., two aspects of Brahman the Cause. (50) For our interpretation of iaa4 as the Impersonal Brahman, vide our Notes on Sūtras IV.3.15-16.

14 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER I

( a" means Brahman which is a mass of life (jivaghana being a word like prañanaghana) and Purusa means the Super- person, i. e., the personal (or aysa) aspect of Brahman. In our explanation of these Sūtras (Bra. Su. IV.3.7-16) wo have drawn attention to several facts, all of which cannot be repro- duced here. The most important of these is that anra in Bra Su. IV. 3. 7 refers to the aga amaanas and that the problem with Badari, Jaimini and Badarayana was to decide "How far can the Conductor (amaarfes) go?" All of them behered that Brahman was an object to be attained by the knower of Brahman by going to It. We bave also shown that Badari and Jaimini regarded the Prajapatiloka as Karya and Brahman (neu.) as Kāraņa, while Bādarāyana looked upon both these as aspects of the Karana only; and that therefore the Sutrakara discusses the Prajapatiloka in Sutras IV 3.7-16 and drops mentioning it in a Sütra after Bra. Sü. IV.3.3.51 As a result of this intorpreta- tion we conclude that Sankara is not right in asking us to add the Prajapatiloka after the Varunaloka. 83 We have also shown that "कार्यात्यये (in Su. IV.3.10)" proves that the कार्य means the Prajapatiloka. Moreover, according to our interpretation the word "sdis" refers only to the one Symbol of Brahman, viz., the Pranava, and the expression "अप्रतीकालम्बनान् नयति" (meaning 'the Conductor leads those who do not resort to the Symbol Om') refers to Pra. Upa. V. 5 which says that those who meditate on the syllable 'Om' are led by the Samans (not by the Conductors). All these and other very essential points involved in our inter- pretation of these Sutras must be read from Part I, because want of space prevents us from repeating them here. Thus, we conclude that according to Badarayana the Purusa or the qaa aspect of Brahman is not to be counted as Effect or Karya of Brahman, but it is only the Cause itself, i. e., an aspect of

(51) ताडितोऽधि वरुणः संभवात्। (Bra. So. IV.3.3.) (52) Cf. वरुणादधीन्द्रप्रजापती स्थानान्तराभावात् पाठसामर्थ्यांच्। (शाककरभाष्य on Bra. Su, IV.3.8).

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 15

Brahman, the Cause. The aga Conductor. does carry those who know Brahman by other means than the Pranava, to Brahman the Cause itself and these seekers are those who meditate either on the अरूपवत् 0r रूपवत् aspect of Brahman. The Purusa is an aspect of the Cause and, therefore, it is not an Effect of Brahman; and a Conductor takes the knower of Brahman to it as also to the ersyaa aspect. We have above stated that the जवघन बह्मलोक is the para Brahman and the Purusa is the apara Brahman referred to in Pra: Upa. V. 2. We mean to convey the same idea when we say that the जीवधन ब्रह्मलोक is the अरूपवत् aspect and the Purusa 18 the ayaa. In this connection we shall now state what ive think to be the Sutrakara's statements about the relation of these two aspects. We have already stated that the Sūtrakara takes अव्यरत in Katha Upa. III 10-11 and VI.8 as the अरूपवत् aspect and. g$y in the same text as the $99a aspect of Brahman and that according to him the Purusa is said to be higher than the Avya- kta because the former is dependent (arfa) on the latter just as the objects of sense ( aref: ) are declared to be higher than the senses because the objects depend upon the senses for being perceived53, This same Sruti of the Katha Upanisad seems to us to have been discussed, merely from the stand-point of the relation of these two aspects, once again in Bra. Su. III.2.31-36. We have shown that aa: in the Sūtra (Bra. Su. III.2.31) refers to aam in Bra. Su. III.2.23 and that the Opponent here is one who bases his view on the Katha Upanisad which says that "the Purusa is higher than the Unmanifest".5 We have also proved that the four arguments of (1) सेतुव्यपदेश, (2) उन्मानव्यपदेश, (3) सम्बन्धव्यप- देश, and (4) भेदव्यपदेश refer respectively to (1) Katha Upa. III.2,85,

(53) तदधीनत्वादर्थवत्।(Bra. Su. I.4.3), (54) अव्यक्तात्पुरुप: पर,। (Katha Upa. III.10-11) (65) यःसेतुरीजानानामक्षर ब्रह्म यत्परम्। अभयं तितीर्षता पारं नाचिकेतं शकेमहि ॥(Katha Upa. III.2) Here the is called "bridge", therefore, the Supreme One should be beyond that bridge. Thus, yar is declared to be beyond the 544.

16 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER I

(2) Katha Upa. IV.12-13,56 (3) Katha Upa. IV.457 and (4) Katha Upa. III.1158. To these arguments of the Opponent the Sutrakara replies that (1) the designation of a bridge is common to both the अव्यक्त and the पुरुष (सामान्यात्-Bra. Su. III 2.32) and, therefore, the fact that in the Katha Upa. the sanm is called a bridge cannot prove that there is a higher (aspect of) Brahman than the अव्यक्त 59, (2) that the अव्यक्त is called अङ्गुष्ठमात्र पुरुष because in meditation the meditator has to form a notion (gfa) of the aazr as "a person of the size of a thumb"6o, (3) that the association of the soul with the aoym mentioned in Katha Upa. IV.4 should be taken as that which takes place when the soul is in the deep-sleep state (waaq Sutra II1.2 34)61 and (4) that the state-

(56) अङ्गष्ठमात्र: पुरुषो मध्येआत्मनि तिष्ठति। ईशानो भूतभव्यस्य न ततो विजुगुप्सते एतद्वैतत् ॥ Katha Upa. IV.12-18) The Opponent seems to arguo that the अव्यक्त 19 अड्गुष्ठमात्र पुरुप: and is lower than the PuruSa who is declared to be the arya yey m Katha Upa. VI L. 'उन्मान' refers to अड्गुष्ठमान् :. (57) स्वप्नान्तं जागरितान्तं चोभौ येनानुपश्यति। महान्तं विभुमात्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति ॥ (Katha Upa. IV.4). The Opponent seems to argue that in this Sruti the aam is declared to be that by which (a) the individual soul sees or experiences both the states of dream and of waking. Thus, the soul is declared to be connected with the (in these two states). Because there is already a connection between the and the individual soul, the Supreme Being with which the soul seeks to be united in liberation is higher than this ayrfi. (58) महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्कतात्पुरुषः परः । पुरुषान परं किश्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः ॥ ( Katha Upa. III.11). This Sruti mentions a57 and yey as dafferent from each other. There are several other Srutis in which the difference between the arupavat and the npavat, the Avyakta and the PuruSa, is mentioned e. g., Mu. Upa. II.1.1-2 (अक्षगत्परतः पर:); Mu. Upa. III.1 (उपासने पुरुषं ये ह्यकामास्ते शुक्रमेतदतिवर्तन्ति धीराः।), Pra. Upa. V. 5. Vide Note (13) on Ea III.2.31. (59) Vide Note (16) on E III.2.32. (60) Vide Note (19) on E III.2.33. (61) Vide Note (23) on EF III.2.34. We have proposed a change in the readings of III.2 34 & 35. Vide Note (22) on Stitra III.2.34.

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 17

ment about the difference between the Avyakta and the Purusa can be explained like the Haaqgaa between a serpent and its coil or light and its resort, as already mentioned in Sutras III.2.27-2962 The Sutrakara, thus, refutes the four arguments of the Pūrva- paksa and then adds one more argument in his own favour63. He says that the S'rutis deny 'a principle other than Brahman' or 'a second principle along with Brahman' and that therefore there can be no other principle higher than Brahman. Thus, the Sutrakara's aim in Bra. Su. III.2.31-36 is to prove that the Purnsa is not higher than the Avyakta. The 4aa is not higher than and other than the ersqaa. These two are two aspects of equal status because the yos or the a9a is also not lower than the अरूपवत् aspect. Another Sutra about the relative importance of the anqar and yad aspects of Brahman is Bra. Su III,3.44.6* The Sutrakara tells us in Sutra III.3.4865 that "The meditation on the Purusa is to be practised according to the method of aearfa ("I am the Purusa",) exactly as in the case of the meditation on the Pradhana or the ersad aspect; this has been stated in Bra. Su. III 3.16."6€ In the Sūtra in question (Bra, Sū. III.3.44) he gives an argument ("R"-in Sutra III 3.44) for his statement in Bra Su, III 8.43 and says that as there is a majority of Sruti texts for the am or 54a aspect of Brahman, that aspect Is stronger than the syad one and that therefore it is that the meditation on the Purusa should be practised by the emnvaifa

(62) Vide Note (24) on Ha III.2.35. Vide Note supra. (63) तथाऽन्यप्रतिपेधात्। (Bra. Su. III.2.36) This seems to roler to Srutis like नान्योडतोडस्ति द्रष्टा नान्योडतोडस्ति श्रोता नान्योडनाडस्ति मन्ना नान्योडनोडस्ति विज्ञाता ...... । (Br. Upa. III.7.23). Also see Br. Upa. III.8.11 & Br. Upa. TV.3.30-81 Vide Note (28) on Bra. Su. III.2 36. (64) Of. लिङ्गभूयरत्वात्ताद्व बळीयः। in Sutra III.3.44 which we have proposed to read as लिङ्गभूय रुत्वात्तद्वि ब्लायस्तदपि पूर्वविकल्पः। (65) We read this सूत्र as प्रधानवदेव तदुक्तम्। Vide Noto on the सूत्र in Part I. (66) आत्मगृह्ीतिरितरवदुत्तरात्। (Bra. Su. III 3.16). Vide infra and our Nobes on Bra. Su. III 3.43. 3

18 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER I

method, the method prescribed for the meditation on the rs (ersyaa). Now, the fact that the 91 is slronger (i. e., supported by a greater number of Sruti texts) may lead to an assumption that the meditation on the Purusa may not give the same result as that on the Pradhana. This assumption is refuted by the Sutrakara by saying that in spite of the greater authorita- tiveness ((ra) of the Pradhana, the option of choice out of the two aspects of Brahman for the attamnment of (direct) liberation already stated by the Sutrakara in Bra, Sū. III.3. 28-30 stands.7 In Bra. Sū. III.3.28 the Sūtrakāra says that "A seeker may, according to his wish, choose one of the two aspects of Brahman, viz., the asvaa and the 64aa, because neither of the two is inconsistent with the Soripture, i.e., both the aspects are sanctioned by the Scripture."68 "Moksa would be fulfilled (i.e., achieved) in both the ways. If we do not accept this view, we contradict the Scripture."69 This option ( fany ) is quite appropriate and reasonable70 because we find in the Scripture ( s4mfag ) an object with such characteristios, i.e., Brahman with asgaa and avaa aspects, the meditation on either of which gives Moksa; just as in the world one can reach the same destination by going to it from either of two opposite or contradictory directions.

Thus, according to the Brahmasutra, Brahman has two aspects and the Sūtrakara gives an option of choice to a seeker from these two. He sticks to this option of choice, even though he says that the arsyaa aspect which he calls "Pradhāna" is stronger than the aqaa one named "Purusa". Therefore, both

(67) "eaeq." in III.3.44 is, as we have shown, a ieference to Bra. Su, IJI. 3. 28-30. (68) छन्दतः उभयानिरोधात। (Bra. Su. III.3.28), We have proposed to take this and the two following Eas as forming one etor, Vide Nole on Bra. Sū, III.3 28. (69) गनेरर्थवत्वमुभयथाऽन्यथाहि विरोष: (Bra. Su. III.3.29). (70) As an option is given in Bra. Su, III.3.28, we take faaer:" as under- stood in Bra. SO. III.3.30.

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 19

these aspects are egually umportant so far as the attainment of Moksa is concerned, though a kind of greater importance attachos to the arsqaa because it is mentioned in a greater number of Srutis than the nqqa.

We have already noticed Bra. Su. III 2.1471, which says that "Brahman 1s अरूपवत् only, because, It is chiefly that (i.e., अरूपवत्)" and also Bra. Sū. I.4.372 where the Sūtrakāra seems to us to mean that the Avyakta of Katha Upa. III.10-11 and VI.8 is the subtle ((H-Bra. Su, I.4.2), i. e., the ayaa aspect of Brahman because the Purusa or the syaa aspect which is said to be higher than It, is dependent upon It just as the objects of sense which are said to be higher than the senses are dependent upon the senses (Bra. Su. I.4.3). As we will see later on, by saying that Brahman is chiefly arsyaa the Sutrakara implies that It is not chiefly s4ad and that therefore It is the same in all the three states, viz., waking, dreaming and deep-sleep. The use of the word ST for the arsraa aspect does not mean that the meditation on the $4a4 aspect is not a direct means to Moksa. The dependence of the रूपवत् upon the अरूपवत् aspect (Bra. Su. I.4.3) is probably to be explained like the dependence of the form of coil (kundala) upon the serpent (ahi) itself or the dependence of the substratum of light, viz., the Solar orb, the lunar orb and the lamp upon the light itself (of the Sun, the Moon, the lamp, ete.). We can have no coil of a serpent, if we have no serpent at all. Similarly, we cannot talk of the various substrata of light, the Solar orb, the lamp, eto, if we have no light at all. The depen- dence f the various substrata of light upon light itself does not make them two independent entities, though, at the same time, we have a distinct idea of either of them. The dependence of the syaa aspect of the serpent or of the light upon the serpent or the light itself which are themselves not referred to as having a form does not deprive the syaa aspect of its importance and

(71) अरूपवदेव हि तत्प्रधानत्वात्। (Bra. Su. III.2.14) (72) तदधनत्वादर्थवत्। (Bra. St. I.4.3)

20 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER I

efficacy. Thus, the statements of Bra. Su, III.2.14 (Brahman is chrefly aoyaa and, therefore, only ansyaa) and Bra. Su. I.4.8 (the sqaa aspect or Purusa depends upon the ansuaa or formless aspect) do not in the least an at lessening the importance of the yaa aspect as a means of Moksa. (Bra. Sū. III.8.28-30). Both are aspects of the Cause Itself.

We have already stated that the asvaa and the 549d aspects have each of them their gunas or attributes and that thorefore these two aspects do not correspond to the nirguna and saguna aspects of Brahman in the Vedanta School of Sankara. We will now say what appears to us, according to the Sutrakara, to be the attributes of each of these aspects. Bra. Sū, III.3.11-15, 81-38, 37-42, themselves seem to us to throw light on this question.

Bra. Su. III.3 11-15 give the attributes of the arsyaa aspect or the Pradhana which is mentioned in Bra. Su. III.2.1478. We have shown that aniay: means "a group of attributes of which ar-a is the first" and that this group means the attributes of Brahman mentioned in Bra. Su I.1 because n refers to Bra. Su. I.1.2 which discusses Tai. Upa. III.674 and anTfa "others" would be a reference to (1) आनन्दमय (Bra. Su. I.1.12), (2) अन्तःपुरुष (Bra. Sū. I.1 20), (3) 131T (Bra. Su. I.1.2:2), (4) 911 (Bra. Su. I.1 23), (6) sarfa: (Bra. Su. I. 1.24) and (6) ETT (Bra. Su.I.2.28)75,

(73) आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य। (Bra. ST. III.3.11) and अरूपवदव हहि तत्प्रधानत्वात्। (Bra. Sü, III.2.14). Sańkara makes a new Adhikaiana out of Sutras III 3.14-15, but we have givon our reasons in our Notes for taking these two Sutras with Sū. III.3.13. (74) आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात्। आनन्दाद्ध्येव खल्विमानि भूतानि जायन्ते, आनन्देन जातानि जीवन्ति, आनन्द प्रयन्त्यभिसंविशन्तीति।(Tai Upa. III.6). (75) We have not mentioned fer (Bra. Su, I.1.5) as referred to by anfe because the purpose of the reference to the arr Sruti (i.e., Cha. Upa. VI. 2.1-3) in this context is, we think, to defend the statement in Bra. Su, I.1.2 and therefore that Sruti cannot form an independent fagqaray, nor can that (I.1.5) go to form a new अधिकरण.

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 21

We will later on give further reasons for our suggestion that n4: means the attributes of Brahman collected by the Sutrakara in Bra. Su I.1, when we shall discuss the mean- ing of सत्यादय: and आयतनादय: in Bra. Su. III.3.38 and 39 respectively. In Bra Su. III.3.1276 the Sutrakara says that the attributes fenaraa77 and others are not accepted (arsifa: in the aa) as attributes of the arsyaa aspect or the Pradhana, because the increment and decrement of bliss expressed by the words प्रिय, मोद, प्रमोद, आनन्द in these attributes are possible if there be a difference (aa) of degrees of blias (m the Supreme Being Itself). We bave proposed that sat mn Bra. Su. III.3 13 refers to the attributes like अनणु, अहस्वम्, अदार्घम्, etc. which are the attributes of the Aksara and that sraifa should be taken as impli- ed in g I1I.8.13 on the strength of its being mentioned in the preceding E78. Thus, E III.8.13 means that the Sutrakara does not accept (araia :- taken as implied) the other attributes like अस्थूलम् अनणु 'not gross', 'not subtle', अहस्व 'not short', अदीर्घम् 'not long', etc.79 as the attributes of the Pradhana, because these attributes have a common meaning or aim (ar=4-Bra. Sũ. III.3.13), viz., that of denying of Brahman all things that we know of in this world, because they are not useful for meditation on Brahman or, rather, the Pradhana, 80 and because the word आत्मन which ocours in such Srutis with अनणु, अहस्वम् etc.

(76) प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्यप्राप्तिरुपचयापचया हि भेदे(Bra. Su. III.3,12) (77) प्रियशिरस्त्वादि refers to तस्य प्रियमेव शिरः मोदो दक्षिण: पक्षः । प्रमोद: उत्तरः पक्षः। आनन्द आत्मा । ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिप्ठा।(Tai. Upa. II.b). (78) S'anikara takes इतरे as आनन्दादय: and adds to the सूत्र "सव सनत्र प्तीयेरन्।" Vide S'a bha, on Bra. ST. III.3.14. We have stated in our Notes on that E our reasons for differing from S'ankara. (79) अस्थूलमनण्व=हस्वमदीर्घम् ......... (Br Upa. III 8.8), अशन्दमस्पशमरूपमव्ययम् ...... (Katha Up. III.15). (80) For meditation some positive attributes would be useful, but arag eto., are negative attributes. These latter may be useful for understanding the Pradhana but not for meditation on it. आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभावात्।(Bra. Su. III.3.14). This aa is taken by Sankara as discussing Katha Upa, III. 10-11. We differ.

22 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER I

indicates that Brabman is 3aJ, 33174, etc., as well as the indi- vidual soul who is also enarr 81 Whatever may be the inter- pretation of ths last E ( III. 3. 15 ), there is no doubt that gas III. 3. 11-15 describe the attributes of the TETaT aspect of Bra- hman and that the three groups of attributes, आनन्दादयः, प्रियशिररत्वादयः and rat (i.e., oa1a: or thoughts on the Aksara, e.g, mn Br. Upa. III.8.8), are discussed here with reference to the Pradhana, ont of which only the first group is, in the opinion of the Sutrakara, useful for meditation on the Pradhana.

Bra. Sū. IIl. 3. 31-33 seem to us to discuss how many of the thoughts89 of the Pradhana should be compulsorily meditated upon by a seeker meditating on the 9a4 aspect ( 1. c., on the Pradhana ). III.3.31 88 says that there is no rale that all the attributes or thoughts of the Pradhana (mentioned in the Sruti) should be meditated upon by such a seeker (अनियम: सर्वासामू) though there is no objection from the Sruti and Smrti if a meditator medi- tates on all of them, (because all of them are mentioned in Sruti and Smrti). The attributes of the Pradhana which are connected with official duties (maag),8* such as are described, e.g,. in Cha, Upa. I.11.5,85 should be meditated upon by a seeker of Brahman,

(81) Our interpretation of H in III 3.15 depends upon awra in Su, III.3.33. Vide Notes on Ha III.3 15 and III.8.38. '' means that these attributes a, , ete. already belong to the individual soul just as they are declared to belong to Brahman and as the soul cannot start to meditate upon Brahman without realrzing himself as arg eto., he has not to meditate on Brahman as aag eto (82) The feminine of Hafurr is to be connected with the feminine of fearr in सूत III. 3. 33, while the masculine of अधिकारिकाणाभ् in Bra. Su. III.3, 32 should be explained by taking a masculmne synonym of ar as under stood. Vide Note on Bra. Sū. III.8.31. (83) अनियम: सर्वासामविरोधः प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम्। (Bra. Su. III. 3.31). (84) यावदधिकारमवस्थितिराधिकारिकाणाम्।(Bra. Su, III. 3. 32). Cf. आधिकारिकाणाम् with आधिकारिक in न चाविकारिकमपि पतनानुमानात्तदयोगात्। (Bra. Su. III.4. 41), where anieifa means official duties of a priest for instance. Vide Note on Bra. Sū, III. 4. 41. (85) सर्वाणि ह् वा इमानि भूतानि प्राणमेवाभिसंविशन्ति प्राणमभ्यु्जिहते सैषा देवता प्रस्तावमन्वायत्ता (Chã, Upa, I.11.5).

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 23

as long as his official duties last (aafra) 86 Thus, only as long as a seeker of. Brahman performs some official duties, he should meditate on the attribates of Brahman connected with his official duties, as a part of his meditation on Brahman. But the thoughts on the Aksara, e.g., अनणु, अव्हस्वम्, अदीर्घमू, etc., are banned (arie:) because they all have a common meaning or aim,87 and because the individual soul is already what those attributes are (aaa88 In the opinion of the Sutrakara, the attributes of the Akşara do belong to the Pradhana ( Bra. Sa. III. 3. 13-15 ), but they are not to be used in the meditation on It (Bra .Su. III.3.33). The most essential information about the attributes of the ayad and the yaa aspects of Brahman seems to us to have been given by the Strakāra in Bra. Sū. III. 3. 37-42.89

Before we state the interpretation of these #Ts, we must explain how we understand the two groups of attributes viz., सत्यादय: and आयतनादय: in सूत्र III 3.3990, We have already said that asara: mn Bra. Su, III.3.11 means the attributes of Brahman stated in Bra. Su. I.1; here we have to add that

(86) According to the Sutrakara a seeker of Brahman is allowed to perform his official duties, e. g., those of a priest Vide our interpretation of Bra. Su. III 4. 41-46, (87) सामान्य in Su. III.3.33 is the same as अर्थसामान्य in Sutra III.3.13. Vide Note ou Bra. Sū. III.3.13. (88) अक्षरधियां त्ववरोध: सामान्यतद्धभावाभ्यामैपसदवत्तदुक्तम्।(Bra. St, III.3.33). We have shown that agurr should be taken as referring to Bra. Su, III. 3. 13-15. Vide our interpretation of the same. The example of snvua is not clear to us. Sütra III. 3. 33 is a repetition of Bra. Sa. ITI. 3. 13-15 in a different context, because Suhas III. 3 11-15 discuss what are the attributes of the Pradhana, while Sutras 31-33 tell us how many of these same attributes should be medi- tated upon by a seeker. (89) We read सूत्र 38 as सैन हि and transfer सत्यादय: from that सूत्र to सूत्र 39 which we read as सत्यादयः कामादितरत्र तत्र चायनाटिम्व: !i. e., we have also changed कामादीतरत of the traditional पाठ to कामादिरतत्र" (we have shortened the ). Vide our Notes on uas 38-39. (90) We read सत्र III.3.39 aS सत्यादयः कामादिनरत्र तत्र चायतनादिभ्यः। Vide Note (89) supra.

24 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER I

सत्यादय: and आयतनादय: refer respectively to the attributes collected by the Sutrakara in Bra, Su I2. and I.3. We give below a brief summary of our reasons for this conclusion about these three groups of attributes. If this conclusion of ours be true, we have here a statement by the Sutrakara himself about his scheme of the three divisions of the Srutis selected for discussion into the three Padas of Adhyaya I. We may at once say that (1) the Sutrakara has discussed in Bra. Sü. I.1 those Srutis which according to him deal with the ersyad aspect of Brahman or the Pradhana and which he also accepts as dealing with the same; (2) he has discussed in Bra. Su I.2 those Srutis, which in his opinion, expressly refer to the arsyad aspect of Brahman but which he takes as dealing with the $yaa or the Purusa and (3) that Bra. Su. I.S deals with those Srutis which he believes to be directly referring to the $yaq aspect and which he also accepts as such. Our reasons for the identification of the three groups of attri- butes with those mentioned respectively in Bra. Su. I.1,2 and 3 are briefly as follows :- 1. The ancient commentators and the modern interpretors of the gs have not, within our knowledge, been able to point ont anywhere the existence of three lists corresponding to the requirements of these three agaife compounds. 2 (a). As stated above, आनन्दादय: would mean (1) आनन्द (Bra. Sui. I.1.2 which refers to Tai. Upa. II.6), n-554 (Bra Su. I.1.12), (3) अन्तर पुरुष (Bra. Su. I.1.20), (4) आकाश (Bra. Su I.1.22), (6) प्राण (Bra. Su. I.1.23), (6) ज्योति: (Bra. Su. L.1.24), and (7) प्राण (Bra Su. I.1.28). (b). The list of the second बहुब्रीहि cornpound, सत्यादयः, seems to have been made up of the 'thoughts' (vis-in Bra. Su. III.3 83) mentioned in the second पाद of अध्याय I, of which the first विषयवाक्य is as follows :- मनोमयः प्राणशरीरो भारूपः सत्यसंकल्प: आकाशात्मा, et. (Cha. Upa, III.14.2). The word सत्य in सत्यादय: seems to stand for सत्यसंकल्प in the first विषयवाक्य. So, सत्यादयः would imply the attributes of the

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 25

Supreme Being as collected in Pada 2, viz., (1) मनोमय, etc., (Bra. Su.I.21), (2) अतत (Bra. Su.I.2.9), (3) गुहा प्रविष्टः (Bra. Sa.I.2.11), (4) अन्तर: (Bra. St.I.2.13), (5) अन्तर्यामिन (Bra. Su.I.2.18), (6) अदृश्य- त्वादिगुणक: (Bra. St.I.2.21), (7) वैश्वानर: (Bra. Su.I.2.24). (c). The list of the thard बहुवराहि compound, आयतनादयः, seems to be made up of (1/ धुम्वाचायतन in tle furst सूत्र in the third पाद of n I and of the other attributes collected by the Sutrakara in the same Pada, vIz., (2) भूमन् (Bra Su.I.3,8), (3) अम्बरान्तधृति (Bra. Su. I.8.10), (4) ईक्षतिकर्मन् (Bra. Su, 1.3.13), (5) दहर (Bra. Su. 1314), (6) अङ्गुष्ठमात्र (Bra. Su. J.3.24), (7) कम्पन (Bra. Su.I.3.89), (8) ज्योति: (Bra. Sa.I.3.40 (9) आकाश (Bra. Sa I.3.41), (10) विज्ञानमय (Bra. Sa. I.8.42) and (11) vfa (Bra. Su I.3.43). As the very words आनन्द and आयतन occur respectively in the विषयवाक्य of Bra. Su. I.1.2 and in Bra. Su. I.3.1, the words आनन्द and आयतन in आनन्दादय: and आयतनादय: can be well identified with the same occurring in the fegaiaa of Bra. Su. I.1.2 and Bra. Su. I.3.1. respectively, and consequently आनन्दादय: and आयतनादय: would imply the attributes or thoughts (in the Srutis) collected in qras 1 and 3. The word सत्य in सत्यादय:, however, does not occur in 1.2.1, but it occurs as a member of the compound word सत्यसङ्कल्प in the Sruti referred to by that सूत्र. 'I Thus, to our mind, there will be no diffioulty in identifying or with wequgey on the analogy of आयतन being identified with दुम्वाद्यातन. The बहुब्रीहि compound "सत्यादयः" seems to have been derived from the word "सत्यसङ्कल्प" in the Sruti referred to. Moreover, even by the rule of elimination (uftaer) the identification of the first and the third lists (आनन्दादय: in सूत्र III.3.11 and आयतनाद्य: in सूत्र III.3 39) with those of the thoughts in Bra. Sü. I.1 and I.8 itself helps to identify the second list (eraTa": in Bra. Su. I.3.38-89) with that of the thoughts in Bra. Sū, I.2. 3. Though we have not offered in this work a detailed inter- pretation of Bra. Su. I. 1-3 (Vide Appendix), we may be allowed

(91) युभ्वाद्यायतन स्वशब्दात्।(Bra. Su. I.3.1). 4

26 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER I

here to write a few lines about what seems to us to be the nature ot the Sutrakara's arguments and of the contents of the fagatqys in these three was, as this will give further evidence to streng- then our suggestion about the interpretation of आनन्दादयः, सत्यादयः and आयतनादय :. In 1, the Sutrakara's chief argument is that the faaigas mention only that characteristic (धर्म or लिज्) of Brahman, which is stated in Bra. Su.I.1.2; and we find that the faggalaas of that wa (except that of Bra. Su. I.1.12),92 are such as mention one or two or all out of the three functions of Brahman, viz., the creation, continuation and dissolution of Beings, though instead of the word 'Brahman' words like अन्तः पुरुष, आकाश, प्राण, (Cha. Upa. I.11.4-5 and also Kau. Upa. III.2.4) and vnla: are used in them. In q I there are no arguments about the 54 of Brahman or those attributes which can properly belong only to the $9aa aspect of Brabman. The main argument of the Sutrakara in the second ua is the mention of the रूप or गुणs or विशेषणs (of the Purusa) in the विषयवाक्यड, and in one case he even points to the fact that the वैश्वानर आत्मन् of the विषयवाक्य is called पुरुष (or पुरुषविध) in a cerlain Branch of the Veda (Bra. Su. I.2.26). If we look to the faqyaras them- selves, we find that each of them contains clear unambiguous words like ब्रह्मन्, आत्मन्, instead of words like आकाश, प्राण, ज्योति; as in wa I which do not primarily signify the Supreme Being, but the word 'पुरुष' does not occur in those विषयवाक्यs, In the third पाद the Sutrakara often argues that the विषयवाक्य Sruti calls the topic of the Sruti "gas". Thus, we have already shown that मुक्तोपसृप्यव्यपदेश (Bra. Su. 1.3.2.), ईक्षतिकर्मव्यपदेश (Bra. St. I.3.18) and शब्दादेव (Bra. Su I.3.24) refer to the word "पुरुष" in the respective Sruti; and, lastly, पत्यादिशब्दृभ्य: in Bra. Su. I.3.43 shows that the Sutrakara emphasises the use of the word via, fat, eto. in the Srutis, which are synonyms of "gey" and not

(92) We believe, the आनन्दमय Sruti is disoussed in Bra. Su, I.1.12, because the आनन्द Sruti is discussed in Bra. Su. I.1.2.

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 27

of the aaqad aspect of the Supreme Being. This u also discusses some Srutis which mention some attributes like yfa, THT, which can only belong to the personal aspect of the Supreme Being. Thus, generally speaking, the main point of argument in each of the three qs is respectively (1) the statement about the creation, continuation or dissolution of beings from and into the Supreme One in the विषयवाक्यs, (2) themention of गुus or विशेष the Purușa in the faggalaas, and (3) the occurrence of the word "y5q" or some of His oxclusive attributes in the विषयवाक्यs The विषयवाक्य Srutis in the three qias are respectively (1) such as mention a word other than ब्रह्मन्, आत्मन् or पुरुष, (2) snch as mention a word other than पुरुष (i.e., a word like ब्रह्मन्, आत्मन) and (3) such as mention the very word "gaq" or one of His exclusive attributes in case a word expressive of the arsqaa is also mentioned in the Sruti. In our opinion, the three lines of argument as adopted by the Sutrakara and the contents of the fagaaiaas in the first three was of the first r show that these gres are aimed at discussing (1) only the अरूपवत्, (2) expressively chiefly the अरूपवत् and partly syaa and 13) the expressively chiefly qaa though partly the auaa"8 aspects of Brahman.

We do admit that one may find it difficult to explain some of the Sutras and the faqyalgas of Bra. Su. I.1-3 in the light of the above analysis of the general trend of arguments and of the nature of the selected Srutis, but broadly speaking, inspite of such difficulties the analysis seems to us to be more correct and we, therefore, venture to offer it for consideration to the students of the subject.94

(93) We have used expressively "«raa" with reference to the occurrence of the word like PuruSa or His exclusive attribute in the favaargq. This will also indicate what we mean by "expressively arsqag." (94) It will be out of place to notice briefly the views of the Acaryas regarding the Sutrakara's scheme of selection and arrangement of the faqqarys in the first three wras of the first aeara,

28 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER I

The above conclusion regarding the identifieation of the three sets of attributes, आनन्दादयः, सत्यादय: and आयतनादय: mentioned in Bra. Sū. III.3.11, 38-39 and arrived at as a result of (1) the absence of any three lists according to the requirements of the agaife compound, in the interpretations so far available to us, (2) an examination of the first and subsequent attributes m each of the three Padas and (3) a general analysis of the nature of the Sutrakara's arguments and of the contents of the faqaaiays in Bra. Sū. I.1-3, will, we hope, be further corroborated by the interpretation of Bra, Su. III.3.11, 37-42 offered by us in Part I. We have already offered above a summary of our interpreta- . tion of Bra. Su. III 3.11. We have explained in Part I how Bra. Su. III.3.37-42 deal with the interchange of the attributes of the aavad and the svar aspects of Brahman, which a seeker is allowed to practise when he meditates on either of the two aspects. In Sutra III.3.37 the Sutrakara says that "In the Upanisads there is an interchange (afdart) of attributes because the S'rutis distinguish one aspect of Brahman with the attributes with which they characterise the other aspect."95 Sūtra III.3,38 which we read as only "aa fe", gives an example of such a Sruti and says that we may take any Sruti we like and we will find that "One and the same Sruti (or Upanisad text; note the feminine of "ar") distinguishes the one aspect of Brahman as it does the other".9& This refers to the general tendency in the Sruti, e.g., (1) the famous Aksara text of Br. Upa. III.8.8 assigns "T" 'the function of ruling' to the Immutable which is the qaa

(95) व्यतिहारो निशिषन्ि होनरवत्। (Bra. Su, III.3.37), We have shown in our Notes (1) that 7raa refers to the ho aspects of Brahman viz., the asya and the रूपवत, (2) that the subject of विशिषन्ति should be "श्रतयः", or उपनिपदः, (3) that व्यतिदार: should mean विशेषणाना (i. o. गुणानाम्) व्यतिहार:, and (4) that व्यतिहार is "mutual interchange." (96) सैव हि। (Bra. Su. III.3.88)=सैव हि अतिः (or उपनिषद्) एकें इुतरवत् विशिनष्टि। We have shown in our Notes that we must take saraa and Gfrafe as under- stood from the preceding ur,

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 29

aspect, (2) the purusa text of Mu. Upa. II.1.2 describes Hun as अप्राण:, अमना:, attributes applicable primarily to the अरूपवत् aspect. Many other illustrations can be given. In fact, the Sūtrakara seems to think that there is no Sruti which solely and purely characterises either of the two aspects with its own peculiar attributes only. Sūtra III.3.39 seems to us to contain a rale about the application, of the attribates of Brahman collected in Bra. Sü. I.2 and 3, during the practice of meditation. The Sutrakara says that "The group of attributes beginning with e (the Sruti containing the word aeagrq) in Bra. Su. I.2.1 may according to the choice of the meditator ($rHIa), be taken in (the meditation of the aspect) other (gaT7) (than that to which they have been explained by the Sūtrakara to belong) and in (the meditation of) that aspect (a a) a meditator may, according to his choice, take attributes from the group of those beginning with दुम्वाद्यायतन in Bra. Su. I.3.1." This, to our mind, is the interpretation of Bra. Sū. III.3.39. It makes two points clear, viz., (1) that in Bra. Sū. I.2 the Sutrakara has explained all the faqaaraa Srutis of that Pada as dealing with the Purusa, but in Bra. Su. III.3.39 he allows a seeker to meditate on the attributes collected there, as those of the arsnaa, i. e., he allows the seeker to regard those Srutis as Srutis dealing with the ersyaa, and (2) that in Bra. Su. I.3 the Sutrakara has explained all the fagaaiaas as dealing with the 47g aspect, but in the latter half of Bra. Su, III.8.39 he allows a seeker at his option to regard those Srutis as dealing with the aryaa aspect of Brahman. Bra. Su, III.3.40 gives the view of an Opponent who holds that "Out of respect (for this interchange of attrbutes of the two aspects of Brahman found in the Sruti) a meditator should not drop (the attributes of the other aspect when he is meditating on either aspect)." This view would not admit the option of choice about the attributes, given by the Sūtrakāra in Brą. Sū. III.3.39.97

(97) We have explained how aa III.8.40 is closely connected with III.3.39. 'अलोप:' in the furmer is meant to contradict 'कामात' in the latter.

30 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA : CHAPTER : I

Sūtra III.3.41 gives the Sutrakara's reply, viz., a meditator should not drop only those attributes of the aspect other than the one on which he is engaged in meditating, when such attributes are present (i.e., occur) in the texts about that aspect which is the object of his own meditation. Thus, a meditator is not obliged to collect attributes of the other aspect from texts other than those which mention the aspect of his meditation. Lastly, in Bra. Su. III.8.42 we are told that there is no rule by which one can fix what are purely and solely the attributes of either of the two aspects, and that the result of this stand-pornt is that from the side of the Sruti there is no objection to separating the two aspects of Brahman.98 To the Sutrakara there is only one definite point about Brahman, viz., that It has two aspects, one अरूपवत् or अपुरुषविध and the other रूपवत् or पुरुषविध. As regards the attributes of these aspects there is no rule to fix them. Therefore, though he himself has made a distinction between the attributes of these aspects in Bra. Su. I.2. and 3, he does not think that he can stick to it strictly, because the Sruti itself adopts an interchange of the attributes of the two aspects. And, therefore, he gives the option in Sūtra III.3.39. He makes out a very important corollary out of this position. He says that this absence of fixity about the attributes of the two aspects justifies the option of choice to a seeker to select either of the two aspects to reach the same goal, viz., Moksa. If one can fix even a few attributes as solely belonging to one of the two aspects, the result of the meditation on that aspect may possibly be at least slightly different from the result of the meditation on the other aspect and that possibility would go against the option about the choice of aspect of Brahman, which (option ) means that a seeker is

(98) सन्निर्धारणानियमस्तद्दृष्टेः पृथग्ध्वयप्रतिबन्धः फलम्। Bra. St, III.3.42. We have stated that the traditional reading पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्धः (=पृथक+हि+अप्रतिबन्धः) should have been originally पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्ध: because it corresponds to प्रज्ञान्तरपर्थकृत्व in Bra. Su, III.3.50. We have also explained why as in araviry ... should refer to the faaous of Brahman, 'agir' in Bra. Su, III.3.50 is clearly a reference to Bra, Su, ITI.8.42.

CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT 31

to make an independent or separate thought ( or notion ) about the aspect which he adopts. The following conclusions can be deduced from what the Sütrakara says about the attributes of the two aspects :- 1. There are two aspects of Brahman, the a59aa and the sqr. 2. Each of these two aspects is to be followed independently of the other.

3. The Sruti has no objection to the option of choice between the two aspects, because the Sruti makes an interchange of the attributes of these two aspects.

4. And consequently a meditator of either aspect may select whatever Srutis he likes without observing the arrangement of these Srutis in the two groups in Bra. Sü. I.2 and 3 given by the Sütrakāra himself.

5. The Sutrakara has argued to show that the Srutis dis- cussed in Bra. Su. I.2 deal with the Purusa, though these profess to deal with the Pradhana. He has also argued in Bra. Sū, I8 to prove that the S'rutis in question deal with the Purusa because they profess to deal with the Purusa; but he admits that these latter contain also indications of the Pradhana.

We may here add that in the case of certain Srutis discussed by the Sutrakara in Bra. Sū, I.2 and 3, the positiou of Sańkara becomes very awkward, if we compare his bhasya on those Srutis when they occur in the respective Upanisads, with his bhasya on the same when he comments upon them in the course of his Brahmasütra-bhasya. To give an example, Sankara in his commentary on the Mundaka Upanisad explains Mu. Upa. I.15-6 as dealing with the nirguna Brahman, but when he comments upon the same Sruti in his bhasya on Bra. Su. I.2 21-23 he has to explain it as dealing with the saguna Brahman, because the Sūtrakāra gives uiq-# as an argument, which refers to Mu. Upa. II.1.2 which mentions the Purusa. Again, in his bhasya on

32 SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKĀRA : ONAPTER T

Mu. Upa. he takes this Purusa as the nirguna Brahman, but in his bhasya on Bra. Si, he changes his view. This apparent inconsistency of Sankara is casily explamed in the light of the Sutrakara's view about those Srutis, as reconstructed by us from our interpretation of Bra. Su III.3.37-42. We have already mentioned some common pomts about both the arggad and the 69aa aspects of Brahman disoussed in. the same Sutras in our text. Thus, by gat in Bra. Su. III.3.37 the Sütrakara refers to both the aspects, because he thereby says that the Srutis characterise the arsyaa aspect with the character- istics of the syaa aspect and vice versa; by Ha in Bra. Su. III. 3.28, because there he gives an option of choice between the two aspects for the same goal, viz., Moksa; by "da" and "ga" in Bra. Su. III.3.8 and 10 respectively he says that the two aspects differ so far as the two names (arat and g54) differ, otherwise they do not differ at all; and there are some more «as already discussed above, which simultaneously deal with both these aspects. We shall now suggest what information we can get about both of these from similar other gas that deal with both these aspects at the same time.

Ts III.3.16-1799 are, in our opinion, meant by the Sutrakāra to explain the method of meditation on both the arsqag and the a4 aspects. We have shown that Ea III.3.16 refers to Br. Upa. I.4.1010° and means that the asyaa aspect is to be compre- hended in meditation as the self of the meditator because of the succeeding sentence (HT) of Br. Upa. I.4.10. By saraa in the the Sutrakara indicates that the other aspect, i. e., the 54aa aspect is also to be comprehended in meditation as the self of

(99) आत्मगृहीतिरितरवदुत्तरात्।(Bra. Su, III. 3.16). And अन्वयादिति चेंदस्यादवधारणात्।(Bra. Su. III 3.17). (100) In our Notes we have shown that Sutra III.3.16 should be compared with आत्मत्युपगच्छन्ति ग्राहयन्ति च ।(Bra. St, IV.1.3) and that Sutra III.3.16 refers to तदिदमप्यत हि य एवं वेदाहं ब्र्मास्मीति स इद सरवै भवति ...... अथ योडन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽनय5सावन्योड इमसमीति न स वेद यथा पशचुरेव स देवानाम् ............ (Br. Upa. I.4.10).

APURVAM : EXTRAORDINARY PRINCIPLE 33

the meditator. This indicated sense of sataa is referred to by "a y" in Bra. Su. II1.3 43 which says that "The meditation on the Purusa is to be performed just as that on the Pradhāna; this has been stated (in Bra. Su. III.3.16)."101 JT III.3.17 says that the araa ("I am Brahman") method is adopted not because of the grammatical construction (a-q4) of the Sruti in question, but rather becanse there is an emphatic definite state- ment (निर्धारण) about this method, viz., "आत्मेत्येव उपासीत" (Br. Upa. I.4.7), "One should meditate on the asqaq only as his very Self." Thus, these two as lay down the method of meditation for both the aspects of Brahman.

In Bra. Sū. III.3.18-19102 the Sūtrakāra mentions the Extra- ordinary Principle (अपूर्वम्), in Vedanta, which is the result (कार्य) of the meditation practised as stated above. He says that this कार्य of the आत्मगृहीति meditation on Brahman is declared (आख्यान) in the (same) Sruti,"103 "In the beginning this (world) was Brahman; It thought of Itself 'I am Brahman'; therefore, It became all; then, whoever among the gods got this knowledge became the same; similarly among the Rsis and among men; seeing this same Rsi Vamadeva realized : 'I have been Manu and (I have been) the Sun'; therefore even now he who knows this, viz., 'I am Brahman', becomes all this." "The Sūtrakāra who believes that as in the Karmakanda of the Sruti, so in the Jñanakanda of the same we have the Extraordinary Principle (agau) as the effect of the meditation which is of the nature of

(101) Vide our Notes on "तद् उक्तम्" in Bra. Su. III 3.43. (102) कार्याख्यानादपूर्वम्। (Bra. Su. III 3.18) and एवं चाभेदात्। (Bra. Su. ITI.3,19). VIde our Notes on अपूवंभ् कार्य seems to us to mean the कार्य of आत्मगृहीति in Sutra III 3.19-17. (103) कायोख्यान seems to us to refer to ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्तदात्मानमेवावेदहं ब्रह्मास्मीति। तस्मात्तत्सवमभवत्, तद्यो यो देवानां प्रत्यबुध्यत स एव तदभवत् तथर्षीणां तथा मनुष्याणां, तश्चैतत्पश्यन्नृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदे 'अहं मनुरभव ५ सूर्यश्चेति, तदिदमप्येतर्हि य एवं वेदाहं ब्रह्मास्मीति स इदं सर्व भवति ........ । (Br. Upa. I.4.10). 5

34 APURVAM : EXTRAORDINARY PRINCIPLE IN VEDANTA

the performance 104 of an act (aaUI-Bra Su. 11I.4.19) and a fafer ( III. '20). This Principle "agay" is taught in Br. Upa. 1.4.10 with reference to the अरूपवत् aspect of Brahman. In Bra. Su. III.3.19 the Sutrakara says that similarly (vay) an "agau" should be taken as understood (implied) in a similar S'ruti, i. e., an' Upanisad text about the Purusa (समाने), because both the अरूपवत् and the रूपवत् aspects are (aspects of) the same Principle (अभेदात). 105 Thus the Sutrakara teaches an argan with reference to both the" aspects of Brahman.

One more point which the Sūtrakāra seems to us to state regarding the meditation on both these aspects is brought out in Bra.Sū. III.3.34-36.106 He says that the meditation should be practised urthin one's self, as is done in the case of the medita- tions on the qas, because the Sruti says that 'Brahman is of a lImited size' (इयद् आमननात्). 107 The Sūtrakāra says the same also elsewhere in his book.108 An Opponent says that Brahman is to be meditated upon within one's own self, "because otherwise the identity of the individual soul and Brahman would not be explained." To this the Sutrakara, who does not accept the

(104) अनुष्ठेयं बादरायण: साम्यश्रतेः ।(Bra. Sछ, III.4.19) and विधिवां धारणवत्। (Bra. Su. III.4.20). We will later on show that according to Badarayana, the Vedanta proceeds on the same lines as the Purvamimamsa and in this les the एकवाक्गता of both these Sciences,

(105) In Bra Su III.3 19 we have suggested that अभेदात् means अर्थामेदात् and that we should explain this सूत्र on the analogy of उपसंहारोर्थाभेदाद्विधिशेषवत् समाने च। (Bra. Su. III.3.5).

(106) We have proposed to combine EETs III.3,34-35 of S'ankara's ur and so we read one मत्र, viz., इयवामननादन्तरा भूतग्रामवत्स्वात्मनः। Vide our Notes in Part I.

(107) 'इयदामननात' in Bra. Su.III.3.34 refers to such Srutis as द्वा सयुना सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिषस्त्रजाते. (108) Of. अभेकौकस्त्वात्तव्यपदेशाच्च नेनिचेन्न निचाय्यत्वादेवं व्योमवच्च।(Bra Sछ. I.2 7) which is referred to in अल्पश्रनेरिति चेत्तदुक्त्तम्। (Bra.St.I.3.21).

DISCUSSION OF BRAHMAN ON ANALOGY OF DHARMA 35

absolute identity of the soul with Brahman, replies in the negative and says that he recommends the inward meditation in harmony with another precept109 or a different precept (1. e., a precept about the non-identity of the soul and Brahman in the heart). Thus, we have several Sutras in the Brahmasutra, which deal with the अरूपवत् and the रूपवत् aspects of Brahman. In fact the arrangement of the Srutis in the first three Padas of Bra.Sū. I is based upon a classification of the Srutis distinguishing the two aspects. The same is discussed in Bra.Su. III.2 and particularly in Bra.Sü.III.3 where the procedure of the meditation on these two aspects forms the mam topic of discussion and which is in our opinion the most important portion of the Brahmasūtra.110 Now we propose to state briefly several points about the nature of Brahman, which are discussed in Bra. Su.III.2 and III.3 without special reference to any particular aspect of Brahman, because these points pertain to Brahman itself, and, therefore, to both the aspects. A very important point about Brahman in the system of the Sutrakara is that Brahman, Its meditation and Its realization or knowledge are, according to him, objects of Injunction (fafer) and are of the nature of something to be performed (agda), as distin- guished from things which are simply of the nature of reflection (vmai). It is evident that the Sutrakara's discussion of Brahman in Bra.SutraIII.3 proceeds on the analogy of the explanation of Dharma given in the Jaiminisutra. Thus, the identity of Brahman in all the Vedanta texts of the Sruti is established in Bra,Sū.III.3.1 on the analogy of the proof of the identity of Karman offered in Jai. Su.II.4.6.111 In Bra. Su.III.3.2 the (109) अन्यथाडमेदानुपपात्तरिति चेन्नोपदेशान्तरवत्। (Bra.Su.III.3.36). उपदेशान्तर may refer to सं कतुं कुर्वीत। ... एष म आत्माइन्नहैदये in Cha. Upa.III.14.3. (110) Vide the Chapter on Bra Su.III.3 m Part II. (111) सर्ववेद्रान्तप्रत्ययं चोदनाद्यिशेषात्।(Ba.S.III.3.1). Jai.St.II.4.6-एक वा संयोगरूपचोद नाख्याSविशषात् I-gives four proofs of the identity of a karman, e. g., the Agnihotra. The author of the Brahmasutra takes these proofs as granted and proceeds to prove the identity of Brahman on the analogy of the Jai.Su. Vide Note (1) on Bra.Su,III.3.1.

36 DISCUSSION OF BRAHMAN ON ANALOGY OF DIIARMA

Sutrakara seems to remove a doubt about the propriety of the rule of raraig laying down the study of the text of only one's own Sakha, a doubt which arises if Brahman is to be known from all the Vedantas, i. e., the Vedantas of all the Sakhas of all the Vedas, 112 He says that "4" is 'what it literally means' (स्वाध्यायस्य तथात्वेन) and the religious obligation (अधिकार) of a twice- born is only for the text in vogue (in his family or Sakha, tRIaRts- frama); and that this rule is like that about the sacrifices called was, which are the only sacrifices restricted to the followers of only one Veda (enaforas), all other sacrifices being common to all the Vedas. The point in question is that the Sūtrakāra explains the rule of ₹91-17 (of the Upanisads) on the analogy of the sacrifices called «as. Again, the "collection" of attributes and other information pertaining to the meditation (syeart) is com- pared with the collection of gus (subordinate rites) subsidiary to an Injunctiou (विधिशेष).118 We have also seen above that in Bra. Sū.III.3 18114 the Sūtrakara explains how there is an Apūrva (arqay) also in the Vedanta School, just as there is an Apurva in the Pürvamīmamsa School. In both the Schools the Apūrva is a unique merit resulting from an act. Fr is the arg resulting from the performance of the wifdae Sacrifice; so the Upanisad in question (Br.Upa.I.4.10) mentions the Vedanta अपूर्चम्, VIZ., सवभवन "becoming all"115 which is the result of the act of meditation, In Bra.Su,III.2.24-25 the meditation or rather the propitiation (I7-Bra.Su.III.2.24) of Brahman is compared with an act (कर्मणि-Bra.Su.III.2.25).116 As the Siddhantin applies the rules of the Purvamimamsa to the interpretation of the Upanisads,

(112) सवाध्यायस्य तथात्वेन समाचारेऽधिकाराच्च सववच्च नन्नियम. 1 (Bra.Su. III.3.2). (113) उपसंहारोडर्थाभेदादिधिशेपवत्समाने च। (Bra,Su.III.3.5). Vide Note (2) on Bra.S.III.3.5. (114) कार्याख्यानादपूर्वम्। (Bra.Sप.III.3.18). (115) Vide supra. (116) अपि च संराधने प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम्। (Bra.Su.III.2.24) and प्रकाशादिवच्चावैशष्यं प्रकाशश्च कर्मण्यभ्यासात्। (Bra.Su.III.3.25). Vide Note(12) on Bra.Su.III.2.25.

JAIMINI : BRAIIMAJNANA IS A REFLECTION 37

the Purvapaksin also supports his views with illustrations from the PurvamImamsa. Thus, the latter argues that the meditation on the Purusa may be an act (faaT) like a mentation known in the PūrvamImāmsa, 117 In Bra.Sü. III.3.57 the example of 5g, a particular kind of sacrifice, is given to explain the superiority of a meditation of Brahman consisting of parts ( U 91:), about which we shall have to say something infra. 118 The most important group of uas dealing with this problem is, we beheve, Bra.Su.III.4.18-26. In Bra. Su.III 4.1-17 which precede these we have a disoussion proving that the knowledge (ज्ञान) of Braliman is superior (अधिकम्) to कर्मन् 'any action' and refuting Jaimini's view that the Knowledge of Brahman is sub- sidiary to Karman.119 We have given our reasons to prove that in Bra.Sü.III.4.18-26120 the Sütrakāra discusses the nature of the knowledge of Brahman. Jaimim who behevos that the lenowledge of Brabman is subsidiary to rites says that this know- ledge is of the nature of a thought or reflection ( qmru ) and it cannot be of the nature of an Injunction (ia ) because the Scripture denies all actions as means to the realzation of Bra- hman, eg., "The Un-made cannot be achieved by means of that which can be made or performed."121 Bādarāyana holds that the knowledge of Brahman is something to be performed

(117) Vide supra and also Notes on Bra.Su.III.3.45. (118) भूम्नः क्रतुवज्ज्यायस्त्वं तथाहि दशगति। (Bra Su.III.3.57). कतु is greater than T, so a meditation on Brahman consisting of parts is greater when a greater number of parts is contemplated upon than when a smaller number is thought of. Vide Notes on the Sūtra. (119) Of. शेषत्वात्पुरुषार्थवादो यथाऽन्ये्विति जैमिनिः। ( Bra.Su.III.4.2) and अधिको पदेशात्ु बादरायणस्यैवं तद्दर्शनात्। (Bra.Su.III.4.8). (120) S'ankara makes five Adhikaranas of these nmne Sutras. Vide our reasons for taking them as one Adhikarana only, in Part I. (121) परामश जैमिनि रचादना चापवदति हि। (Bra,Su.III 4.18) अपवदति may refer to परीक्ष्य लोकान्कर्मचितान् ब्राह्मणो निर्वेदमायान्नास्त्यकृत: कृतेन। (Mu.Upa.I.2.12). Sankara explains this Sutra as roferring to the आश्रमश्रति, viz., अथ त्रयो धमस्कन्धा .. (Cha Upa. II.23.1); but we have explained how this is not a correct interpretation.

38 BADARAYANA : BRAIMAJNANA IS AN ACTION

(araga) 122 because there is a Sruti stating the similarity between Brahman and Karman. This may be a roference to Mu. Upa.I.1. 4-5 which declares both Brahman and Karman to be Vidyas. If Karman is a Vidya and still somothing to be porformed, Brahman which is a Vidyā, would also be something to be performed.123 Or, rather the HIy Sruti may refer to the similarity of such texts as "Atman should be seen, heard, reasoned out and meditated upon," "He should form a determination,"12 etc., to Srutis like "One desirous of the Heaven should perform the ifae sacrifice." The knowledge of Brahman is thus something to be performed (STH); one may even say that it is a fafe, an Injunction, resembling the fafe of committing the text to mamory (धारण), viz., "स्वाध्यायोऽध्येतव्यः," which is looked upon as a विधि by the Opponent ( Jaimmni ) also.125 In Bra.Sū.III.3.1 the Sütrakära already states that the Injunction (चोदना), Connection (सयोग), Form (रूप) and Name (आख्या ) in all the Vedantas are the same and therefore all the Vedantas teach the same Brahman, 10 Thus, he already expresses his belief about Brahman being the subject of चोदना 'Injuction'. The Srutis with 'उपासीत', 'द्रष्टव्यः', e. have a similarity with yaa and this similarity proves that the knowledge of Atman is not only aaga but clearly a fafa. In Bra.Su.III.4.21-22 Badarayana refutes a Purvapaksa's argument that the HFa Sruti is only a glorification स्तुतिमात्रम, on the strength of the अपूर्वेत्व, i.e., the fact that the knowledge of Brahman is not mentioned in the earlier portion ($10s) of the Sruti; 127 it is mentioned for the first time in the Upanisads. In Bra.Su.III.4.23 the Opponent argues that the episodes of the Upanisad texts are for the (122) अनुष्ठेयं बादरायण. साम्यश्रतेः । (Bra. Su. III.4.19). (123) The Brraala may be a reference to a Sruti in which the Knowledge of Brahman is declared to be अनुष्टेय like Karman. Of. अनुषाय न शोचति (कर उप.) (124) आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः । (Br.Upa.II.4.5); स ऋ्रतुं कुवीत । ( Cha,Upa.III.4.1). (125) विधिवा धारणवत्। (Bra.Su.III.4.20). Vide Note(8)on the Sutra, (126) सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययं चोदनादविशेषात्।(Bra.Sप.III.3.1) (127) स्तुतिमात्रमुषादानादिति चेन्नापूर्वत्वात् (Bra.Su.III.3.21). Vide our Interpreta- tion of this and the following Sutras in Part I.

UNANIMITY OF PURVA AND UTTARA KANDAS 39

purpose of the qifa rite, while the Sutrakara refutes it by referring to the distinction made (faafdara) between the episodes of the Upanisads and the episodes recited in the yIRra7 rite. 128 According to the Sutrakara the unanimity (aaal) of the Pürvakāņda and the Uttarakanda is based upon the fact that the knowledge of Brahman is area and even a faf and that there is an auay in each of the two Kandas. 129 The unanimity of sense of the two Kandas is not achieved or explamed by subordinating the knowledge of Brahman to Karman or vice versa. Both the Kandas are portions of the same Scripture because both Brahman and Karman have independent fafrs and independent अपूवs 180 Moreover, because the Karmakāņda and Jnanakanda have each of them an independent far and an independent aga, the latter does not stand in need of the sacred fire, fnel, etc., though there is a unanimity between the two. 131 In Br. Upa.IV.4.22, the sacrifice (8), and other things, e. g., donation (15) and penance ( avg) are prescribed as means to the knowledge of Brahman. 182 Somebody may ask, "How is this sacrifice to be performed, if not by fire, fuel, etc ?" To this, the Sūtrakāra replies :188 "All requirements of the Jñānakānda arising from this aane Sruti are of the natnre of the Horse described in Br. Upa. I.1, i.e., these requirements are mental and metaphorical. 184 In all these Sutras (Bra. Su.III.4.18-26) (128) पारिप्लवार्था इति चेन्न विशेषितत्वात् Bra. Su.III.3.23). Here even Sankara takes the episodes of the Upanisads as being argued by the Opponent to be पारिष्लवाथाः "विशेषितत्वात्" may refer to "श्रवयेद् ब्रह्मससदि" in Katha Upa.III.16-17. Vide Nole (18) on the Sutra. (129) तथा चैक्यवाक्यतोपबन्धनात्।(Bra. Su.III.4.24). (130) Ibid. (131) अत एव चासीन्धनाद्यनपेक्षा (Bra.Su.III.4.25). Sankara connected this Sutra with Bra.Su.III.4.1. This rather favours our interpretation of Sutras TII.4.18-26. Vide our Notes on it, (132) तमेनं वेदातुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यश्ञेन दानेन तपसा नाशकेन। (Br.Upa.IV.4.22). (133) सर्वापेक्षा च यज्ञादिश्चुतेरश्रवत्।(Bra.Su III.4.26). (134) उषा वा अश्वस्य मेध्यस्य शिरः। सूर्यश्चक्षुवातः प्राणो व्यात्तमसिवेशवानर, मंवत्सर आत्माइ्श्वस्य मेध्यस्य। (Br .. Upa,I.1.1-2).

40 FURTHER LIGHT ON UNANIMITY OF THE TWO KANDAS

the Sutrakara scems to us to argue that the knowledge of Brahman is something to be performed and. Braliman is an object of Injunction. Itis not a mere reflection, such as is found so often in the Pūrvamīmamsā,

We have seen above that with reference to the question of the nature of the knowledge of Brahman, which the Sutrakara believes to be something to be performed (अनुष्ठेय and विधि), he discusses the question of the unanimity of sense (a19a1) of the two Kandas of the Seripture. He says that each Kanda has its own Vidhi and its own Apūrva. As already stated the Sutrakara's view about this Apurva in the Vedanta School is found in Bra. Su.III.3 18. It is in connection wlth this latter' Sutra that the Sutrakara seems to us to throw some more light on the relation of the two Kandas. Though there is un- animity (aaiyat) between the two, the subject-matter of each is different. The Jñanakanda teaches the knowledge of Brahman, which is not laught in the Karmakanda (agaraa Bra.Su.III.4.21). In Bra.Su.III.3.18, the Sutrakara mentions the Extraordinary Principle (arq) in the case of the meditation on the arevaa aspect and in Bra.Su. III.3.19 he says that similarly an arga of the same nature should be taken as understood in the similar (Vedanta) Srutis, viz., in the Srutis of the yaa aspect. Then, in Bra.Su. III.3.20, an Opponent who is out and out a Vedantin seems to us to ask the Sūtrakara to extend the aga of the Vedanta Sruti also to the Samhita, Brahmana and Āranyaka and Khila Srutis because these latter are connected with the Vedanta Sruti inas- much as all the four belong to what we call Veda or Sruti.188 The Sutrakära rejects the Opponent's view by emphasising the difference ( faara ) between the topic of the dissimilar Srati literature and that of the Vedanta Sruti.186 The Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka and Khila teach the Sacrifice, while the

(135) संबन्धारेवमन्यतापि।(Bra.Su.III.3.20). 'अन्यन्न' means the texts of the Sruti other than the Upanisads. Vide Notes (11 & 12) on the Sūtra. (136) न वा विशेषात। (Bra. Su. III.3.21).

ONLY THE "VEDANTAS" TEACH BRAHMAN 41

Upanisads teach (the two aspects of) Brahman. The Sruti itself distinguishes Karman, the teaching of the Pūrvakānda, from Brahman, the teaching of the Uttarakanda. 187 The Mundaka Upanisad enumarates the four Samhitas, eto., as the uTI feen and the knowledge of the Aksara taught in the Upanisad as the qr faan.188 In Cha. Upa. VIII.1.4, Narada is told by Sanatkumara that the former's knowledge of the Vedas is only "44" and that the teaching of Atnan is to be learnt from the Upanisads. In Bra.Su.III.3.23, the Sutrakara seems to us to say that tgfa and aora139 are attributes of the impersonal Brahman, but as they are taught in the Khila of the Ranayaniya Sakha of the Samveda and as there is a difference in the teaching of the two Kandis of the Scripture ( Sūtra III.3.21-22), the Sūtrakāra does not accept ( अप्राप्ता: or न उपसंहृतेव्याः in Sa. bha. on the Sutra) thom in his lists of the attributes of Brahman (i.e., in Bra. Su. I.1-3). He would have accepted them if these attributes occurred in the Upanisads, becanse they belong to Brahman, The Sutrakara gives one more reason for not extending the aqa of the Vedanta Srutis to the other ( non-Upanisadic ) Sruti literature. He says that attributes other than afa and goarfa, such as are stated in the lore of the Purusa (or personal aspect of Brahman) of the Upanisads are not stated in the non-Upanisadic Sruti literature. For this reason, the Sūtrakāra emphasises the fact that the topics of the two Kandas of the Sruti are quite different from each other, though there is a unanimity of the two Kandas. We believe that the purpose of the word 'Vedanta' in Bra.Su.III.3.1140 in which the Sutrakara says that Brahman is to be known from all the Vedantas, is to imply that It is not to be known from the non-Upanisadic portion of the Sruti. Thus, according to the Sütrakara only the Upanisads are

(137) दर्शयति न। (Bra.Su.III.4.22). (138) Mu. Upa. I 1.4-5. (139) ब्रह्मज्येष्ठा वीर्या संभृतानि ब्रह्माओे जेष्ठं दिवमाततान। (गणायनीयाना खिलेषु.) (140) मर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययं चोदनाद्यविशेषात्। (Bra.Su III.3.1). 6

42 FIVE KINDS OF UPANISADIC MEDITATIONS

authentic among the verious parts of the Sruti, for the know- ledge of Brahman. Among the very important problems concerning the Sutrakara's conception of Brahman, that remain now to be stated, we have the one of "the three kinds of the meditations on Brahman." If we look to the Upanisads, we find flve types of meditations in all. I. Meditations on Brahman, in which Brahman is associated with some idea, qualty or qualities or attributes. Examples of this type are those collected by the Sutrakara in Bra. Su.J.1-3. Thus, Brahman is to be meditated upon as that from which this world appears, in which it continues, and into which it returns.141 Under this attribute Brahman can be meditated upon as ananda, ānandamaya, prāņa, jyotih, ākāśa, ctc. Or, Brahmnan can be meditated upon as either syad or aryad as described in Cha.Upa.III.14 (सर्व खल्विदं ब्रह्म), Cha.Upa.IV.15 (अक्षिणि पुरुषः), Cha. Upa. VII.28.1 ( H), Cha. Upa. VIII.1-4 ( agt ), etc.142 When thus meditated upon, Brabman in its either aspect is not thought of as consisting of parts or limbs. To illustrate this, let us take two examples, viz., Mu. Upa. II.1.4 and Cha. Upa. V.11-18.143 In both these Srutis, Brahman is described as possessing #as. But a meditator meditating on Brahman as either ayaa or asuad may meditate on It only as Purusa (Mu. Upa.II.1.3) or as Vaisvanara without thinhing of Its parts or limbs In his meditation, he would think of Brahman under the attributes enumarated by the Sutrakara in Bra. Su I.1-3.

(141) This is the chiaf idea in all the Adhikaranas of Bra Su,I.1. (142) In fact, as possessing all the attributes collected by tho Sutrakāra in Bra, SO. I.1-3. (143) अभिर्मूर्धा चक्षुषी चन्द्रसूर्यो दिशः श्रोत्रे वाग्विवृताक्ष वेदाः । वायुः प्राणो हृदय विश्वमस्य पद्धयां पृथिवी ह्येष सवेभूतान्तरात्मा । Mu. Upa II.1.4. तस्य ह वा एतस्य आत्मना वैश्वानरस्य मूर्धैव सुतेजाश्वक्षुर्विश्वरूप: प्राणः पृथग्वत्मात्मा संदेहो बहुलो बा्तिरेव रयि: प्रथिव्येव पादावुर एव चेदिर्लोमानि बार्हिहृदयं गार्हपत्यो मनोऽन्वाहार्यपचन आस्यमाहवर्नाय:।(ha. Upa.V.18.2).

KAMYA MEDITATIONS ON BRAHMAN 43

This kind of meditation may be called "ftat: aor: a:" in contrast with what the Sutrakara calls "अङ्गावबद्धा: ब्रह्मणः उपासना:"144

2. When "aUIT" (Bra.Su.I.2 24) is one of the many attribntes on which a seeker moditates, e.g., अन्तर्यामित्व (Bra.Su 1.2.18), अदृश्य- anagura (Bra. Su. I.2.21), Brabman would be thonght of erther as रूपवत् or as अरूपवत् and the meditation would be called "निरजा उपामना" of Brahman. But, when a seeker meditates snnply on Brahman (रूपवत् only in this case) as the वैश्वानर possessing so many अrs, viz., the head, the eye, the breath, the body (aaa), the bladder ........ the face,145 the meditation would be called aiaar sun of Brahman. Similarly, Brahman may be meditated upon as having sixtcen parts ($3t) grouped into four quarters (9759)146. In this meditation the qas are given certain names (T, अनन्तवान्, ज्योतिष्मान्, आयतनवान्, etc.), but they or the कलs are not said to be particular limbs, viz., the head, the eye, eto., of the Sup- reme Being as is the case with the parts of the aui atrnt. This seems to be the differonce between these two upasanas; yet both of them are undoubtedly a s. The Upakosalavidyā147 is also a similar upasana of Brahman; as also the teaching of Yājñavalkya to Janaka in Br. Upa.IV.1.2-7. 3. The meditations described in 1 and 2 supra are the medi- tations of Brahman the 57 of which is Moksa or final hiberation. But in the Upanisads there is a third class of meditations on Brahman, which gives to the meditator an object of his desire. These are called "a 8:" of Brahman,148 e.g., the medi- tation on the "Ether within the heart" (aa : ) ia said to bring "complete and steady (?) glory or wealth" ( qasaft-t (Nag ) 149 In Cha, Upa. VII.1.14 we have a series of fourteen

(144: Of, अज्गावबद्धास्तु न शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम्। (Bra. Su.III.3.55), (145) Ohã Upa. V 18. (146) Cha.Upa.IV.5-8, of. ब्रह्मविदिव वे सोम्य भासि।in OLa.Upa.IV.9.2. (147) Cha, Upa.IV.10-14 (148) काम्यास्तुयथाकामं समुच्ीयेग्न्न वा । (Bra.Su.III.3.60). (149) Chā, Upa.III.12.

44 KAMYA MEDITATIONS ON BRAHMAN

items, TH, 1, etc., etc., to be meditated upon as Brahman and in each case a particular fruit ($3) is said to be achieved by medi- tating on the respective item as Brahman. Only direct medi- tation on the highest item, viz., "HT, brings absolution, because is Brahman Itself (Bra.Su.I.3.8) 150

4. There are several meditations of Brahman as identified with some part of Veda, or with some or all Vedas ( Samhitas ), e.g., "Now, the Purusa who is found in the interior of the eye is Himself the ऋक्, the सामन्, the उक्थ, the यजु. 151 Similarly the nT by which Brahman Itself is meant,152 is identified with परांवरीयान् उद्गीथ,158 So also TT which is a word for Brahman154 is said to be the deity of the xaia the hymn of the mralą priest. 158 These meditations of Brahmnan are connected with the priestly or official duties of a priest. If the priest is a seeker of Brahman, the Sütrakara tells us that he should meditate on these parts of the Veda as Brahman, only so long as he is performing official duties, यावदधकारम् 186

5. Lastly the Upanisads mention certain meditations which have nothing to do with Brahman, but which are only concerned with some rites, e.g., the meditation of the asier as the Sun;167 the meditation upon the worlds as the five-fold Saman. 158

" Out of these five types of meditations the last one has nothing to do with the Inquiry about Brahman ( seaH Bra.Su.I.1.1)

(150) For other I4T 391H7s of Brahman vide (b) of Note (5) on Bra,Su, III.8.55. (161) Chầ. Upa. I.7.5-9. (159) Bra.Sü.I.1,2. (158) Cba. Upa.J 9.1-2. (154) Bra.SU.I.1.23. (155) Chã. Upa.I.11.5. (156) Vide (84) supra, also Notes on Bra.Su.III.3.32. (157) अथाधिदैवर्त य एवासी तपति तमुद्ीथमुपासीत .... (ChaUpa.I 3.1). For other कर्माङ् IHaTs vide Note 5 (d) on Bra.Su.III.9.55. Also vide S'a.bha, on the same. (158) लोकेपु पक्चविध सामोपासीत। (Cha.Upa.II.2.1),

THE SOLE TOPIC OF BRA.SU.III.8 45

and the Sütrakāra, in our opiion, does not disouss it.159 We have already stated that Bra.Su.III.3.32 in our opinion gives the Sütrakära's view about the meditations of the fourth type, viz., meditations on Brahman as identified with some part of the Veda or some rites. We hold that the remaining three kinds of meditations are discussed by the Sutrakara in Bra.Sa. III.3. The al swals of Brahman are mentioned in one Sutra only, viz., Bra.Sū.III 3.60. The Sūtrakāra discusses them because they are the meditations on Brahman, though they are not means to Moksa. He says that a meditator who in this case seeks worldly or celestial prosperity may or may not combine these a meditations, in accordance with his desired objeets. This option is given instead of making a collection only compul- sory, because these meditations do not lead to the same result as do the meditations on Brahman,, a collection (EvdgR-Bra.Su-, III.3.5) of which is compulsory, or instead of making a collection only voluntary, because these apy meditations do not give the same fruit unlike the aiaaar: suaan of Brahman about wbich an option of choice is made obligatory as they all give the same fruit.161 The meditations of the second type, viz., the meditations on Brahman concewved as consisting of parts (or limbs) are described in Bra.Su.III.3.55-59 and 61-66, while meditations of the first type, viz., meditations on Brahman concewved as one whole without parts or limbs are treated m Bra.Su.II1.8.11-54. Our Interpretation of Bra.Su.III.3 shows that the sole aim of this Pada (Bra.Su.III.8) is to describe onty

(159) Vide Note (6) on Bra.Su,JII.3.55 whero we have shown that Sankard is wrong in explaining अज्ञ as कमाज़ instead of as बह्माण: अन्गानि, (160) काम्यास्तु रथाकामं समुच्चीयेरन्न् वा पूर्वहत्वभावास्। (Bra.Su.III.3,60). (161) पूर्वहेत्वभावात in Bra Su.III.3 60 may be taken as the absence of "अर्थाभे+" which is given in Bra.Su III.3.5 as the reason for srdrir or compalsory collection in the case of meditations of the first type or as the absence of aAfdawar* the reason for iaaes or compulsory option of choice in the oase of meditations of the second type, The first is taught in 3Tt0saHn1 AAaeAm - (Bra.Su.II1.3.5) and the second is taught in famnshfoenemia! (Bra. SŪ.III.3.59).

46 DETAILS OF NIRANGA UPASANA OF BRAHMAN

these three types of meditations on Brahman. We have also given reasons to believe that the Sūtrakāra refers to his view about these three types of meditations on Brahman m a Sütra of the first Adhyāya. 102

The nature of the ary sya of Brahman has been already described above in detail. That sura1 is practised for the achievement of some desired object, worldly or heavenly. Unlike this उपासना both the निरडूगा उपासनs of Brahman and अङ्गावबद्धा उपासनाड of Brahman aim at Moksa.

In the meditation of Brahman not thought of as consisting of parts or limbs, the meditator meditates on the various attributes of Brahman collected by the Sūtrakāra in Bra.Su.I.1-3. The application of all these attributes to the meditation of either of the two aspects, अरूपवत् and रूपवत्, of Brahman has been already described supra on the strength of the SutrasIII.3.11-15 and III.3.31-33 and III.3.87-42. Inkewise the anegaifa method, the auan which results from that meditation, the option of choice, its inward practice ( I 17: ) are also given in Bra.Sū.III. 3.16-17, III.3.18-19, III.3.28-30 and III.3.84-36. As to the number of attributes to be used in the meditation on either aspect, the Sutrakara, as we have already noticed, says that it is not a rule that all the attributes should be meditated upon (Bra,Sū III.3.31-33), i.e., one may meditate upon as many of them as possible or upon all of them. All these details are given in Bra.Sū.III.3.11-54.

Then, in the Sutras that follow this upto the end of the Pada (Sütras III.3.55-66) expect Sutra III.3.60 the Sutrakara lays down the rules for the meditations on Brahman based upon its parts or limbs. As shown above, the su4 of Brahman can be best illustrated by the अङ्गावबद्धा उपासना of the वैश्वानर, as distinguished from the suaw on the aar as an attribute of Brahman. The

(162) Viz., in जीवमुख्यप्राणलिद्गान्नेति चेत्रोपासात्रैविध्यादाशितत्वादिह तद्योगात्। (Bra.Su. I.1.81). Ct. अद्गेषु यथाश्रयभान :। (Bra.Su.III.3.61).

DETAILS OF ANGAVABADDHA UPASANA OF BRAHMAN 47

aas of the dam are the head, the eye, the breath, the body, the bladder, the feet, the chest, the hair on the body, the heart, the mind and the face.163 It is not necessary to meditate on all these aas for one who likes to practise this particular aiqaer gurea from among the varions such meditations in which Bra- hman is conceived to be possessed of amas; but a meditation of a greater number ( "H) of these aas is superior to the same of a lesser number just as a sacrifice called a is superior to a sacri- fice called a; the Sutrakara says that the Cha. Upa .. Sruti shows this superiority. According to an Opponent's view about the e aum, a meditator should superimpose on the parts of Brahman ( the sky, the Sun, etc. ) the notions of the respective aays or objects seeking a substratum (the head, the eye, etc.).164 Thus, the meditator is to conceive the Sky, the Sun, the Wind, the Ether, the Water, etc., as the head, the eye, the breath, the body (uas), the bladder (afta), etc. The Opponent advances three arguments for his view. Firstly, in the sufus the teacher teaches (fafe) the pupil that the particular object which the pupil so long thought to be Atman is only a part of the Atman; not only this, but the teacher also tells the pupil that the object of his medi- tation is a particular part of Atman. Thus, when 18 son of agasg tells arrofa that the former meditates upon the Sky as Atman, the latter tells him that the Sky is only the head of Atman.168 Secondly, he refers to the collective statement (sarr) where the very head, the very eye, etc., etc., of the aarar are declared to be the Sky, the Sun, etc., which each pupil has so far thought

(163) Of. (143) supra. सुतेजा:, विश्वरूप, पृथग्वत्मात्मा, बहुलः, रयि: are explained as धौः (the sky), anfter ( the Sun ), the Wind, the Ether ( snarer ), the Water ( #ts: ) respectively in Cha. Upa. V.12-16. (164) Vide Note (3) on Bra.Su.III.3.57, viz., भूम्न: करतुवज्जयायस्त्वं तथाहि वशयाति। Of also अद्ेषु यथाश्रयभाव: । (Bra.Su,IlI.3.61) (165) ferear I (Bra.Su.III.3.62) "Because of the teaching". This seems to refer to मूर्धा त्वेष आत्मन: इति होवाच। मूर्धा ते व्यपतिष्यधन्मा नागसिष्य इत। (Cha Upa.V.10.2). Similariy we have चक्षुष्टेतदात्मन: । ... ChaU 12्वे त्म (Chā TTna V 14.2), eto, etc. Vide Note (6) on Sutra III.8,62,

48 SOME MORE CRUCIAL SUTRAS

to be the very Atman.166 The last argument of the Opponent is the fact that some afas mention a common attribute between the aH of Brahman and the respective naT or object seeking a substratum.167 This view of the Opponent, is however rejected by the Sutrakara because there is no Sruti about the co-existence of the part (e.g, the head, the eye, etc., of the dyi) and the object seeking a substratum (arH, e.g., the Sky, the Sun).168 Here the Sutrakara seems to us to contrast the raeT of Brahman with the निरङ्गा उपासना of Brahman. In the case of the latter, Brahman is said to be residing in the heart along with the soul of the meditator and so169 Brahman is to be meditated upon as Atman in the heart of the meditator residing with the latter's soul. As contrasted with this, we have no Sruti that the bead of the aarr and the Sky reside together. The Sutrakara also says that we find ($07) several Srutis about meditation on Brabman conceived as consisting of parts in which there are no objects seeking substrata corresponding to the parts.170 This seems to refer to, e.g., the षोडशकला विद्या, 171 the उपकोशल विद्या1 72 etc. Thus, according to the Sutrakara (as III.3.65-66) in the case of Taal sta of Brahman the various aas or parts are to be meditated upon as so many parts of Brahman whithout attributing to them the notion of the respective anaas in each case.

We have given above some salient features of the अङ्गावबद्धा उपासना of Brahman as distingushed from the meditation on Brahman as a whole (or as not consisting of parts). Yet two very impor-

(166) ममाहागस। (Bra.Su.III.3.68). Vide Note (6) on the सूत्र. (167) गुणमाधागण्यक्षुतेश्चे। (Bra Su.III.3.64). Vide Note (7) on the सूत्र प्रज्ञना, प्रियता, सत्यना, अनन्तता, आनन्दता, and स्थिनता are the common qualities of बाक and प्रज्ञा, प्राण and प्रिय, चक्ुः and मत्य, श्त and अनन्त, मनः and आनन्द, हृदय and स्थिति. (168) न वा तत्महमावाश्षुतेः। (Bra Su.III.3.65). (169) Of. ऋं पिबन्तो सुकनस्य लोके गुहदां प्रतिष्टी परमे परार्षे। (Katha.Upa I1I.1). Or ratber, दा सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्ष परिषसवजाने। (S've.Upa.IV.6). (170) दर्शनाच्। (Bra.Sa.III.3.66). (171) Cb&. Upa.IV.5-9. (172) Chã. Upa.IV.10-14.

निरक्षा उपासना TAUGHT IN ALL शाखाS 49

tant points in which these two types of the meditations on Brahman differ from each other remain to be stated. These points are contained in Eas III.3. 1-10 and gas III.3.55-56,58 and 59 These Eas are in our opinion some of the erncial gs on which a correct interpretation of the entire Brahmasūbra must ultimately depend. Their importance, like the importance of Bra.Su.III.3 11 and III.8. 37-42 which revcal the scheme of the arrangement of the Srutis selected for disoussion in Bra, Sū. I. 1-3, cannot be overrated. We have already stated that the Sūtrakara explains his tenets of Brahman as the teaching of the Upanisads (i.e., the Vedantas, Bra.Su.III 3.1) on the analogy of the tenets of Karman or Dharma as the teaching of the other parts of the Sruti rocorded in the Jaiminisutras. The identity of a Karman, e.g., the Agnihotra, is established in the Jai.Su,17s on the strength of the identity (अविशेष) of the Injunction (चोदन।), Counection (संयोग) Form (4) and Name (ensat) in the non-Vedanta Portion or the Karmakānda of the Sruti. On the same argument the author of the Brahmasutra bases his view about the identity of Brahman in all the Vedantas or the Jñanakanda of the Sruti, i.e., in the Upanisads of all the Vedas.174 It should be emphasised that "sarva Vedanta" in Bra. Su.III.3.1 has a double implication, viz., (1) Brahman is the teaching of the Vedantas (lit, sar- the cause of Brahman is all the Vedantas) only and not of the Karmakānda of the Sruti, and (2) Brahman is the teaching of all the Vedantas, 1.e., the Upanisads, of all the Sakhas of all the Vedas. With this latter significance of "aa" in "adaera" we should compare the expression "mraratg" in the Jai.Su., where it means "in all the different Sakhas of all the Vedas." 175 An Opponent of the Sutrakāra argues that the same Brahman is not taught in all the Upanisads (of all the mais of all the Vedaa) because the Injunction, etc., in all these ws are different (4, (173) जै. सू II.4.8. (174) सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययं चोदनाद्यविशेषात्(Bra.Su.III.3.1). (175) 7

50 अङ्गावबद्धा उपासना OF BRAHMAN

Bra.Su.III.3.2 ). The Sutrakara replies to this by saying that (1) If the Injunction (aim), etc., were the same even in only one TaT (f) of each Veda, he would conclude that the same Brahman is taught in all the Vedantas, i.e., in all the Upanisads of all the Sakhas of all the Vedas,176 and (2) that the Sruti shows the same. This latter may be a reference to the Katha Upa, which speaks of Brahman as 'that Syllable (9) which all the Vedas declare'. 177 As contrasted with this rule about the meditation on Brahman not conceived as consisting of aras the meditations of Brahman conceived as consisting of as (aer s41871: ) in the opinion of an Opponent are to be restricted to all the wals of each individual Veda only, and, therefore, are not to be received by the followers of the other three Vedas. This means that an aaa T of Brabman is to be known from only all the Vedantas of all the snETs of one particular Veda only and not of all the Vedas, 17 8 This view about the eiaaar anT of Brahman corresponds to an Opponent's view on the fat 3YH that Brabman is not the same in all the Vedantas because the Injunction, etc., in all the Vedantas differ ( Bra.Su.III.3.2). Thus, the Opponent in Bra.Su.III.3.2 and IIL.8.55 is very probably the same. He did not like the idea and the doctrine of the unity of the teaching of all the Upanisads whether that unity pertains to Brahman not thought of as consisting of parts, or to Brahman conceived as consisting of parts. He is an isolationist Vedantin, who did not believe in a Vedanta Darsana evolved from a systematization of the views of all the Upanisads. But the Sūtrakara had the popular opinion in his favour. He argued that the a als of

(176) भेवान्नेति चेनैकस्वामपि। (Bra.Su.III.3.2). We have shown that एकस्याम् must mean एकास्यांशाखतायाम् because we have शाखासु प्रतिवदम् in Bia,Su.III.3.55. Vide Note (6) on the Sutra. We may here add that aTreraty in Jai.Su, also corro- borates our interpretation of tartain (177) er aay arorumafa l (Katha Upa.II.15). (178) अलाववदास्तु न शाखास् हि प्रतिवेदम्।(Bra.Su.III.3.55). Vide our interpretation

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION FROM ALL VEDAS 51

Brahman 'could be mncluded in the wals of the Vedas other than those of the particular Veda in which they are found and there would be no objection to such a procedure because the Mantras etc., of the snais of one Veda are found included in the Mantras of the aiets of the other Vedas. This refers to the fact that several Mantras are found common to the aas of more than one Vedn. Thus, the Siddhantin succeeds in making the 41 3911 as well as the fo sqram of Brahman the common property of the followers of all the Vedas. So far the two syias resemble each other The second point about these two sylaes refers to the collec- tion179 of the attributes and of other information about the method of the meditation to be adopted in either case. This collection ( s90gIt ) in the case of the meditation on Brahman not concerved of as consisting of parts was opposed by an Opponent with the help of शब्द, प्रकरण, and संज्ञा. 180 "शबद" seems to us to refer to Śrutis which declare that one should know Brahman "thus" (qag), i.e., as it is taught in the one particular Branch of a Veda,181 saae refers to the fact that the context of each of the Vedantas or syages is different from that of the rest, though Brahman be taken as taught in all the Vedantas. 182 For these two reasons the Pürvapaksa argues that no Collection ( svngK ) of the attributes should be made. One more reason for the same conclusion of the Opponent was that tho names of Brahman ( which is taught in all the Vedantas ) differ.188 Owing to the various names of Brahman in the various Upanisnds, we shonld not collect the attributes, etc., useful for the meditation on (179) CE. उपसंहार in उपमंहारोऽर्यामेदाद्विविशेपवत्ममाने च। (Bra Su.III.3.5). Vide our Note on उपसंहार in the Sutra. (180) We have taken Sutras III.3.5-9 as one Adhikarana-Vide our inter- pretation of the same. (181) एष उ एव वामनी रेष हि सर्वाणि वामानि नयति सर्वाणि वामानि नयान य एवं वेद। (Oha, Upa.IV.15.3). For other examples of this type of Srutis, vide note (7) on Bra.Sü.III.3.6. (182) न वा प्रकरणभेदात्परोवरीयस्त्वादिवत्। (Bra.SO,III.3,7), (183) संज्ञातश्चेत्तदुक्त्तमस्ति तु तदपि। (Bra.Su.III.3.8).

52 "COLLECTION," COMPULSORY IN निरद्गा उपासना

Brahman from the Vedantas, says the Opponent. In order to appreciate the force of this argument based upon the differenco of 'names' (asns) of Brahman, we must note that the word dis is here used as a synonym of the word aea in the famous Sutra from the Jaiminisutra, 184 on which the author of the Brahmasutra depends for his doctrine of the identity of Brahman in all the Vedantas.185 In the Jaiminisutra the identity of a karman, e. g, the Agnihotra, is asserted by the Siddhantin on the ground of the identity of names ( enensiaima) along with the identity of three other things ( सयाग, रूप, and चोदना). Though the autbor of the Brahmasutra refutes the first two arguments of the Opponent (Bra.Sü.III.3.6-7), he admits the validity of the Opponent's argument based upon the difference in the names of Brahman. 186 He holds that Brahman is taught under two different names, viz., "aram" and "gas," other names being only the synonyms of either of these two names; and that owing to these two different names of Brahman, we have two aspects of Brahman ( not two different Brahmans ) just as owing to the two different names of a serpent, viz., afa and goss, we may look upon the serpent from two different stand-points, viz., the fUR and the 1R.187 But this admission of the Opponent's argument of disns does not prevent the Siddhantin from his doctrine of Collection.188 This means that as the two names indicate two aspects of Brahman, the Sutrakara upholds the view of Collection and proceeds further with his task of the same. The case would have been different if the two names indicated two different Brahmans. Besides thus answering the three arguments of , sna and da advanced by an Opponent against the Collection proposed by the Sutrakara, the latter gives one constructive ground of his

(184) संयोगरूपचोवनाखयाविशेषात्। (Jai.Su.II.4.8). (185) सर्ववदान्तप्रत्ययं चोदनादयविशेषात्। (Bra.Su.III.3.1). (186) amradragmufta @ naftt i (Bra.Su.III.3.8). Vide our interpretation of agarr in Notes on the ET. (187) Vide (32) supra. (188) Vide our Notes on daft 'Even then' on III.3.8.

NO COLLECTION OF INFORMATION ON 1 4N 53

own in Bra.Su.III.3.9.18@ He says that "Because of the omnip- resence of Brahman taught under any name out of the two different names, we should conclude that the two names indicale only two aspects of Brahman ( ansyad and wqaa ) and wonld uphold the propriety of our doctrine of the Collection of the attributes, etc., of Brahman." There eannot be iwo omnipresent Realities in a School of Philosophy; nor can the Opponent argue that the asqaa ( o4h ) is not ommipresent and that the Purnsw ( the yaa ) is the only omnipresent principle, beeause the Sūtra- kāra has already proved the omnipresence of the Avyakta.190 As there is a non-difference ( complete identity ) in all other respects, these two names ( tà à dia-Bra.Nū III.3.10) are to be regarded as different; 1. e., the two aspects of Brahman imphed by Its two names are not to be identified with each other. 191

Thus, the Sūtrakara conclusively proves his view of the colle- ction of the attributes and other information about the two aspects of Brahman from all the Vedantas (or Upanisads). This is the procedure to be followed in the case of the meditation on Brahman not conceived as consisting of parts. But the same arguments192 of शब्द, प्रकरणभेद and संज्ञामेद are advanced by the Sutra- kara himself to prove that the amaaal: sqa: of Brabman are each of them different ( "I ) from all the rest and that therefore there can be no collection of attributes, ete., in their case. It is for this reason that the treatment of these aaaGt: aTH iM HO short in the Brahmasutra, as compared with the treatment of the frxt sqas: of Brahman dealt with in Bra.Nu. 1IL.3.11-51.

(189) व्याप्तेश्च ममअसम्। (Bra.Sa.III.3.9). (190) व्याप्ति in व्याप्तेक्ष सगज्रसम् (Bra.Su.III.39) is very likely a roforanca to the सर्वगतत्वम् in Bra.Su.III.2.37 (अनेन सर्वगतत्वगायामझबदानरः।) where in our opinion the omnipresence of the Avyakta is proved. (191) सर्वाभेदादन्यत्रेमे। (Bra.Su.III.3.10). (192) नाना शब्दादिभेदाल। (Bra.Su.III.3.58). We have shown that समदाषि means शब्द, प्रकरणभेद and संज्ञाभेन already mentioned in Bra.Su.III.8.6-8. Vide our Notes on the Sutra.

54 OPTION OF CHOICE RE. अङ्गावबद्धा उपासनाड

The third point to be noticed here about these anraeT: ORT: is that the Sutrakara gives an option of chorce of one from among all the various e : of Brahman mentioned in the Upanisads, because all of them give the same fruit, viz., Moksa 193 This clearly corresponds to the option of choise from the two aspects, arsuad and syaa, of Brahman given by the Sutrakara in the case of a meditation of Brahman not conceivod as consisting of limbs or parts.1@* In this case also one of the arguments of the Sutrakara for the option given is that the Moksa can be achieved in either way.195

We have given above the details of the two forms of medi- tation on Brahman according as Brahman is or is not concerved as consisting of parts (अज्गावबद्धा उपासना and निरद्ा उपासना of Brahman). The third kind of meditation on Brahman, viz., the $T 4T of Brabman has also been noticed. These three 3quls are the subject-matter of Bra.Su.III.3. It is not the so-called "orvegr" or "the reconciliation of the few texts on the same faar in the different Upanisads," as the traditional interpretation runs, that forms the topic of treatment in this Pada of the Brahmasutra. We have devoted one Chapter to the importance of this Pāda in order to show what jewels of information lie concealed in it. An important piece of information about the meditation on Brahman is the meditation on the Syllable "Om", the Symbol of Brahman, which is, in our opinion, discussed by the Sutrakāra in Bra.Sū. III.3.25-27, in Bra.Su.IV.1.4-5 and in Bra.Sū.IV.3.15.

An Opponent holds the view that the Pranava, the Symbol of Brahman, is a different principle from Brahman Itself (aer-Bra. Su.III.3.25) and that, therefore, the act of penetrating (au), etc., mentioned in the Mu.Upa. with reference to the meditation

(193) विकल्पोडविशिष्टफलत्वात्। (Bra.Su.III.3.59). (194) saa enarfrima | (Bra.Su.III.3.28). This option is also referred to by the word विकल्प: in लिङ्गभूयस्त्वा ताड्धि बलीयस्तदपि पूर्वविकल्पः।(Bra,Su.III.3.44). (195) गतेरर्थवत्तमुभयथाऽन्यथा दि विरोध: (Bra.Su.III.3.29).

PRANAVA, TO BE MEDITATED UPON AS BRAHMAN 55

on the Pranava should not be collected from the different Upanışads.196 To explain this Pūrvapaksa, we must remember that atmagrhiti is the method of meditation on Brahman Itself both in Its अरूपवत् and रूपवत् aspects.197 In contrast with this the method of meditation on the Pranava, the Symbol of Bra- hman, consists of Penetration (ae), a bow, an arrow, and an aim. In Bra.Su.IV.1.3-5, the Sutrakara says that a seeker of Brahman who has been carrying out the means of the knowledge of Brahman but has not as yet attained it, returns to the world not once before the attainment of the knowledge, and when he is thus reborn in this stage he looks upon Brahman as Atman, 198 but he does not look upon the Symbol of Brahman as Atman because the Symbol is not Atman, though Brahman is Atman. 199 In the Symbol of Brahman the reborn seeker has the notion of Brahman because of the excellence of the Symbol.200 This, we believe, is a refernce to the method of the meditation on the Symbol "Om," just as enruaifa in Bra Su.II1.3.16 and in Bra.Sū.IV.1.4201 is a reference to the method of meditation on Brahman itself. The opponent argues that the method of medi- tation on 'Om' consisting of the bow (the Pranava), the arrow (the individual soul), the aim (Brahman) and the act of penetrat-

(196) वेधाद्र्थभेदात्। (Bra.S. III 3.25). "अर्थभेदात्" in this Sutra is to be contrasted with "अर्थाभेदात्" in उपमंहारोडर्थामेदादिपिशेपवत्समाने न (Bra.Su.III 3.5). This contrast also. comoborates our interpretation of the Sutra. Vide our Note on the Sutra We have taken Sutra III.3 25 as a PürvapakSa, and Sutras III 3 26-27 as the Siddhanta. As we have shown in our Notes, qunft refers to प्रणवो धनुः शरो ह्यात्मा व्रह्म तलक्ष्यमुच्यते। अप्रमत्तेन वेद्वव्प शरवत्तन्मयो भवेत्॥ Mu.Upa.11.2.4. Vide Note(1) on Bra.Su.III 3 25. (197) Vide (99) supra, (198) आत्मेति तूरगच्छन ग्राहपननि च। (Bra.Su,IV.1.3). (199) न प्रतीके न हि सः ।(Bra Sa.IV.1.4) प्रतीक (the singular form) here refers to the प्रताक of Brahman, via, the Syllable Om. (200) ब्रह्मदृाष्टिरुत्कर्षात्।(Bra.Su.IV.1.5). (201) आत्मगृहीतिरतरवदुत्तरात्।(Bra.SU.III.3.16) and आात्मेति तूपगच्छन्ति। (Bra Sū IV.1.3).

56 "उपसंहार" ABOUT प्रणव FROM ALL उपनिषद S

ing the aim with the arrow should not be collected202 from the various Vedantas for the purpose of the meditation on the Symbol 'Om' because the Syllable 'Om' is not the same principle as Brahman.208 The Siddhantin refutes this view of the Opponent204 and says that "if the penetration, etc., are missing (not mentioned) in an Upanisad (ami), they should be collected from another Upanisad (e.g., the Mundaka Upa.), because these penetration, bow, arrow and aim are subsidrary to the word an 'a means' used for the Pranava m the Prasna and the Katha Upanisads." This reply of the Sutrakara gives the reason for 'collecting the penetratien, etc., where they are missing' and also a refutation of the Opponent's argument (अर्थभदात). The penetration, etc., वैधादि are not अर्थभेद (making a principle other than Brabman established from all the Vedantas) but they are subsidiary to the word "syra" 'a means' used for the Syllable in the Upanisads. The word "उपायन" here refers to आयतन and ana used in the Prasna and the Katha Upanisads.205 This उपसंहार of वेधादि is like the Collection of the items subsidiary to an Injunction (विधिशेष).206 Moreover, according to the Pra. Upa., a seeker of absolution who chooses to medisate on the Pranava for the purpose has nothing to achieve in the life hereafter because he is directly led by the Samans to Brahman "" after he leaves this body; therefore he must finish the whole process of his meditation in this word.207 Thus it is

(202) We have to take अनुपसंहतेव्यम् as understood in Bra.Su.III.3 25. Vide Note (4) on the Sutra, (203) This is the sense of erghana in Sutra III 3.25, which is to be contrasted with अर्थाभेदात् in उपसंहारोऽथभिदाव्वीघशषवतसमाने च।(Bra Su III.3.5). Vide Note (3) on the Sutra. (204) Cf. तु in हानौ तूपाननशदशेषत्वात् कुशाच्छन्द्स्तुत्युनगानवत्तदुक्तम्। (Bra.Su.III.3.26). (205) तमोद्कारेणेवायननेनानवेति विद्वान्यत्तच्छान्तममरमभृनममयंपरं (Pra Upa. V.7) and एतदालम्बनं श्रेष्डमेसदालम्बनंपर सूचइति एतदालम्बनं झात्वा ब्रह्मलोके महीते। ( Katha Upa II.17). Vide Nots (8) on Bia.Sū.III.3.26. (206) कुशा चूछन्द स्तुत्युपगानवत in Bra.Su,III.3 26 corresponds to विधिशेषवत् mn Bra. Su.IIT3.5 and agmer in the former is a reference to the statement in the latter. Vide Notes (9) and (10) on Bra.III.3.26. (207) सापराये तर्तव्याभावात् तथा हन्ये (Bra. Si,III.3.27) 'तथा हन्ये' refers to Pra.Upa. V.7 and V5. Vide Note (13) on the Sutra.

वृद्धि AND -हास OF BRAHMAN 57

necessary that all items about the meditation on the Pranava be collected from all the Upanisads and be practised in this very life to get Moksa. Thus, the Sutrakara seems to ns to note that the meditation on the Pranava, the Symbol of Brahman, leads to hberation just like the निरङ्गा and the अङ्गावबद्धा उपासनs of Brahman, that the Pranava TyIH is to be carried out as described in the Mn. Opa. (III.2 2-5), that in the meditation on the Symbol a seeker meditates on the Syllable 'Om' as Brahman and not as (his) Atman, and that this meditation directly leads to liberation because it leaves nothing to be achieved by the seeker in the next birth. This last point seems to us to have been referred to by the Sūtrakara in Bra.Su.IV.3.15 where he says that the Conductor (nfaaifes) of the world of Lightning leads to their destination, viz., the Supreme Brahman, those who do not resort to the Symbol of Brahman, viz., Om208 while those who resort to the Symbol are led upwards (sh7a) by the aias on their departure from the body.209 The Sruti to which Bra.Su,IV.3.15 refers shows that in the life hereafter the meditatior on the Pranava has not to cross the worlds which the meditator on Brahman eithor as अरूपवत् or रूपवत् has to cross.210 According to the Acaryas the Sutrakara nowhere deals with the topic of meditation on the Pranava; but we believe the topic is not neglected by the Sütrakara as shown above. In Bra. Sū. III. 3. 20-22211 the Sutrakära seems to us to consider with reference to Brahman the states of increment and (208) अप्रतीकालम्बनान्नयतीति बादरायण:। in Bra-Sa.IV.4.15. . Vide (48) supra. Vide also Notes (30) and (32) on the HT. (209) यथा पादोरस्त्वचा विनिर्मुच्यते एवं ह वै स पाप्मना विनिमुकत : सामभिरुनायते ब्रह्मलाकं (Pra. Upa. V.5) (210) तर्तव्य in सांपाराये तर्तव्याभावात (Bra.Su.11I.3.27) may refer to the erossing of the worlds by the knower of Brahman desoribed in Bra.Su.JV.3. The medi- tator on the Pranava bas not to go through this procedure, because he is directly taken (नीयते) upwards by the साभनs. (211) वृद्धिन्हासभाकृत्वमन्तभार्वादुभयसामज्जस्यादेवम्। (Bra.Su, 11I.3.20). We havo takenIII.3.20-21 as one Adhikarana. 8

58 वृद्धि AND -हास BY अन्तर्भोव OF BRAIIMAN

decrement (afa, ar) two out of the six statos of all existing things mentioned by Yaska in bis Nirukta.212 The Sutrakara says that Brahman undergoes increment (zfa) and deorement (=हास) by becoining concealed (अन्तर्भव); it is so, because both increment and decrement of Brahman can be appro- priately explained by this process, viż, by Brahman concealing Itself. As a second argument he refers to Cha. Upa. VII, the application of which he also explains in the subsequent Q.218 A question mav be asked why the Sūtrakāra mentions only these lwo states (वृद्धि and हास) and not the other four also. The reply is that he does mention the third state, viz., the tfona the transformation of Brahman in Bra.Su. I.4.26.214 And as regards the first (आयते) and the second states (अरित) which according to Yaska follows the birth (जायते) and the last stabe (विनश्यति) it is self-evident that the Sutrakara cannot discuss them as referring to Brahman, since Brahman is unborn and eternal. Not only that these three states cannot affect Brahman but even RuH, afa, "ad of Brahman would be possible only in the light of the fact that Brahman is unborn and eternal. As to qfun 'change' or 'transformation' of Brahman, which is unborn and eternal, the Sūtrakara says that the RTH of Brahman is such that the effect (sfa) of Brabman is also Brahman Itself (nmI). For this he depends upon the Srati, e. g., the Taittiriya Upanisad.215 What Brahman created is also Brahman Itself. Also in Cha, Upa. VII, the name, speech, mind, thoughts,

(212) जायतेऽस्ति विपरिणमते वर्घते अपक्षीयते विनश्यति। (निरुक्त निघण्टु II.2). (213) दशनाच्च। (Bra.Su.III.2.21) and प्रकृतैतावत्व हि प्रतिपेधति ततो ब्रवीनि च भूयः। (Bra.Sü III.2.22). We have shown that the fargar of this H is the series of sentences like अ्ति भगवो नाम्नो भूय: इति नाम्नो वाव भूयोस्ति। (Of. प्रकृतैताव्त्त्वं प्रनिषधति .. ) The S'ruti demies that Brahman is only so much as the matter in hand). वाव भूयोडस्ती ति तन्मे भगवान् ब्रवीतु। (Cf. नवीति च् भूय), the whole series of Cha. Up VII.1 15. So, दर्शनात् (सूत्र 21) refers to आत्मत आविर्भावतिरोभावौ in the middle of Cha. Upa. VII,26.1. (214) आत्मकृते: परिणामात्(Bra.Su.1.4.26). (215) तदात्मान स्वगमकुरुन। (Tai.Upn.)

ILLUSTRATIONS OF BRAHMAN'S SELF-CONCEALMENT 59

etc., are, all of them, said to be Brahman.210 The Sūtrakāra has himself noticed that the effect of Brahman is identical with Brahman (ag ),217 because the Cha. Upa. declares the effect to be a name which has a beginning only in speech218 (araREAUT). It is in conformity with the above explanation of the transfor- mation of Brahman that the Sūtrakāra seems to us to state the nature of aa and qie, increment and decrement of Brahmuan. As Brahman is Itself both the Canse and the EDect, we have to think of the increment and decrement of Brabman even when we refer to the two states of the Effect of Brahmau. According to the Sütrakara, these two states take place in Brahman by the Self-Concealment of Brahman (air219). The Sutrakara seems to mean that everything in the world is an effect of Brahman and is Brahman Itself because the trfng of Brahman is Itsolf; and that in these various effects of Brahman, Brahman erists in the state of different degrees of Self-conceal- ment so that when this concealment is to a lesser degree we may say that Brahman has undergone a state of gix develop- ment, evolution, increment (a"E) and when this conceal- ment is in a greater degree we may say that Brahman has undergone a state of m 'decay, involution, decrement' (TMIE), The Sutrakara says that the concealment (eramia) explains both the development and decay (sT4); this is possible if we conclude that a lesser degree of concealment would be called development and a greater degree of concealment would be regarded as decay. To explain the doctrine with the examples to which the Sūtra- kara undoubtedly refers in Bra.Sū. III.2.22.220 We have a series of नाम्, वाक्, मनः, सङ्कल्प, upto प्राण in Cha. Upa.VlI in which each is (216) E.g. in यो नाम ब्रह्मोतपुपासीत छा. उ. VII. (217) तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः । (Bra.Su.II.114). (218) वाचरम्भणं विकारो नामथेयं सृत्तिकेत्येव मत्यम् (Cha.Upa.VI), (220) प्रकृतैतावत्त्वं हि प्रतिषेधति ततो न्रवाति च सूगः। (Bra.Sa.1II.2.22),Vide (218) supra.

60 ILLUSTRATIONS OF BRAHMAN'S SELF-CONCEALMENT

declared to be Brahman and each succceding membor of the series is stated to be ": 'further or more developed' than each preceding one. We may say that in this series the 5707 is Bra- hman (1.e., a transformation or modification of Brahman ) in which Brahman is least concealed,221 while wIH is (a modification of) Brahman in which Brahman is most concealed. Thus, Bra- hman undergoes afs (in Its transformation as "T) and ara (e.g., in Its transformation as "ma) by becoming concealed (i.e., latent, अन्तर्भाव). If we take the example of आकाश, वायु, अभि, जल and पृथ्वी222 we may say that aaRT is (an effect of) Brahman in which It is least concealed and geat is (an effect of) Brahman in which It is most concealed. So, when there is a series in which Brahman is more developed (uIk), e.g., in that of Cha, Upa. VII, Brahman is less concealed, and when there is a series in which Brahman is more degenerate (715), e.g., in the series of Tai. Upa.II.1 or Cha. Upa. VI.2 we must say that Brahman is more concealed. It should be noted that the Sruti which is the faqyalay of ET III.2.21-22, viz., Cha.Upa.VII speaks of आविभोव and तिरोभाव (of all things, , E, etc.), from Atman. The Sūtrakara while referring to this Sruti explains the same process by only the concealment (arania) of Brahman. We may here say that in Bra.Sū.II.3.53,223 the Sūtrakāra seems to state that the individual soul is only a likeness of the Supreme Being (i.e., His likeness minus His Powers) not because the Sruti teaches so through the reflection of Brahman but becanse Brahman has concealed Itself ( aaniaa) and has become the soul. Again in another g224 the Sutrakara explains how the concealment (of the real form) is the canse of the bondage of the soul. Thus, he seems to explain in Bra.Su.III.2.21-22 the

(221) Cf. यथा च प्राणादि।(Bra.Su.II.1.20), where प्राण is given as an example of the identity of Brahman the Cause with Its Effect which is also Brahman. (222) Tai. Upa.II.1 and Cha. Upa. VI.2. (223) प्रदेशाविचेन्नान्तभावात् (Bra.St.1I.3 53). प्रदेश refers to a toxt, e.g., कठ उपब . where the individual soul is said to be a reflection of Brahman. (224) पराभिध्यानात्त तिरोहितं ततों अ्स्य बन्धविपर्ययौ। (Bra.Sप.III.2.5).

SOME MINOR POINTS OF SU.'S SYSTEM 61

creation (a ) by the Self-concealment of Brahman, just as ho explains the existence of the Jiva also in the same way. Before Sankara, there was probably a commentary on the Bra.Su, which held that the conscious Brahman became the cause of the world by concealing Its consciousness. Sankara mentions this view and partly accepts it as an interpretation of Brahman's causality of the world.225 We have tried to expound the above doctrine of the Sūtrakara by comparing it with the doctrine of transformation ( fuaie ) of the Sämkhya and Vaisesika Schools.226 We humbly admit that it is difficult and dangerous to make these comparisions and perhaps even to explain the very details of the Sutrakara's own view. All that we feel sure about is that in the tas in question227 the Sutrakara explains the two states, qf and =a, with re- ference to Brahman as also with reference to Its effects which are also Brabman (आत्मकृते: परिणामात्) and with reference to the effects of Brahman as described in Cha. Upa. VII. Probably in the days of the Sutrakara more importance was attached to the six states of Yaska, the author of the Nirukta, than in the later days. Even Caraka explains them with reference to all existing things.228 Perhaps some School of Vedanta explained qf and aH of Brahman by referring them to the waking and dreaming states which they believed as really affecting Brahman and it is to refute this School that the Sütrakara discusses these two states in a Pada devoted to the discussion of the three states of waking, dreaming and deep-sleep with reference to the Jiva and Brahman.229 There are several minor points about Brahman, which we have noticed during our Interpretation of the Brahmasutra. The Sūtrakāra seems to us to say that Mokșa is to be obtained (225) Vide शांकरभाष्य on ब्रह्मसूत्र II.1.4 and 6. (226) Vide Notes (4) & (5a) on Bra.Sü.III.2.20. (227) Bra.Su.III.2.20-22. (228) Cf. सर्वंदा सर्वभावानां सामान्यं वृद्धिकारणम्। न्हास हेतु ..... (229) Vide ( ) infra.

62 BRAIMAN ITSEEF HI&. GRACE OF GOD

from Brahman.230 He also says that Brahman is Itself the fruit in the form of Moksa. In this view he differs from Jaimini who believed that the fruit is Dharma 'because the Sruti says so', The Sutrakara seems to argue that Brabman is the fruit because Brahman is declared in the Sruti to be the cause of Dharma,481 This difference seems to be tho reason why Jaimini has written on Dharma and Badarayana on Brabman. The Sūtrakāra, also seems to believe in the Grace of God, to which he refers twice.232 God shows His Grace particularly to a seeker of Brahman who gives up all actions which are means to Moksa and submits himself humbly to Him. And when the seeker of Brahman leaves his body after the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman he leaves it through the hundred-and-first arbery being guided by the Grace of the Lord in his heart ( alavaa: ). He seems to distmguish the fruit in the form of Moksa, attained by the knowledge of Brahman and actions helpful to that know- ledge, from the fruit in the form of the Heaven ( Fr) which is obtained by the performance of the safagm sacrifice. The disti- nction consists in the fact that there is no certainty abont the time which will be necessary to get the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman while there is a rule ( fan ) that the performer of the ज्योतिषोम sacrifice would get सवगे after he departs from the body of this very birth.233 This absence or rather impossibility of a rule about the attainment of the fruit in the form of Moksa makes it possible that a seeker of Moksa is reborn on this earth 'not once' before he ultimately attains the knowledge of Brahman. The Sütrakära seoms to us to describe the state of such a reborn (280) फलमतः उपपत्ते:। (Bra,Su.III.2.38) and श्ुतत्त्वाच्च। ( Bra.Su III,2.89), Fer seems to us to mean Hifnon mentioned in Bra.Su III.4 52. ( AT- नियमस्तदवस्थावधृतस्तदवस्थावधृतेः। We take SutrasIII.2,38-39 as one अधिकरण. (231) धर्म जैमिनिरत एवं। (Bra.Su.III.2.40) and पूर्व तु बादरायणो हेतुव्यपदेशात् (Bra .- Su,III.9.41). We have proposed to take these two das as forming an mdepen- dent अधिकरण and we think they discuss the nature of the Fruit. For हेतुव्यादेश vide the विषयवाक्यम्. (232) विशेषानुमदश्ष। (Bra.Su.III.4.38) and हादानुगृहीत: in Bra. Su. IV.2.17. (233) एवं मुक्तिफलानियमस्तदवस्थावधृतेस्तदवस्थावधृतेः। (Bra. Su,III,4 52)

THE STATE OF THE RELEASED SOUL 69

seeker in Bra.Su.IV.1.1-12. When finally that knowledge is attained, the knower of Brahman leaves the body ( suniea ) through the hundred-and-first artery under the Grace of Hnn Who resides in his heart, and umtes with the rays of the Sun and is carried by the Vaidyuta Conductor to the Para and heneeforth he always lives in non-separation ( anams ) with Drahman aft.r his onginal form becomes manitest on reaching Brahman. This is the state of Moksa. We may here repeat that Brahman is both fusn and #y at the same time. The Sutrakara does not separate the sardiaies as a $ of. Brahman; rather he regards it as the mIaR aspeet of Brahman and as such the $IT or the Para Itself. This ia the Sütrakara's difference from both Bädari and Jaimini who regarded the प्रजापतिलोक or the साकार aspect as a कार्य of Brahman. It is in the non-separation with such type of Brahman (Brahman of this double nature) that the released soul eternally lives.23f Because this is the nature of Brahman which is the goal, the Sütrakara holds that the released soul may have a body or may not have it,235 If Brahman were wI5K only, the released soul must have a body, in his case, of conrse, a divine body, as in the System of Ramanuja. If Brahman were foan only, he must have no body as in the System of Sankara. But as the Sütrakära regards both these as aspects of the an or the Para Brahman, the released soul has also the option. In either case the released one enjoys objects of enjoyment in the company of Brahman, because even the AuIaR aspeet has certain attri- butes according to the Sutrakara. Inspite of thia enjoyment the fault of being (a ais), a world, like the world of the Wind, the Lightning, etc., does not entail upon Brahman, 26 The Mukta in this state of non-separation with Brahman is not subject to the limitations ($34 eto )of this world, since he is far (284) Of. तथाहि स्थितिमाह। (Bra,So.IV.4.19) (235) द्वादशाह्यदुभयविधं बादरायणोडतः । (Bra,Su.[V.4.12). (236) जगव्यापारवर्ज प्रकरणादसनिहितित्वाच्च। (Bra.Su.IV.4.11).

64 NO ABSOLUTE IDENTITY OF JIVA AND BRAHMAN

remote from this world237 and is not liable to change because a Sruti mentions his permanence238 and the Sruti and the Smrti show the same.289 The only point of similarity between this state of the released one and a soul in bondago in this world is hat of enjoyment of objects. Inspite of this similarty, the former is a permanent state while the latter is liable to change in the form of births and deaths (transmigration). He does not return to this world. We may here add a few lines about the Sutrakara's conception of the individual soul so far as the problem of his identity with Brahman is concerned. In the Sutras examined by us in Part I, there were two occasions240 for a reference to this problem besides, of course, the discussion of the relation of the individual soul with Brahman after the achievement of Moksa to which we have referred above. While discussing the enerzaifd method of me- ditation241 an Opponent argues that the aafa method follows from "the grammatical sense ( a-a3) of the subsquent sentence" (4-Bra.Su.III.3.16).242 This means that the Opponent here emphasises the identity of the soul of the seeker and Brahman. The Sutrakara, however, does not seem to like this stand-point and says that he bases his method of anenaifa rather on the emphatio statement of "One should meditate on Brahman as his own Self'1.248 The Sutrakara beleves in the araifa method not because there is an identity of the soul with Brahman but because the Sruti emphatically lays it down as the only method. Again, when the Sütrakāra states that the meditation is to be practised within (237) विकारावर्ति च तथाहि स्थितिमाह। (Bra.Su,IV.4.19). (238) दर्शयतश्चैवं प्रत्यक्षानुमाने। (Bra.Su.IV.4.20). (239) Cf. इमं ज्ञानसुपाध्ित्य मम साधम्येमागताः । सर्गऽपि नोपजायन्ते प्रलये न व्यथन्ति च। (Bha.Gi.XIV.2). (240) Bra.Su.III.3 16. आत्मगृहातिरितरवदुत्तरातू। and इयदामननादन्तरा भूतग्राम- वत्रवात्मन :। (Bra.Su.III.3.34-85). (241) Vide (99) supra. (242) तदिदमप्येतहि य एवं वेदाहं ब्रह्मास्मीति स इद सर्व भवति ...... अथ योऽन्यां देवतामु- पास्तेऽन्योSसावन्योSहमस्मीति न स वेद, यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम्। (Br.Upa.I.4.10). (248) आत्मेत्येवोपासीत। Br.Upa.I.4.7. अवधारण in अन्वयादिति चेत्स्यादवधारणात्।। (Bra .- SU.III.3.17) refers to ta in the S'ruti.

SOME IMPORTANT Tauas 65

the meditator's Self ( (9RHT: patI), an Opponent argues that 'this is so because otherwise the identity of the soul of the meditator with Brahman ( as required by the arafa method ) would nut be possible'.244 The Sūtrakāra rejects this aigument based upon the identity ( 4 ) and says that the practice of inward modi- tation is in accordance with another precept than the one of the identity of the individual and universal souls.245 In both these cases, the Opponent holds the view of the identity while the Sutrakara does not accept it but explains away the point in question on some other ground. We may here suggest that Sankara does not find a discussion of this important problem (of the relation of aar and sia) in Bra.Su.II.8.17-53 which is specially devoted to the nature of the soul, though he often enters into a discussion of the same in his #4 on several other Es, e.g., Bra. Su.II.1.22.246 We believe that the Sūtrakara does not hold the view of the absolute identity of the two.247 In order to explain further the Sutrakara's conception of Brahman we should here state some of the views of the Oppo- sition regarding this conception which we have noticed in the portion of the Brahmasutra examined in Part I. One important Pürvapakşa seeks to keep all the Sākhas of all the Vedas independent of one another. This Pürvapaksa is presented when the Sutrakara asserts his Siddhanta that all the Vedantas teach Brahman ( Bra.Su.III.3.1). The Pürvapaksa

(245) This 'उपदेशान्तर' may be a roference to द्ासूपर्णा सयुजा सखयाया, b, (Mu. Upa.III.6.1), which mentions the presence of Brahman in the human hoark without identifying the soul with Brahman, or to S've.Upa.I.15. Vide Note (9) on the Sūtra. (246) अधिकं तु भेदनिर्देशात् ( Bra.Su.II 1.22) Vide Sa. bha. on it, which begins with नन्वभेवनिर्दशोऽपि दशितः 'तत्त्वमसि' इत्येवं जातीयकः et. (247) a (Bra.Su.II.8.28 ) and the four Sütras which follow it seem to us to diseuss the Sutrakara's view on the question of the relation of जीव and ब्रह्ान्. 9

66 OPPOSITION TO BRAHMAN AS THE ONE TEAOHING

puts forth the argument that the reasons, by which the unity of a "rite" was proved in the Jaiminisutra, are not present in the Upanisads. In other words, सयोग, रूप, चोदना and आख्या are different in the different Upanisads. Unlike the author of the Purva- mīmāmsā Sūtra, Bādarayana scems to us to make a concession to these Opponents in so far as he says that if the संयोग, रूप, चोदना and encn were the same in only one Sakha of each of the Vedas, he would propose that all the Vedas ( i.e., Upanisads of all the Vedas ) tench Brahman.248 The Sūtrakāra here seems to us to be conscious of the fact that all the Vedantas do not teach the same form of Brahman. Thus, he quiets the Opposition Schools which were unwilling to accept a common Darsana, viz., the Vedanta Darsana. The Opposition here is not from the Sam- khya or any other School, but it is from the Vedanta Sakhas which had each of them certain followers not willing to join under a common philosophy. By "एकस्यामपि (शाखायाम्)", the Sütrakara makes these Opponents conscious of the fact that at least one Sakha of a Veda teaches Brahman under the same संयोग, रूप, चोदना and आख्या as at least one Sakha of each of the other three Vedas. Even after admitting this partial unity of teaching (arme-Bra.Su.III.3.5.) these Opponents opposed the Sutrakara's proposal for Collection ( qua ) of all information on 'the One Principle' taught in all the Upanisads. Their arguments, शब्द and प्रकरणभेद,249 show that they wanted to stick to their respective Sakhas (Recensions of the Sruti text) even after they nominally admitted that the same Brabman was taught in all the Sakhas. The Sutrakara refutes these two arguments. Brft he admits the truth of a third argument of the opposition, viz., that the names (fmrs) of the One Common Principle of all the Upanisads are different in the different Upanisads. We have shown that dar corresponds to aneat in the corresponding Jaimi- nisutra and refers to such words as अक्षर, अव्यक्त, आत्मन्, पुरुष, under which Brahman is taught in the various Upanisads. We can- (248) मेदाननेति चेननैकस्यामपि। (Bra.SU.III.3.2). (249) Vide ( 192 ) supra.

OPPOSITION'S ARGUMENT OF HaTa. 67

not say whether the Opponents regarded each of these names as denoting a principle different from the principles denoted by all other names. They had agreed to arama so far as only one Sākhā of each Veda was concerned ( Bra.Su.III.3.2). The Sütrakära admits that though the same principle is taught in all Vedas, there is a difference about the names of this prineiple, which (difference) is so important as not to allow FyåeR "Collect- ion of all information" about this principle from all the Sakhas. He seems to admit the significant difference of two names of Brahman, viz., ao and yav. This difference of the significance of the two names of Brahman amounts according to the Sutra- kara to the admission of two aspects of Brahman, the ensqra, and the wya4, and so, he says that inspite of this kind of difference about Brahman, sudER 'collection' should proceed on the basis of that difference, i.e., the information about the asgaa aspect should be gathered and distinguished from the same about the $aa aspect which also should be gathered on its own line. We have shown that this is actually worked out by the Sutrakara in the sequel. He admits the aa 'difference' caused by theso two different names of Brahman.250 Thus, अक्षर, आत्मन, etc., may each . of them have a special significance but all of them denote 'Brahman' while the only essential denotative difference is whether a word signifies the arsqaa or the evaa aspect of Brahman. From this stand-point only two uames aam and geq are import- ant. Otherwise all other names, an, atrH, etc., are common to both these aspects,251 and therefore, cach of these words does not possess an esential importance about the nature or attributes of Brahman. Thus, the Sūtrakara seems to have united all the different Sakhas of all the Vedas under a common philosophy of "One Principle with two Aspects." Here we have the Vedanta Darsana in the making. We may add that without the sodeK Adhikarana, the Sutra- kāra would have brought about a union of the Vedantios, in (250) सर्वाभेदादन्यत्रेमे। (Bra.Su.III.3.10). इमे-इमे दे सेशे or आरुये (251) परेण च शब्दस्य तादूविध्यं भूयस्त्वात्वनुबन्धः (Bra.Su.1II.3.50).

68 OPPOSITION, URGING UNION OF ALL FREIS OF EACH VEDA ONLY

which only one or more Sakhas of a Veda would bave joined with one or more Sakhas of each of the other Vedas on the basis of common principle taught in their Vedanta Sruti. This would mean several Schools of Vedanta like the several Schools of Buddhism or the several Schools of Samkhya and also of Yoga. Persons of different Sakhas of each Veda would have been me- mbers of each of these Schools. But there would have been no Vedanta Darsana claiming the adherence of all the Sakhās of all the Vedas in the absence of the Upasamhara Adhikarana. Again, when the Sutrakara discusses the al: 347: of Brahman, he finds an Opposition which seeks to combine ( all ) the Sakhas of each Veda separately.252 This Purvapaksa would ultimately mean the same as the Pürvapaksa already noted supra, because when the Sakhas of a Veda differ only in a differ- ent Recension of the Vedic texts, their union would not mean much. There would be no union of all the Sakhas of all the Vedas. But the Sutrakara argues that several Mantras, eto., belong to all the Vedas, so the anaae sunais of one Veda may be regarded as the property of the other Vedas also for the purpose of meditation on Brahman. As regards the meditation on the Pranava, the different Sakhas of the various Vedas seem to have originally believed that the teaching about this meditation in each Sakha was to be regarded as independent of the same in the other Sakhas of the Vedas. The Sutrakara insists on the Collection ( svdan ) of the infor- mation on the Pranava from all the Sakhas for the purpose of the practice of the meditation, because, he says, the Pranava meditation is declared to be a means (s9r-sa) in all the Sakhas. Thus, the Sutrakara removed the third belief separating each Sakha from other Sakhas of the Vedas and brought about a union of all the Sakhas of all the Vedas. There are three important Purvapaksas about the nature of the relation of the two aspects of Brahman, which, as we have (252) Ci. साखासु हि प्रतिवेदम् in मङ्गावबद्धास्तु न शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम् ।

OPPOSITION, NOT ADMITTING H593H AND $H9d ASPECTS 69

seen, the Sutrakara considers to be two aspects of the same stalus either being able to lead to Moksa directly. Firstly, we find the Purvapaksa that since the Srutis chara- cterise the aryaa as they do the syaa and vice versa, a meditator on either aspect should collect attributes of both the aspeets for his practice of meditation. He should not drop out of reverenen for the Sruti the attributes of the aspect other than that on which he meditates.253 This Pūrvapaksa seems to us to imply that in fact Brahman is both arsgad and $447 and in meditation on Brabman' the attributes of both the aspects should be collected from all the Srutis. The Sutrakara replies that only when an attribute of an aspect other than that on which one meditates presents itself in the Sruti about the aspect of one's choice, the meditator should not drop it out of regard for the Word of the Sruti.254 He further says that there is no rule to decide what are exactly the attributes of each one of these two aspects which of course could be easily distinguished from each other; and that the result of this stand-point ( aqes: wag ) is that from the side of the Sruti there is no objection to a separate or independent notion about each of the two aspects.255 To us it seems that the Opponent here did not aocept this doctrine of a separate or in- dependent notion for each aspect and therefore held that in meditation Brahman should be meditated upon as being agerfaa and yaqiae and for this purpose the attributes of both the aspects should be collected from all the Srutis since Sruti itself chara- cterises the arsuaa as the eyaa and vice versa. The Pürvapaksa opposed the doctrine that 'each aspect conld be independently an object of meditation' as held by the Sutrakara. According to the Opposition Brahman is both usR and win ( or we may say, "uw having a man-like form ) and the same meditator is

(253) आदरादलोप: । (Bra.Su.III.3.40).

(255) तननिर्धारणानियमस्तद्दृष्टे: पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्ध: फलम्।(Bra.Su.III.3.42). For the road- ing of the Sutra vide Note on the Sutra.

70 OPPOSITION, HOLDING पुरुष TO BE किया ON अव्यक्त

to meditate on Brahman as being both at the same time. Thus, only one kind of meditation on Brahman is taught in the Upani- sads, that one kind contaming in it both the aspects. Another noteworthy Pürvapaksa held that the Unmanifest (, qaa) is the only aspect, and, therefore, Brahman should be always meditated upon as qqd. According to this Pürvapaksa what the Sutrakara calls the evaa aspect is only a fFaT, a projection on Brahman which is only ersqaa, like the mentations taught in the Purvamimamsa. 256 He depended upon the TT and arfaau of the Mundaka Upanisad.257 By maintaining that "the meditation on the g6 aspect" is really a projection (4r) on the arsuad Brahman, he denied that it was Vidya, i. e., Brahmavidya, The Sutrakara refnted this Opposition by pointing to the same text which says that the meditation on the Purusa is Brahmavidya. 258 He says that though the (9aa aspect regarded as Brahmavidya may appear to be inconsistent with the araua aspect, in these matters the Sruti and Smrti are more powerful as proofs of knowledge and therefore there is no self-contradiction involved in this doctrine.259 He refers to his earlier statement (Vide the preceding Pürvapaksa) that in the Sruti itself we find that the meditation on the Purusa is not a far on the Unmani- fest but an independent thought ($agera) on Brahman, i. e., an independent aspect of Brahman.260 The Opponent seems to have argued that the Purusa is liable to be regarded as a øs an ordinary world, like the worlds of the Vayu, the Lightning, etc., because the attainment of the Purusa involves an enjoyment of desired objects just as the attainment of other worlds (#THIF4). The Sutrakāra replies that because we find the mention in the Sruti (उपलब्धि) of the Purusa as Brahmavidya, there is no लोकापत्तिदोष

(256) प्रकरणात्सयाद करिया मानसवत् (Bra.Su.III.3 45). (257) Vide Note on #, , III.3.46 in Part I. (858) यनाक्षर पुरुषं वेद सत्यं प्रोवाच ता तत्त्वतो ब्रह्मविद्याम्। मु. उप. I.2.13. (259) शुत्यादिबलीयस्त्वाच्च न बाघ: । (Bra.Su.III.3 49). (260) अनुबन्धादिभ्यः प्रज्ञान्तरपृथकत्ववद्दृष्टश्च तदुक्तम्। (Bra.Su.III.3.60).

OPPOSITION, RESEMBLING SANKARA'S APARA DRAIMAN 71

entailing upon the Purusa aspect of Brahman.201 Moreover, because the Purnsa is called aert or vice versa, it should not be supposed that Purusa is a fal on the areqaa Brahman; the Purnsa may be called ger or vice versa because the same terms are nsed for the Purnsa, as for the aeqad and frequency of use ("TEa) would decide the appliclation of a particular word to one of the two aspects.202 Some of those who opposed the indopendent modita- tion on the Purusa aspect as the aspect of Brahman argned that the meditation on the Purusa was taught because the individual soul who is the seeker is encased in the body aud so he could easily grasp it.269 The Sūtrakara replies that the individual soul is quite different from the body because he is not invariably present when the body is present; but the case is not always as it is found stated in the toxt-(upalabdhi ).204 As regards the Purusa being liable to the araritraiq,265 it may be added that Badari and Jaimini seem to have looked upon the Purusa as a Karya of Brahman206 and that they seem to have believed Purușa to be the Prajāpatiloka .. Bādarāyana does not mention the Prajapatiloka in his list of the worlds and seems to have held that Prajapatiloka is the Purusa and is an aspect of the Karana Itself and therefore not a world like the other worlds enumerated by him. According to this Purvapaksa Brahman has only an imper- sonal aspect, or in other words, Brohman is only an impersonal Reality, the personal aspect of the Siddhantin being only a ( mental) projection on the impersonal Brahman. A meditation on the impersonal Brahman as possessed of a personal form (261) न सामान्यादप्युपलब्धमृत्युवन्न हि लोकाातिः। (Bra.Su.III.3.61). (262) प्ररण च शब्दस्य ताद्विध्यं भूयस्त्वात्त्वनुबन्ध: । (Bra,Su.III.3.52). (268) एके आत्मनः शरीरे भावात्। (Bra.Su.IIT.3.53) (264) व्यतिरेक स्तन्दावाभावित्मान्न तूपलब्धिवत्। (Bra.Su.III.3.54). (265) Vide Sutra,III.3.51. (266) कार्य बादरिरस्य गत्युपपत्ते:। (Bra.Su.III.3.7) (267) कार्यात्यये तदध्गक्षेण सहातः परमभिधानाव। (Bra.Sti.,IV.3.10).

72 OPPOSITION, HOLDING TE AS HIGHER THAN

would only lead to the fruit in the form of the Prajapatiloka and the seeker would get the further knowledge in that di and would attain absolute hberation along with the master of that Prajapatiloka on the end of that Karya 207 This method of prajectional meditation on the impersonal Brahman is not the highest stand-point but is a subsidiary form of meditation tanght by way of concession to the people, who, being themselves encased in the body as they really are, are unable to grasp the अरूपवत Brahman. We may say that this Purvapaksa appears to us to come nearest to the similar doctrine of au71 or exoteric Brahman in Sankara's School of Vedanta. But here it is a Pürvapaksa. The Sutrakara holds that the teaching about the Purusa is as much a Brahmavidya as that about the nqag Brahman and that therefore there are only two aspects of equal status of the same reality.

There is one more Pürvapaksa about the relation of the two aspects of Brahman. According to this Pürvapaksa the Purusa aspect is higher than the Avyakta or impersonal aspect or the Puruşa is a higher Brahman than the Avyakta. This Pūrvapaksa is mentioned in Bra.Su.III.3. 26-30 and 31-37. T'his Pūrvapaksa admits that the aauad (aspect) is the Avyakta,268 and then it argues that from the Avyakta a seeker who knows the Avyakta proceeds to and unites with the Purusa who is without an end (a7Fa). 269 We have shown that this Opponent depended upon the Katha Upanisad which says that the Purusa who is higher than the Avyakta is omnipresent (ava),270 and that a-a in the Sütra (III.8.26) refers to "3194" in that Sruti. The Sütrakāra on this occasion has to prove the omnipresence (aaea)271 of the Avyakta, a faot which would suggest that the Opponent in question holds the Avyakta which he regards as Brahman to be

(268) तदव्यक्तमाइ हि। (Bra,Su.III.2.23) (269) अतोऽनन्तेन तथाहि लिङ्गम्। (Bra.Su.III.2.26) (270) अव्यकातत पुरुष: परो व्यापकोडलिङ्ग एक च। कठ उप. VI.8. (271) अनेम सर्वगततत्वमायामशब्दादिम्य: (Bra.Su.III 2.37).

OPPOSITION, HOLDING AVYAKTA AS "LIMITED" 73

'not omnipresent' or 'limited', The same inference about this Pürvapaksa can be drawn from the Sntrakara's argument of omnipresence (szf8)272 of both the aspects in reply to a Purvapa- ksa's objection against the sqdan 'collection of all the infortnalion' proposed by the Sūtrakara. The Sutrakara refutes this argumont of the Opponent by saying that aryakta and purnsa arp onts two names (4a) of the same Brahman just as ahi and kundala are only two names of a serpent.27) The Sutrakara also draws attention to the fact that according to the Katha Upa. V1.D,274 tho form of the Purusa cannot be seen with the eye and, therefore, the Principle called Purusa is the same as the Unmamfest.273 That the Opponent believed in the Purusa as a principle higher than the Avyakta is amply proved by Bra,Su.III.2.31-96.276 Even Sankara says that the Purvapaksa proposes a principle higher than and other thau the Avyakta which he (the Opponent) does accept as Brahman. We have shown that all the four reasons of the Purvapaks are taken from the Katha Upanısad.277 The Avyakta is called a bridge (Katha Upa. TII.2), the measure of the Avyakta ( "ETHI: 967 :- Katba Upa.IV.12-13) is mentioned, the relation of the individual soul with the Avyakta in the state of transmigration is mentioned (Katha Upa. IV,6), and lastly the difference between the Avyakta and the Purus (Katha Upa. III.11) is also stated. Therefore, tho ultimate reality is beyond this Avyakta. Again, we may note that the Pūrvapaksa here argues that the Avyakta is limited (smoqdter) and the Sutrakara gives an araea that by rofuting this argument of the Opponent278 the Sutrakara proves the omnipresence of the

(272) व्याप्तेश्र समज्जसम्। (Bra.Su III.3.9).

(274) न संदृश तिष्ठति रूपमस्य न चक्षुषा पश्पनि कश्चनैनम्। (Kathal7pa.VI.9). . (275) प्रतिषेधाच्। (Bra.Su.III.2 30).

(277) Vide (55-58) supra. Vide Note in Part I. (278) In gea: vaaa ! (Bra.Su.III.9.33). Vide our Interpretation in Part I. I0

74 "PURUSA AND AVYAKTA, SEPARATE REALITIES"

Avyakta.279 The Purvapaksa's argument of nacquaa 'the state- ment of the difference between the Avyakta and the Purusa' is also noteworthy. There are several Srutis including the Katha Upanisad, which state this difference. We have collected thenl in our Notes on the Sutra.280 These Srutis are very important for the history of the doctrine pertaining to the relation of the अरूपचत् and the रुपवत् aspects of Brabmnan. They mention the Purusa as a principle higher than the Avyakta or the 35uar. The Sutrakara explains this difference to be like the difference between अहि and कुण्डल or प्रकाश and प्रकाशाश्रय281 Moreover, the Sutrakara clearly asserts that the Srutis deny u second Principle along with Brahman.282 This shows that the Opponent who asserted that the ultimate reality was a principle beyond this Avyakta (proved in Bra.Su. III.2.23-30) meant that there were two final principles since he accepted the Avyakta as Brahman. So according to this Purvapaksa there were two principles, the Avyakta and the Purusa; the Avyakta was Brahman though it was limited as compared with the Purusa which was the higher Brahman. * Let us try to trace the origin of the above three Pūrvapaksas. It is clear that these Pürvapaksas do not proceed from the Samkhya or any other School, but they all are Vedanta Pūrva- pakşas. The last Pūrvapaksa seems to be based upon the statements in the Katha Upanisad. We find that the doctrine that the Purnsa is bigher than the Avyakta or that the personal Brahman is higher than the impersonal Brahman is common to the Katha, Praśna, Mundaka, Taittiriya and Švetāśvatara Upanisads.283 So, the last Purvapaksa represents an opposition from what Deussen calls the Earlier Metrical Upanisads,28 (279) अनेन सर्वैगतत्वमायामशब्दादिभय, ।(Bra,Su.III.3.37). (280) In Part I. (281) Vide Bra.Su.III.2.27. Also प्रकाशादिवदुपपत्तेश्च। (Bra.Su.III.2.35),

(383) Vide Notes on sqqasr in Bra.Su.III.2.31 in Part I. (284) Vide Notes on #. E. III.2.23-31 in Part I.

OPPOSITION OF TUE OLDEST PROSE UPANISADS 75

The seeond Purvapakst which insisted that Brahman is only impersonal or areqag and tried to explain the Purusa as a pro- jection (faal) on the Impersonal Brabman, as a loku, 'the Praja- patıloka', 'the Karya of Brahman', as a religious coneession for the secondary type of recepients, ete., seems to us to be a view strictly following the Brhadaranyaka Upamsad or, roughly, what Deussen names the Oldest Prose Upanisads. The firet Pürva. paksa which beheved that a seeker of Moksa must meditate on Brahman as both wya and asqaa at the same time would seom to be a view ready to admit the sqaa aspect of the Earliest Metrical Upanisads as an aspect of Brahman Itself, but not willing to regard it or the ensoaa as an independent or separate aspect of Brahman to be meditated upon independently of tho other aspect as was held by the Sutrakara himself. So this first Pürvapaksa would appear to be an effort of compromise between the Older Prose Upanisads and the Earliest Metrical Upanisads but not going so far as the Sutrakara himself. It may be that the first Pūrvapaksa is a view like the Pancaratra School of the Mahābhärata, which looks upon Brahman as hoth personal and impersonal to be meditated upon as such by each and every devotee or meditator,285 Besides these Pūrvapaksas there is another important Opposition proceeding from the side of the Smrti like the Bhagavadgita; we believe, it is this Pürvapaksa which is not refuted but explained away by the Sütrakāra in the Smrti Pada. But this topie is outside the pale of the present work,286 We shall now mention an important Purvapaksa which is in a way concerned with the aavaa and the moaa aspects of Brahman. According to this Opposition the asvaa aspect of Brahman is possible when Brahman is referred to as being in the state of deep-sleep and the suaa is possible when Brabman is spoken of as being in the dreaming and waking states. Thus, (285) Vide AkSara : A Forgotten Chapter, by P. M. Modi. (286) Vide the author's article on "Smrti in the BrahmnsUtra", Indian Historical Quarterly, 1936.

76 OPPOSITION FROM THE माण्डुक्य शाखा

this Purvapaksa explained the twofold, "994 and aa Srutis about Brahman with reference to the states of Brahman, viz., the deep-sleep, the dreaming and the waking states The Sutrakara says that both the kinds of Srutis refer to Brahman in all the three states.287 The Opponent denies this by saying that "Brabman is different according to different states"; then the Sutrakara refers to a Srnti which says that Brahman is not different (aa ) with regard to each one of the states. On account of the word wn14 in Bra.Su.III.2.11 and on account of other reasons, we have shown that the Purvapksa here depends upon the Mandukya Upanisad which seems to us to teach the doctrine of states (स्थानs) of Brahman which is अरूपवत् and रूपवत् (u bhayalinga) according to these states.288 The Siddhanta on the other hand, seems to us to depend upon Cha. Upa. VIII.7-12, viz., the famous dialogue between Prajapati and Indra whom Virocana accompanies in the first stage only, wherein it is shown that in each of the three states, waking, etc., the Supreme Being remains the same. 289 Moreover, the Sūtrakāra refers to the Srutis which say that Brahman is both ead and yar at the same time, without any reference to any of its states.290 Again, he denies that Brahman is influenced by the three states as rogards its being अहपवत् or रूपवत् by saying that Brahmau is अरुपवत् only because the अरूपवत् is the chief (प्रधान) aspect of Brahman.291 As Brahman is only arvaa in the sense that It is chicfly so ( aeermi), there is no question of its being affected by the states. If Brahman were chiefly syad it would have been (287) न स्थानतोऽपि परस्योभयलिङ्ग सर्वत्र हि। (BLa.Su.III.2.11). (288) Vide Note (4) on Bra.Sü.IIT.2.11. (289) Of. also एव उ एवैपु सर्वेष्वन्तेषु परिख्यायते। whero अन्तपु means 'in all the states,' अन्त being the same word as in "बुद्धान्त " or "जागरितान्त". Vide Note (9) on Bra.Su.III.2.12 (भेदाव्नेनि चेक्ष प्रत्येकमतद्चनातू।). (290) अपि वैवमेके। (Bra.Su.III.2.13). Cf. सर्वतः पाणिपादं ततावनोऽक्षिशिरोमुखम्। सर्मेन्द्रियगुणाभासं सर्वेन्द्रियविर्वर्जितम्।। (Sve.Upa.III.16-17) सर्वतः श्रुतिमल्धोंके सर्वमावृत्य तिष्ठति ॥

Aiso अपाणिपादो जवनो ग्रहीता पश्यत्वच्क्षुः स श्षुणोत्यकर्ण: । (Sve.,Upa.III.19). (201) अरुपयद्ेव हि तत्प्धानतवात्। (Bra. Su.III.2.14).

SIDDDHANTA : BRAHMAN IS LIKE LIGHT 77

influenced by the difference of tbe states. This seems to us to be the pomt emphasised m the Bra.Su [11.2.14. In the next four Sutras tne Opponent tnes to -how that Brahunin has got a natural 4 because It is of the nature of Light.202 The Sotmalar says, "But, It is not of the nature of Light ( « agmag ) beran e It cannot be roflected, like the light in the water."2 We haw suggested that the statement of this Sutra correaponds to thar in Bra. Su.II.3.46 where we are told, " The individual sonl is like the hght, ete., (i. e., of the nature of the light, eto.) but not so the Supreme One.291 Also in Sü. I1I.2.27-29, the two aspeets of Brahman are explaied on the analogy of aft and wra nnd also that of sa, and Aama4, but the Sutrakara shows his prefo- rence for the first analogy only. Here we bave a clear indica- tion that, according to the Opponent who held that Brahmun is really affected by the three states and that we can therefore explain the asvaa and svad aspects of Brahman with reference to the three different states, Brahman is of the nature of light while the Sutrakara only admits that It is like light but not of the nature of light,25 We believe that in these Sutras (III.2.11-20) the Opponent asserts that Brahman has really affecting states of waking, dreaming and deep-sleep, just as the individunt soul (292) raII.2.15). Brahuian must be aruparat and also like light, i.e., of the nature of light, because otherwise It would bo meuningloss. (Bra Si.1II.2.16). As we bave shown i in -ArTr must stand for nara m the preceding Sutra and aapan must moan sarr. दर्शयति चाथो अपि रम्यते (Bra,Su.I11.2 17) and अत एव चोपसा सू्चकानिनत (Bra.Sa.III.2 .- 18) givo references to Srutis which, according to the Porvapakss, say that Brahman is of the nature of light. (293) अम्बुवदग्रहणात् तु न तथात्वम्। (Bra.Su.III.2.10). As we havo shown in our Notes, this is a Siddhanta Sutra. Sutra III.2 20 bogins a new Aitlukarana. (294) प्रकाशादवत्तैव पर:। (Bra.SI.II.3.46 ). (295) उभयव्यपदेशात्वहिकुण्डलवत्। (Bm.Su.III.2.27). प्रकाशाश्रयवद्दा तेजसत्वाद। (Bra.Su.III.9.28). पूववद्वा। (Bra.Si.III.2.29). These similes are again referied to in satamPagordar: (Bra.SO,ITL.2 35-Oue reading. Vide Notes)

III.2.25). Vide also our interpretation of प्रकाशानिवच्वार्वशेष्यं प्रकाशश् कर्मण्यभ्यामाद्।(Bra.SO.

78 RELATION OF THE TWO $NSS OF THE SA.

which is like 4R and has real states .as proved in Bra. Sū.III.2.1-10), while the Siddhantin denies the same by proving that Brahman is unaffected by any states, or in other words, Brahman remuins the same in all the three states. The Pürvapaksa seems to depend upon the Mandukya Upanisad while the Siddhānta relies upon the Chandogya Upanisad. Equally noteworthy are two Purvapaksas, one holding that the entire Veda, particularly the Samhıta, Brahmaņa, Aranyaka and the Khila literature, should be interpreted in the light of the Upanisads and the other believing that the knowledge of Bra- hman is subsidary to the Karma of the Karmakanda. The first Purvapaksa is discussed in Bra.Su,III.3.20-24, while the second in Bra.Su.III.4.1-17 and also in 18-26. When the Strakara proves that in the Vedanta Sohool there is an Apurva as in the Pūrvamimamsa, an Opponent argues that this Apurva should be taken as understood also in non-Upanisadic Sruti texts because these are closely connected with the Upanisads.206 The Sūtra- kara emphasises the distinction between the two Branches (Jñanakanda and Karmakanda ) of the Sruti and says that he does not include in his lists of the attributes of Brahman the two attributes of enna and gaarfa though the Ranayaniya Khila mentions them with reference to the asaa Brahman, because they are mentioned in a work which is not an Upanisad.297 For this and other reasons298 the Sutrakara considers the two Sciences of the Veda as independent of each other so far as their principle teaching is concerned. But the Opponent wanted to interpret the Karmakanda in the light of the Upanisads. In the second Pürvapaksa Jaimini wants to make the knowledge of Brahman subsidiary to the Karman and also the same Opponent argues that the knowledge of Brahman is of the nature of reflection (परामर्श) and of the nature of mere praise (स्तुतिमात्रम्-Bra.Su.III.421), and lastly that the episodes of the Upanisads are meant for the (296) मंबन्थादेवमन्यन्नापि। (Bra. Su.III.3 20). (297) संभृनिधुव्याप्त्याप चातः। (Bra.Sü,III.3.23). (208) Vide our mierpretation of Bra.Su.III.3.24.

स्मार्त VEDANTA OPPOSITION 79

pu iose of vifrtaa (Bra.Su.III.4.23). The Sütrakara, on the other hand, holds that the Upanisads give the knowledge of Brahman which is something to be performed ( sea ) and subject to au Injunction ( faa - Bra.Su.III.4.19-20) and that the unanimity of the two Sciences of the Sruti lies in ths very fact that the teaching of either is subsidiary to a fafr, thongh in the case of the fafa of the Jñanakanda there is no necessity of the sacrifioial fire, fuel, etc.299 All these Sutras ([I1.4.1-26) seem to imply th it according to Jaimini the Uttarakānda, 1.e., the Upanisads were to be interpreted as subsidiary to the Pürvakanda. The Sūtrakars holds that Brahman is subsidiary to a fafer, just as Dharma, and thus there is a harmony (aaFaal) between the two Sciences. We may note that we have a Pürvapaksa arguing the complete identity of the soul with Paramatman, as we have already seen. The Sutrakara rejects it. It is also remarkable that the Suna- kara believes that the negative attributes अनणु, अन्हस्वम्, अदीघम्,etc., are not useful in meditation on either aspect of Brahman and yot we have no Pürvapaksa against such a view. It is very well known that Sankara particularly emphasises these attributes and proposes that all positive attributes imply of Brahinan the absence of the negations of those positive attributes. Besides these, there is a Purvapaksa, which says that the senses and the vital airs of a knower of Brahman do not leave this body in order to reach (to go to) Brahman. The Sütrakära holds the contrary view.300 There is a Pürvapaksa from the Smarta Vedanta School that a Brahmajñamn dying mn the Southern Course of the Sun does not reach Brabinan (neu.); but the Sūtrakāra rejects it as Smārta (Bra.Sū,IV.2.21). We have noticed the above Pürvapaksas to explain the Sütra- kra's Doctrmne by comparing it with those of his Opponeats. It is not unlikely that some of these Pürvapaksas are only (299) अत एवं चाग्नौन्यनाधनपेक्षा । ( Bra.Su.III.4.25). Vide also our inter- pretation of Bra. Su III.4.26. (300) प्रतिषेधादिति चेन्न शाररात्। (Bra.Su.IV,2.12).

80 BADARAYANA'S FOUNDATION OF T

umaginary and presented by the Sutrakara to expound his own views, the purpose with which we have stated them above. But from what we have seen above there seems to be great probability that Badarayana's main work was that of construc- ting a Vedanta Darsana by presenting a System acceptable to the followers of all the Upanisads, 1.e., of the Upanisads of all the Sakhas of all the Vedas. He seems to have been a, thinker of a balanced mind. He did not insist that the entire Veda taught only the Sacrifice or only Brahman. While Jaimini seems to have held that Dharma was the only Precept of the whole Veda, Badarayana believed that Brahman was the Usufruc- tion (w8g) because Brahman is declared to be the cause of Dharma, the Inspirer and Master of Dharma.001 This belief seems to have inspired Badarayana to offer a thesis about Brahman as the only goal of the Upanisads. He carefully avoidod a coufict with Jaimini's School by insisting that Brahman was to be known only from the Upanisads and rejecting the view that the Purvakanda was to be interpreted in the light of the Upanisads. Tbus, his view seems to be above the two extremes, one of Jaimini himself and the other of a staunch Vedantin who is not less staunch than that staunch Karmna- kandin. Again, in interpreting the Upanisads he adopted the well established method of Jaimini and improved upon it where necessary, as when he says that even if in one Sakha of each Veda the i3m1, eto., of Brahman are the same, he would conclude that Brahman is the topic of all the Vedantas. This shows that he was not a blind follower of the method of Jaimini. He used his own intelligence in applying that method to the Upanişads. The fact that Bādarāyana rejects a Pūrvapaksa not accepting the Purusa as an aspect of Brahman, shows that in accepting the Arupavat conception of Brahman and in so far siding with the Oldest Prose Upanisads he was not blind to the special contribution of the Earlier Metrical Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita, viz., the superpersonal conception of Brahman. (301) पूव तु बादरायणो हेतुव्यपदेशात्। (Bra.Su.III.2.41),

BADARAYANA, A SAVIOUR OF aaraeu7 81

(By holding that "Brahman is only arsvaa because It is chiefly अरूपवत् " he has accepted the निराकार Brahmavada of the Oldest Prose Upanisads, e. g., the बृहदारण्यक उपनिषद् a ld at the same time he has modified it in the light of the later Srauta Vedanta of the Earlier Metrical Upanisads. His other arguments for the supenority of the asqaa to the sqad aspect, e g., the latter buing dependent on the former (Bra.Su,I.4.3) and the ayaa being mentioned in a majority of the S'rutis, show his regard for the Oldest S'rauta Vedanta. But inspite of admitting the snporiority of the areqad aspect, he sticks to his view about the option of choice from either of the two aspects on the ground that each of them independently gives direct Moksa, and this proves his respect for the minor Upanisads). That he rejects the Opposition believing in the superiority of the Pūrusa to the Avyakta and argues that the Upanisads 'deny a second Reality,' he gives death blow to the dualistic tendency of the Earlier Metrical Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita and saves the Vedanta Darsana once for all from becoming another Samkhya (or Dualistic) School with two conscious Principles, one Auan and the other #rR. (We may here add a line abont our view regarding the rane (Bra,Sü.II.1) in which the Sūtrakara seems to us to reject the xaf (the Matter) of the Gita, His main objection against the Gita is "How can the spiritnal Brahman bo associated with the material ma?" We believe, by his pecnliar attitude towards the Bhagavad- gita, which is neither that of rejection nor of blind acceptanoe, the Sütrakära has save1 the Vedanta School from being a semi- mnaterial Spiritualism.) Moreover, he has tried to be logical as far as possible since an appeal to the word of the Sruti is generally a second argument with him.304 Only in the case of an open conflict between rational argument and the Revealed Soripture, he has to say that "For a believer in the Soripture, the express word of the text is the foundation of his belief and more im- (302) Of. (I) ara: syud: (Bra So.II 2.38) and ms4 (Bra.80.ITT.2.89). (2) सर्ववदान्नप्रत्यरय चोदनायाविशेषात्।(Bra.Su.111.3.1) and two more Siitras are followed by aifuf : (Bra.SO.III.8.4.) II

82 BADARAYANA REJECTS CERTAIN HidS

portant than a rational argument." But wheu such cireum- stances do not arise, he is a free thinker and does not hesitate to reject such Sruti texts as appear illogical with his System and to accept only such as are favourable to the same. Thus, he rejects the faakuaife Sruti because it implies difference of the degrees of bliss within Brahman Itself, and the g4 sqfeq because the latter belicves in the waking and the other states really affect- ing Brahman. (As we have secn, he rejects an interpretation of the $8 syo offering a dualistie doctrine.) Since he rejects even these Srutis, it would be no wonder if he is found to reject or to interpret in his own way Smrti like the Gitā, whenever the latter is in conflict with his System drawn from the Sruti. He has done this when he rejects the view of the Bhagavadgita which holds that the knower of Brahman returns to this world if he dies during the southern course of the Sun. He says that this rule applies only to the Yogins and that it is only a Smārta rule, not a Srauta one. (We have elsewhere shown that the Smrtı Pada (Bra. Su.II.1) gives the Sutrakara's own interpretat- ion, rather than rejection, of those doctrines of the Bhagavadgita which he finds inconsistent with the views of the Upanisads and which he does not accept in their apparent sense. It is due to this boldness on the part of the Sutrakara of accepting literally a Sruti though it may be inconsistent with aea and agam and of rejecting a Sruti if it be contradictory to his own System of Vedanta, that while reading his work we are saved from the intellectual jugglery of words which we often find in the commentaries of the Acaryas who try to effect a compromise even when the three Prasthanas are in open conflict with one another. An example of this is supplied to us by Sankara's effort to interpret Bha.GI, VIII.22-27 as referring to the conductor- deities though it clearly speaks of time-deities as the Sūtrakara distinctly states. On the whole, the Sūtrakāra is a bold, tactful, straightforward interpreter of the Scripture and a great saviour of the Vedanta School, who saved it on the one hand from being divided into so many sects and on the other, from being plunged into dualistie philosophy.

CHAPTER. 2

ACTION AS HELP TO KNOWLEDGE IN ACHIEVING MOKSA.

In Bra.Su.III.3 44-54 it is shown by the Sutrakara that the knowledege of the Avyakta as well as that of the Purusa is Vidya.1 The Mudnaka Upanisad declares that the knowledge by which the well-known Aksara is attained is the higher Vidya as compared with the knowledge of the Sacrifice obtained from the Vedic Samhitās,2 The same Upanisad also says that the knowledge of the Purus is also Brahmavidya.3 As we have shown the whole of Brahmasutra IIL.3 is devoted to a detailed account of this two-fold Vidya of Aksara (or Avyakta) and Purusa. The Sruti declares that the above knowledge of Brahman is the means to 'the goal of human life' ( gara ). "By the Vidya one attains to the Immortal."# "By the Vidya one gets the Immortal."ố This was the view of Badarayana. The earlier part of the Srti ( he Pūrvakanda ) teaches 'Karman' or the Ritnalsm as a means to 'the goal of human life' gane. This was the view of Jaimini. Besides the Knowledge of Brahman and the Karmn, the Upanisads teach several other means for the attainmeut of (1) विदैव तु निधारणात्। (Bra.Su.III 3.47),L (2) द्वे चिद्ये वेदितव्ये इति ह स्म यद्गह्मविदो वदन्ति परा चैत्रापरा च ॥४।। तत्रापरा ऋगवेदो य जुर्टेदः सामवेवोSथर्ववेद: शिक्षा कल्पो व्याकरणं निरुक छन्दी ज्योतिषमिति। अथ परा यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यते। (Mu.Upa.I.1.5). (3) Cf ... तथा विद्वानामरूपाद्विमुक्त: परात्पर पुरुषमुपेति दिव्यमू ॥८। which is followed by तेषामेवैतां ब्रह्मविद्यां वदेत। (Mu.Upa.1II.2.10), (4) विद्यया विन्दतेऽमृतम्। (KenaUpa.II.12) (5) विद्ययाऽमृतमश्रुते। (ई उ.11).

84 MEANS OTHER THAN कमे AND ज्ञान.

Brabman, e.g., penance 'तपस',6 faith 'श्रद्धा',7 truth 'सत्य',8 elernal celibacy,9 नैषठिक ब्रह्मचय, selection by the Supreme Being 'वरण',10 or the Grace of God 'देवप्रसाद',11 control over one's mind शम', control over one's senses 'दम', etc.,12 contempation'ध्यान', or 'योग'18 learned- ness 'पाण्डित्य', strength or childlike simplicity 'बाल्य', and silence 'मैान' etc.,14 and several other means. It must be here noted that though penance, faith, truth, etc, etc., are stated in the respective Srutis referred to supra, as direct means to the attainment of Atman, they are also often deseribed in the Upanisads direct means to the knowledge of Brahman, which (alone) is the really direct means to the attain- ment of Atman. "The Brahmanas wish to know this well-known Atman by the study of the Vedas, by sacrifice, by devotion, by penance, by fasting.15 In this Sruti the Ritualism ( lit, the sacrifice ),

(6) तद्य इत्थ विदुः। ये चेमडरण्ये श्रद्धा तप इत्युपासते तेऽचिपममिसंभवान्ति।(Cha.Upa V.10.1). तप: शद्धे ये ह्यपवसन्त्यरण्ये। (Mu.Upa.I.2.11). तान् ह स ऋषिरुवाच भूयएव तपसा ब्रह्मचर्रेंण श्रद्धच्या संवत्स्यय ... (Pra. Upa.I.2). सत्येन लभ्यस्तपसा ह्येष आत्मा ... (Mu.Upa.III.1.5). (7) Vide (6) above for (Cha. Upa. V.10.1), (Mu. Upa.I,2.11), (Pra. Upa. I. 2). (8) ये चामी अरण्ये श्रद्धां सत्यमुपासते। (Br.UpaVI.2,15) मत्येन लभ्यस्तपसा ह्वेष आत्मा।(Mu. Upa.III.1.5). (9) सत्येन लभ्गस्तपसा ह्वेप आत्मा सम्गगज्ञा न ब्रह्मचर्येण नित्यम्। (10) थमेवैंष वृणुते तेन लभ्यस्तस्यष आत्मा विवृणुते तनु स्वाम्। (Mu. Upa.III.1.5). (Mu. Upa.III.2.3). (11) तप:प्रभावाद्देवप्रसादाच्च ब्रह्म ह श्वेताश्वरोऽथ विद्वान्। अत्यश्रामभ्यः परमं पवित्रं प्रोवाच सम्यगषिसंघजुष्टम्। (Sve. Tpa. VI.21). (12) Vide (38) infra (Br. Upa. IV.4.23). तपाश्रद्वे ये हुपवसन्त्यरप्ये शान्ता विद्वांसो भैक्षचय चरन्तः। (Mu Upa.I.2.11). (13) ततस्तु तं पश्यते निष्कलं ध्यायमान: । (Mu.Upa.III.1.8). यदा पञ्चावतिष्ठन्ते ज्ञानानि मनसा सह। बुद्धिक्र न विचेष्टति तामाहु: परमां गतिमू ॥(Katha, Upa, VI.10-11), तां योगमिति मन्यन्ते स्थिरामिन्द्रियधारणाम्। अप्रमसस्तदा भवति योगो हि प्रमवाप्ययौ ॥। (14) तस्माद ब्राह्मण: पाण्डित्यं निर्विद्य बाल्येन तिष्ठासेद् बाल्यं च पाण्डित्यं च निर्विद्याथ भुनिरमौने च मौन च निर्विदाथ ब्राह्मण: । (Br.Upa.III.5.1). (15) मेत वेदानुवचैनेन बाह्णा विवििषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसाइनाशकेन। (Br.Up.IV.4.22),

ALL OF THEM, dq OR SUBSIDIARY 85

penance, eto. are said to be means to the knowledge of Brahman. Again in some Srutis the penance (avg) is declared to be a meaps to the knowle lge of Brahman 16 But, in the case of other means like the control of the mind and the senses (Br.Upa.IV.4.23) silence, etc., (Br Up.III.5.1) there is no definite statement as to their not being direcl means to the goal of human life. Thus, both these types of texts require to be explamed with reference to the Sutrakara's own view that the knowledge of Brahman is the means to Moksa as stated in Bra.Sū. III.8. Moreover, what should a seeker of Brabman do with regard to the duties of his own order of life (anmaant) and his own profes- sional duties mentioned in the Sruti? And should a seeker give up the worldly duties (afasiftaaha) even if he is not an ascetic ? The question arising from the above-mentioned Srutis and Smrtis seem to us to have been answered by the Sūtrakāra in Bra.Sū.III.4.

One very important point which is made clear at the very beginning of this Pada (Bra.Su.IIJ.4.1-2) is that both Bādarāyana and Jaimini agreed to take all means other than jnana (the knowledge of Brahman) and karman (the Vedie sacrifice) to be of secondary importance.17 Thus, truth, penance, donation, celibacy, the dnties of the order of life and of the castes, etc., oto., are all of them subsidiary to the knowledge of Brahman according to Bādarayana and to the Vedic sacrifice according to Jaimini. It is also clear that Badarayana and Jaimini differed only a8 to the comparative importance of and sia only. In the opinion of the former $Ia was supreme and in that of the latter ada. Bādarāyana argues according to the teaching of the Sruti that the $TT of Brahman is more important afrrs than wy (16) तपसा ब्रह्म विजिश्ञासस्व। तपो ब्रह्मेति॥ (Tai. Upa.III.21). एवमात्मात्मनि गृह्यतेड्सौ सत्येनैनं तमसा योऽनुपश्यति।Sve.Upa.I.15). (17) This is the sense of शेषत्वात्पुरुषार्थनादो यथाऽन्येष्विति जौमेनि: (Bra.Su.111.4.2) 'ar' referes to truth, penance, ete., as we have shown, and ds shows that these means are subsidiary.

BOTH बा AND जै० ARE ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयवादिनS

Angiras taught the same view to Saunaka (Mu. Upa.I.1-2) as did also Sanatkumara to Nārada (Cha Upa. VII.)18 As the Sruti expressly declares that the aim of human hfe can be achieved by the means of the Brahmavidya, as Badarayana and Jaimini could agree that all means other than #H and 4d4 were of a subordinate nature, and again as the Sruti teaches $17 of Brahman as superior to Fuq (the Vedic sacrifice), Bādarāyana holds that liberation can be obtained chiefly by menns of the Vidya or the knowledge of Brahman. Both Badarayana and Jaimini differ from Sankara who holds that only the knowledge of Brahman is the means to liberation. According to Badarayana the Vidya is the chief means and Karman is subsidiary to it, and according to Jaimini Karman is the primary means and the Vidya is subordinate to it; thus, both of them are ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयवादिन+, i.e., they believe that a combi- nation of knowledge and action is the means to 'the aim of life.' Sankara is केवलविद्यावादिन, i.e., he holds that jnana alone is the means for Moksa; and he tries his best to interpret Bādarāyana's view stated in Bra.Su.III.4 asthatof a r.19 In our opinion, we have a disoussion about the nature of this Jñana in Sutras III.4. 18-26, which, as we have shown in our Notes, forms the second Adhikarana of the Pada. Jaimini holds (1) that the knowledge of Brahman or Atman is of the nature of 'a reflection' or 'contemplation' ( or thought ) and (2) that regarding this knowledge there is no Injunction which, if ever it were there, would make the achievement of this know- ledge a performance, because the Sruti denies any waa to be the means to liberation which ( a) alone can be an object of

(18) अधिकोपदेशात्त बादरायणस्यैवं सदशनात्। Bra.SiII.4.8. "अधिकोपदेश" seerns to us to rofer to Mu.Upa.I.1-2, Cha. Upa. VII, where a contrast between the teaching of the Purvakanda and that of the Uttarkanda is presented. (19) In our Notes on Bra.Su.III.4 in Part I we have given our reasons for our belief that Sankara has tried to foist his own view about the utility of Jhann alone for Moksa on the Sutrakara who, as a matter of fact, differed from S'ankara.

OH IS AN ACT TO BE PERFORMED 87

Injunction. "Having well considered the worlds thab are achie- ved through actions (sacrifices), a Brahmana should get disgusted with these actions. That which is not made (1.e., 'the numade Brabman or Brahma-world' as in Cha. Upa. VIII.13) canuot be achieved by what is mide".20 Bādaräyana's reply to the firxt part of Jaimini's view is that the knowledge of Brahman iv 'somethiug to be performed' like an act (agba) because the Sruti declares the similarity of nature of both jnana and karman in as much as we read: "Thove who have the above knowledge and, who, in the forest, devote themselves (sarea) to faith, penance, ete." and "Now, those who, in the village devote themselves ( 34t0a ) to the sicnfice, works of public utility, religious gifts, ete." at Because both the paths are, thus, mentioned by the same verb "avwa" ( devote themselves to ), both knowledge and actions are 'objects to be performed' (ar). Also, the Katha Upanisad ( Katha Upa. I) declares this similarity of the knowledge of Brahman with the sacrifice; and Katha Upa. V.I says "Having performed (agara) the meditation on Him Who resides in the city with eleven doors, which belongs to the One who is unborn and of straightforward mind, one does not lament any more and being free from the body becomes free from transmigration.22 Also, in Tai. Upa.II.5.1 the meditation on Brahman is said to be the same as the performance of a sacrifice, because there we are told that "One performs the sacrifice of knowledge and one performs also the rites. All gods meditate on the Supreme Brahman which is knowledge. If one knows Brahman which is knowledge and if one does not neglect it, he having abandoned the sins in his body, attains all objects of desire.23 Also, in Cha. Upa.I1I.14 (20) परीक्ष्य लोकान्कर्मचितान्त्राहणो निवेभायाननास्त्यकृत: कृनेन। (Au. Upa. (.4.12) न वक्षुषा गृह्मते नामि याचा नान्यैदेवैस्तपसा कर्मणा ना । (Mo.(pA.II1.1.8) (21) Vide (6) supra for Cha, Upa. V.10. अथ य इमे गमे दष्टापूर्ते द्वत्तमित्युपासते Cha, Upa. V.10,3. (22) पुरमेकादशद्वारमजस्यावक्रचेनस: । अनुष्ठाय न शोचति विमुत्तश्र विमुच्यते। (Katha. Upa.V.1). (23) विज्ञानं यश तनुंत ॥ कर्माणि तनुतेऽपि च ॥ विज्ञान देवा: सवें॥ बक् ज्येष्मुधामने॥ विभार्ने बह्षा चेद वेद।। सस्ाच्चेन् न प्रमायति॥ शरीरे गाम्मनो हित्वा।सर्वान् कामानू समभुत हाँने।। (Tai. Upa.II.5.1).

88 जै०-उपनिषदS CONTAIN स्तुति OR पारिप्लव-STORIES

the meditation on Brahman is said to be the performance of a sacrifice.24 Thus, the Sruti mentions a similarity between the knowledge of Brahman and the performance of a sacrifice and therefore one may say that the knowledge of Brahman is an act to be preformed. To the other part of Jaimini's view that the knowledge of Brabman is not laid down by an Injunction, Bada- rayana replies by saying that "Rather, there is an Injunction about knowing Brahman, just as there is an Injunction about remembering the Text." Here Bādarāyana refers to such Srutis as "The Atman should be seen, should be heard, should be reasoned about and should be meditated npon."25 "One need not try to know the sense of speech; one shold know the speaker."26 This Injunction asking one to know Brahman is like the Injunction asking one to learn (lit. to remember) the Veda.26a Jaimini may raise an objection to the above view of Bādarā- yana by saying that the Upanisad portion of the Sruti was not required (in so far as the Mantra and Brahmana portion was self-sufficient), but since it is taken up as Sruti we may regard the Sruti texts of Upanisads as an Eulogy («fa) of Brahman or God,27 or as intended for the purpose of viftsa (recitation, at the sacrifices, of the stories about ancient well-known persons).28 This is how Jaimini would explain the unity of purpose of the two Kandas or Portions of the Sruti. To these objections

(24) मकतुं कुर्वात। Cha.Up.III,14.1. (25) आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः । Br.Upa.IV5.6. Ct.also Cha, Upa. VIII.1.1 and VIII.7.1. (26) न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तार विद्यात। Kau.Upa.III.8. (26a) विधिया धारणवत्। ब्र. सू० III.4 20. The Injunction to remember tho Veda

(27) Bra.Su.IV.3.11 (परं जमिनि मुंख्यत्वात्) shows that Jaimini believed in Brahman, and as fafs in the preceding Sutra (Bra.Su,III.4.20) refors to the Injunction about Brahman, we conclude that gla in Sutra 21 refers to the Enlogy of Brahman. Vide Notes on Bra.So.ITI.4.21 in Part I. (28) The fact that S'ankara takes Sutras 23-24 as referring to the Vedanta texts in general, proves that the same is the topie of Sutras 18-26 which should be taken as forming one Adhikarana.

BADARAYANA'S REFUTATION OF JAIMINI'S VIEW 89

Bādarāyana replies that (1) the Vedanta or sqfrea wur of the Sruti cannot be taken as mere Eulogy of Brahman because (a) that part of the Veda is something which has 'not preceded before' (apurva)29 and (b) because of the Sruti that Brahman (really) is (what it is taught to be meditated upon as).30 Nor are the Vedanta texts meant for the purpose of viftsa because (a) the tffaa texts are distinguished from other texts. Morcover, because the knowledge of Brahman is an act laid down by an Injunetion, we can construe the unity of the two Kandas or Sections of the Veda in so far as both the Kandas teach action, and, again, as it is the act in the form of the knowledge of Brahman, which the latter Kanda lays down by an Injunction, it is that the performance of 'that act of knowing' taught in that Kanda does not require the sacred fire, the fuel, etc., which are required in the performance of the acts laid down in the earlier Kanda.#1 And all requirements82 of the act of knowing Brahman, arising from Br. Upa.IV.4.22,38 are like the Horse described in Br.Upa. I.1,34 i.e., all these requirements referring to the sacrifice, eto .. are allegorical just as the Horse described in Br.Upa.I.1, is to be allegorically understood. The seeker of the knowledge of Brahman is not required to perform the sacrifice physically, though one who knows Brahman may perform the Sacrifice in its material form also.85 (29) The contrast between the UpaniSad Kanda and the Pürva Kands of the Veda, e.g., that stated in Mu. Upa. I.1, Ch&. Upa. VII.1, seems to be referred to here. (30) भावशब्दाच्च। (Bra.Su,III.4.22). (31) अत एव चाभीन्धनादयनपेक्षा। (Bra.St.III.4.25). Sanikara connoats Sutra 25 with Sutra 1. This also proves our view that Sutras 18-25 form one Adbf- karana and diseuss the nature of the Vidya or the knowledge of Brahman. (32) सर्वापेक्षा च यज्ञादिभ्ुतेरश्ववद्। (Bra.Su.II.I.4.26). (83) तमेतं वेदानुवचनन ब्राह्मणा विविदिधन्ति यशेन दानेन तपसा नाशकेन। In this Srti the T, eto., are laid down as means to the knowledge of Brahman, The Sutrakāra explains the nature of this qa in the above Sutra (III.4.26). (34) उपा वा अश्वस्य मेध्यस्य शिरः ॥ सूर्यश्चक्वांतः प्राणो व्यात्तममि वैशानर: संवत्सर: आात्माशस मेध्यस्य a etc. (Br.Upa.I.1.1-2). (35) Cf. अनुमति in स्तुतयेऽनुमतिवां। (Bra SU.III.4.14). I2

90 TWO TYPES OF KARMANS, OOMPULSORY FOR HUET

Having discussed as above the nature of the act of knowing Drahman and incidentally the relation between the two Kandas of the Veda, the Sūtrakāra now proceeds to state in Sü.27-39,36 which karmans (duties) the seeker of the knowledge of Brahman must compulsorily perform.87 In the same group of Sütras the Sütrakära ineludes also the discussion of two minor points which pertain to the same topic, viz., (1) whether the Scriptural permission to a sceker of Moksa to eat the food from all persons whatsoever is consistent with the rule of control over mind (51) and senses (<H), etc., laid down for him88 and (2) whether a seeker of Brahman mnst go through all the stages of life in due order. In the opinion of the Sutrakara an aspirant must under any cireumstances do two sets of actions, viz., (1) the Sacrifice eto., mentioned in Br.Upa.IV.4.22 and (2) the duties of the seeker's own order.39 The Sutrakara discusses the consistency of the Sacrifice, etc., mentioned in Dr. Upa.IV.4.22 as a means to the knowledge of Brahman with the control over mind and senses, etc., mentioned in Br. Upa,IV.4.23 also as a means, to the same. Ho says that "Though a seeker may be possessed of control over the mind, etc., even then, as that injunction is subordinate to the one in Br.Upn.IV.4.22 which lays down the sacrifice, donation, eto., as a means to the knowledge of Brahman, the sacrifice, etc. must be compulsorily performed by a seeker." According to the Sutrakara the injunction about anemfa is subsidiary to that about aie.so Therefore, even if a seeker be possessed of mramfa, he must perform the sacrifice, give donation and practise penance, (36) On the ground of the presence of = in Sutras 28, 32 and 36 we have proposed in our Notes to take all these Sutras ( 27-36 ) as forming one Adhıkarana. Vide Part I. (37) Cf.सर्वेथाऽपिं in सर्वथाऽपि च त मव। Bra.Su.III.4.34. (38) सस्मादेवंविच्छानो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षु स्षमाहिमो भृत्वात्मन्येवात्मानं पश्यति Br.Upa.IV.4.28, (39) Vide Note (87) supra. (40) This is the sense of तहिधस्तदङ्तया i शमदमादुपेतः स्यातृतथापि तु तद्विधे- स्तदजतया तेषामवश्यानुष्टेयत्वम्।(Bra.Su.III.4.27)

PERFORMANCE OF आश्रमकर्मेन् AS ज्ञानसहकारिन 91

which are means to the knowledges of Brahman. Control over mind, etc., and sacrifice, etc. are both means to the knowledge of Brahman, but the former is, in the opinion of the Sutrakāra, prescribed in the Sruti as a part (ara) of the latter, the prescrip- tion meaning that a seeker should perform sacrifice, donation and penance with 'control over his mind' and other qualities. Therefore, the possession of TH, etc., is in no way a higher stage than the performance of the sacrifice, etc., and consequently the possession of aife does not earn for the seeker exemption from the duty of performing the sacrifice, etc. The duties of one's own order of life are laid down with regard to a seeker of Moksa in Cha. Upa.II.21.1.41 That Sruti, in the ' opinion of the Sutrakara, means that "One who belongs to any order of life gets immortality if he is 'well established in Brahman,' i.e., "if he knows Brahman properly." This text lays down for a seeker of Brahman the duties of his order of life, and thus admits a man of any order of life to the search after Moksa or immortality. The duties of one's order are not laid down here as to be performed for getting the knowledge of Brahman, but they are are laid down for each particular order by the Dharmasastras or the Srutis on which these works depend42 and again, in Cha. Up.II.23.1 a member of any order is admitted to the search after immortality. Thus, it is that the duties of one's own order are te be performed by a seeker, unlike a non-seeker,48 as a help co-operating with the knowledge of (41) विहित्वाच्चाश्रमकर्मापि। (Bra.Su.III.4.27). त्रयो धर्मस्कन्धा: यज्ञोऽध्ययनं दानमिति प्रथमस्तप एव द्वितीयो ब्रह्मचार्याचार्यकुलवासी तृतायोऽत्यन्तमात्मानमाचा्यकुलेडवसादयन सर्व एते पुण्यलोका भवन्ति ब्रह्मसंस्थोऽमृतत्वमेति। (Chã, Upa.II,28,1). (42) विहित्वान्चाश्रमकर्मापि। (Bra Su.IlI4.32). Here विदिततव refers to the injune- tions presoribing the duties of an order for one who belongs to that order, apart from the question of his being a mumukSu or not. It may also refer to 17a- मसिद्ोत्रं जुडुयात्। (43) For a non-seeker, the duties of one's order are meant for avoiding the sins of omission (प्रत्यवाय); for a seeker, they are सहकारिन to ज्ञान in achiving MokSa. The Sutrakara seems to add peaiftras (Sutra III.4.33) to suggest that the seeker performs the duties of his respective order as ameratRt, not छ8 प्रत्यवाय निवारक.

92 THIRD SET OF ज्ञानसहकारिकर्मन्, OPTIONAL

Brahman in the achievement of the common aim, viz., liberation,44

In any case a seeker must perform these two types of duties becanse of the two Sruti-texts, viz., Br. Upa.IV.4.22 and Cha, Upa.II.23.1.45

Before summarising the Sutrakara's discussion of the two minor points indicated above, we shall take up the discussion of other actions co-operating with knowledge, which in the opinion of the Sutrakara, a seeker should perform. These are mentioned in Bra.Si.III.4.47-50.

In Sütra 47, the Sūtrakära makes a general rule that the Injunction about other helping actions than those already men- tioned46 is to be understood as optional or voluntary and that it fonns the third set of actions (Cf. à qa in Sutra III.4.34),47 As to which these other helping actions are, we learn that aan is one of them. The Sutrakara says, "Just as the Sruti asks one who has studied the Veda (arqqnaa) to perform the sacri- fice ( enftarr, etc., Sutra III.4.6,12), but that does not mean that one who has not studied it should not perform it; similarly, an aspirant after Moksa may or may not carry ont the study or repetition of the Veda.48 This study of the Veda is mentioned as a belping action in Br.Upa.IV.4.22 (aaraaa). In this third group of helping actions the Sütrakara includes also some other

(44) Cf. also अभ्िहोत्रादि तु तत्कार्या चैव तदर्शनात्। (Bra.Su.IV.1.16). (45) सवभाषिन मयोभवलिद्ात्। Bra.Su.III.4.34. 'त पव' meana 'ते एव दे कर्मणी,' not ते पवामिशेमादयी न्मा: । (46) -daf: in Bra.Su,III.4.47 means helping actions other than those mentioned in Br.Upa.IV.4.22, (the sacrifice, eto.), and in Cha. Upa. 11.23.1, (the duties of one's order of life) and disoussed by the Sutrakara in Bra.StIII.4.26 and 32 respootively. (47) Vide am and afar in Bra.80.IIT.4.47. (48) This is the sense of auar fwarftaa in Bra.SU,IIT.4.47.

THE THIRD SET OF #H COMPULSORY FOR A TIE-TE&T 93

duties, e.g., silence.49 Among other duties of this class would be faith,50 celibacy,51 truthfulness52 and others.

The above option about the performance and practice of this third group of helping actions, is not allowed to a householder for whom they are obligatory according to the Sutrakara in addition58 to the other two types of actions which are compulsory for seekers of Moksa of all stages of life. His reasons for impo- sing these additional duties upon a seeker of the householder's order of life are two viz., (1) the householder's entireness i.e. the fact that the householder has several fecilities such as materials and money which the other orders do not possess54 and (2) that other actions like मौन, ब्रह्मचर्य, etc. are such as can be and should be practised by a seeker belonging only to the order of the householder. We may here add that before Sankara there was a Vedanta School holding that "the householder would alone get Moksa by a combination of the knowledge of Brahman with duties prescribed in the Sruti and Smrti, while the followers of the other three orders could attain the same by the knowledge of Brahman combined with the Smarta duties only.55

(49) 'Silence' (er) means that the aspirant should not echibit his Knowledge before others, as would be evident from the general sense of the entire Sruti, viz., तस्माद्वाह्मण: पाण्डितं निर्विध बाल्येन तिष्ठासेत्। बाल्यं च पाण्डित्ं च निरविय अथ मुनिः। अमौन च मौनं च निर्विदाथ ब्राह्मण: । Br.Upa.III.5.1. This Sruti is discussed in Bra.Sū.III.4.49-50. (50) श्रद्धा mentioned in (1) तद्य इत्थं विदुः। ये चेमेडरण्ये श्रद्धा तप इत्युपासते। (Cha.Upa. V.10.1), (2) ये चामी अरण्ये श्रद्धां सत्यसुपासते। (Br.Upa.VI.2.15) and (3) तान् ह स ऋधि- सवाच भूय एव तपसा ब्रह्मचर्येण श्द्धया संवत्स्यय ...... । (Pra.Upa.I.2). (51) ब्रक्षचर्य in (1) सत्येन लभ्यस्तपसा द्वेप आत्मा सम्यग ज्ञानेन ब्रह्मचर्येण नित्यम्। (Mu.Upa. III.1.5), and (2) Vide (8) in Note (50) above. (52) सत्य in (1) तस्ये (उपनिषदे) तपो दमः कर्मेति प्रतिष्ठा वेदा: सर्वाज्ञानि सत्यमायतनम्। (Kena Upa. 33) and (2) सत्येनैन तपसा योऽनुपश्यति। (Sve.Upa.I.15), Vide also (51) above, (63) Vide Notes on उपसंहार in कृत्स्नभावात तु गृहिणोपसहार: (Bra.Su.III.4.48). (64) Vide कृत्स्नभावात in the above Sutra. (55) CI केचित्त ोतैः सार्तैश् गृहस्थस्यैय समुच्चयो मोक्षायोध्वरेतसां तु मार्तकममानसमुचचिताज्जा नानूमोक्ष इति। (S'h.bhagya on Bha.Gi.III.1).

91 HOUSENOLDER-HES MAY DO WORDLY DUTIES

In addition to all the three sets of actions, a householder aspiring for Molsa, may do worldly duties also ( taqarf) not as "actions co-operating with the knowledge in the achievement of Moksa," but, rather, they are allowed to be done only in his case in order that the works which that aspirant has begun may not be obytrueted,0 In the Upanisads we find that the seekers of Maksa belonging to the householder's stage of life continue their worldly duties in order that the affairs already begun may conti- nue unobstructed.57 One of the minor topics discussed in this Pada of the Brahma- sutras is, as wo have already stated, with respect to the rule of control over mind and senses, etc., which a seeker of the know- ledge of Brahman is asked to acquire in order to qualify himself ' for that knowledge."8 The rule of TE, q4, etc., is not in conflict with the Sruti which allows a secker of Moksa to eat all food, just as it is not in conflict with the Ipjunction asking the seeker to perform sacrifice, to give donation and to practise penance as explained in Sutra III.4.27. The apparent conflict in the latter case is, as we have secn, solved by understanding the Injunction about IH, TH, eto., as subsidiary to the Sruti about sacrifice. donation and penance. The former conflict rises from the statement in several Srutis saying that " For one who knows the Supreme Brahman, there is nothing which is not his tood" " These Srutis scem to allow a seeker of Moksa to eat all kinds of food, and, would, therefore, appear to exempt the seeker from the rules about food, eto., for tho ordinary man, and, may be looked upon as inconsistent with the rule of smenif? laid down for the seeker by Br. Upa.IV.4.23. The Sūtrakära (36) पेरिकमप्यप्रस्तुनप्रतिबन्धे तह्शनास्। (Bra Su.III.4.51). (57) This teaching is somewhab similar to that of the Gita as regards "disinterested actions" and the Sütra (III.4.51) may rofer to the example of Janaka in the Brhadăratyaka Upaniad. (69) This minor topie is disoussed in Sutras IIT.4.28-31, which, in our opinion, is a part of the single Adhikarapa consisting of Sütras 27-89. (60) Some of theso are quoted by Sarikara, o.g., न ह वा पवविदि किञ्नानन भवति। (Ch&.Upa.V.2.1).

RULES DURING DANGER TO LIFE 95

says that scriptural permission does not give any more freedom to the seeker than that given to an ordinary man, because this freedom is to be availed of only at the time of danger to life in absence of food. This is shown by the example of Usasti Cakrayana, by the fact that such freedom under snch cireum- stances is not inconsistent with the rule of शमदमादि (अबाध-Sutra III. 4.28), and by the authority of Smrtis like that of Manu.60 For this very reason the Srutis in question should be interpreted to refer to a case where the seeker has to partake of any kind of food reluctantly.61 Thus, the seeker may be possessed of rqHifa, yet he cannot violate the rules of conduct as regards food, etc., just as he cannot give up the sacrifice, donation, and penance (Sūtra 27). The second minor point stressed by the Sutrakara deals with the option of suppression or supercession (abhibhava) of the two kinds of duties, (1) the sacrifice, donation and penance, and (2) the duties of the seeker's order of life, allowed by the Scripture to a seeker of liberation. The Sūtrakara clearly says that only those two kinds of duties are the duties which a seeker of the knowledge of Brahman must in any case perform, because there are direct statements of Sruti about those two (afar), 68 and because the Sruti gives examples of soekers of Brahman in whoso case those two kinds of duties are not overpowered or suppressed even after the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman, But it cannot be argued that the above is the only way sanctioned by the Scripture,64 because also without those two

(Bra.SI.III.4.30). (60) Of. तददशनात् (Bra.Su.III.4.28), अबाधात् (Bra.Su.III.4.29) and अपि व स्मयत

(61) शब्दश्वातोSकामकारे। (Bra.Su III.4.31). This Sutra seems to refer to काम in न वा अजीविष्यमिमानखादन् कामो म उदपानम्। (Cha:Upa.I.10.4). (62) In Sutras III.4.34-89 which should be taken as forming one Adhikarana, (63) सवथा5पि त एवाभयालैङ्गात्। (Bra,SD.III.4.94). The Srutis are Br. Upa. IV,- 4.22 and Cha. Upa.II.23.1. Vide above foot-notes (33) and (41). (64) This is the import of तु in अन्तरा चापितु तद् दृष्टेः। (Bra.Su.III,4,86)

96 KNOWLEDGE OF BRAHMAN WITHOUT TWO TYPES OF ACTIONS

kinds of actions65 one can seek and get the knowledge of Brahman. Thus, a seeker may give up the duties of the sacri- fice, penance, etc., and also those of his order of life, with the purpose of solely devoting himself to his aim. This can be proved by the help of the Sruti and Smrti. Penance and actions (of sacrifice as well as of one's order of life) are declared to be not the means useful for the search after Atman in the Mundaka Upanisad66 which is contrary to Br. Upa.IV.4.22 and Cha. Upa .- 11.23 1. Moreover, the latter part of the same Sruti which lays down the sacrifice, donation and penance as means of knowing Brahman, declares that ascetics wishing 'to get the Atman as their world' renounce the world. It cites the example of 'ancient wise persons who did not wish to have progeny, saying, 'What should we do with progeny-we, who consider this Atman as our world here' and it says that they having withdrawn their mind from desire for sons, desire for wealth, and desire for worlds, live the life of begging alms.' 67 According to this Sruti one can get the knowledge of Brahman without performing the duties of the order of a householder; so that from the stage of celibacy a seeker can directly pass over to the stage of asceticism. Also the Smrti like the Bhagavadgita says, "O most heroic of the descen- dants of Kuru, it is not possible for anybody else but you to see Me in this form in this human world either by the Vedas, sacrifices and their study or by donation, by actions (of one's order or by severe

(66) Vide aft and arrT in the above Suitra. (66) न चकुषा गृहाते नापि वाचा नान्यैर्देवेस्तपसा कर्मणा वा। (Mu.Upa.III.1.8) नायमात्मा अवचनेन लभ्यो न मेघया न बहुना श्रुतेन। यमेवैष वणुतेतने लभ्यस्तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनुं सवाम् ॥ ३ । नायमात्मा वलहनेन सभ्यो न स प्रमादात्तपसो वाप्यकिजाव। एतर्पामर्यतते मस्तु बिहस्तरयेय आत्मा विशते मह्मायाम ॥४॥ (Mu.Upa.III.2.8-4). Contrast this with समेतं वेदानुबचनेन ब्राझणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसाऽनाशकेन। (Br.Upa.IV.4.22) (67) एतमेव प्रभाजिनो लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रन्जन्ति, एतदू स्म वैतत्पूर्वे विद्वांस: प्रजां न कामयन्ते कके पजया करिण्यामी येवां नोडयमात्माडयं लोक इति ते ह स्म पुत्रेषणायाश्र वित्तैषणायाथ् व्युत्थायाथ मिक्ाचय परन्ति ... (Br.Upa.IV.4.22).

DOOTRINE OF GOD'S GRACE 97

austerities.68 God shows His special Grace to those who resort to this path of Renunciation of all actions and seek to know Him. "But I can be known, seen and realized in the right sense in this (macrocosmic) form by undivided devotion."69 " Abandoning all duties submit yourself to me alone. I shall free you from all sins; do not lament."70 "This Atman can be attained by him alone whom He selects. To him this Atman reveals His own form."71 According to these Srutis and Smrtis a seeker may give up all duties in order to worship the Lord with one-minded devotion and the Lord in return shows His special Grace to him. The Sutrakara mentions this alternative also.72 The Sutrakara says that out of the two Paths of performing one's duties as help to the knowledge of Brahman and of renou- ncing all duties, it is the former which is better (sar), because the S'ruti gives examples of persons in whose life the perfor- mance of duties was not superceded by the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman (Bra.Su.III.4.35) and because we have an express statement about the superiority of the former path, e.g., " One who finds his delight in Atman and who is pleased in Atman and does all his duties is the best of all the knowers of Brahman."73 and also "Doing one's duties is better than not doing them."74 (68) न वेदयज्ञाध्ययनैन ्दानैन च क्रियाभिन तपोभिरुम्रैः। एवंरुप: शक्य अहं मृलोके द्रष्टुं त्वदन्येन कुरुप्रवीर ॥। ४८।। + + + नाह वेदैने तपसा न दानेन न चेज्यया। शक्य एवंविधो द्रष्दं दृप्टवानसि मां यथा ॥६३ ॥ ( Bha.Gi.XI48,58) (69) भक्त्या त्वनन्यया शक्य अहमेनंिवारडर्जुन। ज्ञातुं द्रष्टं च तत्वेन प्रवेष्ट च परंतप ॥। (Bha.Gi.XI.54). (70) सर्वधर्मान परित्यज्य मामेक शरण ब्रज । अहं त्वा सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुच: । (Bha.GiXVIII.66). (71) Vide (66) above. (72) विशेषानुग्रदश् ।(Bra.Su.III.4.38). (73) Ci. वरिषि: in आत्मक्रीड आत्मरतिः कियावानेष ब्रह्मविदा वरिष्ठः। (Mu.Upa.III.1.4). (74) Of. ज्याय: in अतस्त्वतरज्ज्यायी लिङ्गाच्च । (Bra.Su.III.4.39) with the same word in कर्म ज्यायो हयकर्मण: । (Bha.GI.III.8). I3

98 ज्ञान, कर्म, AND भक्ति ACCORDING TO BADARAYANA

We may here bricfly state the Sutrakara's view regarding the three P'aths of Knowledge, Action and Devotion. He seems to look upon the knowledge as the only principal means of libera- tion, the aun of human life (Bra Su.III.4.1) He, therefore, does not consider Action or Devotion in the capacity of the principal means of Moksa, with Knowledge as its help. Rather, in his opinion, Action or Devotion can serve only as a help to Know- ludge which alone can lead to Moksa. He does not use the word bhakte which is the usnal expression for Devotion, but he mentions the option of the renunciation of all actions (as a help to Knowledge) and says that in this option regarding "help " to Knowledge the Dord shows His special Grace to the seeker. From this we infer that this option consists of Knowledge plus Devo- tion as help to Knowledge. Out of the t two Paths of (a) Knowledge plus Action as a help to Knowledge and (b) Know- ledge without Action or, in other words Knowledge with Devotion as a help), the Sütrakara prefers the former (Sūtra III.4.8). We may also note that Jaimini differed from Bādarāyana on the above point (Bra.Su.III.4.2). He regarded Action as the principal means to Moksa and Knowledge as subsidiary to Action just as penance (a9g), donation, etc., which are subsidiary means according to Bādarāyana also.75 Though, as shown above, the Sutrakara probably regarded bhakti as a means of secondary importance only, it is not unlikely that the apasand of Brahman through which the knowledge of Brahman was achieved partook of the nature of devotion. But about this we cannot offer any positive proof. Our only proof for the doctrine of Ghakti in the Brahmasutra is the occurrence of the "Grace" (anngraha) twice in the work.70 In tho option, that we have mentioned above, of the super- cession of the two sets of duties we have the sanction of the Soripture to allow a seeker of liberation to jump to the stage of (75) Vidle Note (17) above. ("6) Adgre I(Bra.8t, III.4.88) and the word eralayera in Bra.SO.IV.2.17.

ASCETIC-THH CANNOT BECOME NON-ASCETIO 99

asceticism from that of celibacy ( Br. Upa.IV.4.22). It is in connectien with this sanction that the two minor topics are discussed in the Brahmasütra, viz., (1) whether a seeker of liberation who has renounced the duties can resume them or not ( Bra, Sü.III.4.40-42 ) and (2) what actions a seeker of liberation who is outside (afs:) the order of asccticism is allowed to do ( Bra. Sü.III.4.43-46 ). We shall now describe the first of these. Having described in tho preceding Adhikarana (Sutras III.4. 34-39) the renunciation of actions, 1.e., asceticism, the Sütrakāra says that a seeker of liberation, who becomes an ascetic for the purpose, cann » become a non-ascetic (1.e. a householder or a bachelor). Thus, one can jump over an order or orders of life but no regress is allowed to an aspirant. On this Jaimini agreed with Bādarāyana. Their arguments for their view were that the rule was only for going to a subsequent order of life, that one who has become an ascetic, is henceforth unlike what he was in the past and that an ascetic has not got things which would allow him to revert to an earlier order.77 A seeker of liberation who has berome an ascetic cannot also do the duties of his profession or office, 78 because he can have no association with those duties on account of the Smrti text referring to the moral fall of an ascetic if he does such duties,"9 But, the follo- wers of one Branch of the Sama-veda hold a different view. They believe that the direct professional or official duties and also indirect official duties exist in the case of ( or may be per- formed by ) a seeker even though he may have become an ascetic.80 This rule should be understood to be like the rule of

(77) तद्द्रतस्थ तु नानद्वावो जैगिनेरपि नियमानद्रमाभावैम्य:। (Bra.Su.ITT.440). (78) E.g., A Brahmin seeker who has hocome an ascetic cannot do the priestly duties or duties of a regular teacher, etc. (79) न चाधिकारिकमपि पतनानुमानास्तदयोगात। Bra.Su.I1I.4.41. Also Mano VI.58, अभिपाजत लाभास्त जुगुप्सेत सर्वशः। अभिपूजितलामैश्च यनिमुंक्तोपि बध्यत।। (80) उपपूर्वमपि त्वेके भावमशनवत्तदुक्तम्। (Bra.St.III.4.42). उप in this Sutra refers to sy in sulfaasr m the story of USasti (Cha, Upa.I.10-11; aalargr आस्तावे स्तोष्यमाणानुपोपविवेश .....; Cha Upa.I.10.8). उपपूर्वम् in the Sutra teans उपपूर्वम् अधिकारिक कर्म, and अपि means 'the inclusion' of the direet आधिकारिक कर्म Vide our Notes on the Sutra.

100 CASTE DUTIES FOR ASOETIC AND OTHER JHES

eating; 1. e., this kind of performance of direct and indireot ofticial duties can be allowed to an ascetic-seeker of hberation only when he is in danger of losing his life if he does not earn his livelihood by such means, just as the eating of any kind of food is allowed under the same circumstances, as was already explained above on the strength of the illustration of Usasti Cakrāyaņa (Bra.Su. III.4.28; Cha Upa.I.10). Though Usasti was not an aseetc, his example shows what even an ascetic shonld do or is nllowed to do when his hfe is in the danger of boing lost. The purpose of the story of Usasti, as understood by the Sūtra- kara, is to describe 'the dnties in adversity' ( angaga) for all seekers of liberation. In short, a seeker of the knowledge of Brahman cannot revert to the stage of a householder after having once become an ascetic, but he may do the duties of his profession or office (which are his oaste duties), only if it is inevitable fore him to do them for the sake of continuing his life.

But a seeker who is outside the Order of Renunciation81 may do both the direct and also indirect official or caste duties. The mere fact of being a seeker of liberation does not forbid him from doing his caste duties by which he is to earn his livelhood if he be & householder. The Smrti, e.g., the Bhagavadgītā, asks a bouseholder seeking liberation to perform his own caste duties; or, rather, we may say that the Bhagavadgita- requires a seeker of liberation to remain outside the order of asceticism and to do his own caste duties. The seeker of liberation need not be an ascetio; he may be a householder. In the Upanisads also we find examples of Janaka and others who were seekors of liberation and yet continued the performance of their official or caste duties, The practice of these duties so far as an aspirant is concerned is for the maintonance of the householder-seeker;

(81) This is the sense of वfि: in बहिस्तूभयया स्मूनेराचाराच्च। (Bra SU.III.4.48), We believe, afr: is bere used in contrast to farar in Si.III.4.40 and 4! in the same Sutra seems to sband for आधिकारक कर्म and उपपूर्व अधिकारिक कर्म ( Vide our Notes on the Sutra ).

VIEWS OF BADARAYANA, ATREYA, AUDULOMI 101

it is not by way of help to the knowledge of Brahman in the achievement of Moksas The religious reward of the official (or priestly and other) duties goes to his master and, therefore, a seeker may do his official duties if he is not an ascetic.82 This was the view of Atreya. A Brähmana housebolder seeking libera- tion should do only priestly duties at a sacrifice (and not the duty of teaching, which is also his caste duty ) because his services can be bought only so far as priestly duties are concerned.88 A Brähmana seeker is not to do teaching duties though he be a householder, because those duties cannot be bought from him, since the Scripture asks him to do them without selling them. This view was propounded by Audulomi who supported his opinion by the contractual nature of priestly duties and by quoting Sruti texts according to which householders seeking liberation did only priestly duties on behalf of others. Thus, Bādarayana believes that a seeker of any caste can do his caste duties as long as he is a householder; Atreya believes that he can do those duties only on behalf of a master who employs him and not on his own initiative; while Audulomi allows a Brahmana householder seeking liberation to do direct and indirect priestly duties only because that is the one case in which there is the possibility of the householder-seeker being employed by a master. In short, Badarayana and other teachers of Vedanta allow a seeker of liberation to belong to the house- holder's order of life but only make certain restrictions to the effect that he must do no duties which may give him a religions reward in his next life and thus hinder the realization of his goal. We may compare this view with that in the Bhagavad- gīta, which asks a householder-seeker to do all his duties with- out any desire for the fruits of those duties, without any attachment to their rewards,84

(82) स्वामिन: फलश्रुते रित्यात्रेय:। (Bra.Su.III.4.44). (83) आरत्विज्यमित्यांडुलामिस्तस्मै हि परिक्रायते। (Bra.Su.III.4.45), (84) Cf. e. g, कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेपु कदाचन। मा कर्मफलहेतुभूरमों ते सङ्गोडस्त्वकमणि॥ (Bha.Gi.II.47).

102 NO DEFINITE TIME FOR MUKTI-PIALA

The fruit of liberation which is to be achieved through the knowledge of Brahman helped by the practice of certain actions as deseribed in the third Adhyāya may not definitely (i.e. at a definite time ) follow the prformance of these actions, unlike the fruit of heaven which is declared in the Sruti to follow the per- formance of the jyotistoma sacrifice. One reason for this is the fact that these actions are only help to the knowledge of Bra- hmnan, which is the principal moans of Moksa.85 This conclusion is also to be drawn from the fact that the Sruti makes definite mention of persons who remain for many lives in the stage or state of aspirants (avas) trying to attain the knowledge of Brahman and at the same time doing the duties of their respective orders of life, which are belps to that knowledge. "Seekers of libertion who have well decided the aim by the knowledge of the Vedantas, who are ascetics because they have adopted the path of renunciation and whose mind is purified, become released and completely immortal in the world of Brahman (neu.) at the time of the end of the Para" (Mu. Upa.III.2.6). For a very long time these remain in the stage of seekers because they do not get eman- cipation till then. This would mean that a seeker may be born and reborn on this carth many a time before he attains the realization of Brahman, which entitles him to Moksa after exhausting his prarabdha karmans in his last birth on this earth. This also shows that the real knowledge is not achieved immediately on the fall of the body in which he begins to devote himself to an effort to achieve the same. It is this circumstance which makes the toacher of the doctrine of Atman possible in this world because he teaches the doctrine after having well understood that 'Brahman is his own Self' (Bra.Su.IV.1.3). The state of those seekers who are in the stage of carrying out all the means of kuowing Brahman and have not yet got the knowledge, is described in Bra. Sû,IV.1.1-19. (83) This scems to us to be the sonse of एवम् in एवं मुक्तिफलानियमरतदवस्ा वधूते- mr4er: 1 (Bra.SO.III.4.51).

CHAPTER 3.

BEFORE AND AFTER THE ATTAINMENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF BRAHMAN.

The Third Adhyaya of the Brahmasutra is called 'the Chapter of the Means' (T r) and it is thereby distinguished from the fourth Adhyäya which bears the name of 'the Chapter of the Fruit' (3177). The knowledge of Brahman is the means of achieving the aim of human life and it is described in Bra.Su. III 81 The actions which are subsidiary to that knowledge in the achievement of liberation have been mentioned in Bra.Su. III.4. After thus finishing the Means of Moksa, the Sūtrakāra tells us that there is no certainty as to the time of achieving the fruit in the form of liberation,2 because we find persons who are in 'the state of the means (agenaga:)', i. e., in the stage of the practice of the Means. This is the closing statement of the Chapter of the Means. The goal to be reached by the Means, the knowledge of Brahman, is mentioned in Bra.Su,IV.1.13.8 It would not, therefore, be improper to infer that Bra Su.IV.1.1-12 describes the state (aeT ) mentioned by the Sutrakara in Bra. Sū.III.4.52.4

This state is the state of the Practice of the Means. The means have been kenown from the Chapter of the Means. The theoretical knowledge of the means belongs to the state of study and is followed by the state of the Practice of those means

(1) Vide our Interpretation of Bra-Su.III.3 in Part I. aa: in yaraisa: शब्दादिति बादरायण: (Bra.Su.IIT.4.1) refers to this ज्ञान, See Part I. (2) एवं मुक्तिफलानियमस्तदवस्थावधृते स्तदवस्थावधृतेः। Bra.SU.III.4.52. Vide our Interpretation in Part I. (3) Note तदधिगम in तदविगम उत्तरपूर्वाघयोर कपवविनाशौ तद्व्यपद्ेशात्॥ Bra.Su.IV.1.18. (4) Vide (2) supra.

101 THE SEEKER'S RETURN O THIS WORLD NOT ONCE

(Bra.Sü.IV.I.1-12) which alone can lead to the attainment of the knowledge (Bra.Su.IV.1.12). How long this period of Practice will last in the case of each seeker is not certin (Bra.Su.III.4.55). This is the difference between the Sacrifice and the Knowledge. One who sceks the Hcaven performs the Sacrifice in a certain limited period and is sure of the achievement of the Heaven at the end of that birth. But the case of one who seeks Brahman is different. He is not sure how long he should "perform" (Cf. aragan in Bra.Su.IlI.4.19) the means of achieving Brahman and whether he would attain Brahman at the end of this birth or after many births. The seeker of Brahman generally returns to this world not onceba before he attains his aim. The Sruti teaches this and the Smrti too does the same. "Perfected by many births he m course of time attains the Supreme Goal".6

In these births, the seeker has not to learn any new means for his goal, but he practises what he has already theoretically learnt and also preaches the samc. This is a period of Practice and Preaching. He had learnt to meditate on Brahman as his Self. Now, he approaches Brahman as his Self and helps others in the realization of the same.8 He was tolde that the Syllable 'Om' was the bow and his own Self was the arrow; now, he is born with the notion that the Symbol 'Om' is Brahman (not his Solf; though Brahman is his Self) because that Symbol possesses & unique position. 10 Again while choosing to meditate on Brahman as consisting of parts, he was taught to have the notions of the

(o) Vide aiweaey in Bra.Su.III.4.52. Vide (2) supra. (ös) See we in mqit ceagvaara l Bra.SU,IV.1,1, (6) अनेकजन्मर्संसिद्धस्वतो याति परां गतिम्। Bha.Gi. VI.45. (7) आ्मगृहौति रितरवदुत्गव। Bra.Su.III.3.16 प्रधानवदेव तदुत्तम्। Bra.Sil, 11I,3.43. Vide Interpretation in Part I. See P. 17 of Chapter I. (i) आसमे नितूयगछन्ति ग्राहपन न । Bra.Su.IV.1.3. (i) बेपाचर्यमेदातू॥ दानी तूपायनश्द सेषत्यात् कुशाच्छन्द्रस्तुत्युपगानवत्तदुक्तम् त. सू० I1I.3.26-26 Vide P. 55 of Chapter I. (10) aft s: I and merfewa i Bra.SUIV.1,4-5. See Part 1.

THE STATE OF THE ADVANCED SEEKER 105

respective asrayas ( viz., the eyes, the head, etc., ) in the Sun, the Fire, the Earth, i.e., the parts of Brahman,11 or rather he was ashed to look upon all the parts as only parts of Brahman.12 Now, in the state of an advanced student as it were, he believes the Sun, the Fire, etc., to be the eyes and other limbs of the body of Brahman.13 In short, he looks upon the world as Brahman and upon Brahman as his own Self and gives the same precept to the world. His only action is that of sitting because no other action is possble of him.14 Formerly, when a beginner he used to keep sitting in order to learn meditation; now, he is always in medi- tation which has become his habit, and therefore he keeps sitting. He is found sitting because he aims at preserving the steadiness of his senses and seeks to remain unagitated by the constituents of Nature. "He remains sitting like one who is without any interest of his own, he is not agitated by the constituents of the Prakrti, he definitely knows that only the constituents act and react upon one another, and thereby he remains inactive".15 The Smrti, rather than Sruti, gives the picture of this seeker of the knowledge of Brahman in an advanced stage which is called 'the Brahmi Sthitih' and 'having attained which there is no possibility of the seeker being bewildered any more.16 As all places are equal to him ( afaas ), he resides wherever he can concentrate his mind (यत्रै काग्रता).17 The above Practice and Preaching and the state of sitting and actionlessness the seeker continnes till he departs from this world ( nsna), because we bave in the Upanisad the example

(11) अंङ्गषु यथाश्रयभाव: । Bra.Su.III.3.61. (12) न वा तत्सहभावाश्षुतेः। Bra.Su.III.65. See P.48 of Chapter I. Vide Part I. (13) आदित्यादिमतयश्चाह् उपपते। Bra.Su.IV.1.6. (14) आसीन: संभवात्। Bra.St.IV.1.7 ध्यानाच्। IV 1.8. अचलत्वं चापेक्ष्य। IV.1.9. (15) उदासीवदासीनो गुणैयों न विचाल्यते। गुणा वर्तन्न इत्येव योऽवतिष्ठति नेगते।। Bha.GI,XIV.23. Also Bra.Su.1I.61-72. (16) एपा ब्राझ्मी स्थितिः पार्थ नैनां प्राप्य विमुह्यति।(Bha Gi.II.72A) (17) यत्रैकाम्रता तत्राविशेषास्। (Bra.Su.IV.1.11). 14

106 BRA. SU. IV.1.1-12, NOT E

of a meditator on the Syllable OM asked in the Sruti to continue his meditation oven 'till the end of his Departure'.18 "Remaining in this Brahma state even at the time of the end ( of this body ) he attains absolution in Brahmnan".19

Thus, we believe that the "aaaen" 'the state of the advanced seeker' referred to in the last Sutra20 of the third Adhyaya is deeribed in Sutra IV.I.1-12. The theoretical knowledge is followed by the practicc and preaching of the same and by actionlessness due to intense absorption into meditation and a desire to keep himself unpurturbed by the senses till the end of his departure from the body. The Sūtrakāra admits that this stage precedes the attainment of the knowledge,21 but as no new means of the knowledge of Brahman is to be learnt in this state, he gives it a place in the Chapter of the Goal And he is right because the state nearing the Goal (#T4 or 43) is more like that of the goal (arer or wa) than that of the means (ara).

The stage of the Practice of the means is followed by the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman and by what we would call the stage of sinlessness. According to the Sūtrakara, on the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman the seeker becomes "free from the contact" (apa) with 'succeeding' (stR) sins, while the sins which "precede" (qa) the knowledge and have not yet begun to give their result (अनारब्धकार्य पूर्व पाप) are destroyed (famia) by that knowledge.41a But none of the religious good dueds are so destroyed by jnana."2 The knower of Brahman becomes free from the contact (sraa) with the good deeds (sar)

(18) om nN ft tex | Bra.Su.IV.1.12). eancAreqtlat (Pra Upa.V.I). (19) त्मितवास्यामन्तकालेड ब्रहानिर्वोणसृ्छति॥ (Bha.GI.IT.72.B). (20) Vide supra तदवस्थावधृति may refer to वदान्तविशानसुनिश्चितार्थाः संन्यास

(a11 नदषिगम उत्तरपूर्वावयरवविनाशी तद्भपदशात्। Bra.Su.IV.1.18. (dia) Vide supm अनारन्कार्ये एव तु पूर्वे सदवयेः॥ Bra.Su. IV.1.15. (221 See rr in wendmnewqrrg (Bra.80.IV.1.14),

ज्ञानिन्'S CONTACT WITH पापपुण्य TILL देहपात 107

only on the fall of the body (via). This shows that according to the Sutrakara, in the case of the knower of Brahman the sins become impossible on his getting the knowledge but the good deeds become impossible only on his departure from the body. Even after the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman, he continues doing good deeds (religious merits) and these help him in the attainment of the goal of the knowledge of Brahman. By saying that freedom from sins takes place on amena but the freedom from good deeds takes place on agura, the Sūtrakāra emphasises the continuation of good deeds by, and their neces- sity even to, the knower of Brahman who is yet to be liberated. The knowledge of Brahman is not consistent with sins, but is surely not inconsistent with good deeds, according to the Sutrakara. Only the actual realization of emancipation which follows the departure (from the body) of the knower of Brahman makes religious good deeds impossible. Union with Brahman is the only stage when a soul is no longer in the need of religi- ous good deeds, or, we may say, is ' above religion.' The Sutrakara does not mention the destruction of the 'prece- ding' good deeds.23 In Bra.Su.III.4.32-33,24 he says that the duties of the orders, like the agnihotra, etc., become helpful («*Rx) to the knowledge of Brahman in the achievement of Moksa, becanse they are laid down for this purpose in Cha. Upa. II.23.1.5 Similarly, in the case of religious deeds like 4s, ₹m, aqr, which are different from the duties of the orders, be has said that they should be unfailingly done since there is an Injunction prescribing them for the purpose of the knowledge of Brahman in Br.Upa. IV.4.22.26 In consistency with this, the

(23) Note "faaTar" in Bra.Su.IV.1.13 and only ager in Bra.Su.IV 1.14. Vide Part I. (24) विहितत्वाच्चाअमकमापि। Bra.Su.III.4.82. महकारित्ेन न । Bra St.III.4.38. (25) Vide (41) m Chapter 2. (26) शमदमाधुपेतः स्यात् तथापि तु तद्वियेस्तदङ्गतया तेषामवश्यानुष्ठेयत्वम्। Bra.SU.III.4.27. For Br. Upa.IV.4.22, vide (38) of Chapter 2.

108 -NO DESTRUCTION OF GOOD DEEDS

Sutrakara says that the religious good deeds like agnihotra which are the duties of the asramas and other religious good deeds like najña, dana, tapas mentioned in Br. Upa.IV.4.22, are not de troyed but become useful to the knower of Brahman in anhieving the goal of the knowledge of Brahman.27 He mcans that (i) the religious good deeds done with the intention of making them a help to the knowledge before and after the abhninmont of knowledge and (i1) also the good deeds done. withont sueh an intention before the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman, which have not begun to give their result, become usefil in achieving Moksa, the goal of the knowledge of Brahman. 'Whatever religious deed is done with the knowledge peculiar to the sacrificc,28 with faith, with the secret meaning of the sacrifice, produces a better, more powerful effect.29 This Srut applies to both (i) the duties of asramas and ( 1i) also the religious deeds other than those duties.80 It also applies, accor- ding to the Sūbrakara, to ( ii ) deeds done before the attainment of the knowledge, with or without the intention of making them a help to that knowledge and which are are rr.

Union with Brahman does not take place before the destruction or rather exhaustion ( ayur ) of those good and bad deeds which have begun to give their fruit ( emaasta) and this destruction is possible only after the knower of Brahman undergoes the experience of their fruit.$1 This means that according to the Sutrakara there is nothing like emancipation-in-this-life. This conclusion follows also from several other views of the Sūtrakara. He says that on the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman

(88) यदेन विद्यया करेति अ्रदधयोपनियदा तवेव वीर्यवत्तरम्। Oba.Upt. (90) r Amn ft Bra.Su.IV.1.18. This u refers to the f mentioned in (88) sbove, (30) it: ris fwlfft : Bra.SB.IV.1.18. Wo have transferred awm: from 17 to or 18. Vide Notes in Part I. (91) भौमेन सिबिनरे अपचिस्या संपयते। Bra. Su.IV.1.19.

GOOD DEEDS WORK WITH M FOR HIE 109

the seeker becomes free from all sins, but not from religious good deeds, the freedom from which is obtained only on the fall of th body.32 According to the Sutrakara the duties of the orders and the other religious duties become help to the knowledge of Brahman in achieving Moksa and should be done even after that knowledge is attained. Moreover, the "union" with Bra- hman which is referred to in Bra.Sü.IV.4.138 takes placc after leaving the body ( utkranti ) and finishing the journey over the Path of gods and is described therefore in Bra.Sū.IV.4.1,84 Makti in this life, if we may say so, consists, according to the Sutrakara, in sinlessness (which does not imply freedom from religious good deeds), which follows the achievement of the knowledge of Brahman. Sankara tres to get his tenet of absolntion-in-this-life ( sa-gfn ) from the Sutras by making unwarranted additions to Sutra IV.1.14 and wrong interpretation of pāte in that Sūtra.35 We may very briefly note here some other points also where Sankaracarya and the Sutrakara hold different views. According to the latter, religious deeds both in the shape of the duties of TTaHs and others become a help to the knowledge,36 but that help is of the nature of co-operation (#.5K) with knowledge so that the religious acts also work for Moksa which is the result of the knowledge. 37 But Sankara holds that the religious acts do not directly become a means to Moksa. 38 Both of them agree as against Jaimini in holding that religious actions cannot,

(32) Vide पाते तु in इतरस्याप्येवमसंक्रेप: पाते तु। Bra.Su.IV.1.14. (38) Vide ava in Bra.ST,IV.4.1. (34) Vide "संपध्" in संपद्ाविर्भावः स्वेन शब्दात्। Bra.Su.IV.4.1. (35) Vide our interpretation of Bra.Su.IV.1.14 in Part I. Note (12) on PP. 336-837. (36) विहिनत्वाच्चाश्रमकर्मापि and सहकारित्वेन च। Bru.SO.III.4.32-38. Also vide Bra.Su.III.4.26-27, Chap. 2 and also their interpretation in Part I. (37) Note महकारतवेन in Bra.Su.III.4.33 and also सहाकार्यन्तरबिधि in Bra.Su. III.4.7. PP. 91-92 of Chapter 2. Vide PP. 336-37 of Part I. (38) Vide Note (28) on P. 274 of Part I.

110 TTHE INDIVIDUAL SOUL, A REAL *

independently of the knowledge of Brahman, achieve Moksa and that knowledge never works subordinately to relgious nets for the said purpose.39 The nature of the co-operation of actions mentioned in Bra.Sū. I1I.4.33 seems to us to be explained by 'tatkaryaya eva' 'for the same effect as that of the konwledge' m Bra.Sü, IV.1.16. Another important relevant question already raised by Sankara in this connectiou is whether according to the Sūtra- kara the individual soul is really an agent or not. The problem is dirpetly dealt with in Bra. Su.II.3 33-40 and as we understand the Sütrakara, he holds the soul to be an agent and the Lord to be the giver of the result of his actian.40 Therefore, whatever information about the nature of the soul's actions we may gather from Bra.Su,IV.1.13-19 is only indirect as compared with the same gathered from Bra.Su.II.3.33-40. We think that the Sutrakara deals with the question of the disposal of the actions of a knower of Brahman on the basis that the soul is a real agent as stated by him in Bra.Su.II.3.33-40. According to the theory of Ignorance, all actions good and bad sbould be destroyed on the rise of tho knowledge of Brahman; but the Sütrakära unlike Sankara holds that only the sins are destroyed by the knowledge of Brahman, while the good deeds continue their contact with the soul after the attainment of the knowledge till the fall of the body.41 Moreover, all bad deeds are not destroyed by the knowledge of Brahman because the aaeara actions cannot be destroyed by that knowledge, but can be e.chausted ouly by the soul experiencing their fruit. The freedom from conctact with the succeeding sins soems to mean that the knower of Brahman does not hence do any sins ( Bra.Sü,- IV.1.13 ); and the freedom from contact with the succeeding and the preceding good deeds (which are not destroyed) does

(30) Vide our inferprefation of eeanr in Bra.Su.III.4.2; PP. 248-244. (10) Vide Appendix on Bra. SO. IT.3. (#1) Boe (22) above.

JET'S INTERPRETATION OF IV.L18-14, NOT TENABLE 111

not mean that the knower gives up doing good deeds but it means that bis good deeds, past and future, instead of giving him the usual fruits of those good deeds in the form of atonement of the sin of omission, the attainment of the heaven, etc , help him for the very aim of the knowledge of Brahman, I. e., for Moksa.42 The fact that the Strakara asks the seeker to do the duties of the orders and also other duties prescribed for the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman in Cha. Upa. II.23.1 and Br. Upa.IV .- 4.22 48 and gives an option regarding other actions only to the ascetic but makes them compulsory for the householder seeker,44 also, proves that he regards the activity of the soul as completely real. In the light of the above information from the Brahma- sūtra, Sankara's explanation of aa 'freedom from contact' as either aarar 'absence of association' or non-recognition of one's being an agent45 and that of 'fama' 'destruction' as 'the burning of the action through the knowledge of the naturally actionless Self'46 and also his addition of "fama" in the same sense to Bra.Su.IV.1.1447 as also his interpretation of "pate tu" in the latter Sutra48 are hardly in accordance with the Sūtrakāra's view. In the case of sins "ara" means that, he does not do them though he is an agent (and, in the light of the Sruti,49 if he does them they do not bind him), and in the case of good deeds "ar*q" means that the natural result of these becomes impossible for him, but instead, they become useful to him for achieving Moksa.50 The Sütrakara does not seem to us to have intended

(42) अभिहोत्नादि तु तत्कार्या यैध नदर्शनात्। Bra.Su.1V.4.16. (43) Vide Notes (41) and (38) in Chapter 2 (44) कृत्सभावा-तु गृहिणोपसेहारः। Bra.Su.ITI.4.48. (45) Vide aiTrer on Bra.Su.IV.1.13. (46) Vide (45) above. (47) Vide Note (I2) on PP.336-837 in Part I. (48) Vide Note (12) on P.337 of Part I (49) यथा पुष्करपलाशे आपो न क्विष्यन्त एवमेवंविदि पार्प कर्ग नक्िष्यते। (Cha, Upa.IV.14.3). (50) Vide (42) above.

11 शङ्कर-TRANSFERENCE OF ज्ञानिन्'s पापपुण्य

a double meaning of Sūtra IV.1.13,51 one applicable to the lower knowledge ("4I or agur faa) and the other to the higher knowledge (परा or निगुणा विद्या) The विनाश of sins takes place by the knowledge of Brahman, but not by mafraife actions in the case of the agur Vidva as Sankara says, or in the ense of the Brahmavidya without any distinction of wl and uI Vidya as a predecessor of Sankara is quoted by the latter to have held.va The विनाश of sins takes place in the case of अनारव्ध कार्य sins: but amHm is the only course for the destruction of the ae mia sins ( and good deeds ). Sankara's explanation of the ar-rarr aotions by the illustrations of the wheel of the potter and the knowledge of two moons and his final argument about the same58 may be taken as explaining his own doctrine, dut the Sütrakara does not say anything like these illustrations, nor does he like to remain quiet on the question. For the above reasons we believe that the Sūtrakara holds the individual soul to be a real agent and that his actions are real. A point of less importance than those discussed by us above is that raised by Sankaracarya's commentary on Bra.Su.IV.1.17. He says that this Sütra discnsses the question of transference of good and bad deeds of the knower of Brahman to his favourites and to those in his disfavour respectively, mentioned in Sratis like Kau.Upa.I.4 (See also Sa.bhd, on Bra.Sū. III.8.26). Sankarācārya bolieves that the Sütrakara admits this thoery of transference in the case of certain good actions ( viz., those other than the compulsory duties of the orders) in Sūtra IV.1.17. To us it wopms that this Sütra has nothing to do with that theory or that Sruti. We believe that "miaia qa" from Sutra 16 is implied in Sütra 17 according to the context and that "ais" in Sütra 17 means that in addition to the duties of the "amra" other religious (51) Vide IE 4154 on Bra.Su.IV.1.19. (s2) See on Bra, Sữ.IV.1.19. (53) Vide arwis on Bra.SB.IV.1.15.

बादरायण-NO TRANSFERENCE OF ज्ञानिन्'S पापपुण्य 113

duties like sacrifice, donation, penance, mentioned in Br. Upa. IV.4 22 also become useful to the seeker in achieving liberation. According to the Sutrakara the past sins are destroyed by the knowledge of Brahman and the past good deeds, both those of orders and others, done for the purpose of helping the knowledge of Brahman or not, are transformed into acts helping the know- ledge of Brahman. The knowledge of Brahman destroys the past sins and transforms the past good deeds done even without an intention of nsing them for the achievement of absolution into good deeds done with such an intention. Thus, the Sūtra- kära does not believe in the transference of the sins and good deeds to the haters and the well-wishers of the knower of Brahman. The Sutrakara either rejects the Sruti about the transference or would interpret it ( Kau. Upa.I.4 ) in a secondary way.

CHAPTER 4

DEPARTURE OF THE SEEKER

FROM THE BODY.

"The knower of Brabman exhausts hi- mo aras by experi- encing their result and then he unites ("aqaa"). This is the last Sütra of Bra.Su.IV.1 and it is immediately followed by a Sūtra about the wnion ( auf) of the sense of speech with the mind (Bra.gu.IV.2.1), which undoubtedly discusses the Sruti: alra पुकषस्य प्रयतो वाडू मनमि संपद्यते मनः प्राणे प्राणस्तेजसि तेजः परस्यां देवतायाम् (ha.Upa. VI.15.9). This Sruti is immediately preceded by the Sruti: ae तावदेव चिरं यावन विमोक्ष्येऽ्य संपत्स्ये (Cha. Upa. VI.14.2), and this Srut is suid to be the fqgaira of the Sutra which immediately precedes Bra.Su.IV.2.1. Thus, both the Srutis which form the faraas and both the Sutras which discuss them ( Bra.Su,IV.1.19 and IV.2.1 ) seem to use or imply 'avaa' 'unites', in the sense of the union of the senses with the mind, etc., etc. The first Pada of of the fourth Adhyaya ends with the description of the iay 'exhaustion of the actions' of the knower of Brahman and the scoond Pada deals with the next stage, viz., the departure of the subtle body and the soul of the knower of Brahman from the gross body. If, संपदते (unites) in Bra.Su.IV.1.19 meant "ब्रह्म संपद्यते" (unites with Brahman), that Pada should have immediately been followed by the fourth Pada which begins with संपद्याविर्भाव: स्वेन शब्दातू ('Atter union with Brahman the real nature of the released soul becomes manifest, because of the word '(a9" - Bra.Su.IV.4.1). Bnt this is not the case. Moreover, Bra.Sū.IV.1.19 does not contain a reference to any Sruti. Thus, there seems to be & olose connection of 'evad' in Sutra IV.1.19 with 'anaa' implied in Br.So.IV.2.1. So, according to the Sūtrakara, it seems that the departure from the body dealt with in Bra.Su.lV.2 and the journey on the Path of the gods dealt with in Bra.Su.IV.3 are

शङ्कर'S VIEW ON उत्क्रान्ति IN ब्र. सू IV. 2 115

to be taken as two steps intervening between aa 'the exhaustion of actions', and saeuf 'the union with the Supreme Light.'

For the above reasons, the distinction which Sańkara makes between Bra.Su IV.1.13-19 which according to him deal with the Esoteric Lore and Bra.Su.IV.2.1-11 which he interprets as describing the Ignorance and the Exoteric Lore does not seem to us to have been meant by the Sūtrakara. The departure of the subtle body and the soul ( senra ) from the gross body takes place in the case of both the knower of Brahman and the non-knower ( aanafae - Bra.Su.III.1.7). The latter is described in Bra.Su.III.1 and the former in Bra.Su.IV.2.

Sankara and Ramanuja believe that the saifa described in Bra.Su.IV.2 is the departure of the ignorant and also the one who knows Brahman.

That the departure described in Bra.Su.III.1.1-7 is that of one who does not know the Atman is clear from the fact that the Sutrakara interprets gEffeIf 'the performer of sacrifices and works of public charity' in the sense of 'one who does not know Atman'.1 In the first five Sutras of Bra.Su.III.1 it has been established that there is a subtle body2 and that it accompanies the soul who does not know the Atman (Bra.Su.III.1.1,3,4) to the next world. In the case of his senfa the subtle elements, the senses and the breath along with the soul leave the gross body but there is no process of the orderly union ( aiqfa) of these with one another as in the case of the follower of the Path of the gods (Bra.Su.IV.2.1-6). On the end of the religious merit the अनात्मविद् returns to this world with 'अनुशय', such is not the case with the soul on the Path of gods, though tho latter may

(1) अश्रुनत्वादिति चेन्रेष्टादिकारियां प्रतीनेः। भारक वानात्मनित्वात्तया हि दर्शनति।

(2) (Bra.Sū III.1.6-7). ्यात्मकत्वात् तु भूयस्त्वात्। प्राणगतेश्ष। (Bra.Su.III.1.2-3). (3) कृतात्ययेऽनुशयवान् दृष्टस्सृतिभ्यां यथेतमनेवं च। (Bra.SU.III.1.8), The Commentatora explain 'aaT4' as 'residue of religious actions' but should the word not have its usual sense of 'repentenco' ?

116 BADARAYANA'S VIEW; उत्क्रान्ति OF ज्ञानिन् DIFFERS

have to return again and again to this world for further knowledge till he gets immortality.4 In the case of the akufeq the retumn journey is not exactly like bis outward journey to 'heaven',5 while the follower of the Path of gods seems to return from his place in the same way in which he went there. The aarufaa on his way back to this world resorts to nce, barley, hurbs, etc., which are already occupied by other souls, but though the seeker of Brahman returns till he perfects himself and gets immortality, he is not said to resort to rice, eto., like the iHfae.

The seeker on the Path of gods is different from an amenfas; he is on the Path of the knowledge of Atman. His departure from the body is an orderly phenomenon. In his case the sonses of knowledge unite with the mind and the sense of speech is the laste one to do so; so that all the other senses unite with the mind before the sense of speech. The mind unites with the breath, the breath with the soul, and this last with the subtle elements. This regular order of the uniting agents forming the subtle body is absent in the departure of the ermefae. This process of union upto that of the soul with the subtle elements takes place from the time that one resorts to the Path of gods and also after the attainment of immortality.8 But there is a

(4) CE. अमृतत्वमनुपोध्य in समाना चासृत्युपक्रमादमृतत्वं चानुपीष्य। (Bra.SU.IV.2.7). A is the aamanr. Attainment of absointe Immortality is the highest stage or step of the 44Imri. (5) कृतासये ऽनृशयवान् हष्टस्पृतिस्या यथेतमनेवं च। (Bra.Su.TTI.1.8). (6) वाच्नस दशनाच्छन्दान। अस एत सर्वाण्यनु। (Bra.Su.IV.2.1-2). (7) Ct. wrerama in Bra.SO.IV.2.7. (४) Ci. असूनत् नानुपोष् in Bra.Su.IV.2.7. The arguments proving the departure also after the attainment are given in Bra-Su.IV.2.8.14 and these Sitras together with Sitra IV.2.7 form one Adhikarans, They are as follows :- (1) The union of the senses, the mind, ate. which takes place after one begins the Path of gods till after the attain- tnont of immortality is called "Aetr"; (2) the sanses, the mind, the breath, the soul, the subtle elements form the subtle body which is not destroyed by the destruction of tho gross body and to which the animal heat belongs; (3) the negation ( afriw inme mnr somen ) is the denial of the departure of the grs from the soul; (4) the Bmfti also supports the departure.

NATURE OF ज्ञानिन्'S उत्कान्ति 117

further step in the union (eivia), which takes place only when the soul finally departs from the body for the attainment of immortality, viz., the union of the elements (with which the soul has united) with the Supreme Being in the heart (Bra. Su.IV.2 15). After this last step in the union the soul belped by the Para in the heart, comes out of the gross body through the hundred and first artery and is carried by the rays of the Sun, etc, to the Supreme One (Bra.Sū.IV.2.17-18) Thus, in the process of the departure (seiea) of the soul who takes to the Path of gods leading ultimately to the knowledge of Brahman, we may distinguish between two stages of develop- ment : (1) the first which begins after the soul gives up the Path of the Pitrs and resorts to the Path of gods and which lasts till the soul has not attained immortality, and the second stage when the seeker ultimately departs from the gross body to join the rays of the Sun, etc., and immediately attains immortality. The former is dealt with in Bra.Su.IV.2.1-6 and the latter in Bra.Su.IV.2.15-21, while the Sutras IV.2.7-14 deal with the refutatfon of the view that in the case of one who attains immortality the senses and the breath do not depart from the gross body. Having thus briefly stated conclusions arrived at by our way of interpreting Bra.Sü.IV. 2 we may be allowed to say a few words as to where and why we differ from S'ankara's doctrine as based upon his interpretation of the same. The first important point of difference is that regarding the distinction which Sankara makes in this Pada among the Sutras, viz., 1. those which deal with one who does not know Atman, 2. those which treat of one who follows the Exoteric Lore and 3. those which deal with one who has possessed the Esoteric Lore. According to Sańkara ;- 1. Sütras 1-6 deal with the 3rsnna which is common to botb the ignorant and the knower of the lower Vidya.9

Bra.Sū.IV.1.7. (9) समाना चैपोत्कान्तिवाखनसीत्यायया विद्वदविदुषो रासत्युपक्रमान्भवितुमइनि। Sa.bhaSya on

118 शङ्कर'S VIEW : अविद्या, अपरा विद्या AND परा विद्या IN IV. 2

(2) Sütras 8-11 state that the union of the subtle elements with the Supreme One is only partial, not complete. (8) Sutras 12-14 state and refute the Opponent's view that the senses and the breath of the knower of absolute Brahman depart from the gross body, the Pürvapaksa being given in Sūtra 12, and the Siddhanta in Sūtras 18-14.

(4) Sütr 15 says that the senses, etc. of the knower of abso- lute Brahman dissolve (staFa) in the Supreme Being. (5) Sütra 16 says that this dissolution is absolute, not partial as in the case of one who is ignorant and one who has pursned the Apara Vidyā (Contrast Sūtras 1-7). (6) Sütras 12-16 give a digression about the Para Vidya; but Sütra 17 rebegins the topic of the Apara Vidya and the same is continued till the end of the Pada (Sūtras 17-21). Thus, according to Sankara, the whole Pada mainly deals with the Apara Vidya, Sutras 1-11 dealing with what is common to the Apara Vidya and Avidya, Sūtras 12-16 with the Para Vidyā by way of a digression and Sutras 17-21 resuming the topic of the Aparā Vidyā, We have already stated above that Sutra IV.1.19 (#a faat arufrea Aqaa ) is to be conneoted with Sutra IV.4.1. ( averfaarfa: ) only through Bra.Su.IV.2 and 3 which describe the intermediate stages of gradual orderly departure ( 3(ifa ) and the journey on the Path of gods which leads to "aadufa" immediately followed by the Makti10 The Second Pada of Adhyaya IV discusses the union ( daftr) taking place during the srnfa, viz., the one mentioned in Sutra IV.1.19,11 in Cha. Upa. VI.14.212 and in Cha. Upa. VI.1518 which is referred to in Sutra IV.2.1-15. Thus, the first Sūtra of Adhyaya IV.2 continues the topic of the last Sütra (10) prmaa! (Bra.Su.IV.4.9), (i1) भोपेन सिवितरे क्षपायेत्या संपदयते। Bra.So.TV.1.19. (12) तब् नायनेव चिर भावश विमोक्षेथ संपत्सये। ChaUpa. VI.14.2. (15) नमय वावत बाबनास्षि संपचते मनः पणे प्राणस्तेजासि तेजः परस्ां देवतायां तावज्जानाति।

SECOND AND THIRD POINTS OF ET 119

of Adhyaya IV.1 and, therefore it is not true to say that Sutra IV.1.19 deals with the Para Vidya and Sutra IV.2.1 with the AparaVidya. It may be also added here that Bra.Su.IV.4.1 deals with the em which takes place at the end of the journey on the Path of gods, and which is mentioned in Cha. Upa. VIII. 12.14 The departure from the body ( adia agena ) referred to in this Cha. Upa. Sruti is described in Bra.Su.IV.2. Thus it is not the Aparā Vidya, but the only Vidyā, as the Sūtrakāra has understood it, that is dealt with in Bra.Su.IV.2, though this latter may bo regarded as the Apara Vidya according to Sankara's System, independently of the Upanisads and the Brahmasutra. Secondly, the view of Sankara and Ramanuja that the senea described.in Bra.Su.IV.2 is common to the sage and to the igno- rant is also wrong. We have already shown that there is a marked difference between the departure of the ararenfag which is desoribed in Bra.Su.III.1.1-7 and that of the anenfas described in Bra.Sū. IV.2, Sankara's statement is based upon a wrong interpretation of 'am' and 'aeran' in Bra. Su. IV.2.7,15 which only says that the 'eifa' described so far is the same from the time that one begins the Path of gods and until the attainment of immortality; and, thus, it does not at all refer to the ignorant. Sankara's other statement that the Pada distinguishes between the Apara Vidya and the Para Vidya is founded upon a wrong interpretation of Bra.Sü.IV.2.12-16. We have shown in our Interpretation (Part I, PP. ) that Sutras 8-14 are closely conne- cted wito Sutra 7 and that all of them jointly make an Adhi- karana establishing that the subtle body by its very nature must leave the gross body along with the soul when the latter attains immortality, because otherwise it cannot be destroyed or dis- solved (since it cannot be destroyed by the destruction of the gross body),16 and because the mus of the knower of Brahman

(14) एत्रमे वैष संप्रसादो इसाच्छररिात्ससुत्थाय पर ज्योतिरुपसंपध्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पयते। (15) समाना चासतत्युपक्रमादमृतदवं वानुपोष्य। (Bra.Su.IV.2.7). (16) नापमर्देनात: । Bra.Su.IV.2.10.

120 FOURTH POINT OF UE

do not depart from the soul but they depart from the body along with the soul of the sage knowing Brahman.17 Another argument of Sankara that Sutras 15-16 deal with the Para Vidya of his School is also wrong because Sutra 15 deals with the union of the elements (Sutras 5-6) with the Para in the heart18 and the same topie is further continued in Sutra IV.2.17. The Sruti mentioned by Sankara under Sūtra TV.2.15 refers to the gross body from which the subtle body is distinguished in Sutras IV 2.8-11. The afer in Sutra 16 is not the absolute dissolution of the subtle body of the knower of Brahman but.it explains the meaning of the dum in Cha. Upa. VI.15.2.19 This also shows that Sankara is not justified in interpreting arg as the function of speech instead of the sense of speech itself, a4 as the function of the mind instead of the mind itself. In fact, all the senses, the breath, the soul and the subtle elements unite together and depart from the body through the hundred-and-first artery and at the end of the journey of the Path of gods (?a3) unite with the Supreme Light.20 Therefore, the Sūtrakāra does not seem to us to men- tion the difference between the Para and the Apara Vidyas of Sańkara. To sum up the above points briefly :- (1) The last Sutra of the first Pada of the fourth Adhyaya is closely connected with the first Sūtra of the second Pada of the same Adhyaya. Ths, both the Padas describe what the Sūtrakāra understands to be the Vidyā, there being no distinction of the Apara Vidya and the Para Vidya in his System. (2) A kind of samfa takes place in the case of both the Atmavid and the Anatmavid. The former again is twofold so

(17) This is tho sonse of प्रतिषेधाविति पेन्र शारीरात्। स्पष्टो हेकेषाम्।(Bra.Su.IV.2 12-18. Since 7 ar4 mn aomafen the ambiguous reading in the aiva recen- sion is, sceording to the Sitrakara, to be interpreted in the light of ' atesmen zaai' the clear reading of the arener recension. (1s) CL A7 ucet aarmnr in Oha. Upa. VI.15.2. (19)" बाचनसि संपयने मनः प्राणे प्राणस्तमसि तेजः पररयां देवतायास्। (20) Bra.Su. IV. 4.1. doe(efa: !

SUMMARY 121

far as there is one more step in the union (sampatti) after one reaches a stage when immortality is to be immediately attained, than before that stage. The departure of the Anatmavid is desoribed in Bra.Su.III.1 and that of the seeker on the Path of gods before and after the immediate attainment of immorta- lity is described in Bra. Su.IV.2. Thus, Bra.Su.IV.2 does not describe the 3cifa of the Anatmavid. (3) Sutras IV.2.7-14 say nothing about the Anatmavid and show that there is dopiea of the knower of Brahman. Sutras 12-14 pertain to the Vidya as the Sūtrakara understands it, not to the Parā Vidyā of Sankara. (4) The departure of the ignorant is different from that of the sage who knows Atman. (5) The gross body of the knower of Brahman as well as that of the ignorant returns to nature, but the subtle body of both accompanies them. The latter is destroyed only in the forner case after the knower of Brahman reaches his goal at the end of his journey on the Devayana. (6) The union (#uf) of the senses, the mind, the breath, the soul, the subtle elements, including the dnfm of the subtle elements with the Supreme One in the heart is of the nature of 'non-separation' (or ergana as Ramanuja says). It is not the duf of the ains or functions of the senses, etc., nor is the qufa "absolute merging". (7) The one who leaves the body through the hundred-and- first artery is the knower of Brahman, not a follower of the Aparā Vidyā. (8) In Bra.Sü.IV.2.18-21 the Sutrakara criticises a Smrti view like that of the Bhagavadgita VIII.23-27. He understands that Smrti as referring to "yogins who know Brahman," not to the followers of सांख्य (Bha.Gi. VIII.24) and निष्कामकर्मयोग (Bha, GI.VIII.25) as understood by Sankaracarya. (20) संपद्याविर्भावः स्वेन शब्दातू।Bra.Su,IV.4.1. I6

CHAPTER 5.

JOURNEY OF THE BRAHMAJNANIN ON THE DEVAYANA PATH

The journoy of the knower of Brahman on the Path of gods is the subjeet of Bra.S.IV.8. On departingl from the gross body the knower of Brahman begins the journey at the end of which ho reaches Brahman4. On leaving the body the knower of Brahman follows the rays of the Sun. These rays are the first station on the Path of gods.$ Among the S'rutis which describe the Path of gods by which the knower of Brabman starts on his 'journey to Brahman' 5 the Srutis beginning with the rays6 are very well known. To the Arcis (enfin) and other stations mentioned in this list we are to add two, viz., (1) Vayu,7 and (2) Varuna.8 The former is to be inserted between Samvatsara and Aditya and the latter (Varuna) is to be added to the Lightning.9 Thus, we

(1) This departure (saifa) is dealt with in Bra.Su.IV.2. (2) संपय in संपद्याविर्भावः। (Bra.Su.IV.4.1) means "having reached Brahman." (3) रध्म्यनुसारी। (Bra.Sū.IV.2.18) (4) Cf. आदि in अनिगठिना नत्प्रथिने:। (Bra.Su.IV.3.1), (5) (a) अथ गदु नवास्मिच्छव्यं कुर्वन्ति यदि च नाचिपमेवाभि संभतन्त्य चिर्घोडहरहनआपूर्यमाणपक्ष- मापूर्य माणपक्षाधा. पजुद हुद्रति मामाभूरतान्मा सेभ्य संवन्सर.(Cha.Upa.IV.15.5). (h) तघ इत्थे विदु: ये चे मऽरण्ये श्रद्धा तप इत्सुगासते तेSचिपमभिमभवन्त्यर्चिपोडहरह आपूर्यमाणपक्ष मापूर्य माणपक्षायान्पबुदडूडे निमाला इरानू ।।१।। गामेभ्यः संवत्मर (Cha. Up.V.10.1-2) मं व रसुगदारित्य मानितयाचन्द्रमस चन्द्रममो विद्युनं तत्पुरुषोडमानवः स एनान्व्र गमयत्येप देवयान uat: (Cha, Upa. V.10.1-2). (o) वदा मे पूरुषोडस्मालोकातौैति म वायुमागच्छति।(Br. Upa.V.10.1.) (d) ये गमी अपये श्रद्धा सत्यमुपासतेतेचिपभिमं भवन्ति। अर्विपोड :...... (Br.Upa.VI.2.15). (e) म मनं देवमान पन्यानमापचासिलोकमागचछति स वायुलोकं स वरुण लेोकम् ...... Kan.Upa.1.8. (6) Vide (a), (b) and (a) of (5) above respectively for (Cha.Upa.IV.15.5-1), (CLs. Upa.V 10.1-2), and (Br. Upa. VI.2.15.) (र) (Br. UpaV.10) वदा मे पुरुषोडस्मालोकात्मेति स वायुमागच्छति। (8f (Kaa. Upa.1.3). स देवयानं पन्धानमासाय्याग्नि लोकमागच्छति-। (9) (Bra.sa.1V.3 2-3). -नायुगन्वादविशेषविशेषाभ्याम्। and तडितोऽघि वरुणः संबन्धात्।

DEVALOKA, INDRALOKA, PRAJAPATILOAKA ? 123

get the following list :-- (1) the Rays (afse ), (2) the Day, (8) the Bright Half of the Month, (4) the Six Months of the Sun's . Northern Course, (5) the Year, (6) the Wind, (7) the Sun, (8) the Moon; (9) the Lightning, (10) the Varuna and (11) 'Brahman' (neu.) which may be called 'ब्रह्मलाक'.

Sankara has suggested that to those we should add three more viz., (1) the world of gods (aamia) after the Year and before the world of the Wind,10 and (2-3) (the world of) the Indra and (tbe world of) the Prajapati after (that of) the Varuna (and before Brahman or i).11 We believe that the Sutrakara him- self notices those worlds which he wanted to add to the well- known Chandogya Sruti. Thus, he adds two only. This would suggest that he does not agree to take other stations mentioned in other Srutis. In Br.Upa.III.6.1 we have अन्तरिक्ष लोक, गान्धर्व लोक and is which are not mentioned in the Sruti beginning the Path of gods with Rays; and the Sūtrakara does not make men- tion of them at all, just as we find no Sutra about 'the Indra' and 'the Prajapati' after Sutra IV.3.3. "The Indra" and Prajā- pati" are found mentioned in the same Br.Upa. Passage and in Kau. Upa.1.3. We suggest that the Sutrakara identifies these three worlds (Devaloka, Indraloka and Prajapatiloka with one or the other of the worlds mentioned in the aekif Sruti of the Cha. Upa. He may have identified the Devaloka with the world of the Moon12 or he may have dropped it altogether thinking that the knower of Brahman need not go to the world of gods or that the whole path being a path of gods there was no particular world to be specially called "देवलोक." As regards "Indra," he seems to have altogether dropped it also for similar reasons. But with respect to the Prajapatiloka the controvercy between Badari, Jamini and Badarayana seems to us to show

(10) Vide S'a. bhașya on BM.SŪ.IV.8.2. (11) Vide S'a, bhyāsa on Bra. Sū, IV.8.3. (12) Cf. एष भोमो राजा तद्दवानामन्न तं देवा भक्षयन्ति। (Cha.Upa.V.10.4),

124 RAYS, ETC. ARE CONDUCTORS

that he neither drops it altogether nor does he accept it as a drs or a world in the usual sense.13 Several other Srutis14 mention worlds like पितृलोक, etc. Sankara himself identifies अझिलोक in Kau. Upa.1.3. with snfa.15 For these reasons we think, the suggestion of Sankara to include the देवलोक, the इन्द्रलोक and the प्रजापतिलोक in the list of stations on the Path of gods is not in agreement witb the view of these Sūtras. We have so far used the word 'station' for the Rays, ctc. above. But it is nof the exact meaning of these words Nor is the word 'at' literally apphcable to them, though the Srutis uso the uxprossions आदित्यलोक, वायुलोक, and वहुणलोक10 The Sutrakara has nlready stated17 that the Rays, the Six Months, etc. have noth" ing to do with the different periods of time so far as the Srauta Path of gods was concerned. The Sutrakara makes this point clearer and says that the Rays, the Day, etc. are conductors (maif:) because a Sruti states that the Rays of tbe Sun act as conductors,19 and because if we take the Rays, etc. as periods of time or even as time deities or worlds of enjoyment, they and also the knowers of Brahman would be thrown into bewilder- ment (there being none to guide either of them).20 Thus, we conclude that the Rays, etc. are conductors of the knower of Brahman. Each one of the Rays, the Day, etc. is a conductor. Ont of all these conductors, it is the conductor "of the world of the Lightning" who takes the knower of Brahman from that world to his destination. The Sruti tells us that 'a superhuman conductor21 in the world of the Lightning leads the knower of Brabman to Brabman.' Thus, one and the same conductor

(13) Vide (40) infra. (11) E. g., Br. Upu.1.5.16 and Tai. Upa.II.8. (15) Vide S'a, bhasya on Bra.Su.JV.3.2. (16) In Kau. Upa.I.3. (17) In Bra-So. IV.2.10-21. (19) fafewerSaa1 Bra.Sü.IV.8 4. (20) nina: Bra.Su.IV.3.6. (21) ChÃ, Uph.IV.15,5-6 and V.10.2.

HOW FAR CAN THE CONDUCTOR LEAD THE IA ? 125

from the world of the Lightning carries them up to their destination.22 The last topic in Bra.Su.IV.3.7-16 is "Where does the condu- ctor take knowers of Brahman ? " The Srutis beginning with the Rays say that the conductor leads them to Brahman or to ae, 28 What is exactly the meaning of 'aa' or 'saris'? Sutras IV.3.7-16 deal with this question though Sutras 15-16 refer to a different topic according to Sankara. In these Sutras threo different views about the destination of the Brahmajñanin's journey are given, viz., those of Badari, Jaimini and Badarayaņa. The problem of this destination is discussed on the ground of the lnitation of the capacity of the conductor to lead the knower of Brahman. "How far can the conductor go " ? Badari holds that the conductor can go only upto a world which is an effect of Brahman. He cannot go beyond it. Therefore, the knower of Brahman can be carried by the conductor only upto a world which is an effect. 24 Br. Upa.III.6.1 and Kau. Upa.I.3 distinguish between this effect-world and the cause or the Para, though this distinction is not found in the Cha. Upanisad.25 The Br. Upa. Sruti distinguishes the Effect (कार्य) as प्रजापतिलोका: and the Para as Brahmalokah which it calls अनतिप्रशन्या देवता "the Deity beyond which no question should be raised." Similarly, the Kau. Upa, Sruti distinguishes between the same under the same names of Prajapatiloka and Brahmaloka. 20 On the ground of this disti- nction, Badari argues that the conductor leads the knower of Brahman only up to the Effect (Bra.Su,IV.3.8), though this (22) वधुतनेय ततस्तच्छनेः । Bra.Su.IV.3.6. (23) स पतान ब्रह्म गमयनि (Cha, Upa. [V.15,5,) and बह्मलोकान् गमयति। (BrUpa- VI.2 15). (24) कार्य बादरिरस्य गत्युपपर:।(Bra.Su.IV.3.7). "अस्य" means of this conduotor, not 'aary' as Sankara says, and "nfa" means "going", not 59al. (25) विशेपितत्वाच्च। (Bra.Su,IV.3,8). (26) (8) कस्मिन्नु खलु प्रजापतिलोका ओताश्च प्रोनाश्षति ब्रह्मलोकेषु गागीति कस्मिन्तु खद् ब्रह्मलोंका ओताश्च प्रोताश्रेति स होवाच गार्गि मातिप्राक्षीमां ते मूर्धा व्यपप्तवनतिप न्या वे देवनामार्तवृष्छ T T ...... I (Br. Upa. III.6.1). (b) स पतं देवयानं पन्थानमासाद्य ...... स प्रजापतिलोकं स म्रह्मलाकं ...... ।(Kau.Upa.I8),

126 BADARI-"UPTO KARYA". JAIMINI-"UPTO PARA"

distinction is not found in the afaufa Sruti, e. g., Cha, Upa.IV. 15.5. If it be asked, 'How would you explain the Chã. Upa. Sruti ?", Badari replies, " It does not mean that the conductor leads the knower of Brahman upto the Para, but in that Sruti the Prajapatiloka is meant by ( the Para ) Brahman, because the former is spatially very near the latter, just as according to the Sutrakara this world is very remote from Brahman.27 An express statement like the one found in Mu.Upa.III.2.6 shows that the knowers of Brahman (whom the conductor carries upto the suufdars) go further than that in company of the governor of that loka' when that loka comes to an end.28 And there is a Smrti text, viz., "All of them who have achieved the aim of their life enter the Supreme Abode in company of Brahman (Hiranyagarbha) at the end of the Para when the dissolution of the Unverse is at hand.29 Thus, mn addition to the three argu- ments, viz., (1) the capacity of the conductor to go upto the Karya, (2) the mention of the distinction between the Kārya and the Para in some Srutis, and (3) the explanation of the word 'Brahman' occurring in the Cha. Upa.Sruti as Karyaloka (Bra.Su.IV.8.7-9), Sruti and Smrti can be quoted in support of the view that the conductor leads the knower of Brahman upto the Karya, the Prajapatiloka (Bra.Sū. IV.3.10-11). Jaimini holds that the conductor leads the knower of Brahman upto the Para, because the Para is the chief aspect of Brahman,30

(27) सार्माणगाजु नडमपदेश: (Bra.Su.IV.3.9). "सामप्यात्" 'spatially near.' Cf. असभ्निष्टिमत्वात् "very romote" in जगद्यापारवजे प्रकरणादसांनिहितत्वाच्च। (Bra.Su.IV.4.17) (28) कार्यात्यये मवध्यक्षेण सहातः परमभिधानात्। (Bra.Su.IV.3.10). This Sutra seoms to us to refer to

से अम्लाकेषु परानकाले परामृन।: परिमुच्यन्नि सर्दे॥Mu.Upa.III.2,6. ")n." are beyond 'sonyfaera:' according to Br. Upa. (99) Vide S'e. bhasya on Bra.Sū.IV.8.11, (8o) The word 'ges' in the Sutra stands for 'quja' in Sutras III.2.11, and [II.3.12. and alao in SO.III.8.43, where we have proposed to read sar in place of the traditional reading FrM. Vide our Notes on these Sutras.

RADARAYANA-CONDUOTOR LEADS 127

but the Karya is not the chief aspect,31 and because Srutis32 show that he reaches the Para.83 Moreover, it is not that the knower of Brahman has simply aimed at knowing (and reach- ing) the Kārya.84 Badarayana, however, believes that the conductor leads only those meditators on Brahman, who do not resort to the Symbol 'Om' for their meditation on Brahman.$5 In the case of the meditators who resort to the Symbol 'Om'; there is no need of a conductor because they are carried to their destination by the Samans.6 Now, according to Badarayana the aspirants who meditate on Brahman without resorting to its Symbol are of two types; (1) those who meditate on the Pradhana or the formless ( ersqaa aspect of ) Brahman, and those who meditate on the Purușa ( the $4aa aspect ).37 Therefore, there is no conflict in both the cases, i. e., beetween the view of Badari and that of Jaimini.38 And, again, either type of meditators has made a specific thought that 'he is going to be born unto that Brahman after having departed from this world', as stated in Cha, Upa. III.14.4.39 While accepting the views of both Badari and

(31) परं जैमिनि सुख्यत्वात्।(Bra.Su.IV.3.12). (82) E. g. ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्। (Tai.Upa.II.1). (33) ( Bra.Su.IV.3.13. ) दर्शनाच्। (84) न न कार्ये प्रतिपत्त्थभिसंधि. ।(Bra.Su.IV.3.14.)

(36) यःपुनरेतत् त्रिमात्रेणोमित्ये तेनैवाक्षरेण परं पुरुषमभिध्यायीत स नेजास सूर्ये संपन्नः।।यथा पानीर- स्त्वचा विनिर्मुज्यते एवं ह वै स पाप्मना विनिर्मुक्त स सामभिरुन्नीयते महालोकम्। ( Pra.Upa.V.5), It is interesting to note how the Sruti ( स एनान् ब्रह्म गमयति) is interproted by Badari, Jaimini and Badarayana. Badari emphasises the fact that it is the Conductor who leads the knower of Brahman ( and, therefore, he can lead them upto the Karya ), Jaimini emphasises that it is "Brahman" the Para to which the conductor leads and, lastly, Badarayann stresses the fact that "एनान्" means " अप्रतीकालम्बनान्." (87) Vide Chapter 1 and our Notes on Bra.Su,III.2.14 for these two aspocts, as tanght by the Sutrakara. (88)asa " in Sutra IV.3.15. Vide Note (35) above. (89) "एनमिन: प्रेत्याभिसंभविताऽस्मि।"

128 BADARI, JATMINI, BADARAYANA

Jaimini, the Sutrakara explains what he thinks to be the exact difference between the two aspects of Brahman because it is on this point that he does not fully agree with either Badari or Jaimini. For proving this difference he appears to depend upon Pra.Upa.V.2-5 to which he seems to refer in Bra.Sa.IV.3.16. We have shown that the Sutrakara's interpretation of this Sruti is given by him in Bra.Su,I.3.13 and it is further discussed by him in Bra.Su.JTI.3.39.40 In the light of these Sutras, the Sntrakara understands a9 and 4 in Pra. Upa. V.5 as two aspects of Brahinan, which are identical. (Bra.Su.J.3.13), but which may be understood as separate according to the seeker's wish (Bra.Su. III.3.89).41 This alternate optional identity and a differentiation botween there two aspects of Brahman suggest to us the opinion of the Sutrakara about the distinction between them. He believes that the two are not numerically two, though they are not necessarily one and the same; at least for the purpose of meditation they need not be regarded as identi- cal. Now, in so far as the two are different, both Badari and Jaimini are correct and acceptable to the Sūtrakära because the conductor is required to take both the types of meditafors of Bsahman to their Destination (the particular aspect of the Para) and insofar as the two are identical, Bādarāyana modifies the view of Badari and Jaimni regarding what these latter call the difference of siå and yr because Badarayana takes both the the aspects as aspects of the Para only, of the Cause only, and therefore, nothing less than the Cause Itself. Now, we shall give further arguments in support of what we have suid above regarding the main point on which Bādarāyana difers from Badari and Jaimini, viz., the nature ef the kārya or the Prajapatiloka. According to Badarayana the world of (40) Vide our Notes on Bra.Su.III.8.89. (41) The SUtrakara takes afiqan as the Pradhana or the arlpavat aspect of Brahman and the Purusa ( in जीवधनासपरात पर पुरिशयंपुरुषमीक्षते। Pra Upa.V.6) as the :#paunt aspect. The same may be raspectively called the para and the apara aspecte also.

BADARI, JAIMINI, BADARAYANA 129

Brabman (masc.) or Prajāpatı is not a Kārya, but it is only a personal or aqad ( or draR ) aspect of the Para, the other aspect of which is the अरूपवत् (or निराकार) one. Jaimini and Badari distinguished these two eIaR and fuimr aspects respectively as Karya and Para which may be called Kāraņa, but Bādarāyaņa takes both of them as Karana-aspects, Je., as two aspects of the Para Itself. It is in agreement with this that he drops the mention of the Prajapatiloka i his list of the stations on the Path of gods (Bra. Su.IV.3.8). That he would not admit it as a loka at all, is clear from the fact that he denies that the Purusa aspect of the Para is "subject to the fault of being regarded as a loha" (Fufd), though there is something common between the Purușa aspect (the Prajapatiloka ) and an ordinary loka. 42 Moreover, this #IFR aspect in his School is on an equal level with the ATImIT aspect, both being equally powerful means for the direct attainment of absolute liberation, so much so that an option of choice between the two is given to the seeker in Bra. Sü.III.3.11-54.43 The two are only two different names of the Para and the difference in the method of meditation on the two is due to those names.44 The difference between these asaa aud «vaa aspects is not more than that between the serpent and" the coil of a serpent.45 Badarayana would, therefore, not regard the Purusa aspect which may be called Brahman (mase.) or Prajapati aspect as a loka or Karya of Brahman. For this reason, it may be here pointed out that Sankara's suggention

(42) न गामान्वादप्युपलब्धे सृत्युवन्नहि लोकापतिः। (Bra Su.1II.3.51). Vide onr inter- pretation of that Sutra. (48) CI. छन्दतः उभयाविरोधात।(Bra.Si.III.3.28) and गनेग्थवस्त्रमुभययाइन्यथादि R: t (Bra Su.III.3 29). (44) Cf. संज्ञानश्चेत्तदुक्तमस्नि तु नदपि। (Bra.Su.III.3.8) and स्वाभिदादन्यनमे। (Bra.Su.III.3.10). (45) उभयव्यमदेशान्वाहिकुण्डलवस्। (Bra.Su.III 2.27) which is referred to in ST.ITI.3.8. 17

130 प्रजापतिलोक Ol पुरुष IS ALSO THE PARA

to add "Prajapati-loka" after Varuna and Indra46 does not appear to be consistent with the Sūtrakara's riew about it.

As a result of this difference between theso three thinkers, we find that Badari and Jaimini quote or refer to Srutis like Br. Upa.III.6.1 and Kau.Upa.I.3 in order to prove their view * about the difference between the Karya and the Para (Bra. Su, IV 3.8) and Badari even explains the Cha, Upa.Sruti beginn- ing with the rays (arcih), by giving a secondary sense to the word Brahman m Cha. Upa.IV.15.6 and V.10.2. Badan bad the real support of Br. Upa.III.6.1 which places Brahmaloka47 higher than the Prajapatiloka and says that the former is the 'anuaa an'. This phraseology seems to have mnduced Badari and aimini to interpret the difference between the Kärya and the Para in their own way. But, Bādarāyaņa, who mainly depends upon Cha. Upa.and other afauie Srutis and also upon many other similar Srutis like Pra. Upa.V.2-5 ( Sūtra IV.3.16) and Katha Upa.III.10-11 does not accept their view but says that bothi of them are really the aspects of the Para Itself. And he further says that because w the Para has these two aspects, the Destination to which the conductors carry the knowers of either aspect is nothing less than Brahman Itself, which is both fum and aiit in all the states (Bra.Su,III.2.11). For this reason, he accepts the view of Iith Badari and Jaimini inasmuch as the conduetor is required to conduet such knowers of Brahman, but he corrects Bādar by saying that the Prajapatiloka is not a Karya but the Para Itself and dumim by saying that besides what Jaimini calls the Para, there is another aspeet of the Para, viz., the ertt or Parusa napect to which also a conductor is required to lead the

(46) वममावधीन्द्रप्रजापनी स्थानान्नराभावात्पाठसास्थ्यात्त आगन्तुकत्वादाप वरुणदीनामन्त एम निवेशो नेे विकस्थानाभावाद्ियुच्चानयाचिरादौ व्त्मनि। (Sa bhasya on Bra. Su.IV.3.3) (47) 'अझल' In Br.Upa. VI.2.15 also should mean 'अनतिप्रभ्रया देवता', i.e., the highest principle called Brahman.

NO क्रममुक्ति, NO जीवन् मुक्ति 181

Brahmajnanin and consequently Badari's view is not inconsi- stent with his (Jaimini's) own view.

Thongh these three authorties differ regarding the nature of the two aspects of Brahman, all of them agree that the altain- inent of the Para only is the state of bberation. Badari holds that the conductor leads the knower of Brahman upto the world of Prajapati, but thereafter the knower proceeds to and reaches (i. c. attains ) Brahman, which is in Badan's view higher than this Prajaptiloka, in company of the Prajapati on the dissolu- tion of the Prajapatiloka ( Bra.Su IV.3.10-11 ). Jaimini believes that the conductor himself leads the knower of Brahman npto the Para (Bra.Su.IV.3.12-14). This also shows that in the opinion of all the three "going to the Para " is a necessary prerequisite of liberation. Thns, none of them exactly believed in what Sankara calls liberation-by-stages ( #gir )48 and libera- tion-in-this-life (जीवन्मुक्ति). No view about the जीवन्मुक्ति is men- toned even by way of a Parvapaksa by Badarayana in Bra. Su. IV.1.13-19. If Badari had ever believed in siargin, as he should have, in case he believed that the Para was no goal to be reached by going to it, his view about it would have been recorded by the Sutrakara in Bra.Su, IV.1.13-19. But we find no mention of it therein.49 Moreover, according to Badari the knower of Brahman first goes to the Karya because the conductor is not capable of going further than Karya, It is not that the knower lacks some knowledge of Brahman and gets it by stnying in the world of the Prajapati. Ho has to wait in the Karya

(48) It would appear that Badari upholds magrfh but it is entnoly different from that propounded by Sankara, because Badari belioves that from the Piajapatiloka the knower of Brahman has to go further in the company of the Prajapati, to Brabman. (49) S'ankara brings in the iden of siagih in Sutra IV.1.14 by the unjusti- fiable addition of विनाश to असक्रेष and of 'विदुः मुक्ति: अवश्यंभाविनी ' to पासे in that Sūtra.

1822 TET'S INTERPRETATION OF FIER

beonuse none conld take him directly to the Para. Thus, Badarı does not believe in any kind of gagi. Sankara's view that Badari beleves in the impossibility of Brahman being achieved by the knower of Brahman going to It, is founded upon his (i.e. Sankara's) own interpretation of enra and गति: in Bra.Su.IV.3.7 as कायस्य ब्रह्मण: and गन्तव्यता respectively. But, we believe that sny in the hght of the context refers to the aya mnfmfas mentioned in Bra.Su IV.3.6, and mfa is 'going' i. e, 'the act of going', not the possibility of being reached (4-4H1) by the goer's going to it. Moreover, his main argumonbs vix., (]) ब्रह्मण: सवरगतत्व 'the omni-presonce of Brahman' and (3) : a 'Brahman Itself being the inner squl of the seeker,' are not given by Badari; nor do we find their refutation in the Sutras containing Jaimini's reply to Badari. These arguments of Sankara are refuted from the standpoint of a snpposed opponent by Sankara himself in his Com. on Bra. Su.IV.3.14. Moreover, Bădari seems to argue that the Praja- patiloka is near Brabmaloka or Brabman and tbus gives a spatial view about Brabman, as would appear not only from mram in Sutra IV.30 but also from the phrase 'era:qru' in Su .- IV.8.10 and ar-affaara in Bra.Su.IV4.17. But Sankara inter. prets "nifra" in a secondary sense. In order to prove that Badari believes iu liberation-by-stages Sankara says that according to Badari those whom the conductor takes upto the Karya get the right knowledge of Brabman in that Karya itself.,50 but from the context Badari seems to believe that those whom the condu- rtor leads to the Karya have already attained the perfect know- iedye on this earth. The Srutis1 to which Badari seems to refer uuder Sūtra IV.3.10 appears to favour this conclusion.52

(50) Vide atăm ....... in S'a.bhã. on Bra.SU.IV8.10. (i) बतो-विज्ञानसुनिश्चिनाथा: सन्वासयोगायन।: शुद्धमद्वाः । अझलोकेषु परानकाछे परामृना: परिमुच्यन्ति सवे॥ (Mu.Upa. I1I.27.) (39) Cf. the view in later Vedanta that all relcased souls go to the ISvaca and get absolute hberstion only after the whole universe is released.

SUBJECT DISCUSSED IN IV.3.7-16 133

To us it appenrs that the Adhikarana consisting of Bra.Su.IV. 3.7-16 is not meant to dsouss whether going to the 'Para' is possible or whether only the 'Karya' can be reached by going. The Sutrakara intends to discuss upto what station or loka the conductor can lead the knower of Brahman, and if he cannot accompany him to the Para who can lead him finally to his Destmation. While stating the stations on the Path of gods, the Sutrakara mentions the worlds of Vidyut and Varuna and we believe, the discussion about the Prajapatiloka and Brahma- loka is undertaken in Su.IV.8.7-16 in the light of the function6s and capacity of the conduetor mentioned in Sutra IV.36. Sü.IV.8.15 also seems to confirm our view because 'erfa in that Sutra54 refers to the conductor and Badarāyana gives his own opinion that the conductor carries the meditators of of (both the aspects of) Brabman other than those who resort to the Symbol and that, therefore, he carries them to the Para. In his opmion the Sruti and the Smrti about the knowers of Brahman being accompanied by Brahman (masc.) or the governor of the Prajapatiloka deal with the fate of those also who belong to the circle of officers,55 and have nothing to do with those who know Brahman in this life on this earth. Thus, we are led to conclude that the topic of this last Adhikarana of Sūtras IV.8, 7-16 is different from what Sankara and some other commenta- tors take it to be. Lastly, Sankara's Patha according to which Sutras 7-14 and Sūtras 15-16 of this Pada form two different Adhikaranas has, as he says, the support of a predecessor of his,50 but according

(53) अस्य in Bra.Su,IV.3.7 (कार्य नादरिररय गत्युपपचे.) standing for the बुन आतिवाषिक. (64) अप्रताकालम्बनानयाति इति बादरायण: । (Bra.Su,[V.3.16). (58) Of. अधिकारिकमण्डलस्थ in प्रत्यक्षोपदेशादिति चेन्नाधिकारिकमण्डलस्थोक्ते। (Bra.SD.IV.4 18), (86) Ci. केचित्पुनः "पूर्वाणि पूर्वेपक्षसूत्राणि भवन्त्युत्तराणि सिद्धान्तसूत्राणि" इत्येतां व्यवस्था- मनुरुध्यमाना: परविषया एव गतिश्रुतिः प्रतिष्ठापयन्ति, तदनुपपनम् .. । (Sabha). on Bra,ST.IV.8.14). This shows that according to this predecessor of Sanka- ra the Adhikarana ended with Sutra 14.

184 CORRECTION OF शाङ्करपाठ OF बह्मसून्र

to our interpretation it would appear that even Sankara's prede- cessor was not in the possession of a correct Patha. That Sütra TV.8.15 should be a modification of what the Sutrakara has said in Sutra 1II.8 31 and that Sutra IV.8.16 deals with the kāmya (54) meditations on particular Symbols of Brahman, seems to us to he impossible on the ground of the context of the Pada and of the propriety of the subject-matter in this Adhyāya. Ramanuja takes all these Sftras as forming one Adhikarana. This is quite consistent with other portions of the Sutras, where Badarayana's view is givon by the express mention of his name. On a compa- rison of the present Sutras with Bra.Su.IV.4 10-14, IV.4.5-7, eto., we find that this is the case only when the Sūtrakara gives his own view after discussing the view or views of other teachers.

If, thus, our suggestion about grouping all these Sutras (7-16) into one Adhikarana be correct, the view of Badarayana would naturally be the Siddhanta and consequently Sankara's view that the doctrine of Badari is intended to be the Siddhanta here will be found untenable. As he himself says, the general rule is that in each case the preceding Sütras are the aphorisms of the Pūrvapaksa and the sueceeding ones those of the Siddhauta. The same rule was followed by Sankara's predecessor and is followed by his successors. And if, as we have shown, Sutra IV.3.7 deas with the question about the capacity of the conductor to carry the Brahmajñanin to his Destination, it would not be proper to insist upou taking Sutras IV.3.7-11 as the Sūtras of the Siddhanta.

CIIAPTER 6

STATE OF UNION WITH BRAHMAN

After those actions, which have 'begun to give their frnit', have been exhausted by the individual soul experiencing their results,1 the knower of Brahman leaves the body,2 and after finishing the journey on the Path of gods3 reaches Brahman.4 The union with Bramhan is preceded by the exhaustion of the prarabdha kar- mans, (2) the Depature and (8) the Journey of the knower of Brahman.

This "union with Brahman" is not described in definite words in the several Sruitis. Sometimes it is campared with the mer- ging of flowing rivers into the ocean, having given up their names and forms.5 This may give the impression that the union with Brahman is absolute and that after the union the individuality of the uniting soul making it a soul disappears. To remove such a doubt, the Sutrakara says that after union with Brahman the original form of the soul becomes manifest. He woulde like to. interpret the Srutis about the union of the liberated soul with Brahman in the light of Cha. Upa. VIII.12.8, The union (tvfa) is really 'reaching' (svera) as stated in Cha,Upa. VIII.12.8, not absolute merging, because after union the soul's own nature becomes manifest,6

(1) Cf. अनारब्धकार्ये एव तु पुर्वे तदवष: । (Bra.Su.IV.1.15) and भोगेन त्वितरे क्षपयित्वा संपद्यते। (Bra. Su.IV.1.19), (2) His departure from the body is the topie of Bra.Su.IV.2. (3) This journey is explained with all its stations in Bra.Su.IV.3. (4) CI. संपद in संपद्याविर्भावः स्वेनशब्दात्।(Bra.Su.IV.4.1), (5) यथा:नद्. स्यन्दमाना: समुद्रेऽस्तं गच्छन्ति नामरूपे विहाय। तथा विद्वानामरूपाद्विमुक्त: परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम् ।(Mu.Upa.III 2.8), (6) एवमेवैष संप्रसादोऽस्माच्छर।रा्समुत्थाय परं ज्योतिरुपसंपद्य स्वेन रूपेण अभिनिष्पयते। (Cha. Upa. VIII.12.3).

136 II = MANIFESTATION OF SOUL'S OWN NATURE

This 'becoming manifest' does not mean that the liberated soul acquires any new form or quality, because the Sruti (Cha. Upa. VIII.12.8) says that the torm which becomes manifest is the soul's own form. The sonl has the essence of the qualities of Brahman;7 and that essence remains latent during the soul's bondage but becomos manifest in this lberation, just as manli- neas (gwa) which is concealed in a child becomes wanifest in a youth.8 It was concealed on account of the desire of Brahmian to become many or on account of the individual soul's contart with the body.9

This same origial own form of the soul becomes manifest also in the deep sleep state when the soul lies in the (far) arte- ries,10 because thon the soul is separated from the contact with the body. But that manifestation is temporary, while the one in the state of liberation is permanent.

The soul whose 'own form' thus becomes manifest is 'the released one' (56),11 This, it may be remarked, is in the opinion of the Sutrakara the only ym, there being no other go like the may, 'the one released gradually' or the qagm "the one released at once", of the S'ankara School because nowhere else in the Brahma- utra do we find any other type of re. In Bra.Su.III.4.52 this qfh was called the fruit (53) of the knowledge of Brabman, In Bra.SQ.1.3.2 we are told that the Purusa in Mu. Upa.III.2.8 is the One to be reached (ar4) by the released.12 There is no

(7) Ci. सारवत्व in तद्गुणसारवत्वात्ततद्व्यपदशः प्राज्ञवत। (Bra.Su.II 3.29). We suggest that Sutras II.3.28-32 discuss the relation of the individual soul and the Universal Soul- The Siddhanta is that the two are not absolutely identical (8) r sama (Bra.Su.II.3.31). Cf. also Bra.Su.I.3.19. (9) परानिष्यानात तिरोहितं ततो हास्य बन्धविपर्ययों। देहयोगाद्वा सोऽपि। Bra.Su,I.3.19. (10) तदभावो नाडीवु तच्छ्रतेरात्मनि च । (Bra.Su.III.2.7), Of. also Bra.Su.IV.4.16. (11) gw: sfremta | (Bra.Si. TV. 4.2). (12) तथा विद्ान् नामरूपाद्विसुक्त: परात्परं पुरुषसुपैति दिव्यम् ।(Mu.Up.III.2.8).

NON-SEPARATION FROM BRAHMAN 137

Sütra treating of the state of the released other than Bra Su. IV.42. It is only the soul 13 of the released, that becomes manifest, because the Sruti 14 describing the yw clearly says that the phy- sical body disappears mn that state. The released one who appears in his own onginal nature after reaching Brahman appears without the subtle body which accompamied him during his journey on the Path of gods.15 Before the manifestation of the real nature of the soul, i. e., in the state of bondage, the soul is 'separated ' (fawm) from Brhaman, but in liberation he is ' not-separated ' (arfaa) from It. This non-separation16 (afamr) is the state of gim, as described in the Sruti.17 This 'non-separation' is, therefore, a state of union between Brahman and the soul, so that the two are in that state no more numerically two. 'There is no second principle separate from it, which the liberated may see.' It is the original state of 'one' which means 'without a second'.18 Thus, the menifestation of the soul (only), in its own original nature, in non-separation from Brahman is the state of liberation (Bra.Su.IV.4.1-4). 'Manifestation in non-separation' means that there is no 'merging' of the soul into Brabman. The next question is, 'What is the nature of the original form of the soul ? ' There are two views on this. In accordance with Br. Upa.IV.4.4, Jaimini holds that the soul's own nature is that of Brahman (#IET) and ho becomes manifest in the srar

(13) आत्मा प्रकरणात।(Bra.Su.IV.4.3). (14) मधवन्मत्य वा इद शरीरमात्ते मृतयुना तदस्यामृतस्याशर्रीरस्यात्मनोधिश्ठानगातो वै सशरीर: प्रियाप्रियाभ्यां, न वै सशर्रारस्य सतः प्रियापप्रिययोरपहतिरस्त्यशरीर वाव सन्त न प्रियाप्रिये स्पृशतः । अशरीरो वायुर्रं ..... । एनम् .. .. ( ChaUVIII11-3). This is the saror refeired to in Bra.Su.IV.4.3. (16) Vide 13 above. (16) अविभागेन दष्टत्वात्। (Bra.Su.IV.44). (17) Cf. न तु तदू द्वितीयगस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विमत यत्पशयेत्(Br.Upa.IV.3.29-82). (18) एकमवादितयिम्। (Cha.Upa.VI.2.1). 18

138 SOUL'S NATURE, ब्राह्म OR चितितन्मान्र

naturel while Audulomi's opinion20 which is based on other Srutis is that the original form of the soul is 'mere conscious- ness' (चिति नम्मात्र, विज्ञान) and that is the nature of the re-manifest relcased soul. The Sutrakara says that both these views are in agreement with the Srnti because we find both of them men- tioned in the Sruti and originally the soul was ' conscionsness pure and simple'.21 In the state of hberation the soul is described in the Upani. Sads as enjoying various objects of desire.22 So the Strakāra discusses the question, ' How does the liberated soul got these objects of enjoyment ?' We are not to suppose28 that these objects of desire are present in the Brahmaloka, as they are in the beaven or that the released soul has to depend upon some one olse to get those objects. By the force of mere will he gets them. He has to desire to get an object and the object appears before hiru, as stated in Cha Upa. VIII.2.10.24 The Srutis which speak of the liberated soul as 'sovereign' "TaUE" 'having no other Lord than himself'25 do not mean that he is the master of the world or that he can create or destioy the world etc , rather they

Of. तद्यथा पेशस्कारा पेशसो मात्रामुपादायान्यन्नवतरं कलयाणतर रुप तनुते एवमेवायमात्मेद शरीर निहत्याविद्यी गमयित्वाऽन्यन्नवतर कल्याणतर रूप कुरुते पित्र्यं वा गान्धर्व वा दैवं वा प्राजापत्यं वा वराह वान्येषां वा भूतानाम्। (Br. Upa.IV.4.4) Out of all these the बाह्ा form is tho one with whieh the reloased soul becomes manifest. (20) सिनिनन्माश्रिण तदाल्क तसादित्यौडुलेम:।(Bra.Sa.TV.4,6). (41) We may suggest that "brahma" would mean that soul is conscious anrt hlissfal (r) while ffTwar seems to moan that the soul is "consci-

(22) 0f.सतत्र पर्येति जक्षन क्रीडबममाण स्त्रीमिवाँ यानैवा ज्ञातिभिवा । Cha. Upa. VIII.12.3. (23) C. स वा एष एनेन देवेन चक्षुषा मनसैतान् कामान् पश्यन् रमते ॥६॥ य एते ब्रह्मलीके सं वा एन देवा आम्मानमुपासते तस्मानेषां सर्वे च लोका आताः सर्वे च कामाः । ..... । (Cha, Cpa.VIII.12.5-6). (24) में यमन्तममिकामो भवति यें काम कामयते सोडस्य संकल्पादेव समुत्तिष्ठति तेन संपक्ो an i (ChãUpa. VIII.2.10). (25) म स्वराड़ मवति।(ChaUpa. VII.25.2). And अत एव वानन्याधिपतिः । (Bra.S0,IV.4.9),

IT'S ENJOYMENT OF OBJECTS 139

only mean that for his own enjoyment he has not to depend upon even Brahman. In bondage the soul does actions, but the result of the actions depends upon Brahman26 because the action itself is unable to give him its result. In liberation only his will brings forth the objects of his desire (Bra.Su.IV.4.8-9).

Though the Physical body which the soul carries while in 'bondage' disappears in the state of liberation inasmuch as only the soul becomes manifest in the latter state, it does not mean that he cannot have a new body suitable to his remanifest, natural state. Depending upon the difforent toxts of the Upani- şads Badari argued that the released soul had no body, and Jaimini that he had not one only but as many bodies as he liked.27 Badarayana'28 as usual with him, admits both the possi- bilities because there are Srutis of both the kinds, viz, those which say that the released one has no body29 and those which mean that he may have as many bodies as he would like,30 since such a view would be in accordance with the example of the Dwadasaha Sacrifice having a double nature because of two-fold Srutis and since the enjoyment of desired objects in liberation would be possible in both the cases, as in dream in case he has no body, as in the waking state if he has a body.91

(26) परात्तु तच्छूतेः । (Bra.Su.II.3.41). We think, the Sutra means "परासु फलम्" and contradicts a viow that the to can be had from the "aid or from tho कर्मन्. (27) अभावं बाइरि गह् ह्यवम्। (Bra.Su.IV.4.10). भावं जैमिनि र्विकल्पामननात् ।(Bra.Su.IV.4.I1). (28) द्वादशाहवदुमयविर्षं बादरायणोडनः। (Br.So IV.4.12). (29) Vide (14) above. And तद्यथाऽ्हिनिल्वयनी वल्मीके मृता प्रत्यस्ता शयीतेवमेवेर्द शरीर, शेतेऽथायमशरीरोऽमृतः प्राणो व्रह्यैव तेज एव ...... । (Bra.Upa.IV.47) (30) स एकधा भवति त्रिधा भवति पञ्चषा सप्तधा नवधा चैव पुनशैकादशधा स्मृतः शर्त च दश चैकश्च सहस्राणि च विशति: । (ha.Upa.VII.26.2). (31) तन्वभावे ,संध्यवदुपपसेः।(Bra Su.IV.4.13), And भावे व जागदत्त। (Bra.Su.IV.4.14).

140 3'S PERVASION OR OMNIPRESENCE

In accordance with several Srutis32 the Sutrakara holds that the released soul has the quality of perrasion (aiaa), but this perva- sion is lite that of a lamp pervading the place whore it is placed. The pervasion of the soul in liberation is like hs pervasion in the deep sleep state,33 and therefore also the pervasion is like that of a lamp. This view of the Sutrakara with regard to the Atate of liberation is consistont with his statement about the nature of the soul that the individual soul possesses the essence (ai) of the qunlities of Brahman and that this nature of the soul breomnes manifest in the state of liberation.34 Thus, the soul has the substance (aR) of the quality of omnipresence of Brahman. The revealed or remanifest form of the soul is devoid of the operations or dealings of the world. Thus, in accordance with Cha, Upa. VIII.7.1 that form is "withont sins, without old age, withont death, withont sorrow, without hunger, without thirst .... '35 We may also add that as stated in Br.Upa.IV.3.22, in the state of liberation there is no relationship of parents and children, no distmction of castes, cruminals, gods etc. etc.36 Again, the form of the gm is far remote from the world, so it is free from worldly dealings and operations (galqT). If it be argued that certain Srutia like Mn.Upa.III.2.638 mention expressly the end of the Para and, therefore, the released souls also, who are there, would (8:) संम्रायैनमृषयो ज्ञानतृप्ताः कृतात्मानो वीतरागाः प्रशान्ताः । ते सर्वगं सरचतः प्राप्य धीरा युकात्मानः सर्वमेवाविशन्ति।(Mu. Upa.[II.2.5) And तदक्षर ेदयते यस्तु सोम्य स सर्वतः सर्वमेवाविशान्ति। प्र० उप० IV.11. (:3) स्वापययमंपत्योरन्यतरापेक्षमाविष्कृत हि। (Bra.Su.IV.4.16). (:4) तदगुणसारवत्वानु तङ्वयपदेशः याज्ञवत्। (Bra.St.1I.3.20). And पुस्त्वादिवत्वस्य सतोऽमिव्यक्तितियोगत। (Bra.Su.II.3.31). (39) य अक्मापहमपाप्मा विजरो विमृत्युर्विशोकोSविजिघत्सोऽपिपास सत्यकामः सत्यसकल्प .. । ChA. Upa. VIIL7.1. (36) अत्र पिता अपिता सवति माताडमाता लोका अलोका देवा अदेवा वेदा अवेदा अन्न स्मेनोडस्तेमो अवति मणहाऽम्रणहा चाण्डालोSचाण्डाल ...... । (Br.Upa.IV.3.22). (37) अगहूयापारबजे प्रकरणादसीनीहतत्वाच। (Bra.St IV 4.17). (8५) वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्चितार्थाः सन्न्यासयोगाय्यतयः शुदधसरवाः । ते महालो केषु परान्तकाले परामृता: परिमुध्यन्त सवे। (Mu UpaIII.2.6).

"NO-RETURN" OF THE IM TO THIS WORLD 141

be liablo to death, the Sutrakara rephes that such texts deal with those who belong to the group of officers in the Brahmaloka, 1.e., the world of the Para and not with the released souls who are there.39 Also Srutis40 mention the continuance of the liberated in the Brabmaloka; and this shows that the form of the liberated is not subject to any change.41 Other Srutis and Smrtis42 also state that the liberated are free from birth and death. As already stated,43 the objects of desire arise from mere desire of the liberated. The Sruti says that the only point of similarity between the life in this world and the life of a released soul is that of enjoyment only.44 There is no action, but there is enjoyment. In other words, there is wiaea without waca. As the released one does no actions, he is free from birth and death, His revealed form is not subject to the operations of the world.

The released one in his remanifest form does not return to this world. The Sutrakara has already stated the departure of the knower of Brabman from this worldds and his journey on the Path of gods.46 Consistently with this, he now says that the released soul does not return from the world of the Para. The Sütrakära mentions the return to this world of one who does not know Atman;47 but there is no such return in the case of an Atmajña.

(89) प्रत्यक्षोपदेशादिति चनाधिकारिकमण्डलस्थोके। (Bra.Su.IV.4.18). (40) ते तेथु ब्रह्मलोकेषु परा परावती वसन्ति। (Br.Upa.VI.2.16). तस्मिन् वसत्ति शाश्वती: समा:। (Br.Upa.V.10.1.). न च पुनरावतेते। (ChaUpa.VJII.16.I). (41) विकरावर्ति च तथा हि स्थितिमाह। (Bra.Su.IV.4.17). (42) इदं ज्ञानमुपाश्रित्य मम साधम्येमागता: । सर्गेऽपि नोपजायन्ते प्रलये न व्यथन्ति च। (Bha. GiXIV.2) (43) In संकल्पादेव तु तच्छृतेः। (Bra.Su,IV.4.8).

(45) In Bra.Sn.IV.2. . (46) In Bra.Su.IV.8. (47) In Bra.Su.III.1.7-8 and II.2.19-20 and IV.1.1.

CHAPTER 7

SUTRAKARA'S INTERPRETATION OF CERTAIN UPANISADS

The difference regarding the interpretation of the chief Upani- sads between the Sūtrakara and Sankara seems to be not less important than the doctrinal difference betweeu them. In Part I of our work the Sutrakara's interpretation of various Srutis from the Upanisads has been given and supported by what seem to us to be the Sutrakara's own arguments; and occasionally we bave also pointed out how he differs from Sankara. Here we collect some of the more iportant of these passages and briefly state the position of the Sütrakara and Sankara regarding their interpretation. The most important feature of the Sutrakara's conception of Brahman is the fact that according to him we have to distinguish between the asqad and syad rather than between the fon and ayg aspects of Brahman. Accordingly, he seems to point out the Srntis about these aspects. In an Appendix we have given the Srutis, which form the fagaaeas of Bra.Su.I. 1-8. On the strength of our interpretation of Bra.Su.III.3.11 and 80 we may state here that the Srutis discussed in Brahmna- sutra I.I arc to be explained according to the Sūtrakāra as dealing only with the arsvaa aspect of Brahman. These Srutis are Tai. Upa.IIL6 and II.5, Cha. Upa.I.7.1-5, 1.9.1, 1.11.4-5, III. 18.1.7, and Kau. Upa.III.1.3. Similarly, the Sutrakara prefers to take the following Srutis as dealing with the svaa aspeot and discusses them in Bra. Sū, I.2 :- Cha, Upa.III.14.1-2, Katha Upa.II.24, and III.1, Cha. Upa. IV.15.1, Br. Ups.III.7.1-2,Mu. Upa.I.1. 5-6,Cha. Upa. V.11.1-6. This same kind of preference he shows in the interpretation of the following Srutis and disousses them in Bra.Su,I.3 :- Mü,

श्रुतिs OF रूपवत् AND अरूपवत् ASPECTS 148

Upa.II.25, Cha. Upa. VII.23-24, Br. Upa.III.8.7-8, Pra Upa.V.2 and 5, Cha. Upa. VIII.1.1, Mu. Upa.II.2.10, Katha Upa.IV.18, Kațha Upa. VI.2, Cha. Upa. VIII.12 and 14, and Br. Upa IV.8.7. According to the Sütrakāra, we have to distinguish between the Srutis dealing with the arsaa aspect and the Srutis dealing with the रूपवत् aspect, but not with the निगुण and सगुण aspects, because in his opinion both the aspects of Brahman have their own peruliar gus and therefore there is no aspect of Brahman absolutely without gus. We have above said that the Sūtrakāra prefers to explain certain Srutis ( those discussed in Bra Su.1.2 and 3 ) as dealing with the aa. This means that he would not object to taking these Srutis as pertaining to the arsqaa, This would be clear from a fact about the Sutrakara's interpretation of Srutis, which we are just going to mention, viz., the fact of the interchange of attributes of these two aspeets in the Srutis themselves.

One of the most important points about the meaning of the #a-Srutis of the Upanisads emphasised by the Sutrakāra is that in those Srutis we have an interchange of the attributes of the arupavat or the Pradhana aspect of Brahman and of the rupavat or the Purusa aspect.1 He seems to say, "Take any Srutt about Brahman, and you will find the truth of this assertion." On the strength of this fact of interchange of attributes of the two aspects, the Sūtrakāra makes threc important statements, viz., (1) the attributes, awage and others, and the other gronp of attributes aeas and others,collected by the Sutrakara in Bra.Su.I.2 and 1.8 respectively may, at the desire of a seeker, be taken in the meditation of the Pradhana aspect of Brahman,- (2) it is not meant by the Sutrakara that in any moditation on Brahman (cither on the Pradhana or the Purusa aspect ), the

(1) व्यनिहारो विशिपन्ति हतिरवत्। (Bra.Su.III.3.87). (2) ta fe : (Bra.SuIII.3.38). (8) सत्यादयः कामादितरत्र तन्र चायतनादिभ्य:। (Br.Su.I1I.39). See Part t.

141 INTERCHANGE OF ATTRIBUTES OF THE ASPEOTS OF BRAHMAN

nttributes of both these aspects be collected by the meditator; all he means is that a meditator on a particular aspect should not drop such attributes of the other aspect as occur in the Sruti or Srutis from which he gathers the attributes of that particular aspeet;t and (8) that there is no rule which would help us in deciding which are the peculiar attributes of either of these two aspeets; and the result of this view-point is that the Sruti does not objert to making separate thought about each of the two aspoets,5 From this statoment about 'the interchange', we know that the Sotrakara has diseussed in Bra.Su.I.2 such Srntis as expressly mention the Pradhana aspect, but which the Sütrakara interprets as dealing with the Purusa, because they characterise the Pra- dhäna with the attributes of the Purusa and that in Bra.Su. I.3 he has considered those Srutis which profess to describe the' Purusa and which the Sutrakara also takes as such bub which chara- cterise the Purusa with the characterstics of the Pradhana. In the former Pada, the Sutrakara emphasises the mention of the attribates of the Purusa and in the latter the express menton of the very term Purusa.6 In the first Pada he discusses only those Srutia which mention the Pradhana or the Arupavat aspect in express terms. Tn Bra.Su.IIL.3.11 he says that enaee and other attributes collected by hi in Bra.Su.I.1 are to be used in the muditation on the Pradhana. Froi the interchange of the attributes and from the option regarding their uso in the meditation,7 we can safely conclude (4) Bra.SO.I1I.3.40-41. Vide our Interpretation. (6) अनियम: सर्वोसामविरोध: शव्दानुमानाभ्याम् । (Bra,Su,III.8.81), (0) We admit that thia suggestion of ours regarding the scheme of the armaogoment of the firgaras in Bra.Si.I.2-8 cannot bo said to be finally proved till we can show it by working out an interpretation of those Padas. But this we cannot do in this work. We rofer the reader to our Paper on the subject io the Bombay University Jouraal Vol. IV, Part III. In this work we draw our conolusions chiofly from Bra.Su.III.3. See Appendix I also. (7) Vide (1) (3) supra.

ST'S INTERPRETIONAL INCONSISTENCIES 145

that the Srutis disoussed in Bra Su 1.2-3 should not be inter. preted as describing only the Pradhana or only the Purusa. In fact, they describe both the aspects of Brahman. But Sankara does not hold this view. In his opimon some of tbese Srutis describe only the friu Brahman and some only the agq Brabman. According to the Sankara School Bra.Su.I.2 and 1.8 deal respectively with the SYET or ago Brahman and tho jneya or inj Brahman.8 That the Sutrakara and Sankara differ regard- mg the interpretation of these Srutis is also clear if we compare Sankara's commentary on the Srutis which form the fraaIFas of Bra.Su.I.2-3, as written by Sankara under the various Sutras with the same in the respective Upanisads.9 We find several cases where a Sruti iterpreted by Sankara in his wica on the respective Upamsad as dealing with the faio Brahman has got to be interpreted by hum as dealing with the agu aspect when that Sruti is a fagaaiy of some Sutra in Brabmasutra I.2-3. Even the fact that the Sutrakara emphasises the gunas or sas of the supreme Being in his interpretation of several Srutis which are according to Sankara AuugxI, brings out the difference between these two Acaryas as regards the interpretation of these Srutis.10 Moreover, Sankara in his commentary on the Upani- Șads has several occasions to explain a term describing the impersonal aspect, e.g., Brahman, as Hiranyagarbha and a term describing the personal aspect, e.g,, Purusa, as Brahman.11 All these interpretational inconsistencies of Sańkara would dis-

(8) Vide S'ankara's remarks on Bra.Su.I.2.1 and the remarks of the Bhamatikara, the anthor of the Ratnaprabha, and Auandagiri in their intro- ductions to T. MI. on Bia.Su.T.3. Regarding this and the viows of Ramanuja and Vallabha on the samo, see the author's Paper on the Scheme of Brahmasutra I.1-3 : A Reapproachment, Journal of the University of Bombay Vol. IV. Part, III, PP. 112-120. (9) Illustrations of the result of this comparison have been given in our Notes on Bra.Su.III.3.37-39 and need not be repeated here. (10) Vide Bra.Su.I.2.21, I.8.10. (11) Vide शाङकूरभाष्य on श्रतिs with the words बक्षा or अक्षर and पुरुष, 19

146 BOTE ASPECTS HAVE Common NAMES.

appear if the Sutrakara's view about the interchange of attributes ot the two aspects in the Sruti be properly appreciated. About the interpretation of the S'rutis the Sutrakara holds that the sqaa aspect has ferms (or names) in common with the Para, i.e., the asvaa aspect and that the particular application of a term to either of the two aspects must depend upon the tre- queney of use.12 Thus, Brahman, Purusa, Atman, Aksara, Avynkta, ete., are all of them terms common to the Purusd and to the Pradbana.13 This would also mean that from the mere occurronce of one of these terms in a Sruti we cannot say whother that Sruti deals with the asqaa aspect or with the sqaa aspect. The Sutrakara holds the theory of the interchange of attributes in Srutis and would therefore say that each Srut may be interpreted as pertaining to both the aspects.

In this connection we may here note that on the above two theories of interpretation, viz., (1) the interchange of attributes of the two aspects in the Srutis and (2) the common terminology of the two aspects, the Sūtrakara bases his doctrine that the meditation on either aspect practised independently of the other aspect leads to the same resnlt, viz, Moksa.14 And, therefore, he gives an option of choice from the two aspocts.15 Trom among all the terms of the Supreme Being used in the Upanişads, the Sūtrakāra seems to make two classes of terms or rather he seems to regard two terms as definitely fixed for the amyaa and the syaa aspects respectively. These terms are a16 and gr. On the basis of the difference of these two terms ho

(12) परेग व अव्डर्य नाहिध्यं भूगरतात्वनुबन्ध: ।(Bra.Su.III.3.52). (13) Vido Note (37) on the Sutra

and emaeara r I (Bra SuJII 8.50). (15) rai (Bra.SO.III.3.28), tnd मकभूगसस्वातदि मलीयरनउपि पूर्वेविकम्पः।in Bra.Su.III.8.44. (16) 4m fE1 (Bra.SD III.2.23)

EAOII 0 OF THE Nia, INDEPENDENT 147

accepts a Pūrvapaksa view to regard the two ideas or aspects of Brahman as different from each other.17 In the Pūrvamimamsā the difference of sarcifices is admitted on the ground of the difference of names (akhyas). The Sutrakara follows that rule in the matter of the independence of the two aspents of Brahman18.

One very important remark of the Sūtrakara about the topic of the Srutis of the various Upanisads is that the 547d aspect is described in a majority of Sratis.19 Thus, we can conelude that the Purusa aspect is dealt with by a minority of Srutis. The trutb of this remark can be admitted by a student of the Upamsads without, of course, making a calculation of the Srutis dealing with either aspect. We may also mention here another view of the Sūtrakara which he seems to us to give abont the two Kandas of the Veda. According to him the Purvakanda often gives the attributes of the aayad aspect but it hever mentions the other attributes of Bra- hman such as are found in the Purusavidya of the Upanisads.20 He refers to the Khila of the Raņayaniya Sakha of the Samaveda, a Sruti of which mentions dgfa and onia which are two attributes of the asyan aspect.21 This absence of the attri- butes of the Purusa in the Pūrvakanda is one of the reasons why the Satrakara looks upon the two Kandas as dealing with the two independent topics, viz., Dharma and Brahman, and does not wish to interpret the Purvakanda in the light of the Upanisads. The Sutrakara admits that in the Srutis abont the Prajapati- loka as well as about Brahman the persons going to that 'loka' or Brahman are deseribed as experiencing an enjoyment of their desired objects.22 This enjoyment of desired objeets is (17) संज्ञानश्चेत्तदुक्तमस्ति तु तदपि। (Bra.Su.III.3.8). (18) मर्वाभेदादत्यत्रेमे। (Bra.Su.III.8.10). (19) Vide (15) supra (20) पुरुषविद्यायामिव चेतरेपामनाम्नानात्। (Bra.Su.III.3.24). (21) (22) संभृतिधुव्याप्त्यपि चान: । (Bra.SI III.3.28).

118 PRAJAPATILOKA IS कारण, NOT कार्य, ब्रह्मन्

common to the Prajapatiloka and Brahman on the one hand and tn the other worlds including our world and the worlds of the dtities on the other hand.28 But even inspite of this the Satrakara does not accept the view (of Opponents hae Badari and Jaimini) that the Prajapatiloka is an ordinary is. Badari and Jaimini hold that the Prajapatloks iva md of Brahman2 and, therefore, they seem to have beheved that the Prajapatiloka is a world hke the ordinary worlds. It is noteworthy that the Sūtrakara denies the fanlt of araum entailng on the Prajapatiloka And, again, Sankara bays that there is no am or experience of enjoyment in the ahsolute liberation, but the Sutrakara (along with Badar and Jaimini) seems to believe that in the Para the Muktas enjoy their desired objects;25 but inspite of this enjoyment the state and the form of the Muktas are devoid of the creation and destruction, the two out of the three functions of our world.2 The difference between Sankara's interpretation of the word 'Prajapatiloka' where it ocours in the Srutis and that of the Sutrakara can also be known from the fact that Sankara proposes to add the Prajapatiloka to the worlds mentioned by the Sütrakara," though the Sutrakara seems to have dropped its mention in the list of the worlds purposely. The latter takes the Prajapatiloka as an aspect, here the personal aspect, of the Karata itaelf, whose other aspect is the impersonal one.28 Thus the Sutrakara would not take "Prajapatiloka" as an ordinary 315 In Bra.So.IIT.2.18, the Sütrakāra seems to us to give hi interpretation of the S'rutis which describe Brahman as having : (20) This is the sonse of HA in Bra.S.3.51 and ra (Bra.SO.IV L91), (94) Rrw mIrre. ( Bra.S0.IV.3.7 ). Jaimini also believed in the Prajapatilokn. We have shown tha

(28) अन्भारे मध्यवदुपपसेः ।(Bra.Su.EV.4.13); भाव जागदते। (Bra.Su.IV.4.14). (8) **: (Bra.SU,IV.4.17) and HrTHrr ...... (Bra. Su.IV.4.21). se (Bra.Sü. IV.4.19). (97) Vide Sankara's bhașya on Bra.Sū.IV.3.8. (28/ Vide our Notes on At & rma l (Bra.SR TV.3,16).

उभयलिङ्गश्रुतिs्क, नेतिनेतिश्रतिs, सगुणश्रुतिs. 149

double nature (sHafay) or what may be called cogita oppositorum.29 According to the Sutrakara such Srutis mean that the same Brahman is at the same time arupavat and also the rupavat. Thus, ermiorgiay means that the Supreme Being is asvaa because hands and feet which refer to a fortn, viz, the yay $4, are denied of Brahman here, while 37: and eral respectively affirm feet and hands of Brahman and thus assert Its form (59). We may add that according to Sankara these Srutis describe the fior and qga aspects of Brabman of which the fn is absolutely real while agu is only relatively real; according to Ramanuja they deny all despikable or censurable qualities of Brabman and affirm all meritorious characteristics mn Brahman; while in the opinion of Vallabha the negation refers to all worldly (915T) attributes and the affirmation to all divine (fas) qualities, thus according to him these Srutis mean that Brahman has no feet and hands such as wo have but It has divine feet and hands. The Sutrakara interprets such texts as proving that Brahman is both पुरुषविध and अपुरुषविध at the same time.

The Sutrakara's interpretation of the Srutis describing Brahman as having a two-fold mutually contradictory nature, if correct as explained by us above, gives us a clue to his explanation of the Srutis which describe Brahman only negatively (afa, afa) and those which do it only positively. Tho Sutrakara seems to take the former type of Srutis as denying only and latter a affirming only the (gay) a4 of Brahman and not as treating with the impossibility or possibility of certam or all gu in Brahman. In fact, accordiag to the Sutrakara, they have nothing to do with the gus of Brahman except the one gu viz., $4 'form'. The Srutis30 which deny that there is a second reality besides Brahman are interpreted by Sankara as denying not only a second principle similar or dissimilar to Brahman but also the possibility of any distinction like that of parts and the whole or attributes and the possessor (29) अपि चैवमेके। Bra.Su.IIk2.13. Vide Pt.I for the श्रुतिs, (30) Vide, e. g., शाङ्करभाष्य on तदनन्यत्वमारम्मणशब्दादिभ्य:।(Bra. Su.II.1,14).

150 'अद्वैत' श्रतिs. 'अक्षर-पुरुष' श्रति in मु० उप०

of attributes uithin Brahman Itself. The Sutrakara however makes use of such Srutis in refuting a Purvapaksa arguing that the Unmanifest or gaym Brahman is lower and the Purusa is higher Brahman, and thus apparently believing in two principles called Brahman both being conscious and eternal.31 Thus, according to the Sutrakara these Srutis deny only a second principle and do not dony the possibihty of ianawa in Brahman. It is very difficult to interpret the Mu. Upa. Sruti in which we rend of 'aaty grqg' because it seems to be the only Sruti in the aceepted Upanisads, placing aen and ges in the same grammatical connection.32 An Opponent interprets this to mean that one should know the Aksara as ges i.e., the conception of ger is a mental projection (क्रिया मानसवत्) on the अक्षर, 39 But the Satrakara referring to the same Upanisad34 proves that the knowledge of the Purusa is aarfae just as that of the Aksara.35 Thus, the Satrakara would explain 'a7 garg' as proving that Brahman is at the same time अरूपवत् (अक्षरम्) and also रूपवत् (पुरुषम्).36 Sankara cannot explain this Sruti by referring ges to its conventional sense of 'anthropomorphic form'; the only way for him is to give the word an etymological sense of 'पूर्ण मनेन इदं सर्वम्.' If it be asked "How the same Brahman be possessed of two mutually contradictory aspects each of which would give the same result, viz., Mokșa ?", the Sutrakara replies (1) that because we find (s9ar) such a Brahman in the Upanisads, this principle is quite reasonable (sqqa) on the analogy of an ordinary example like the same destination being reached by persons approaching

(32) येनाक्षरं पुरुषं बेद मत्यं प्रोवाच ता नत्वनो ब्रह्मविद्याम।Mu.Upa,I.2.13. (33) प्रक मासूम्याद किया मानसवस् (Brn.St.III.3.45). (34) The Sutrakarn seems to emphasise gas and sufaer also in Mu Upav 1.3 13. Vido (32) supra. (35) विषेय तु निर्धोरणात (Bra.SG.III.3.47). सथा विद्ाशामरूपाद निमुक्त: परातरं पुरुपसुपेति विव्यम्। (Mu. Upa.III.2.8) and दर्शनाच्च। (Bra.SQ.III.3.48). (36) Vide Sütras I.2.21-28 which deal with the same Srutis.

BOTH ASPECTS OF EQUAL STATUS, EQUALLY AUTHENTIO 151

it from two opposive directions,37 and (2) that as Sruti and Smrti are 'more powerful' than Preception and Inference, tbere is no contradiction in such a doctrine about Brahman.38 Thus, it is finally by an appeal to the word of the Scripture that the Satrakara can explain the propriety of the two mutually contradictory aspects of equal status in his interprotation of the Upanisads. In order to explain their propriety and reasonableness the Sutrakara has not adopted the method of lowering ono of the two aspects; as seems to have been done by an Opponent who believed that the Purusa is higher than the Avyakta, a view which we sball soon disouss, or as has been, in later times, done by Sankara who holds that the asvaa is absolutely real while the sqax is relatively so. Either of these two procedures may be justified by the demand of rationalism but such a method would be hostile to the belief in the egual authority of all the Srutis, because both these procedures would make one set of Srutis literally true and the other true in a secondary sense only. We take up another point of interpretational difference between these two Acaryas. There is a great difference between them in the interpretation of those Srutis in which the Purusa is said to be higher than the Unmanifest or the Immutable (34 or xgrr).39

The Sütrakara says that the Brahman is "Avyakta becanse the Sruti says so",40 and in the same Adhikarana he refutes a Pürvapaksa according to which "From this Avyakta a seeker is united with the Endless because such is the Sruti",41 by saying that 'Because Brahman bas two names, viz., aam and gou, Brahman is like ane the serpent and like gors the coil of the

(38) अ्त्यादिबलीयस्त्वाच्च न बाघ: । (Bra.Su.III.3.49). (39) महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुप: पर: ।(Katha Upa.III.11) and दिव्यो अ्मूतः पुरुष :...... अक्षरात्परतः परः।(Mu.Upa.II.1.2). (40) तद्रव्यकत माह हि। (Bra.Su.TII.2.23). (41) अतोऽनन्नेन तथा हि किन्म्।(Bra.SO,III.2.26).

152 SOME कठ उपनिपद् ध्रुतिs

serpent,42 and because in the case of the Purusa there is a negation, viz., that His &4 is invisible to the eye.48 Immediately after this Adhikarana he takes up for discussion another Purvapaksa which argues that there is a second principle higher than this Avyakta and refutes it in five Sutras.44 Lastly m an अतिदेश the Sttrakara establishes that the Avyakta is सवगत (omnipresent'.45 Wo have pointed out in course of our interpretation of the Satras referred to above that these Satras refer to the famous qrint ladder of the Katha Upanisad40 and that a Purvapaksu based upon those Katha S'rutis is here refuted by the Sutrakara. According to the Satrakara the Avyakta is the highest principle; It is the ansgar aspect of Brahman. So in the series of Katha Upa.III.10 and VI.8, we have to take according to the Sutrakara the Avyakta as the arsqad Brahman. In Katha Upa. VI.8 we read that the Purusa is omnipresent and that He is higher than the Avyakta. So a Purvapaksin argues that from the Unmanifest a meditator unites with the nqs or a-G, the Endless, viz., the Purusa.4 The Sutrakara says that aoam and yas are two names of Brahman and therefore Brahman is अरूपवत् like अहि and रूपवत् like gora;48 he also draws attention to the fact that in Katha Upa. VLD we are told that the ay of the Purusa is not visible to the oye; this shows that the Purusa is not different from the Avyakta or that the Purusa is another name of the Avyakta.

(42) उभयव्यपद्रेशारवहिकुण्डलवत्।(Bra St.1II.2.27). (43) qeaat ! (Bra.SD.ITI.2.29). (44) Viz., Bra.Sü.III.2.33-86. (18) अनेन मर्वगनत्वमायामशब्दारिभ्य:। (Bra.Su.III.2.37). (46) Katha Upa II1.10-11 and VI.8-9. (47) अतोऽनन्तेन तथाहि लितमू । Bra.St.I1I,2.26. अव्यकातु पर: पुरुषा व्यापकोडलिम एव च। यज्जात्वा मुच्यते जन्तुरमृतत्वं च गच्छति ॥। (Katha Upa.VI.8). .

(49) sfansr | Bra.St,III.2.30- This refers to न सदशे तिप्वति रूपमस्य न चक्षषा पश्यति कक्नैनम् । Katha VI. 9.

कठ उप० "पुरुष IS HIGHER TIAN अव्यक्क" 158

There are many Srutis particularly in the Earlier Metrical Upanisads in which a principle higher than the arsqaa or Avyakta is mnentioned; and Katha Upa.III.11 and VI.8 is one of them. Another Sruti of that type is Mu. Upa.II.1.1-250. Bhagavad- gītā VIII.19-22,51 also places the Purușa higher than the Avyakta Here we are concerned with the Katha Upanisad Sruti . The Satrakara having taken the Avyakta as the nltrmate principle called Brahman, the followers of the Katha Sakha argne that the Purusa is higher than the Avyakta.54 We have explained how the arguinents of सेतुव्यपदेश, उन्मानव्यपदेश, संबन्धव्यपदेश and मदेव्यपदश are based upon the Katha Upanisad itself. Thus, सेतुव्यपदेश refers to the fact that in Katha Upa.III.258 the Avyakta or the impersonal aspect of Brahman is called a bridge. The उन्मानव्यपदेश seems to ns to be a reference to the description of the Avyakta as argued by the Opponent, as अङगुष्टमात्र पुरुष in Katha Upa. IV.12-13,5+ distinct from the 194 g74 of Katha Upa. VI.9. The third argument is based upon the fact argned by the Opponent that the individual soul seems to be already connected with the

(50) तदेतत्सत्यं यथा सुदीप्तात् पावकाद्विस्फुललिङ्गाः सहसशः प्रभवन्ते सरूपा:। तथाक्षराद्विविधा: सोभ्य भावाः प्रजायन्ते तन्र चैवापियन्ति ॥ १ ॥ दिव्यो ह्यमूतेः पुरुषः सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः । अप्राणो त्यमनाः शुभ्रोव्यक्षरात्परतः पर: ॥Mu.Upa.II.1.1.2. (51) अव्यक्तोऽक्षर इत्युक्त स्तमाहु: परमां गतिम्। यं प्राप्य न निवर्तेन्ते तद् धाम परमं मम ॥ पुरुष: स परः पार्थे भत्त्या लभ्यस्त्वनन्यया। यस्यान्तःस्थानि भूतानि येन सर्वमिदं ततम् ॥(Bha.Gi. VIII.21-22), Here the gरप is higher than (पर:) the अवयक अक्षर, Vide the present autlor' Aksara: 1 Forgotten Chapter. (52) परमतःसेतून्मानसंबन्धभेदव्यपदेशभ्यः ।(Bra.Su.l.II.2.31), (53) यःसेतुरीजानानामक्षरं ब्रह्म यत्परम्। अभयं तितीर्षतां पारं नाचिकेत रकेमहि ॥ (KathaUpa.IIT.2). (54) अज्ञष्ठमात्रः पुरुषो मध्य आत्मनि तिष्ठति। ईशानो भूतभव्यस्य न ततो विजगुप्सते। एतद्वैतत् । अज्ञष्टमात्र: पुरुषो ज्योतिरिवाधूमकः । ईशानो भूतभव्यस्य स एवाद्य स उश्वः एतद्वैतन्॥ Katha. Upa.IV.12-19, 20

154 कठ उप०'S VIEW OF "पुरुप", REFUTED BY बादरायण

Auyakta according to Katha Upa.IV.455 and that therefore the Reality with which he expects to be connected must be higher than this Avyakta. The भेदव्यपदेश meant by the Purvapaksa would be very probably the भेद of पर and अपर, the अव्यक्त Brahman mentioned by the Sutrakara56 being the latter.57 The Sutrakara having greater regard for the Oldest Prosp Upanisads seems to have refuted the view of the followers of the Earher Metrical Upanisads and the Smrti. He explains away the arguments of dd, 3mls and daar from the stand-point of the Oldest Prose Upanisads which was an historically correct stand- point; and he refutes the argument of N 'difforence' between the Avyakta and the Purusa by referring to the same argument as he gives in Bra. Su.III.2.27-30 in reply to similar objection from an Opponent, viz., the analogies of प्रकाश and its आश्रय or अहि and कुण्डल. 59 By the word अनन्त which was used for व्यापक in Katha UTpa, VI.8,59 it was implied that the Avyakta is not omnipresent, but the Purusa only is ommipresent (व्यापक); so by an अतिदेश the Sütrakara also proves that the Avyakta is ommipresent.60 Thus, it seems to be clear that the Sütrakara interprets the Avyakta in such Srutis as Katha Upa. as the final principle and the Purusa as another "name" of that final principle1. The same argument of 'onmipresence' is once again used for the same purpose of denying two ultimate omnipresent principles in Bra.Su.III.3.1002.

(55) स्वनान्तं जागरितान्तं चौभी येनानुपश्यति। महान्तं विभुमात्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति।। (Katba Upa.IV.4). (56) तदव्यकमाह हि। (Bra.Su.III.223). (67) For a detailed oxplanation of these four arguments based upon the text of the Katha UpaniSad itself, vide our Notes on Bra.Su,III.2 81. (5b) Bra.SO.III.9.32-36 abovo. Vide our intorpretation of these Sūtras in Part I. (59) Vide Notes on Sutra IIT 2.26. (60) अनेन म्वेगनरवमायामशब्दाविम्य:1 (Bra.Su III.2.37).

(69) m ansnqn1 (Bra.Sũ.III.3.10)

सांख्य VIEW : अव्यकत OF कठ IS आनुमानिक 165

In the Sutras of Bra.Su. III.2 discussed above we have a Purvapaksa asserting that the Avyakta is Brahman but that there is also another principle higher than that Avyakta. Besides this, there is also another group of Sutras I.4.1-7 which dis- cusses a Purvapksa that the Avyakta in the Katha Upanisad is the Anumanika63, a principle based upon aHm (i. e., a Smrti like the Bhagavadgita ? ) of the Samkhyas61. The Sutrakara says that the explanation (tffa) of the Avyakta is mentioned in the Allegory of the Chariot65. If we look to that allegory we find that the Supreme Abode which is the Terminus of the Journey seems to have been taken by the Sūtrakara as the principle called areqe 66. The Sutrakara also draws attention to the Katha Sruti in which the principle "higher than the Mahat" is said to be Brahman and the Avyakta is said to be higher than the Mahat in Katha Upa.III.11; so, the Sutrakara says that this Sruti shows 68 that the Avyakta is Brahman, 'the knowledge of which brings release froin the world'. But as Brahman has two aspects-the aaaa and the nqaa, the Sutrakara says that the Avyakta is the asuaa or, in other words, es4 aspect of Brahman, because the arouaa or Ee# which cannot be seen, being withont 4 or form, can be fittingly called "m" 69. As to why the Purusa is placed higher than the Avyakta, the Sutrakara says that the Purnsa is placed higher than the Avyakta, the vsraq.Brahman, be-" cause the Purnsa, the E4aaaspect, is dependent upon the Avyakta, the seyan or dew aspect, just as the aai: or objects of sense which

(68) आनुमानिकमणगकेपामिति चेन्न शर्राररपकविन्यसतगृहीतेवशैयति च। (Bra.Su [.4.1). (64) See Appendix (05) va-(4T%, because the body is allegorically the chariot. (06) Cf. अब्यक्तोडक्षर इत्युक्त स्तमाहु: परमा गतिम् । य प्राष्य न निवतन्ने तडाम परम सम॥ (Bha,Gi, VIII20-21) Here also s4h is declared to be the Supreme Abode of the Lord. (67) अशब्दमस्पशमरूपमव्यय तथाऽरसं नित्यमगन्धवञ्वच यत्। अनायननतं महतः पर धुन निचाय्य तन्मृत्युमुखातप्रमु यते Katha Upa.III.15. (68) दर्शयति च। in the above Subra. (69) सूक्ष्मं तु तदहत्वात्। (Bra.Su.1.4.2) In this Sutra सूक्ष्मम् means अरुपयत्

156 Biy INTERPRETATION OF 47, REFUTED BY 1OT

are dependent upon the senses for their perception are placed above the senses in Katha Upa.III.10a70. As the Purusa or the zyad aspect is said to be dependent on the Avyakta jnst like sref: or objects which are dependent upon the senses, we should conclude that the Avyakta is the EGH or arsyad aspect of Brabman, but not the Avykata of the Samkhyas. Also the Avyakta is not the Samkhya principle becanse in this Katha Upaninsad passage the Avyakta or the asqaa is not the topic to be known. If on the strength of Katha, Upa.III.15, the Opponent argues that the Avyakta is here taught as a principle to be lenoton for absolution like the Samkhya principle in the Samkhya works; the Sutralara rephes that the m5 or the Purusa is here the objert of knowledge rather than the gaqm because the context shows that only the sia or 369 is intended to be taught in this passage.T2 In Bra.Su.1.2.11 the Sutrakara has shown that one of these "two in the heart" is the Purusa.73 In Bra.Sū.II.8.29 the Sutrakara says that the si or the Purusa, the personal aspect, is called "ae", 'ar "naa" (1. e., the impersonal aspeet) in several Srutis because it possesses the substance of attributes of the Avyakta or the arupavat aspect of Brahman.74 We may say that the question of Naciketas in Katha Upa. II.14,75 though & question about the aia or the 344, who is different (-) from धर्म, कृत, भूत, i. e., the created world and also from अधम (धर्मरहित), aa wa, i. e., the Avyakta Brahman, is in fact one question

(r() ननधीनत्वादर्भेवत (Bra. Su. I 4. 3), अर्थवत् is t reference to "इन्द्रियेभ्यः पराः sri :* in Katha Upa.III.1O a. (73) 77*1 (Bra.Sü.I.4.4). (72) ववनीनि वेष पाश्ो कि प्रकरणात। (Bra.St.I.4.5), (73) गुद्दा पविषावात्मानी हि नहर्शनातू। (Bra St. I.2.11). (74) Ci. प्राशवत् ।] तद्युणमार पत्वात्त तद्वयपदेशः प्राशयत्।(Bra.St.11.3.19),

अन्यय भूताथ मम्याच यत्ततपश्यारी नदद ॥ (Katha Upa.[T.14). We beliove, धर्म, कुन and भo mean the oreated world, अधम or वर्मरहित, अकृत and भव्य mean अव्यक्क ब्रह्मन् and the one other than these two is the Purusa about whom the Questiou is asked to Yama. "arerga: win" shows that araa is Brabman,

बादरायण AND शङ्कर DIFFER RE, कढ उप० 157

about three, viz., the created world, the Avyakta or the qaa Brahman and the Purusa or the eyaa Brahman. Simlarly, we may say that Katha Upa.III 10-11 is a reply mentioning the created world (beginning with senses and ending with the Mahat), the Avyakta or the arsuaa aspect, and the Purusa or the रूपवत aspect.77 Thus, it is only in a secondary sense that the Avyakta is included in the question and in the reply here. The principal topic is the Purusa (Bra.Su I.4.5-7). And as this Purușa, the ayaa aspect of Brabmau, is here said to be dependont upon the Avyakta in accordance with the analogy of the objects of sense (ar: which are here said to be higher than the senses because they are dependent on the senses), the Sutrakara concludes that the Avyakta is the srsvag aspect of Brahman, on which the yaa or the Purusa aspect depends.

From the above interpretation of Bra. Su.I.4.1-7 we gather that according to the Sutrakara the Avyakta is the areqqd or Htn aspect of Brahman and that the Purusa, the personal aspect, is said to be higher than the Avyakta because the Purusa is the $4a4 aspect of Brahman and depends upon the Avyakta or the ensvaa.

Thus, the information about the Sutrakara's interpretation of Katha Upa.JII.10-11 and VI.8-9, derived from Bra.Sü.JII.2 is quite consistent with the same derived from Bra.Su.I.4.1-7.

Sankara differs from the Sūtrakara as regards the interpretation of this Katha Upa. Sruti and brings in his theory about the RtonH by interpreting the Avyakta as fevynn and the Purusa as the निमुग Brahman, though 'पुरुष' is not a proper berm for the निर्गुण one. This interpretation of Sankara makes a vast difference in the philosophical doctrine about the nature of Brahman, particularly the रूपवत, or साकार Bralman.

(76) त्रयाणामेवर चैवमुपन्यासः प्रशश्।Sankara explains the Sutra as if it read "त्रय एव चैवसुपन्यागा: प्रशाश्च।" (77) Cf. उपन्यासः in त्रयाणामेव चैवसुपन्याम: प्रश्श्र। (Bia.St.I.4.6).

158 FIVE KINDS OF MEDITATIONS OF BRAHMAN

For the above reason, we behieve that the Sūtrakara takes अव्यक and पुरुप as respectively the निराकार and साकार aspects of Brahman. It is also noteworthy for the original interpretation of the as d itself that origmally the Purusa was regarded as really higher than the Avyakta, both being Brahman. The Pürvapaksas given by the Sūtrakara prove this.

An important point abont the meditation on Brahman leading to the achievement of Moksa in the opinion of the Sutrakara seems to us to be presented by him in Bra.Su.III.8. He seems to interpret the Srutis which mention such meditations as dealing with three different kinds of meditations."8 Some Srutis deseribe the meditation on Brahman not conceived as consisting of parts, while others present the same based upon the parts of Brahman. An example of the latter is the meditation on the वैश्वानर Atman79 or the meditation known as the उपकोशलविद्या.80 The former type of meditation is again two-fold according as one meditates on the areqaa aspect or the Pradhana and on the #qad aspect of Brahman or the Purusa. The latter can be illustrated by the meditation on the Purusa in Mu. Upa.II.1. 2-3,81 while the former by, e.g., the meditation on ana-x as Brahman.82 We have already given full details of these and we may not deal with them here once again except only to show how the Sutrakära seems to divide the Srutis according to theso three kinds of 34a-7s.88

Besides these three types of meditations the Sūtrakāra seems to explain the Upanisads as dealing with two more, which,

(78)- जी वमुख्यप्राणलिक्गान्नेनि नेवोपासन्निविध्यादात्रितत्वादिह तद्योगात् ।(Bra.Su.I.1.31). (79) तस्य व वा मनस्थात्मनो वैश्वानरय मूर्धेव सुतेजाश्चक्षुर्विश्वरूप: प्राणः पृथग्वत्मतमा संवेही बहुल अन्तिरेव रम: पयम्येव पायौं। (Cha.Upa.V.18.2). (80) (Cha Upa. IV.10-14). (81) Vide (143) Supra on P. 49. (82) आनन्दाद्यन खविविमानि भूतानि जायन्ते आनन्देन जातानि जीवत्ति आानन्द प्रयन्त्यभिसं- RaAr1 (Tai. Upa.III.G). (83) They are disoussed in Bra.S0 III.3.10-54 (*4 and #raq aspocts ) and Bra.Su.IIl.3.55-66 (अन्वावबद्धा: उपासना:)

TIIE THREE STATES DO NOT MAKE SÎ7 JE AND IT 159

however, do not lead to Moksa. One of them is a voluntary or T4 meditation, an example of which would be the meditation on aa as Brahman,84 The other is a meditation concerned with some ritual or some text of the ritual.85 Thus, a Sruti in which a meditation on Brahman is mentioned would belong to one of the above classes. This seems to us to be the Sutrakara's stand-point of interpreting the Srutis dealing with the Jqmas of Brahman.

In Bra.Su.III.2.1-8, the Sutrakara says that the dreaming state does not explain the bondage of the individual soul because the creation in that state is "only jngglery" (Bra.Su.III.2.1-4). According to the Sutrakara, we cannot explain the Srutis about the individual soul's transmigration and release from it by referring to the different states of the soul, but rather the transmigration and its reverse are due to the fact that soul's real nature has been hidden or concealed on account of the thought of the Sup- reme One (to become many). Or, as an alternative, we may say that the bondage of the soul is due to the contact of the soul with the body ( not due to any of the three states of the soul) and * that the absence of that contact ( not the absence of bondage ) takes place when the soul is in the hita (far) arteries and in the Supreme Soul; and, therefore when the soul comes to the waking state ( which means union with the body), he does so from this Supreme Soul ( Bra.Su.III.2.6-8). Thus, the soul is affected really, not by the three states but by his contact with the body or rather by the thought of the Supreme One, which led to the concealment of the soul's real nature and consequently his bondage and freedom.

Having thus refuted the view that the three states affect the soul and explain his bondage and freedom, the Sütrakara simi-

(84) A series of sueh meditations is given in Chã, Upa.VII. Vide Nole 5 (b) on Bra.SU,III.3.55. (85) E.g., Cha, UpaI.11.5 where Brahman is identified with deity of srar. Vide our interpretation of यावदधिकारमवस्थिनिराधिकारिकाणाम्। (Bra, Sd.III.3-89),

160 THE THREE STATES DO NOT MAKE BRAHMAN TWO-FOLD

larly refutes the view that also the same three states explain the application of the two-fold Srutis (about the nqaa and 69aa aspeets ) to the Supreme One, becanse these two-fold Srutis arc applicable to Brabman in all the states.86 He does not deny the states but he denies that they affect the Para. If it be argued that there is difference in Brahman caused by the different atates, the Sutrnkara says that thore is a Sruti expressly stating that the Para is mithout any change in each of the three states."7 "The Sutrakara probably refers to the Chandogya Upanisad in which Prajapati explains to Indra how the mdividual soul and Brabman with which the individual woul is identical remam changeless in euch of the three states.88 Other arguments also are given by the Sutrakara to prove that the Supreme Being is is unaffected by the states and that therefore Brahman is both अरूपवत and रूपवत् in all the three states (सर्वेत्र in Sutra III.2.11), viz., (1) the followers of a certain Branch of the Veda declare that Brahman is both asyaa and sqa4 in all the states, (2) that Brahman is only asyaa because it is mainly so, and (3) that the Para is not of the nature of Lught though it can be compred with light.9 It is also stated by the Sutrakara that the change ot Brahman in the form of Brahman being subject to increment and decrement is due to the self-concealment of Brahman and therefore it eannot be explained as taking place due to the three statex of Brahman.90 Thus the three states do not affact the Supreme Soul as well as the individual soul.

It seems to us that in the above Sūtras, the Sūtrakara is refuting a Pürvapaksa based upon such a tert as the Mandūkya Upanisad. The Sutrakara understands this Sruti as taking the

(67) न मदाविति चेज प्रलयेकमतद्वचनातू । Vide our Notes on the Sutra. (Bra. SB IT(.2.19). (88) (Chã. Upa. VIII.7.11). Vide also Bra Su.1.3.14-21-viz., the TIraro, (89) Bra.SQ.III.2.13-19. Vide our Interpretation in Part 1. (90) Bra SiIII.2.20-22.

THE 8 HS OF BRAHMAN, HI, E. AND 3L. 3. 161

dreaming world as really created by the individual soul himnself ( as said in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad ) and as explaining the soul's bondage and freedom from it as connected with his different states. Similarly,91 the Sutrakara also believes the Mandukya Upanisad to be explaining the अरूपवत् and रूपवत् Srutis of Brahman with reference to the different states ( ₹ns ) of Brahman. He rejects these explanations of the Mandukya Upanisad. He shows that transmigration and Moksa of the soul are due to the desire of the Supreme Being ( to be many ? ) or that the bodage is due to the contact of the soul with the body and freedom from it takes place when the soul is in the fadt arteries or in the Supreme Atman. He also proves that the asqaa and eura texts about the Supreme Being are not to be explained as referring to the different states (T95s) of the Para, but thay describe Brahman in all the states (na) and that Brahman is the same (i.e., two-fold) in all the states according to the Chandogya Upanisad.92

It should be noted that the Sūtrakara seems to differ from the interpretation of Gaudapada and Sankara of the Māņdukya ' Upanisad and that he holds that that Upanisad does not agree with the teaching of Cha. Upa. VIII.7-12. Hc thinks that the states of the soul and the Supreme One are real, but that the creation in the case of only the dreaming state of the individual soul is unreal or "jugglery". The Sūtrakāra unlike Gaudapāda and Sankara does not think that these states are due to Avidyā or Mayā,

One more Sruti on which the Sūtrakāra and Sankara seem to have differed is Cha, Upa. VII.26.1, which seems to be discussed in Bra.Sü.III.2.20-22, According to the Mandūkya Upanisad, the different states offer an explanation of the change in Brahman. The Sutrakara holds that Brahman is the same, it is both arsqaa and suaa, in all the states ( Bra.Sü.III.2.11 ), so he seems to offer (91) This is the sense of अपि in न स्थानतोऽपि परस्थोभयकित्रं स्वत्र हि। (Bra.SO.III.2.11.)

21

162 परिणाम, वृद्धि, व्हास OF ब्रह्मन् BY ITS अन्तर्भाव

In Bia.Sü.III.2.20-22 an explanation of the change possible of Brahman, just as he offers an explanation of the bondage and its reverse in the case of the mdividual soul m Bra.Su.III.2.5-8, beeause he does not accept the view that they ( bondage and its reverse ) are to be explained by the different states of the soul. We baxe shown that increment ( af ) and decrement ( =am ) of Brabman disoussed in these Sutras are two ont of the six states of au entity mentioned by Yaska. The Sutrakara has explaiued the transformnation ( 9RmH) of Brahman as a change in which the effeet of Brahman is Brahman Itself.08 So, he explains the Ta aud ra of Brabman in harmony with this kind of tRung of Brahman. The increment aud decrement in Brahman are due to tho coneealment of the attributes of Brahman. Only by this theory we can explain properly and consitently both these states of Brahman. He seems to support this srawia 'concealment' by reference to Cha. Upa. VII.26.1.94 In support of this explanatiou of the Sruti ( Cha. Upa. VII.26.1) the Satrakara seems to refer to Cha. Upa. VII.1.11.95 The Sruti refers to the whole creation. Sanatkumara at every stage "denies that Brahman is only as much as the itam under discussion," and thon "says that Brahman is higher or larger than that.90 The Sutrakara seems to hold that in ma4 there is a greater degree of conceal- ment of Brahman than in ara and so on. So, the concealment of Brahman explains the creation. The greater the decrewent of Brahman in its effect which is also Brahman, the greater its (03) : aiarnia: (Bra.Sũ.I.4.25). (94) XITa: #f ereAhmral ( (Cha Upa. VII.26.1) (95) Particularly to the serios of the repeated sentence "अस्नि भगनी नाम्नो भूय इति नाम्नो वाव भूयोडस्तीति तन्मे भगवान् प्रवीत्विरिति। वाब्ये नाम्नो भूयस्षी।" *आस्मसः आविर्भांयमिरभावी refers to the आविर्भाव-सिरोभावी of मनः अन्नम्, आप :, Ra: wrera:, srot:, eto., eto., Of. also sman: va naer (Cha. Upa.VII.26.1). So tho S rutt refera to the whole oreation (06) CI. पकृततावस्वं हि प्रतिषेधनि। in Bra.Su.III.2.22 and ततां नवीति च मूय: in the rame SŪtra.

त्रियशिर स्वादि OF ते उप० II 5 168

concealment in it, and the greater the increment of Brahman in its effect which is also Brahman, the less its concealmnent mn it.97

The above explanation of Bra.Su.III.2.20-22 is suggested to us on the supposition that Sutra 22 refers to Cha, Upa. VII.1-14, 26. Sankara does not take that Sruti as the one referred to in these Sutras, nor does he explain the words "आविभावतिरोभावौ" (in the Sruti ) in his ah on the Upamsad. We feel that here was an oc casion for the Sutrakara to explain his theory of causation or creation from Brabman because he denies that any change in Brahman can be explained by the different states of Brahman. Before Sankara there was a commentary on the Sutras, which explained the Sutras as teaching the view that tho creation took place by the coucealment अविभावन) and its reverse (विभावन) of the attributes of Brahman.98

In the case of Tai. Upa.II.5,99 the Sutrakara holds that these are really the attributes of Brahmin according to the text of the Sruti; but as these (fafaeaifa imply a change of degrees in the bliss of Brabman and, as there is no change as a matter of fact, these attributes should be dropped in the meditation on the asqaa Brahman.100 This Sutra also shows that Bra.Sü .- I.1.12101 takes the anarana Sruti as dealing with Brahman or Atman. But, as is very well known, Sankara differs from the Sutrakara and takes that Tai. Upa, passage as dealing with his theory of the five sheaths of the soul, and Tai. Upa.IL.5 as referring to the a4sr. We think that in his bhasya on Bra.Su.III.3.12 Sankara clearly states that he differs from the

(97) For a detailed explanation of the Sitras vide Part I. (98) Vide Note (7, P.28) on Bra Su.NII.2.20 m Part I, also ThTL. on A.4.II.1.4. (99) नस्य प्रियमेव शिर:। मोदो दक्षिण: पक्षः। प्रमोन उतरः पक्षः। आनन्द आतमा। जहा पुचछ sfagtt (Tat. Upa.II.6).

(101) आनन्दमयोडम्यासात्। (Bra.Su.I.1.12).

164 विभ्यर्थ FORMS, उपासीत, दएव्य:, ETC.

Sutrakara and he admits that he has differed from the Sūtrakāra on this point in his interpretation of Bra.Su.I 1.12.

In the case of the verbal or participal forms like surefa, aa, age4: eto, occurring in the Upanisads, the Sutrakara holds that these have the primary sense, viz., that of laying down an Injunetion in the case of the asvad and the 59a8 aspocts of Brahman. Sankara, however, does not believe that his farger Brahman can ever be a subject of Injunction. So, he interprets the Srutis with 3u4ia, at, etc., as referring to what be calls aget Brahman or if he is forced to take a Sruti as dealing with frior Brahman, he changes the sense of suiefa, àe, etc. so as to suit the view that Brahman as the knower humnself cannot be an object of knowledge. As we have sbown elsewhere, (Chapter 1, P. 35) the Sutrakära explains the whole process of the knowledge of Brahman, on the lines of the explanation of karman or Dharma in the Pūrvamimamsa.

The Sruti which clearly says that the vital airs of a knower of Brahman do not depart from his body103 and which Sankara interprets in the same sense, is explained by the Sütrakärn in a different way. The Sūtrakāra argues that in the Madhyandina Sakha the same Sruti is read differently104 and that in that Sakha it is clearly stated that the vital airs and senses do not depart from the individual soul of the Brahma- jnanin but that they depart with him. Thus, he does not agree with Sankara in the interpretation of this text (Br.Upa.IV.4.6). We muny add that perhaps it would have been better if the Sütrakära had given an option in the matter of the departure of the pranas from the body of the knower of Brahman. But his attitude in this matter sbows that like the I Acaryas the

(102) C6 चोडना in सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्यय चोननाच्यविशञेपात्। (Bra.Su.III.S.1). (103) न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्ामन्ति प्रह्मष सन् ब्रह्माप्येति। (Br.Upa.IV.4.6) (104) ever te 1 (Bra.Su.IV.2.13) refers to cral which

Kăpa S'äkhit. in the rending in the Madhyadina Sakha in place of a aer mo sonira of the

आश्रमश्चति, शमदमादिश्रुति, यज्ञादिश्रति 165

Sutrakara also is sometimes inclned towards one particular Sruti. His interprotation of the Br. Upa Srnti seems to have been influenced by his preference for the view of the Cha. Upa,- Sruti,105 which he discusses in detail in Bra.Su.IV.2.1-17. An option about the departure of the pranas would have reconciled both the Br. Upa. and the Cha. Upa.texts without forcing an an interpretabion on Br. Upa.IV.4.6. We would now only briefly notice several Srutis and state the points that the Sutrakara seems to us to emphasise therein. Cha. Upa.II.23.1 does not lay down the TMas in general and does not serve as a foundation for the Smrtis which deal witl the maHs in detail, but it lays down the maHs to which a seeker of Brahman may belong. Thus, its purpose is to say that a seeker of Brahman may belong to any one of the four sneras.100 Sankara also quotes a predecessor of his, who interpreted the Sruti in question as, we think, the Sutrakara has done. The Sutrakara seems to regard the aanfa Sruti in Br. Upa .- IV.4.22-23,107 as a विधि, subsidiary to the यज्ञादि Sruti which is also a faiy; the result of this construction is that according to the Satrakara a seeker of Brahman must perform the sacrifice, etc., even though he may be possessed of aa 'control of mind', etc. Sankara holds quite the contrary view.108

(105) अर्य सोम्य पुरुषस्य प्रयतो वाङ्गनशि संपदयत मनः प्राणे प्राणरतेजसि तेज: परस्यां देवतायाम् (Cha Upa.IV.8.6) and शनं चैका व हृदयस्य नाड्यस्तार्मा मूर्धानममिनिःसतैका। तयोर्मान स्मृनत्वमेति विश्वददन्या उत्क्रमणे भवन्ति। (106) अथ त्रयो धर्मस्कन्धा यज्ञोऽध्ययनं दानमिति प्रथमस्तप एव द्वितीयो ब्रह्मचार्याचार्य- कुलवासी तृतीयोऽत्यन्तमात्मानमाचार्यकुलेऽवसादयन सर्ब एते पुण्यलोका भवन्ति ब्रह्मसंस्थोऽमृत- त्वमेति। (Cha. Upa.II.28.1). Vide विहितत्वाच्चाश्रमकमोपि। (Bra.Su. III.4.82). Vide Sankara's interpretation of Bra.Su,III-4.18 and also of the Sruti in the Bhasya on the Upanisad. (107) ...... तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपासाऽनाशकेन ... ॥२२॥ ...... तस्मादेवविच्छान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्ष समाहितो भूत्वात्मन्येवात्माने पशष्यति ॥२३॥ (108) शमदमायुपंतः स्यात्तथापि तु तद्विधेस्तदक्तया तेष्रामवश्यानुष्ठेयरम्।(Bra.Su.[II.4.37) Vide S'a, bhasya on the same.

166 "उपोपविवेश" IN छा. उप

In the Sruti mentioned above, the Sūtrakāra takes the 7, 417, aog as laid down for a seeker of Brahman.109 The Sūtrakāra says that in the performance of these यज्ञ, दान, तपस् the seeker of Brahman does not require the ordinary sacrificial fire, fuel, eto., but all his requirements resulting from the aifa Sruti are of the nature of the Horse described in Br. Upa.I.1. This explains both the qaif Sruti (Br. Upa.IV.4.22) and also Br. Upa.J.1.110 The Sutrakara seems to explam the significance of tho preposition "39" in 'saaaa" in Cha. Upa. J.10.8.111In Bra .- Su.III.4.42,112 he seems to say that for a seeker of Brahman who is an ascetic the secondary performance (उपपूर्व भावम्) of priestly duties may be allowed; the case is like that of eating all food or food from all persons in the time of the danger of losing one's life out of hunger as stated in Bra.Su.III.4.28. So, "उपोपविवेश" menna that Usasti only guided the priests or supervised them, but did not perform the actual duties of a priest. There are certamn Srutis which say that a priest may periorm priestly duties and transfer the reward of the performance to his master from whom he receives a fee. Such Srutis are found even in the Upanisads. The Sūtrakara makes use of these toxts to show that a seeker of Brahman who is outside the order of asceticism may perform both the official and semi-official priestly duties.118 Besides the amfa (Br.Upa.IV.4.22) and arerH (Cha, Up.II,28.1) duties, the Upanisads mention several other duties, 'ae', 'a' (109) सर्वोपेक्षा च यज्ञादिश्ुनेरश्षवन्। (Bra.Su.III.4.26). (110) अत एत चार्रनीन्वनादयनपेक्षा ।(BraSD,III.4.25) गवापेक्षा यज्ञादिश्ुतरश्ववत् (Bra.Su.IIT.4.26) षा वा अश्वस्य मध्यस्य शिरः ॥ सूयश्षश् वीतः प्राणो व्यात्तमग्नि: oto, eto. (Br. Upa.l.I) (I11) तत्रोद्वातृनास्तावे स्तोध्यमाणानुपोपविवेश स ह प्रस्तीतारसुवाच। (ChaUpa.[.10.8). (112) उपपूर्वमप स्वेके भावमशनवत्तदुक्तम्। (Bra.Su.III.4.42). Vide our interpret- stion of this Sutra in Part I, It refers to adhskarika (official, priestly duties) And upādhkārika (secondary priestly duties). (113) बहिस्तूमयथा स्मृतेरावारान्च। (Bra.Su.III.4.48). स्वामिनः फलश्षतेरित्यात्रेयः । (Bra.Su.11.4.44). Vide also the Srutis (Br Upa.I.3.28) and the Sutras that follow.

श्रतिS ABOUT म्रह्मचर्य, मौन, अग्निहात्र, काम्य कमनेड 167

'ma', etc., etc., as help to the knowledge of Brahman. The Sütrakara makes these voluntary for the seekers of Brahman belonging to orders others than that of a house-holder for whom they are in his opinion compulsory.114

The silence ( ais ) prescribed in Br. Upa.IIT.5.1 is compulsory for a householder who seeks Brahman and it means that this seekor should not make a show of his knowledge bofore the public.115

The Sutrakara seems to interpret Cha. Upa.I.1.10 as meaning that both the obligatory duties like affal and the voluntary duties like the $Ira sacrifices may be done by a seeker of Brahman as a help to the knowledge of Brahman in the achievement of Mokşa.116 According to Sankara this Sruti proves that as afaarifa performed with the mystical or allegorical knowledge of the same is more powerful, the same performed withoul that knowledge is powrerful, i.e., it does produce its reward; the sacri- ficer does not stand in absolute need of knowing the allegorical significance.117

Sankara emphasises the attributes of the Aksara,118 i.e., the negative attributes of Brahman, so much so that all the positive

(114) सहकार्यन्तरविधि: पक्षेण तृतीयं तद्वती विध्यादिवत्। ( Bra.Sa.III.4.47 ) and कृत्स्नभावात्तु गृहिणापरसहार: । (Bra.Su.III.4.48) and also मीनादिवदितरेषामायुपदेशावू। (Bra.Su.III 4.49). (115) अनाविष्कुवेन्नन्वयात्। (Bra.Su.III.4.50). नस्माद्वाह्मणः पाण्डित्य निर्विद् बाल्येन तिश्नसद्वात्यं च पाडित्यं च निरविदाय मुनिरमोन नमोन च निर्विद्याथ ब्राह्मण: । (Bra.Upa III.5.1). (116) उभयोयेदेव विद्ययेति ह। (Bra.Su IV.1.18). Vide our iuterpretation in Part I. (117) Vide S'ankara bhasya on the above Sūtra, (118) अक्षरघियां त्ववरोध: सामान्यतद्भावभ्यां तबुक्तम् । (Bra.Su.III.3.39), Also vide Bra, Su. III.3.13-15. The thoughts on the Aksara are Aay, 44 *iar, ete. eto.

168 THE नेतिनेति श्रतिs. 'अहं ब्रह्मास्मि' श्रुति

attributes wherever they occur are to be interpreted negatively; thus, aa in Tai. Upa. I.1 would mean 'devoid of unreality'. The Sutrakara thinks that these attributes are not useful in meditation and should not be therefore collected in meditation on Brahman. According to the Sutrakära the meditation on Brahman is of the shape of 'I am Brahman' ( ae aaifes ). The text laying down this method is Br. Upa.I.3.7-10, and particuarly Br.Upa.1.3.7.119 This mneditation is not based upon the identity of the individual soul and Brahman but onlv on the definite statement of Br. Upa. I.8.7.10 The result of this meditation is not the realization of one's Self.as Brabman, but the realization of one's Self as all, as described in Br. Upa.I.8.10.121 This result is, moreover, Apurva 'not alrendy mentioned in the earlier Kanda of the Veda'.122 The Srutis which describe Brahman as 'being of a limited size' and thus residing in the buman heart with the individual soul123 show that the meditation 'अहं ब्रह्मास्मि' is to be practised within one's own self. According to Badarayana, the Sruti clearly says that 3n7 is suporior to कर्मन्124 We have already stated that the Srutis with उपासीत, वेद, दृष्टव्य:, are, according to the Sutrakara, all Vidhis laying down the knowledge of Brahman. Here the Sūtrakara opposes the view

(110) आात्मगहीतिरितरवदुत्तरात। (Bra.Su.IIT.3.16). आत्मेत्येवोपासीत। (Br.Upa.I.3.7). (120) अन्वयादिति चेत्स्यादववारणात् । (Bra.Su.III.3.17). (121) य एवं वेदाहं अ्हयास्मीति स इर्द सर्व भवति। (Br.Upa.I.3.10). Vamadeve roalized himself as "अह मनुरभव सूये श्रेतति ।" (123) Also कायाख्यानादपूयम। (Bra.Su,III.3.18). (128) इय दामननादन्तरा भूतपामवत्स्वात्मनः । (Bra.S.III.3.84-35). अगषमात्र: पुरुषो मभ्ये आत्मनि तिष्ठति। अग्गमात्र: पुरुषो जयोतिरिवाधूमक: ॥ (KathaUpa.IV.13), Also अमेकोकरत्वात्तवूयपदेशाच नेति चेन निचाय्यत्वादेवं व्योमव्च।(Bra.St.I.2.7), पयत पप्यपेक्षया तु मनुष्याधिकारत्वात ।(Bra.Su.1.3.25). (124) अविकोपदेशाणा बादरायणस्यवं सदशेनात् । (Bra.SU.1II.4.8).

gIaS RE. THE RELATION OF THE 2 USS 169

of Jaimini. He qnotes m his favour that Sruti which refers to the equality or comparison of ज्ञान and कर्मन् 125 The Upanisadic episodes are neither stuti nor are they meant tor the rite called uft. Here the Sutrakara differs not only from Jaimini but also from Sankara who also takes these episodes in a secondary sense. The Sutrakara seems to emphasise the fact that the two Kandas of the Veda are independent of each other so far as their individual teaching is concerned.126 For this reason, he would not insist on interpreting the Upanisads in a secondary sense, i, e, as subsidiary to the Karmakanda or on explaining the Purvakanda as subsidiary to the Upanisads. Thus, he differs both from Jaimini and from Sankara. He bases his view upon Śrutis like (1) Mu. Upa.I.I which describes both the Kandas as Vidyas though the Purvakanda is said to be the lower Vidya and (2) Cha. Upa. VIl where Narada tells Sanatkumara that he knows all the Purvakanda and still he laments and therefore he wants to know Atman in order to be free from sorrow. In the opinion of the Sutrakara the Sruti itself differentintes between the subject-matters of the two Kandas,127 According to none of the Acaryas we have any Sutras in the Brahmasutra emphasising the meditation on the Pranava as Brahman, to the description of which almost every Upanisad devotes some part of it. We have shown that the Sūtrakāra pays .special attention to the meditation on the Pranava, the symbol of Brabman. In this connection he seems to attach more importance to Mu.Upa.II. 2.8-4,128 than to similar (125) अनुष्ठेयं बादरायण: साम्यश्रुतेः। Bra.Sa.III.4.19 (126) Vide our mterpretation of तथ। चेकवाक्यतोपार्निबन्धान ।(Bra,S3, III 4.24); न वा विशेषात्।(Bra. SuIII. 3.21) and दशयति च। (BraSo [TI.3.92) (127) Of. Bra. SQ 1II. 3.22 above. (128) वेधादयर्थभेदाव/Bra. St, IIT. 3.25), a द्वानी तवायनशब्द रोपत्वा ु:शा नन्दस्तु- न्युपगानवत्तदुक्तम् । Bra.Su. III. 2,26) and सांपराये तनव्यामवानशाजानये। (CS.i11 3.27) aaifs refers to the following Mu. Upa. S'rutis :- धनुरग्हीतवापनिषदं महास्त्ं अर हुपासानिशितं संधयीत। आयम्य तन्द्रावगतेन चेतसा ल्क्ष्यं तदेवाक्षरं सोम्य तिद्वि । प्रणवो धसुःशरो ह्ात्मा श्रह्म तलक्ष्यमुच्यते। भग्रमतूतेन वेद्धव्यं शरवत्तन्मयो भवेत # (Mu. Upa, III. 2.3-4). 22

170 JiaS RE. THE MEDITATION ON 5OE

Srutis m the Katha and other Upanisads. He seems to say that penetration, ete. (aara) mentioned m the Mundaka Upanisad shonld be mesumed in other Upanisads where trn are not found (siA), becanse they are subsidiary to the word "resort" or "means' (s474) used in other Upanisads for the Pranava as a means to liberation. 19 IIe argues thatfor a meditator on the Pranava there is nothing to be crossed (or achieved) m the life hereafter and says that "The followers of one Branch of the Veda sav so." This seems to as to be a reference to Pra. Una V. 5, according to which a meditator on the Pianava consisting of three parts and conceived as only one syllable with parts is conducted by the Samans to Brahman Itself, unlike a meditator on Brahman Itself who after departure at the end of the birth in which he achicves the knowledge of Brabman crosses Rays of the Sun, and otber stations till be reaches the Vaidyuta world from where he is conducted by a Vaidyuta Conductor to Brahman Itself. For this type of meditator on Brahman there is a possibility of renching perfection at some of these worlds; but there is no such possibility of further development for one who chooses to medi- tate on the Pranava for Moksa. Therefore, the complete meditation ou the Syllable Om should be fully practised in this very world. The Sütrakara also emphasises in another conneetion the above fact of the meditator on Om being conducted by the Samans.130 He also notices that the meditation on the Pranava assumes the form of " Om Brahma " unlike the meditation on Brahman Itself which is practised in the form " अद्ंं ब्रह्मास्मि " 1H1 We have already stated above that the Conductor from the world of Lightaing carries or leads the knower of Brahman to (129) Vide Noto (8, P. 181) on Bra.Sü.TTI.3.26. (130) aqdia rqm :... ! ( Bra.Sū.IV.3.15). This Sutra rofers to the following S'rut abont the meditabiou on the Pranava, the symbol of Brabman (pratika) :- HHTà a ( Pra. Upa.V.5 ). (181) a = s: 1 ( Bra.SU.IV.1.4). *(reria: (Bra BU.IV.1.5).

ब्रह्म IN छा० उप० AND विद्या IN बृ० उप० 171

Brahman Itself. The Sutrakara establishes this conclusion after discussing the capacity of the Vaidyuta Ativahika to go to the Supreme Brabman with reference to two Pūrvapaksas of Badar and Jaimini on the same point. Thus, the Sutrakara interprets Cha. Upa.IV.15.5132 m the literal sense, while Sankara takes the Sruti as dealing with the attainment of the world of Brahman or Prajapatı.

For the interpretation of Br. Upa.IV.4.2 183 we gather the information that both Jammni and Badarayana explained the Vidya in this Sruti as Brahmavidya, but while the former held the view that the Vidya was subsidiary to Karman in producing a new body for the seeker of Brahman after he departs from the body in which he got the knowledge of Brahman, the latter seems to have believed that the Vidyā, i. e., the knowledge of Brahman, prodnces a new body for the knower of Brahman and and the Karman produces a new body for one who is not a knower of Brahman but longs to get one of the worlds mentioned in Br. Upa.IV.4.4.184 Unlike both Jaimini and Badarayala, Sankarv explained the Vidya as not the Brahmavidya, but as some lore within the sphere of transmigration (at most a Saguna Vidya ?). Regarding the Srutis and Smrtis which state that Brabman is only Light or which compare Brabman with luminaries, tho Sütrakara clearly says that Brahman is like Light but not of the nature of Inght,185 There are several other Sratis discussed by the Sūtrakara in the interpretation of which Sankara seems to differ from him. We have noticed them in Part 1.

(132) mafa l ( Cha Upa.IV.15.5 ) Vide Noles ( 2, 4 ) on Bra.Sü.IV.3.7. (133) नं विद्याकमेणी समन्वारेसेने पूर्वप्रजा च। (Br.Upa IV.4.2). (134) एवमेवायमात्मेद शरीर निहत्याविद्यां गमयित्वाइन्यन्नवतरं कल्याणतर रूप कुरुते पिन्यं वा गान्वर्व वा दैवं वा प्राजापत्य वा ज्राह्मं वा उन्येषां या भृतानाम्। (BrUpa IV.4.4). Cf. Bru.Sū.III.4.11. (135) dor ra I Vide Notes on Bra.Sn.II.2.19.

172 गीतास्मृति, OTHER स्मृतिs. स्मृतिपाद (ब्र० स० २.१).

We may also say that the Sutrakara undoubtedly makes certain remarks about Smrti. Thus, referring to Bha. Gi. III. 24-25 he says that these Smrti verses refer to time-deties 188 and that a knower of (the highest) Brahman is here declared to be returning to this world without reaching Brahman if he would depart from this world during the southern course of the Sun, while he would attain Brahmau only if he d parted during lis northern courso. The Sutrakara adds that these two Pat is atre mentioned in the Sirte ( not in Srnti ) and that too only for the Yogins. Thus, he seems to discard them as not being Srauta. Sankara however seeks to interpret these deities as the Conductors of the Brahmavid who knows only the limited Brahman and thus Sankara tries to reconcile the Smrti with the Sruti,139

In this connection it is noteworthy that all such expressions as स्मातमू, स्मृतम्, रमरान्त, etc. in the Brabmasutra including also the entire Smti Pada (Bra. Sa. II. 1.) are in our opinon indicative of the Sutrakara's interpretation of certain Smrti texts, mostly verses from the Bhagavadgita and the Mababbarata. We do not think that the Sutrakara uses the word Smrti for the atheistic Samkhya School. Particnlarly in the Smrti Pada we have the the Satrakara's explanations of such doctrines of the Bhagavad- gitg as he thinks are not literally agreeable with his interpretation of the Sruti, chiefly the Cha. and Br. Upanisads. We bave also throughout in the Brahmasutra many Purvapaksas, which seem to nis to proceed from a Smarta Vedanta School (based upon the Gita) and which seem to seek support from the Earlier Metrical Upanişads, but the Sutrakara refutes these Pürvapaksas, taking his stand on the Oldest Prose Upansads. For want of space

(136) मौमिन: प्रतिन स्मर्यत स्मार्ते नैने I Bra.Su.IV.2.21. (7) 4g | (Bra. Sü. III.2.19 and also 18, 98). (188) धूमो रात्रिस्तथा कृष्ण: षण्मासा दक्षिणायनसू। तत्र बान्द्रमसें ज्योतियोंगी प्राप्य निवतते ॥ (Brar Gi. VIII. 25), बागिन: प्रति च स्मयते स्मार्ते चैसे। (Bra. Su. IV 2.21.) (139) Vide S'adkara's ramarks on Bra, Su. IV 2 21.

बादरायण'S PREFERENCE FOR छा. उप० 178

we have to postpone our statement about the Satrakara's Inter- pretation of certain Smitis to a future occasion.

Among the Upanisads the Sutrakara seems to honour most respectfully the Cba. Upa. and then the Br. Upa. and his inter- pretation of the Earlier Metrical Upanisads is inspired by his reverence for those two oldest Upanisads. To give an example, we have shown above how the Sutrakara interprets Katha Upa. JIt.10-11 in harmony with the doctrine of Brahman in the Cha. and Br. Upanisads or how he seems to give up the literal sense of BrUpa.IV.4.6 (न तस्य प्राणा उत्करामन्ति ) in favour of the Cha.Upa. VIII.3.4, while Sankara prefers the Br. Upa. (न तस्य प्राणा उत्कामन्ति) to the Cha.Upa. (अरमाच्छरीरात्समुत्थाय पर ज्योतिरुपसंपद्य). We have too amply noticed the Sutrakara's preference for certain Upanisads elsewhere in this work and also in Part I to need any repetition here.

CHAPTER 8

THE SUTRAKARA AND SANKARACARYA. .

Apart from the interpretational difference leading to dootrinal difference between the Sütrakara and Sankara in the mattes of the mterpretation of the Upanisads and between Sankara and ourselves m that of the Brahmasutra, we may say here a few words by way of a comparison of the Systems of Bādarayana and Sankara. As this book is being placed before scholars with a view to the preparation of another work covering the entire Brahmasutra and going deeper into the various problems raisod herein, it is nut quite safe at this stage to explain the Sūtrakara's System by comparing it with any other System, e.g., that of Sankara, except only on a few very prominent points, which even can be only tentatively discussed here. With the Sutrakara, as also with Sankara, the most important problem is that about the two aspects of Brahman. According to Sunkara these two aspects are frin and agu respectively; while the Sutrakara describes them as अरूपवत् and रूपवत्. Thus, with Sankara one aspect is absolutely without any attributes, while necording to the Sutrakara one aspect has no formn (9, the figure of a gas) but yet it bas attributes ( faaqus ) as well as the other aspcet, there being no ( aspect of ) Brahman altogether without attributes.1 The Sutrakara understands Brahman as a Reality which is al the same time asvaa and sqar.2 Ee seems to dis- tinguish between (a) Srutis which describe the 6qar and (b) Srutis which describe the vaa and thns he distinguishes between the attributes of the asuam and those of the auad aspect of (1) विशियान्ति हीतरवत्। (Bra.Su.III.9.37). (a) न स्थानतोऽपि परस्योभयवित सवत्र हि। (Bra.Su.II1.3.11)

NATURE OF THE TWO ASPECTS OF BRAHMAN. 175

Brahman. The yus of Brahman referred to in Bra.Su.J.1 are those of the areqad, viz, HM" and others,3 while those collected by him in Bra.Su.I.2 and 3 belong to the 5qaa Thus, प्रशासन 'ruling' is an attribute of the au7a aspect of Brahman. He bas collected these attributes under the two lists of aenea: and aa .. 4 Inspite of this distinction about the attributes of the two aspeets, the Srutis in the opmion of the Sūtrakāra chara- cterise the oyad with the attribules of the saa and vice versa. In the opinion of the Sūtrakāra it is not possible to fix the attributes of either of the two aspects.6 So, ultimately, the only distinction we can defimtely make between the two aspects 1b thnt of the possession or the absence of 944 54 according as the aspeot is रूपवत 01 अरूपवतू Again, according to Sankara, one aspect (the fagu one) is higher while the other ( agw ) is lower. The Sūtrakara also takes one aspect (the अरूपवत्) as the chief one (प्रधान or मुख्य)7 but Brahman is #54aa not in the sense that It is eoclusively ersuaa; but It is अरपवत् only in the sense that it is chiefly अरूपचत् 8 Therefore, according to the Sutrakara Brahman is at the same time yaa also. Agam, Bādarāyana regards the aevaa as the more important aspect of the two in the sense that the syaa aspect depends upon the areuaa." This dependence can be illustrated by the example of the coil (3033) of a serpent which has a sy dependent upon the serpent ( en ) which is a term used for tho serpent without reference to any form of the serpent,10 or by the example

(3) Vide Note ( 73 ) in Chapter 1. (4) Vide Notes (9, 10) on Bra.Sū.III.3.39. (5) विशिंषन्ति हीतरवत् । (Bra.Su,III.3). (6) तन्निर्धारणीनयमः । (Bra,SO.II[.342). (7) अरूपवदेव हि तत्प्रधानत्वात् । (Bra SO.III.2.14). आनन्दादय: प्रवानस्य। (Bra,Sii, III.3.11). प्रधानवदेव तदुक्तम् ।(Bra.St.III.953). पंर जैमिनिमुख्यत्वात्।(Bra.Sa.IV.3) (8) This is the senso of एवं in अरूपवदव हि तत्प्रधानव्वात्।(Bra.Sप.ITI 2.14). (9) तदधीनत्वादर्थेवत् । (Bra.Su.I.4.3). (10) उभयव्यपेदशात्वाहकुण्डलवत् । (Bra Su.I1I.227).

176 STATUS OF EACH ASPECT OF BRAHMAN.

of the asrayas of light, e.g., the solar orb ( I.e., the Sun ), the lamp, etc. which has a form ( circular, vertical, etc. ) being dependent upon and distinguished from the light itself.11 On a third occasion the Sutrakara says that the sr5qaa aspect is 'more powerful' ( adhug) because It is mentioned in a majority of Srutis.12 But inspite of this supertority of the arouaa the Sūtra- kāra does not hold that the meditntion on the srevaa gives a better result than that on the sqaq. It is here that he differs from Sankara. Ee clearly gives an option of choice between the two aspects of equal status as re. the result and says that either of the two givos the same result, viz, Moksa,19 He mentions this option twice.14 No rational explanation can be given abont this option for which, of course, he refers to the text of the Śruti and to loka ( worldly experience ) as the authority.16 In the case of Sankara's System the ayu may be regarded as a step to the fagu but with the Sutrakara the $qaa is on an egual status with the asyad both being Karana aspects. The fact that the same attributes or characteristics are applied by the Sruti to ench of these aspects, as stated above, and the impossibility of making a sharp distinction between the attributes of the two, proves in the opinion of the Sutrakara this option making each aspect an independent aspect of Brahman, 10 According to Sankara, the aro is Brahman (Mas.) or Prajapati and tbe reward of meditation on it is the attainment of the Prajapatiloka The Sutrakara does not mention this loka in tho list of the worlds in Bra,Su.IV.8, but it is Sankara who proposes (11) प्रकाशाश्रयषद्वा। (Bra.Su.III.2) (12) लिञभूयस्त्वात्तद्दि बलीय: । (Bra.Su.III.3.44). (19) गतेरथवत्वमुभयधाऽन्यथाहि विरोध :। (Bra SU.III.3.29). (id) उन्दत उभयानिरोधात। (Bra.Su,TIT.3.28) and तदपि पूर्वेविकल्पः । (Bra.SU.III.3.44-45) (18) श्रत्यादिबलायस्तवाच न बाघ: । (Bra.Sti. ITI.3.49) and also उपपनस्तल्क्षणा- dim: mI (Bra.SO.III 8.30), (16) तनिर्धारणानियमस्तद्टऐ्टे: पृथस्ध्यप्रतिबन्धः फलमू। अनुबन्धादिभ्यः प्रज्ञान्तरपृथतयवद्

NATURE OF THE प्रजापतिलोक विधि (INJUNCTION) 177

to add the worlds of Indra and Prajapati after that of Varuna 17 We have shown that this proposal of Sankara is based upon a misunderstanding of Bra.Su.IV.3.7-15. We beheve that the Sūtrakara does not take the Prajapatiloka as Karya of Brahman but, depending upon Pra Upa. V 5, he says that the $q94 (which is in his case the Prajapatiloka) and the esqaa are each of them the Karana Biahman Itself.18 In another place, the Sutrakara clearly says that the ge9 aspect, i. e., the $434 aspect is not liable to the fault of being (considered) a "ai", a world, like the heaven,19 etc. Lastly, according to Sankara, the recipient (eferaifta) of the agu aspect is a seeker of a lower qualfication whilc the best अधिकारिन् is able to know and meditate on the निगुण Itself. The Sutrakara seems to refute a view like this when he says that 'the Purnsa aspect is taught not because the individnal soul, being encased in a body, can comprehend the Purusa more easily than he can the #6qad, since the mndividual soul does not necessarily exist when the body exsists'.20 In all these respects there is a vast difference between the Sūtrakara and Sankara regarding the relation between the two aspects of the Reality in the System of each of them. Again, in the System of Sankara the higher Brahman is above all kinds of Vedic Injunctions, while accordmg to the Sūtrakāra, Brahman which has two aspects is subject to an Injunetion.21 The Sutrakara bases his doctrine of the identity of Brahman in all the Upanisads on the fact that the Injunetion, etc., abont Brahman are the same in all of them. Moreover, the Sūtrakāra secms to us to regard the knowledge of Brahman as something (i. e, an act) to be performed (aasa) and about which the Veda (17) Vide S'ankara hhasya on Bra ST.IV 3.8. (18) विशेषं च दर्शैयति। (Bra.Sa.IV.3.15). (19) न सामान्यादप्युपलब्धेमृत्युवन्न हि लोकापतिः। (Bra.Su.III.3.51) (20) एके आत्मनः शरीरे भावात् (Bra.SU.1.1I.3.58) व्यनिरेक: नद्भावाभावित्वाद् न लू- fea! (Bra.Su.ITI,8'54). (21) सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययं चोदनाद्यविशेषात्। (Bra.Su. I]I.3.1). Vide S'ankara

93 Dhasya on the same.

178 USE OF Negative ATTRIBUTES

lays down a faff.22 According to Badarayana the unanimity of of the teaching of the two Kandas of the Veda, in frct, lies in this that both the Kandas teach somethng (Dharma or Brahman) which is the topie of a विधि or चोदना.23 With Sankara the negative attributes (the neti neti texts) deseribe the higher or fagu Brahman and the Srutis menti ming these negative attributes are m his opinion the most important ones We have shown that the Sutrakara drops these negative quahfications of the Aksara altogether from meditation because they are not useful for that purpose.24 He twice mentions thix uselessness of the thoughts on the Aksm 25 and we find that there is no Purvapaksa even rised agamst the Sutrakara's view.

In the System of Sankara. Brahman being somehow associated with Maya creates the oreation. The Sutrakara does not seem to mention Maya at all. In our opinion, the Sūtrakāra takes Brahman alone as the cause of the creation beginning with the Ether.6 He emphasises the eeusfa as the transformation (49E). "There is a change but the effect (sia) is also Brahman Itself." In consistency with a change of this nature, he explains with reference to Brahinan two more states, viz., aia 'increment' and gr4 'decrement' out of the six states mentioned by Yaska. "hese take place in the effects of Brahman which are also Brah- man, bv the self-concealment of Brahman,27 Thus, in the System of the Sūtrakara, no influence like that of Māya, from any outside principle or no influence of any internal power except the will of Brahman to eonceal Itself is responsible for these

(22) अनुष्टेयमिति बादरायण: साम्य्रश्ुतः ।(Bra.Su. [II.4.19) and विधिवा धारणवत्। (Bra.SB III.4.20). (23) तथा चकवाक्यतोपनिबन्धान (Bra.Su.I[I.4.24) (24) आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभावात। (Bra.Su.III.3.14). (25) Bra.Sa III.3.13-15 and III.3.38. (26) Bra.S0.IL3.1.

REASON AND RESULT OF EHENa MEDITATION. 179

two states of the effects of Brahman ( Is Maya the same as the will of Brahman ?).

With the Sutrakara, as with Sankara, the method of the meditation on Brahman is the smealfa-method. The meditator contemplates on Brahman with the notion 'I am Brahmau 28 But according to Sankara the reason of this notion is the faet that Brahman Itself is the inner soul, the Jiva m its real nature. The Sütrakära seems to refute such a view about the reason of the eregsifa-method, when he says that this method is preseribed, not because of the grammatical construction (araa) of the Sruti,2) but rather bocause the Sruti makes a defiuite statement about the method, viz., आत्मेत्येवोपासीत.30 Again, the result ( कार्य) of this method is not the realization of the individaal soul as absolutely identical with Brahman as it is the case in Sankara's School; but the Sutrakara seems to look upon 'the all-becoming' (a) as the arr mentioned in the same Sruti,31 which he says is the (agiu) 'the Extraordinary Principle' resulting from the medi- tation.32 Thus, the result of the meditation as "aå aanfa" is the realization by the meditator that he has been everything, Manu, and the Sun, etc., as was the experience of Vamadeva,33 and not that 'whatever is, is nothing but Brahman.'

'The above form of meditation 'ar aaufra' is to be practised within the meditator's self both according to Sańkara and the Sūtrakara.8t But in.Sankara's philosophy this inward practiee is prescribed because Brahman is the geT 'the mner self' of (28) आत्मगृहीतिरितरवदुत्तरात । (Bra.Su.III.3.16), which refers to Br. Upa. 1.4.10. Also प्रधानवदेव तदुक्तम् । (Bra.Su.III.8.43).

(Br. Upa.T.4.10). (29) The arraya of अथ योऽन्या देवतामुपास्तेऽन्यासावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स नेद ...... ।

(30) The Sutrakaia omphasises ga in this sentence, Br. Upa.I.4.7. (81) य एवं वेद ब्रह्मास्मीति स इंद सर्व भवति। Br.Upa.I.4.1O. (32) कार्याख्यानादपूर्वम्। (Bra.Su.III.3.18) (33) तद्वतत्पश्यन्तृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेशहं मनुरभतर <सूयेक्रति । (Br,Upa.I.1.10) (34) इयदामन नादन्तरा भतग्रामवतस्वात्मनः । (Bra.Su.III.3.34-85).

180 NATURE OF THE "UNION OF SENSES, ETO".

man and because this identity of Brahman and the individual soul is to be reahzed. The Sūtrakāra however seems to refute such a view,35-36 because according to him the inward meditation is due to the fact that the Sruti declares Brahman to be residing in the human heart and yet to be not identical with the individual soul.37

According to Sanhara, Brahman is tbe giver of the fruits of our everyday actions and perhaps in his System Brahman cannot be looked upon as the giver of the fruit in the form of Moksa, but the Sütrakara is clear about his opinion in this matter.38

We have shown that according to the Sūtrakāra a union (qfr) of the senses, the mind, the vital airs, the soul and the subtle elements takes place in the case of a seeker of Brahman ever since he begins the search of Bralnan which he carrics out on the Path ( efa) of the gods ( a5 ) as long as he does not get Immortality.89 But when he attains Immortality and departs from the body for the last time ( never to be reborn here once ngain ), the union ( avf) of all these ending with that of the subtle elements in the Para residing in the heart takes place.40 'This union is of the nature of non-separation.41 And the whole group leaves the body being helped by the Para residing in the heart through the hundred-and-first artery.42 He joins the Rays of the San and, travelling on the Path of gods, he comes to the world of Lighting from where this knower of Brahman is con-

(Bra.Su.III.3.36). (a6) Cf. 47K in Bra.SO.ITI.3.31-35. (37) CL avamraran in Bra.Sü.II.3.36 which seems to refer to such a S'rati ay हा मुपणा सयुजा सखाया ...... (38) wona: 394n: I (Bra.Su. TIT.2.38). (80) समाना चासृत्युपक्तमादमृतत्व चानुर्पोष्य। Bra.Su.IV.2.7. (10) तानन परे तथा साह। Bra.Su IV.2,15. (41) अविभागों वचनात्। (Bra.Su IV.2.16) (42) CI. हार्दनुग्रहीतः शताघिकया in (Bra Su.rV.2.17.)

NATURE OF ENJOYMENT (HI) IN LIBERATION 181

ducted to his Destination, the Para, by the Vaidyuta Atıvāhika. All this is quite unlike Sankara's doctrmne on the same questions. As regards the state of Moksa the Sutrakara seems to hold that the fruit in the form of Moksa is the attainment of Brahman Itself,43 but as we have seen this state is attained by the knower of Brahman reaching Brahman. As Brahman is at the same time 694d and aisqaa the Mukta Atman may have a body or may not have it, says the Sūtrakāra. In either case ho is able to experience a divine enjoyment,44 the presence of which, as we have seen above, does not make the attamment of Brahman the same as the attainment of a world (arF) however high it may be. Since this enjoyment is the only point of similarity between a world () and Brahman, there is complete difference in all other respects between ब्रह्मलोक or ब्रह्मप्राप्ति and all the worlds of gods. The Mukta Atman resides in this union with Brabman which is of the nature of non-separation from Brahman.45 He lives in this state eternally; this state of hberation is not affected by creation and dissolution which do affect our world;46 the Sruti describes the feafa, continuation or permanence, but not the creation ( qfè ) and dissolution (sraz), of of the state of the Mukta.47 Thus, the Sutrakara's doctrine of the state ot liberation is also different from that of Sankara. In the former the liberated soul continues its individuality and experiences a state of enjoyment; in the latter it merges into Brahman. There are some other points of difference between Sankara and the Sutrakara which we have noticed in their proper places in Part I. Both hold that $5 is not subsidiary to ir as a

(43) पूर्व तु वादरायण: ह्वेतुव्यपदेशात्। (Bia,Su IIT.2.41) (44) Bra.Sū.IV.4.10-12, 21. (45) अविभागेन दृष्टवात्। Bra.Su.IV.4,4. (46) जगव्यापारवर्जम् ...... Bra.Su.IV.4.17). (47) तथा हि स्थितिमाह। (Bra.Su.IV.419).

182 NATURE OF THE HELP OF ACTIONS FOR LIBERATION.

means to Moksa, 8 but they differ as to the place of aia in the attainment of Moksa. According to the Sūtrakara two kinds of qnas must be done by a secker of Brahman as a help to the Iinowledge of Brahman in achieving Mohsa 50 The first kind of such helpig actions are the saerifice, donation and penance51 and the Sutrakara msists that they must be dono by a seeker even though the seeker may be possessed of the mental peace (₹H), self- control (₹), etc. 52 But as we have shown (in Part I) Sankara gives such an interpretation to the Sutra m questien that he coneludes that a seeker may not perform the sacrifice, ete., but he must perform (how ?) the aH, EH, ete, since they are laid down as means to the knowledge of Brahman. Apart from the difference in the interpretation of the Sutra, we make this note here only to show where the two Acaryas differ doctrinally. The other group of actions to be done as a help to #H by a seeker according to the Satrakara is the group of आश्रम कमेन s, the duties of one's own order of life, e. g., anHar, etc.53 Sankara clearly says that these actions do not help or cooperate with the knowledge of Brabman in the achi- evement of Moksa but they are means only to the appearance or rise of the knowledge which alone brings Moksa.54 Perhaps, the (48) अधिकोपदेशासु वादरायणस्यैवम् ..... । (Bra Su.III 3.8) (19) सवथापि त एवोभयलिज्वात्।(Bra.SपI1[.43+) (50) सहकारित्वन च। (BraSi. [ll.133) and अमहोन्नदि तु नत्कार्यायैव तदर्शनात्। Butt.Su.JV.I.16. (01) These are pre-eribed m Br. Upa IV.4.22. (ia) तस्मादेवेविच्छान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षः समाहिती भूत्वास्मन्येवात्मानं पश्यति। (Br Upa. IV.4.23), and शमदमायपतः स्वात्तथापि तु तद्विधेस्तदङ्तया तेषामवश्यानुष्ठेयत्वम्। (Bra SD.TI14.33), (63: विहितत्वान्चाश्रमकमापि।(Bra Su.[II.4.32) and सहकारित्वन च। (Bra AD.IJI.4.33) (51) न चेंद विद्यामहकाररित्ववचनमाश्रमकर्मणां प्रयाजादिवद्वियाफलविषयं मन्तव्यम्।

द्वबाचो युति: । (Sa.bhasya on Bra Su.TI[,4.33). And also ननु अनारभ्यो मोक्ष: कथमस्य कर्मकार्यत्वमुच्यते। नैष दोषः 1 आरादुपकारकत्वात् कर्मणः। ज्ञानस्यैव हि प्रापकं सत्कम प्रणाइया मोक्षकारणित्युपचसेते। (Sabhasyu on Bra.So.IV.1.16).

GOOD DEEDS AS HELP FOR LIBERATION. 183

Sutrakara holds that even the voluntary (+4) duties help the knowledge in the attainmnent of Moksn.55 The Sūtrakara's attitnde about these good deeds as a belp to Molsa is clear from the fact that while the Sutrakara holds that only on the fall of the body a seeker who bas already attained the knowledge of Brahman is freed from the contact with good deeds65 and that therefore there is no destruction (faaia) of good deeds on the rise of the knowledge; Sunt arn by unjustifiable additions to the words of the Sutra in question tries to being out of it his view that on the attamnment of the knowledge the good deeds ( at least the past ones ) of & fas are destroyed. The absence of contact (a44 in Bra.Su.IV. 1.14) only means that they do not give him their ordinary reward, viz., the heaven or any otber object of desire after his depature from this world. Thus, the Sūtrakara seems to mean that the gocd de ds done by a #faa before the attamment of the 17 and continued to be done by him even after its attainment, help (i. e., co-operate with) the knowledge in the achievement of its goal, but do not give the aifaa the usual 'reward. Ho appears to ask even the aif4 to continue to do the good deeds (both compulsory and voluntary) as a help to his am till he departs from the body.57 In Sankara's System there is no scope for these good deeds being performed till the end of the body even after the attainment of the knowledge, because according to him the knowledge means the knowledge that the soul is no agent.58 Sankara takes special care to show that in Bra.Su. IV .- 1.1659 the Sutrakara montions the good deeds which the mifar has already done before the attainment of the knowledge, a> being converted into a belp to the kuowledge, and that the Sutrakara does not say that the good decds which a sifaa does

(55) Vide our Intorpretation of अतोड्याप हयकषाम्। (Brn.Su.IV.117). (56) इतरस्याप्यंघमसश्रपः पाते तु। (Bra,Su.[V.1.14). (67) इतरस्याप्येवमसश्लेषः पाते तु। (Bra.SU.IV.I.14). (58) Vide S'ankara bhasya on Bra.Su.IV.1.14 and also on IV.I.16. (59) अभिहोत्रादि तु तूत्कार्यायवै तद्दर्शनात्। (Bra.Su IV.1.16)

181 NATURE OE THE ज्ञान TIIAT BRINGS मोक्ष.

after the attainment of knowledge help the knowledge in getting a common goal.60 This rather makes one believe that the Sutrakara actually prescribes the good deeds even after 75nea. The above discussion also shows that according to the Sutrakara there is no liberation in this life (siaagies) as there is in Sankara's System.61 According to the Sutrakara the most perfect state to be attained on this earth is that of complete sinlessness Though the Sütrakara and Sankara agree that the knowledge is not dependent upon the $iT for the aclevement of Moksa, they differ as regards the nature of the knowledge just as they differ about the nature of the help that $54 renders to the knowledge. The Sūtrakara takes the #1 as something to be performed (ae4) and as the subject of an Injunction;62 but Sankara does not take the knowledge of Brahmnan as laid down by a विधि.63 In the opmnion of the Sūtrakāra a seeker of Moksa may belong to any of the four orders of life, though he may take to the ascetic order even from the order of religious student- ship. He says that a seeker of Brahman who is outside the order of asceticism may do the duties of his caste beenuse the Snirti aaks him to do them and because theie is a practice of doing them among the seekers of Moksa in the Upanisads.() The actions thus done by a seeker do not bind him because their reward goes to his master. Particularly, a Brahmana

(60) अत एव चातिकान्तविषयमेतत्कार्यकत्वाभिधानम्। नहि ब्रह्मविद आगाम्यमिहोत्रादि Hai I ............ (S'a. bhasga on Bra,Sa.JV.1.16). (61) The JtunMakt in not described also in Bra.Sa.IIL.A.41, though S ankara takes पिक in that Sutra as पहिकमप विद्याजन्म भर्वाते। Vide our inter- pretution. (62) 04 T4 A: 1 (Bra.Su. III.4.19) (Bra.SR.fII.4.20). and विविर्वाधारणवसू।

(63) Artercaja Amit. 1 (Sankara bhasya on Bra.Su.III.4.33).

Bra.Sü. III.4.36-39. Vide our interpretation of

(68) वहिम्तूनपथावि स्मृनेगवाराख। (Bra.Su.III.4.48.)

DIFFERENCE RE. THE SEEKER OF LIDERATION 185

seeker who is a householder may do his priestly duties because these can be "sold " to a master. A householder-seeker has also to do by way of help to the knowledge other deeds over and above the two sets of works noticed above.66 He has to collect (sydait) all the dnties prescribed by the Upanisads as a help to the knowledge for the attainment of Moksa, because he does not lack those conveniences which & student, a hermt or an ascetc who is a secker cannot possess.07 Again, a householder trymg to get the knowledge of Brahman may do even worldly dutres only in order that the works he has dready begun may not be obstructed.68 They do not help the attaiment of #a. Thus, according to the Sutrakara a seeker of liberation may be a member of any one of the four orders of life. But, as is well known, Sankara insists on his belonging only to the ascetic order.

We have given above most of the points of agreement and difference between the Sūtrakara and Sankara, that we come across in Bra.Su. III.2.11-IV., the portion of the text which is discussed in Part I. They show that between the two Acaryas there is essential difference about the nature of Brahman, the oreation, the individual soul, the knowledge of Brahman, the utihty of the good deeds in the attainment of Moksa and the anamiRa of Moksa. Both of them differ also about the nature of the relation of the saps and sames of the Veda. Sankara does not believe that धमजिज्ञासा is the immediate prorequisite of ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा. He almost seems to hold that the, wass has no independent goal to achieve and that the goal of the wss is in no way concerned with a faf of the Veda just as the Dharma, the goal of the wiape is. Thus, according to Sankara there is no

(66) Vide Notes on PP. 92-93supra. (67) कृत्स्नभावानु गृहिणोपसहारः । (Bra.Su.III.4.48) (68) ऐहिकमप्यप्रस्तुतप्रतिबन्धे तद्दर्शनात्। (Bra.St.l1I.4.51) (69) तथा चैकवाक्यतोपनिबन्धात्। (Bra.Su.III.4.24).

186 DIFFERENCE RE. THE 5EIy OF THE 2 SIOS'S

possibility of a unanimity of sense (a14G1) of the two Kandas. But, the Sutakara holds that the goals of both the Kandas are laid down by the respective ( a, fsefta) Vidhis and that both have their respective Apurvas (agas) and in this way there is an esential yaqiagal 'unanimity of sense and purpose' of the two Kandas so that they could belong to the same Scripture, viz., Sruti or Veda. We should repeat that the present work is being submitted to scholars only as a part of a proposed interpretation of the entire Brahmasutra and is so far incomplete both in its extent and the finality of its conclusions which are liable to be revised on a future study, and that therefore, the com- parative statement about the Systems of the Sūtrakara and Sankara presented here may be read with caution and need not be hastily accepted.

CHAPTER 9.

IMPORTANCE OF BRAHMASUTRA III. 3.

The third Pada of the third Adhyaya of the Brahmasutra is of supreme importance for the interpretation of the entire work of Badarayana. It is this Pada, which holds the key of the Sūtra- kara's scheme of arranging the Srutis for discussion in the fist three Padas of the first Adhyaya of the Brahmasutra. This is our view about Bra.Su III.3. The traditional view, however, presents this Pada as the least important portion of the work.

We give here the traditional view about the contents of Bra.Sü.III.3 :-

"The first and second Padas though belonging to the Sadhana- dhyaya or the chapter dealing with the means of attaining Moksa, really deal with the nature and attributes of Brahman and the nature of the transmigration. It is with the third Pada that the consideration of the meditations or congnitions leading to the attainment of Brahman really begins.

"We know, that in the different Upanisads, belonging to the different Vedas or belonging to the different Sakhās of the same Veda, meditations or congnitions (faas) of the Brahman are described, sometimes under the same name, but with some differences of detail. Thus, for instance, the so-called efos efaen which is met with in Chandogya Upauisad III.14, is found again in an abridged form in Brhndārinyaka Upanişad V.6 and again in Satapatha Brahmana X.6.8. All these three passages enjom a meditation on the Brahman as possessing certain attributes, soine of which are' specified in all the three texts (ns for instance, मनोमयत्व, भारुपत्व, ete.) while others are peculiar to each separate passage, de and eedaeqs, for instance, being mentioned in the Chandogya and Satapatha Brahmana, but not in the Brhadaran-

188 TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION OF BRA. SU. III.3

yaka Upa., which on its part specifies aaqfaes, not referred to in the two other texts. Now, the question is whether all these meditations are one and the same or they are different In the rase of ritual or of the sacrifices, the different descriptions of a sacrifice bearing one name, found in different passages, do not present any such diffculty; for, acts may be performed in different fashions, according to circumstances; since they are all sādhya (to be accomplished), and each one may follow the practice taught in his own Sakha to the exclusion of the rest. But with cogni- tions the case is different. The object of these cogmtions is the Brahman, which is one, eternal, and unchangeable in character; it is something fs ( accomplished ) as opposed to *Ha which is #e; and so the cognitions also must be one without difference. If, however, there are different cognitions, only one of them can be true, because it is faithful to its object; while the rest should be fulse, it being imposible that one and the same object can be cognised in more than one way. It is this question then with which this entire pada deals : whether the cognitions of the Brahman, which form the subject of the different Vedānta texts, are separate cognitions or not. The question, though appearing rather trivial and of no philosophic importance to us, is however, very important for the practical follower of the Vedanta doctrine; inasmuch as, if the cognitions are separate, he will have to practise sn many different meditations, whereas, if they are all one, only one meditation would suffice.

" All the commentators agree in a general way in bolding that such is the subjeet matter of this pāda. Vallabha more partieulary connects the qnestion with different forms of the Bhagavat, i. e., His incarnations (aaans), and asks whether the partienlars connected with the incarnation of the Fish, for instance, are to be combined with those of the Dwarf incarnation and so on; and decides that the different forms may be combined according to the Avatara, which a devotee worhips in partioular. Madhva also is of accord with the rest

DR. GHATE'S VIEW ON THE USE OF TvdaK 189

We have given a long quotation from one of the latest books1 on the subject-matter of the Bra.Su.III.3 according to the tradition. Our intention is to show to the reader in necessary details what the Acaryas bave to say about the contents 'of this Pada.

We must admit that we are not convinced of the truth of the arguments advanced regarding the necessity and utility of the discussion of Srutis, which deal with the same Vidya and occur in different parts of the Sruti, mn a book like the Brabmasutra, particularly in the Sadhanadhyaya. And we belive that, though modern scholars assert that such a discussion of such Srutis was of supreme importance to a practical Vedantin, ultimately, they agree with us in our judgement about the traditional mterpreta- tion of Bra.Sn.III.3. Dr. Ghate himself writes: "Now, coming to the Sutrakara's point of view, we cannot easily explain why he should take pains and devote one entire Pada to the treatment of something connected with the saguna Brabman, which is not after all to him the highest verity."2

Why should a reconciliation of the Srutis supposed to be separately teaching the same faat occur in the Sadhandhyaya, and not in the Avirodhadbyaya (i. e. Bra.Sn.ID) of which such a reconcilation is the sole object ? Why should a reconciliation of different Sruti texts dealing with the same faar be important and why should a reconciliation of different Srutis dealing with the same wit be unimportant ? The Hindu tradition rather shows that the latter was considered to be very important. The Jaiminisūtra devotes as many as twenty-six Sutras to such # discussion of aoa (Jai.Su.II.4.8-88). That which involves action is undoubtedly more important than that which involves cognition or meditation, even though the fruit of the latter be much higher than that of the former. Therefore, wix or a sacrifice would be more importont, from the stand-point of its practice,

(1) V. S. Gate, The Vedanta, PP.133-135. (2) Dr. Ghate, The Vedanta, P.136.

190 EXAMINATION OF THE UTILITY OF JOTHER

than the knowledge of Brahman. We may again ask, " After having once decided in Bra Su.I that the several Srutis indivi- dually deal with the same topic viz., Brahman, where is the uecessity of again raising a question whether the topic of two or more Srutis is the same or not ?" When the various topics of the Satras are said to be Brahman and not the Jiva or the jada, all Srutis dealing with one and the same topic must be taken as disouased. This is the sense of Bra.Sn.I.4.28. The difference of detal only would never make the topic different. The mere faet that the attrbutes of a particular topic are different in different Srutis would not make the topic different in different Srutis, unless the attributes are mutually exclusive or contra- dictory. For the same reason a superficial difference between two or more Srutis would not make one Sruti true and the other Sruti or Srutis false, because after all they all are Srutis. Nor would such a difference make different faars and force a practical Vedantin to practise so many different meditations. Where is the proof that a particular follower of the Vedanta doctrine must not follow at least for the purpose of meditation on a particular faar the precept of his own particular Branch only and must go to all the Branches? If the Seripture, accepted as valid and discussed in Bma.Sn.I, does not contain the Srutis about the Avataras, why shonld the Sadbanadhaya base its conclusions on entirely other Upanisads than those referred to in Bra.Sa.I ? Moreover, what possibly would be the School of Indian Philosophy, to which an Opponent urging that the attributes of one of Rama and Krsna should be added to the attributes of the other during the worship of the latter Avatara, may belong ? We humbly submit our view that there was no possibility of such subjeots coming up for disenssion before the Strakara in the Sadhanadhyaya at least. Moreover, let us see for a moment how a great Acarya like Sankara whom we choose here as a representative of the Commentators, performs the task he undertakes in this Pada (Bra.Sa.[1.3). We here colleot only the most apparent remarks made by Sankara bimself in his own commentary on Bra.Su.III.3,

TET'S OWN DIFFICULTIES AND WEAKNESSES 191

requesting the reader to refer to our Notes (in Part I) and to our Chapter 10 (in this work) for a number of other discrepaneies in Sankara's bhasya on this Pada making it impossible for us to accept it as an interpretation of the Sutras in question. Thus, (1) In Bra. Su.III.3.1 Sankara says that in Sutra III 9 the real nature of the fagor Brabman which is au object of know- ledge has been described, while the disonssion in Bra.Sū.II1. refers to the ayq Brahman.3 (2) Bra.Su.III.8. 5 Sankara says that Sutra 6 is an aphorism stating the aim (saiags) and that the details of that Sutra are given mn Sutra 10 and in those that follow it. Thus, Sutras 6-9 are a digression according to Sankara.4 (3) Sankara explains Sutras 16-17 at first as referring to a passage of Aitareya Upanisad I and then as dealing with Br- Upa.IV.8-4 and Cha. Upa. VI.2-8. Thus, he is not sure of the fatra- aF4 of these two Sutras. (4) In Bra.Sü.III.3.26, Sankara says that this Sūtra is a digression to show the collection of 'secondary praise' («ia- qdgit), while the chief topic of the Pada is the discussion of the collection of the attributes of Brahman (anqean). Moreover, Sankara gives two interpretations of this Sūtra.5 (5) In Bra.Sü,III.3.80 Sankara tells us that the topie of Sūtras III.3.29-80 will be more minutely explained once again6

(3) व्याख्यातं विज्ञयस्य ब्रह्मणस्तत्वम्। ... ननु विज्ञेयं मरह्म पूवापरादिभेदराह तमेकरसं सैन्धवघनवदवधारितं तन्र वुतो विज्ञानभेदाभेदचिन्तावतारः। सगुणब्रह्मविषया प्राणादिविषया चयं भवाभदचिन्तत्यदोषः। शाङ्करभाष्य on Bra.St.III.3.1. (4) अस्यैव प्रयोजनसत्नस्य प्रपञ्चः सवभिदादित्यारम्य भविष्यति। Sa. bhaspa ont Bia - SŪ.III.3.5. (5) अपरा योजना-आत्मगह्दातिरितरवदुत्तरातू। वाजसनेयके कतम आत्मति योडयं विज्ञान- मयः प्राणेषु हृद्यन्तर्ज्योतिःपुरुष: (बृ उ. ४।३७) ...... । (6) तस्माद्गुणोपसंहारविचारप्रसज्ञेन स्तुत्युपसंहारप्रद्शनार्थमिदं सून्नम्। + + + अथवा एतास्वव विधूननश्रतिष्वेतेन सूत्रेणैतच्चिन्तयितव्यम किमनेन विधूननवचनेन सुकृत दुष्कृतयोहानसभिधीयते कि वा्डर्योन्तरमिति। Sa. bhasva on Bra Su, III.3.26.

192 E'S OWN DIFFICULTIES AND WEAKNESSES

in Adhyaya IV. How can the Fruit be discussed along with the Means ? (6) According to Sankara the topic of Bra.Su.III 3.31 is resumed for further discussion in Bra.Su.IV.8.15.7 (7) Sankara finds the context of Bra.Si.III.3 33 in Sūtra III, 8.11 because according to him the latter describes the positive attributes of Brahman while the former deals with Its Negative attributes,8 (8) In Bra.Su IIL.8.34, Sankara discusses Mu. Upa. III.1.1 and says that the problem is discussed m detail under Bra.Sū I.2.11,9 (9) In Bra.Sū III.3.35, Sankara gives two explanations of भूतग्रामनत्, (10) Under Sūtra III.3.39, Sańkara discusses Chā. Upa. VIII .- 1 and Br. Upa.IV.8 and finds that the former text deals with the H Brahman only while the latter deals chiefly with the friq So, he says that the collection of the attributes taught in this Sūtra is not meant for sunl ( because Br. Jpa .. IV.3 deals with the a Brahman ), but for showing the special prowess of the condi- tioned Brahman which is the only topic of Cha. Upa. VIII. 1 and of which some attubutes like afra are incidentally mentioned in Br.Upa.IV.310 (11) According to Sankara Sūtra III.3.48 repeats the argu- ment of Sütra III.8.44.11 (7) भूयध्चैन विभागं चतुर्थाध्याये निपुणतरमुपपादयिध्यामः। [id on Bra.Su.III.3.30 Vhle Sa, bhasyn on Bra SuIV.3.15 .- किं तावतप्राप्तं सर्वषामेषा विदुषामन्यत्र परस्माद्राह्मणो गतिः स्यान् । तथाहि-'अननियमः सवासाम्'-(प्र० सू० ३।३।३१) इत्यत्राविशेषणवैषां विद्यान्तरे्ववतारिता (गतिः) इति। (8) तथा च 'आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य' न० सू० (३।३।११) इत्यत्र व्याखयातम्। तत्र विधि- रूपाणि विशषणाणि चिन्तितानीह प्रतिषेधरूपाणीति विशेष:I Sa. bhasya on Bra.Su.1II.3.33. (9) गुहां प्रविष्टावामानी हि (. सू० १।२।११) इश्यत्र चैततूप्रपश्चितम्। तस्मानास्ति वेद्यभेद स्तस्मान्च विदयैकलम्। (10) शुगयतस्तु ब्रह्मण एकत्वाद्विभृतिप्रदर्शनायाय गुणोपसंहार. सूत्रितो नोपासनायेति द्रष्टव्यम्। S'a.bha, on Bra Sū.III.3.39. (11) इश्यते चैषां स्वातन्त्र्ये लिगम्। तत्पुरस्ताइर्शितम् 'लिङ्गभूमस्त्वात् (व्र. सू. ३३४४) इसन्।

FURTHER DEFEOTS OF A CRITICAL NATURE 193

(12) Under Sūtra III.3 53, Sankara discusses the question of the soul being not identical with the body. He knows that this question ought to have been discussed at the very beginning of the Science of the Vedanta Sutras, because it is this soul who undergoes transmigration and realizes freedom from the same, which is the goal of this Science. He is not able to account for this discussion so late in the Brahmasūtra as in Sūtra III.8 58.12 (13) Under Sūtra III.3.58, Sankara says that the rule esta- blished in this Sutra must be taken as having preceded even the very first Sūtra of Bra.Sũ.III 3.13

(14) We may also note that under two Sūtras, Sankara says that he has rejected the view of his predecessor.14 We believe that the above fourteen Notes made by Sańkara himself on his commentary on this Pada consisting of 66 Sutras supply ample proot for doubting the correctness of his mterpro- tation of the same. Besides these, there are several other reasons leading to the same conclusion, e. g., (I) the guivear taught in Sutra 5 is taken as granted in Sutras 1 and 2, (2) the restriction of, or the change in, the sense of several words, e. g., wa in Sutra 1 is interpreted as 'some' (not as all), (3) the connection of Sutra 12 with Sūtra 1.1.12-19 is overlooked by Sankara, (4) the unjustifiable separation of the words of one and the same Sutra, e. g., that of apa and maam Sutra 14, (5) the unlikeliness of several Pürvapaksas,

(12) ननु शास्त्र प्रमुखे एव प्रथमे पाद शास्त्र फलापभेगयोग्यस्य देहव्यनिरिकस्यात्मनोSस्तित्वमुक्तम्। सत्यमुक्कं भाष्यकृता ने तु तन्रात्मास्तित्व सुत्रमस्ति। इह तु स्वयमेव सृत्रकृता तदस्तित्वमाक्षेप पुरःसरं प्रतिष्ठापितम् । S'a. bha. on Bra.Su III.3,53. Cf. also समाप्ता प्रासजिकी कथा, संप्रति तु प्रकृतामे बानुवर्तामहे। Sa bha. on Bra.Su.III.3.55. (18) स्थिते चैतस्मिन्नधिकरणे सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययमत्यादि द्रष्टव्यम्। S'ã, bhã. on Bra.Sū.III-58. (14) Vide S'a. bha. on Bra.Su.III.3.88 and III.3.57. 25

194 OTHER DEFECTS OF A MORE CRITICAL NATURE

e. g., in Sūtra 14, 16, 40-41, etc., (6) the impossibility of several topies being discussed in the Brahmasūtra, e. g., the meditation on water as the dress of the food in Sūtra 18, the Upanisadic texts about rituals in Sūtras 25, 42-52, 55-56, 61-66, (7) the overlapping of the subjeets of discussion in the Sādhana Adhyāya and the other Adhyāyas, e. g., in Sutras 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, which ought to be and are actnally discussed in the Phala Adhyaya; in Sūtras 14, 34, etc. which are actually discussed m the Samannaya Adhyāya. The above is the list of draw backs or blemishes of Sankara's commentary such as a critical eye would often easily discover in his bhasya on the Brabmasutras, but we snbmit that they prepon- derate in this particular Pāda.

There are several other similar defects (in nsT t on a. #. III 3) which are of a more critical nature and for which no commentator should be blamed, We enumerate here only a few of them because we have explained in our Notes (in Part I) how these and many other defects can be easily made out by a critical student. (1) The word 'aara' in Sutra I should mean exolusion of Mantra, Brahmana and Aranyaka. (2) vam in Sutra 2 should refer शाखायाम् because we have शाखासु in Sutra 55. (3 भेदात in Sutra 2 should mean ariaaaia because of the context (4) With UHA in Sutras 5 and 19 we should take aara as understood. (5) as em in Sūtras 8, 83, 43, 50 should undoubtedly refer to some Sütras in the Brahmasutra only, and not to some other works. (6) gafaar in Sütra 24 should refer to the Lore of the Purusa or the Personal Brahman, Cf. पुरुषमपि चैनमधीयते in Bra.Su. 1.2.26. (7) anfe should rofer to the act of pieroing with an arrow in Mn.Upa.II 2.15 (8) s4 in Sutra 28 should mean the Personal Aspect and the Impersonal Aspect of Brahman. (9) nam in Sutra 31 should mean सवोसां धियाम्

(15) प्रणवो धनुः शर आत्मा ब्रह्म तललक्ष्यमुच्यते। क्प्रमत्तेन वेद्व्य शरवत्तन्मयो भवेत ॥मु. उप. II.2.4.

LOSS OF CORRECT TEXT AND MEANING 195

(10) 7aa in Su.37 should refer to either of the Personal and the Impersonal Aspects of Brahman and famefa should have 944: for its subject. (11) शब्दादि in Sttra 58 should mean शब्द, प्रकरणभद and ast in Sutras 6, 7 and 8 of this Pada. (12) arsy mn Sutra 61 should refer to the conception of Brahman as possessed of limbs, e. g., that of the Vaisvanara in Cha. Upa. V.18 2. Besides this lack of a critical standpoint, which has casily lead the Acaryas to unknowingly cominit mistakes mn these respects, it seems to us thab they were also unlucky in two other ways. Firstly, they had no exnet text of the Sutras; and, secondly, the tradition about the meaning of these Sutras was already lost in their days Both these things are true about the whole text of the Brahmasutra; but it is specially so as regards Bra.Su. IIT.8 which undoubtedly contains certamn crucial Sutras of the greatest importance for the interpre- tation of the work.

As regards the text and its reconstruction we are going to suggest definite rales in a subsequent Chapter. Here we would content ovrselves with a few remarks only. By a critical study we have come to the conclusion that as a rule we should have no new Adhikarana begiuning with a Sutra having ca (9) in it. If this conclusion be correct, we shall have to regronp the Adhikaranss accordingly. Thus, unlike Sankara, we should have no fresh Adhikaraņas with Sūtras 9, 19, 23, 24. The apphcation of this and several other rules wonld reduee the number of Adhikaranas in Sütra III.3 from 36, which is the number according to Sankara, to only 18. But the most important point about this Pada regarding the textual eriticiam is that about eertuin ieu- ings which, we believe, have been lost during the long oral traditional handing over of the text from one genratiou to another. The most important of these are the following :- (1) Sütras 84 and 85 ( of Sankara's "3) must have been originally only one Sutra, viz., इयदामननाढू अन्तरा मृतग्रामवत् स्वास्मनः (2) Sütra 38 should be "da fe" and 'aenea." which is a part of

196 CRUCIAL SUTRAS, NOT NOTICED BY ACARYAS

it according to Sankara should be transferred to Sūtra 39. More- over, कामादीनरत्र should be कामादितरत् so that we have two words, V1%., कामाद and इतरत्र instead of कामादि and इतरत्र. (3) According to (2), Sutra 39. would read as सत्यादयः कामाद् इतरत्र तन्न चायतनादिम्य (1) Sutra 42 has a traditiolal reading, viz , geeifaaae: where the eorreet reading, ought to have been पृथग ध्यप्रतिबन्ध :; s0 that we have the words पृथक, भी and अप्रतिबन्ध: Thus, we have proposed to read बी in place of वि (or हि ) because we believe that प्रज्ञान्तरपूथक्त्व in;Sutra 50 is a referonce to gria in Sutra 42 as proposed by us ( Vide our Notes on these Sūtras in Part I ) (5) प्रदानवत is Sutra 43 should be प्रधानवत्, Cf. प्रधान in Sutra 11 and in Bra.Su. IIT.2 14 (Vide our arguments in Notes on Sutra 43).

(6) qafaisq: in Sotra 45 should be transferred to Sütra 44 and added to 'तद् अपि", Perhaps, the number (five) of these proposed changes mn the readings may be argued as a sufficient proof against the inter pretation of Bra Su.III.3, which we have there suggested. We ean only request our readers to go through the arguments that we have given in our Notes on those Sutras for these proposed readings, before they form any opinion about them. We believe that particularly in this Pada we have certain orueial Sutras. Sutra 11 (आनन्दादय: प्रधानस्य ) and Sutra 39 (as pro- posed to be read by us, viz., as सत्यादयः कामादू इतरत्र तन्न चायतनादिभ्यः) are the most important Sutras. We have aleady given ample evidence to shew that आनन्दादय, सत्यादय: and आयतनादय: in these two Sntras refer respectively to the attributes of Brabman colleoted and the Sruts discussed by the Sutrakara in Pada 1, Pada 2, and Pada 8 of Adhyaya I. Here we would not repeat the argu- meuts but would only say that anasz is a clear reference to amFrE ध्यव खल्वमानि भूतानि जायन्त" the विषयवाक्य of Bra.Sn.I.1.2, सत्य in सत्यादमः t सस्यमंङल्प in the विषयवाक्य of Bra.St.I.2.1, and आयतन in आयतनादि ta Traraar in Bra.Sa.1.8.1. In this discovery of the identification

IMPORTANCE OF #. H. III.3 37-42,43 54 197

of these three lists of attributes we have the key to the original meaning of and to the scheme of the distribution of Śrutis for discussion into the first three Padas of the first Adhyaya From this stand-point the entire Adhikarana (Sutras 37-42) becomes a crucial Adhikarana. From Adhyaya I, Pādas 1-3 and frot Bra.Sn.III.2 we know that according to the Sutrakara Brahman has two aspects, one Personal (called the Purusa) and the other Impersonal (called the Avyakta). But from these Sntras (III.8 .- 87-42) we know that according to the Sntrakara tho various Srutis distinguish the Personal as the Impersonal aspect and vice versu and therefore (a) an interchange (afaar) of attributes of either is allowed in meditation on either, (b) the attributes enumerated and the Srutis diseussed in Bra.Su,I.2 and explained by the Sutrakara there as dealing with Personal Aspect or the Purusa may be utilized at the destre of the meditator for the purpose of meditation on the Impersonal ( at7), and (c) the attributes enumerated and the Srutis explained by the Sutrakara in Bra.Su. I.3 as treating of the Purusa may be optionally used in medita- hon on that Impersonal One ( d7 ). The result of this stand- point is that one can meditate on the Personal Aspect of Brahman as independent of the Impersonal One and vice versa (Sūtra III. 3. 42, also Sūtra III. 3. 50).

Another equally crucial Adhikarana is that consisting of Sūtras 43-54. From that Adhikarana we learn that according to the Sütrakāra Brahman may be optionally meditated upon as the Purusa or as the Avyakta and that the meditation on the Purusa is not a mentation performed on Brahman which may bo supposed by the Opponent to be only an Impersonal Reality, bnt rather it is Brahmavidya as doubtlessly as the meditation on the Impersonal Aspect (Sūtra 47).

One more point proving that the original tradition ofi the doctrine of the Brahmasutra ( particularly in Bra.Su.III.3) was already lost in the days of Sankara is noted above but we would like to repeat it briefly here. "as sma" 'it has been stated' occurs

198 INTERPRETATION OF 'तद् उक्म्" सूत्रs in ब्र. सू. III.3

in as many as five Sutras in this Pada. We give here a list to show how it is interpreted by the different Acaryas :-

Sütra No. Sańkara Rāmānuja Vallabha Our Suggestion.

(1) Sütra 8 Bra.Sū.II1.3.7 Cha. Upa.I Bra.Su.III.3 7. Bra.Sū.III 2 27. (2) Sūtra 26 Jai.S.X.8.15 Jai.Su.X 8.15 Bra.Sũ.II.3 Bra.Sū III.3.5 (3) Sütra 33 Jai.Su.III.3.8 Ja.Su.III.3.8 Bhagavata Bra.Sū.III.3.13' Pu.II.9.10 (4) Sūtra 43 JTai.Su. aì.Sũ. Mu. Upa. Bra.Su,III.3 16 मंकर्पण मंकर्पण III.2.3 Section. Seetion (5) Süra 50 Jan.Su. Jai.Su. Bhã, Pu. IX.4.7. III 5.21 IX.4.63 Bra.Sū.III 8 42

It would be seen that in all these cases of "aa amy" Sūtras, the Acaryas trace the reference to whatever book they like, while we trace every reference to the very Brahmasutra itself.16 We abstain from reproducing our arguments and repeating our interpretation of these Sutras here, because they are fully given by us in their proper places in Part I.

Now we would briefly indicate the result of our reconstruction of the meaning of Bra.Su.III.8, based upon our critical study of the same. We shall also state very briefly the topic of each Adhikarana according to Sankara. ( For a detailed account of Sankara's interpretation of this Pada of Bra.Su.III, vide PP. LXVI-LXXV of the Introduction of Thibaut's Vedanta Sūtras with the commentary by Sankaracarya, S.B.E., Vol. XXXIV, which also contains a summary of Ramanuja's interpretation of the snme. )

Adhikarana I ( Bra.Sü. III.3.1-4 ) establishes the Proposition that the knowledge of Brahman is to be had from all the Veda- ntas. It is to be had neither from only some Vedāntas, nor

(16) There are about four more "as ew" Sutras and we have shown that tboy also refer to the Brabmasutra only. Vide Notes on the BrahmasutraIII. 3.8,26,33,43,50. Vide also our Paper 'The problem of the "ar emq" Stitras in the BrahmasUtras', in Indian Historioal Quarterly, Vol, XIII, 1937,PP.514-520.

INTERPRETATION OF Es 1 4 AND 5-9 199

from Sruti texts other than the Vedantas. In spite of this rule, it is not necessary to give up one's Svādhyāya rule, because the Svadhyaya being meant for the follower, of one particular Branch one is religiously entitled to the text in vogue in one's Branch only (Sutra 3). Thus, the rule that one should day by day recite his Svadhyaya is not in conflict with the Proposition that the knowledge of Brahman is to be had from all the Vedanta texts. Agam, to establish this Proposition it is suflicient that संयोग, रूप, चोदना and आख्या about Brahmau are the same even in only one Branch of each Veda, because even then the Sütra- kära would conclude that 'the knowledge of Brahman is to be had from the Vedantas of all the Vedas' ( Sutra 2). Thus, it is allowable that one Upansad of one Veda may teach the Personal Aspect ( or the Purusa ) while another Upanisad of the same Veda may teach the Impersonal One; still, one can say, that all the Upanisads of all the Vedas teach Brahman. According to Sankara, Sūtras 1-4 prove that there is unity of knowledge in the saguna Vidyas and hence there is no contra- diction in the Vedanta texts of the same saguna Vidya, In Adhıkaraņa II (Sūtras 5-9), the Sūtrakāra establishes a rule that a meditator on Brahman should collect the attributes of, and otber information about, Brahman from all the Vedantas or Upanisads, because they all teach the same topio, viz., Brahman. The only restriction is that the Vedanta text must be similar, i. e., the meditator on the Purusa should collect attributes froni the Vedantas describing only the Purnsa and those on the Avyakta should do the same:from the Vedänta texts deseribing only the Impersonal Aspect (Sütra 5), The Srutis which deelare that one should know Brahman thus, e. g., qafaordl a ......... ma qula (Br. Upa.IV.423), or the fact that each Vedanta or Upanișadic text is in a different context, does not go against the above rule of Collection of Attributes from all similar Vedantas. Also the various names of Brahman like पुरुष, अव्यक्त, आत्मन्, ब्रह्मन, aT, ls, etc. ebc., do not matter, because we bave admitted a

200 INTERPRETATION OF # #. III.3

two-fold classification of names, viz., the names of the Personal Aspect and the names of the Impersonal Aspect and these two Aspects are regarded to be independent of each other for the purpose of meditation (Sutra 8); moreover, as Brahman under all these names is declared to be all-pervading, it is only proper that these names should not mean different principles because there ean he only one all-pervading principle (Sn. 9.

According to Sankara Sutra 5 states that as a result of the unity of knowledge the collection of the various fasas is necessary. Sutras 6-8 discuss the question of the differences about the mu-ame in Cha. Upa I.3 and Br. Upa.I.3. Sūtra 9 deals with the relation between Om and Udgitha in Cha, Upa.I.1.1.

In Adhıkaraņa III (Sūtra 10), the Sutrakara says that as there is no difference in all ( other ) respects like "", "U", "as" ( Sütras 6-8), these two dais ($4 da) or rather these two aspects (the Purusn and the Avyakta, proved in Sutra III 2) having two different classes of names should be regarded as different from each other.

According to Sankara's commentary on Sutra 10, the parallel passages, Br.Upa VI.1.14, Cha, Upa. V.1.18, Kau, Jpa. II.14 about the smimte, are to be conbined.

We mnay here add that the subsequent portion (Sntras 11-66) of Bra.Su.1II.8 is concerned with describing the method of meditation and aetually collecting, from the recognised Upanisads, for the propose of meditation, the information on various points pertaing to the meditation on Brahman. With this nim, the Sutrakara seems to have distinguished between the meditations (39:, ef. aqer in Bra.Su I.1.81) on Brahman which lead to the achievement of some desired worldly or other-worldly objects, like the meditation on the In as Brahman (Cha, Upa. VII.1.5), and those which lead to the attainment of Moksa. The former are stated in Sutra 60 and the latter in Sutras 11-56. The latter type of meditations are again of two kinds, viz.,

ADHIKARANA IV : SUTRAS JII.8. 11.5. 201

(1) those in which Brahman is conceived of as One Reality without any parts and (2) others in which Brahman is thought of as consisting of parts, e. g., the meditation on the Vaisvanara when He is thought of as having a head, eyes, breath, body, bladder, feet, etc. (Cha. Upa. V.18.2). These last meditations in which one fixes bis meditation on the limbs or parts of Brahman (: . ) are described in Sutra III. 3. 55 and those that follow. Therefore, we conelnde that Sutras 11-54 describe the meditation on Brahman not thought of as constituted of limbs or conceived of as one entire entity. Hero also we find that throughout the Sutras (11-54) the Sutrakara narrates the method of meditation on the two aspects of Brahman, viz., the Avyakta . and the Purusa adding occasionally some remarks wherever necessary to distinguish between these two aspects. This seems to us be the back-ground on which Sūtras 11-66 are based. In Adhikarana IV (Sūtras 11-15) we are told that aae and other attributes mentioned in Bra.Su.I.1.2-31 belong to the impersonal or the ae4aa aspect of Brahman, which is the pre- dominent (514, Vide Sutra III.2. 14) aspect. Attributes like प्रियशिरस्त्व (including ब्रह्मपुच्छतव montioned in Tai. Upa.I1.5, and other attributes like अनणु, अन्हस्व, अदीघ, eto. which have the same common meaning ( 4 ) are also to be dropped. These latter are to be dropped also because they are not useful for meditation on Brahman (as asyaa) and becanse the word Re is used as the one qualified by the attributes amu, raa, cte. (Sutras 14 and 15.) According to Sankara Sutras 11-13 decile that the essential and unalterable attributes of Brahman, such as bliss and know- ledge, are to be taken into account everywhere, while tho- which admit of a more or less (as, for instance, the attributes of 'having joy for its head' mentioned in the Tai. Upa.) are confined to special meditations. Sutras 14 15 state that in Katha Upa.III. 10-11 it is not intended to teach that each member of the series of principles is higher than the preceding one, but the passage aims at teaching the Purusa only as the higbest of all. 26

202 ADIIIKARANA VI : SUTRAS 1II. 3.18-24.

Adhikaraņa V (Sūtras 16-17) seem to refer to Br.Upa.I.4.7-10 and establishes a rule about the method in which the impersonal aspect is to be conceived of or understood (zaifa) during meditation. It is to be meditated upon as being the Self of the meditator (anmgafa, cf. Bra.Su.IV.1.3), just as also the other f1 e., the porsonal) aspect, because in the succeeding sentences, we read, "He who meditates on "अन्या देवता," i. e., with the conception 'HIe is another, I am another' ( अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मि), never knows Him" ( Br. Upa.I.4.10). A Vedantin Opponent seems to have argued that the enarzaia method resulted from the grammatical construction of the Sruti in question (Br. Upa.I.4.7-10). The Sutrakära does not accept this argument (perhaps because he does not accept the identity of the individual soul with Brahman as taught in " ae AaRH" Br. Upa.I.4.7), because he says that the emoraifa method may be the result of the definite statement (अवधारण) viz., आत्मेत्येवोपासात (Br.Upa.1.4.7).

In Adhikarana VI (Sūtras 18-24) the Sütrakāra seems to refer to the effect (कारये) of the meditation according to the आत्मगरहाति method, viz., 'He becomes all this (a ge qå afa)', mentioned (ant) in the same Sruti (Br. Upa.I.4.10). The mention of this effect of the meditation proves that there is an Apurva (aqa) or Invisible Rosult arising from the meditation (Sütra 18). This Apürva (aga) stated in Br. Upa.I.4.10 should be taken as under- stood in other similar (i, e., Vedanta) texts, because, in these texts the topic is the same (Sutra 19). In Sutra 20, a Pūrva- pakşa argues that this Iuvisible Result should be taken as understood in other i e. dissimilar Sruti texts, like the Mantra, the Brahmana and the Aranyaka because all these (similar and dissimilar) texts are connected with one another. The Sūtrakāra does not accept this view because there is an insurmountable gulf of differenco between the Vedantas or Upanisads and the other Sruti texts (Sutra 31) and because Srutis like Mu. Upa.I.1.4-5, Cha, Upa. VII.4, eto., show this difference. The Mundaka Upa. calls the Mantra, Brāhmana, ete., aparā vidyā (141 faan) the

ADHIKARANA VIII : SUTRAS III.25-27 208

Lower Science and the Vedanta Srut para vidya (ua faa) the Higher Lore, while in the Cha. Upa. Narada laments that though he knows the Mantra, etc., he does not know Atman (Sūtra 22). The texts which are other than Vedanta do sometimes mention attributes of the impersonal aspect of Brahman, e. g., tho Rāņāyanīya Khila of the Samaveda mentions sambhrti (aefa) and dyuvyapti (yafa) both being attributes of Brahman. But the Sūtrakāra has not included them in his collection of attri- butes of Brahman, because of the distinction betwecn the Vedanta Srutis and other Srutis (Sutra 23). One more reason for giving this treatment to the Purvakanda of the Veda is that that Kanda does not mention other attributes such as are mentioned in the Doctrine of the Purusa (the personal aspect of Brahman) mn the Upanisads (Sutra 24). Thus, the Sütrakara makes a sharp distiction between the teaching of the Purva Kāņda and the Uttara Kāņda.

According to Sankara's commentary on Sūtra 18, Cha. Upa. V.2 and Br. Upa. VI.1, discuss a minor point connected with the प्राणसंवाद. These Srutis lay down वासोविज्ञान, not आचमन, According to Sūtra 19, the Sandılyavidyā of Satapatha Brā.X.6.3 is to be combined with Br.Upa V.6. Sutras 20-22 decide that in Br. U pa .- V.5. ear and erey are to be held as belonging to separate Vidyan Similarly Sūtra 23 concludes that the fafs in the Ranayaniya Khilas and Cha. Upa.III.14 are not to be combined with each othor because the stated difference of Brahman's abode involves difference of Vidyas. According to Sutra 24, as in the preceding Sutras, the gar aa of the Tandins and Paingins on the one hand and the same of the Taittirlyakas on the other are to be held apart.

Adhikarana VIl (Sutras 25-27) deals with the meditation on the Pranava. In Sutra 25 a Vedantin Opponent argnes that the penetration (au), etc., mentioned in Mu. Upa.II.2.2-4 choold not be collected by the followers of other Branches because the / tupic of that text is different from the topio in any other Vedanta

204 ADHIKARANA VIII : SUTRAS III.3.28-30

text. The Sutrakara rejecis this view (a) and says that if they are missing in a Vedanta text, they should be received by the followers of such (incomplete) text from the Mu.Upa., as (1) the Penetration, etc., are subsidiary to the meditation on Brahman because the Pranava is called su44 "a means" just as a graass, etc., is subsidiary to a sacrifice (Sutra 26) and (2) as there 1s nothing to be achieved by a seeker after he begins his journey to Brahman as stated in Praśna Upa. V.5 accordmng to which a meditator on the Pranava, on leaving this world, goes to the Aksara which is a mass of life and which is a, sor, , e (Sutra 27, Pra. Upa. V.7). Thus, the Sutrakara discusses the meditation on the Pranava as a symbol of the impersonal aspect of Brahman.

According to Sankara's commentary on Sutra 25, various passages of the nature of Mantras and Brahmanas though oceurring at the beginning of certain Upanisads have nothing to do with Brahmavidya, but are connected with sacrificial acts. Sūtra 26 says that Cha. Upa. VIII.13, Mu. Upa.III.1.3, etc. are to be enlarged with the help of Kau. Upa.I.4, which says that the good and evil deeds of one who knows Brahman pass over to the friends aud enemies of the deceased, Stra 27 is to be connected with Sutra 28 as forming the same Adhikarana (XVI).

In Adhikarana VIII (Sūtras 28-30) the meditator is given an option of choice about the aspect of Brahman because both the personal and the impersonal aspects are not inconsistent (with exch otber, Sutra 28), because the Liberation will be achieved by accepting either of the two (Sütra 29) and because we find in the Scripture itself a principle, viz., Brahman, having the nature of being attained in either way, just as it is found in the case of several things in the world (Sūtra 30).

According to Sankara's interpretation Sutras 27-28 decide that the shaking off of the good and evil deeds of a Brahma- jňanin, takes place at the moment of the soul's departure from

ADHIKARANA X : SUTRAS III.8.34 36. 205

the body. Sutras 29-80 show that the an is tenable only in the सगुण विद्याS

In Adhikarana IX (Sutras 31-33) the Sutrakāra seoms to us to disouss the question as to how many abtributes are necessary for the purpose of meditation on Brabman. There is no rule that all the attributes ( सवासां धियाम्) of either aspect, collected by the Shtrakara in Bra. Sn.I.1-3 are required, but there is no inconsis- tency of all of them with Sruti and Smrti ( Sutra 31). There are several attributes of Brahman connected with the official duties at a sacrifice like those mentioned in the episode of Usasti (Cha. Upa.I.7.5-9, I.9.1-2, I.11.4-5). The meditation on these अधिकारिक attributes should be continued (अवस्थिति) as long as a seeker (yyg) attends his duties at a sacrifice (Sutra 82). But the attributes of ag are to be confined to their respective Srutis on account of the sameness of their purpose and because the indi- vidual soul is what those attributes imply (Sutra 33, Vide Sutras '18-15 supra). According to Sankara, Sutra 31 says that the arar is followed by those who are acquainted with the ay faans of Brahman. Sankara refers to the difference of arag (Br.Upa. VI.2.15) and ave (Oba. Upa. V.10.1) in the Pañcagnividya. Sutra 32 decides that thongh the trne knowledge of Brahman is generally immediately followed by release from all forms of body, yet even such beings as have reached perfect knowledge may retain a body for the purpose of discharging certain oflices. According to Sutra 88 the passages about the Aksaram (e.g.Br.Upa. III.8.8, Mn. Upa T.1.6 teach negative attributes which are to be included in all meditations on Brahman. In Adhikarana X (Sūtras 84-36) the Sntrakara tells us that Brahman is to be meditated upon as present within one's own sell because Brahman is stated to be 'of this much size' for this very purpose of meditation (Satras 34-35. Vide Sutras E2.7 and I.8.21). A Vedäntin Opponent argues that this inward medita- tion is the result of the identity of the soul and Brahman. The

206 ADHIKARANA XI : SUTRAS III.3.37-42

Sutrakara rejects this view and says that the inward meditation is like the one suggested in other Srutis about inward realization, e. g., Sve. Upa. I.15, Katha Upa.IV.1 (Sūtra 36).

According to Sankara Sutra 34 says that wa faa (Katha Upa. III.1) and # g4u (Mu. Upa.III.1) constitute one Vidyā only. Sutras 85-36 decide that the two passages, Br. Upa.III.4 and III.5, constitute one Vidyā only.

Adhikarana XI (Sutras 37-42) is a crucial Adhikaraņa. We have proposed a corroetion of the text of the Sutras as already noted by us above. The Sutrakara here allows an interchange of attributes for meditation on either aspect of Brahman because, he says, the Srutis themselves characterise in the same manner one aspect of Brahman as they do the other aspect (Sutra 37). Even one and the same Sruti describes the Purust in the terms of the Avyakta and vice versa (Sūtra 38).

Sutra 39, as explained above, reveals the Sntrakara's scheme of arrangement of Srutis for discussion in Bra. Sn.I.1-3 and, we may add here, that at the same time it throws further light on the Sutrakara's interpretation of those Srutis, Though the Sutrakara distinguishes between the two aspects of Brahman for the purpose of meditation, he would never say that the Srutis disoussed in Bra. Sn.I.2-3 relate only to the Purusa or unly to the Avyakta.

A Vedāntin Opponent scems to argue that no attributes of Brabman (even those of the aspect other than that on which a secker meditates) should be dropped because of the respect for the Sruti (Sntra 40). The Sutrakara says that whon an attribute (of an aspeot other than the one on which a seeker meditates) presents itself in a Sruti it should not be dropped out of respect for the word of the Sruti (Sutra 41). According to the Sūtrakara there is no rule for fixing the attributes as belonging to only one of the two aspects (afrmfaR:) The result of this stand-point is that there is no objection from the side of the Sruti to taking

ADHIKARANA XII : SUTRAS III.3.43-54. 207

each of the two aspects of Brahman as a separate or independent aspect (Sūtra 42).

According to Sankara's commentary on Stra 37 the passage Aita. Ara.II.2.4.6 constitutes not One but two meditations. Sutra 38 decides that the Vidyd of the True One contained in Br. Upa. V.4 and V.5 (not in Br.Upa. V.4.5 and Cha. Upa.I.6.7) is one only. In Sutra 39, we are told that Cha. Upa. VIII.1.1-5 and Br. Upa.IV.4.22 cannot constitute one Vidya. The Adhika- raņa (XXVI) consisting of Sūtras 40-41 troats of a minor question concerning the rituals of the Vaisvanaravidya of Cha. Upa. V.11-24. Sūtra 42 shows that those meditations (e.g., in Cha. Upa.I.1.1) which are connected with certain matters forming constituent parts of the sacrificial actions, are not te be consi- dered as permanently requisite parts of the latter.

In Adhikarana XII (Sutras 43-54) the Sutrakara gives us the method of meditation on the Purusa. In Sūtra 48 he refers to Sutra 16 above and says that the Purusa is to be meditated upon as being identical with the Self of the meditator (atmagrhiti).

Sutras 44-54 form a crucial group in which the Sūtrakara upholds his option given to the meditator to choose either of the two aspects of Brahman for meditation, He says that a majority of Srutis mention the Pradhana or the impersonal aspect and therefore that aspect is more predominent. But, the Sutrakara asserts, "inspite of this predominence, the option of choice already stated in Sutras 28-30 stands (Sūtra 44)."

In Sütras 45-50 we have a discussion, which is, we believe, based upon the Mundaka Upanisad. A Vedantin Opponent opposes the above option by saying that the meditation on the Purușa may be regarded as activity of projection, on the impersonal Brahman, of the gaq-idoa, like a mentation. The Opponent's arguments are that according to the context ( sr", Su.III.8.45) the Mu. Upa. proceeds to describe Brahman as being only an impersonal principle (Sutra 45) and that we bave

208 ADHIKARANA XII. : SU. III.3.43-54, CONTINUED

an अतिदेश (in Mi. Upa. I.2.13-येनाक्षरं पुरुषं वेद सत्यम्) which says that one knows the Aksara, the impersonal Brahman as the Purusa, the personal One ( Sutra 46 ). The Sūtrakara emphahcally asserts that the meditation on the Purusa is nothing else but Prescience (Vidya) because of the definite statement (ferit", Sutra 47) which says that the Lore by which one knows aksara purusa (the Alsara to be the Purusa, as the Opponent says) is Brahmna- vidya (Mu. Upa.I 2,13) and Mu. Upa.III.2.10 calls the knowledge of the Purusa "Vidya." The Sutrakara further says that there is no irreconcilability of the personal aspect with the impersonal aspect because the Srnti and the Smrt which teach both these as equally important aspects of Brahman, are more authentic means of knowledgo than the Preception and the Inference (Sutra 49). The Sutrakara adds that on the ground of agaa (peculiar usage of words, vide Sutra 52), etc., the Parusa is found to have the separateness of a second aspect (saia- gumaad to be a second independent aspect) of Brahman. He refers to Sutra 42 (पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्धः). In Sutra 51, the Sütrakära seems to deny the charge of the Purușa being liable to be considered a ais, a world, though he does admit that there is some common characteristio between the attainment of the Purusa and that of a world (viz., the enjoyment of all desired objects).17 In Sütra 52, the Sutrakara says that the same words are used for the Purusa as for the Avyakta, but the application of some particular word to either of the two (argaan) depends upon the frequency of use. In Sūtras 53-54, the Sūtrakära seems to refute the view of some Vedantins who hold that the meditation on the Purusa or the personal aspect is taught in the Soripture because the individual soul is in the body (Sütra 53) and therefore can easily understand the personal aspoct (Cf. Bha.GI,XII). The Sūtra- (17) Of. the fact that the Sutrakara doos not mention the arfula in the list of worlds in Bra.Sů.IV.2.

ADHIKARANA XIII : SUTRAS III.3.55-56 209

kara on the contrary emphasises the fact that the soul is quite different from the body (safats) because the soul is uot present always while the body is present ( aRia-difaaeara) The existence of the soul does not depend upon the body, as it is imphed in the statement found by the Opponent in the Seripture, i. e., the Smrti (न तु उपलब्धिवत्) According to Sankara's explanation of Sutra 43, in Br. Upa.I. 5.21-23 and Cha.Upa.IV.8 Vayu and Prana ate not to be identified, but to be held apart. According to Sankara bhasya ou Su 44-52 the fire-alters made of mind ( afra ), etc., mentioned in the Agmrahasya (Satapatha Bra X.5) do not constitute parts of the sacrificial action, hut they are merely subjects of meditation. The Adhikarana (XXX) consisting of Sutras 58-54 treats, in the way ofa digression, of the question whether to the individual soul an existence independent of the body can be assigned or not (as the Materialists maintain). In Adhıkaraņa XIII (Sūtras 55-56) the Sūtrakāra introduces a disenssion about the meditations on Brahman thought of as consisting of parts or limbs, e. g., the meditation on the parts of the Vaisvanara ( Cha. Upa. V.18.2). An Opponent (a Vedantin separatist) seemns to hold the wiew that these meditations are not to be adopted by the followers of a different Veda, because they are taught mn the Branches of each Veda (so that the other Vedas have nothing to do with them). The Strakara rejects this view and says that there is no inconsisteney involvod in the adoption of such meditations in other Vedas than the one in the Branch of which they are taught, just as there is no inconsistency in the adoption of the same Mantra, ete., in different Vedas. According to Sankara's commentary on Supras 55-56, medit- ations connected with constituent elements of the sacrifice (e. g. in Cha. Upa.I.1.1, II.2.1, Aitareya Ar.II.1.2.1, Sata .* Bra.X.5.4.1) are valid not only for that Sakha in which the meditation is actually met with, but for all Sakhas. 27

210 ADHIKARANAS XIV-XVII : SUTRAS III.3.57-60

In Adhikaraņa XIV (Sūtra 57) the Sūtrakāra says that out of the many limbs of a particular meditation of the above type in which one meditates on the limbs of Brahman, the meditation on a majority of the limbs is better (than that on a minority of the same) just as a kratu is better (than a Yajña ?) and this is shown in the Srutu.

Acoording to Sankara, Sutra 57 decides that the Vaisvanara Agm of Cha. Upa. V.11-24 is to be meditated upon as a whole, not in its single parts.

In Adbikaraņa XV (Sūtra 58) the Sutrakära says that the meditations of Brahman as constituted by limbs or parts, e. g., that on the Vaisvanara, the Sodasakala Brahman, the Samvarga Vidya, etc., are each of them different from the rest because the wea, the sarm and the dal (Vide Sütras 6-8) of each of these meditations are different from the same of the rest.

Sankara's interpretation of Sūtra 58 shows that those meditations which refer to one subject, but are distinguished by different qualities, have to be held apart as different meditat- ions. Thus, the Daharavidyi, Sandilyavidya, etc., remain separate.

In Adhıkaraņa XVI (Sūtra 69) the Sūtrakāra says that out of all these meditations a meditator should choose whatever meditation he likes, because thay all give the same fruit, viz., Mokşa.

According to Sankara Sutra 59 shows that those meditations on Brahman for which the texts assign one and the same fruit are optional, thore being no reason for their being cumulated. In Adhikarana XVII ( Sütra 60) the Sūtrakära says that the kamya meditations on Brahman may or may not be collected together according to the maditator's desire (for the various objects), becanso each of them gives a different fruit from the rest.

ADHIKARANA XVIII : SUTRAS III.3.61-66 211

According to Sankara's commentary on Sutra 60, those meditations on the other hand, which refer to special wishes, may be cumulated or optionally employed according to the meditator's choice.

In Adhıkaraņa XVIII ( Sūtras 61-66 ) the Sūtrakāra solves one more problem about the meditations in which a meditator meditates on the hmbs of Brahmun. An Opponent says that a meditator should have the respective notion on the respective limb, e. g., he should moditate on the Sky as the head, the Sun as the eye, etc. of the Vaisvanara ( Sutras 61-64 ). The Sutra- kāra rejects this view on the ground of the absence of Sruti stating that the head and the Sky or the eye and the Sun, etc., exist together and because we find in the Srutis that the con- coptions of these limbs differ in different Srutis (Sutra 66).

The last Adhikarana ( XXXVI ) of Sankara consisting of Sütras ( 61-66) extends the conclusion of Sūtra 60 to the medi- tations connected with constituent elements of sacrifice such as the udgitha.

We have above given a summiary of the contents of each of the Adhikaranas of Bra.Su.III.3 as we interpret the Pada along with a briefer one of the same according to Sankara's inter- pretation. Perhaps, a table giving side by side our interpretation of each Sutra separately and those of at least the more important among the Acryas, viz., Sankara, Rāmanuja and Vallabha, wonld have better served for a comparative look at them. But this was not possible since it would have immensoly added to the volume of the work. We also feel that such a presentation, though undoubtedly helpful to the scholar, is not absolutely necessary, because, as Dr. Ghate points out, "All the comment- ators agree in a general way in holding that such ( like that of Sankara ) is the subject matter of this Pada",18 So far as the general contents of the Pada according to the traditional inter- (18) Dr. Ghate's The Vedanta, P 135.

212 GREAT IMPORTANCE OF STO HO III.3.

pretation are concerned, Sankara would serve as a model, though, as Thibant says, occasionally Ramanuja's interpretation ( or that of any other Acarya ) may "seem to fall in more satisfactorily with the form and the wording of the Sutra".19 Without being arrogant or even proud we may be allowed to exphun our view that inspite ofithe absence of any direct support from tradition, the interpretation of this Pada, that has suggested itself to us in the course of our intensive study of the Sūtras, with the help of the prineipal Upanisads and the Satras them- selves, seems to us to reveal the Satrakara as giving us i this Pāda a serios of links of his doctrine one after the other as we proceed from one Adhikarana to the next successively till we reach the last one. There is no such line of consistent, connected, and consecutive ideas in the mterpretation of this Pada preserved or offered to us by any of the Acaryas. If we are correct in our judgment, this succession of thoughts itself would be a point in favour of the interpretation of this Pada that we happen to discover and that is being offered here to the reader, though it may be, ( and it has really been, ) that some part of the details of any particular Sutra may have to be dropped mn future on finding a still better explanation for the same.

The connected series of the links in the cham of thoughts, which can be aleady seen from the summary of the contents of Bra. Su. 1II.3 as interpreted by us, some parts of the very contents and the difficultes that the Acaryas have themselves found in explaining this Pada in their own way - all this shows that Bra.Sü.III.8 is more important than any other Pada of any Adhyäya of the work and it is the key to the interpretation of Bra.Su.I.1-3 and to that of several Upanisadic Srutis. It was the traditional interpretation only that led Dr. Ghate to think: "As the majority of the Adhikaranas trent of nothing but special ca-es to which the decisions given in Sankara's bhasya on Bra. (19) Vide Thibaut's remarks on Ramanuja's interpretation of Bra.Su.III.3.9, P'. Ixvifi of Introduction, Vol. xxxiv, S.B.E.

IMPORTANCE OF TO E° III.2 AND 4 213

Su III.3.1-13 aro to be applied and as they are of no importance for the question20 before us, it is not neccssary to review their contents in detail, as we have done with the preceding Padas."21 It was the same reason that made Thibaut give his opinion about the Pada, that "To the devout Vedantin the question ( of u pasamhara as undorstood by tne commentators ) is not a purely theoretical one bnt of immediate practical interest".22 We think that the Pada is very important not onlv to the devout Vedantin, but also to such students of the Vedanta as we are, In fact, it would be no exaggeration to say that the thid Pada of Bra.Su. III has its importance for the history of the Indian philosophy because it tells us very clearly how one of the most important problems of phlosophy, viz, the relation of the personal and impersonal aspects of the final Principle, was understood in the days of the Sutrakara with reference to the UpaniSads and thus it helps us in appreciating the interpretation that must have once been given to them. Among the other portions of the Brahmasutra interpreted here Bra.Su.III.2.11-41 comes next in importance to Bra.Sū.III.3. Bra.Su.III.4 as interpreted by us reveals also its importance on two questions: (1)The nature of the sTa of Brahman, which Jaimini regards as mere retlection (qma) while Badarayana as 'something to be performed' ( aae ) or even 'laid down' ( fafa - Bra.Sū. III.4. 19-20 ) and (2) the actions or duties ( $has ) that a seeker of Brahman ( gag ) must do and the part which these antions (#aas) play along with $7 in the achivement of Moksa which, according to the Sutrakara, is the common goal of both karman and jñana though the former only help the latter. In connection with the question of the comparative import- ance of the several Padas of the Brahmasntra, we may add that 1 (20) The question is what aro the philosophical thoughts of tho Sobrakara and his Commentators. (21) The Vedanta, P. 137. (22) Thibaut, S. B. E, vol XXXIV, P. Ixvii.

214 स्मृतिपाद (ब्र. सू० II. 1) DEALS WITH THE गीता

Bra.Su II.1 (called Smrtipada) is also very important. We believe that "स्मृति" in स्मृत्यधिकरण does not mean सांख्य as the Acaryas have understood it, but it means rua, as distinguished from gfa discussed in Bra. Sū I. So, the eufauie, in our opinion, gives the views of Badarayana on topies of the rufa particular- ly the Gita, not accepted and also not rejected, by him, but rather interpreted by him to smt his own Srauta VedantaSchool (Of. व्याख्याता: in Bra.St. II.1.12; व्याख्याता: can only mean 'explained; not 'refuted'). As wo have not included a detailed interpretation of the (wfaur) in the present work, we would abstain from writing here anything more about the importance of the Sirti- pada23 (Vide Appendix).

Thus, there are several portions of the Brahmasutras, impor- tant for the history of the Indian philosophy and of all theso Bra.So.III.3 seems to us to be the most important. The Pāda is traditionally called goigeen ua and the word yu is traditionally understood to refer to the so-called gualities of Brahman given in the several faais of the Upanisads. However, from the contents of the Pada as discussed by us we are led to'think that the word "gr" in this case is nsed in the Mimamsaka sense2f of a secondary element or 'a subsidiary part ' and ' upasamhara' in Sutra III. 3.5 ( उपसहारोऽर्थांमेदाद् विधिशेपवत्) would mean 'a collection' or 'gathering together' of all the subsidiary parts of the knowledge of Brahman. The word " fafrag " in this Sutra can be quoted in support of our meaning of yor in "gogder". It is this colle- otion (s4aa) which gives its immense importance to the Pada.

(23) We have given in & nutsboll a summary of the arguments for our con- ciusion that the Smrtipada gives the Sutrakara's view about several tenets of the Bhagavadgita, in a 'Paper : Meaning of "Smiti" in the Brahmasutra, in the Indian Iistorical Quartely, 1936. A detailed interpretation of all the Sütras of the Pads is ready with us waiting for the Press. (24) Bro particularly the use of the word g mn Jai. Su, II. 3.

CHAPTER 10

TRADITIONAL METHOD OF INTERPRETATION ; SANKARA'S METHOD.

In a succeoding chapter we have made several snggestions for the correct interpretation of the Brahmasutra. Theso suggestions occurred to us while examining the method of interpretation of the Commentators of the Brabmasutra. In our opinion, all Commentators have generally followed the same method. Here we propose to point out some of the chief defects underlying this method as illustrated by Sankara's commentary. These defects in the case of Sankara's bhäsya can be classified under several divisions, viz., (1) defects which involve a wrong conception of the division of the chief topics of the Brahmasutra, (2) defects which result in a double interpretation of a Sruti or a Smrti; (3) defects which are due to a wrong conception of the fagaaaas of the Sutras; (4) defects which are the results of taking too mnch liberty with the Satras; (5) defects due to wrong splitting up of the words of a Sutra; and (6) defects due to not assigning the correct sens to a word in a Sutra; etc. etc. The chief topic of the Brahmasutia can be only Brahman. By tho very nature of the Inquiry (famt) undertaken by the Brahmasutra, it is not very likely that the Sūtrakara would disouss topics not directly connected with his undertaking, sueh as the atonement of a lifelong celibate breaking his vow,1 the four stages of life ( aamr; ),2 etc., eto., which would be properly discussed in a Smrti, the lores of rituals ( wuin faat) which lead to the enrichment of the fruit of the Sacrifico ( *ragf ), and several other topios which could find a proper place in a work (1) Cf. यदि नैिको ब्रह्मचारी प्रमादादवर्कार्येत कि तस्य "ब्रह्मचार्यवकीरणी नैऋते गर्दभमाल भेदू' इत्येतटपरायश्चित्तं स्यादुत नेति। Vide Sabha. on Bra.Su.III.4,41-42. (2) Cf. अनुष्ठेयमाश्रमानतर बादरायण आचार्यों मन्यते। वेदे श्रवणात्/ et. e Vide SA bhasya on Bra.Sū.III.4.19.

216 METHOD OF TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION

on the Sacrifices.3 Again, if the Sūtrakara at all wanted to dis- cuss such topies, he would have given them in one and the same Pada or Adhikarana in his book. Moreover, if he accepted the bwn aspeets of Brabman (uyu and fan) taught by Sankara, he would have very probably divided his discussion into two definite separato places or at least in some regular order, so as to make it easy for the reader to understand his meaning and explana- tion of these two aspects, wherever he would have chosen to state theru in his book. A commentator should not assert, at his will. that a few Sutras in one Pada deal with the Para Bra- hman, while others in the same Pada deal with the Apara Brahman, unless he gives sufficient reasons for such a sudden change of topies. Again, if certain Sntras in one Pada (Bra Si. II.3.83-42) deal with the $ara and wias of the mdividual soul, it is not likely that the giver of the fruit of these actions will be discussed in another group of Sutras in a different Adhyaya, (Bra.Su.III.2.38-41).4 It is not possible that the Sntrakara will disouss one and the same topic in two different plnces, once in brief and again in detail; much less possible is it that one and the same subject should be the topic in both the Sādhanādhyaya and the Phaladhyaya, since the same subject cannot be Sadhana and Phala.5

We shall, first of all, exammne how Sankara shows that parti- cular Sutras doal with the Ignorance (arfaen), the Relative Know- ledge (अपराविद्या), and bsolt Knowd(राविदा)

(3) Vite Sa. bhasya on Bra.Su III 3.55. (4) Vide our Notes on Bra.Sn.IlT.2.38 (ii) Of. भूगश्रैन विभागं चतुर्थाध्याये निपुणतरभुपपादयष्यामः । Sa,bhasya on Bra.SO.III.3.80. (5) Ci. सेन ब्ह्मणा सुषुम्त्यादिषु जीव उपाध्युपशमात्संपद्यते तरयेदानीं स्वरूप श्रुतिवशेन fanaa | S'a, bhasya on Bra. S.III.2.11. Also, तस्मादमह्षण रूपप्रपर्व प्रतिपेधति परिशिनषि बह्ेत्यभयुपगन्तव्यम्। S'abhasya on Bra. Sa.III.222. यदेताधिरस्तसमस्तप्रपश्व निर्धारितमस्मात्परम्यतत्वमस्तिनस्तीति श्रुतिि sfarost; dert ! S'a bhätya on Bra.Su.IIT.2-31.

परा and अपरा विद्या सूतs tn ब्र. स. III.2 217

According to Sankara, Bra.So.III 2 11-37 deal with the Supreme Brabman,6 while Bra.Sn.III 2 38-41 deal with Brahman in the state of relative reality when It divides Itself as the Ruler and the ruled.7 In our interpretation of this latter group of Sütras (III.2 38-41) we have explamed why we believe it to be possible that they relate to Brahman as the giver of the Moksa ('n3' in Bra Sü.III.2.38-39) and as the Moksu itself (in Bra.Sn. III.2.40-41). We may here add that the word 'na' occurring in a chapter about «jaa, which precedes a chapter about 63, should mean 'मुक्तिफल'. The word मुक्तिफल itself occurs in Bra.sn.III.4.52 which is the last Sutra of the Sadhanadhyaya. Moreover, the nature of thein- dividual soul, and along with it the nature of his actions (wias), have been discussed by the Sutrakāra in Bra.Sn.II.3.17-53, (parti- culary Bra.Sü.II 3.33-40 . There is no reason why the Sūtrakāra, who does not regard the section of the nature of the soul as a part of the aras, should not discuss the fruit of the soul's actions $ in same place where he discusses the saca of the soul (in Bra.Su. II.3). We beleve that the question of the giver of the fruit of the soul's actious is discussed by the Sutrakara in Bra.Su.II.8. 41-42.9 For these reasons, we beleve, the Sūtrakāra does not diseuss R in Bra. Su.III.2.38-41. Bra.Sü.III.8 seems to have been taken by Sańkara as dealing with the meditations on the agw Brahman and with certain faais, e.g. monfafaen; the meditations on the r Brahman are again three-fold-those which give their fruit in this world (EeFaifa). those which give their fruit in other worlds (erzewanfa) and

(7) of. तस्येव ब्रह्मणो व्यावहारीक्यामीशित्रीशितव्यविभागावस्थायामयमन्यः स्त्रभावी वर्ष्यते। S'a. bhasya on Bra. Su. III 2 38. (8) Ci. यदेतविष्यानिष्ठव्यामिश्रलक्षणं कर्मफलं समारगोचर त्रिविधं मसितू जन्तूनां किमेतकमणो भवत्याहोस्विदीश्वरादिति भवति विचारणा। Sa. bhusyet on Bra Su.III.2.38. (9) With कृतप्रयत्नापेक्षा in Bra.Su.II 3.42 cf. विचिन्नकार्यानुपपस्याठयोडाप दोषा: कृतप्रत्नापेक्षत्वादीश्वरस्य न प्रसज्यन्ते। Sa bhasya on Bra.Su.III.2.41, Sutra IT.3.41 means 'परात् तु फलमू.' 28

218 अविद्या, अपरा विद्या & परा विद्या सूतs in ब्र. सू. III.3

those which lead the seeker to liberation-by-stages (कममुक्तिफलानि)10 This is Sankara's interpretation of Bra.Sū.III.3.1. We give below a short statement of the subject of each Sūtra of Bra.Su.III.3 to show how Sankara construes the same as dealing with Para Vidya, Aparā Vidya and A-vidya :-

Sntras 1-4 A Proposition about various अपरा विद्याs Sūtra 5. A प्रयोजन Sutra. Sūtras 6-8 प्राणविद्या or उद्गीथविद्या, i. e., अविद्या. Sūtra 9 Discussion of उद्रीथ, which means औद्ात्र, duties of an उद्गातृ, i, e., अविद्या. Sūtra 10 Discussion of " प्राणसंवाद" Sruti; अविद्या. Sūtras 11-13 Parā Vidyā or Aparā Vidyā ? Sūtras 14-15 (Discussion about the qra of Purusa in Katha .. Upa. III. 10-11), 1. e., पराविद्या. Sūtras 16-17 (आत्मन in A1. Upa. I.2 means परमात्मन्) अपरा विद्या. Sūtra 18 (Discussion of आचमन and अपां वासःकल्पन) अविद्या. Sūtra 19 अपरा विद्या. Sūtras 20-22 अपरा विद्या Sūtra 23 अपरा विद्या Sntra 24 (पुरुषः यज्ञः कल्पितः) करभाङ्ग विद्या i. e., अविद्या. Sūtra 25 Relation between कर्माडs and अपरा विद्या. Sūtra 26 (Disposal of the good and bad deeds of the Knower of Brabman-परा विद्या. Sūtras 27-28 पर्यङ्क विद्या, i. e., अपरा विद्या, Sütras 29-30 देवयान: पन्थाः, i. e., अपरा विद्या, Sntra 81 सगुणा विदाs leading to worldy prosperity (अम्युदय- फला), i. e., अविद्या. (10) Vide S'ankara's commentary on Bra.Su.IIT.3.1, viz., व्याख्यांत विज्ञेयस्य ब्रह्मणस्तत्वम् ...... ननु विज्ञेयँ ब्रह्म पूवापरादिभदरहितमकेरस सैन्धव- धनवद्षधारितं तत्र कुतो विज्ञानमेदाभेदचिन्तावतारः । .... नाप्यस्य चोदनाद्यविशेषादभेद उच्यते। ब्रह्मविज्ञानस्याचोदनालक्षणत्वात। :........ तदुच्यते सगुणञ्रह्मविषया प्राणादिविषया चेयं विज्ञानमेदाभेदचन्तेत्यदोषः। अत्र हि कर्मवदुउपासनानां भेदाभेदौ संभवतः कर्मवदेव चोपासनानि दृछटफलान्यरष्टफला नि चोच्यन्ते। क्रममुक्तिफलानि कानिचित्सम्यग्ञानोत्पत्तिद्वारण। तेव्वेषा चिन्ता संभवति।

अविद्या, अपरा विद्या, परा विद्या सूतs in ब्र. सू. III.3 219

Sūtra 32 (Whether there is a fresh body of the knower after the present body)-अपरा विद्या. Sütra 33 (अक्षरधियां त्ववरोधः) परा विद्या Sūtra 34 अपरा विद्या. Sutras 35-86 अपरा विद्या. Sutra 37 अपरा विद्या. Sūtra 38 अपरा विद्या. Sūtra 39 A curious combination11 of सगुणा ब्रह्म-विद्या (of Cha. Upa. VIII.1.6 ) and fiu Brahman ( of Br. Upa. IV.3). How is this combination possible ? Sūtras 40-41 प्राणागि्निहोत्र. कमोन्क विद्या, i. e., अविद्या. Sūtra 42 कर्माङ्ग विद्या. Sūtra 43 A question about प्राण, the Breath, अविद्या? Sūtras 44-52 कर्माङ्गविद्या (मनश्विदादयः अग्नयः), i. e., अविद्या, Sūtras 53-54 (देहव्यतिरिक्तस्य आत्मनः सङ्गावः), i. e., अविद्या (?) Sūtras 55-56 उद्गीथादिकर्मावबद्धाः प्रश्ययाः-अविद्या. Sutra 57 वैश्वानर बिद्या, 1. e., अपरा विद्या. Sūtra 58 अपरा विदा Sūtra 69 अपरा विद्या. Sūtra 60 अपरा विद्या (because we have here काम्याः विद्याः) Sūtras 61-66 कर्माङ्विद्या:, i. e., अविद्या.

It is likely that in the case of some of the above Sūtras, scho- lars may differ as to whether they deal with अपरा विद्या Or अविया and we have ourselves expressed our hesitation in assiguing to a few of them such a classification. But such a difference of opinion would hardly be suflicient to disprove a gencral conolu- sion to be arrived at on the basis of our elassification. According to the above olassification, about seven Sutras deal with Pard Vidyā ( Sūtras 11-13, 14, 15, 26, 33 ), twentysir with Apara Vidyā ( Sūtras 1-4, 16-17, 19, 20-22, 23, 25, 27-28, 20-30, 32, (11) Sankara's reply, "गुणवतस्तु ब्रह्मण एकत्वाद्विभूतिप्रदर्शनाय अय गुणोपसहार: सून्नितो नोपासनायेति द्वष्टव्यम्," is hardly satisfactory. See our Notes on the same.

220 अविद्या, अपरा विद्या & अविद्या सूत्s In ब्र. सू. III.4

34, 35-36, 37, 38, 57, 58, 59, 60 ), thirtyone with Avidya (Sūtras 6-8, 9, 10, 18, 24, 31, 40-41, 42, 43, 44-52, 53-54, 55-56, 61-66), one Sutra deals with the aim of the Pada (Sutra 5, Sutra ), and Sutra 39 is a cunous mixture of Para Vidya and Apara Vidya, out of a total number of sutysix Sutras. In our opimon, no scheme can be offered or discovered to explain either the proportion allotted to these different classes of Sutras accordmg to the System of Sankara or the order ( or rather the disorder ) in which they ocour. So far as this (third) Pada of the third Adhyaya is concerned, we have already explained a scheme which we have discovered in these Sutras and in our Notes (in Part I ) we have also stated with reference to each individual Stra, why we regard Sankara's division and mterpretation of the Sūtras as untenable. Now, we give below the classification of the Sutras of Bra. Sü.III.4 into those dealing with Para Vidyā, Apara Vidyā and Avidya according to Sankara. Sūtras 1-17 ( Relation between कर्मन् and म्रह्मविद्या)-परा विद्या, Sütras 18-20 (ऊध्घरेतसामाश्रमाणां स्भावः) - A topic fit for the Smrti (Law Books). " There is no wrr Sruti for these anaas " - Sankara. Therfore, अविद्या. Sūtras 21-22 कर्माङ्ग विद्या, i. e., अविद्या, Sūtras 28-24 परा विद्या. Sūtra 25 परा विद्या Sntras 26-27 परा विद्या, Sūtras 28-81 प्राणविद्याविपयं सर्वान्तभक्षणम्-अपरा विद्या, Sütras 82-85 Whether a non-seeker ( argge ) should do आश्रमककर्माणि, i. e., अविद्या. Sntras 80-89 Widowers and others are entitled to fau- (परा or अपरा ? ) * Satra 40 No fall of the कध्वरेतस्s. अविद्या. Sūtras 41-42 Atonement for a lifelong celibate violating his vow of celibacy. A subject fit for Smțti. अविद्या.

अविद्या, अपरा चिद्या, परा विद्या सूत्रs in न्र. सू. IV.1-3 221

Sütra 43 Excommunication of the fallen ऊध्वरेतसs, अविद्या. Sūtras 44-46 Actions performed by a hired priest give their फल to the master; अविद्या. Sūtras 47-49 संन्यासाश्रम sanctioned by the Sruti. अविद्या (?) Sūtra 50 Meaning of aea in Br. Upa.III.5.1. Sūtra 51 The fulfilment of the faan in this very life. परा विद्या (१) Sūtra 52 No distinction in the t3, viz., absolution. परा विद्या.

Though there is a possibilty of difference of opinion as regards the exact calssification of these Sutras under the above heads, we may say that approximately twentyeight, four and nineteen Sntras deal respectively with qu faar ( Sutras 1-17, 23-24, 25, 26-27, 36-39, 51, 52 ), अपरा विद्या (Sutras 28-31) and अविद्या (Sutras 18-20, 21-22, 82-35, 40, 41-42, 43, 44-46, 47-49 ), and that Sūtra 50 contains a parenthetical statement, out of the total number of 52 Sutras of Bra.Su.III.4. It is strange that no rule emerges out of Sankara's interpretation of these Sutras, to explam the proportion and the order of these three kinds of Sütras as they are strung togather by the Sūtrakara ( according to Sańkara ).

In Bra.Su.IV.1 seven Sutras deal with qu fa ( Sutras 8, 14- 19 ), six Sutras with aruur faan ( Sutras 4-5, 7-10), four Sütras with q and arqu faer ( Sutras 1-2, 12, 18 ) and two Sntras with कर्माह्गोपासनानि or अविदया, thus making up the total of 19 Sttrus.1d In Sankara's opinion the second and the third Padas of the fourth Adhyaya deal with अपरा विद्या. The departure from the body (उस्कान्ति) described mn Bra.Su. IV 2 is common to the ignorant and to the hnower of the अपरा विद्या, and this departure (उत्कान्ति) is described by

(12) Sutras IV.1.1-2 deal with Para and Apara Vidya, but only for second- rate students. Sūtra IV.1.11 seems to deal with all meditations according to S'ankara. Sutras IV.1.12 deals with kāmyanı or abhyudayaphalāns upasunāni, i. e., Avidyā ( See Sā, bhasya on Bra. Sū, IV.1.12 and our Note 4 on the same Sitra ).

222 अविद्या, अपरा विद्या, परा विद्या सूतs in ब्र, सू. III, IV.

the Sutrakara to introduce 'the path of gods', by which the fruit is reached in the अपरा विद्या 18 In Bra. Sutra IV.4 which consists of twentytwo Sutras, eight Sutras deal qu faar (Sutras 1-4, 6, 16, 19-20),14 thirteen with अपरा विद्या (Sitras 5,8-9, 10-14, 15, 17-18, 21-21) and Sutra 7 with परा and विद्याs.15

As already stated above, we fail to see whether any explanation of the proportion or of the order in which the Sūtras ( as per s ) about each of the three classes of Para Vidya, Apara Vidya and Avidya occur in each Pada can be offered from the stand-point of Sankara's School.16 It is indeed strange that in some Padas there are no Sutras of the q faan, in some there are no Sutras of the अविद्ा, while some Sutras of the अपरा विद्या are present in all these Padas. The number of the Sutras of each kind varies in each Pada. Some Sutras are said to deal with both the परा विद्या and the अपरा विद्या, e. g., Bra.Su.III.3.39, IV. 1.1-2, 12, 13, IV.4.7. It is also strange that the whole of the departure ( somfa ) described in Bra.Sh.IV.2 is interpreted to be common to both the ignorant and the knower of the Apara Vidya, the

(13) Vide S'a.bhasya on Bia.Su.IV.2.1 .- अथापरासु विद्यासु फलप्राप्तये देवयानं पन्था नमवतार यिध्यन्प्रथमं तावद्यथाशास्त्रमुर्क्ान्तिक्रममन्वाचष्टे। समाना हि विद्वदविदुषारुत्क्रान्तिरिति वक्ष्यति। (14) Vide S'a bhasya on Sutra IV.4.16. (15) On Bra.Su.IV.4.7, Sanikara says, एवमपि पारमार्थिक चेतन्यमात्रस्वरूपाभ्युपग-4 मेडपि व्यवहारापेक्षया पूर्वस्याप्युपन्यासादिभ्योऽगतस्य ब्राह्म स्यैश्वर्य रूपस्याप्रत्याख्यानादविरोधं बादरायण आचार्यो मन्यते। (16) The following table can be tentatively prepared about the proportion .- Bra. So. Pada. Total Sutras. Parā Vidyā, Aparā Vidyā. Avidyā, III.2 (11-41=) 81 37 4 0 III.8 66 7 26 31 III.4 52 28 4 19 IV.1 19 7 6 IV.2 21 0 (समाना हि विद्वदार्विदुषोरुत्क्रान्ति रिति वक्ष्यति) IV.3 16 0 16 0 IV.4 22 8 13 0

AN EXPLANATION FOR THE ORDER OF ET OF HEE ETO. 223

same Sutras being taken as dealing with the Audya and also with the Apara Vidya with the result that the knower of the Aparā Vidyā has no distinction so far as the method of departure is concerned and yet he passes on to the Path of the gods des- cribed in Bra Su.IV.3. This latter Pada is consequently said to deal with only the Apara Vidya, though there is no other Pada ( from Bra.Sn.III.2 to IV ) which is devoted solely to the freat- ment of one single topic out of these three topics of the Sankara Vedanta School Moreover, there is no fixed order in which these Sutras of these three topics should occur mn a P'ada. If the Sutras were really meant to be classified under these three heads, we think it probable that we should find some such order as that the Sutras of the Para Vidya should be treated first, then those of the Apara Vidya, and lastly those dealing with Avidya, or any other fixed order. But we come across no such fixed order. Thus, no scheme is proposed by the Sankara School to explain how and why any particular Sutra or group of Sūtras should be supposed to deal with परा विद्या, अपरा विद्या or अविद्या. The only apparent evidence for this supposition is the meaning which Śankara attributes to cerlain word or words of a Sutra and certain other tactics adopted by him in his interpretation.17 We have amply discussed particular cases of these in our Notes ( in Part I ) and need not repeat them here. Parallel to the case of Sankara's above-mentioned three-fold classification of the topics, we have the case of the topics which, if his bhäsya is followed, have either nothing to do with the declared aim of the work of Badarayana, viz., the Inqniry about Brahman, or which are at least out of placc in the particular Pada or Adhyaya. Most of the Sutras which Sankara explains as dealing with subjects not bearing upon Brahmajijñasa have been classified above by us as the Sutras about the standpoint of the Avidyā. We must note that occasionally Sankara himself becomes aware of the absence of any connection of his topic of an Adhi- (17) Vide the other defects of S'ankara's bhasyo in this chapter.

224 सनS WITH SUBJECTS IRRELEVENT TO ब्रह्माजिज्ञासा

karaņa with the Brahmajijñasa or with the topic of the Pada or the Adhyaya wherein the Adhikarana in question occurs, and tries to offer an explanation for the same, which seems to us to be far from being satisfactory. An example of this is suppled by the "ऐकात्म्याधिकरण" (Bra.Su.III.3.53-54). Here, Sankara says that in the "goeaR" Pada (III.8, we have a topic about the exislence of the mdividual soul independent of the body (देहव्यतिरिकस्य आत्मनः ar:) because "he (the #RH4) is the recepient of the Moksa and he is declared by the Seripture to be identical with Brahman."18 No such explanation is, however, offered by him in the case of the topies which we are now going to mention.

There are several Sutras, which, as interpreted by Sankara, disouss topios which would have found a better place in a Smrti. In Bra.Su.III.8.18 Sankara finds a disoussion of and भनगनताचिन्तन19 based upon a comparison of Cha.Upa V.2.2 and Br. Upa. VI.1.14. In Bra.Su.III.4.18-20 Sańkara has a discussion based upon Cha. Upa.II.23.1 as to whether the orders of life other than that of a householder are sanctioned by the Sruti directly mentioning them or only by Smrt and Practice.20 Sankara holds that Bra.Su.III.4.32 discusses the question whether a non-seeker of liberation (agyg) who is not desirous of faar should perform the duties of the orders.21 It is rather strange that, according to Sankara the Purvapaksa is here based upon Br Upa, IV.4.22, while the Siddhanta is based upon the Brahmana text

(18) Sa bhisya on Bra.Su.III.3.58, इह दहव्यतिरिक्तस्यात्मनः सद्धावः समर्थ्येते बन्ध- मोक्षाधिकारसिद्धय। न ह्यस्ति देहव्यनिरिकात्मनि परलोकफलश्वोदना उपपद्यरेन्करय वा

(19) Sa.bhasya on Bra.Su.III.8.18, तत्र त्वाचमनमनपताचिन्तनं च प्राणस्य प्रतीयते तस्कमुभयमपि विधीयते उताचमनमेवोतानमताचिन्तमेवेति विचार्यते। (20) St.bhasya on Bra.Su.III.4.18. ननु परामर्शऽप्याश्रमा गम्यन्त एव। सत्यं गम्यन्ते। स्मृत्याचाराभ्यां तु तेषां प्रसिद्धि ने प्रत्यक्षश्रुतेः । (all S'a.bhasya on BraSu.IIT,4.32, इदानीं तु किममुमुक्षोरप्याश्रममान्ननिष्ठस्य विद्याम- कामयमानस्य तानि (भाश्रमकमागि) अनुष्ठेयानि उताहो नेति चिन्त्यते। :

SUBJECT PROPER FOR धर्म AND कर्ममामासा शास्रा. 225

"यावज्जवममिहोत्रं जुहोति' 22. According to Sikara Bra Sa.III. f.40esta- blishes a conclusion that there is no moral fall of those who have adopted the orders of cehbacy (i. e., the three orders, that of the householder being excepted), while in Bra.Sn.III 4.43 he himself comes to the conclusion that one who, though belonging to an order of celibacy, falls, mnst be excommunicated.93 In Bra.Sn. TTI.4.41 42 as iterpreted by Sankara the topie is whether a life-long celibate who breaks his vow of celibacy out of eare- lessness, commits a agi9a 'one of the five great sins' or an 'syqraa', 'a minor sin'2 Here at least Sankara does not say that the discussion of this topic is based upon any Upanisulie toxt. He supports his Purvapaksi and Siddhanta by quoting Sntras from the Jaiminisūtra. There are several other Sutras also which should be conside- red along with the above Sutras and in which Sankara finds a topie about a faai 'a lore connected with the Karyan or Sacri- fice'. In Bra Su.III.3.42 Sankara says that the topie is whether the 'meditations' (fammfa) superimposed upon the parts of a Kar- man like those mentioned in Cha.Upa.I.1.1 are fe 'obligatory' or afra.25 He holds that the topic of Bra.Su.III.3.55-56 is

(22) As showu in our Notos on Bra.Su, III.4.82-83 S'ankura's intorpreta- tion of Sutra ITI.4.32 is weakened by his own intorpretation of Bra So, III.4. 33 We believe, as a rule, both the PurvapakSa and the Sindhanta must bo based upon only UpaniSads. (93) S'a.bhusya on BraSu III,4.40, सन्त्यूश्वरेतस आश्रमा इत स्थापितम्। तास्तु प्रासस्य क्थाचत्ततः प्रच्युतिरसति नास्ति वति सशयः । .... एवं प्राप्ते उच्यते -- नन्जतस्य नु प्रतिपक्षोर्ष्व रेतोभावस्य न कर्थचिदग्यतद्भावो न ततः्रयुतिः स्यात। Sh St IIl.4.43, यशुध्व रेतसां स्वाश्रमेभ्यः प्रच्यवनं महापातक यदि वोपपातकमुत्रयथापि शिषस्न बहिष्कतव्याः । (24) S'a.bhas ye on Bra.Su,III.4.41, यदि नैष्रिको, ब्रह्मचारी प्रमादादवकीर्येत कि तस्य 'ब्रह्मचार्यवकीर्णी नैऋतं गर्दभमालभेत्' इत्येतत्ायश्चितं स्यादुत नेति। (25) S'abhasya on Bra.Su.III.3.42, सन्ति कर्माङ्ञव्यपाश्रयणानि विज्ञानानि- 'ओमित्येतरक्षदमुद्रीथमुषासीत' (छा.उ.११) इत्येतमादीनि। कि तानि नित्यान्येव स्युः ............ ..*... उतानित्यानि इति विचारयामः । 29

226 SUBJECTS PROPER FOR THE कर्ममीमांसा शास्त्र

whether the thoughts fixed upon the erier and other parts of a Karman mentioned in Cha. Upa.I.1.1 and other Srutis (some of them beig Brahmana texts also) are laid down for each parti- eular Branch of each Veda or for all Branches of all Vedas.26 The subject of Bra.Su III.3.61-66 is explamned by Sankara to be whether the meditations resting on the ssig and other parts of a Karman and laid down in the tbree Vedas are 'to be collected' or a ribualist may deal with them as he desires 27 In Bra.Su. 1IL.1.21-22 Sankara finds the discussion of a question whether the Srutis like Cha. Upa.I.13, T.6 1, are me int for the glorifica- tion of the 3ait. ebe. (whieh are parts of a Karman) or for laying down an injunction about those meditations 28 Again, Sutras [II444-46, as commented npon by Sankara, give different view- on the subect whether the meditations which form part of a Karman are the actions of the Sacrificer or of the priests.20 In Bra.Sn.IV.1.6, as explamed by Sankara, we have the solution of a doubt about the meditations fixed upon the parts of a Sacrifice mentioned i Srutis like Cha. Upa. I.8.1, II.2.1, II.8.1, 1.6.1, as to whether mn these meditations the notions of the enie, ete., are prescribed as to be superimposed on the Sun, etc., or rice versa.30

(2d) Sa.bhasya on Bra.Su.III.3.55, 'ओमितयेतदक्षरमुद्गथमुपासीत' (छा.उ.१।१।१) 'लोकेपु पचविध सामोपासीत' (छा.उ. २।१।१) ... इसेवमाद्या य उद्गीथादिकर्माङ्ाववद्धा: प्रत्ययाः प्रतिवद शाखाभदेषु विहितारते तत्तच्छासागतष्वेवोद्रीथादिषु भवेयुरथवा रर्वशाखागतेष्विति विशयः। (e7) Sa.blasya on Bra.Su.III.3.61-66, कमाङ्गपृद्गीथादिषु य आश्रिताः प्रत्यया येदत्रयविहिता: कि से समुच्चीयेरन्कि वा य्रथाकामं स्युरिति संशये यथाश्रयभाव इत्याह। (28) Sa.bhasya on Bra.Su.IIl.4.21-22, 'स एष रसानां रसतमः परमः ..... *' इत्येवं जातीयका: अ्रतयः किमुद्रीथादेः रतुत्यर्था आहोस्विदुपासनाविध्यर्था इत्यस्मिन्सशये रतुत्यर्था इति युक्तम्। 2 Sahasya on Ha-Su.ITI.4.44-46, अङ्वेयूपामनपु सशयः। किं तानि यजमान-

(30) S'ihhayr on Bra. Su.IV.1.6, 'य एवासी तपति तमुद्रीथमुपासीत' (छा.उ.१३११), 'लोकेषु पञ्ञावव सामोपासीत' (छा उ.२/२।१), ...... इत्येवमादिष्वज्ञावबद्धेधूपासनेषु संशयः किमादि- व्वादिपुत्रीथादिदृष्टयो विधायन्ते कि वोदीथािष्वादित्यादिद्वष्टय इति ।

THE NUMBER OF SUCH EAS 237

In Bra. Su.lII.8.24, Sankara says that we have the discussion of a fancied identification of man with a sacrifice based chiefly upon the Rahasya Brahmana (of the Samaveda) and also upon the text of the Taittiriyakas.31 In Bra. Sn.III.3.40-41, the Acaryn finds a discussion of the anherr offered into the fire mn the form of the mu, the breath, arising from Cha, Upa. IV.19-24."2 In a group of nine Sutras (BraSi.III.3 41-52) Sankara says that the Sutrakara discusses the question whether the thirtysix thousand fires called "Haferg", ete., mentioned in the Agni rahasya Brahmana are subservient to the rite or are of the nature of pure meditations.38 Hore, Sańkara bases bis Pürva- paksa and Siddhanta on certnin texts from the Brahmana and on some Sutras from the Jaiminisutra. He does not support them by any Upanisad. The above topies nmber fifteen and cover about thirtysix Sutras from among the nintvfour topies (aftatuis) consisting of twohundred thirtyseven Satras (from Bra.Sa IIT 2. 11 to IV.4.22), i.e., they are oneaixth of Bra.Sn.III.2.11 to IV.4 22. They discuss questions which would have been better discussed either in a Smrti or m a book on ritnalism, Most of them are not even iemotely conneoted with the Brahmajijnasd and Sankara does not state that they have anything to do with the Inquiry about Brahman That some of them deal with meditations resting upon ritanlism does not in our opinion make it probable that the Sütrakara ment them to be diseussed in (the particular Sntras of) his book. We have shown (in part [) that the Sütras in question rather deal with the arms (limbs) of Brainnan ( Vide Notes on Sutras IIL.8 55 and 61. IV.1.6 )

(31) S'a bhasya on Bra.Su.IIT.3.91, अिति नाण्डिना पैतिनां न रहस्यब्राह्मगे पुरुष- विदया। तत्र पुरुषो यज्ञ : कल्पिनः। ... .... तत्र संशग : कि य इतस त्रोका: पुरुषयज्ञस्य धमोस्त तैत्तिरीयकेपूपसंहर्तन्याः किवा नोपसहतव्या इति। (32) S'a bhasya on Bra. SO1I1.3,40-41, 85t ANA - HOR 4 प्राणाम्िहोत्रस्योतालोप इति । (sa) S'a bhasya on Bra.Su.III.8.44, किमेते मनवविदादयः अप्नयः क्रियानुप्रवेशि नस्तच्छेषभूता उत स्वतन्त्रा केवलविद्यात्मका इति।

228 TUE faqyaFyuas OF SUCH EaS, DISCOVERED

That most of them can be or have been explaied by Sankara as based upon Upanisadic texts does not at all make it sure that the Sutrakara would have intended to discuss them in his book though they have nothing to do with his Inquiry We have also shown (in our Notes in Part I ) that most of these Sūtras do not at all refer to the Srutis mentioned by Sankara (See, e. g., our Notes on Bra.Su.III.3.18, 1II.3.42, III.3 55, III.3 61, III.4. 21, ete). That the esfe as a part of a sacrifice should figure so prominently in the Brahmasūtra scems to us to be mipossible and probably serves to reflect only the dominance of Lituahsmn in the days of Sankara and his prodecessors from whom very lkely he inherited a traditation about aig, etc. The cases of Sankara's interpretation of those Sutras where he substantiates his Pūrvapaksa or Siddhanta by referring to Sūtras from the Jammmisntra or to Brahmana texts are the weakest (See Sa, bhasya on Bra.Sn.III 3.44-52, III.3.24, III.4.41-42).34

We shall now consider cases of cross references according to Sankara. There are several Sutras in interpreting which Sankara says that the Sutrakara descusses the same topic also rlsewhere in the Brahmasutra or that a later Sutra is a modification of the statement of a former Satra. In Bra.Sn.III.8.29-80, Sankara finds an independent Adhi- karaņa and takes the topic to be whether 'goung' (fa) in all the Vedantas is to be taken hterally or metaphorically; he says that in the aga meditations 'going' is literal, while in the higher Vidya 'going' is metaphorical. Sankara adds that the same topic will be explained more thoroughly later in the fourth Adhyaya,33

(34) We heheve, thero is only one Sūtra where the Sūtrakara refers to the meditation of Brahman "referring to priestly duties", viz., Bra Su.1II.3.32, and this is referred to by the Sutrakara because it is a meditation on Brahman and deverves a place in Brahmajijñāsā. (a5) Sa, hisye on BraSu.IIT,3 30 गतिकारणभूतो ह्यर्थ: पर्यक्क विद्यादिपु सगुणेषूपासनपूप- सभ्यते। .. नहि सम्यमदर्शन तलक्षणार्थोपलब्धिरस्ति। ........... ... भूयश्चैनं विभागं

CROSS REFERENCES IN THE ES ACCORDING TO 5T 229

Really the topiclof 'gati' or going 15 discussed only in Bra.Sū .- IV.3.7-14. In Bra.Su. III.8 83 Sankara says that the negative attributes of the Supreme Beig arc considered, while in Bra.Su.II1 3.11 the positive ones are the subject matter. He holds that in both the Sutras the 'collection' of all attributos from all Srulis for the purpose of meditation on Brahman 18 prescribed. The purpose of a fresh separate consideration of the two types of the attributes of the Supreme Being is to give the dletarls36 According to Sankara the topic of Bra.Sh.III.8.5 is continued in Sutra III 3.10 and the subsequent Sutras, so that the Sutras III.3.6-9 are a digression.37 In his commantary on Bra.Sū.IV.3.15 Sankara says that in Bra.Sa.III.3.31 all those who meditate on any transformation of Brahman whatsoever, were declared to go to Brahman and now in Bra.Su.IV 3 15 an exception is made to the rule of Bra.Su.III 3.31, viz., all those who meditate on transformation (like the Sun) of Brahman other than the symbols like HT, etc., have to go to Brahman.98 Sankara says that m Bra.Sn.III.3.34 the topic of discussion is whether the two birds in Mu. Upa.IIL.1 1 are the two souls in Katha Upa.III.1 and says that this same question is treated in detail under Bra. Sn.I.2.11.39 In Bra.Sn.III.3.58 Sankara comes to the conclusion that in certain Srutis the objeet to be known may be declared to be the same (e. g., the srr), yet the faats in

(36) Sa bhasya on Bra. Su, III. 3. 33, तथा च 'आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य (ज्र. स ३|३।११ इत्यत्र व्याख्यातम्। तत्र विविरूपाणि विश्ेपणानि चिन्तितानाह प्रतिपेपरुपाणीति विशेषः । प्रपञ्चार्थक्ष अय चिन्ताभदः। (97) S'a, bhasya ou Bra* St IIL3.5 अस्येव प्रयोजनसूजस्य प्रपन्त: सरवोभेदादित्यारभ्य भविग्यति। (38) S'a bhasya on Bra. Su.IV.3.15 तथाहि-'अनियम; सर्वासाम' (म्र. सू. ३३-३१) इन्यत्राविशेषणेवैषां विद्यान्तरेपु (गतिः) अवतारिता। ... अनियमन्यायस्य प्रतीकव्पतिरिक्ेष्व प्युपासनेषूपपत्: । (39) S'a. bhetsya on Bra. Su.III.3.34, 'गुह्दां प्रविष्टावात्मानी हि' (न. सू. १।२।११) इत्यत्र चैतत्प्रपश्चितम्।

230 CROSS REFERENCES IN THE ES ACCORDING TO TST

all of those Srutis should be understood to be different from one another, and says that Bra.Su.III.31 and those that follow should be interpreted in the light of Sutra III.3.58. Thus, Sankara places SutraIII.3 58 as if at the very beginning of the Pada. 40 Similarly in Bra. Sū. III.3.53 Sankara finds a question about the individual soul being different from or identical with the body, and his remarks show that he wants that Sūtra :to be understood as if it occurred at the very beginning of the Brahmasūtra.41 Sankara interprets Bra. Sa. III.4.25 to meau that "Because Vidya ( and not Karman ) is the means of hberation ( sa.qa in the Sutra ), the Vidya does not need, in the achievement of ita goal, the help of the duties of the orders (आश्रमकमाणि), VIZ, (those perfomed with) the fire, fuel, etc. " Thus, he connects "ra qa " of Sutra III.4.25 with Satra III.4.1, "because of the propriety, thongh Sntra III.4.25 is separated from the first Sutra (III.4.1)".42 "Thus, be finds a connection of Adhikarana V with Adhikarnr 1 of Bra. Su. III 4. According to Sankara, Sūtras 26-27 form Adhikarana VI and Sutras 82-33 are part of Adhikarana VIII. He thinks that the duties of the orders for a seeker are laid down in Bra. Su. III.4.26, and a doubt about them, which arises out of Sutra 82 which deals with a non-seeker ( aagg ), is answered in Sūtra 83.13

(40) S'a. Dhatya on Bha Su, IIT. 3 58, स्थिते चैतस्मिन्नधिकरणे सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्यय मित्यादि द्रष्टव्यम्। (41) Sa bhasya on Bra. Su. III. 3.53, ननु शात्तप्रमुख एव प्रथमे पादे शास्त्रफलाप- भोगयोग्यस्य देहव्यतिरित्ास्यात्मनोऽस्तित्वमुक्तम्। सत्यमुक्त भाध्यकृता न तु तत्रात्मास्तित्व सूत्रमस्ति। इह तु स्वयमेव सूत्रकृता तदस्तित्वमक्षपपुरःसरं प्रतिष्ठापितम्। (49) Sa thasya on Bra, St. II1.4.25. 'पुर्ुषार्थोऽतःशब्दात्' (ब्र. सू, ३1४।१) इत्येतदुष्मवहितमपपं संभवादत इति परामृश्यते। (43) Sa. bhasyo on Bra. Su, III. 4.32, 'सर्वापेक्षा च'- (न्. सू. III. 4.26) इत्यन्राश्रमकर्मेणां विद्यासाधनत्वमवधारितम्। and on Bra. Su. III 4 33, विद्या- सडकारीणि चैतानि स्युर्विहितत्वादेव 'तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति' (बृ, उ. । ४w२२) इत्यादिना। तदुकम्-'सर्वोपेक्षा च यज्ञादिश्तेरश्रवत्' (ब्र.सू. ३४।२६) इति।

CRITICISM ON OST'S CROSS REFERENCES 231

In Bra. Su. IV.4.3 Sankara says that the topic of the Satra is that the Supreme Light in Cha, Upa VIII 12.8 means Paramat- man and that this fact has been detailed in Bra. Sn. I.3.40.44 In his commentary on Bra. Su, IV 4.22, Sankara says that though the lordlmness of the seeker who goes to Brahmaloka ( the world of Brabman ) is not absolutely eternal, there is no return of the seeker after ,having gone there, and that how this is so is explained in Bra. Sn IV.8.10 40 While interpreting Bra. Su. IV.2.20, Safikara explains यान् प् उदङ्ड् एति मासान् (Cha Upa. IV.15.5) ' the six months during which the San goes to the north' as aan ' the summer solstice,' in accordance with the Sutra itself, but then he adds that the meaning of that Sruti iould be explained in Bra. Su IV.3.4; thus he tries to set aside the meaning of aaa given by the Sutrakara in Bra.Su.IV.2.20. by rely- ing upon his own interpretation of Bra.Su.IV.3.4, (which only means that the rays of the Sun are conductors upto the world of the Lightning) 46 In Bra.Sn.IV.2.1, Sankara reltes upon his own interpretation of ariaum, 'non-separation' in Bra Sn.IV.2.16, and says that the 'Speech' in Bra.Su.IV.2.1 does not mean the organ Speech, but only the function of speaking (angir).

It must be noted here that we do not object to the method of comparing two Sutras in two different plees in the Brahmasttru for the purpose of explaining either of them; rather we believe it to be a part of the proper method of interpretation. As an exa- mple we may refer to how Sutra IV.138 (आत्मेति तूर्पगच्छन्ति ग्रम्ह्यन्ति च) would help in interpreting Sutra III3JG (ni) .- 7

(44) S& bhasyn on Bra.Su,IV.43, प्रपन्चितं चेतत् प्र०सू. १।३।४८ इतन्। (45) S'a,bhnsya on Bra.Su IV.4.22, अन्तवत्वेपित्वेश्वयरय यथाऽनावुनिस्तया वर्णिनम् 'कायार्यय तदध्यक्षेण सहात: परम् न्. सृ.४।३१०इत्यन्र। (46) Sa.byasyu on Bra Su.IV.2.20, श्रुतरत्वर्थ वक्ष्यति "अतिवाहिकास्तालिज्ात्" (अ. सू. ४|३४ ) इति । (47) Vids our Notos ou the Sutras in Parl I.

232 OTHER S OF REFERENCES ACCORDING TO RI5T

Sankara himself follows that method.18 But, by pomting out the above example of quai we want to say that it is not very likely in books written in the Sutra style that we should have frequent cases of the treatment of the same topie in two dufferent places of the same bool, once in detail and again in brief or mce versa, or that we should have cases in which the apparent mea- ning of a Sutra or Sutras should have to be modified in consido- ration of a Sutra that may follow or precede the former in a place of the book far remote from the context. We have above give about a dozen cases where Sankara him- self notices how in his opinion two Sūtras in two different places in the Brahmasütra deal with the same topic or modify the the meaning of each other. But, we believe, there are several other similar cases which have not been so noticed by him. We have already seen that according to Sankara the meditations on the parts of a sacrifice have been dealt with in many Satras; particularly the sacrificial topic of Bra Su.III.3.55-66 seems to have been repeated m Bra.Su.IV.1.6 according to Sankara's bhasya. Again the disposal of the good and bad deeds of the knower of Brahman is discussed m Bra.Su.III.3.26-28 and IV.1. 13-19.40 Sutra III.3.42 discusses whether the कर्माङ्गविज्ञानानि are नित्य or anfara. But, in Bra.Su.IV.1.18 it is established according to Sankara's view that even in the case of a aag 'a seeker of liberation' these meditations ( faamif ) need not be a necessary accompaniment ot the harmans 'rites'. So, it would be evident that in the case of 'a soul in bondage' they would be much less neccasary. Thus, one of the two discussions in Bra.Sa III. 3.42 and IV.1.18 seems to be unnecessary. Several otber cases of this tpye of repetition in the Sntras may be found out if we

(48) Vide S'ankara bhasya on Bra.Sū.III.2 14,III 3.1, III 3 12, III 3.15, III.3.19, III.3.48, IlI.3.65, IIT.4.8, III.4.27,IV.2.6 and IV.4.6. (49) It is very hkely that Bra.Sü III.3.26-28 does not deal with tho dis- posal of the good and bad deeds, because Bra.ST.III is an Adhyaya of the Means, while the disposal in question is a part of the Phala.

IET's DOUBLE INTERPRETATION OF THE SAME TEXTS 233

follow Sankara's interpretation 50

In our interpretation (in Part I) of all these Sutras we have explained our reasons for our meaning thereof and for our doubts about Sankara's exposition.

Another type of defect in Sankara's method of interpretation results in the fact that Sankara has to give tio different expla nations of the same Srutis and Smttis. Thus, while eommenting on the Sutras, Sankara has some, though not frequent, occasions when his interpretation of certain Srutis diffors from the same given by him mn his bhasyas on the respective Upamsids. Cases of this type occur generally in Sankara's mterpretation of Bra. Su.J. We may note here only two such cases, e. g., Mu. Upa. I.1. 5-6 and Br. Upa.III 8.7-12 have been interpreted by Sankara in his bhasyas on these Upanisads as dealing with the mrguna Brahman, but when confronted with the same Srutis in Bra.Su. I.2.21-23 and I.3.10-12 he has to interpret them as dealing with saguna Brahman. We have explamed Sankara's and the Sütrakara's attitude in this respect in our Notes on Bra. Si. III. 8.37-42 in Part I.

There are some occasions when Sankara has to give two different interpretations of one and the same text in his bhasya on the Brabmasntra and he boldly says that he differs from the

(50) According to S'ańkara (a) Katha Upa, IIT.10-11 is diseussed in Bra S0.I 4 1-7 and ngnin in B1o.s0.IIT.3.14. (h) Bra.Su, 1.3.42 discusses Br, Upa. IV.3.7 and the afrra of Bra.Su.1. 4.98 may easily explain Cha., Upa. VI; and again, both these Sintis are discussed in Bra Su,IIT.3 16-17. (c) Bra.Su.I.3.14-17 diseussos Cha. Upa. VIIL1 and Bra.S.I 3.42 dacuases Br. Upa IV,4 and IV.3. And again Bra.Su.lII.3.39 discusses Cha. Upa. VIIL1 an Br.Upa.IV.4. (d) Bra.Su.1.2.11 and 13.7 diseuss Mu. Upa IIL.1.1 aud Katha Upa. III.1, while Bra.Su, III.3.84 diseusses both these Srutis. 80

234 शड्र OPENLY DISAGREES WITH बादरायण

Sutrakara in the mterpretation of a particular Sruti. In Bra Sū. 1II3 12 the Sutrakara takes faisnara 'the characteristic of having fa as the head', ete., as attributes of Brahman and thongh Sankra knows this fact, he dose not accept the Sutrakara's vew and propounds his own view that fafatter etc., are attn- butes of the sheath called snasana. 51 In Bra.Sn III.4.11, the Sobrakara gives his interpretation'of Br. Upa. IV 1.2 ( d faahoh naiHa ) a moaning that faar begins a new hfe for a Mumuksu and karman tor a transmigrating soul Sankara also at fitst mterpiets that Srutt in the same sense; bnt then he at once gives up that interpretation and offers his own according to which faat and aia unitedly begin a new life for the transmigrat- ing soul only. 52 In both these cases Sankara openly sets aside the elear interpretation of these Srutis given by the Sūtrakāra

There are in fact many Srutis regarding the meaning of which Sankara and the Sutrakara differ. These can be gathered from a correct interpretation of the Brahmasutra We have treated these Srutis in Chapter VIT.

Ax with the Sruti, so is the case with the Smrti In his Thasya on Bra. Su III. 8. 81 Sankara says that Bha. Gi, VIII. 26 refers to all saguna vidyās, but Bra. Sūtra IV. 2. 21 shows that the Sutrakara takes this Smrti to refer to the smarta view abont the Brahmavid Yogin. Sankara notices this difference between the Sutrakara and himself about Bha. Gi. VIII. 26. but still proposes to optionally interpret that Smrti as referring to the Day, the Bright Half, ete., in the eapacity of Conduetor-

(n) s'a.hhasin on Rra.Sh.III 3 12, न चते प्रियाशरस्त्वादयो ब्रह्मधर्मा:, कोशधमी- रदत इत्युर्पािष्टमस्माभि: आनन्दमयाऽभ्यासात् (ब्र. स. १।१।१२) इत्यत्र । ....... ब्रह्मध्मारत्- तान कृत्वा न्यायमात्रमदमान्ार्यग प्रदर्शित प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्यपाप्तिरिति। स चन्यायोनयु निश्चितेु अह्धर्मेषूपा सनायोपदिश्यमानेषु नेतव्यः संद्वामा दिषु सत्यकामादिपु च । 2 Sa. hha. ou Bia.St,IIS 4.11, न चेंदं समन्वारम्भवचन मुमुक्षुविषयम् 'इति नु कामयमान:' (बृ. उ. ४।४६) इति सक्षारिविषयस्वोपसहारात] ........ एवं सत्यविभागनापीदं

EST DOES NOT STICK TO HTy SCHENE 235

deities and not as Time-deities as the Sūtrakara takes them to be. His aim is to remove the contradiction between the Smrti and the Sruti and therefore he expresses the difference of opmi on between the Sūtrakära and himself.58 Sankara holds the Bhagavadgită m greater honour than does the Sūtrakara to whom a Smrt without the support of a Sruti has not much value. In the partieular case Sankara does not intsrpret the Gita literally, as is done by the Sūtrakara.

The tradition wlch Sankara has him-elf preserved shows that the Sutrakara has a scheme of dimsum of his work into four Adhyavas, which are therofore called the Samanraga, the Virodhaparıhara, the Sadhana and the Phala Adhvayas. There seems to have been also a tradition about the classifica- tion of the matter of each Adhyaya into four Padas with a name for each Pada. Thus, we bave such names as Smrtipada (Bra. Sũ. II. 1), Tarkapāda (Bra. Sū. II.2), Guņopasamhārapāda (Bra Su. III. 8). We believe that on the strength of this scheme we should take it for granted that the Sūtrakara did not mtermingle the subject-matter of one Adhyaya witb thnt of another Adhyaya or of one Pada with that of another Pada. Bnt there are several cases in which Sankarn does not follow this scheme of the Sūtrakara. Some of these cases we bave already mentioned under the class of Sutras dealing with tl Avidya, and we here diseuss a few of them in detail.

Sańkara takes Bra. Su. IIL 2 88-H as dealing with the question of God being the giver of the frnits of the individual soul's actions, As we have seen above, the problem of the sonl

(53) S'a bhasya on Bia. SO IL 3. 31, a A जगतः शाश्चत मते। एकया मात्यनायृत्तिमन्यया वतते पुनः। Sa hhsyu on Bta Su. III. 3. 21, ननु-'अभिज्योतिरहः शुक्क षण्मासा उन्तरायणम्' (भ. गी. ०२४-२६) इति च शता- वेतौ देवयानपितृयाणौ प्रत्यभिज्ञयित स्मृतावपीीत। उच्यने'त कालँ वक्ष्यामि' (भ. गी. न२श) इति स्मृतों कालप्रतिज्ञानादिराधमाशाङ्य परिहार उतः। यदा पुनः स्मृतावध्यन्याया देवता एवा तिवाहिक्यो ग्रृह्यन्ते तदा न कायद्विरोध इति।

236 TOPICS OF ब्रह्मसून III.3 ACCORDING TO शङ्कर

boing an agent is discussed in Bra. Su II. 8. 33-40 and we be- heve that in Bra. Sn II.3.41 (wig azba:) the Sutrakara says that the sonl gets the phala from the Supreme Bemg. It is strange that aee (God's dependence on the efforts made by the individual soul) mentioned in Bra. Su. II. 3. 42 ia taken by Sankara m his comnnentary on that as an argument for the enusal agency "ERfar" of God while he adduces the same as an arguiuent for ईश्वरस्य फलदातृत्व (God's being the giver of the fruit of the soul's action.) in his commentary on Bra Su III 2. 4.54 In faet, waazeivens (Bra. Sn Il. 3. 42) is an argument for God's being the giver of the phala. We have already mentioned other reasons why Bra. Su. III. 2. 38-41 should not deal with the question of the giver of the fruit of the worldly actions of the soul, but with that of God's being the giver of the phala in the form of the liberation and with that of the nature of that phala, as suits the title of the Adhyaya, viz., the Sādhana Adhyāya.

According to Sankara's commentary, there is a number of topics in Bra.Sa.III.3, which have nothing to do with "sqdigr" the traditional title of the Padn or with sadhana the title of the Adhyaya, but which could have a more suitable place mn other Adhyayas. Here we shall only enumerate them very briefly, becanse we have fully explained our arguments in our Notes ou the respective Sntras ( in Part I ), According to Sańkara,

(1) agvien is taught m Bra.Su.III.8. 6-8 in a Pada denling with sqhgn 'Collection of attributes, etc. of Brahman).'

(64) Na. lhasgu on Bra, Su, TI.3. 42, नन्वेवमीश्वरस्य कारयत्वृत्वे सति वैषयनै घृण्य स्यातामकृताभ्यागमश्च जीवस्येति। नत्युच्यत ...... । कुतो यः प्रयत्नो जीवस्य धर्माधरम- लक्षणस्तदपक्ष एघेनर्माश्वस कारयति। ..... परायनऽपि हि कतृत्व करोत्येव जीवः। कुर्बन्तं हि त मीश्वरः कारयति। S'a bhasyn on Bra, So III 2. 41, तदेव चेश्वरस्य फलहेतुत्वं यत् स्वकमानुरूपा: प्रमा सजतीति। विचित्रकार्यानुपपत्त्यादयोपि दोषाः कृतप्रयत्नापेक्षत्वादश्वचिरस्य न अराज्यन्ते। The पूरवपक्ष adduces these as दोषs of "ईश्वरस्तु फलं ददातीत्यनुपपन्म्'।

TOPICS OF IE I3 ACCORDING TO 237

(2) Bra.gu.III.8.16-17 discusses whether "Atman" in Ai. Upa I.1 means Jivatman, Prajapatı, or Paramatman. But this is & topic fit for Bra.Su.I.1-8. Sankara avoids this difficulty by suggesting an alternative interpretation of the Sutras. (8) Bra.Su.II.3.14-15 deal with neither sydan nor adar. The topic, according to Sankara, is that of what we may call 7 "explanation of Srutis" and, therefore, fit for the first Adhyāya. 55

(4) Bra.Su.III 3.26 discusses the disposal of the good and bad deeds of a knower ot Brabman (Sankara would say 'the lower' Brahman'). But this is the phala of the Vidya, Sankara would say, Apara Vidya. Even then, it is a subject fit for a discussion in the Phaladhyaya, viz., Bra.Su. IV. (Cf.Bra.Su.IV. 1.13-19). Sańkara knows this and, therefore, tries to explain his interpretation of these Sutras as a part of sydeR, the title of the Pada.

(5) Bra.Su.III.3.27 discusses the exact time when the good and bad deeds of a knower of Brahman are "destroyed". This is really discussed in Bra.Sū. IV.1.18-14.

(6) The discussion of "nfa" 'going to Brahman' is a topic for the Phaladbyaya (Bra.Su.IV.3.7-14), but Sankara finds its brief diseussion mn the Sadhanadhyaya (Bra.Sū. III.3.29-80, and also III.3.81). (7) In Bra.Su.III.8.82 as interpreted by Sankara the topie is whether a knower of Brahman has a new hody after the fall of the present one. It is clear that this eannot be a proper topie for the Gunopasamhara Pada. According to Sankura Bra.Stt L3.80 shvs that Indra and other gods who occupy certain offices are to return to their posts after the attainment of the knowledge of

(55) Cf. Bta.Su.I 4.28, दतेन मर्वे व्याखयाना वयाहव्याता। "Herewith all Vedantas have been explained, have been oxplainad." "ryakkyata' should mean only, 'explamed', not 'explained as prohibited' प्रतिषिद्धनया व्याख्याता . as S'ankara says.

238 TOPICS OF AQ.TILS ACCORDING TO

Branman; and the fall of the body of a human being who knows Brahman is diseussed in BraSu.IV.1.19; and the time of exhaustion of artions in his case in Bra.Su IV.1.18; so, the question of a new body of the knower of Brahman which is not a proper one for the Gunopasam bara Pada or for the Sadha- nadhyaya rould have been easily discussed by the Sūtrakāra in another place in his book. (8) The immortality of the mndividual soul and all other questions relating to it have been diseussed m Bra.Su, IT.3. 17-58. But, according to Sankara's commentary, the question of the soul being not identical with the body is discussed m Bra.Su.JIJ.3 53-54. Sankara thereon says that in Bra.Sūl.1 there was no Sutra about the existence of the soul 57 mdepen- dent of the body and, therefore; these Sutras have been compose- ed by the Sutrakara. But he does not notice that the que-tion had already its proper place in Bra Su.II.8. The Sūtrakara, unlike Sankara, does not look upon the knowledge of the nature of the Jivatmn as a real means to liberation, and therefore, it is out of place in the Sādhanādhyāya.

(9) In his commentary on Bra. Sh. IV 1. 1 and IV. 1. 13, Sankara says that Bra. Su, IV. 1. 1-12 pursues the remaining portion of the means.59 We may also add that all the socalled Sadhanas which, according to Sankara, are mentioned mn Bra, Sa. IV. 1. 1-IV. 1. 12 seem to us to have been already mention- ed in Bra. Sū. III 8.59

(aG) Sa. bhasya on Bra. Su.III.3 26, गुगोपसंहारविवक्षारयां द्यपायनाथस्यव हानानु- धूमि पयात् तस्माद्वणापसंहारविचारप्रसज्ञेन स्तुत्युपसह्ारप्रदर्शनार्थमिदं सूत्रम्। (o) S'a. bhasya on Bra,Sa.ITT.3,53, ननु शास्त्रप्रमुखे एव प्रथमे पादे शास्त्रफलोप- भोगयोग्यस्य देहव्यतिरिक्तस्थात्मनोऽस्तित्वमुक्तम्। सत्यभुक्तं भाष्यकृता न तु तत्रात्मास्तित्वें सून्नमस्ति। इह नु स्वयमेव सूत्नकृता तदस्तित्वमाक्षेपपुरःसर प्रतिष्ठापितभ्। (88) S'a. bhusya on Bra.SuIV.1.1, प्रथमं तावत्कतिभि्िदधिकरणैः विचारशेष मेवानुसराम: |and on Bra.St.IV.1.13, गतस्तृतीयशेषः । (60) Vide our Notes on Bra.Su.IV.1.3-6; also compare the interpretation of Bra.St.IV.1.4 with that of Bra.Su.III.3.61-66,

REFERENCES TO SAAS IN THE HAS 239

In all these cases, the particular Adhikarana, as interpreted by Sankara, seems to us to be out of place in the particular Pada or Adhyava like several other passages already mentioned above which were shown by us to be out of place in the Brahmasūtra, having nothing to do with an Inquny about Brahman. We behove that the Sotrakara strietly follows In scheme of one single mam topic for one entire Adhyava and we have offered in Part I our mterpretation and arguments on that basis, whnch may be referred to, if necessary.

Regarding the reference in the Sütras to Srutis, we find (i) that there are several Satras which contam no reterence to any Srut at all and yet which Sankara interprets as referring to some Srutis, (n) that there are some Stras which refer to some Srutis but not to those which Sankara takes them as referring to, (m) and that there are a few Sutras which refer to the Sutras themselves but which Sankara takes as referring to certam Srutis or to some other texts. We do not mean that Sankara's risayacakyas are always wrong. We must, rather, admit that almost all his nişayaralyas in Bra.Sn.I and in several cases of Bra So.III and IV are wonderfully correct and that in the case of certain Sutras it would have heen almost impossible for a modern student to hit npon the exact risayavakya out of the ocean ot the Sruti literature, had not Sinkara (Or his prede- cessor, if Sankara in the particular case depended upon hnu) pointed out and preserved for us the correet Sraw referred to in the Sutra, e. g., the Sruti from the Khila of the Ranayaniyt Sakha quoted by Sankara under Bra.So.II1.3 28.00 What we mean is that the task of finding ont the exaet risayarakya of t Satra had become very difficuit even hy the time of Sankara who ether says though rarely that he differs from his predenessor as regurds the exact visayanakya of a Sfitra (e.g.Bra.Sü. III 3.38),61 or gives two or more Srutis as optional risayarakyas for the same Sutra (e.g Bra.Sü.III 8.17). Under such ciretmstances Sankara's own visayavakyas become doubtful and require careful

240 शङ्कर's विपयवाक्या

attention before they are accopted. This is so, particularly with the portion of the Brahmasutra treated in Part I ( Bra.Sa III. 2.11-IV ) because that is the portion which could give scope to the commentators to differ not only about the mnterpretation of the Sutra (and therefore about that of the visayavakya) but even about its visayavakya itself. Sach is not the case with respect to the Srutis referred to in Bra.Su.I where every Adhikarana is meant to refer to a particular Sruti and where every Sutra of that Adhikarana explains that Sruti. In the case of a few Sutras either we ourselves are not satisfied with the visayavakyas we have suggested, or we are not able to suggest any visayavakya at all. But the interpretation of a Sutra which is intended by the Sūtrakara to refer to a Sruti depends solely upon its visayaāvkya and so far the question of tracing the exact visayavakya of a Sutra is of supreme importance.

We here give a list of the Sutras in which we believe no visayaaahya is referred to at all and which therefore should be interpreted only in the light of the context. By way of compa- rison we also state the reference to the Sruti given by Sankara as the visayavakya for the Sutra in the following list :-

Sütras or parts of the No. of the Sūtra Sutras which refer to Sańkara's

no vişayavākya at all. vişayavakya.

In Bra.SA.III.2.11 सर्वत्र (सर्वेषु स्थानेषु ) ब्रह्म स्वरूप प्रतिपादनपरेधु वाक्येपु 14 No reference Br. Upa. III.8.8 15 अवैध्यथ्य आकारवद्वह्मविषयाणि वाक्यानि III.3. 3 No reforence शिरोव्रत of आथर्वणS. अन्यथात्वम् Br. Upa.I.3. or Chã.

(60) The author acknowledges his indebtodness to the late Prof. Hiriyanna of Mysore for drawing his attention to the fact that Sutra III.3.23 can refer to no other Sruti bne the one quoted by S'ankara. (61) केंचित्ुनरास्मिन्सूत्र इदं च वाजसनेयकमक्ष्यादित्यपुरुषविषयं वाक्यं, छान्देग्ये च- 'अय य एथोऽन्तरादित्ये ... 'इत्युदाहल .. Sbha on Bra.Su.III.3.38.

सत्रS WHICH REALLY REFER TO NO विपयवाक्य 241

Upa.I.2 9 ज्याप्ति Chả. Upa.I.1.1. 10 सर्वाभेंदादन्यन्न इमे प्राणसंवाद in Br.Up, Cha. Upa., Kau, Upa. 14 Katha Upa.III.10-11 29 विरोध: Mu. Upa.III.1.3. 35 स्वात्मन: अन्तरा ( within Br. Upa.III.4.1 and one's own self ) ILI.6.1 37 व्यतिहार: (Interebange The text of Aitareyi- ns and that ofJābalas 39 कामादि ( we read कामान) Cha. Upa.VIII.16 and Br. Upa. IV.4.22. 42 तननिर्धारण, तद्द्ृष्टे, पृथक Châ. Upa.I.1.1 Chã, Jpa. I.1.10. 13 प्रदान (we read प्रधान). Br.Upa.I.5.21; Chả. Upa.IV.3.1 III.4.21 Chã. Upa.I.1.8, I.6.1 21 एकवाक्यता Br. Upa.IV.5.6; Chã, Upa.IV.31 28 भवोत्ञानुसति प्राणसंचादs in Cba. Up :. V.2.1 & Br.Upa.VI. 1.1

नातद्वाव: Chã, Upa.JI.28.1 IV.1. 2 अचलत्व Cha. Upa, VII.6.1

In a great number of Sutris we find that the Sutra in question does refer to a Sruti but not to the one quoted by Sańkara. We have tried to find out the exact visu yavdhya in each case. We give below a list of these Sūtras and what seém to us to be the visayavakyas along with the visayavakyas given by Sankara and request the reader to refer to our Notes on the respective Sūtra for our arguments. 31

212 सनSWHEE शङ्र GIVES WRONG विषयवाक्यS

No. of the Words convey- Sankara's Sūtra. ing a reference. vzşayavākya. Our suggestion.

III.2 12. प्रत्येकमतदूचनातू Br Upa.II.5.1 Cha. Upa. VIII.7-12 13. एके Katha Upa. VI.1 & Śve.Upa.I 12 Sve.Upa.III.16-20 16. आह च तन्मात्रम् निर्विशेषब्रह्मवाक्यS Śruti declaring Brahman to be on- ly prakāsa, e. g., ब्रह्म एच तेज एव. 17. दशयति नतिनेति श्रुतयः Kațha Upa. V.15; S've.Upa. V1.14; Mu. Upa.II.2.10; Bha.Gi.XII.12. 18. उपमा ब्रह्म विन्दूपनिषद् 12. Kațha Upa.V.11, Mu. Upa.II.1.1, Bha. Gi.XT.12.

20-21 तिरोभाव +दर्शन Br. Upa.II.6.18 Chã, Upa. VII, 26.1. 22. प्रकृततावत्त्व हि प्रतिषेधति ततों व्रवीति च भूयः Br. Upa.II.6.6. Cha. Upa. VI.1-15 23. तदव्यकमाह हि Mu. Upa.III.1.3, Br.Upa.ifr.9.26, Katha Upa.III.Lt Tai. Upa.II.7.1 26, 3356 Mu. Upa.II.2.9, Br. UIpa.IV.4.6. Katha Upa. VIS 31. संतु्यपंदेश Chā, Upa. VIII.4 Katha Upa.II 2 उन्मानव्यपदेश नदनद्ह्य चतुप्पादष्टाशफमूetC, Katha Upa.IV.12-13 संबन्धव्यपदेश Chā, Upn. VI.8.1, Katba Upa.IV.4 Tai. Upa., Br. Upa. भेदव्यपदेश Chā. Upa.1.6-7 Katha Upa,II.11 36. अन्यप्रतिषेध Various Srutis Br. Upa III 7.28 39. फलमतः Br. Upa IV.4 24 यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्य; तस्यैष आत्मा वित्रृणुते तनुं स्वाम् ।

सूत्रS WIIERE श० GIVES WRONG िषयवाक्यS 248

No. of the Word convey- Sutra. ing reference शङ्कर's विषयवाक्य Our suggestion.

I1I.3.11. आदि in S. refers to विज्ञानघनत्व, The attributes in भानन्दादय: सर्वगतत्व, सर्वात्मत्व Bra.Sū.I.1 16-17. Ai. Upa.I.1; Br. Upa. IV.3-4 & Cha. Upa. Br. Upa.I.4.7 VL2-8 18 Br. Upa. VI.1.14. Br. Upa.I.4.10 16. समाने A passage from Agni- rahasya ( Sa. Bra.X ) Any Upauisadic and Br. Upa V.6.1 text 20. अन्यत्न Br. Upa V.5.1-4 #EAM (Vide Sūtra 19) text,i.e., a Sruti other than Upani- Sad texts 29. दशयति Chã. Upa. I.7.5 24. पुरुषविद्या ताण्ड्यमहान्राह्मण andl Mu. Upa.II 1.2-6

इतरेषाम् नारायणोपनिषद् of the Gnņas of the तैतिरीयकs Purușa are referred to. 25. वेधादि Some Mantras Mu. Upa. II.2 2-4 आथवणिकोपनिषदारम्भ 26. उपायन Cha. Upa. VIII. Katha Upa. 18.1; Kau.Upa.1.4 27. अन्य Cha, Upa. VIII.18. 1 & Kan. Upa.1.4 31. मर्वासाम् All अभ्युदयप्राप्तिफला fmg under-stood सगुणा विद्ाs are from Sūtra 38. referred to. शब्द Br Upa. VI.2.16 Srntis in general

अनुमान Bha.Gi. VIII.26 Smrtis in general

82. अधिकारिकाणाम् अपान्तरतम and E.g. Chã. Upa.I. other Masters 10.

83. इयदामननातू Mu. Upa III 1.1, Katha Upa. Katha Upa. III.1.

244 सHS WHERE शO GIVES WRONG विषयवाक्यड

No of the Word conveying Śankara's Sūtra a refeience. Vişayavākya Our suggestion.

10. अलापः Cha. Upa.V.19.1- Some attribntes V.24.5 (प्राणाभिद्योत्र) of the Purusa or the Avyakta

II[ 8. 41. तदचनातू Cha Upa. V.19.1 Srutis in genera! 44,49,50,52. अभिरहस्यब्राह्मण of Mu Upa. Srutis.

अज्ञाववता उर्द्गाथश्रुति, e.g, म.g. वैश्वानरश्रुति Chā. Upa. I.1. 1 58. आदि in शब्दादि Cha. Upa III 14.1 शब्द, प्रकरण, संज्ञा in Sn.III.3.6-8 III.4.8. अधिकोपदेश Mu.Upa.I.1.9 Mu. Upa. I. 1, I.2. 7-16, Tai. Upa.1I.8.1 Chā. Upa. VII. Katha Upa. VI 2 4. 1; Bha. Gi. IV.33

15. एक Br. Upa.IV.4.22 Mu. Upa.III.1 .. 4, III.2.6; Sve. Upa. VI. 13. Even Bha. Gi, XVIII. 68.

16. उमदम् Br. Upa. II. 4 14 Mu. Upa.II.28

17. अपवदत Cha, Upa.II.28.1 E. g. Mn Upa. Tai. Upa.I.11.1 I. 2. 12. Cba. Upa V.10.1 I.2.1-10, III.1.8 Mu. Upa.I.2.11 etc etc. ---- 19. साम्यक्षते: Cha. Upa, II 23,1 Mu. Upa. Br. Upa.IV.4.22

18. विश्चेषतत्वातू पूवकाण्ड where मनु KathaUpa.III .- वैवस्वत etc occur 16-17

सनS WIIERI श० GIVES WRONG विषयवाक्य 245

31. शब्द काठक संहिता Chã, Upa.1.10, or Br. Upa. V.14.8, IV. 4. 23, ete., etc 3.2. विहितृत्वात् यावज्जीवम्नहान्ं Cha. Upa, Il .- जुहाति' उत्यादि 28.1 34. उभयलित धतिलिद्ग and स्मृतिलिअ् यज्ञादिर्श्वात vix., Br. Upa. IV. 4. 22 and आश्षमश्रुति =Cha. Upa. II .- 23.1. 35. अनभिभवं च दर्शयात ULa. Upa. VIII.6.3 Examples of जनक, याज्ञवत्क्य. Or, Mu. Upa. III. 2. 10.

32. तद्हष्ः The S'ruti about Br. Upa.IV.4.22 रकूब, वाचक्नवी and others. 30. isma Br. Upa. IV.4.9 44. फलशुतः Cha. Upa, II.3.2 Cba, Upa. I. 2. 18-14 46. श्रतंश्च Chã, Upa, 1.7.8-9 Br. Upa.1.8.25 50. अनाविष्कुरवन् बाल्य in Br. Upa. मौन in Br. Upa .- III. 5.1 III 6. 1. referr- ed to in SO, IIL 4.49

IV. 1. 2. लिङ्ग Chã Upa. 1.6.1-9

12 स यावसकतुरस्माललकाखेनि Prana Upa.V.1 And Bha. GI. VII 6-10 IV.1.16 दर्शेन Br. Upa.IV 4.22 Chả. Upa.n.23.1

17 एकेषाम् तस्य पुत्रा दायमुपयन्ति etc Br.Upa.

IV.4.5 उपन्यास Chã. Upa. VIII.7

246 सूत WITH वि० वा.S WHIERE स. GIVES NO वि० वाक्यS

10 आह्द ह्येवम् Cha. Upa. VIII.12 Cha. Upa. VIII. 5 12.1; Br. Upa. IV.4.7. 18 प्रत्यक्षापदेश Tar. Upa. I.6.2 परान्तकाले in Mu. Upa. 19 स्थिति Chả. Upa. III.12.6 Br.Upa V.10 1, VI.2.15. 21 भोगसाम्यलिस् Br. Upa.I.5.23

There are a few Sutras which, accordmg to Sankara, do not refer to any Srutis but which seem to us to refer to certain Śrutis. These Sutras are a few, but if our suggestion about the references be correct, they yield important information about the doctrine of the Sūtrakāra We give below a list of these Sutras along with our suggestion about the Srutis alluded to in the same.

No. of the Sūrra. Words Sankara's remarks. Our suggestion.

III.2.11 अपि Imnphies स्वतः एव स्थानतः अपि refers to Māņdūkyn Upa.

25 आदि Śve. Upa.II.11

28 तेजस्त्वात् Chã Upa. VIII .- 6.3 (ब्रह्म एव तेज एव)

81 परमतः Katha Upa. III.11.

IIL.4.11 शलवत Illustration of Cha. Upa. 'शतमाभ्यां दीयताम्' VIII.66

17 अरध्वरेतःसुशन्दे 26 अश्वपत अक्षो न लाङलकर्षणे युज्यते रथचर्यायां तु Br. Upa I.1.1-2. युज्यते। 42 उपपूर्व भावमेके एके आचार्या: and Cha.Upa.I.10.8. उपपूर्व=उपपातकम्

R'S YTTITAS WHICH DO NOT SUPPORT HIM. 247

In a few Sütras Sankara explains the reference to be one to some Smrti, ete, but we propose to take it to be a reference to a Sutra in the Brahmasutra or a Smrti or a Sruti.

No. of the Sūtra Words ankara's remarks. Our Snggestion.

III.2.30 प्रतिषेधात् Br. Upa.II.7.23 न तथात्वम् in III. 2. 19. III.4.87 विशेपानुप्रहः Examples of Bha. GI. सर्वधर्मान Samvarta and परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं others from वज। अहं स्वा सर्व- Puraņas a n d पापेभ्यो मोक्षयि्यामि Mahabhārata. माशुच:।। 111.4.42 अशनवत् यथा ब्रह्मचारिणो मधु- Chả. Upa.1.10. मसाशन व्रतलोप : पुनः संस्कार श्वैवमिति तदुक्तम् तदुक्त प्रमाणलक्षणे in Sūtra III. 4. 28. Jai. Sutra.

The last point that we wish to notice about Sankara's visaya- uakyas is that somotimes he gives a wrong faqaaia, i. e., a quotation which does not exactly support his contention. We here state a few cases from his bhasya on Bra. Su. IV. 4only. We have explained in our Notes (in Part I) how these and several other fawaaraus in Sankara's Commentary on other Satras arc wrong in this sense.

1. His quotation under Bra. Su. IV. 4.21 does not prove bhogasamya even between the Mukta and ISvara.

2. Sankara's vişayavākyas under Bra.Sū.IV.4.20 do not show how Brahman is vikara-avartin. They can at the most show only that vikdras like the Sun. the Moon, etc., are not in Brahman.

3. His ruti under Sntra IV. 4. 15 refers neither to dpesa nor to pradīpa.

248 CONGLUSIONS FROH शङ्कर'S विषयचाक्य

4. The Sruti he quobes under Bra.Sn.IV.4.10 does not deul with the absence of a physical body; it refers only to the mind. 5. The Sruti to be referred to under Bra.Su.IV.4.9 should have some word for ananyadhipati, e. g., sua-rat m Cha. Upa. VII.25, but he quotes a Sruti which makes no mention of this fact.

5. The point in Satra IV.4.5 requires a Sruti descnbing the rupa of the hiberated as Brahma rupa, e. g., Br Upa.IV.4.4, while Sankara quotes Cha. Upa. VIII.7.1 which describes the Muktarupa but doos not tell us that it is the Brahma rūpa.

6. Under Bra.Sn.IV.4.4 Sankara quotes many Srutis, but only one of them, viz., Br. Upa.IV.8 28 is the exact Sruti referred to by the Strakara. We have noted these and other similar cases in our Notes (in Part 1) with a view to draw the attention of the reader to the fact that if we minutely examine the sense of the visayavakya given by Sankara in his Commentary on several Sutras of Bra.Su.III-IV, it seem to us that a better and more exact visayavakya was mn the mind of the Sutrakāra. We may now sum up the results of our study of Sankara's rişayavakyas of the Sūtras :- (1) Particularly in Brahmasutra IIJ.8 there are many Sutras which refer to no Sruti or Smrh but Sankara yuotes Srutis chiefy from the Br, and Cha. Upani- sads, a fact which gives the impression as if Bra.Sn.III.3 were meant to be a discussion and a reconcihation of the S'rutis mamly from these two Upanisads, and as if the Srutis of these two Upanisads were at confliet with one another ; (2) S'aokara does not seem to bave got a correct tradition about the visayavakyas in Bra.Su.IlI and IV. This is in a striking contrast with S'ankara's commentary on Bra.Su.I. This loss of tradition is not unlikely or unnatural if we remember that in Bra.Su.I every Sutra is meant to be a reference to and an explanation of a S'ruti, while in Bra.Su.III and IV the primary object of the Sntrakara is to evolve and present in a

FR'S ADDITIONS TO THE WORDS OF THE HAS 249

systematic form his own views about the Means and the Goal of the Upanisads. (3) In Bra.Su.III and IV there are several Sutras which do refere to a S'ruti, though S'ankara does not say so. (4) Some of these cases are very important (eg., Bra.Sa.III.2. 11, 111,2.81, III 4 11, III.4 26, III 4.42) becanse the usayuvahyas discovered, if correct, are a great help to the correct interpretation of the Sutras in question. (5) And, lastly, it is nocessary to examine whether the visaya- vakya of S'ankara brings out the exact point in a partienlar Sutra or whether it is only indirectly connected with a part of the point discussed in a Sūtra One very important point regarding which a student of the Brahmasntra should be very careful is how far we can make additions to the words of a Sūtra mn consideration of its apho- ustic style How far are the Sutras elliptical ? Every inter- preter of the Sūtras has to add to every Sütra certain words in order to make out its sense. We are here perticularly concerned with the additions made by S'ankara. It is neither possible nor necessary to enumerate and reproduce here all the unwarranted additions made by. S'ankara, We have pointed them ont in our Notes on the Sutras in Part I.

We shall here first give a list of the additions to the Sūtras which Sankara makes while interpreting Bra.Su.I.3. Most of these are supported neither by any word in the Sütra nor by the context, though S'ankara often supports them by referring to the Sruti which he supposes to be the faggaiss of the particular Sūtra. (1) Bra.Su.III.3.2. भेदात् =गुणभेदात् and एकस्यामपि= =एकस्यामपि विद्यायामू; and S'ankara adds "एवंजातीयकोगुणभेद : उपपद्मते-". There is no justi- fication for the additions of gu and faan. We have suggested that according to the context daa should mean am and that in the light of Sutra III.3.55. (अज्ञावबद्धास्तु न शासास्ु हि प्रतिवेंदम्) 82

250 शङर'S UNWARRANTED ADDITIONS TO ब्र.स.III.3.

एकस्याम् should mean एकस्यां शाखायाम् Also Jai.Su. justifies शाखायाम्. (2) Bra.Su.III.3.3. The शिरोबत of the Mundaka Upamisad is not at all referred to in the Sūtra. (3) Bra.Si III.3 5-अर्थाभेदात् = गुणनामथस्य अभेदान्, (4) Bra.Su.III.3.9. व्याप्ति : = सर्ववेदव्याप्ति : (5) Bra.Su.III.3 11. (आनन्दादय : प्रधानस्य). Instead of interpreting the Gen. case of TaT in the simple sense of possession, S'ańkara adlds "धर्मा : सर्वे सर्वत्र प्रतिपत्तव्या :" It is by this unwarraned addition only that S'ankara applies the Sutra to all the Unanisads. (6) Bra.Su.lll.3.17. S'ankara adds "न परमात्मग्रहणम्" after "अन्वयात्" and thus interprets अन्वयादितिचेतू as अन्वयान्नेतिचेत् (Addition of negation !). (7) Bra.Su.Ill.3.18 S'anikara adds न after कार्याख्यानात्. (8) Bra.Su.IIl.3.20. संबन्धात् = एकविद्याभिसंबन्धात्, (9) Bra.Su,III.3.21 विशेषात्= उपासनस्थानविशेपोपनिबन्धात् and Sanikara adds "उभयोः उभयन्न प्राप्तिः". (10) Bra.So.IIII.3.26. The simple word " amt" is interpreted by Sankara as ब्रह्मज्ञानिनः सुकृतदुष्कतयोः हानो सत्याम् and उपायन aS ब्रह्मज्ञानिनः सुकृतदुष्कृतयो: विभागेन प्रिये: अप्रियेः उपायनम् and then he adds "तस्मादन्यत्र केवल-

(11) Bra.Su.III.3.31. अविरोष: should mean "सर्वासां शब्दानुमानाभ्याम् अविरोध :; but Sankara makes it "प्रकरणाविरोधः" (12) Bra.SulII.8.32 'अवस्थितिः' means according to Sankara "सत्यपि सम्यगदर्शने केवल्यहदेता अक्षीणकर्माण :........ अवतिष्टन्ते." (13) Bra.Su.III.3.33. अवरोधः = सर्वत्र अवरोद्धव्याः "सर्वत्र" is a very serious addition, because it totally changes the very sense of अवरोध 'restriction'. (14) Bra.Su.III.3.85. अन्तरा is explained as अन्तराम्नानाविशेषात् though there is no reference to आम्नानाविशेष in the Sutra. Similarly, स्वात्मनः is changed to स्वात्मनः विद्यकत्वमू (16) Bra.Su.III.3.36. अन्यथा is explained as अनभ्युपगम्यमाने विद्याभेदे and मेदानुपपततिः र5 आम्नानभेदानुपपत्ति:,

WET'S UNWARRANTED ADDITIONS TO E .. III 251

(16) Bra Su.III.3.37. Sankara adds जीवेशयो: (व्यतिहारः). ... अयमाध्यानायाम्नायते.

(17) Bra.Sn III.3.38 After 'सत्यादयः' Sanikara adds "गुणा एकस्मिनव प्रयोग उपसंहृतव्या:

(18) Bra.Su.III.3.39. Sankara changes कामादि to सत्यकामादि and आयतनादिभ्यः to आयतनादिसामान्यातू,

(19) Bra.Sü.III.8.40. In the Sütra thero is no reference to प्राणामिहोत्र. But Sankara adds भोजनलोपे प्रागाभिहोन्नस्य (अलोष in the Sutra) जानालश्रुते: प्राणाभिदात्रे (आदरात in the Sutra).

(20) Bra.St.I.II.3.41. उपस्थिते is oxplained as उपस्थिने भोजने; अतः aS तरमादव भोजनद्रव्यात् प्रथमोपनिपतितात् प्रागाग्निहांन्न निरवतयितव्यम्

(21) Bra.Su.III.3.42. तत्निधरण is explained as यान्येतान्युद्रीथादिक्कमगुणयाथा- त्म्य निर्धारणानि (रसतम आप्ति. समृद्धि, मुख्यप्रागआदित्य इत्येवमादीनि); अनियम: as न एतानि नित्यवत् कर्मसु नियम्येरन्; फलमू as विज्ञानस्य फलम्; and पृथक् = कमणः पृथक; and अप्रतिबन्ध: as कर्मफलसिद्धयप्र,तिबन्धः (अप्रतिबन्धः meaning तत्समृद्धिः अतिशयविशेषः faa). All these additions are nowhere suggested in the Sūtra

(22) Bra.Su,III.3.43. An example of unwarranted additions m Sutra ITI.8.43, where not only the Pūrvapaksa but also all the words of the Siddbanta are taken by Sankara as implied (पृथगेव वायुप्राणावुपगन्तव्याविति। कस्मात् । पृथगुपदेशात्). Even, the Sruti which Sankara takes as the विषयवाक्य of this Suitra is not referred to by any word in the Sūtra. (23) Bra.Sn.III.3.44. Sankara takes as understood स्वात्तत्र्यं तावत् [एतेषां मनश्िविदादीनामग्नीनाम्]: he explains बलीय: aS प्रकरणाद्गलीगः and तदपि :५ तदपि उक्त पूर्वेस्मिन् काण्डे. (24) Bra.Su.III.3.45. Sankara explains पूर्व as पूर्वस्य क्रियामयस्य अरनेः and adds सांपादिका अप्येते अग्नय :; he explains क्रिया as क्रियानुप्रवेशिन:, (25) Bra.Su.III.3.47. Sankara explains विद्यैव as "विद्यारमका एवैते स्वतन्त्रा मनश्चिदादयोऽगनय: स्यु: ", (26) Bra.Sn.IIl.3.48, Sankara adds "स्वातन्त्र्ये लिग्म्" and "पुरस्तात्".

252 . ET's UNWARRANTED ADDITIONS TO M.H.III 3

(27) Bra.su.Ill.3.49. Sankara explains बाध: as स्वातन्त्र्यपक्षस्य बाघ :; and बलीयस्त्वात् as प्रकरणाद्वलीयस्त्वात्तू. (28) Bra.Sn.IlI.3 50. Sankara adds "स्वातन्त्र्यं मनश्विदादीनां प्रतिपत्तव्यम्" and explains अनुबन्ध as "कियावयवान् मनआदि व्यापारेपु अनुबध्नाति" and पूथकृत्व as कर्मभ्यः प्रज्ञान्तरेभ्यश्च पृथक्. He explains दg्ट: as अवेष्टे: राजसूयप्रकरणपठितायाः प्रकरणादुत्कर्षः वणत्रयानुबन्धाद्राज- यज्ञत्वाच्च राजस्यस्य दृष्टः (29) Bra.Sa.III.3.51. सामान्यात् = मानसभ्रह्सामान्यात्; उपलब्धे: = केवलपुरुषार्थ- त्वापलब्धः; and लोकापत्ति := लोकस्य अभिभावापत्ति:

(30) Bra.Sn.III.3 52. ताद्विथ्यम्=केवलविद्याविधित्वम् ; शब्दरय = शब्दस्य प्रयोजनं लक्ष्यते; भूयरत्वात = भूयांस; तु अगन्यवयवाः संपादयितव्याः विद्यायामित्येतस्मात्कारणात्, अनुबन्ध: = अगनिना अनुबध्यते विद्या (31) Bra.Su.III.3 53. After एके Sankara adds "देह एव तु चेतनः आत्मा" This conclusion is foreign to the Sutra. (32) Bra.Sn.III.3.54. उपलन्धि: is भूतभौतिकविषया उपलब्धिः.

(33) Bra Su.III 3.55. अद्गावबद्धाः = उद्गथादिकर्माङ्गावबद्धा: प्रत्यया :; न=न व्यवतिष्ठेरन्. Sankara adds "उद्गीथादिश्रुत्यविशेषात्,"

(34) Bra Su III.3.56. अविरोध := यथाश्रयाणां कर्माङ्गाना सर्वत्रानुवृत्तिरेवमाश्रितानामप प्रत्ययानामित्यविरेष:। 135) Bra-Sn III.3.57. दर्शयति = दशयति एकवाक्यतावगमात. (36) Bra.St.III.3.58. नाना = विद्या भिन्ना भचितुम्हति. (37) Bra.Su.III.3.59. विकल्पः = विद्यानां विकल्प :. (88) Bra.Sa.III.3.60 काम्याः = काम्याः विद्याः. (39)Bra.Su.III.3.61. ङ्वेषु = कमोङ्गेषु ये आश्रिताः प्रत्ययाः ; यथाश्रयभावः = यथा एव एषां ( प्रत्ययानामू) आश्रयाः (स्तोत्रादयः) संभूय भवन्त्येवं प्रत्ययाः अपि (आश्रयतन्त्रववा त्प्र्ययानाम्). (40) Bra.Sh.III.3.62. शिष्टेः = यथा वाश्रया (स्तोत्रादयः) (त्रिघु ) शिष्यन्ते एव- माविता अपि प्रत्यया: (41)Bra.Su.III.8 63. समाहारात् = वेदान्तरोवितस्य प्रत्ययस्य वेदान्तरोदितपदाथसबन्ध- सामान्यातसरववेदोदितप्रत्ययोप्सहवारं सुचयति ....... (42) Bra.Su.III.3.64. गुण is विद्यागुण; साधारण्य = चदत्रयसाधारणमू,

's UNWARRANTED ADDITIONS TO .IIL.4 258

(43) Bra.Su.III 3.65. तत्सहभावः = उपासनाना सहभाव :. It may be that in some of the above cases of " unwarranted additions " to the Sutras we have not been able to hit upon the exact additions or that our suggestion is open to doubt. But inspite of a few such cases we would not be wrong in our conclusion that Sankara and those who have followed his way of interpreting the Sutras bave not cautiously used the right of a commentator to make additions to the Sutras in order to bring out their full significance. This improper use is partienlarly prominent in the case of Bra.Sü.III3 and the great number of these unjustified additions, we believe, is itself one more proof that the Acaryas have not got the correct tradition for the interpre- tation of the Gunsopasamhara Pada. Not only have they freely added to the words in a Sutra but in several cases the very Proposition ( Siddhanta ) also is taken to be implied or under- stood, the Sutra being used only as an argument to prove that Proposition. We shall now give illustrations of the " unwarranted addi- tions " from Ssnkara's commentary on Bra.Su.III.4. (1) Bra.Su.III.4.1. ara: means a or faat: ; but Sankara adds केवलाया: because he interprets अतः as केवलायाः विद्याया: (2) Bra.Su.III.4.2. शेषत्वात् would mean (ज्ञानस्य) कमशेषखात्; but Sankara makes unwarranted additions when he interprets eara as कर्तृत्वेन आत्मन: कर्मशेपत्वात् (8) Bra.Sn.III.4.8. Sankara explains afs as fna afr ac (उपदिश्यते). The addition of शारीर and ईश्वर is not even suggested by the Sutra. Possibly the Sutra rofers to Srutis in which knowledge is said to be superior to action. (4) Bra.Su.III.4.12. Sankara explains शतवत् as "शतं आभ्यां दीयताम्". There is no question of a at all in the Sutra. We have sugge- sted that wa in this Sutra should be explained by referring to शताधिकया in Bra.Sa.IV.2.17. (5) Bra.Su.III.4.13. Sankara explains खुति as विद्यास्तुति; Lhough it is likely that it means कर्मस्तुति.

254 शङर'S UNWARRANTED ADDITIONS TO ब्र.सू.III.4

(6) Bra.Su.III.4.16. 'उपमर्दम्' 'may mean' 'कर्मणां उपमर्दम्' but Sankara explains it as 'कर्मणां स्वरूपोपमर्दम्.' (7) Bra.Su.III.4.17. By explaining 'शब्दे' as 'विधा श्रयते' Sankara adds 'विद्या.' (8) Bra.Su.III.4.18. परामर्शमू is explained as आश्रमान्तराणां परामशम्. The Sutra does not mention the आश्रमs at all. अपवदति is explained as अपवदति आश्रमान्तर प्रत्यक्षा श्रुतिः. (9) Bra.Su.III.4.19. अनुष्ठेयम् must refer to ज्ञानम् or दर्शनम्; but Sankara says, "आश्रमान्तरं अनुष्ठेयम्", 'साम्यश्चतेः' means, according to Sanikara, "समा हि गार्हस्थ्येनाश्रमान्तरस्य परामशेश्रतिद्वेश्यते ...... 27

(10) Bra.Sh.III.4.20, 'विधिवा means, according to Sankara, "विधिरवाऽयमाश्रमानतरस्य.' Thus, he adds आश्रमान्तर in all the Sutras (18-20) of the Adhikarana. (11) Bra.Sn.III.4.21. Sankara takes "स्तुति" as उद्गीथादे: स्तुतिः," thus adding उद्धीथ. "उपादान" is explained as उपादानश्रवण. And, lastly he takes उद्दीथादीनि कर्माज्ानि as understood and then changes उपादान into उपादानश्रवणात्. (12) Bra.Sn.III.4.24. Sankara takes 'एकवाक्यता,' as (आख्यानानाम्) सनिहिताभि: विद्याभि: एकवाक्यता. (13) Bra.Su.IlI.4.26. Sankara explains सवापेक्षा as 'सर्वाश्रमकर्मणामपेक्षा'; we bave explained it as "all needs". (14) Bra.Su.III.4.27. Sankara begins the explanation of the Sutra by taking as understood "यदि कश्चिन्मन्येत यज्ञादीनां विद्यासाधनभावो न न्याय्यो विध्यभावात ... (तथापि तु शमदमाध्युपेतः स्यात्)". By this अव्याहार, the whole force of तथापितु is got nid of by Sankara. The sense of the Satra is thus entirely reversed. (15) Bra.St.IlI.4.32. Sankara explaius अपि as आश्रममान्ननिष्ठस्य अपि अमुमुक्षो; कर्तव्यानि एव though अमुमुक्ध is not at all suggested by the Sutra (16) Bra.Sn.III.4.35. Sankara adds ब्रह्मचर्यादिसाधनसंपन्नस्य रागादिभि:कशैः (अनभिभवम्) without any implication of the same in the Sutra. (17) Bra.Su.III.4.36. Sankara adds 'विद्यायामधिक्रियते', (18) Bra.Su.III.4.38. In explaining विशेषानुग्रह्ः as धर्मविशेषैः अनुग्रहो विद्याय: Sanikara adds धर्म and विद्या without any authority from the Sūtra itself.

WE's UNWARRANTED ADDITIONS TO T# III.4 255

(19) Bra.Su.III.4.41. Sankara adds without any restraint or hesitation अवकीर्णिनः नैष्ठिकस्य ब्रह्मचारिणः (आधिकारिकमपि = अधिकारलक्षणोक्तमपि) प्रायश्षित न भवितुमहति अप्रतिसमाधेय (पतनस्मरणात्-from the Sutra). (20) Bra.Su.III.4.42. maand sygan are respectively changed to प्रायववित्तरय भावम् and उपपातकमू, without any reason given in the Sutra. (21) Bra.Sn.1II.4.43. Sankara oxplains बहिः as बहिष्कतव्याः and he takes उभयथा as referring to महापातक and उपपातक which are men- tioned in none of these Sfitras. (22) Bra.Su.III.4.44. Sankara adds ( स्वामिन:) एन फलवत्सु उपासनेषु कतृखवम्. (23) Bra.Sū.III.4.45. Śańkara adds faąa. (24) Bra.Su.III.4.49. Sankara takes anaaa: as understood. (25) Bra.Su.III.451. Sankara adds विद्याजन्म as the विशेष्य of 'ऐहिकम्' without any justification from the Sutra and explains ia- as कर्मान्तरेणप्रतिबन्धे. (26) Bra.Su.III.4.52. Sankara takes नियम as a नियम about

What we have stated above regarding Sankara's additions to the Sntras of Bra.Su ITI.8 is generally true about his inter- pretation of Bra.Su III.4 also. In the latter Pada he has always to add a particular word to each Sotra of an Adhikarana in order to show that the Adhikarana deals with a topic mentioned by him, e. g., Sntras 18-20. His additions to Bra.Sn.III.4.27 and 41-42 are too clear to eseape the notice of a careful student. Wo have not noticed here the changes which he makes in the sense of certain Sutras by very slight additions, e. g., in the case of Bra.Su.III.4.47-48. We shall now mention a few cases of Sankara's unwarranted additions in his explanation of Bra.Sū.IV.1. (1) Bra.Su.IV.1.1. Sankara changes आदृ: into प्रत्ययान्ृ्तिः, (2) Bra.Su.IV.1.2. Does Sankara take the word før in the sense of an indication, since he explains it as euema and since his Sruti is not a direct statement on the topic?

256 ET's UNWARRANTED ADDITIONS TO R. IV.1 AND.4

(3) Bra.Su.IV.1.6. Sankara explains अङ्गषु as कर्माजेषु and उपपत्ते: a उपपद्यत कमसमृद्धि: (4) Bra.Su IV.1.7. Sankara takes आमीनः as आसीनः उपासीत ant संभवातू as उपासनस्य संभवात्. (5) Bra.Su.IV.1.9. Iustead of connecting 'अचलत्वं च अपेक्ष्य' witl आमीन: Sanikara adds व्यायतिवादो भवति (taken as understood) to the Sftra. (6) Bra.Su.IV.1.11. अविशेषात is, according to Sankara, एकाग्रताया: इष्टाया: सर्वत्र अविशेषात् (7) Bra. Sn IV.1.14. Sankara adds 'farr' to the sutra and while he interprets पाते as विदुषः शरीरपाते, he adds without any.hesitation "अवश्यंभाविनी मुक्तः". The result of these additions is that he fails to make out the difference between पाते and अधिगमे ( regarding पुण्य and 414 respectively ). (8) Bra.Sn. IV.1.17. He adds 'तस्या एष विनियोग: उचः' and thus be makes out a complete sentence out of only ' a:' in this Sutra. (9) Bra.Su IV.1.18. Sankara takes the whole conclusion as understood, viz., विद्यासंयुक्तं कर्माग्निहोत्रादिक विद्याविरदानात्कर्मणोSग्निहोन्ाद्वििष्टं विद्वानिव ब्राह्मणो विद्याविहीनाद्वाहणात्। तथापि नात्यन्तमनपेक्षं विद्याविहीनं क्मारिनिहोत्रादिकम् The Sutra has 'f', which shows that it supplies only an argument for a conclusion already stated in a previous Sūtra But as Sankara begins a fresh Adhikarana with this Sütra, he has to take the conclusion as understood.

A few instances of these " unwarranted additions " from Sankara's bhāsya on Bra.Su.IV.4 may be also noticed here :- (1) Bra.Su.IV.4.7. Even according to Sankara himself, Tanf can only mean 'चैतन्यमात्रस्वरूपाभ्युगमेऽपि, but Sankara interprets the expression as पारमार्थिकचतन्यमात्रस्वरूपाभ्युपगमेऽपि; similarly 'पूर्वभावात्' should, according to him, mean पूर्वस्य ब्राह्स्य भावात्; but be takes it as न्यवदारापेक्षया पूर्वस्य भावात्. 'उपन्यासात्' is interpreted as 'उपन्यासादि- ज्योऽनगतस्य'.

शककर'S ADDITIONS TO ब्र. सू IV.4.16-19 257

(2) Bra. Su. IV.4.16. Sankara adds "विशेषविज्ञानाभाववचनम्" to स्वाप्ययसंपत्त्यारन्यतरापेक्षम् in the Sutra and he separates 'आविष्कृतं हि' which according to him means तन्रैव (उपनिपत्सु अधिकारवशात् यद् विशेषविज्ञानाभाववचन तत्स्वाप्ययसंपत्त्यारन्यतरापक्षमित्येतद्) आविष्कृतम्।

(3) Bra.su IV.4.17. "ynasqg" should be taken as understood; but Sankara adds the idea of ऐश्वर्य (ये सगुणब्रह्मोपामनात् सहब मनसा ईश्वर- सायुज्यं व्रजन्ति ककिं तेषा निरवग्रहमेश्वर्यें भवत्याहोस्वित्सावअ्रहमिति संशय:) which is out of the context and also neither mentioned nor imphed in these Sūtras (17-21).

(4) Bra.Su.IV.4.18. Sankara chauges 'मण्डल' into सवितृमण्डलादिपु ana; in the Sutra itself there is nothing to support these addi- tions of सवितृ, आदि and आयतन. Sankara explains. 'आधिकारिक' as परमेश्वर, Moreover, "तदायत्तैथेयं स्वाराज्यप्राप्ति:" is not found in the Sutra itself. In fact, we do not know from the Sutras that the fala or the topic here is that of the yo's anpasifta. (5) Bra.Su.IV.4.19. Sanikara adds दविरूपाम t0 स्थितिम्; and be has to add the whole explanation, viz., "न च तननिर्विकार रूपमितरालम्चनाः प्राप्नुवन्तीति शक्यं वक्तमतत्क्तुर्वात्तेषाम्। अतक्ष यथैव दविरूपे परमेश्वरे निर्गुण रूपमनवाष्य सगुण एवावतिष्ठन्त एवं सगुणेपि निरवप्रहमैश्वर्यमनवाप्य सावप्रह एवाचतिष्ठन्त इत्ि द्रष्टव्यम्।". It will be seen from the above additions that it is only by their help that Sankara finds out some of his important doctrines in the Brahmasutra. Thus, the addition of अवश्यंभाविनी मुक्ति: to पाते in Bra. Sa. IV. 1. 14 helps him to interpret that Sutra as dealing with his distinction between liberation-in-this-life and liberation- after-this-hfe (jivanmukti and videhamukti). His interpretati- on of Bra. Su. IV. 4. 17 and IV. 4.19 as stating his idea of the lordship of the hberated ( tas ) and that of the twofold Brahman (fasq aa ) are also derived from the words he has added to the respective Sūtras.

In a number of Sütras, Sankara divides the words in such a way that each of the division serves as a sentence. This breaking up of a, Sūtra is quite unnatural and the interpretation based upon such 33

258 शङ्कर'S WRONG DIVISION OF WORDS IN THE सूत्रS (ब्र. सू.III.3)

a construction of the words of a Sutra must be examined very carefully before it is accepted. We give below a few illustra- tions from Bra.Su.II1.3. To these words, when separated from their connection with other words, he makes unwarranted 0 additions with the help of which he makes out complete sente- nces, as we have already noticed. (1) Bra.Sn.III.3.3, The Sutra runs as स्वाध्यायस्य तथात्वेन हि रामाचारेऽधिकाराच। सववच्च तनियम : Sakara makes four out of the two sentonces of this Sutra." आथरवेणिके शिरोव्रतादीनां स्वाध्यायधमेत्वेन (inter pretation of तथात्व्रेन) स्वाध्यायस्य एव धर्मो न विद्यायाः। वेदव्रतोपदेशपरे प्न्थे (=समाचार in the Sutra) आथर्वणिका इदमपि वेदव्रतत्वेत व्याख्यातमिति समामनन्ति। अधिकृतवषयाद् (=अधिकारात्) एतच्छव्दात् (in एतां ब्रह्मविद्याम्-Mu.Upa.III.2.10) अध्ययनशब्दाञ्च स्वोपनिषदध्ययनधर्म एवेष इति निधार्यते। सववच् शिरोवतरूपधर्मनियभः (=तनियम: ). (2) Bra.Su.III.3.14 reads as आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभावात्। Sanikara first takes परयोजनाभावात as one sentence and then he takes आध्यानाय as another sentence.62 (3) Bra.Sû.II.3.18. कार्याख्यानादपूवर्म। Sankara first interprets कार्याख्यानात् कार्यतवने प्राप्तस्य आचमनस्य अन्वाख्यानात् आचमनस्य विधेयत्वं न उपपद्येत। And then he takes अपूर्वमू as अपां वासः संकत्पनमेवापूर्व विधीयते or प्राणस्य अनग्रताकरणसंकल्पोऽनेन वाक्येनाचमनीयास्वप्मु प्राणविद्यासबन्धित्वेनापूर्वः उपदिश्यते।

the अपूचम् As a matter of fact 'कार्योख्यानात' should be taken as the देतु for

(4) Bra.Sn.III.3.27 .- सांपराये तर्तव्याभावात्। तथा ह्ान्ये। Sankara sepa- ritrs सांपराये from तर्तव्याभावात्, He takes सांपराये as सांपराये गमने एवं दहादपसपणे इदं विद्यासामर्थ्यात्सकतदुष्कृतह्ानं भवतीति प्रतिजानीते; ततवयाभावात्-सुकृतदुष्कृताभमां प्राप्तव्यस्याभावात्। (5) Bra.Sn.III.3 28 .- छन्दतः उभयाविरोधात्। Sanikara explains छन्दतः as aama ( i. e., becnuse of the impropriety of the human effort, stated by Sankara in his bhasya) पूर्वमेव साधकावस्थायां छन्दतोऽनुष्ानं तस्य (वयमनियमविद्याभ्यासात्मकस्य सुकृतदुष्कृतक्षयहेतोः पुरुषप्रयत्नस्य) स्यात्। And in order to explain the connection of this Sutra with the preceding one, Sankara adds तत्पूर्वक च सुकृतदुष्कृतद्दानमिति द्रष्टव्यम्। (62) Vide Note (18) on the Sutra.

शकर'A WRONG DIVISION OF THE पदS IN सूत्र III.3-4. 259

(6) Bra.SuIlr.3 39 .- कामादीतरत्र तत्र चायतनादिभ्यःSankara splits up the Sutra as "कामादीतरत्र; तन्न च; आयतनादिस्यः". We believe, "तन्न चायतनादिभ्यः" should be taken as one sentencc. Moreover, Sankara takes 'aata' twice, though it oceurs only once in the Sūtra.

(7) Bra.Su.llI.3 42 .- तन्निधारणानियमः तदृष्टः पृथगव्यप्रतिबन्धः फलम्, नङ्कर makes three sentences out of this सूत्र; तननिर्धारणानियम=यान्येतान्युद्वीथादिकर्म गुणयाथात्म्यनिर्धारणानि (रसतम आप्तिः समृद्धि सुख्यप्राणआदित्य इत्येवमादीनि) नेतानि नित्यवत् कर्मसु नियम्यरन्। तदृष्टे := तथाह्यनियतत्वमवंजातीयकानां दर्शयति श्रुिः। प्ृथर्यप्रातिबन्धः फलमूअपि चैवंजातीयकरय कर्मव्यपाश्रयस्य विज्ञानस्य परथगेव कर्मेण: फल सुपलभ्यते कर्मफलमि- द्वूयप्रतिबन्ध: तत्सभृद्धिः अतिशयावशेषः कश्षितू (and he qnotes Cha.Upa- 1.1.10 ).

He does not construe "तद्टृटटे: फलम् "; but be makes one sentence out of 'तद्द:' only. (8) Bra.Su.III.3.44 .- लिङ्गभूय स्त्वात्ताद्वे बलीयर तदपि। Sankara - स्वातन्त्र्यं तावत् (एतेषां मनश्चविदादीनाम्ग्नानाम्): लिङ्गभूयस्त्वात। तद्दि लिंह्ग प्रकरणाद्वलीयः। तदाप उस पूर्वकाण्डे। Thus, Sankara splits up the Sutra into three sentences. He separates लिङ्गभूस्त्वात from तद्वि बलीयः । The number of Sutras, similarly dealt with by Sankara in the other Padas than in the one discussed above (Bra.Sa. III.B), is comparatively not great. (1) Bra.Su.III.4.27 .- शमदमाधुपेतः स्थात्तयापि तु तद्विघेस्तदज्तया तेषामवश्यानुष्ठेयत्वम् Sankara-[यदि कश्वित्मन्येत यज्ञादीनां विद्यासाधनभावो न न्याय्यो विध्यभावात्] तथापितु शमदमाधुपेतः स्याद् [विद्यार्थी] ; [पश्यदिति च मार्ध्यंदिना विस्पष्टमेव ] विधिमधीयते; .... तस्मादयज्ञादीनि शमदमादीनि च यथाश्रमं सर्वाण्येवाश्रमकर्माणि विद्योत्त्पकतावपेक्षितव्यानि (=तदङतया तेषामवश्यानुष्ठेयत्वम्). Here Sarikara bas separat ed तादूषे: and तदङ्गतया which really means "Because the Injunction about those tranquility, control of senses, etc., is subsidiary to that (Injunction about Sacrifice, etc.,)" (2) Bra.Su.III.4.42 .- उपपूर्वमपि त्वेके भावमशनवत्तदुक्तसू। Sanikara-(भपित्वेक माचार्या उपपातकमेवैतदिति मन्यन्ते) भावमू (इच्छन्ति) अशनवत्। तदुक्तम् Sarikara does not take "उपपूर्वम्)

260 शह्र'S WRONG DIVISION OF THE पदS IN सूत्र IV.1-2.

wiaq" together but makes out two sentences from these two words.

(3) Bra Su.II I.4.43 .- सह कार्यन्तरविधि:पक्षण तृतीयं तद्तो विध्यादिवत्। Santara makes out one sentence out of सहकारयन्तरविधि:, VIZ., विद्यासह कारिणो मौनस्य वाल्यपाण्डित्य द्विधिरेवाश्रयितव्योडपूर्वत्वात्; another sentence out of तृतीयम्, viz., तस्माद्वाल्यपाण्डित्यापेक्षया तृतीयमिंद मौन ज्ञानातिशयरूपं विधायते तद्तः विद्यावतः संन्यासिन: अधिकारात्; पक्षे is as good as a sentence because Saikara takes ib as यास्मिन्पक्षे भेदद्शेनप्रावलयान प्राप्नोति तस्मिन्नैष विधिरिति; and, lastly, fawnfaaa is interpreted as one more sentence. Here Sankara has given up the case in apposition of सहकार्यन्तरविधि: and पक्षेग तृतीयं (कर्म स्यात्)," which made them only one sentence ; and he has seperatedतदूत: from विध्यादिवत; while really both these words make up only the illustration.

(4) Bra.Su.IV.1.14 .- इतरस्याप्येवमसंश्लेष: पाते तु। Sankara does not construe असश्लप: with पाते तु; but he makes two sentences by sepa- rating the two words and adding अवश्यंभाविनी विदुषः मुक्ति: -an addi- tion necessitated by Sankara's construction of असंश्लेष: and पाते तु.

(5) Bra.Su.IV.2.7. समाना वासृत्युपक्रमादमृतत्वं चानुपाष्य। Sankara separates समाना चासृत्युपक्रमाद् and अमृतत्वं चानुपोष्य of which latter he makes one complete sentence, while really आसृत्युपक्मात् gives the limit of the heginning and अमतत्वं चासुपोष्य the limit of the end of the समाना उत्कान्तिः

(6) Bra.Su.IV.2.8-तदापीतेः संसारव्यपदशात्,। Sankara separates तदापीत: ( taken with अनतिष्ठते understood )'andससारव्यपदशात while the Sutra seems to mean that " the अपीति is called संसार."

We believe, in most of the above cases the unjustified kplitting up of the words of the same Sutra has made it necessary for Sankara to add several other words to the Sütra in order to bring out a sense from it which, of course, is not intended by the Sütrakara. We have amply explained this kind of defect in Sankara's commentary in our Notes on the various Sūtras in Part I.

RIET'S WRONG MEANINGS OF WORDS IN T. III.3. 261

Another class of defects is that of single words not interpreted correctly by Sankara. There is a number of cases in which he does not give the exact sense to a word or words of a Ra. We would notice here only a few cases first from Bra.Sū.III.3 :- (1) Bra.Su III.3.1 .- सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययम् चोदनाद्यविशेषात्।-शडर does not Interpret ' aa ' as all the Vedantas, but according to bim 'aa' means " only those ( or all those ) in which the same fagr ( e. g., प्राणविद्या, पश्चाग्निविद्या, etc. etc. ) is mentioned ". We have shown that this modification of the sense of aa is not meant by the Sutrakara, who probably refers to "सर्वे वंदा यत्पदमामनन्ति" (2) Bra.Su.III.3.5. 'sudar' means "collection in one place" but Śańkara takes it to mean " transference " because he explains it as अन्यन्नोदितानां विज्ञानगुणानामन्यन्नाप समाने विज्ञाने उपसहारो भवति, (3) Bra.Su.II.3.7. प्रकरण is explained as प्रकम. वत् in परोवरीयस्त्ववत् is explained once as (1) fardg and again (2) as a suffx of illustration. (4) Bra.Su.III.8.9, a is taken as d a in its usual sense of 'and' would show that the Sutra gives one more argument while ~ interpreted as @ would mean that a Pürvapaksa argument is refuted in the Sutra. (5) Bra.Su.III.3.17. Sankara interprets अन्वय as the अन्वय of the उपक्रम, though अन्वय implies the relation between two and, therefore it should mean the अन्वय of the उपकम and उपसंहार. (6) Bra.Su. III.3.28. Sankara interprets ' s-a:' in such a way that really no option is given in the Sutra. (7) Bra.Su.III.3.29. उभयथा अर्थवत्त्वम् means "गतेर्देवयानस्य पथोऽ्थवत्वमु- भयथा=विभागेन भवितुमहृति क्वचिदर्थवती गति; क्वचिन्नति, न अविशेषेण। The real scnse of the expression is that afa (=Moksa) is achioved in cither way or in both the ways.68 (8) Bra.Su.III.3.31. अनियम: is explained as 'अविशषेण' which ultimately means a नियम that the गति applies to all सगुणविदयाड invariably.

(63) Vide Note (II) on the Sütra.

262 WET'S WRONG MEANINGS OF WORDS IN A.E. III.4.

(9) Bra Su.II1.3.33. eraria: means restraint or confinement (in one place ); Sankara by interpreting it as सर्वत्रावरोध: totally changes the sense of the word. (10) Bra.Su.III.3.34. 'ga' means 'so much', 'so large', 'this much', 'of this extent'; but Sankara explains it as

(11) Bra.Su.III.3.37 'व्यतिहार' should mean ' interchange' of विशेषणs only or विशेष्यs only; but Sankara explains it as जीवेशयोः मिथः विद्येषणविशोष्य भावः । Some examples of this part of Sankara's method of inter- pretation can be given from Bra.Su.III.4 also :- (1) Bra.Su.III.4.11. 'शतवत्' like अश्ववत् in Bra.Su.III.4.26 should be a reference to some Sruti ( Cha. Upa. VIII.6.6) but Sankara explains it as "शतमाभ्यां दीयताम्", (2) Bra.Su.III.4.18. wma means 'reflection' which is the same as a mental act. But Sankara explains it as 'a reference'. (3) Bra.Su.III.3.21. 3717 should mean 'receiving' or accept- ance' ; but Sankara interprets it as "with reference to". (4) Bra.Su.JII.4.22. Sankara interpret *1a as fafa which seems to us to be an unusual sense. We take it as 'existence' in which sense the word occurs often in the Sūtras. (6) Bra.Su.III.4.24. Sanikara interprets एकवाक्यता as the एकवाक्यता of the episodes with the faais they teach due to the fact that the episodes are aimed at प्ररोचन and प्रतिपत्तिस।कर्य. 64 We believe saiFvat can be the aFyal of two things of the same category only and in this particular case it would be the q5a4yal of the two Sciences (Kandas) of the same Seripture, viz., the Karmakāņda and the Jñankanda of the Veda. (6) Bra.Su.III.4.81. A comparison of the Sutras in which the word 'as' is used shows that in the Sutras the word means only 'the Srati'. Sankara seems to understand it in the sense of भ्ांत anत स्मृति. (64) Yids Note 16 on the Sūtra.

TE'S WRONG MEANINGS OF WORDS IN HTS III. 4;IV.1-4 268

(7) Bra.Sn. III.4.34. 'aaa' should mean two types of Srutis, as in Bra. Sū. III. 2. 11. Sankara interprets it (under Stra II1. 3. 84) as Srutt and Smrti.65 Thus, Sankara assigns no fixed sense to the word fag. (8) Bra.Sn.III.4.34-37. Sankara does not distinguish between the meanings of लिp and दशन or टषि, though here the Sutrakara seems to distinguish between all these words and also tufa (in Bra. SQ. III.4.37). 66

(9) Bra. Su.JII.4.88 'faangaa' should mean 'special favour'. But Sankara by making unwarranted addition abandons the proper sense of अनुग्रह altogether. Sankara=(1) धर्मविशषै अनुग्रहः विद्याया anते (2) जन्मान्तरानुष्टितैरपि आश्रमकमेभिः संभवत्येव विद्यायाः अनुभ्रहः।

(10) Bra.Su.III.4.42. "उपपूर्व भावम्" would mean a subsidiary existence ( of official or priestly duties ). But Sankara making unwarranted additions takes the expression to mean '4954' and 'प्रायश्चित्तस्य भावम्'

There are several similar cases in Bra. Su.IV also :- (1) Bra.Sū.IV.1.14. Śańkara explains a as qa. (2) Bra.Su.IV.4.1. Sankara takes स्वन, not as आत्मीयेन, but as आत्मना.

(3) Bra.Su.IV.1.17. is explained in most cases by Sankara as referring to the context of a text but in this tr he interprets it as नित्यश्वरस्य तत्र (=जगद्यापारे) प्रकृतत्वात्

(4) Bra.Su.IV.4.18. आधिकारिक cannot be पर इश्वर; the word can mean an officer like इन्द्र, वहुण, वायु, and others. (5) Bra.Su.IV.4.19. fufa should mean 'continuation,' but Śankara explains it as ' existence.' It is likely that in some of the above cases the explanation of Sankara may be interpreted as correct. It is also likely that

(65) Vide Note 34 on Bra.Sū,III.3,34. (66) Vide Note 34 on the Sūtra.

264 TET GIVES TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SAME WORD

perhaps the Sutrakara did not distmguish between ada and ti or far, ma and qee; or that it is not possible now to find out any such distinction even if it had once been meant. But we be- heve that in most of the cases collected by us above and in our Notes on the Sutras in Part I as well as in the case of the Sutras not examined in that work, wo must always try to know whether the particular word is interpieted in its exact sense by a commentator, before bis explanation of a Sutra is accepted. There are some Sntras for which or for a certam word or words mn which Sankara offers two and sometimes even three interpretations. We give here some examples from Sankara's commentary on Bra.Sü.III :-- (1) Bra.Su.III.2.33. 914 is interpreted both as a foot and as a quarter. (2) Bra.Sü.III.2.34-35. Sankara says that each of these Satras is a reply to each of the last two arguments of the opponent in Sutra III.2.31; thus, he interprets faagia .... (Sütra 34) in two different ways, one of which applies to the refutation of संबन्धव्यपदेश and the other to that of भेदव्यपदेश.

(3) Bra.Su.III.8.16-17. Each of these two Sütras is inter- preted in two different ways. According to one interpretation, the Sutras refer to Ai. Upa.I.1, while according to the other they doal with Br. Upa.IV.3-4 and Cha, Upa. VI.2-8.

(d) Bra.Su.III.3.17. The word 'aagru' is interpreted in three different ways. (5) Bra.Su.III.3.26. Sankara gives two interpretations (aaa- तास्वय विधूननश्रुतिष्वेतेन सूत्रगेतच्चिन्तयितव्यम् ।) (6) Bra.Su.III.3.28. उभय in उभयाविरोधात is explained by Sankara in two different ways. (7) Bra.Su.III.3.29. गति is explained (1) as देवयान: पन्थाः and (2) as " aftainment", e.g., in uia. (8) Bra.Sü.III.3.35 The illustration of augaa is explained in two different ways.

JET MAKES CERTAIN WORDS IN THE HAS REDUNDANT 265

Whoever tries to interprot the Brabmasfitra would be mn- variably faced with the difficulty of fixing the sense of some of the Sutras or of deciding the fagyajys of certam Sutras. We must admit our own mnabtlity to find out the exnet faryanys referred to by certain Sutras (Bra.Su.III.3.27, Bra Su. 1I1.8.33, Bra.Su.III.3.36, ILI 1.44). But to assert that certamn Sütras have two meanings, meaning thereby that they are composed with the idea of refuting two difforent argumeuts of a Piuvapaksa, is not the same as admitting one's interpretation as doubtfal. Except in the case of such Sntras, the above examples illustrate the interpretor's difficulties. It would be also seen that mn a passage of 20 Sutras (Bra. Su.III.3.16-35), Sankara is doubtful about six cases. This position of Sankara means nothing more than the diffidence he had about his interpretation of this parti- cular Pada, viz., Bra.Su.III.3 only. And it corroborates our opinion that the Acaryas did not possess a correct unbroken tradition about the teaching of this Pada, which seems to us to be the most important portion of the Brahmasnitra.

In certain Sutras as interpreted by Sankara, it seems, we have to take some part of the Sutras as making no addition to the sense of the Sutra obtained from the rest of it. Thus, Sankara seems to explain तददर्शनात् anते अधिकोपदेशात in Bra.Su.III.4.8almost in the same way, so that one of the two oxpressions would be redundant. In Bra.SO III.4.41 Sankara seems to leave out ad as superfluous. In Bra.Sh.IV.1.3 Sankara's interpretation (जाबाला: उपगच्छन्ति श्रुतयः आ्राह्यन्ति च) shows that 'मह्य्ति' sloe wo sufficient to convey the sense because ' wiait' refers a Sruti which could be easily included in " the Srutis " referred to by ग्राह्यन्ति Sankara interprets Bra.Su. IV.1.4 (न प्रतीके न हि सः) :ल "न प्रताकेष्वात्ममति बघ्नीयात्। न हि स उपायकः प्रतीकानि व्यस्तान्यातत्वेनाकलयेतु।"Thus, 'न प्रतीके' is refuted by 'न हि सः' and therefore only one of the two experessions would have been sufficient to convey the sense of either. 'संभवान' in Bra.Su. IV .. 1.7is explained as उपामनस्थ सेमवात् which makes Sutra IV.18 ( a ) redundant. '34

266 WE'S WRONG CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORDS IN VAS

As distinguished from the cases of the errors of a wrong division of the words of a Sutra (See PP 257-260 above), there are some cases of a wrong construction of the words of a Sutra. In Bra.Su.III. 3 35, 'a-at' is not taken as connected with 'an.'. In Bra.Su, III.4.27, 'तथापितु' must be construed after 'शामदमादयुपेतःस्यात्'; so that "even one who is possessed of sTramf must perform the sacrifice, cto"., would be the sense of the Sutra; but Sankara connects तथापितु with 'यदि काश्वन्मन्येत यज्ञादिना विद्यासाधनभावो न न्याय्यः"taken as under- stood, and places "झमदमादिदुपतःस्यात्" after तथापितु. This totally changes the force of 'amng'. In Bra Su III.4.43 Sańkara places afee after swyaisia, though the Sutra gives the reverse order. In Bra.So.IV.1.1, aaga should be naturally taken with agf:, but Sankara iterprets it with 'sqa:', One of the more important defects to be noticed about Sankara's method of interpretation partains to his Pūrvapaksas and Siddhantas in the several Adhikaranas or Sutras. In a number of cases the Pürvapaksa as presented by Sankara seems to be impossible or even absurd if we look to the visayavakya. Let us first examine the Purvapaksas and the Siddhantas of Sankara in his interpretation of Bra.Sn.III.2.

(1) Bra.Su.III.2.11. न स्थानताऽपि पररयोभयलिङ्गं सर्वत्र हि। We have shown that this Sttra would mean, न स्थानतोऽपि परस्योभयलिङं सर्वत्र (=मर्वेषु स्थानेषु) हि परस्योभयलिक्वम् । But Sankara interprets सर्वत्र हि as सवेत्र हि ब्रह्मस्वरूपप्रतिपादनपरेंषु वाक्येपु 'अराब्दमरपशमरूपमव्ययम्' (क० उ० ३।१६) इत्येव- मादिप्वपास्तविरपमेव ब्रह्मोपदिश्यते। Here the valid Siddhanta is that Brahman is twofold ( anafaru, having two aspects ). This correot Siddhanta is represonted by Sankara as an absurd Pūrvapaksa because Sankara makes an unwarranted addition after uar fa.67 (2) Bra.Su.III.2.19. अम्बुवद्ग्रहणात्तु न तथात्वम् । As we have shown, this is a Siddhanta Sütra; but Sankara has taken it as a Pürva- pakşa Sütra 08 Moreover, according to Sankara the Pürvapaksa (67) Vide Note (7) ete. on the Sütra. (68) Vide Note (8) on Sütra III.2.20.

TE'S IMPOSSIBLE OR ABSURD YATIS AND REIAS 267

in Bra.Su.III.2.19 is the same as in Bra.Sn 11.3.50 ( ), viz., how Brahman can have a reflection, and the reply in both the Adhikaranas is also the same. One may ask, Why this repetition ? (3) Bra.Su.III.2.22. Sankara says that the topic of the Sūtra is the meaning of ' afa afa' in Br. Upa II.3.6. We have shown that this discussion of this Srutt is not hkely, because, as Sankara himself admits, that Sruti itself (Br. Upa.II.6.6) clearly explains the expression 'नति नेति'69

(4) Bra Sü.III.2.25. According to Sankara the topic of dis- cussion is whether the individual Soul and the Supreme Soul are different. We believe, these Purvapaksa and Siddhanta are out of place in the Context of the Adhikarana. Really, the topic of discussion taken by Sankara here is fit for treatment n Bra, Sn IL.3, particularly in Bra.Su.II.3.28-32. We may add that Sankara finds the discussion of the relation of the Jiva and Paramatman in many a Sutra in the Brahmasutra, but he finds no Sütras about the same in Bra.Su.II 3 which (Pada) is special- ly devoted to the treatment of the nature of the Soul. (5) Bra.Sü.III.2.31. Sankara is right when he says that bere the Opponent holds that there is a principle higher than the Unmanifest discussed in the preceding Adbikarana; but he is indeed wrong when he says that according to this Opponent the Principle beyond the unmanifest Brahman is a non-Atman (amea). We cannot imagine a system or an Opponent who would have believed in Atman and insisted that there was a materinl principle beyond It 70 Moreover, Sankara says that according to the Opponent Brahman is declared to be a bridge, to be measured, to be coming into connection with the individual soul in the deep- sleep state and to be different from the individual soul,

(69) Vide Note (17) on Bra.Su.III.2.22. (70) Vide Note (6) on Bra.Su.III.2,31.

268 NE7'S IMPOSSIBLE OR ABSURD YSGIS AND fETAS

According to Sankara, the Opponent bases his arguments on Śrutis which bave been already discussed in Bra.Sū.I.1-3. We have suggested that if these vory Srutis were to be the basis of the arguments of the Opponent m this place (m Bra Sū .- III.2), then, why should not these objections have been raised by him when these Srutis were disenssed in Bra Su.I.1-8? In our opinion, the Purvapaksa emphasises the fact that the Purusa is luigher than the Unmanitest and bases all its arguments on the Srutis of the Katha Upanisad ouly.71 Again, Sankara explains araz in the Satra to mean ultimately the same as the SH1 or measure72, which is also separately mentioned in the very Sutra (III 2.81) 78 We think that such an explanation of 4 makes one of the two arguments of and 3-H7 superfluous. (6) Bra. Sn III.2.32. According to Sankara the Opponent argues that Brabman is called 'bridge' in several Srutis and that, therefore, there must be a principle boyond Brahman, just as when we cross a bridge we reach a place beyond the bridge, while the Siddhantin replies that 'Brahman is not really a bridge, but It is called a bridge on account of a common characteristic betwcen Brahman and a bridge ( mna). We believe that no Purvapaksa wonld bave argued that Brabman was called 'Bridge' in the Srutis in any other sense than that of a mere comparison or motaphor. Sankara's Siddhanta makes the Pūrvapaksa look absurd and childish.74 (7) Bra.Su. III.2.84 and 85. Hero according to Sankara each of these two Sutras is an answer to two different arguments of the Purvapaksa. We know that different Acaryas interpret the same Sosra to suit their different needs, but here we have &

(71) Vide Notes (8), (10) and (12) on Bra Su III.2.81. (7a) Ci. Safkara bhasya on Bra.Su.III.2.81-मितानां व मितेन संबन्धो दृष्टो यथा नराणां नगरेण. (73) Vide Note (10) on the Sütra in Part I. (74) Vide Note (17) on Bra.Su.III.2.32.

JMPROPRTETY OF O'S TTIS IN HIS IS ON H. H. TII3 269

peculiar case in which one and the same Acarya interprets the same Sutra to meet two different objections of an Opponent! (8) Bra.Su.JII.2.37. This Sutra establishes the omui-presence of Brabman according to Sankara.75 Sankara, however, is able to give no adequate argument from the Opponent's side to explain the necessity of this important problem being reqnired to be discussed at this place in the Brahmasutra after more than half of the book is finished.

We will now disonss the propriety of the Pürvapaksas given by Sankara in his bhasya on Bra. Su. III.8.

(1) Bra Sa.III 3.6-10. According to Sankara, the Opponent raises a discussion about the Prana Vidyā and the Udgitha Vidya and the Siddhantin answers the Opponent's objections. We have shown that in an Inquiry about Brahman both the Pürvapaksa and the Siddhanta about these Vidyas are out of place. They are foreign to the very aim of the work. Moreover Sankara (on Bra.Su.I1I.3.9) raıses a Pūrvapaksa on the inter- pretation of Cha.Upa.I.1.1. ' ओमितेतदक्षरमुद्वीथसुपासीत ।). We beg to suggest that a reading of the Upanisad text wonld bardly justify Sankara's Purvapaksa that the सामान्याधिकरण of ओम् and उद्गथ islkely to be interpreted as meaning अध्यास, अपवाद and एकत्व as well as faaqu. As a matter of fact, Sankara himself shows that the words of the Sruti are too clear to make such a Pūrvapaksa possible. In fact, there is no absence of a word that would decide the pomt in favour of any one of the above four possibi- lities in the Sruti itself. (2) Bra.Su.III.3.10. Though the knowledge of wq as ag may be helpful in safasnar, it looks impossible that the xprinias in Cha., Br., and Kau. Upanisads are meant to teach meditation on the वसिष्ठत्वादिगुणs of प्राण as help to ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा. Therefore, a Purvapaksa (75) In our opinion the Sutra is meant to prove the omnipresence of the Unmanifest, beyond which the Opponent tries to postulate a higher principlo in Bra.Sū.III.2.31.

270 शद्र'S IMPOSSIBLE पूवपक्षS INHIS भाष्य ON ब्र. सू. III 3

based upon such a view is out of place in the Brahmasutra. The meditation on the attributes of Brahman only is in our opinion taught in the Brabmasutra.

(8) Bra.Su III.3.14-15. According to Sankara, the Pürva- paksa asserts that each succeeding member m the series of senses, objects of sense, mind, etc., etc., ...... upto the Purusa is intended in the Katha Upanisad (III.10-11) to be taught as being higher than each preceding member while the Siddhanta establishes that the higherness (qrea) of the Purusa alone 18 desired to be taught by the Sruti. We believe that such a Pürvapaksa is absurd and therefore not lkely to be raised at all. 76

(4) Bra.Su.III.3.16. Sankara says that Ai.Upa.I.1. is the vişayavakya. According to him, the Opponent asserts that Atman in "आह्मा वा इदमेंक एवाग्र आसीत्, नान्यत्किञ्चन मिषत्" is a जीव, e.g., the Prajapati or Brahman, and not Paramatman. We believe that the Sruti is too clear to admit of a doubt giving rise to such a Pūrvapaksa.

(4a) Bra.Su.III.3.16-17. Sankara gives another interpreta- tion of these two Sutras. According to this interpretation, the Opponent says that the topie of Br. Upa.IV.3.7-IV.4.25 is not the same (agemger) as that of Cha. Upa. VI.2-8, because the two Śrutis differ in their statements (sEaaaqra). This excuse for showing a Purvapalst as possible must be coutrasted with the exeuse for the possibility of a Purvapaksa given by Sankara in his bhasya on Bra.Su. II1.8.6-8, where the Purvapaksa argues that the mgasr passages teach the same vidya (fadacan), because there are many points of similarity in the two Srutis thongh there are some points of dissimilarity as well (अविशेषरयापि बहुतरस्य ia). In Bra.S III.3.6-8, the Opponent bases his view of विद्यैकतव of the two Srutis on अविशेष. Thus, once Sankara makes

(76) Vide Note (16) on Bra.Sū.III.3.14.

शङ्र'S ABSURD पूर्चपक्षS IN HIS भाष्य ON ब्र. सू. III.3 271

the Opponent conolude विद्याभेद because there is आम्नानभेद and, again, he makes another Opponent hold the view of feer inspite of there being aT. We believe, it is very danger- ous to raise Purvapaksas on very subtle or sharp distinctions, since any Pürvapaksa may be supported on such excuses because it is then left to the Opponent to judge whether the dissimi- larity between the two Srutis is greater than the similarity.

Agaun, let us compare the excuse for the Pūrvapaksa of Bra Sü.III.3.16-17 (the second interpretation) with the same in Bra.Su.III.3.10 according to Sankara. In the latter, he makes the Opponent argue that,"Though there are many points of similarity between the Srutis, the afagraifagus are not to be added where they do not occur." Thus, "there is विद्याभेद inspite of आम्नानभेद" in Bra.Su.lII.3.10, while there is विद्याभेद because of aTaFHa in Bra.Sn.III.3 16-17. There is no definite rule for raising a Pürvapaksa.

(5) Bra.Su.III.3.18. After reading the faqqagas (Br.Upa. VI. 1.14 and Cha. Upa. V.2.2.) one wonders why Sankara should have raised the discussion of these Srutis being a fne of either anne or aur anardiaeya in an Inquiry abont Brahman. How ohn this Purvavapaksa be a means (साधन) to ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा ?

(6) Bra.Su.III 8.19. Here the topic is said to be qsaraat or harmony of sense of two passages in the same Branch of the same Veda, viz., arrera (Satapatha Brahmana X ) and Br. Upa. which forms the last portion of the same Brahmana. Though evidently both passages deal with the same topic just as both the passages of the Yajñavalkya-Maitreyisamvada in the Br. Upa.IL.4 and IV.5 do, the Pūrvapaksa is made by Sańkara to argue that the Vidya in the one Chapter must be taken as different from the Vidya of the other Chapter of the Satapatha Brāhmana because of vanaH# 'Contingency of one of the two Chapters being tautologous or superficial'; and the Siddhanta is

272 शहर'S ABSURD पूर्वपक्षS IN HIS गाव्य ON ब्र. सू. III 3

represented by Sankata as replying that "there is no q4aan because one Chapter lays down the Vidya and the other Chapter the gunas of that Vidya" ispite of the fact that we find some mnas in both the Chapters. We bold that here the Siddhanta view is absmd because the Purvapaksa is equally absurd.

(7) Bra.Sü.III 3.20-22, According to Sankara, these Sūtras discuss Br. Upa V.5.1 and V.5.2 aud the Pürvapaks is represented as arguing that the Upanisad sta of Br. Upa. V.5.1 and the Upanisad azy of Br. Upa. V 5.2 should be mutually added to each other, while the Siddhanta establishes that the particular Upanisad in each case must remam only where it is stated, because Br Upa. V.5.1 is the Upanisad of आदित्यमण्डले पुरुषः and Br. Upa. V.5.2 that of wirrsea goq: We suggest that there is_no possibilty of a doubt of this nature being raised at all about these passages, because it was very easy to see that the two Upanisads are stated with reference to the two different aspects of the same principle. If we read the original text it looks too absurd for an Opponent to argue that the two Upanisads belong to only आदित्यपुरुष or only दक्षिणाक्षिपुरुष.

(8) Bra.Sn.II1.3.23. According to Sankara, the question here is whether वीर्यसंभृति and द्ुव्याति which are ब्रह्मगुणs mentioned in the Rāņāyaniya Khila are to be added to the nafagis mentioned in the Upanisads of the same Branch such as anoseaiaal ( Cha. Upa .- III 11.3 ), दहरविद्या (Cha. Upa.VIII.1.1), उपकोशलविद्या ChaUpa.IV. 15.1), which all are ब्रह्मवदयs

The Opponent holds that because all these are sarfgens and because वीर्यसभृति and द्रुव्याति are ब्रह्मगुणs though mentioned in the Khila and not in the Upanisads, argia and asna should be added to the attributes of Brahman given in the safaats of the Upanişads. The Sūtrakara, according to Sankara, rejects the Opponent's view and argues that the qafaais of the Upanisads contain such attribules of Brahman as belong to the ādhidaivika

शङ्कर'S ABSURD पूर्वपक्षS IN HIS भाष्य ON प्र. सृ. III.3 273

aspect of Brahman, while the Khila mentions such attributes of Brahman as belong to the ādhyatmika aspect ( or abodes ) of Brahman.

In our opinion, the addition or collection ( upasamhara ) of the attributes of Brahman is meant for meditation on, or know- ledge of, Brahman; and Sankara does not distinguish betwoen the aspects of Brahman from the standpoint of ādhyätmika or adhidaivika attributes; rather he distinguishes only between jneya and upasya aspects of Brahman, there being no further sub-aspects of either of these two aspects, such as may be characterised by adhidaivika or adhyatmika attributes. There- fore, the argument that the attributes of the ddhidaivika aspect of Brahman cannot be mixed with or collected along with those of its adhyātmika aspect for the purpose of meditation is not consistent with Sankara's own doctrine and that of the Sūtra- kāra as interpreted by Sankara or is at least foreign to the doctrine usually taught by Sankara. In a further discussion, Saňkara admits that even mn the Chāndogya Upanısad passages, as in the Khila, we have ddhidaivika attributes, bnt he says that the group of adhidaivika attributes of the Upanisad and that of the Khila are exolusive of each other ( परस्परव्यावृत्तस्वरूपत्वात्). We believe, this is a very feeble defence of his position by Sankara. Sankara's other argument ( एकमपि हि ब्रह्म विभृतिभे देरनकधोपास्यत इति स्थिति:) gives rise to as many sects of the Vedanta School as there are fanfas of Brahman and strikes at the very root of the intention of the Sūtrakara, viz., to establish a Vedānta Darsana on tho basis of all the accepted revealed texts ( सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययं चोदनाद्यवशेषात। Bra.Su.III.3.1 ). As regards our interpretation of this Sutra, we bave shown that the Pūrvapaksa arises because it insists on the unanimity ( ekavākyatā ) of the Pūrvakanda ( which includes the Samhitā, Brāhmana, Araņyaka and Khila ) with the Uttarakanda ( i. e .. only the Upanisads ) in such a way that Brahman becomes the 35

274 शड्कर's ABSURD पूवपक्षs IN HIS भाष्य ON ब्र. या. III3

only goal of the entire Scripture. Bnt the Sutrakara accepts the authorty of only the Upanisads or the Uttarakanda for his Inquiry of Brahman and therefore drops even the attributes of Brahman in case they are mentioned in the works of the Pūrvakāņda.

(9) Bra Su.III.8.24. Here the Pūrvapaksa is represented by Sankara as misunderstanding the genitive forms in araafagi यज्ञस्य आत्मा यजमानः. He takes these forms as समानाधिकरणे षछूयौ and interprets the Sruti to mean that the faarge is himself the , while actually they are व्याधिकरणे बषयौ and the Sruti should be iterpreted as dealing with a Ta performed by a faan yor. We believe that the Purvapaksa could "have very casily understood the asafrsra of the genitive forms, because the Sruti mentions the Atman of the विद्वान्पुरुष: as the यजमान the Sacrificer and this clearly means that the Sruti speaks of a a5 performed by the विद्वान्. The two genative forms पुरुषस्य and यज्ञस्य do not at all require to be explaied. The Pūrvapaksa presented by Sankara is an unlikely one.

(10) Bra.Su,III.8.25. Sankara mentions a Purvapaksa arguing that when the Upanisad texts about rtuals occur very near the Upanişad texts about Brahmavidya, the rites of the former should be collected (upasamhriyeran) in the Brahmavidya of the latter, because the two teats are so near each other. In the hight of Sankara's bhasya, this view of the Opponent amounts to making rites part and parcel of Brahmavidya ( jnana ). Karman ( rites ) oan be help to jñana, but it is quite absurd to argue that Karman is part of jnana and should be mixed with jñana, when, as Sankara says, even the attributes of the two fanfas of Brahman were not allowed to be mixed together for the purpose of the meditation on Brahman. Here also, Sankara's Pūrva- paksa is too absurd to be likely.

(11) Bra.Sn.III.3.26. Sankara points out that with regard to # Brabmajñanin there are three types of Srutis: (1) One

शङ्कर'S ABSURD पूर्वेपक्षS IN HIS भाष्य ON ब्र. सू. III.3 275

declares that the knower of Brahman abandons his good and bad doeds which are then received by others; (2) another type of Sratis does not mention his getting rid of them but only the reception of good and bad deeds of the Brahmajñanin by others; (8) while the third type asserts that the Brahmajnanin abandons his good and bad deeds but says nothing about the same boing reccived by others. According to Sankara, the discussion here refers to only the third type of Srutis and the Opponent who is said to be curious (1) to know what happens of the good and bad deeds of the Brahmajnanin after he has abandoned them according to the texts with which he ( the Opponent ) is concerned, is made to conclude that no receiving of the good and bad deeds of the Jñanin should be taken as implied in the case of such Srutis as mention only their being got rid of by the knower of Brahman (तस्मादसंनिपाते हानावुपायनस्येति). The Opponent is made to give three argu- ments for his couclusion :- viz., (1) No 'receiving' is stated in these Srutis, (2) The other Srutis which mention 'receiving' refer to Vidyas other than the Brahmavidya, and (3) The 'abandonment' of good and bad deeds is an act done by the Jñanin, while 'their reception' is an act to be done by others than the Jñanin and therefore the former cannot imply the latter, because the two are not invariably connected. We believe, no Opponent will offer arguments like these be- cause what is essential here is the abandonment (aifa) and not reception (sqa) and because he will never believe that the Sruti mentioning both the abandonment and the recoption, deal with a person other than a Brahmajnanin since it is very clear. In fact, the Sutrakara as we have shownT7 does not at all disenss the question of the 3V47 siuce it is not essential to bis Inquiry of Brahman. The other interpretation of the Sütra given by Saukara in- volves a wrong explanation of fagaa ( shaking off, abandonment )

(77) Vide Notes on Bra.Su.IV.1.17.

276 शकर' S ABSURD पू्वपक्ष IN HIS भाष्य ON ब्र. सू. III.3

of the good and bad deeds of the Brahmajnanin, viz., arqa or चालन (i e., सुकृतदुष्कृतयोः कंचित्कालं फलप्रतिबन्धनाच्चालनम्). We suggest that Sankara would have hardly found an Opponent interpreting fayaa in the sense of 'making the good and bad deeds temporarily ineffeotive'.

(12) Bra.Su.III.3.27-28. We wonder by what method of interpretation the Kausitaki Sruti about the abandonment of tho good and bad deeds of a Jñanin during his halt at the Station- the River Viraja-on the Devayana be reconciled with the other Sruti teaching their abandonment as taking place simultaneously with the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman in this very world. No Pürvapaksa could have proposed to interpret the Kausitaki Sruti in such a way that its literal sense which is so clear would be totally given up. To us it appears that on such a question of minor importance as this, where the Srutis differ, the Sūtrakära gave complete independence to the followers of the Vedanta School and, therefore, did not try to reconcile the contradictory Srutis on these points, as he actually does with regard to the essential Srutis in Bra.Sū.II.

(18) Bra.Sn.III.8.29-30 Tbere is no invariable connection between the abandonment of the good and bad deeds of a knower of Brahman and the starting on the Devayana, because the abandonment may be followed in Sankara's School by no journey on the Devayana as is clear from Sankara's interpretation Of Srutis like अन्रैव ब्रह्म समश्रुते, न तस्य प्राणा हयुत्कामन्ति. Therefore, there is uo likelihood of a Pūrvapaksa of that nature. Sadkara quotes no Sruti to support his doubt.

Moreover, no Siddhanta believing in both the possibilty and the impossibility of the Devayana immediately followiug the abandonment is likely, because no option between mfd and amfa is given to the Jñanin by the Scripture, though, of course, either nfa or snfa is certain in his case.

शङ्र'S ABSURD पूर्वपक्षS IN HIS भाष्य ON ब्र. सू III.3 277

(14) Bra Su III.3.31. That Sankara later on78 finds it nece. ssary to amend the Siddhanta established by him under this Sutra shows, in our opinion, the impossibility of both the Purvapaksa and the Siddhanta disoussed by him under this Sūtra.

(15) Bra. Sū.III.3.34. This seems to us to be a caso of an absurd Siddhanta, and, therefore, of an impossible Purvapaksa. The Mondaka Sruti in question distinctly refers to Paramatman and the soul in transmigration while the Katha Sruti deals with Paramatman and the released soul ( Cf. Tai. Upa. II.1). But S'ankara takes both the S'rutis as dealing with Paramatman and the soul in bondage and then he thinks that a Pūrvapaksa can be raised about these two S'rutis, which will argue that the Vidyas taught in these S'rutis are different, though really they teach the same Vıdya. Such a Pūrvapaksa is not at all likely to have appeared, since the Katha S'ruti distinotly mentions the enjoyment of79 the Supreme Soul and the released soul and, thus, its topic is casily distinguished from that of the Mundaka Śruti.

(16) Bra. Su.III.3.35-86. The agreement between the Br. Upa. III,4.1 and III.5.1 is so olear and so complete that we do not believe, any opposition would have been raised on the ground of पुनरु्तिदोष in the S'ruti.

(17) Bra.Su IT1.3.38. The two passages Br.Upa. V.4.1 and V.6.2 are closely connected and also Br. Upa. V.5.1 mentions the satya Brahman which is mentioned in Br. Upa V.4.1 and V.5.2. We, therefore, believe that no Pürvapaksa interpreting these sections of the Br. Upa. as teaching different Vidyas is at all likely. Tho argument which S'ankara makes the Opponent put forward is not at all likely because it is very easy to see that qudierm is the फल of the सत्य्रह्मविद्या while 'हन्ति पाप्मानम्' is the फल of an अज्ज (a part)

(78) Vide his bhasya on Bra. SI.IV.3.15, (79) Vide Bra.Su,IV.4.21 for the enjoyment.

278 TST'S ABSURD YO&TS IN HIS HISH ON A. W. IIT.3

of that Vidya Moreover, in his bhasya on Bra.Su.III.3.20-22 S'ankara takes it granted that Br. Upa. V.5 discusses the same rsa as in V. 4; therefore also the topic of Bra.Su.III.3.38 seems to be not likely to be discussed here. (18) Bra.Su.IIL.3.89. S'ankara says that Cha. Upa. VIII.1. 1-VIII.1.5 and Br. Upa.IV.4.22 are discussed here. According to him the Opponent wants to know whether these two texts teach the same Vidya or not; or, rather, the Opponent argues that they do not teach the same Vidya while the Siddhäntin establi- shes that they teach the same Vidya. But S'ankara's remarks at the end of his bhasya on the Sutra show that the Siddhanta agrees with the Opponent that the two passages do not teach also the same Vidya. How can a Purvapaksa with which the Siddhanta fully agrees, be taken as a lıkely Parvapaksa ?

(19) Bra.Su.III.3.40-41. A grhastha must perform afaia in his housebold sacred fires; but only one who takes his meal and does not fast can be obliged by the Seripture to perform what is enlled malr. S'ankara, however, makes the Opponent argue that even if a Tara is to fast, he must perform ffral even with whatever drink he may take.80 He makes the Opponent depend npon the Jābāla S'ruti. We believe, the Purvapaksa view is quite absurd here and the Opponent would never resort to the Jabala S'rnti which is very clear inasmuch as it is clearly meant for one who eats and does not fast. So, the conclusion (तरमाङ्गो- जनलोपे लोप एव प्राणाग्निहोत्रस्य ) is a superfluous one, not being at all doubted by any reasonable Opponent.

(20) Bra.Sü.III.3.42. We hold that the visuyavakya ( Cha. Upa.I.1.L .- I 1.10) is so clear that nobody would doubt the efficacy of wat done with the knowledge of the mystic meaning of the rite (कमाश्रयविज्ञान ) and the greater efficacy of कर्मनs done with the same farr and therefore, it is not likely that there wouldbe any

(80) भोजनकपेडपि अबिवाडन्येन वा द्रव्येणा विरेदन प्रतिनिधानन्यायेन प्राणाग्निहोत्रस्यानुष्ठानमिति।

शङ्र'S ABSURD पूर्वपक्षS IN HIS भाप्य ON ब्र. सू, III.3 ,279

Opponent arguing that these विज्ञानs or विद्याs about उद्दीादि कर्मनs are नित्य or obligatory (not अनित्य or काम्य). The Sutrakara himself does not think such a discussion of the obligatory or voluntary nature of the secret sense of the rites to be at all necessary in his book, though undoubtedly he takes it granted that the passage (Oha. Upa I.1.10) is eaily understood by every body to mean that whatever rites (अिहोन्रादि नित्य कर्मनs or even others which may be called नैमितिक or काम्य, i. e., 'voluntary') are dono by a मुमुझु iththe mystical explanation, produce better result, viz., they work for the attainment of the Moksa for which the knowledge of Brahman is the chief means. 81 If, as Sankara himself remarks . the authers of the Kalpasutras do not care to discuss these -A about the rites in their books, why should the Sūtrakara or his Opponent who is mainly concerned with the Brahmn- vidya, unlike Jaimini who cared for Karman, raise a question about these, knowing that the FHiaammf do not mean the Bra- hmavidyā at all ?

(21) Bra.Sū.III.3.43. According to Sankara, this Sūtra deals with Br.Upa.I.5.21 and Cha. Upa.IV.31-2, which mention (1) अध्यात्मं वागादाना प्रण: श्रेष्ठ: and (2) अधिदैवमग्न्यादीनां वायुः श्रेष :. The Opponent is represented by Sankara as arguing that Vayu and Prana must be understood as identical because the two are essentially one element.82 We take this Purvapaksa as unlikely because (1) from the two Upanisadic passages in question it is quite clear that the Vayu and the Prana are not to be taken as identical so far as the meditation on them and their angas, four in each case, are concerned and because (2) the argument of the identity of the element' (ararar) would ultimately obliterate the distinction made so often throughout our philosophical texts between the अध्यात्म and अधिदेव aspects of the elements (तत्त्वs', Moreover, Sankara is not able to establish a correct Siddhanta by a correct and

(81) Sūtra IV.1.18 and III.4.4,10. (82) तत्र संशय :- कि पृथगेवेमौ वायुप्राणावुपगन्तव्यो स्यातामपृथगवेति। अपूभगेंवेति तावस्प्राप्तं तत्वाभदात्। Sa. bhasya on the Sutra. See Bra.Su,II.4.

280, शङ्कर'S ADSURD पूर्वपक्षS IN HIS भाष्य ON ब्र. सू. III.3

clear interpretation of 'nanaa' and 'agma', and this fact itself is, in our opmion, a proof that the Opponent here does not argue in the way he is assumed to have done by Sankara. (22) Bra.Si.II1.3 44-52. Here is a very important group of Sutras as we shown in our Notes in Part I. Sankara, however, takes these nine Sutras as dealing with a question whether the 36,000 fires mentioned in the Agnirahasya text of the Satapatha Brahmana are subsidiary to the rites (क्रियानुप्रवेशिन:) or are of the nature of a Vidya (faaia:), i e., independent of the ritual. The Opponent holds that they are farrafa: and Sankara establishes the Siddhanta that they are fagiast:, being not connected with wia as subsidiary to the latter, * Sankara depends upon the words fmnaa; and other arguments based upon the text. We believe, faanfea : cannot mean that the fires are not subsidiary to saz. We beg to suggest that here the Opponent seems to be right if we examine the entire Agnirahasya passage which forms the visayavakya. For this very reason, Sankara seems to us to be mistaken in presenting the Purvapaksa here, because here the Sutrakara does not regard the arguments of the Opponent as incorrect and hence does not refute them, though he rejects the view of the Opponent. (28) Bra.Sn.III.3.55-56. Sankara makes the Opponent argue that amisnamas, the mystical interpretations of the Udgitha and other rites in each Sakha of the Veda, are different from those in all others Sakhas, because the accent, etc., of the texts of the Udgitha and other rites are different in all Sakhas. 83 We think, this is a lame exouse for a Pürvapaksa to differ from the Siddhanta and, therefore, not a probable Pūrvapaksa at all. Sankara in his bhāsya on Bra.Sü.III.3.56 does not even care to reply to this absurd argument of the Opponent. (21) BraSuII.8.57. Cha. Upa. V.11.1-V.18. 2 (a faar) is tho visayavakya according to Sankara. Here Sankara make the,

S'ankara's bhasya on Bra. Su,III.3.55.

शक्कर'S IMPOSSIBLE पूर्वपक्ष IN ब्र. सू. II1.3.58 281

Opponent argue in favour of a view for which each of the six pupils has been severely rebuked by Aśvapati Kaikeya, viz., the view that हु, आदित्य, चायु, etc., are, each of them taken singly, the whole of the Vaisvanara Atman and not one anga of that Atman. ( Sankara calls this view the doctrine of aalras). We believe that Sankara would have found no student of Vedanta " to represent the Pürvapaksa, because it is the very view for continuing the belief in which Aśvapati pronounces a sovere punishment. The probable Purvapaksa would be either ardiqas in which each one of a, snfeer, etc., is understood to be only one part of the Vaisvanara Atman or qa in which the Vaisvanara Atman with all its parts is believed to be the only object of meditation. The Siddhantin, in reply to either of the two Purvapaksas would be lying down that "the more the number of the parts of the Vaisvanara Atman, the higher the efficacy of the meditation itself". In any case, to make a Pūrvapaksa represent a doctrine which is the very subject of criticism in a particular Sruti is to disouss an impossible or absurd opposition. (25) Bra.Su.III.3.58. We believe that what Sankara gives here as the Purvapaksa view ( तस्मात्खपरशाखिहितमकवद्यव्यपाश्रयं गुणजात- मुपसंहृर्तव्यं विद्याकात्स्न्यायेति) is the natural and necessary corollary of the doctrine of Bra.Su.III.3.1 and this corollary is actually taught by the Sutrakara in Sutra III.3.5 ( उपसहारोऽथाभदाद्विधिशेषवत् ). The Sūtrakara himself has taken the trouble to collect the attributes of the two aspects of Brahman, viz., 59a4 and soaa, in Bra.Su.I.1-8 and in Bra.Su,III.3.11 and III.8.87-89 he has himself revealed his scheme of Bra.Su.I.1-3 (Bee our Notes in Part I). The fact that the Sūtrakara makes on Darsana or Philosophical School out of all the authentic Upa- nisads is itself enough to prove that according to him the same Brahman (n.) is taught in all the Sakhas of all the Vedas and

282 शङ्कर'S IMPOSSIBLE पूर्वपक्ष IN ब्र. सू. III.3.59

is to be meditated npon as such and this meditation would be practically carried out only by collecting all the attributes of Brahman from the different Upanisads of all the Vedas. So San- kara's Pürvapakșa here is rather the Siddhānta of the Sūtrakāra. Sankara's Siddhanta would mean that no central system would be evolved out of a union of all the Upanisadic sects which would for all practical purposes remain disunited. His argument for this Siddhanta that tho word (asg) is different in all the Upanisadic texts is also very weak. He says that the expressions 'ae', 'smdla', 's %d gafa' have each of them a quite different meaning. "The Opponent " here is quite correct in pointing out that these expressions differ only in word, but not in sense (ननु वेदेत्यादिषु शन्दभेद एवावगम्यते नक्जी ्यदिवर् े ) His Siddhantin's reply to this view ( मनोवृत्त्यर्थत्वाभेदेऽयनुबन्धभेददव्विद्यभेदे सति बिद्याभेदोपपत्तेः) is too weak to be accepted by anybody except a dualist or a pluralist. It is due to this absurdity underlying both his Pūrva- paksa and Siddhanta that Sankara is led to a further conclusion that this Sutra (Bra.Su,III.3.58) should be regarded as mention- ing a rule which ought to have been mentioned at the very beginning of the Pada (Bra.Su.III.3) i. e. before Bra. Su.III.8.1 (स्थित चैतस्मिन्नधिकरणे सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययमित्यादि द्रष्टव्यम्). (26) Bra.Su.III.3.59. Sankara has established in his bhāsya on Bra.Su.III.3.58 that all the Upanisadic texts teach different faas and that therefore there should be no collection of all the attributes of Brahman from all these texts. Sankara's interpretation of Bra.Su.III.3.59 is such that he seems to reopen the topic settled and decided already in the previous Stra. Moreover, the Pūrvapaksa is her made to argue that from among all the various vidyds which all have a common aim, viz., the realization of God, the meditator may have 'amuspan', i. e., complete independence of choice between that of resorting to many vidyas (i. e. qgra) at one and the same time, and that of selecting only one according to his desire and resorting to only that one. The Siddhantin then replies that

शङ्कर'S IMPOSSIBLE पूर्वपक्ष IN ब्र. सू. III.4.1-17 283

the agaa if resorted to would be a cause of disturbance in the mind ( faraarued ) and finally an obstacle to the realization of Brahman, the very aim; and that, therefore, only one faat out of so many should be selected by a meditator. After the decision arrived at in Bra. Su.III.3.58 the Opponent's arguments for E and the Siddhantin's reply of fanaay seem to ns to be not convincing at all.

The following Purvapaksa and Siddhanta views from Sankara's commentary on Bra.Su.III.4 deserve to be examined before they are accepted as probable :- (1) Bra.Su.III.4.1-17. Here the Pūrvapaksa of Jaimini ( Bra. Su.III.4.2 ) as presented by the Sutrakara is that the lnowledge ( of Brahman ) is subsidiary to the sacrifice and, therefore, the reward of knowledge is called 'the Aim of the human life' in a secondary sense. But Sankara represonts the Purvapaksa argument in this Sutra to be that the individual soul is subsidiary (a4) to the sacrifice in so far as he is the agent.84 Moreover, the Siddhanta of Badarayana seems to us to be that the knowledge is not subsidiary to the sacrifice and therefore the Aim of the human life is primarily achieved by means of the knowledge of Brahman. But Sankara represents the Siddhanta to be that the khowledge (Vidya) alone is the means of attaining Brahman65. Here Sankara seems to us to ovorlook the possibility, and, as far as we can interpret the Sutra, the fact, that Badarayana regards the knowledge of Brahman as the means of Liberation, but he at the same time, regards certain actions, viz., the actions of the Sacrifice, religious gifts and penance (Br.Upa. IV.4.22, Bra.Su.III.4.26-27) and the duties of the orders of life (Bra.Su.III.4.32) as helps to that knowledge (Bra.Sn.III.4.33, III.4.34. Vide our interpretation of these Sutras). As there is

(84) कर्तृत्वेन आत्मन: शेषत्वात् is Sankara's explanation of शेषत्वात in Bra Su.III.4.2. (85) Cf. (a) श्ुतिः केवलायाः विद्याया: पुरुषार्यहेतुत्वं आवयति-Sa.bha. on Bra.Su.III.4.1 (b) केवलाच्चेज्ज्ञानात् पुरुपार्थामद्ि: स्यात्-Sabha. on Bra.Su.III.4.3.

284 शङ्कर' IMPOSSIBLE पूर्वपक्षS IN ब्र. सू. II1.418-22

no word (in Sutra III.4.1) suggesting that the Vidya alone is the means to Liberation, we believe, Sankara is not right in adding such a word, viz., (aast), in his inter pretation. Thus, Sankara seems to us to have presented correctly neither the Pūrvapaksa nor the Siddhanta in Bra.Su.III.4.1-17.

(2) Bra.Su.III.4.18-20. Sankara takes these Sutras as giving Jaimini's Purvapaksa about the orders oflife (areras), other than that of the house-holder, being only referred to in the Srutis in question, but not laid down therem. We have suggested else- where in this book that it is not likely that a Pürvapaksa about the orders with no reference to their connection with the knowledge of Brabman is found in the Brahmasutra. Here we only wish to point out that while Sankara represents Jaimini as offering a Pürvapaksa on the point, he makes him forget or neglect, for the time being, an important Sruti, viz., the Jabala Sruti,86 the recollection of which would never have made him take up a view against the Sūtrakara. As Sankara himself regards the Jabala Sruti as taken to be one of the authoritative revealed texts (Sa.bhasya on Bra.Su.IV.1.1), we believe that the Pūrva- paksa presumed by him in these Sutras is not at all a likely one.

(3) Bra.Su.III.4.21-22. Here, again, Sankara thinks that the disenssion is about some parts of the Sacrifice ( *iaifa ), which we do not think to be possible in a book on the Inquiry about Brahman, unless the parts of the Sacrifice be such as are indirectly connected with Brahman (Cha. Upa.I.11.4-5, Bra.Sü .- III3.32). Moroover, it may be added here that there is no possibility of a Pürvapaksa holding that these Srutis mention stuti 'mere praise' of the aaiu and the other parts of the sacrifice, because the word "sqrdla" in Cha. Upa.I.1.1 is very clear about the meaning of the Sruti, viz., that the meditation on, the Udgitha is the very teaching of the text and not 'mere

(86) Cf ननु बहाचर्यादेव प्त्नजेदिति विस्पष्टमिद प्रत्यक्ष पारिव्राज्यविधानं जाबालानाम्।' सत्यमेवै- बमेसत। अनपेक्ष्य स्वेता अ्रतिमर्य विचार इति द्रष्टव्यम्। Sa. bha, on Bra.Su.III.4,18.

शक्कर'S IMPOSSIBLE पूदपक्षs IN न्र. सू. III.4.25-31 285

praise.' The Purvapaksa is represented by Sankara as basing its arguments upon a comparison of the Cha, Upa. text with a Sruti (probably a Brähmana text). We must admit that we do not think ourselves fully competent to discuss the correctness of an argument ad vanced on the basis of some illustrations given from the Mimansa; yet we may be allowed to record our opinion that a comparison of the two texts (the Cha.Upa. and the Brahmana) in question shows that the absence of sqdia in the Brahmana text is quite easily noticeable. (4) Bra.Sü. III.4.25-27. Sankara finds that the Siddhanta established in Sutra 25 as interpreted by him is in conflict with the same as established in Sutra 26. He finds out a solution of this conflict between the two Siddhantas by distinguishing between the rise of the knowledge and the achievement of the Fruit of the knowledge. 87 Though Sankara may be right in making this distinction in his own system, we beg to state that the Sutras in question do not seem to us to contain the slightest suggestion for this distinction. The real cause of the clear confict between the two Siddhantas lies in the Pürvapaksa imagined by Sankara, viz., the knowledge of Brahman requires absolutely no help in the form of the preformance of the duties of the orders of life.

(5) Bra.Su.III.4.28-81. According to Śańkara, Sūtra 28 discusses the question whether eaianau is laid down as a faunr- fafr or as a tafa. We do believe that this Adhikarana disousses the question of a seeker of the knowledge of Brahman being allowed to eat all food or food of all persons (saiw). But according to Sankara, the Opponent argues that "because the seeker seeks the knowledge of Brahman or has got the knowledge of the particular agu form of Brahman, he need not observe "the rule of food allowed and prohibited" (). We doubt, if

(87) ननु विरुद्धमिद वचनमपेक्षते चाश्रमर्कमाणि विद्या नापेक्षते चेति। नेति जूम:। उत्पनना दि चिद्या फलसिंद्धिं प्रति न किचिदन्यदपेक्षते उत्पत्ति प्रति रपेक्षते 1-S% bha. on Bra. Sũ.TII.4.26,

286 शङ्कर'S IMPOSSIBLE पूवपक्षS IN ब्र. सू. III.4.32-39

any genuine seeker of the knowledge of, or any real knower of Brahman would ever hold such a view about the ethics and morality of the Vedanta School, as the Pūrvapaksa is here suppos- ed by Śankara to do. Sankara's reference to the Vidya of Vāmadova (Cha. Upa.II.13.2) does not seem to us to be satis- factory. Looking to the context we believe that the real reason (हेतु) of the Opponent for his conclusiou of सवोत्नानुमति was that he took the acquisition of the control of mind (IH), control of senses (an,) etc. " (Sūtra III.4.27) to be a qualification which was sufficient to give to the seeker of Liberation an exemption from the Scriptural rle of food allowed and prohibited. Thus, the hetu of the Pūrvapaksa according to Sankara in Sūtra III.4. 28 seems to be an impossible one.

(6) Bra.Sü.III.4.32. We wonder, if ever a house-holder in Hinduism dare ask or deny that he should perform the obligatory duties (fesnifo) even though he may not seek the Vidya of Brahman. For this simple reason, the Purvapaksa presented by Sankara seems to us to be impossible. Moreover, though the present writer does not feel fully competent to disouss the illustration of the rite other than the obligatory ara from the text of the Kundapayins given by Sankara, he is inclined to doubt how a Purvapaksa be found, who would think that the ana which being an enaw waa is recommended by tbe Sutrakara as a help to the Vidya is in nature something else than the usual obligatory अभिहोन. The very fact that it is the आश्रमकर्मन् proves that it is nothing else but the usual obligatory anar rite. Thus, Sankara's doubt in his commentary on Bra.Sū, III.4.84 seems to be an impossible one. (7) Bra.Su.III.4.86-39. Sańkara's Pūrvapaksa view here is based upon the fact that the duties which the Sutrakara regards as help to the knowledge of Brahman in the achievement of the goal of liberation, are regarded by him as only faara, i.e., as means to knowledge as distinguished from the fruit of that knowledge ( liberation ). Thus, hıs Pürvapaksa here is made to

S'S IMPOSSIBLE TnTS IN T. U. II1.4.40-43 287

look possible if we accept his own distinction between faartaife and विद्याफलप्रापि, and not upon the statement in any of the Sutras. (8) Bra.Su.III.4.40. Here the Purvapaksa is reasonable while the Siddhanta seems to us to be absurd. The Pürvapaksa holds that one who has reached any stage of the celibates (a7aH) viz., the stage of a religious student, the stage of a hermit or the stage of an ascetic, is hable to suffer 'a moral fall'. But the Siddhanta is made to assert that there is no possibility of a moral fall of an Satau. This Siddhanta is impossible, as can be easily seen even from Sankara's interpretation of Bra.Su. III.4. 41-42. (9) Bra. Sü.III.4.41-43. Here Sankara makes an Opponent quote a text in which only an ordmary celbate, i. e., an ordinary religious student is mentioned, while he is represented as arguing that a life-long religious student who breaks his vow of celibacy cannot wash off his sin by performing an atonement. This Opponent also refutes the view of Jaimini 'about the possibility of an atonement in Jai.Su. VI.8.21, even. though this passage mentions only an ordinary Brahmacarin and not a life- long one. The only text that really lends support to this Opponent is a Smrti. While establishing the Siddhanta, it is stated by Sankara that the Siddhanta is the view of only some teachers; so that this Siddhanta is not a complete denial of the Pürvapaksa, as is usually the case. Moreover, the Opponent discusses the case of a life-long celibate who violates his vow by intercourse with any woman, while the Siddhanta expresses his opinion only with reference to a life-long celibate whose sin consists of an intercourse with any woman other than the teacher's wife. Lastly, Sutra 48 is interpreted to mean that the Sutrakara would inflict the same punishment, viz., excommu- nication, indifferent of the fact whether the violation of the vow of celibacy ( of the three orders of life ) is considered to be 'n great sin' ( ras,:for which no atonement is possible ) or 'a secondary sin' (s9wa5, which admits of the possibility of an

288 VET'S IMTOSSIBLE 9S IN H. H. III.4.44-49

atonement). All this seems to us to prove that the Opponent here holds a view which cannot be tefuted and that therefore he is not a likely Opponent. For our interpretation see Part I. (10) Bra.Su.III.4.44 -- 46. Though the Scriptures always state that the priests are to be selected and employed by one who is to perform a sacrifice, the Opponent here is said to be one who holds that the sacrificer must himself perform certain meditations which are parts of the sacrifice. The Siddhantin easily draws the attention of the Opponent to the fact that priests are employed on the promise of a payment of fee for the entire sacrifice. We believe, this topic cannot find a place in the Brahmasutra, unless it is shown that it has some connect- ion with the knowledge of Brahman and with the seeker of that knowledge. Moreover, the Opponent here is represented to be ignorant of even the primary knowledge of the Ritualism.

(11) Bra.Sh.III.4. 47 -- 49. Here the simple word 'gf' which usually means a sage, who is an ascetic, is interpreted in the unusual sense of 'perfect knowledge (afaaa) by Sankara's Opponent. Then, he is told by the Siddhantin that if one has knowledge he is sure to get, in due course, perfection in that knowledge; and such being the case he is asked by the Siddhänt- in, "Why should there be an Injunction for the perfect know- ledge as distinguiahed from the Injunction for knowledge ?" The Opponent is at this stage made to argue that this special Injunction for perfect knowledge of which he is a staunch upholder is meant for a seeker in whose case the perception of duality is so strong that his knowledge is never able to become perfect knowledge.88 We doubt, if the knowledge which is not likely of its own accord to become perfect in due course would ever become so by reason of Injunction.

(88) ननु सति विद्यावत्वे प्राप्नोत्येव तन्रातिशयः कि मौनविधिनेत्यत आह-पक्षेणेति। पतडुक भवति-यास्मिन्पक्ष मेदद्शनप्राबल्यान्न प्राप्मोति तस्मितैष विधिरिति ।-Sa bha on Bra. Sü, III. 4. 47.

शङ्कर's IMPOSSIBLE पूर्वपक्षS IN व्र सू. III.4.50-61 289

In Bra.Su. III 4.48-49, the Opponent who provisionally admits the order of renunciation is made to argue that the Srut has great regard for the order of a householder because the Cha. Upa. closes its topic with the mention of the householder's stage of life (Cha. Upa VIII. 15. 1). The Siddhantin, according to Sankara's interpretation replios that the householder's stage is the one in which a man is asked to do many duties which are full of great trouble and so he forms the concluding topie of the famous Vedanta text. We fail to see the signifcance of this disoussion so far as the Opponent's view of a special Injunction is concerned. Moreover, Sankara's interpretation of Sutra 49, involves an unusual or rather absurd meaning of qr.89 (12) Bra. Su. III.4.50. Sankara interprets the Sūtra as discu- ssing the meaning of aiea in Br. Upa. III.5.1. Here the Opponent is made to hold the view that the seeker of the knowledge of Brahman is asked by the Sruti to behave like a child, i. e., to move, to speak, and to eat at his own whim and to give out urine and excrement in the very place where he feels the nature's call. The Opponent holds this view as against the view that ae4 should be interpreted to mean that a sceker of Brahman should have purity of mind, should be devoid of fraud, pride, etc., and should avoid those things which a man whose senses are fully developed would do (अप्ररूढन्द्रियत्व). This पूर्वपक्ष is rather a very strange view about the hygiene of the Vedanta, just as the Pūrvapaksa view in Sūtra III. 4. 28 was a strange one about the morality of the Vedanta. (18) Bra.Sü.lII.4.51. Here the Opponent, who must be taken as the believer in the doctrine of the cyole of births and rebirths, is made to argue that the achievement of the knowledge of Brahman which one seeks must in all cases take place in this very birth of the seeker, and the Siddhantin is miade to hold that it is only in a few cases in which there is nothing to impede

(89) इतरेषामिति दये: आश्रमयोः बहुवचनं वृत्तिभेदापेक्षयाऽनुष्ठातृभेदापेक्षया वेति द्रष्टव्यम्।

37 S'ã, bhã. on Bra. Sū, III, 4. 49.

290 REMARKS ON THE 3IA-METHOD OF INTERPRETATION

the operation of the means of the knowledge which the seeker pursues in this world. One of the arguments of the Opponent is that no seeker of the knowledge starts with the aim of achiev- ing the knowledge in the next birth and the Siddhantin is made to reply that it is not always so because a seeker should have freedom about his aim of achieving the knowledge in this life or in the next. We believe that the aim of the attainment of the Vidya in the duration of a single life in the case of all seekers is not a likely Pūrvapaksa.

We may conclude by saying that we may not be correct in all the examples given by us to illustrate these defects," " as we have called them, of Sankara, and that we may not have our- selves escaped from committing similar mistakes. But, inspite of such a possibility, our general conclusions about these blemishes will be found to be valid and that is why we have devoted one chapter to the subject of the method of interpreta- tion of Sankara. Moreover, Sankara, as an Acarya, enjoyed the latitude allowed to philosophical systematisation.90 In any case, we do not hold that the Upanisads do not allow themselves to be systematised, because we do hold that underlying all the principal Upanisads there is the chief doctrine of Advaita; and so if an Acarya attempts the task, we do not think, it would be impossible for him to accomplish the same fairly and honestly. This of course does not mean that he would not commit mistakes like those discussed in this Chapter. But a modern scholar may avoid some of these mistakes if he carefully applies the modern critical method to the Sutras while interproting them, as we shall see in the next chapter.

(90) About the extent of this latitude vide K. C. Bhattacharyya, Studies in Vedantism, PP. VI-VIII.

CHAPTER 11. METHOD OF INTERPRETATION : SOME SUGGESTIONS.

The necessity to make some definite rules regarding the method of interpretation of our Seripture was at the bottom of the origin of the Jaiminisutra and has been felt by every commentator. Sabara's words 1 on this question at the very beginning of his commentary on the Jaiminisutra are indeed inspired by the realization of the same necessity. Thibaut while admiring the clearness and conciseness of other darsana sutras complains that "Altogether different is the case of the two Mimansasutras. There scarcely one single Sūtra is intelligible without a commentary because the most essential words are habitually dispensed with and the phrasiology is so eminently vague and obscure." In these words of the great pioneer of the critical study of the Brahmasutra in modern age we find him registering his protest against the method of interpretation followed by the commentators rather than a protest against the author or authors of the Sutras themselves, (la) Professor Strauss calls the method of the Sutrakara and Sankara "system-making orthodx" in contrast to the modern "historicocritical method". He adds that the old method is system-maling because it works with the conception of the unanimity of the Scripture and orthodox, because, it on the one hand pertains to the cultural

(1) लोके येष्वर्थेषु प्रसिद्धानि पदानि तानि सति संभवे तदथान्येव सूत्रेष्वित्यवगन्तव्यम् नाध्याहारादिभिरेषां परिकल्पनीयोऽर्थ : परिभाषितव्यो वा। एवं वेदवाक्यान्येवैभिर्व्याख्यायन्ते, इतरथा वेदवाक्यानि व्याख्येयानि स्वपदार्थाश्र व्याख्यया इति प्रयत्नगौरवं प्रसज्येत। S'abara's Introduction to his bhasya on Jal.Su.I.1.1. (1a) Radhakrishnan also holds the view that the Sūtra of Badarāyapa reflects the indecision and vagueness of the Upanifads. Vide his Indian Philosopby, Vol.II, P.444,

292 DIFFICULTIES IN INTERPRETING THE SUET.

need which we can know only from the commentaries of Sańkara and Ramanuja and, on the other hand, because it strictly follows the principles of the PurvamImansa. Professor Ghate enume- rates some of the great diffculties which are sure to stand in the way of any effort to reconstruct the original sense of the Sutras.2 He also makes the suggestion that we should apply to the Sutra the critical method as distinguished from the traditional method apphed by several commentators.

Professor Ghate explains the critical method as a method which presupposes an attitude of absolute unpartiality, considering the work by itself without a leaning to any one particular dootrine. He says that the essentials of this method are given in the following verse, which is quoted in the Sarvadarsanasamgraha and ascribed to the Brhatsambita :-

अर्थवादोपपत्ती च लिङ्नं तात्पर्यनिणये।।

We may say that partly it is this method which Thibaut, Mr. Teliwala and Professor Ghate have applied to the Brahmasutra in their enquiries. But, as Professor Ghate admits, the com- mentators also knew this method and claimed to have used it themselves. In fact, the method pursned by all of them con- sists in (1) interpreting each Adhikarana by itself, (2) consider- ing what other Acdryas or interproters of the Sutras have said on that Adhikarana and (3) examining whether the Sruti quoted under a particular Sutra by an Acarya has the same sense when interpteted in the light of the context in the Upanisad from which it is quoted.

(2) These diffculties are (1) the very concise nature of Sutra literature m genoral, in which many words have to be supphed from the context, (s) the difficulty to decide which Sutras contain the Purvapaksa and which the Siddhanta, (8) No division into Adhikaranas unammously accepted has come down to us, (4) there is no pada-patha handed down by an authortative tradition, (5) the fact that the Upanisad passages under discussion are not actually mentioned in the Sutras. Vide The Vedanta by V. S. Ghate, PP, 44-49,

THE aa4 cannot have more than one sense 203

We neither deny nor do we belittle the utility of the above line of argument adopted for arriving at the exact sense of the Sutras, because this task is to difficult to allow us to disregard any help that we may get from any source. But looking to the fact that the same method is used by the ancient Acaryas and modern scholars with quite contradictory couclusions, we feel that the method is not sufficient for the achievement of its aim.

Wo do not believe that the Sutras were meant to be 'ommfac- ed' in the sense of being capable of being interproted in various senses ad libitum.s It is never possible that the Sūtrakara should have more than one system in his mind The Sūtras are not written in the style of works like the Raghavapandavīyam so that they may be interpreted in favour of both the Kevalād- vaita of Sankara and the Dvaita of Madhva Also we hold that the Sutrakära had a definite division of Adhikaranas, though it has not been preserved in course of time. We believe that when the Sutras were originally composed, they were never vague and that therefore they did not then require the help of "a volumin- ous commentary" for being understood. In order to get at this original sense of the Sutras we should not proceed by asking ourselves, "How far Sankara truly represents the view of the auther of the Brahmasutra?" Nor should it be from the vory start our object to see which, if any, of so many interpretations, has faithfully represented the natural and straightforward meaning of the original. Nor, even should we begin our work by putting before us the quostion, "How far does the author of the Brahmasutra represent correct-

(3) Ghate refers to the words farirger' m the famous delnition of a Sūtra :-- अल्पाक्षरमसघिग्धं सारवद्विश्वतामुखम्। अस्तोभमनवद्यं च सूत्रं सू्त्रावदो विङ्ठः ॥ Dr Belvalkar explains far as "having a universal appplication". We agree with him.

294 A FRESH METHOD, SUGGESTED

ly the views of the chief Upanisads ?" We think, the solution of these and similar questions can be satisfactorily had only at a later stage. We should take up such questions only after fixing the sense of the Brahmasutra as a whole.

The first stage should be that of studying the Sutras intensively and internally. Instead of going from Upanisads to the Sntras, as most probably the earlier Acaryas didtor instead of going from Upamsads, the Gita and one or two Puranas to the Sūtras as was done by some of the later Acaryas, or also instead of going from the commentators to the Sūtrakara as modern scholars have done, we should go from the Sūtrakara to the Upanisads. After the necessary preliminary knowledge of the Brahmasutra we should repeatedly read only the Sutras and when we get some idea of the sense of a Sutra from its context etc., we should consult the Upanisads in order to find out the Sruti referred to by the Sutra. We should, for the time being set aside the belief in the unanimity (ekavakyata) of the three Prasthanas, in the correctness of the commentary of any particular Acarya, and also in the form in which we have been accustomed to think of this unanimity from our preliminary study. We should first try to go deep into the Sūtras them- selves and only at a second stage should we reopen and consult a commentary or commentaries.

If we adopt the above line of research we should take up the following points for study :- (1) We should inquire whether the Sūtrakara, in the course of his work, anywhere refers to what he himself has said in the preceding portion of his work itself. . We meet with several (about eight in number) Sūtras in which we find the expression 'aswy', 'It has been said'. By comparing what has been said on the same problem in the fore- gone portion of the Brahmasnitra, we should try to make out whether the reference is to the Brahmasutra or to any other work.

तदुकमू REFERS TO THE ब्रह्मसूत्र ITSELF 295

As a result of this inquiry, the present writer has come to the conclusion that 'agmy' always refers to what the Sutrakara himself has said in the respective earlier portion of his work. We only give here a summary of the result. The arguments are given (in Part I) in our Notes on the respective Sūtras.

The taduktam The Sutra The topic in The reference

Sūtra referred to both the Sutras according to Śańkara. उभयव्यपदे शात्वहिकुण्ड- Brabman has लवतू। III.2.27 two different na- न वा प्रकरणभेदातपरो- तु तदपि। III.3.8. वरीयस्त्वादिवत्। mes, अव्यक्त and Bra.Sū.III.3.7 पुरुप

2. हानो तूपायनशब्द- The collection शेपवत्समाने च। तदुक्त द्वादशलक्षण्याम्- जषत्वात् कुशाछन्द- of the information "अपि तु वाक्यशेषत्वा- स्तुत्युपगानवत् तदु- III.3.5 of meditation on दितरप्युदास: स्यात्। क्मू। III.3.26 Brahman from the प्रतिपेधे विकल्प: स्यात्।" different Branch- es of the Veda.

3. अक्षरधियां त्ववरोध: इतरे त्वर्थसामान्यात्। The thoughts तदुक्त प्रथम काण्द गुण- आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभा- or attributes of ुख्यव्यततिक्रमे तदर्थत्वा- मोपसदवत्तदुक्तम्। वातू आात्मशब्दाच। the Immutable न्मुख्येन वेदसंयोग: ।

Bra.Su.III.3. III.3.13-15. are not required जै० सू० III.3.8.

33. for the meditation on the अरूपवत् or the रूपवत् aspect of Brahman, 4. प्रधानवदेव तदुक्तम् (We have changed The method of तदुक संकर्मे नाना वा a 1 III.3.16 meditation on the देवता पृथरजानास। प्रदानवद् to प्रधान अरूपवत् or प्रधान as- बद.) III.3.43 peet and the रूपवत् or पुरुष aspect of Brahman is the same, viz., that of अहग्रह or आत्मग्रह (=अहूं ब्रह्मास्मि).

34. अनुबन्धादिभ्य: प्रज्ञा- 'धुरुष" is an in- न्तरपृथत्तववद् दृष्टश्र- दृष्टेः पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्धः तदुक्त प्रथमे काण्डे कत्वथा dependent aspect फलम् ।III.3.42. of Brahman quite मिति चेन वर्णनयसंयो-

(We read पृथग्ध्य प्रति- different from the गात्। जै० सू० X1.4.7 बन्ध: for पृथग्ध्यप्रति- प्रधान or अरुपवत् as- बन्घ :. pect of Brahman.

296 A STUDY OF TITE बहुव्रीहि COMPOUNDS IN न्र. सू

6. उपपूर्वमपि त्वेके भाव- सर्वान्नानुमतिश्च प्राणात्यगे The question of तदुक्तं परथमे लक्षणे - मशनवत्तदुक्तम्। तददर्शनात्। IIJ.4.28 आपदम .- A monk 'समा विप्रतिपत्तिः IIT.4.42 may do priestly duties at a sacri- रयात्।'जै० सू० I.3.8. fice; a seeker may रानसस्य वा तन्निमित्त- oat all kinds of food; both those त्वान्। जै० सू० I.89

options, when there is otherwise the danger of los- ing one's life. Besides these, 'agmq' occurs in two more Sūtras, viz., I.3.21- अल्पश्नुतरिति चत्तदुक्तम which is undoubtedly a reference to the word 'व्योमवत्' in Bra Su.I.2.7 - अमेकीकस्त्वात्तद्वयपदेशान्च नेति चेल निचाय्यत्वादेव व्योमवच्च where 'व्यामन' is used for 'दहराकाश' and II.1.31 विकरणत्वान्नेतिचेत्तदुक्तम् which refers probably to II.1.24 or I.28.

We have stated in our Notes that Rāmānuja takes agmy as a reference to Gautamadharmasutra I. 8 in one case, viz., Bra,Sü. III.4.42 and that Vallabha takes it as a reference to even tho Bhagavata Purana in three cases (Bra. Su.III.3.83, 50 and III .- 4.42), and that these Acaryas do not always agree as to the exact Sutra in the Brahmasutra or Jaiminisutra when they take the reference to be to those works. (2) A study of the references made by the Bahuvrihi com. pounds might also help us since the author may refer to his own work by such compounds. We have shown that आनन्दादय: in Bra.Sn.III.3.11 (आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य), सत्यादय: in Bra.Su.III.3.38 and आयतनादय: in Bra.Su.III.3.39 (which we read as सत्यादयः कामादितरत्र तत्र चायतनादिभ्यः) refer to आनन्द in Bra.Su.I.1.2, qedney in the Sruti discussed in Bra Su.I.2.1 and mnaa in Bra.Sa.13.1 and that the three groups of thoughts expressed by the three Bahuvrihi compounds are respectively those collected by the Sutrakara in the first, second and the third Padas of the first Adbyaya. As a result of this identification, not only do we get the correct sense of Satras III.8.11, 38-89, but we also get the original plan of the Sutrakara in the arrangementofthe a4 of Bra.Su.I.1-3. Bra.Sü.I.1 disousses only those Śrutis which

METHOD TO TRAOE THE CORRECT TaTFTS 297

deal with the 694a aspect of Brabman, Bra.Sn. I.2, those which deal with the same but use words applicable to the y64 aspect also, and Bra.Su.I.3, those texts which deal with the ger aspect but use terms applicable to the asqaa aspect also.

One more instance is that of qsaife in Bra. Su. III. 3.58 (*171- शब्दादिभेदात।) which seems to us to mean शब्द, प्रकरग and संज्ञा mention- ed in Bra. Su. III. 3. 6-8 (अन्यथाश्व शब्दादिति चनाविशोषात्। न वा प्रकरणभदात परोवरीयस्त्वादिवत्। संज्ञातश्ेतदुकमास्ति तु तदपि।). The Sutrakara establsbes the 'collection' (sTaan) in the case of meditation on Brabinan on the ground that the sense or the purpose is the same (sudgros- ufia-Bra. Su. III. 3. 5), and rejects the three arguments of the Prvapaksa based upon the भेद of शब्द, प्रकरण and संज्ञा, while in the case of the अज्ञावबद्धा: ब्रह्मोपासना: he accepts the same arguments and says that these meditations are different from one another. Sankara takes शब्दादि to mean शब्द, गुण, etc.

There may be other बहुत्रीहि compounds, e. g., आरंमणशब्दादि (Bra. Su. II. 1. 14), eto., which require to be studied as above. (8) When a Sruti which is the faggaay of a Sūtra is to be found out, as a rule we should expect that some word in the Stra must be also present in the Sruti. An equally important point is that the sense of the Sruti and that of the Sutra should be the same. Neither of the two points should be given predo- minence over the other; otherwise both the sense and the Sruti of a Sutra would be mistaken. In finding out the fagamia of & Sütra, we may have often to go through a hurried reading of all the accepted Upanisads, which is only possible if there is already a preliminary study of these Upanisads. Sometimes Jacob's word-concordance of the Upanisads comes to our help.

It would be here noticed that sometimes the Sūtrakara uses a synonym of a word which actually is found in the Sruti which is the fqqais4. Such cases are few, though not rare. The rea- son why he does so, should be inquired into. Is it metri causa ? 38

298 CORREOT विषयवाक्यs, TRACED

In these cases, it is naturally somewhat difficult to hit upon the proper reference. We mention here a few instances where, we believe, we have traced the correct विषयवाक्यs

Sūtra Our suggested S'ankara's विषयवाक्य विषयवाक्य 1. न स्थानतोऽपि परस्य जागरितस्थान:, स्वप्नस्थान: and सभगललिङ्गं सर्वत्र हि। Sankara explains स्थानतः सुधुप्तस्थान: in Mandukya Up- as पृथिव्याद्पाधियोगातू III.2.11. aniSad 9-11.

2. पत्येकमतदचनात् । S' .- यश्चायमस्या पृथिव्यां तेजो- III.2.12. Cha. Upa. VIII. 7-12 where प्रजापति explains मयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो यश्चायमध्या- to Indra how ब्रम with न्मं शारीर: .. ब्रृ उ. II. 5.1 which the soul is identi- cal is the same in each state. 3. परकृनतावत्वं हि प्रतिवेधति तनो अस्ति भगवो नाम्नो भूय इति अथात आदेशो नेति नेति। Br. प्रवीति च भूय: ।III.2.22 नाम्नो वाव भूयोडस्तीति तन्मे भगवान् न्रवीत्विति॥ वाग्वाव Upa.II.8.6

नाम्नो भूयसी Cha, Upa.VII .- 1-15. 4. तदव्यक्तमाह हि। महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यकात् पुरुप: न चक्षुषा गृहते नापि वाचा qr: # Katha Upa.III.11 Mu. Upa.III.1.8; Br. Upa. and VI.9 III.9.26; Mu, Upa.I.1.6; Tai. Upa.II.7.1; Bha.Gi, II.25.

5. अनोडनन्तेन तथाहि लिङ्गम् । अव्यक्तात्तु पर: पुरुपो व्यापकोड III.2.26 स यो ह वै तत्पर मं ब्रद्म वेद बरहोव लिङ्ग एव च। (व्यापक cOrrOE- भवति। Mu.Upa.III.2.9. ponds to अनन्त in the Sūtra ). Katha Upa. VI.8 Br.Upa.IV.4.6.

6. मर्मतः सेतून्मानसंबन्धभेद- Various Srutis व्यपदेवभ्य:। III 2. 31. अव्यक्तात्पुरुष: पर: Katha Upa.III.11; VI. 8, and other Sruti given by S'ańkara. १. आरमगृद्दी तिरितरवदुत्तरात। उत्तरात refers to तदिदमप्ये- आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाय आसी- III. 3.16 तर्हि थ एवं बेदाहं बह्मास्मीति स इर्द सरवें भवति ...... अथ योऽन्यां न्नान्यरि्किचन मिषत । AI.Upa .- I.1-2.

स्मीति न स वेद ... । Br.Upa. I.4.10

CORRECT विषयवाकयS, DISCOVERED 299

8. अन्वयादिति चत्स्यादव- आत्मेक्येवोपासीत। Br.Upa .- एक एषात्र आमति in the धारणात्।II. 3.17 I.4.7. above Sruti.

9. वेधाधर्थेमेदात।III. 3.25 धनुर्गृहतिवौपनिपदं महासतरं शरं सर्व प्रविध्य हृदयं प्रविष्य बमना: ह्युपासानिशितं संधयीत। आयम्य प्रबृज्य शिरोडभिप्रवृज्य ननिया तन्भावगतेन चेतमा लक्ष्य तदेवाक्षरं विपृक्त:। इत्यादि: आथर्वणिका- सोम्य बिद्धि।। नासुपनिपदारम्भे मन्त्रसगानायः प्रणवो धनुः शरः आत्मा नरक्ष तहक्ष्यमुच्यते। अप्रमत्तने वेद्धव्यं शरवत्तन्मयो भवत। Mu Upa .- II.2.3-4, 10. सर्वोपेक्षा च यज्ञाविश्रतेरश्व- अश्व refers to उषा वा अश्स्प मेध्यस्य मुखमासीत्, eto, in यथा च योग्यतावशेनाश्रा न लाड aal III.4.26 लाकर्षणे युज्यते रथचर्यायां तु Br.Upa.I.I. युज्यते। एवमा्रमकर्माणि ...

Our arguments why these particular Srutis seem to us to be the faggaraa in the corresponding Sutras have been given in our Notes under the various Sutras. Here is also a list of other references which we have proposed as worth consideration. 1. Bra. Su. III. 2. 12-Sve. Upa. III. 16-20, which is in sense repeated in other Upanisads and the Gita also. 2. Bra. Sū. III. 2. 20-Cha. Upa. VII. 26. 1. 3. Bra. Sū. III. 2. 30 .- Katba Upa. VI. 9 4. Śrūti or Srutis referred to by 3=41 in Bra. Sa. III. 2. 81. 5. waa: in Bra. Sü. III. 2. 31 refers to Srutis in the Katha and Mundaka Upanisads where we find a principle called ger said to be higher than the asvaa aspect of Brahman. 6. Bra. Sü. III. 2. 40-Kau. Upa. III. 9. 7.Bra. Su. III. 3. 13-15. 'इतरे' refers to the निराकार भ्रतिs 8. Bra. Sü. III. 3. 18. #rr refers to the effect of the meditation on Brahman in the various मोक्षश्रुतिs, e. g. Br. Upa. I. 4. 10. 9. Bra, Sn. III. 3. 45-48. Mu. Upa. I. 1. 1, II. 2. 13, III. 2. 10. 10. Bra.Su III. 3. 37-व्यतिहार refers to Srutis about निराकार and साकार aspects.

300 STUDY OF THE SAME WORDS IN DIFFERENT TS

In these (10+10) vişayavakyas suggested by us there are seve- ral whose correctness is beyond all doubts; e. g., those of Bra. Sū. III. 2. 11, III. 2. 22, III. 4. 26, etc., and whose discovery throws a food of light both on the Sutra and the Srut itself. It should be added that in a few cases we ourselves are not satisfied with the visayavalya we have suggested, or we have abstained from making any suggostion at all. These are yet to be discovered.

(4) We should always compare and contrast the statements in the various Sutras both as regards the words used and the sense conveyed in them, without of course neglecting the con- text. Let us first take up the comparison of the same words used in different Sūtras.

(i) In Bra. Su. III. 3 11 (आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य) we have the word se, which Sankara explains as nar; and as he says that ase etc. are the sas of 9Um, we may conclnde that he takes ata in the sense of his agu aarr. Now, if we compare this Satra with Bra. Su III. 2. 14 ( अरूपवेदव हितत्प्रधानत्वात्)we learn that प्रधान accord- ing to the Sutrakara is the chief or main nature or aspect of Brahman and the word is used by him in the sense of ersqaa or fva (not fagu) aa. By an investigation for the correct text of the Brahmasutra we have also shown that the same word occurs also in Bra. Sn. III. 3 43 which should be read as ada agwn instead of प्रदानवदेव तदुक्तम् Thus, प्रधान in all the three passages is used in the sense of the arsvaa or farian aspect of Brahman,

(ii) The word ram which occurs in Bra.Su. III.2. 11. ( arsid- परस्योभयलिह सवेत्र हि) has caused a great difficulty, so much that the whole disenssion of aegar in Bra.Su.III.2.11-41 is suspected to be an interpolation. 4 If we compare the Sutra with Bra.Sn. III. 2.1 (संभ्ये सष्टिराह हि। ) which refers to संघ्य तृतीयं स्वप्नस्थानम्।), weflnd that here means the three or four states, Rar, eto. and also that probably the Sutra (III.2.11.) refers to Mandūkya Upa.9-11, where the tai7s or states of the Supreme Being are mentioned. In Bra Su.III.2.34 also (स्थानविशेषात् ....... 1,) the word rqis has the sense of the particular state of deep sleep when the individual

STUDY OF THE SAME WORDS IN DIFFERENT ETS 301

soul comes into contact with the Supreme One in the heart. Sankara takes स्थान in Sutra III.2.11 as पृथिव्याद्युपाधियोगात् and in III.2.34 as बुद्धयादुपाधिस्थानविशेषयोगात् 5.

(iii) The word sydan m Bra.Sn III.3.5 is a very importent word because it is one of the clues to the interpretation of Bra. Su.III 3 which is traditionally called 'gudanur :. Sankara takes it in the sense of अन्यत्रोदितानां विज्ञानगुणानामन्यन्नापि समान विज्ञान उपमंहार: भवति, 1. e., the collection of the attributes of a ayofaar from a particular Sruti in another Sruti where the same Vidya is taught We think, the word bas the general sense of collection of various things (attributes of Brahman, method of meditation, the effect of the act of meditation, the nature of meditation, ete.) for a particular purpose, here, for the purpose of the meditation on Brahman. The same word occurs also in Bra.Su.III.4.48 (कतस्नभावात्तु गृहिणोपर्सहार) where Saikara takes the word in the sensa of 'conclusion' (of the Cha, Upa.). But we have shown that the Sutra does not at all refer to that Sruti, but makes the collection of all other helping (1a-at) acts (the third type of acts according to the Sutrakara) compulsory for the householder- seeker of liberation, since he is complete (at4), i. e., he possesses all conveniences which the members of the other three orders (asramas), for whom these acts are voluntary, do not possess. In Bra.Sn.II.1.24 (उपसंहार दशनान्ेति चन्न क्षरिवदधि) the word has also the same sense.

Thus, avegn in Bra.Su.III.8 5 does not mean the avagit of the attributes (which are not referred to in that Sutra) from one Sruti to another Sruti on the same Lore, but it means the collection of all the information about the meditation on Brah- man from the varions Upanisads for the purpose of practising that meditation.

(4) by modern sebolars liko (5) The same word also ocours in Bra.Su.1.2.14 (स्थानादिव्यपदशान).

302 SYNONYMS, EXPRESSIONS, DOCTRINES, COMPARED

(iv) The word अप्राप्ति in III.3 12 (प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्यप्राप्तिरुपचयापचयौ हि भेदे) Is interpreted by Sankara as (प्रियशिरसत्वारदाना धर्मोणा तैत्तिरयकाम्नातानां) नास्त्य- ma: But from the context it appears that the Sutrakara excludes them from the list of attributes of Brabman to be used in the meditation on Brahman (See Sutra III.3.14); so, armifta would mean non-acceptance for the purpose of meditation even in the Taitirlyaka Branch itself. The explanation of ae' also supports the same meaning. The word is used in the same sense in afa- संख्याऽप्रतिसख्यानिरोधा प्राप्तिरविच्छेदात् (Bra.St.II.2.22) and in समुदाये उभय हेतुके 5पि तदप्राप्ति: (Bra.Su.1I.2.18).

(5) We should also study the synonyms of the prominent words in the Brabmasutra, We have shown that the word H&n in Bra Su I.4.2 stands for asvaa in Bra.Sü. III.2.14,6 and that मुख्यम् in Bra Su.IV.3.12 is a synonym of qa in Bra.Su.III.2.14,III.3.11, etc.7

(6) We should compare several expressions in different parts of the Sutras and we may get some important suggestions about their interpretation.

(i) Thus, we should compare varaHf4 in Bra. Su. III. 3. 2 with शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदमू in Bra. Su. III. 3. 55 (अङ्गावबद्धास्तु न शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम्।); we get the double suggestion that 'एकस्यामपि' means 'एकस्यामपि शाखायाम्' and that Sutra III. 3. 2 lays down a condition about the teach- ing of Brahman being common to all the Vedantas or Vedantas of all the Vedas, while Bra. Su. III. 3. 55 mentions the conditi- ons why the teaching of अज्ञावबद्धा व्रह्मोपासना: is not to be collected in the Branches of other Vedas than in the particular Veda in which they occur. Sankara takes एकस्यामपि as एकस्यामपि विद्याय।म्.

(ii) Similarly, अथभिदात् in III. 3. 5 (उपसंहारोडर्थादाद्वििशेषवतसमाने च) should be compared with अभेदात् in Bra. Su.III. 3.19 (समाने एवंचाभे-

, (6) Vide Notes on the Sutra in Port I. (7) Vide Notes on the Sutra in Part I.

COMPARISON OF SUTRAS 308

). By this comparison we come to know that aprara in III. 3. 19 means अथभिदात and that 'समाने' means 'in a sunilar text', i.e., in a Vedanta text. (ii1) Some other examples of this method of comparison will be found in our Notes in Part I.

(7) A comparison of the doctrinal statements also will prove useful.

(i) इयदामननात् ॥ अन्तरा भूतप्रामवत्स्वात्मनः ॥ Bra. St. III. 3.34-35 should be compared with अभेको करत्वात्त्वयपदेशाच् नेति चेज्न निचाय्यत्वादेवं व्योमवच्व। (Bra. Su. 1. 2. 7), अल्पश्रुतेरितिचेत्तदुक्कम्। (Bra. Su.I. 3.21), हृद्यपक्षेया तु मनुष्याधिकार- स्ात्। (Bra. Sn. 1.3. 25), and शब्दीदभ्याऽनतःप्रतिष्ठानाच्च नेति चेभ्न तभाृष्ट्युप-

दशादसैभवातपुरुषमपि चैनमधयिते। Bra Su.I.2. 26. We thereby understand the sense of Sntras III. 3. 34-35, viz., 'because the wna and the yog are said to be of the limited size of the heart for the purpose of meditation on them as such, one should carry out the medita- tion on Brahman inside one's own self like (the meditation on ) the group of elements. All the four passages teach the inward method of meditation on sum and 969.

(ii) The following Sutras may be compared with one another :* आत्मगृहीतिरितरवदुत्तरात्।(Bra.Su.III.3.16), आत्मेति तूपगच्छन्ति प्राहयान्ति च (Bra.Sti. IV.1.3), शास्त्रदृष्टयातूप देशो वामदेववत्।(Bra.Si I.1.30). From the comparison we learn that Sutra III.3.16 does not aim at explaining arrwa in आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाम्र आसीत्। (Ai.Upa.I.1,) as परमात्मनू (as Sankara says) but that आत्मगृहीति explains the अहंग्रह method (अहंब्रह्मास्मि) of meditation on Brahman and that Sutra TV.1.8 tells us that those who bave been carrying out the means (for the knowledge of Brahman) mentioned in Bra.Su.III.8-4 but have not yet realized Brahman, when repeatedly returning to this world, approach Brahman as their own self and make others understand it similarly. So, Sutra IIT.3.16 explains the means of meditation on Brabman and Sutra IV.1.8 tells us what the advanced seeker does when he returns to this world for perfection.

304 CONTRAST OF SUTRAS

(ii1) अङ्गपु यथाश्रयभाव: । (Bra.St.III 3.61) and न वा तत्सहभावाश्ुतेः।(Bra. Su.III.3.65); आदित्यादिमतयश्चाङ्गे उपपत्ते : । (Bra St.IV.16). Here seeis to be little doubt that ang in sutra III 3 61 is closely connected with arf in Bra Su,IV.1.6. In the former the seeker is asked to have the notion of the respective angas in the parts or limbs of Brah- man. In Sutra IV.1.6 we are told that the advanced seeker from the time of his return to this world has the notions of the Sun, the Sky, etc. in the limbs of Brahman. Bra. Su,III.3.61, 65 represent the HIaa stage, while Bra.Su.IM.16 the stage when that ais is about to turn into the fulfilment of the goal.

(iv) In Bra.Su. III.3.46 (RTRaaa qr:), we are told that the mdividual soul is hke the Light, etc., but the Supreme One is not so. In accordance with this, we have in Bra.Su.III.2.15-18 a yane that Brahman is like the Light, while Sutra III.2.19 says that 'But, because Brahman cannot be reflected just as the Light in the water, Brahman is not of the nature of the Light.' Similarly, in Bra. Su,III.2.28 the two names of the Highest (30Tfi and gau) were explained as 55RT and aTa because Brahman is of the nature of the Light ;' but again in Bra. Su.III.2.29 that explanation is given up and the one in Bra. Sa III.2 27 is preferred. Thus, a comparison with Bra.Su.I.3.46 helps us in making out the exact sense of Bra.Sa.III.2.15-19. (8) Like comparison, a contrast between some Satras also helps us in deciding the sense of the Sutras.

(i) In Bra Su. III. 2. 14 (अरूपबदेव हि तस्प्रधानत्वात्।) Brabman is explaiued as chiefly arsqaa or fUIsR, while in Bra. Sū. I. 2. 23 (sireqar i ) the Sutrakara argues that the topic of Mu. Upa. I. 1. 5-6 is gau "because the figure or anaR of that topic is mention- ed in Mu. Upa. II. 1. 3." Thus, we have a clear proof that according to the Sutrakara, Brahman is both f and 157 and that the former is the chief aspect. A contrast between these Sutras belps us also in interpreting the word sam in aeem- Fna and in other Sūtras. 'mena' means chief or main, so that

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE CONTEXT 305

the 5477 aspect is also admitted by the Sutrakara, though the eryaa aspect is the chief aspect. From this, we can also con- clude that Sankara is not justified in adding qF41f to the Sūtra (इत्येवमादीनिवाक्यानि निष्प्रपचत्रह्मात्मतत्वप्रघानानि नार्थान्तरप्रधानानि।) (ii) We should contrast अर्थाभेदात् in Bra. Su. III. 3. 6 (उपसहारोडर्थां- सदात्।), with अर्थ भेदात् in Bra. ST. III. 3. 25 (वेधादर्थभदात् ।). From the eontrast we learn that in the latter Sutra the Sutrakara gives us an example of the absence of sqden, that he bases svaer and ar9HaK on the identty and non-identity of the subject (ari), viz., Bramhan, that Sutra IIl. 3. 25 is a yaverasr, that Sutra III. 3.26 is a faraga, and lastly that this latter Sūtra refers to Bra. Sü. III. 3. 5 (उपसहारोऽर्थाभेदाद्विधिशेषवत् समाने च।).'

Other examples of this kind of contrast between the state- ments in two Sutras will be found in our Notes in Part I. (9) Above all, the context shonld be the most important factor to be considered in interpreting the Stras. We think that the various interpretations of the Acaryas have been possible mostly on account of the neglect of the context. It is the context by the help of which we can decide what words should be taken as impled or understood (aner) m a Sutra. Sabara, as we have seen, also complained of the additions made by commentators, which were not in agreement with the context. The context, if strictly followed, also helps us in fixing the number of Satras in each Adhikarana and thereby in reconstruoting the original Sūtra pātha.

It is not necessary and not possible also to repeat here how each word in each Sutra of the following Adhikaranas has been interpreted by us with strict and rigid adherence to the context. Our arguments founded upon the consistency with the context and used in the interpretation of these Sutras, have been given in their proper places in Part I. Here we can only briefly state the result of the application of this method. 39

306 RESULT OF STRICT ADHERENCE TO CONTEXT IN A.E III.3

(1) Bra Su.III.2.11-19. These are very important Sutras because they deal with the exact nature of Brahman according to the Satrakara, On account of Sankara's explanation of a in Satra 11, they have been doubted as an interpolation. But on the strength of the context we have shown that 'ena' here means the three or four states, जागरितस्थान, स्वप्स्थान, eto, and that here the Sutrakara rejects a view which explatns that the fuan and ain ufds about Brahman refer to different states of prahman. He establishes the view that Brahman is in all states both fuen and साकार, 8

( 1i) Bra.Sa.III.3.19-24. If we strictly follow the context, it appears that in these sutras, the sutrakara gives his view that only the Vedantas or, in other words, the Upanisads are the authority for the Lore of Brahman. He clearly says that though there are some passages in the samhitas, Brahmanas and Aranyakas in which the attributes of Brahman are nentioned, he would distinguish between the qaars and the a0s because the Srutis like Mu. Upa. I.1,Cha. Upa. VII.1, make this distinction. This important piece of mformation was overlooked because the strict contextual sense of अन्यत्र, अपि, विशेष, इतर 9 in these Sutras was not followed and as a result there came to be a wrong division of the Adhikaranas in course of time.

(in) The most important result of this line of argument about the method of interpretation is that if we follow it strictly in Bra. Su. III, 3, the Sūtrakāra seems to give an option of choice between eaqm and gru, the two aspects of Brahman, each leading independently to absolute liberation. Throughout Sūtras 11-54 of this Pada (III.8) there runs a consitent effort of the Sūtrakara to explain how the meditation on either of these two aspects leads to the realization of Brahman. In Sutra III.8.10 he states that he distinguishes between only the two names or aspects of

(6) See our Notes on the strictly contextual sense of स्थान, उभयलिप्न, सर्वत्र, भेद, तम्मान्र, तथात्वमू, eto., in dhira (9) Vide our Notes on the Sütras in Part I.

RESULTS OF STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE CONTEXT 307

Brahman; in Sutras 11-17 he gives the method of meditation on s or the aspect of Brahman; in Sutras 28-30 he states the option between yam and grs aspects; in Sutras 31-43 he ex- plains the method of meditation on gas; and in Sutras 44-54 he refutes a qava which believed that gry was the name of ereyes or agt the asysa aspect of Brahman, but the Sutrakara shows that ga9 is a name of the Supreme Being; ge is not 'a mental act' on the Unmanifest but an independent aspect of the Para. The cases where a sense strictly consistent with the context 19 assigned to the words in these Sutras are too many to be enume- rated here 'They would be found from our Notes (in Part I) on the various words under the respective Sutras.

(1v) Bra. Su. III. 4. 18-28. In these Sutras, the Satrakara dis- cusses the nature of the Brahman which he regards as a fafr and refutes the views (1) that it is only of the form of reflection (vma), (2) that the knowledge of Brahman is only «afa, and (8) that the episodes of the Upanisads are only meant to serve the purpose of the qiftaa rite. He establishes that the unanimity of the two Kandas is based upon both of them being subject to fafas, one requiring the help of fire, fuel, etc., the requirements of the other being like that of the horse described in Br. Upa. I. 1 (34 वा अश्वस्य मेध्यस्य सुखमासीत,). The context also shows that these Sutras make one Adhikarana only, and not as many as five Adhikaranas, as with Sańkara.

(v) Bra. Su. III. 4. 41-42. On the ground of the context we have shown that these Sutras form a part of the preceding Adhikarana, that they deal with the question whether a monk who seeks Brahman can perform official (or priestly) duties or not and that अशन in Sutra 42 refers to सर्वाभ्ञानुमतिश्व प्राणात्यये तदसनात। (Bra. Su. III. 4. 28). According to Sankara the topic of these Sutras which he takes as one Adhikarana is whether a life-long celibate who commits adultery with a woman other than his

308 RESULTS OF STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE CONTEXT

teacher's wife can atone for his sin by a er or not. He inter- prets Sutra 42 to mean that the sin in question is called '3q9/44*, 10 (vi) Bra. Su. III. 4. 48-46. The context shows that these Sutras make only one Adhikarana. According to the context these Sutras allow one who is outside the order of rTy and a4aa (meaning of af:) to perform both official and semi-official duties of his caste. 11 According to Sankara, Sutra 43 means that whether a celibate commits a airas or q91a$, he should be excommunicated from the order to which he belongs. Sutras 45-46 deal with wafmmaas according to Sankara, and thus they further discuss the question stated in Bra. Su. III. 3. 55, eto. (vii) Bra. su. IV. 2. 7-14. These Sutras, if interpreted accor- ding to the context, show that the senfa does take place in the case of a knower of Brahman according to the Sutrakara. Sankara has three Adhikaranas out of these Sutras and they discuss various topics, Sutras 7-11 and Sutras 12-14 dealing with अपराविद्या (inoluding अविद्ा) and पराविद्या respectively. The context does not justify any such division. 12 (viii) Bra. su. IV. 2. 15. The context shows that this Sūtra deals with the nnion of the elements (with which the soul is already united) with the Supreme One in the heart and that the topie is that of the seniea of the knower of Brahman from the body. Sankara interprets the Sutra as dealing with his q71 faen. 18 There are innumerable cases where strict adherence to the context leads us to quite different conclusions from those of the Acaryas who seem to care more for the context of the Sūtras with the Srutis or fagyaiays as they understand the latter, rather than for the context of the Sutras themselves. These have been treated by us in Part I. (10) See our Notes on अधिकारिक, अपि, तत्, उपपूर्व, भाव, अशन and तदुक्तम in these Subras in Part I. (11) See Notes on बहि:, उभयथा, स्वाभिन:, आर्त्विज्यम् ibid. (12) See Notes on अमृतत्व, अनुपोष्य, तदा, शारीरात, and एकेषामू ibid. (15) See Notes on तानि, परे and आह in Part I.

PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS RE. DISCOVERY OF THE CONTEXT 309

(10) A practical suggestion regarding the question of discover- ing the exact context can be made in the case of certam words when they occur in the Sutras. In these cases we must follow the context strictly, as these words can never be taken as referr- ing to something not stated in the immediately preceding Sotra or Adhikaraņa.

(a) sia: or ad: va, e. g. in Sutra III.2.26. ama should refer to aogm mentioned in Sutra 23, but Sankara takes it to mean 'tonfaseae- भेदस्य अविद्याकृतत्वान्त भदस्य' which is a referenco to an argument given by Sankara in his commentary on Sūtra ITT.2.25. 1t

अत: in Bra. Sn.IlI.3.23 (संमृतिधुव्याप्त्यपि चातः) should refer to the faan mentioned m the preceding two Sūtras. Sankara takes it as referring to आयतनवशोषयोगात which is a reference to a quotation given by Sankara in his explanation of the preceding Sūtra. aa: in Bra. Su. III.3.41 should be taken as referring to some word in the preceding Sūtra (e g. ana<), but Sankara takes it as सस्मादेव भोजनद्रव्यात which is mentioned in the Sruti quoted by Sankara in his bhāsya, on the preceding Sūtra.

(b) The word 'ua' should always be interpreted as a reference to what has immediately preceded.

qaa in Bra. Su.III.2.29 refers naturally to the example in Sūtra 27 and is meant to give preference to that example over the example in Sūtra 28. But Sankara takes it to refer to his mterpretation of Sūtra 25. qaieanq: in Sutra II1.3.44-45 is a reference to the option given in Sutra III.3.28 (छन्दतः उभयाविरोधात) and the subsequent Sutra preceding Sutra 44. But Sankara explains it as faainy afta which is mentioned in what he thinks to be the faqzara of the preced- ing Sütra. Thus, in this case, by a Sankara refers to a sequence in his विषयवाक्य,

(14) See Note 22 on Sūtra III 2.26 in Part I.

810 PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS RE. DISCOVERY OF THE CONTEXT

(c) ag or aar must always be taken as referring to the imme- diately preceding Satra.

तद् in Bra. Su.III.3.44 (लिङ्गभूयस्त्वात् ताद्वे बलीयस्तदपि) should refer to s (or E according to Sankara's Patha) in the preceding Sutra, but Sankara takes it as referring to foau in Sūtra 44 itself.

तदू in Bra. Su.III.3.42 (तव्निर्धारणानियमरतदृष्टे: पृथग्धप्रतिबन्धः फलम्) refers to the question of the विशेषणs of प्रधान and पुरुष discussed in Bra. Su II1.3.37-41 or it should refer to some word in Sūtras 40-41. But Sankara takes it to refer to तानि उद्गीथादिकमगुणयाथात्म्य- निर्धारणानि which निर्धारणानि are given in the Sruti which Sankara takes as the faqyaisy of Sutra 42.

तदू in Sutra IV.2.17 (तदाकोऽग्रज्वलनम्) should refer to the पर or the Supreme One in the heart mentioned mn the preceding Sütra, but Sankara takes it to refer to the individual soul who is not mentioned in the preceding Sūtra or Adhikarana. As & result of this, he has to say that Sutras 15-16 deal with qr faa while Sntra 17 deals with अपरा विद्या.

(d) Expressions like अन्यथा, अन्यथात्वम्, अन्यत्र, अन्य, etc. should always refer to the reverse of what is said in the preceding Sūtra.

apan in Bra. Su.III3.6 should mean 'the absence of the ayeen' which is mentioned in the preceding Sūtra, but Sankara takes-it as 'न युक्तं विद्यैकत्वम्' with reference to a पूर्वपक् about a Sruti which he takes as a faqaaia of Sutra III.3.6.

In this case a-qran also shows that Sutra 6 should belong to the same Adhikarana as Sūtra 5.

qar in Bra. Su.III.3.36 should mean 'if not within one's self' (or it should refer to some word in the Sütra as interpreted by Sankara), but Sankara takes it in the sense of famshra, i. e. the reverse of the conclusion he wants to prove in the preceding Sutra, which is of course to be taken as implied.

PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS RE. DISCOVERY OF THE CONTEXT 311

a in Bra. Su III.3.10 should mean 'other than erg' (in aaiaia in the Sutra) or 'in aa'; but Sankara takes it to refer to Srutis other than the Sruti which is the fagaai4 according to him.

a-aa in Bra. Su.III3.20 should mean 'elsewhere than in the similar text', i. e., in a dissimilar text (qai in Sutra 19), but Śankara takes it in the sense of another section of the same topic as the one in the Sandilyavidya which he takes as discuss- ed in the preceding Sutra. By adding "एवंजातीयके विषये" Sankara has in fact reversed the sense of .

zat in Sutra III.8.16 should refer to the other of the two (प्रधान and पुरुष meant in Sutra III.3.10), i. e., to पुछ्रष because प्रघाम is mentioned in Sūtras 11-15. But Sankara takes za7 as referr- ing to other Srutis about creation than the one which he takes as the faqaarea of Sutra 16. In fact 'gat' throughout refers to the aspect of Brahman other than the one mentioned in the particular Sūtra, but Sankara takes it in varous ways, e. g., see इतरवत् in Sutra III.3.37 (व्यतिहारः विशिषन्ति हीतरवत्).

₹ and other pronouns should also refer to some word or words mn the preceding Sūtras. à in Bra. Sũ.III.3.10 refers to the two dss mentioned in Sutra III.3.8, but Sankara takes it as referring to ' f गुणाः' in his विषयवाक्य of Sutra 10.

(e) Another important word the sense of which must be interpreted strictiy according to the context is afd 'also'. This word shows that what has preceded is to be ineluded in or add- ed to what follows. afd in Bra.Su.III.2.11 shonld go with qrea. In the case of the individual soul the three states were proved to be not able to explain the two-fold condition of and ia mn the preced- ing Sütras; now the Sūtrakāra says that these states do not explain the application of the two-fold Srutis to the Supreme

312 FILLING UP GAPS IN THE 4S, STRICTLY'ACC. TO THE CONTEXT

One also. So, the states explain the nature neither of the individual soul nor of the Para. But Sańkara takos '?ad. qa' as understood and connects afa with it.15 अपि in Bra.Su.III.4.32 (विहितत्वाच्चाश्रमकमोपि shows that the seeker of liberation should perform the duties of his order in addition to other duties mentioned in Sūtra 27, but Sańkara takes ggg as the topic of the preceding Sutras (26-27) and in the case of Sutra 32 he says 'अमुमुक्षोरप्याश्रममात्रनिष्ठस्य .... कर्तव्यान्यव नित्याने कर्माणि ...... Thus, he takes ad with agga who is neither expressly stated nor implied in the preceding Sutras.

अपि in Sutra III 4.41 (न चाधिकारिकमपि ...... ) should refer to अतद्धावः (= तद्भूनस्य तु न अतद्भावः न च तद्भूतस्य अधिकारिकमपि कर्म), but Sankara says, यद्यप्यधिकारलक्षणे निर्णीत प्रायश्चित्तं ...... तदपि न नैष्विकस्य भितुमईति Thus, we are left free to imagine what other atonement is denied to the sinner in question in addition to the atoncment mentioned in the Jai, Su. अपि in Bra. Su.III.4.51 (ऐहिकमप्यप्रस्तुतप्रतिबन्धे तदर्शनात्) should mean 'One who is outside the order of वानप्रस्थ or संन्यासिन्, should do (or may do) even the worldly duties in addition to the two-fold duties mentioned in Sutra 43 and in Sntra 48. But Sankara connects aif with a3 which be takes understood perhaps on on account of tis in the Sūtra. (11) As alroady said, the aenERs to be aken in any Sūtra should depend solely upon the context of the Sütra, and never upon any thing else, like the विषयवाक्य or the division of परा and aqur faal, ete., which is not mentioned in the Sutra. By the very fact of its being a sutra, there are bound to be some gaps in any Sutra whatever. And the interpretor's right of filling up these gaps should be exercised as rarely as possible, and only in rigid agrecment with the Sutra itself. It is mainly by a wrong (15) See bhasya: न हेकं वस्तु स्वतः एव रूपादिविशषोपेत तद्विपरतिं चेत्यवधारययेतुं शक्ं विरोधात। भस्तु तईि स्थानतः पृथिव्यादुपधियोगादिति। तदपि नोपपद्यते।

OTHER HELPS TO A CRITICAL INTERPRETATION OF #. #. 313

use of this right that one and the same Sntra can be interpreted in more than one way, unless the Sutra is composed of double- meaning words like the verses with the figure of speech called Śleșa. Wo have given a list of some of the most important additions made by Sankara without any support of the context, in Chapter 10, where we have also given our suggestions for the additions in harmony with the context. We have given above some practical suggestions which must be considered by everyone who would hhe to give a critical interpretation of our Seriptures. Tbey pertam to the method of interpretation. We have tried our best to follow this method in Part I. There are other helps to a critical interpretation, e. g., (1) the fixing of the text of the Brahmasūtra so far as each Sutra, and what is more important, each Adhikarana are concerned; and (2) also a critical study of the method followed by the commentators. The latter has been dealt with in Chapter 10 as stated above. The former will be the subject of the next Chapter.

CHAPTER 12

THE TEXT OF THE BRAHMASUTRA

Closely connected with the problem of the interpretation of the Brahmasutra is the problem of the text of the work. Sankara, our oldest authority on the text, has made remarks in his bhasya, which clearly show his interest in this question. In his commentary on Bra. Su.III.2.21 he tells us that though he him- self takes Sutras III.2 11-21 as forming one Adhıkarana, a predecessor of his has two Adhikaranas, viz., one of Sūtras III.2.11-14 and another of Sutras, III.2 15-21.1 Again, in his bhasya on Bra. Su IV.3.14 he notices that one of his predeces- sors regards Sutras IV.3.7-11 as presentig the Purvapaksa and. Sütras IV.3.12-14 the Siddhänta, but that he is himself responsi- ble for his own view, viz., that Sutras IV.3.7-11 present the Siddhanta and Sutras IV.8.12-14 the Pūrvapaksa,2 In a few cases he also notices a difference of readings.8 Professor Belvalkar has carefully compared the Sutrapatha as given by Śankara with those by Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva, Vallabha, Bhaskara, Vijnānabhiksu and Srikantha and has been able to gather evidence tending to prove that these latter Bhāsyakaras freely altered the very text of the Sutras not only by joining two

(1) अत्र केविद् द्वे अधिकरणे कल्पयन्ति। प्रथमं तावत्-कि प्रत्यस्तमिताशेषपपश्चमेकाकार ब्रह्मोत प्रपश्चवदनेकाकारोपतमिति। द्वितीयं तु-रिथते प्रत्यस्तमितप्रपश्वत्वे कि सल्लक्षणं ब्रह्मोत बोधलक्षणमुतोभयलक्षणमिति । (Sa. bhasya on Bra.Su,III.2.21.) (2) केचित्पुनः पूर्वाणि पूर्वपक्षसूत्राणि भवन्त्युत्तराणि सिद्धान्तसूत्राण इत्येतां व्यवरथामनुरुष्य- माना: परविषया एव गतिश्रुतीः प्रतिष्ठापयन्ति, तदनुपपनं गन्तव्यत्वानुपपत्तब्ह्मणः। (S'a, bhäsya on Bra. Sū. IV.3.14) (3) In Bra. Su.JI.1.15 S'ankara has two readings,- (1) भावे चोपलब्धे: and (2) भावाच्चोपलब्धे :. In Bra.Su.I.226 he rends पुरुषमपि चैनमधीयते, but also notices the reading 'पुरुषविधमपि चनमधीयते.

RULES TO BE FRAMED TO FIX THE TEXT OF A. E. 315

successive Sutras into one or splitting one Sutra into two or changing their sequence, but they have also modified the words, omitted some Sutras altogather and have actually inserted new "Sutras" He gives illustrations of all these cases.4 Dr. Ghate also eomplains of all these difficulties about the text and the interpretation of these Sutras.5 "There is a tradibional division of the Sutras into Adhyayas and Padas handed down to us, on which there is a unanimity of opimon. No such diviston into Adhikaranas, unanimously accepted, has come down to us "6

In this chapter we intend to suggest some rules derived from critical tests to fix the text of the Sutras. We beheve an inqmiry of this nature into the text itself will better give us the correct perspective for setting forth the philosophical tenets of the Sutras by themselves and independently of the special plead- ings of the several Bhasyakaras, even better than a disoussion concerning the probable textual evolution of the extant work.

To begin with, the particle fa would belp us in reconstructing the text of the Brahmasutra and also in interpreting the same. This particle seems to have throughont in the Brahmna- sutra the sense of 'because' and, for this reason, it is evident that the Sutra in which f occurs, should always supply an argument for the assertion in the same Satra or in a preceding Sūtra. This would lead to a corrolary that the Sutra with f cannot begin a new Adhikarana.

Let us examine some of the Sutras with R. We find that in most of such Sütras 'f' has the sense of supporting a Proposi- tion in the same Sutra or in a preceding one. We give here a list of those Sutras where we find ourselves in agreement with

4 Vide Dr. Belvelkar's Paper on "The multiplo Authorship of the Vedanta- sutras" in the Indian Philosophical Review, Vol. II, No 2, Oetober, 1918. 5 Vide P. 46 of Dr. Ghate's 'The Vedanta'. 6 Vide P. 46 ibid,

316 A ET WITH ALWAYS SUPPLIES AN ARGUMENT.

Sankara. In the following Sūtras & supplies an argument for the Proposition in the same Sutra in which it occurs.

(1) न स्थानलोऽपि परस्योमयलिङं सर्वत्र हि। Bra. Sũ.III 2.11 (2) तदव्यक्तमाह हि। Bra. Sů.III.2.23 (3) प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्य प्रप्तिरुपचयापचयो हि भेदे। Bra. Sû.II1.3.12 (4) गतग्थवत्त्वमुभयथाऽन्यथा हि विरोध:। Bra. Sū.III.3.29 "अन्यथा हि विरोध:" supports 'गतरथेवत्त्वमुभयथा,' (5) व्यतिहारो विशिंषन्ति हीतरवत्। Bra. Sū III.3.39 'विशिषन्ति हीतरवत्' supports व्यातहार: (6) न सामान्यादायुपलब्धेर्मृत्युवन्न हि लोकापत्तिः । Bra. Sū.III 3.51 Here "मृत्युवन्नहवि लोकापत्तिः" supports "न सामान्यादप्युपलब्धे" (7) अज्ञावबद्धास्तु न शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम्। Bra. Sū.III.3.55 (8) परामर्श जमिनिरचोदना चापवदति हि। Bra. Sū.III.4.18 Here "अपवद्धति हि" supports परामश जैमिनिरचोदना च". (9) आर्तिवज्यमित्यौडलोमिस्तस्मै हि परिक्रियते"। Bra. Sū III.4.45 "तस्मे हि परिक्रियते" supports "आर्त्विज्यमित्यौडलोमिः" (10) न प्रतीके न हि सः । Bra Sũ.IV.1.4

(11) आप्रायणात्, तत्रापि द्ि दृष्टम्। Bra. Su.IV.1.12 "तन्रापि हि टष्टम् " supports 'आप्रायणात्' which is here as good as a Proposition. (12) नैकस्मिन् दर्शयतो हि। Bra Sū.IV.2.6 (18) अभावं बादरिराह ह्यवम्। Bra. Sü.IV.3.10

It is easy to see that the indeclinable f in the above Sūtras hns the simple sense of 'because" and that in all of them the sentence with f supports the first part of the same Sutra. The word "aane" is similarly used in the following Sūtras :- (1) अताऽनन्तेन तथाहि लिग्गम्। Bra. Sü.II1.2.26 (2) सांपराये तर्तव्याभावात्तथा ह्यान्ये। Bra. Sū.III.8.27 (9) भूम्न:कतुवज्ज्यायसत्वं तथाहि दशयति। Bra. Sa.III.3.57 (4) तानि परे तथाह्याह। Bra. Su.IV.3.15 (6) प्रदीपवदावेशस्तथाहि दर्शयति। Bra. Sũ.IV.4.15 (6) विकासवर्ति च तथाहि स्थितिमाह। Bra. Sū.IV.4.19.

सूत्रS WITH तथाहि, ALWAYS AN ARGUMENT 317

It would be noticed that while writing his work in the aphoristio style, the author of the Sutras uses the expression aerifa very sparingly as compared with fe the smaller indeclinable having the same sense We may compare तानि परे तथा ह्याह (Bra. Su.IV 3.15) with तदव्यक्तमाह हि (Bra. Su.III.2 23) and ask ourselves why the Sutrakara did not frame the former as "तानि परे आह हि" or the latter as तदव्यक्त तथाह्याह The following Sutras with & in them are arguments suppork ing a proposition in a preceding Sūtra :- (1) अरूपवदेव हि तत्प्रधानत्वात् (Bra. Si. Il[. 2. 14) supports the Proposition 'न स्थानतोऽपि पररयोभयलिज्ञ मवन्र दि' i Bra. Su. III. 2.11. (2) ऊर्ध्वरतःसु च शब्दे हि। (Bra. Su. III. 4.17) supports the statement in Sūtra III. 4. 8,

(3) अतोऽन्यपि हकेषामू (Bra.Su.IV.1.17) contains an argumena for अगिहोत्रादि तु तत्कार्यायैव in Bra. Su. IV. 1.167 (4) स्पष्टो हयकेषामू (Bra. Su. IV 2 1) supports Bra Su. IV. 2. 12. 1 (5) स्वाप्ययसंपत्यारन्यतरापेक्षमाविष्कृतं हि। Bra.Su.IV.4 16 supports प्रदीपवदावेश in Bra. St. IV.4.15. Now, we shall discuss the meaning of f in Bra.Su.III.2.22, III. 3. 38, III. 3. 44, and IV. 1. 18. (1) Bra. Su. III. 2. 22 runs as: प्रकृतैतावत्वं हि प्रतिषेधति ततो अ्रवीति च : | If we interpret fs in the usnal sense of 'becnuse', we can not take the statement in the Sutra as a Proposition; we must take the Sutra only as an argumont; and in that ease it can be an argument in support of a Proposition in a preceding Sutra. Here, of course, Sutra 22 contains an argument in favonr of 5 in Sutra 21. In our Notes ou Sutras ITI. 2. 20-22 we have shown that (1) अन्तर्भाव in Sutra 20 means सिराभाव, (1: thal दर्शनात in Sutra 20 refers to the word आविर्भावतिरोभावी in Cha. Upa. VII 26. 1 and that (3) प्रकृतैतावत्त्वं हि प्रतिषेधति in Sutra 22 refers to the fact that in Cha. Upa. VII Sanatkumara tells Narada that Brahinan (7) For यदेव विद्ययेति हि (Bra. Su. IV. 1. 18) vida infra.

318 DISCUSSION OF CERTAIN EAS WITH &

"is not so much" (lit. Brahman is more than the topic in question, viz; the Name, the Speech, ete. etc ) and तता ब्रवीति च भूय: in the same Sutra directly refers to such seutences as आस्ते भगवो नाम्नो भूय: इति नाम्नो वाव भूयोऽरित तन्मे भगवान् ब्रवीतु इति। ... वाबवा नाम्नो भूयसी in Cha. Upa. VII.1-14 If we have rightly hit npon the visaya-vakya, our conjecture that Sutra 22 is meant to explamn aia in Sutra 21 would receive further support We may also add a remark about the Sutrakara's method. As we shall show bolow, the Sutrakara at first gives rational arguments and then he refers to the Sruti or Smrt mn support of the main Proposi- tion; so, as a result of this method, it is likely that if a Sūtra containing a reference to a Sruti or a Smrti is followed by a a Sutra with fe, the succeeding Sutra is most probably meant to explain that Sruti or Smrti. In any case, a Sutra with fe and thus making up only an argument cannot be taken as the first Sutra of an Adhikarana. So, in the case of Bra.Su III.2.22 Sankara does not seem to us to be correct in taking it as a new Adhikaraņa. (2) Bia.Sn. III.2.38-aa @ is our reading.8 Sańkara begins a new Adhikarana, but we have shown that da f' means "Because one and the same Sruti (does so)" and that this Sutra (38) is a partienlar illustration of the general rule in Sūtra III.2.37, viz., [श्रतयः प्रधानपुरुषयोः 1. e. अव्यक्त्तपुरुषप्रयोः एकं ] इतरवत् विशिषन्ति, which itself is meant to support the main Proposition, viz., saar: in the same Sftra (87). In our Notes, we have stated our reasons why we do not take Sutra 38 as beginning a new Adhikarana and why we thus reject Sankara's construction of the Sūtra. (3) Bra.Su.I1I.3.44 reads as 'लिज्ञभूयस्त्वात् तद्धि बलीयस्तदपि पूर्वविकल्पः.' Sankara begins a new Adhikarnna with this Sutra, But the Supra contains & and it means "Because that is more authentic, (ht. stronger; more prominent) because of the majority of texts mentioning it ......... .". Thus, the Sutra (44) does not contain any Proposition and therefore it should be (8) Vide our Notes on the Sütra in Part I.

DISCUSSION OF HAS WITH @ 819

taken as only supporting the Proposition mn Sutra 43. a also in Sutra 44 should refer to Tam mentioned in Sutra 43 (which is our reading istead of sam in the traditional patha). (4) Bra.Su IV 1.18 .- उभयो: यदेव विद्ययेति हि। Sankara takes this Sutray (यदेव विद्ययेति हि) as a new Adhikarana. But it is evident that it is only a ad and therefore it can only be taken as supplying an argument in support of the Proposition mn Sūtra 16.9 Thus, it can be shown that all Satras with f should be taken as only a part of an Adbikarana to which the preceding Sutra mn each case belongs. In the above discussion of Sutras with fa we have not consi- dered oue Sutra with हि, viz., स्वाध्यायस्य तथात्वेन हि समाचारे अधिकाराज्च- Bra.So.III.3.3. To us this Sutra appears to contain an expla- nation of the argument "एकस्यामपि" in Bra Sa.III.32 (भदान्नेति चन्न एकस्यामपि). The rule of स्वाध्यायोऽध्येतव्य does confliet with the arguement that "even if ai, etc., are the same in only one Sākhā of each Veda, Brahman is ( the principle ) to be known from all, the Vedanta Srutis (i. e. from tho accepted Upanisads )." We believe, even without f, the sense of this Sutra (3) would be the same as with f. We here beg to leave out the interpretation of f in this Sutra till further study, admitting our inability to make out its sense as it is. We may next take up the discussion of the Sutras with a in them It is well-known that the nsual sense of the partioln @ is 'but' and it signifies the rejection of an Opponent's view (Pürva- paksa) and that the Sutra in which it oceurs is a Siddhänta Sutra. In this sense the word occurs in the following Sutras according to Sankara and we agree with him. (1) #1g | Bra. Su.III 2.32. The Pürvapaksa is stated in the preceding Sutra (III.2.31) and Sankara explains & as 'ao-a asfrat प्राप्ति निरुणद्वि।'. (9) For other arguments vide our Notes on Sutra IV. 1. 18.

320 तु IN A सूत्र MEANS REFUTATION OF A पूर्वपक्ष

(2) पूर्व तु बादरायणो हेतुव्यपदेशात् । Bra.Su.III.2.41. Thc Purvapaksa is given in the preceding Sutra. (3) संज्ञानश्चेत्तदुक्तमस्ति तु तदपि। Bra.St.1II 3.8. We have stated in our Notes how and why we differ from Sankara as regards the inter- pretation of this Sutra. Here it is sufficient to say that Sankara alsso takes 'तदुक्तमस्ति तु तदि' as the statemient of the Siddhanta Sankara however seems to mterpret g m the sense of a, which10 is evidently wrong, because he takes 'संज्ञातः इति चेत' as tho Opponent's arguement, as we also do. Thus, # here too moans the refutation of a Purvapaksa stated partly in a preceding Sutra and partly in this Sūtra.11

(4) विद्यैव तु निर्धोरगात Bra.St.III.3.47. Though here we differ from Sankara as regards the interpretation, we fully agree with his view that the Purvapaksa is given in the preceding three Sutras (III.8.45-46) and that this is a Siddhanta Sutra.

(5) परेण च शब्दस्य ताद्विध्ये भूयरत्वात्त्वनुबन्धः Bra.Su.III.3.52 For our difference from Sankara's interpretation the Notes on this Sutra may be referred to. Sankara and we take the particle 's' as denoting the refutation of a Purvapaksa mentioned in Sūtras III.3.45-46. Thus, inspite of the difference of interpretation about the Sutra between Sankara and ourselves, it may be said that @ in this Sutra signifies the refutation of the Pūrvapaksa stated in Sutra III.3.45-46. (6) व्यतिरेकस्त्वावाभावित्वान्न तूपलब्धिवत् Bra.Sti.III.3.54 Sankara takes the preceding Sutra as stating the Pürvapaksa. (7) काम्यास्तु यथाकाम समुच्चीयेरजया पूर्वहेत्वभावात्। Bra.St.III.3.60. This is *a Siddhanta Sūtra refuting a Pürvapaksa not stated in the preceding Sutra (बिकल्पोऽविक्षिष्टफलत्वात्-(Bra,St,III.3.52) but to be casily inferred from it.

(10) Cf अस्ति चतत्संज्ञैकत्वम् in Sankara bhasys on Bra.Su.III.3.8. (11) The complete PurvapakSa statement is अन्यथात्व संज्ञातः। अन्यथात्वम् being understood from Sutra 6.

TET's MEANING OF & IN SOME ES, EXAMINED, 821

(8) अर्धकापदेशात्नु बादरायगरयैवं तदर्शनतू। Bra.St. II1.4.8. The Prirva- pakşa is given in Bra.Sū. III.4.2-7. (9) तुल्यं तु दशनम्। Bra.Su.1II.4.9. The Purvapaksa is stated in Bra.St.III 4.3 (आच.रदशनात्). (10) उपपूर्वमपि वंके भावमशनवत्तदुक्तम् Bra.Su.III.4.42. Though we differ from Sinkara as regards the interpretation of this Sūtra and the one which precedes it, via., न चाधि कारिकमपि पतनानुमावात्तदयोगातूः we agree with him in taking this Sūtra (1II 4.42) as a refuta- tion or rather a modification of the view expressed in Sntra III. 4. 41. 'a' shows that the view in Sutra III 441 is refuted, while 'sy' shows that the refutation is not a complete oue 12 So, we can safely say that even according to Sunkara '' in Sūtra III.4.42, as in other Sūtras, is an indication of the refutation of a view expressed in a preceding Sūtra. In all these cases 'a' is taken to mean the refutation of a qiqa and the Sutra is treated as a Siddhanta Sutra. The Prvapaksa is given in a preceding Sutra or u the Sutra itself except in the case of Bra. Su.III. 3.60, where it is to be inferred from the preceding Sūtra. Now, we shall notice those Sutras with a, which are Siddhänta Sutras according to Sankara with whom we agree, but in which Śankara does not point out a definite Purvapaksa and thus does not always give the sense of the refutation of a Pūrvapaksa to the word &, but assigns some other sense to it, e. g., that of qualifying (fadqT) some statement :- (1) उमयव्यपदेशात्वहिकुण्डलवत्। Bra.Sa.1II.2,27. Sankara does not seem to explain the importance of J at all. We have shown that the preceding Sutra (III. 2.26 «aisarda awfie 18aql gives the Pūrvapaksa. 18 (2) हानौ तूपायन शब्देशषत्वातकुशाछन्दस्तुत्युपगानवत्तदुक्क्म्। Bra.Su.III.3.26. Sankara interprets g in the sense of $aw, but this is not the usual sense of a. (12) Vide our Notes on 3T in the Sutra in Part I. (13) Vide Note on Bra. SI, III. 2, 26. 41

892 E'S MEANING OF I IN SOME CaS, EXAMINED.

Moreover, he takes this Sutra as forming an Adhikaraņa by itself. We have suggested that the preceding Sutra (aaid- aal Bra Su.III.3 25 ) contains the Pūrvapaksa and botb these Sutras (together with Bra. st. III. 3. 27) form one Adhi- karana discussing the meditation on the Syllable Om 14

(3) an ToAaR : I Bra Sa III.4.48. Here S nkara takes 'a' in the sense of qualification.15 We have shown in our Notes how our interpretation differs fron thas of Sankara and how Satra III.4 48 contains a refntation of the view in Sūtra III 4 47 which makes the performance of all other helping actions optional for all the orders of life. Sitra 48 makes them compul- sory for a householder seeking emancipation. (4-7) इतरस्यायेवममश्रलेष पाते तु। Bra.Sa.IV.1.14. अनारब्धकार्ये एव तु पूर्वे तदवधे: । Bra. Sa.IV.1.15. अम्रहोश्रदि तु तत्कार्यायेव तच्छूतः। Bra. sü.IV.1.16. + + + भ,गेन त्वितरे क्षपयित्वा संपद्यते। Bra sa.IV.1.10.

Here we have a series of Sitras with @ Sankara interprets 'पाते तु' in Sutra 14 aA "तुगब्दे Sवधारणार्थः। एवं धर्माधर्मयोः बन्धहत्वोर्विद्यासामर्थ्या दश्लन वनाशमिद्वेरवश्यभाविनी विदुन: शरीरपाने मुक्तिरित्यववारयति।"-we have shown that 'qia a' means that the goruan takes place not on the attainment cf the knowledge of Brahman like the q19ar984 stated in the preceding Sutra, but on the fall of the body. As long as the body lasts, the knower of Brabman must continne his contact with the religious good deeds. Thns, $ in Sutra IV.1.14 indicates the rejection of the view that gomrer also takes places on the attninment of the knowledge of Brabman. sotra IV.1.15 contains & and it is, as shown by us in our 'Notes on it, an indication that the view of qaqrqguzarar stated in S-tra IV.1.15 is modifled by Satra 15. Sūtra 15 does not accept

(14) Vide Note on Bra. Sū. III. 3. 25. (16) Sa. thasva-तु शब्द्रो विशेषणार्थः। कृत्स्नभावोडरयं (गृहिणः) विशिष्यते।

JR'S MEANING OF IN SOME EaS, EXAMINED. 323

the conclusion that पूव पाप and पुण्य both अनारब्धकार्य as also आरब्धकार्य are respectively destroyed and dissociated from the sage-a view which may be taken as expressed in Sutras 13-14. Again, Sutra IV.1.16 restricts the meaning of Sutra IV. 1. 16. The latter conveys the sense that all good deeds which are I and which precede the attainment of the know- ledge are dissociated from the rage (sraq:) on the fall of the body, while Sutra IV.1.16 says that the particular good deeds, viz., afaT and others, which nre feasaas which precede the attain- ment of the knowledge (Satra 15) are useful to the sage for getting Moksı, the aim of the knowledge of Brahman, i e., these particular good ueeds work as help to Jñana for the same goal. In Sutra IV.1.19 इतरे means मरच्वकार्ये (पूर्ते) पापपुण्ये. In Sutras IV.113 and IV.1.14 we are told that all 'preceding' sins of a sage are destroyed on the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman; in Sutra 15 we learn that only those 'preceding sins which are aR#r are so destroyed while Satra 19 states that the T preceding sins are destroyed only by means of the sage suffering their results during his life after the attainment of the knowledge of Brabman. Again, from Sutra IV.1.14 we gather that all gond deeds of a sage are dissociated from him on the fall of his body; in Sitras 15-16 we learn that the prece- ding good deeds both नित्य (like अमिहत्रादि ) and others, which are aTmd, are dissociated from the sage only on the fall of the body, while Sütrs 19 tells us that the preceding good deeds which are aR T#r are dissociated from the sage only after he bas had their good results during his life after tho attainmnent of the knowledge of Brabman. Thus, § in Sotra 19 like a in Sūtra 15 is a partial refutation of the view expressed in Sūtras 13 and 14. In short, the particle a in all these fonr Sūtras (IV. 1. 14, 15,16, and 19) signifies partial refutation of views expressed in a preceding Sutra, which is also a Siddhānta Sutra.

824 IN SOME EAS REFUTES AN IMPLIED TY.

It is necessary to add that Sinkara also does not regard any of these four Sitras with @ as stating a Parvapaksa; he rather takes all of them as representing the Siddhanta. He does not seem to us to expressly emphasise the fact that the Pūrvapaksa refuted partly by the repeated & is mainly the one implied in a preceding Sutra which is here a Sidduanta Satra,16

In the above seven Sitras @ indicates the refutation of a Pürvapaksn; and, though Sankara does not make out the Pürvapakșa from a preceding Sitra, we have suggested that probably in all these cases the required Purvapals can be derived from a preceding Sūtra.

We shall now qnote examples of Sitras with , which are Siddhanta Subras and which refute a Pūrvapaksa not expressed but only implied :- (1) al Bra.Su.M.3 13. We have shown in our Notes that this and the two Sutras which follow it mean that in the meditation on the arupavat or Pradhana aspect of Brahman, the negative attribntes 17 are not to be collected for the purpose of the meditation. Sankara's interpretation is different from ours; 18 yet he takes the Sutra as a Siddhanta Sutra and regards a as conveying the sense of the refutation of a Purvapaksa implied in a preceding Siddhanta Supra (III. 3.12). But this does not seem to us to be the correct view; becanse the Siddhanta eatablished in this Suera (13) is only a repetition of the Siddhanta established in Sūtra 11. We rather think that the Purvapaks insisting upon the medita- tion on the negative attributes of the Pradbana, which is here refuted, is not given in any Sutra here but is to be only inferred. (2) अक्षरधियां त्ववरोध: In our Notes on this sutra,, we bave shown how this Sutra,

(16) Even SutraIV.1.13 is & Siddhanta Sūtra. (17) I. e the attributes like अनणु, अह्रस्तम, अदीघम, अलोहितम् ........ B .. Upa. (18) Vide Notes on Bra,SB.III.3.13 in Part 1.

J REFUTES A CETT NOT STATED 325

thongh taken as an independent Adhıkaran by Śankara, should have originally formed part of an Adhikaran consistng of Sutras III.3 31-33 and how agiq in this Sūtra refers to Bra. Sū, III. 3. 13-15. We agree with Sunkara in interpreting @ ag expressing the refutation of a Purvapasa. This Sutra (III. 3. 33) itself reasserts the Siddhanta established in Sūtras HII. 3. 13-15, as made clear by agmq; so the Pürvapaks, in both the places is the same. It is not stated in any Subra. (१) शमदमादुगतः स्यातथापि तु तद्वियेस्तदतनपा तषामनपानुष्ठेयस्मू।- Bra.Su. III 4 27. This Sutra refutes a Purvapaksi holding that oue who is possessed of the qualities of tranquilty of mind, coutrol of sense, etc., mentioned in Br Upa.JV.4.28, need not perform yajñi, dana and tapas stated in Br. Upa. IV.4 22, as the acts to be performed by a seeker of Moks. The preceding Sūtra (26) mentions only the yajña, dana and tapas but does not give this Pürvapalsa. Sańkara also takes this Sūtra (27) as a Siddhānta Sūtra. (4) अन्तरा चापि तु तद्दषेः ।-Bra.Su.III 436. According tokr also this is a Siddhanta Sntra. We think that it refutes a Pūrva- palsa, viz , a seeker of Moksi must necessarily pass gradually from one order of life to the other. In the Sütra (III.4.35) which precedes this Sütra, it is stated that the Sruti shows that the duties of the orders and the other duties of yajna, dana and tapas are not suppressed on account of a man being a seeker of Molsi; but there is no indication of the compulsion about these dnties which would justify & in Satra 36. So, we have to infer that 'a' refutes a Pürvapalsa not stated in a precoding Sūtra. (5) अतस्ति्वतरज्ज्यायो लिज्ञान। Bra SO.III.4.39. As the word 'उपायस्" sbows, § is meant to refute only the comparative importance of a view aud not the view itself. This superior importance which is the topic of refutation is not stated in a preceding Sotra. (6) तद्भूतस्य तु नातद्धावो जमिनेरपि नियमातद्रपाभावैभ्यः। Bra.Sh.III.440. We have shown in our Notes that & in this Sūsra refutes the

S26 INDICATES REFUTATION OF A TT

view that a seeker of Moksa who bas become a hermit or an ascetic may again become a householder or a student. Sańkara does not seem to interpret J.

The Purvapaksa stating the option denied in this Sntra (40) is not given in a preceding Sūtra.

बहिगतभ्यथापि रमृतेराचाराच।- Bra.Su IIl.4.43. Here 'तु' seems to refnte a Purvapaksa that a seeker ot J'rahman, thongh he is outside the orders of a hermit or an ascetrc (afa:), sbould not perform the priestly or professional or semi-professional duties; but such a Purvapaksa is not stated in a preceding Sutra (8) आत्मेति तपगच्छन्ति ग्राह्यान्ति च । Bra.Sn.IV.1.3. Here Sanikara explains & in the sense of qa. To us, § seems to refute the view that the secker of Brahman practising the Means of Molsa and born repeatedly on this earth forgets everything of his past births and begins his efforts quite fresh. But this view is not given in a preceding Sūtra. (9) संकल्पादेव तु तच्छूतेः । Bra.Su IV.48. The Pürvapaksa that the liberated soul would create the objects of enjoyment by his own physical labour or that the objects could be created for him by the efforts of some one else, is not stated in a preceding Sūtra. In all these nine Sütras (in Bra.Sü.III.2.11-IV) § is not interpreted by Sankara as used in a Pūrvapaksa Sūtra to refute or to criticise or to modify a Siddhanta view or a view supposed to be the Siddhanta. It may be tbat there were some Vedanta- sutras whose views were refuted in these Sutras without quoting them in a preceding Sutra. It is not the habit of the Sūtrakāra to use E so often without giving it its due significance. In fact, he does not seem to use any word that would be superfluous or redundant. There are many Siddhanta Sutras without any @ at all. So, the use of is significant, and it always means the refutation of a Pürvapaksa either stated or not in a preceding Sotra. One important point is that so far we have examined

AS HELP FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE E393 327

about 26 Sütras with @ in them but none of them is, even according to Sankara, a Pūrvapalsa Sutra.

We shall now consider how far the copulative particle @ can belp us in reconstructing the text of the Brabmasurra. The importance of a in this respect would be numerically far more than that of any other particle, becanse m about 227 Sūtras (from Bra.Su III.2.11 to Bra.Su. IV.4) the particle 4 occuts about 80 times.

The pirticle ~ has its usual sense of 'addition' in the following Sūtras :-

(1) Bra.Sü.TII.2.13 'and a' shows that this Sutra adds one more arguement to the Sutrakara's reply to 'a raa'. (2) Bra.Su III.2.15-18. As we have shown' in our Notes, Sütra 15 is a Pūrvapaksi Sūtra. It adds One more adjective to the one, viz, arupavat, stated in the preceding Satra, while Sutras III 2.16 to 18, each of which has ", add three arguments to substantiate aaraa4 in Sutra 15.

(3) Bra Su III 2.21 adds a Sruti as an argument to '*4- msaigan' in Bra. Sn. III. 2. 20.

(4) Bra.Su.III.2.24-25. The second = (9mha) shows an argument to support प्रकाशादिचच्चावशेष्यम् (5-16) III. 3. 3, 5, 22, 39, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52. 62, 63, 61. (17-31) III. 4. 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 20, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 89, 43. (32 84) IV. 1. 3, 8, 9. (35-37) IV. 2. 1, 17, 19. (38-42) IV. 3. 8, 11, 13, 14, 15. (43-45) IV. 4. 17, 19, 20.

According to Sankara, with whom we agree, the particle # in these (about) 50 Sutras adds one more argument (yukti) to that already given'in a preceding Sdtra, or adds a Sruti as an argnment, or shows the further application of a Proposition (e. g., in Sütra IlI. 3. 5).

328 INDICATS END OF THE EU.

In certain Satras, a performs a double function, viz, that of udding a final argument so that these Satras show the end of an Adhikarana as well as the addition of one more argument to those already given. We simply give below a list of the Satras of this type only where we hnu our-selves in agrcement with Śańkara.

(1) III 2. 30. (2-4) IIT. P. 4,,15, 66. (5-S) IIT. 4. 17, 46. (7-8) IV. 1. 2, 10 (9-11) IV 2. 2, 14, 21. (12) IV. 3. 1C. (18) IV. 4. 9.

Besides these thirteen Sūtras, there are several Sutras in which according to Sankara, the conjunctive parmcle a serves also as an indication of the satra being the last one in an Adhikarana, e. g., (1) Bra. Sü. III. 2. 21, (2-3) Bra. Si. III. 2. 22, ₹ 52, (4-7) III. 4. 22, 24, 31, 35, (8) IV. 4. 2, 11 (9) IV. 3 1419. In these nine cases, we do not agree with Sankara in taking each part- cular Sutra as the last Sitra of the Adhikarana. We may, hon- ever, note here that altogether there are about twentytwo Sutras with which in the opinion of Sankara are the last Sutras of their respective Adhikaraņas. If we make a calculation from the above twofold usage of = according to Sankara, we find that in about seventy two places he does not take a satra with as standing at the beginning of a new Adhikarana. Now, we give a list of Sutras with which Sankara takes either as th'e first sutra of an Adhikarana or as the only Sūtra of a new Adhikarana; and we also give our own reasons why we do not agree with Sankara. (1) Bra.SuIII.3.9. araa anang | Sankara makes one Adhi- karaņa of this Sutra. We think it is the last Sutra of an Adhi- karaņa consisting of Sūtras III. 3. 5-9. Sutra III. 3. 9 gives the

(19) Our arguments for not taking these Sutras as the last Sutras of the Adhikarana are given in their proper places in Part I.

A सूत WITH DOES NOT BEGIN AN अधिकरण.

last argument of the Siddhanta for rejecting the Parvapaksa, viz., a. There should be no Collection (sqagk-Sutra III.S 5). (2) n.a Su.III.3.19. समाने एवं चाभदात्।- Sanikara begins a new Adhikarana, but we have shown with reasons that this Sūtra extends the rule or Proposition abont the A-purva mentioned originally in the Br. Upa. and discussed by the Sūtrakara in Bra.Sü.II1.3.18, to other Upanisads which also come within the range of the title 'Vedanta' as much as the Br. Upa.does. We have shown that समाने च in this Sutrais like समान च in Bra.St. III.3.5 (उपसहारोडर्थामेदाद्विधि शेषवत्समाने च ।ा (3-4) Bra.Sn.lIl 3.23. संभृतियुध्याप्त्यपि चातः । and Bra.Su.III 3.24. पुरुर्षाद्यायामिव चेतरेषामनाम्ना नानू । Sankara makes an Adhikarana of each of these Sütras. We have shown in our Notes that these two Sutras give two more arguments for the Siddhantin's refutation of the Purvapaasa stated in Sutra III.3.20 ( संबन्धादेवमन्यत्नापि।). For this reason also Sutra II.3.22 shonld not be taken as the last Sutra of the Adhikarana. All these three Satras (22, 23, 24) have each of them the particle a and we conclude that Sutra 24 ends the Adhikarana. Sutra 25 has no a in it and makes a fresh Proposition, as we shall show below.

(5-6) Bra.Su.III.4.25-अत एव चारनीन्घनाधनपेक्षा। and Bra.Su II.4.26. -सर्वाेक्षा च यज्ञादिश्वुतेरश्चवत्। Sankara takes each of these two Sutras as an Adhikarana by itself. We have given onr argumonts in our Notes to show that Sutras 25 and 26 explain why the knowledge of Brahman is something to be performed ( tgga ) or even that the knowledge is of the nature of an Injunetion (fafar-Sütra 20). Because the knowledge of Brahman is anustheya like the Vedic Sacrifices, there is a unanimity of sense between the two Kandas of the Śruti (ekavākyata-Bra. Sü. III.4.24) and it is for the reason of such a unanimity between the two that the performance of the knowledge of Brahman does not stand in need of fire, fuel, eto; which are needed in the Púrvakanda (Sütra III.4.25) and that all requirements for its performance

330 A WITH DOES NOT BEGIN AN ETU.

resulting from the Sruti (Br Upa, IV.4.22) which lays down the sacrifice, donation, and austerities for the knowledge of Brahman are of the nature of the Horse20 described at the beginning of the Br. Upa. ( Sutra 26). In our opinion, Sutra 26, with in it, is the last Sutra of the Adhikarana consisting of Bra.Sū, [IL.4.18-26, which discusses the question whether the knowledge of Brahman is of the nature of simple reflection (Jaimini's view- Sutra 18 ) or is something to be performed (BadarayaDa's view- Sūtras 19-20). (7) Bra.Su.III.4.28. - सर्वान्नानुमातेश्व प्राणत्यये वाक्यशेषात्। Sankara begins a new Adhikarana with this Sutra. We have shown that a new Adhikarana should begin with Sūtra III.4.27 which asserts the Proposition that though a seeker of liberation is possessed of the control of the mind (Sama), the senses, (dama), etc, he must perform the yajna, dana, tapas laid down in Br. Upa. IV.4.23 for him. Sutra III.4.28 means that even if the seeker be possessed of the śama, dama, etc., he should not break the rule about persons from whom he can eat his food or about the eatable and uneatable food; the violation or setting aside of that rule is allowed (sarvānnāumati) even to the seeker possessed of sama, dama, etc. only when he is in the danger of losing his life ( pranatyaye - Bra.Su.III.4.28 ). Thus, this Sutra is closely connected with the preceding Sūtra. (8) Bra.Su.Ill.4.32. - विहितत्वाच्चाश्रमकर्मापि। Here also Sankara be- gins a new Adhikarana, but we have stated with probability that Sutra 32 is a continuation of the Adhikarana begun with Sütra 27 in so far as the latter asks the seeker to perform yajña, dana, tapas ( in accordance with Br. Upa.IV.4.23 ), while the · former adds to those the duties of the order to which the seeker belongs. 'Only those two kinds of duties must be performed by a seeker under any circumstances (Bra.Sn.III.4.84). (9) Bra.St.IlI.4. 36. - अन्तरा चापि तु तहषेः। Without repeating our arguments givon in our Notes, we may here say that also (20) Of, उपा वा अश्वस्य मेध्यस्य ato. See Notes.

A सूत्र WITH DOES NOT BEGIN AN आघकरण 331

this Sutra with a can be easilv understood to belong to a digre- ssion discussed in Sütras 36-89, which helps in clearing the conolusion in Sutra 34. A seeker must perform the duties of the order to which be belongs, and though he can jump over an order or even two orders of hfe (e. g., when a secker belonging to the order of the celibate takes up the order of the renunciation of the world in accordance with Sruti and Smrti allowing such a jump); the one regularly passing from one order to another is better than the one availing himself of the Scriptural concession (Sūtra 39). (10) Bra.Su.III.4.41. न चाधिकारिकमपि पतनानुमानात्तदयोगात्। Sankara does not see the connection of this Sutra with the preceding Sūtra (III.4.40); most probably this Sutra is meant to prevent a seeker belonging to the order of an ascetic from doing the (priestly or) official duties of his varna or caste. (11) Bra.Su.IV.1.6. आदित्यादिमतयश्ाङ्ग उपपतेः। Sankara takes this Sütra as Adhikarana V. We interpret it to mean that the "returned" seeker has the notions of the Sun, etc., in the parts (angas) of the Lord. In fact, Sutras IV.1.3-6 tell us how a returned seeker looks upon Brahman Iteslef (Sutra 3), the Symbol of Brahman (i.e., the Pranava, Sutras 4-5) and the external world consisting of the Sun, etc., (Sutra 6). The Sütra is the last Sūtra of this Adhikarana. (12) Bra.Su.IV.2.7. समाना चामृयुपक्रमादमृतत्वं चानुपोष्य। " And this utkranti is common, during all his returns (avrtti-Sntra IV.1.1) after he begins (to go on) the Path of gods (having given up the Path of the Pitrs) until the attainment of immortality ". So, this Sutra is a part of the Adhikarana dealing with the process of the utkranti described in Sntras IV.2.1.6. (13) Bra.Su.IV.2.20. अतश्चायनेऽपि दक्षिणे। The seeker who leaves the gross body through the hundred and first artery joins on his very departure the rays of the Sun, even though be may leave the body at night (Sütra 19) and even though he may do so during

332 EETS III.2 29 AND ITI.4.21.

the six months of the Sun's Southern Course (dalsinayana-Bra. Su.IV.2 20). Thus, Sutra 20 solves the same doubt about the seeker's depart :re mn daks nayana, as Sutra 19 about his departure at night. So, Sutras 20-21 are parts of the same Adhikarana as Sutras 18-19.

We have above discussed thirteen Sutras with ~ and shown that in these cases where Sinkara begins a new Adhikaraņa, really we have the continnation of the Athikaran to which the preceding Sutra in each case belongs. We may here remark that in all these Sūtras Sańkara does not take a in its usual sense of mere addition of one more argument for the statement made in a preceding Sūtra; he has to find some other theme of addition or, often, to leave unexplained. There are two Sftras with a, which Sankara does not take as the last Sutras of their respective Adhikaranas, but which we have proposed to regard as the last ones, viz., (1) III.2.39 (क्ुतत्वाचच) and (2) IV.4.21 (भोगमात्रसाम्यलिग्गाच्च ।) (1) Bra.Su III.239. a | Sańkara takes one Adhikaraņa of Sutras III.2.39-41. We believe, = in Sutra III.2.39 shows that we have here one Adhikarana of Sūtras III.2 38-39, becanse Sūtra III 2.39 gives the second and the last argument for tbe statement that 'the Frint in the form of Liberation is to be had from this unmanifest One', (qaHa: Bra.Su III.2.38). The fact that Sutra 40 makes a fresh Proposition (See below) also supports our view that Sutra III.2.39 is the last Sutra of the Adhikarana. (2) III4.21. | Sańkura takes an Adbikarana of Sftras III.4.17-22. We have proposed to regard Sutra IV 4.21 as the last Sutra of the Adhikarana made of sutras IV 4.17-20, because we think that this Adbikarana deals with one topio, while Sutra IV.4 22 deals with a different topic. Besides the Sutras with = already discussed, we may notice in the following Sutras for the eorrect understanding of the import of this conjunctive particle : -(1) Bra.Sū.III.2.18, 18, 35; (2) Bra.

A सूत्र WITH च, THE LAST सूत्र OF AN अधिकरण. 333

Sū. III.2.46, 64; (3) Bra.Su.III.4.7, 15, 22, 83. In all these Sutras # shows the end of the arguments either of the Opponent or of the Siddhantin, e.g., in Bra.Su,III.2.35 shows that all the argu- ments of the l'ürvapaksa have been refuted; and in Bra.Sü. IIT.4.7 signifies the end of the arguments of the Pūrvapaksa. The above examination of the nse of a in the Bra.Sn. would prove that (1) when a Sutra begins with a, most probably it is not the first or only Shtra of an Adhikarana and (2) when a Stra with a occurs in course of au Adhikarana, it generally signifies the last argument for the point in question and often in this case the Sutra is the last Sutra of the Adhikarana, though not always so. We may here add a note that in Bra Su II.2.1 we have the single case of a Sutra with a at the very beginning of a Pada. In a separate Paper21 published elsewhere we have tried to show that Bra.Su.II.1 deals with the Sutrakara's view about the Vedanta of the Smrtis like the Gita, while Bra.Su. II.2.1~11 present the same about the rational Samkhya Sehool and thus, in Bra Su. II.2.1 is meant to include the arguments in Bra. Sa. II.1 in those of the Sutrakara's refutation of the rational Samkhya School, which also claimed the support of several Srutis (discussed in Bra.Su I.4) and Smrtis discussed in Bra.Su.II.1. Like the presence of = in a Sütra, the absence of the same ln some Satras also should be examined. We have so fur como across only one such noteworthy case. Sutra III.3 62 ( frirer ) and II.364 (ea ) have each of them & while the intervening Sutra III.3.63 ( amania ) is without #. If there is a series of ags given here in Sütras 62-64 for proving the stato- ment in Bra. Sa III 3.61 ( ang rrna: ), why have we no w in Bra.So III.3. 63? We belteve, we should either have ~ in Satra III.3.63 or we should have one Sntra, viz., Aigeramna, insead of Sotras 62 and 63. This latter seems to us to be the only possible solution. We have shown in our Notes that Satra III.8.61 (21) Vide the author's Paper on "Meaning of Smrti in the Brahma-Sotra" in the Indian Historical Quarterly, 1936.

334 ALWAYS MEANS 'AND':

refers to the notions of the hend, the eye, etc., in the Sky (a), the Sun ( amfaay ), etc., mentioned in Cha. Upa. V.12, 13, etc, while the waiRix ffe "teaching in a collection" or 'the collective teaching' refers to तस्य ह वा एतस्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्य मूधेध सुतेजाश्रक्षरविश्वरूपः प्राणः पृथ ग्वत्मात्मा संदेही बहुलः etc., in Cha.Upa.V.18. Thus, we should have here one Sutra, viz., faea menia | This is our inference from the absence of = in Bra Su.III.3.63."

As regards the meaning of a we might here briefly say that though Sankara mostly interprets it as a conjunctive particle, there are some rare cases in which he givos it a meaning suitable to him on the occasion. Iu Bra.Su.I1.3.40 (यथा च तक्षाभयथा) which is not discussed by us in the present work, Sańkara takes « in the sense of 22 while in Bra.Sn. III.3.62 he explains = in the sense of aI. We beg to suggest that it has always the sense of 'and' throughout the Brahmasutra.

For recovering the original reading (patha) of the text of the Brahmasutra particularly with reference to the division of the Adhikarana, besides the above test of the study of the nse of particles like ft, , 3, etc., we have also one more difficult test, viz., that of the study of the grammatical construction of certain Sütras.

The most promient among these Sutras with peculiar gra- mmatical construction are the Sutras with words in the ablative case having the sense of hetu 'reason', e.g., Sutra IV.3.5 (- व्यामोहात्तत्सिद्ेः) gives the hetu for Sutra IV.3.4 (आतिवाहिकास्ताल्िज्गात्). In this case the hetusutra is lke a Sütra with f, i.e., it is by itself incomplete in sense and gives only a reason for a conclusion in a preceding Sutra which may present the Pūrvapaksa or a the Siddhanta. Thus, Sutra IV.3.5 could have as well been worded as उभयव्यामोहाद्वि तत्सिद्धि:। If we do not take such a Sutra as only a hetusutra, we should have to make many additions to it before we could make out a connected complete meaning from it.

(22) Vide Sa, bhã. on Bra.Sũ. II.3.40.

EAS WITH WORDS IN THE ABL. CASE ONLY 335

We give below a list of the hetusutras which Sińkara does not take as such and with which he begins a new Adhikarana, while we take them as part of an Adhikarana to which the respective preceding Sutra belongs. Our explanation of the entire Sitras is given in our Notes. It would be eaily seen that these Sūtray with oblative case in the sense of hetu are liko the Sutras with R, 28 which we have already proposed to take as closely connected with the preceding Sūtra. (1) Bra.Su.III.3.14-आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभावात्। Sankara begins a new Adhikarana with this Sutra, but unless we make several additions24 to it, we cannot get a complete sense out of it. It really gives only a hetu like the hetu argamrara in Sutra III.8.13 and supports 'gat @' in the latter.

(2) Bra.Su.III.3.27-सांपराये तर्तव्याभावात् तथाह्यन्ये। This Sutra (मांपराये adaara I ) gives only a hetu, and makes no self-complete state- ment.

(3) Bra.Sn.III.3.53-एके आत्मनः शरीरे भावात्। 'आत्मनः शरीरे भावात्' is - the statement of only a hetu and it is the reason advanced by 'some'. The Sütra cannot be taken as the beginning of an Adhıkarana as is done by Sańkara.

(4) Bra.Su.III.4.44-स्वामिन: फलश्रुतेरित्यात्रेयः । As in the case of the above three Sutras, Sankara takes this also as the first Sutra of an Adhikarana, but we think 'A": waga:' gives only an argu- ment for the Conclusion "aferanamt" in the preceding Sutra, it being the third argument besides red: and anema stated in Sū.III.4.43. (5) Bra.Sn.IV.2.8-तदापीतेः संसारव्यपदेशात्। We have shown that this Sutra supports the Assertion made in the preceding Sūtra. (6) Bra.Su.IV.2.12-प्रतिषेधादितिचेनन शारीरात। This Sutra supports the statement in Bra.Su.IV.2.7. This Sutra is like Bra.Su.III.

(23) Cf. Bra.Sū.III.2.22, III.3.44, IV.1.18. (24) Vide our Notes on the Sütra in Part I.

836 हतुसूनs, DISTINGUISHRD FROM प्रतिज्ञासूत्रS.

3.17 (अन्वयादितिचेत् स्यादवधारणात्) which Sankara takes as an argument for the preceding Sūtra. All these are hetusutras with pañcami (the Ablative Case) and therefore should not be taken as the first Sūtras of an Adhıkarana. There are some Sutras which have neither f nor a word in the Ablative as an indication of their being only an argument, but which still do not seem to us to begin a new Adhikarana and so far we differ from Sankara. Our reasons for joining these Sftras with their respective preceding Sutras are mostly contextual. Though these Sutras are of the form of a statement, they serve as arguments for the Conelusion in a preceding Sutra. These Stras taken by themselves cannot yield a self-complete sense and therefore they are of different nature from those which we would call "siameas" or "Sutras of Propositions" and which invariably begin a new Adhikarana ( See below ). (1) Bra.Su.III 3.6 अन्यथात्वं शब्दादिति चेन्नाविशेषात्। The meaning of aqaan by itself is not clear and therefore we have to join this Sutra to the preceding one. In fact the Sutra could have as well been put ns aaaiaaura. It is a Purvapaksa against the* upasamhara proposed in the preceding Sutra. (2) We have shown that Sutra, III 3.19 (समाने एवं चाभदात्।) should be counected with Sutra III.3.18 ( कार्याख्यानादपूर्वम्।), We believe, Sutra III 8.20 ( संबन्धादेवमन्यत्रापि) presents a Purvapaksa and thus continues the same topic as in the preceding Satra as is suggested by vag and aar; so this Sutra should be grouped in the same Adhikarana as the preceding two Sūtras.

(8) Bra Su.IIT.3.29 गतरथवत्त्वमुभयथाऽन्यथाहि विरोधः। This Sutra is closely conneoted with छन्दतः उभयाविरोधात (Bra.Su.III.3.28) through the word H4, and gives a ta for Satra III.3.28. (4-5) Bra.Su.III.3.22 यावदधिकारमवस्थितिराधिकारिकाणाम् ! and Bra.Su. III.3.33 अक्षरधियां त्ववरोध: सामान्यतद्धावाभ्यां तटुकमू। We think, these two Sutras along with Sutra III.3.31 present the attributes or medita-

सूधS WHICH CANNOT BEGIN AN अधिकरण 337

tional thoughts (vfis) on the Purusr and should be therofore grouped together exactly like Sutra I1I.3.11-18 ( also 14-15 ) which are taken as forming one Adhikarana by Sankara and which present the attributes to be used in the meditation on the Pradhana or the Formless Aspect of Brahman. (6) Bra.Su.III.3.39 सत्यादयः कामादितरत्र तत्र चायतनािभ्यः । 25 This Satra

III 3 37. is a corollary of the Interchange ( vyatihara ) stated in Bra.Su.

(7-8) Bra.Su.III.3.40 ( आदशादलोपः ) and Bra.Su.III.3.41 (उपस्थितऽ ma i). We do not know to what the non-dropping (aaiq:) rrfers, unless we connect the Sutra closely with Bra.su.III.3.37-80: We have given in our Notes our reasons for taking Sutra III 3 40 as the Purvapaksa and the Sutra III.2.41 as the Siddhapta (9) Bra.Sa.III.3.42 ( तन्निर्धारणानियमस्तद्दृष्टः पृथगध्यप्रतिबन्धः फलम्।). The context shows that this Sutra must be grouped along with Sutras III.3.37-41. (10-11) Bra.Su.III.4.21 (स्तुतिमात्रमुपादानादिति चेत्नापूतरवात् ।) and Bra.Su.III.4.23 (पारिप्लवर्था इति चन्न विशपतत्वान्। Both these Satras contain a Purvapaksa and its refutation, thns proving the propo- sition of Satras 1II.4.19-20. They cannot therefore begin a new Adhikaraņa. (12-13) Bra.Su.IV.1.4 न प्रतीके न हि सः । and Bra.Su.JV.1.5 ब्रह्मदल- #wqfa| The meaning of the negation in Sutra IV.1.4 can be understood only from Bra.Su.IV.18 and the partiele a in Bra.Su IV.1.6 also shows that Sutras IV.1.3-6 should form only one Adhikaraņa. (14) Bra.Su.IV315 अप्रतीकालम्वनान्नयतीति बादरायणः उभयभाऽदोषाततन्नुश्। If we compare this Satra with Bra.Su.IV.4.5-7 and Bra.So. IV.4. 10-12, we shonld come to the conclusion that in all these tbree Adbikaranas the Sutrakara criticises two opposite views and then gives his own view about the same tenet with the idea of striking a reconciliation of the two conflicting views. Thus, Sütras TV.3 7-16 would belong to the same Adbikarana, (25) Vide Notes on the Sutra for the change in the reading. 43

338 सूत FORMING THE FIRST सूत्र OF AN अधिकरण,

(15-16) There are two more Sutras (Bra.Su III.3.34 and III.4.50), each of which, according to Sankara, forms an independent Adhikarana, But Satra III.334 (71 ) gives by itself no complete sense. It can at most be a agga because of the ablative case of अ्मनन, Even then, we think i cannot be construed as a Zaqa with the preceding Satra. For this and other reasons, we bave proposed to combine Sutra III.3.34 and Sūtra III.3 35 (razi भूतग्रामवत्रवात्मनः ) and thus to make only one Sntra (डयटामननाटन्तरा : ) By comparing this new Su ra with osher Sutras (1.3.25, I 3.21, I.27), we have shown how this Satra contains a rule about the inward method of meditation on Brahman. As regards Sutra III.4.50 ( अनाविष्कुर्न्नन्वयात्।), we believe, this S"tra contains an explanation of aia which is mentioned in the preceding Sutra and not of aira as Sankara thinks it to do. So, we propose to take it as a parenthetical remark on the sense of Sütra III.449 and theretore we mnclude this Sūtra (50) in the preceding Adhıkaraņa. Thus, it will be seen that in about sixteen Sutras we have to depend upon the context which seems to indicate that these Sütras cannot stand at the heginning of an Adhikarana, as S.nkara understands them to do, but rather they form part of the same Adhikaran as the Sutra or Sutras which precede them. Now, we shall discuss those Sutras, which, according to Sankara, belong to an Adhikarana to which the respective pre- ceding Sutras belong, but which appear to us to be the first Sutras of a new Adhikaruna. Here a question would naturally arise: What are the characteristics of the first Sutra of an Adhikarana ? We may say that generally the first Sutra of an Adhikarana is not of the form of a ègga ( simply giving a mere argument ), but it makes an Assertion which is a self-complete and easily comprehensible statement of a view and which may or may not be accompanied by a ag. We may give some examples :- Bra.Su.III.2.11 contains the Proposition 'न स्थानतोऽपि परस्योभयलिक्गम्" and one argument, viz., vaa f. Bra.Su.III.2.31 has the Proposition.

ETS WHICH SHOULD BEGIN AN U 339

of the Opponent "4rHa:" and the statement of arguments "-R- संब्रन्धभेदव्यपदेशभ्यः".Bra.St. III.3.38 presents the Assertiou "फलमतः" and ane reason, viz, 777:, the second reason being given in the next Satra (11I.3.39-aa l). We give here a list of (about forty-five) Sutras, where we agree with Sankara m taking them as the first Sutras ot an Adhikaraņa.

(1) Bra. SA.III.2 11, 81, 38. (2) Br Sn.III.3.1, 5, 10, 11, 16, 18, 25, 81. 37, 43, 57, 58, 69, 60, 61. (3) Bra.Su III.4.1, 18, 40, 43, 51, 52. (4) Bra.Sü.IV.1.1, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 17, 20. (5) Bra.Sa.IV.21, 15, 16, 17, 18. (6) Bra.Su.IV.3.1, 2, 3, 4, 7. (7) Bra.Sü.IV.4.1, 4, 5, 10, 15.

We have seen that there are several Sutras which, though not composed in the form of a dana ( with f or the Ablative Case ), are of the nature of a statement and serve to elucidate the Proposition in a preceding Sütra. Such Sūtras are not to be confounded with the Sutras which we are now discussing. The former Sutras cannot be understood without the help of tha context, since they contain some word or words which can be clear only through their relation with the preceding Sutra; while the first S-tras of all Adhikarana contain a self- complete Assertion. The following is a list of the Srtras which in our opinion should begin an Adhikarana or should form the only Sitra of an Adhikarana, because they contain a Pratijna with or without an argument :-

karana preceding this Sutra discusses the topic of the applioabi- lity of the two-fold attributes to Brabman. The Adbikarans beginning with Sutra III.2.20 deals with the two stabes of ta,

840 सूतS WHICH SHOULD BEGIN AN अधिकरण.

growth and arggry, decrement, ont of the six states mentioned by Yã ka. (2) Bra.Su.III.2.23 -- तदव्यक्तमाह हि। This shonld be the first Sutra of an Adhikarana just as संध्ये सृटिराह हि ( Bra.Su.III.2.1). (3) Bra.Su.III.2.26-अतोऽनन्तेन तर्थाहि लिङ्म्। This Sttra begins a new Adbikarana abont the possibility of the g uniting with the Infinite from the Unmanıfest. The Sūtra is a Pūrvapaksa Sūtra. (i) Bra.Su III.2 37 -अनेन सर्वगतत्वमायामशब्दादिभ्यः । This Sutra dis- cusses the tonie of the omnipresence of the Unmanifest, a topic, though connected with, vet different from, that of Bra.Su. III. 2.31-36. The so-called अतिदेशसूनs always begin a new Adhikarana because they begin a new topic. Or. एतन शिष्टापरिग्रहाः अपि व्याख्याताः । (Bra. III.Su.12), एतन योग: प्रत्युक्त:।(Bra.SII.1.3), alsoBra. Su I I.3.8. In these three cases Sankara also begins a new Adbikaraņa. (5) Bra.Su.III.2.40-धर्म जैमिनिरत गन। "अत एत" means "श्रतत्वादेव" which ( argument ) is given in Sutra III.2.39. There is a sharp distinction between Sutras with अत एव and with अत एव च26 अत एव shows a new Adhikarana, while aa qa = the continuation of the same Adhikarana. We have shown that Bra.Sū.III.2.38-39 discusses the topic about the attainment of the fruit from the Unmanifest or from any other source, while the Adhkaran beginning with Sutra 1II.2.40 discusses whether the fruit is Dharma or Moksa,

(6) Bra.Sn.III.3.28. छन्दत उभयाविरोधात् । The context shows that this Sutra should begin a new Adhikarana and give an option of choice between the two aspects of Brahman.

(7)Bra.Sn.III.4.27-शमदमादयुपेतः स्यात्तथापि तु तद्विधेस्तदङ्तया तेषामवद््यानुष्टेयत्वम्। The preceding Sutras discuss the unanimity of the two Kandas while this Sutra begins a new Adhikarana about the performance

(26) Of. a ta S: Bra.Su.I.1.28, which S'ankara takes as a new Adhikarana.

And also Bra.Sū.IV.2.2, IV.4.9.

ETTS WHICH SHOULD BEGIN A NEW HTETO 341

of yajña, dana, tapas, inspite of the sceker possessing sama, dama, etc. (8) Bra.Su.IV.2.5. भूतषु तछते;।

(9) Bra.St.IV 3.6-वैद्युतेनैव ततस्तच्छते: । Sitras IV.3.4-5 diseuss the topic of the Flame or the Rays, etc., being conductors of the knower of Brahman, while Sūtra IV.3 6 begins a now topio, viz., 'By which conductor is the Brabmavid led from agasim onwardy ?' (10-11) Bra.Su.IV.4.2 .- मुक्तः प्रतिज्ञानात् and Bra.Su.IV.4.8-आमा sarma. Each of these two Sntras begins a fresh Adhikarann, because the topic of each is different. Suara 2 ia concerned with मुक्त or बद्ध while Sutra 3 with आत्मन् or देह. (12) Bra. Su. IV.4.13-ama a az. The Adhıkarana consisting of Shtras IV.4.10-12 discusses the topic whether a released soul has a body or not, while Sutras IV.4 18-14 disenss the question of how the released soul enjoys the objects of enjnyment. (13) Bra.Su.IV.4.22-अनावृत्ति: शब्दादनावृत्ति: शब्दात्। The Adhikarana of Sftras IV.4.17-21 discusses the the topic of the form of the liberated, being free from the transactions of the world, the only resemblance between his existence and that of the world being enjoyment (HiHI7HT4); while the Adhikarana consisting of this Sutra (22) discusses the question of the return or non-return of the Mukta to the world.

Ont of all these thirteen Sūtras, Sańkara takes none as beginu- ing a new Adhikarana while we are of the opinion that each of them should begin a new topic, because each starts a new subject and consists of a Proposition and an Argument, e. g.

तदव्यकतम् and आह हि n Bra.Su III.2.23; अतोऽनन्तेन (सह एकता गच्छति] and तथाहि लिङ्गम् in Bra.S.III2.26; अनेन सर्वगतत्वम् and आयामशब्दादिभ्य: in Bra.Su.III.2.37; धर्म जौमनि: (फलमाह) And अतःएव (=युतत्वादेव) in Bra.St. III,2.40. Similarly, it would not be difficult to make out the Proposition and the Argument in other Sūtras,

342 CHANGES IN THE READINGS OF SOME 45

Lastly, we may here briefly notice some changes, in the read- ings of some of the Sütras, that we have suggested on the ground ot several critical considerations stated in Part I :--

(1) We have combined Sutras 1I1.8 34-35 of Sankara's patha and made out one Adhikarana of one Satra, Viz., 414791- दन्तरा भूतग्रामवत्स्वात्मनः ।

(2) We have transferred arui4: from Sutra 1IL.3.38 to the next Sutra; so that Sutra III.3.38 reads as aa ie and Sutra 1II.3.39 as सत्यादय, कामादितरत्र तन्र चायतनादिभ्यः ।

(3 कामादतिरत् in Bra.Su III.3.39 is changed to कामाद् इतरत्र, i., e. the bas been l ortened

(4) On the analogy of प्रज्ञान्तरपृथत्तववत् in Bra.SuMl11.3.50 we have proposed to change पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्ध: । Sutra III.3 42 to पृथग्ध्यप्रतिबन्धः (a7 being suggested to us by s in Sutra IIT.3.50); so that Sūtra III.3 42 reads :bs तनिर्धारणनियमः तद्ःपयप्रतिबन्ः फलम्। (5) On the strength of za7 m Bra.Su.IIT.3.16 and sem in Bra.Sn.III.3.11 and 111.2.11, we have chenged saia in Bra.Sū. III.3.48 to प्रधान, so that Sutra 11.3 43 reads as प्रधानवदेव सदुक्त्तम् (6) We have proposed to transfer qafaner: from Sūtra III.3.45 to Sutra III.8.44 whinh would tlerefore read as fama- स्त्वात्तद्विबलीयस्तदपि पूर्वाकलप:land Sutra III.3.45 would read as प्रकरणा- रस्याक्किया मानसवत् ।

(7) Moreover, we transfer 3wat: from Sütra IV.1.17 to Bra.Sü. IV.1.18; thus the two Sutras wonld be respectively arais न्यापि ह्यकेषामू। a1 उभगो: यंदष विद्ययेत हि।

(8) We have also transferred पकाशादिवत् fromi Bra.St.II1.2.34 to Bra.Su. Ill.3 85; so that Bra.Sn.III.2.34 reads as स्थानविशेषात् and Bra.Su.III.2.35 प्रकाशादिवदुपपरतेश्र।

The arguments for these proposed changes in the readings are stated by us in their respective places in Part I and we request and expect the reader to have a perusal of the same.

POINTS FOR SETTLING THE 4S AND UE 343

A thorough inteusive study of the very text of the Brahma- sutra is bound to be very helpful in fixing the reading of the text and the grouping of its Adhikaranas. A study of the Sūtras with the particies fa, a, and # and of the Sutras which are of the form of hetu either on account ot an abla ave eie or on account of contextual evidence and also a consideration of Sutras which can only be at the beginning of a new Adbikarana (because they have a self-complete sense) are only some of tbe important points suggested by ns in Part I for the discussion of the Satras for the purpose of settling the original Sutrapatha. A critical study of the text like that of the vulgate text of the Buddhacarita made by Bohtlingk is also instrumental in the same direction. We believe, a further effort to fix the text on these phuological and entical lines would surely be fruitful. The division of the Sutras into the Padas and the Adhyayas is, as noticed by Dr. Ghate, the same with all the Commentators. The most important question therefore regarding the text is that concerned with the grouping of the Sutras into the Adhi- karaņas and we beneve, the inquiry into this should proceed on the lnes suggested in this Chapter.27

(27) We have given the patha of each Adhikarana as fixed hy us (in Bra.St, [I1.2.11-IV.4.22) in the devanigar Script in its proper place at the beginning of each Section in Part I.

CHAPTER XTIT THE SYSTEM OF THE SUTRAKARA RESUME

[ N. B .: P. in the footnotes means Page of this work ] We may here briefly summarise the main results ot our investigation detailed in ths preceding Chapters. CHAPTER 1 (Bra.Su.III.2 and 8) CONCEPTION OF BRAHMAN AND MEDITATION ON IT

The Sutrakara believes in two aspects of Brahman, but accord- ing to him these two aspects are rupavat and arupavat or purusavidha Brahman and apurusavidha Brahman since the rupa or form spoken of Brahman is that of a purusa i.e., a human form.1 Both these aspects are of equal status, as far as the achievement of Moksa by meditation on either is concerned, so that a complete vikalpa or option of choice between the two is given to the seeker.2 The purusavidha aspect or the Purusa is no mentation projected on the apurusavidha or the Avyakta.3 The Sütrakara has a fixed terminology; so he always uses the words pradhana, suksma (Bra.Su.I.4.2), ar upavat, mukhya (Bra. Su. IV. 3.12), Avyakta, in, the same sense. He emphasises the use of the word purusa for the rupavat aspect.4 Each aspect has its own attributes.5 The Avyakta is taught in more Vedantas than the Purușa,6 According to the Sūtrakāra, the prajāpatiloka is no ordinary loka or world, but it is the rupavat aspect of the kārana Brahman Itself. Bādari calls it kārya, but Bādarāyana objects to it. Śankara is not right in adding it to the worlds (or ātivāhikas) in (1) They are described in Bra Su III.2.11-28, III.3.8, III,8.11 and the subsequent Sutras. PP. 2-3. (2) Bra.Sū.III.3.28 etc. PP.17-18,20. (3) Bra. Su.IIL.8-45-47. PP.11-12. (4) PP.7-10 (5) PP. 20-23. (6) PP. 17-18.

INTERPRETATION OF F. E. I. 1-8, DISCOVERD 345

his bhasya on Bra. Sa.IV.3.3.7 The Sūtrakara clearly states that the sakara or iupavat aspect of Brahman, which is the same as the Prajapatiloka, is not subject to the fault of lok@patti, the cont- ingency of its being regarded as an ordinary world.8 The method of meditation on either aspect is the fmagrhifi method 9 The Sutrakara says that the Avyakta is taught in more Veda- ntas than the Purusa. In his doctrmne of the purusavidha and apurusavidha aspeets of Brahman the Sūtrakara seems to adopt or to follow a view of Brahman already adopted by a Vedanta Scbool in harmony with the two aspects of the Vedic deities as taught by Yaska,10 The attributes of the Aksara, viz., ananu, ahrasva, ete,, ete., emphasised so often by Sankara, are not so important according to the Sutrakara, because they are not useful for meditation on Brahman.11 Priyasırastvādi attributes are also to be dropped.12 The attrıbutes anandādayah, satyadayah and āyatanādayaļ . form three groups of attributes and are mentioned in Bra.Sn.III. 3 11 and 38-39. They refer respectively to the three sets of attributes collected by the Sutrakara in the first, second and third Padas of the first Adhyaya. He further says that @nanda ete., collected m Bra.Su I.1, are attributes belonging to the Im- personal One and are to be used in meditation on the same only (Bra Su III 3 11); the group of satyadayah (satyasamkalpa and others, -Bra.Su.III.3.38-89) colleeted in Bra.So. 1.2 by the Sutrakara and explained by him there as belonging to the Personal Aspect may be used by the meditator, if he so chooses, in meditation on the Impersonal One; Badarāyana says the saine for the dyubhvadyayatana and other attributes collected by him in Bra. Sū.I.3 (Satyādayaļ kāmād itaratra tatra

(7) PP. 14-15. (8) PP 72-73. (9) P. 17. (10) P. (11) Bra.Su.III.3.18-15. PP. 21-22. (12) P. 21. 44

346 INTERCHANGE OF ATTRIBUTES OF SOI AND J59

cayatanadibhyah-Bra.Sū. III.3 38-39). According to Bādarāyaņa the Srutis discussed respectively in Bra.Su.I 1, I 2 and I 3 mention (1) only the arupavat, (2) expressly the arupavat (while using adjectives of the rupavat) and (3) expressly the rupavat (while using the adjectives of the arupavat). The reason for this option is that the Srutis themselves make an interchange of the attributes of the two aspects of i rahman; and the result of this standpoint is that both the aspects are of an equal atatus so far as the achievement of Moksa is concerned It is not necessary to use mn meditation all the attributes of * the aspect of Brahman on which one chooses to meditate; and, agamn, only those attributes of the other aspect ( than the one chosen for meditation ), which are present in the Srutis one selects, are not to be dropped while meditating on the aspect of one's choice. In this way the Sutrakara's system of two aspects of prahman is not in the least hable to be a dualistic one. Brahman is only one.13 A whole series of Sutras in Bra.Su.III. 3 deals with both the aspects of Brahman. Thus we find both of them treated in Bra. Sü.III.3.8, 28,37, 16-17, 18-19, 34-86, etc.14

The Sutrakara discusses three kinds of meditations on Brah- man. (1) Meditations on Brahman fixed on the parts or hmbs of Brahman. One of the two aspects of Brahman is the puru- savdha aspect; in this aspect Brahman is thought of as possess- iug limbs, the head, the eye, etc. Also in the so-called Vidyās, e. g., the sodasakalā Vidyā, Brahman is supposed to have parts. Meditations on Brahman supposed to have parts or limbs form one kind of meditations. (2; Meditations on the arupavat aspect of Brahman form another class of meditations. These two classes of meditions give Moksa. (3) But there is a third class of meditations on Brahman, e. g., the meditations on Brah- man conceived as naman, etc, etc. in the dialogue between Sanatkumara and Narada except the meditation on Brahman as (18) PP. 24-28, 31, (14) P. 31.

MEDITATIONS ON BRAHAMAN POSSESSING ERS 347

bhuman These meditations are kamya, i.e, they give a reward other than Moksa. To discuss and explain in details these three kinds of the meditations on Brahman is the sole aim of Bra.Sa. III.3. The meditations on Brabman not conceived of as possess- ing parts or limbs, taught in the various Branches of all the Vedas, must be collected for the purpose of that aspect of Brahman, i.e., the arupavat aspect of Brahmian. Bnt if oue chooses to meditate on Brabman thought of as possessing limbs, e.g., the varsvanara Brahman, or the sodasakala Brahman, he can collect attributes, parts or lirubs from another Sakha only if the latter deals with the same form of the rpavat aspect; otherwise no collection of the varions parts or lunbs, of the varions rupas of of Brabman, is permissible, e.g., the parts of the varsrānara Brabman and those of the sodasakala Brahman cannot be collected and emplcyed m one and the same meditation15. A number of Sutras undoubtedly deal with the meditation on the Pranava as the only symbol of Brahman, e.g, Bra. Su. III.3. 25-27, IV.1.4-5, IV.3.15 The teaching about the Pranava should be gathered from all the Upanisads because the Pranava tanght in all of them is the same; and that teaching should be systematised. The method of meditation on the Pranava is the Penetration methed ( vedhadi) taught in the Mundaka Upanisad. "Om Brahma" is the form of this meditation, on the arupavat and rupavat Brahman; thus, the Pranava is to be looked upon as Brahman, not as the soul of the meditator (no atmagrhiti in this case). On his departure from this world, the meditator on the Pranava is conducted immediately and directly to Brabman (nen.) by the Samans unlike the meditators on the aruparal or the ripavat aspect of Brahman, who are carried to their deatfhy (riz., Brahman, neu.) by the ativdhikas through the various worlds. These are the chief points about the Pranava meditation discussed by the Sūtrakāra. 16 (15) PP. 42-48. For distinction between the first two kinds of meditations, see also PP. 53-54. (16) PP. 54-57.

348 एकवाक्यता OF पूर्वेकाण्ड AND उत्तरकाण्ड, DUE TO विधिS्

The Satrakara seems to consider the three states of Brahman viz., the parinama or the change, the vrddhr or the increment (growth) and the hrasa ot the decrement These are three of the six states of an entity mentioned by Yaska. The increment and the decrement of Brahman are by the self-concealment of Brah- man in harmony with the fact that the Parinama of Brahman is such that the effect is also Brahman. Thus, the greater the the degree of concealment of Brahman (in the form of its effect), the greater the decrement or hrast of Brahman The vyddhi of Brabman is nothing else bnt less degree of the concealment of Brahman, in its effect. 17 The Sutrakara mentions the Grace of Brahman twice.18 The state of the released soul is the permanent non-separation from Brahman. We may therefore say that the Sūtrakāra believes in what is called avibhagadvaita "non-dualism of Brahman", meaning non-separation of the soul ( and the world ) from Brahman as the state of liberation " The Sutrakara explams Brahman on the lines of the explana- tion of Dharma given in the Jaunini Sutras. Though according to him the knowledge of Brahman is not simply of the nature of reflection as was the view of Jannin, yet it is something lo be per- formed like a sacrifice and it is laid down by a vidhi or a Vedic Injunction, 10 A Series of Sutras are devoted to the discussion of Brahman on the analogy of Karman. The Sutrakara says that the Vedantas laying down Jnana, the knowledge of Brahman, are no Stuti "recommendatory text" and that the episodes of the Upanisads are not "meant for the priplava rite." The Sutrakāra explams the unanimity (ekavākyatā) of the Pürvakāņda and the Uttarakanda of the Veda by saying that each Kanda has its own vidhi and its own Apurva The subject of each Kanda is quite distinct from that of the other Kanda and independent of it Brahman is not taught in the Pūrvakānda. Such attributes of Brahman as are occasionally mentioned in the Purvakanda should not be collected in the meditation on (17) PP. 57-61. (18) P. 6. (19) P. 6 ,P. 35, PP. 37-40.

SEVERAL PHILOSOPIICAL MOVEMEMENTS IN HAHT. 349

Brahman. Only the Vedantas are the anthority for the teaching of Brahman 20 In the course of his statement on the nature of Brahman (Bra, Sū.III.2.11-III.8), the Sūtrakara discusses several oppositional views (Purvapaksas), which proceed from several Vedanta Schools rather than from the Samkhya School. Morcover, these opposi- tional Vedanta Schools may be classifiod under two Vedanta Systems, viz., the Sranta Vedanta System and the Smartn Vedanta System. A few noteworthy views of the Srauta Vedanta Schools forming the Purvapaksas against Badarayana are as follows :- (1) Each Branch or Sakha of each Veda should be in its phi- losophical doctrines independent of all other Sakhas.21 (a) This view opposes the Sutrakara's Proposition ( Pratijña) that Bra- hman is to be known from all the Vedantas.22 (b) It disagrees with the Sutrakara as regards "upasamhara", "the collection" of all information about the meditation severally on the two aspects of Brahman.23 (c) It urges that the names about the ultimate principle are different in different Upanisads while the Sütrakāra admits only two different names of Brahman and says that there are synonyms of these two names wbich (synonyms) are common to the two aspects of Brabman and the frequency of use, in the Upanisads, of a term for either of the two aspects, would show that a particular term expresses a particular aspect24. (d) This opposition argues that the meditations on Brahman fixed on the limbs or parts of Brahman should not be "collected" from any particular Sakha by the,followers of all other Sakhas of all the Vedas. It, thus, opposes the Sūtrakara's proposal to frame one Vedanta Darsan.25 (e) It also disagrees with the Sntrakara on the point of "collecting" all information about the meditation on the Pranava from the several Upanisads,26 (20) PP. 39-42, also P. 6. (21) P. 65 (22) P. 65. (23) PP. 66-67. (94) Vide our Notes on Bra SO.III.2.62 (25) P. 66. (26) P. 68.

350 PHILOSOPIICAL MOVEMENTS IN THE E7.

(2) We find that a Purvapaksa not admitting that Brahman has two independent aspects, but holdmng that the same Brahman is to be meditated upon at the same time as both purusavidha and apurusavidha is refuted by the Sūtrakāra.27 (3) Another Opposition School holds that arupavat is the only aspect or in other words Brahman is only arupavat and that the moditation on this arupavat Brahman as if it were rupavat or purusavidha is a mental projection of the idea of purusa on It ( manasavat kriya). The discussion seems to us to be basad on the Mundaka Upanisad. The Sutrakara shows on the strength of the same text that the meditation on Brahman as purusa or a super-personality is also Brahmavidya, just as the meditation on it as an impersonal realty28 is The same Pūrvapaksa argues that the purusavidha Brahman of the Sutrakara will be subject to the fault of being regarded to be a world hke the several worlds of Indra and others. The Sutrakara refutes the lokapattidosa. In this very connection the Sntiakara rejects one more argument, which we believe proceeds from the Srauta Vedanta but is based upon the Bhagavadgita, viz., that the medi- tation on Brahman as the Purusa or ripavat is taught in the Scripture because the individual soul "being itself encased in the body" can more easily meditate on Brahman if assumed to have a similar body.29 (4) The more important Srauta Purvapaksa is that the Purusa or the purusavidha Brahman is other and higher than the apurusavidha or the arupavat Brahman. This Pūrvapaksa holds that one who has reached the Avyakta, 1.e., the arupavat Brahman, goes further and umtes with the Purusa who is the infinite and, thus, it implies that the Avyakta is 'not omni- present' or is 'limited' (a-sarvagata). The discussion is based chiefly upon the text of the Katha Upanisad but generally on what Deussen calls the Earlier Metrical Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita. On the strength of the same texts, the Sūtrakāra (27) PP. 69-70. (28) P. 70 (29) P. 71.

PHILOSOPHICAL MOVEMENTS IN THE AEIHE. 351

rejects this doctrine He also appeals to the authority of the Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya Upanisads in which we have some Srutis denying a second Brahman or Atman (anyapratisedha), n.e., Srutis denying two Brahmansand therefore a higher Brabman. This Purvapaks is mentioned and refuted by the Sūtrakara more than ouce in his work and seems to us to be the most note-worthy as throwing a flood of hght on the doctrines of the EMU and the OPU regarding the relation of the personal and impersonal aspects of Bralman, as understood even in the days of the Sūlrakara,90

(5) One more Srauta Purvapaksa is that Brahman is rupavat in the states of waking and dreaming (jagaritasthana and svapna- sthana) and arupavat in the state of deep sleep (susuptasthana). The arguments of the Purvapaksa are based upou the Māndūkya Upanisad and the Sutrakara refutes them on the strength of the statement in the Chandogya Upanisid that Atman is the same in all the states.31

(6) It is, again, a Srauta Purvapaks that Brabman is like the Light, i. e., of the nature o the Light. The Sūtrakāra admits that Brahman is lke the Light but not of the nature of light.34 There are also a number of Pürvapaksa views proceeding from what may be called the Smarta Vedanta System, which chiefly believed in the authority of the Bhagavadgita and which inter- preted the Upanisads in the light of that Smrti. The most important of these has been alrendy noticed above. It is an argument that the meditation on the Purusa is taught in the Scripture because the soul being enoased in the body can better understand and meditate on the arupavat Brabman if the latter be assumed be of the form of a Purusa. This argument is used by the Śrauta Vedanta School.83 The Sūtrakara remarks that a doctrine that 'a knower of Brahman who is a yogin must depart from the body at day time in order that he goes to Brahman, and (30) PP. 73-75, (31) PP. 75-77. (32) P. 77. (33) PP, 75-76.

352 BADARAYANA THE GREAT VEDANTA ACHARAYA

not at mght' is a doctrine of the Smarta Vedanta System.84 We may be allowed to state here that in our opmmion Bra Sa.I.4 and II.1 are partly devoted to the discussion of the pard and apara Prakrtis of the Bhagavadgita ( rather than the Prakrt of the atheistic Sankhya ). We have elsewhere stated our arguments for our conelsion that Bra.Su. II.1 which is called "Smrti-pada" discusses several topies of the Bhagavadgita and the Sūtrakara explains them in the lght of the Srutis he accepts as authority and the System he forms out of them.35 Bädarayana's main work seems to us to be that of constructing a Vedanta System, accepting the Super-personality of Brahman taught in the Earler Metrical Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita, but rejecting the second place given in them to the Impersonal Brahman, thus upholding the supreme importance of the Imper- sonal Brahman of the Oldest Prose Upanisads (the Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya Upanisads). In effecting this reconciliation he gave the option of choice between the arupavat and rupavat aspects of Brahman, both being recognised to be of an equal status. Thereby he saved the Vedanta School from becoming a System of two spiritual principles as in the E.M.U. and a semi-material dualistic spiritualism as was the tendency in the Bhagavadgita. His other great merit seems to us to be that thongh he believes in the word of the Scripture, he gives a literal sense to the Vedantas and the Smrtis and in doing so he even rejects the Vedantas and the Smrtis which do not agree with his System, eg., he rejects (the authority of) the priyasirastvadi Sruti for this very reason.36 CHAPTER II (Bra.Su.lII.4) ACTIONS AS HELP TO KNOWLEDGE IN ACHIEVING MOKSA The fourth Pada of Bra.Su.III chiefly deals with the actions which a seeker of Brahman should do or is allowed to do. In this connection the following points are discussed and we be- lieve that we have discovered some of them for the first time :- (34) P. 79. (35) Vide Indian Historical Quarterly, 1936. (36) PP. 82-83.

CHAPTER II (BRA.SU. III 4) 353

(1) The most important theme of Bra. Su. III. 4 is the Sutra- kara's discussion about the nature of the knowledge of Brahman. According to Jaimini this knowledge is of the nature of reflection (paramarsa), while Badarāyana emphatically says that this knowledge is something to be performed (anustheya) and that it is, like karman, laid down by an Injunction (Vidhi). 37 (2) Bādarayana holds that Moksa is achieved by the combina- tion of the knowledge of Brahman and certain religious aotions though the former is the more important of the two, unlike Jaimini who also believes in the combination but holds that the knowledge acts subsidiary to karmau and unlike Sankara who s in this respect a kevalavidyavadin, one who bolds that the knowledge alone is the means of Moksa. (3) On the strength of Cha. Upa, II.23.1 the Sutrakara asserts that a mumnksu (a seeker of liberation) may belong to any stage of life (asrama) 38 and that he may pass from the stage of studentsbip to that of an ascetic but that having be- come an ascetic he cannot revert to the stage of student-ship or householdership; $9 though the Sutrakara prefers the regular course of passing from the asramas one by one. 40 (4) According to the Sūtrakara all seekers of Moksa belong- ing to any stage of life must perform two types of religious actions as auxiliary to the knowledge of Brabman, viz., (1) the Sacrifice (yajña), the Donation (dana) and the Penance (tapas) as laid down in Br. Upa.IV.4. 22, and (2) the duties of one's own āśrama which are also laid down for the äsrama but which he shall perform as help to the knowledge of Brahman.41 (5) The Sruti mentions several other duties (karmans) as means to Moksa, e. g., the study of the texts of one's own Sakha, silence (mauna), faith, celibacy, truthfulness, ete., etc. These actions form a third group and are, like the above-mentioned two types of actions, admitted by the Sutrakara as derect means to Moksa (87) P. 88 and P. 89. (38) P. 91. (39) P. 99. (40) P. 97. (41) P. 92. 45

354 CHAPTER III (BRA.SU. IV.1)

though subsidiary to the knowledge. But the Sūtrakara makes them compulsory for the seeker belonging to the stage of a householder and optional for other seekers.42 (6) An ascetic seeker may perform official (priestly) duties of a secondary nature, like Usasti Cakrayana 'in the time of adversity.'43 (7) A householder seeker is allowed to do both the official duties of a secondary as well as those of a primary nature in the teme of adversity 44 (8) Besides this, a householder seeker should perform worldly duties (aihikam karma), not of course as a help to the knowledge, but in order that there be "no obstruction to the worldly duties already begun" (aprastutapratibandha). These aihika or worldly actions may include the caste duties also. In the case of a Brahmin householder seeker, the Sutrakara allows the practice of priestly duties for others (artvijya) but not that of teaching because the former are done for, and sold to, a sacrificer while the latter cannot be so sold, 45

The last point the Sutrakara emphasises at the end of his state- ment of the Means, i.e., in the last Sutra of the Sadhanādhyāya f (Bra.sa.III.4.42) is that unlike in the Karmakanda which asserts that a sacrificer who has performed the Jyotistoma sacrifice, goes to the heaven in the very next birth, there is in the Jñanakanda no certainty (as regards the period of time), even for one who is able to carry out all means stated in the Sadhanadhyaya, of his getting Moksa immediately in the next birth. He may have to be reborn on this earth not once before he achieves Moksa.46 CHAPTER III (Bra. Sū. IV. 1) BEFORE AND AFTER THE ATTAINMENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF BRAHMAN The third chapter corresponds to Bra.Su.IV.1 which, in our opinion, states the Sūtrakāra's views on two topics. (42) PP. 92-93. (43) P. 99. (44) P. 100. (45) P. 94, P. 101 etc. (46) P 102,

CHAPTER III (BRA.SU. IV.1) 355

The first topic is the description of the state of an advanced seeker when reborn again and again on this earth. This state is the stage of Practice and Preaching. The Sūtrakara describes the attitude of the advanced seeker reborn on this earth, as regards the Symbol of Brahman 'Om', the limbs or parts of Brahman when conceived as purusavidha 'a superpersonality', his activity which is only that of sitting (in meditation ) as described in the picture of the sthitaprajna in the Bhagavadgita ( Cha. II) and lastly the place of residence of this sage. Accord- ing to the Sütrakära such an advanced seeker is the person fit to be a preceptor since he automatically approaches Brahman as his Self and can make others understand it in the same way. The sage remains in this stage till his (last) departure from the body.47 This state of Practice and Preaching is more like the Goal ( Phala ) than like the Means ( sadhana ) and is therefore treated of by the Sutrakara after the statement of the Sadhana and at the very beginning of the Phala.48

The second topic is the state of the knower of Brahman on this carth or we may call it-"the state of sinlessness". This may be also regarded as the state of jivanmukti because, though in the opinion of the Sutrakara no final liberation is possible until the Mukta travels over the Devayana Path and reaches the presence of Brahman (neu.), it is the state of the higbest self- purification possible on this earth. This stage begins on the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman in this life. On this achievement the soul becomes free from all sins except the ārabdhakārya (those sins whose result he has begun to experi- ence); but he does not become free from religious merits till his body falls. The religious good deeds unlike sins are never destroy- ed by the knowledge. Even after the attainment of the knowledge he continues doing good deeds (religious merits) and these help him in the attainment of the goal of the knowledge of Brahman. According to the Sutrakara union with Brahman is the only

(47) PP. 105-106. (48) P.106.

356 CHAPTER IV (BRA.SU. IV.2)

state when a soul is no longer in the need of religious good deeds, or we may say, is 'above religion.'49 The insistence of the Sutrakara on the need of the religious good deeds as cooperating with the knowledge is noteworthy. He seems to say that (1) even if a seeker be possessed of mental peace (sama), control over senses (dama), etc; he must perform the Sacrifice, Donation and Penance as prescribed by the Br. Upa .; (2) that the obligatory duties must be performed as auxi- liary to the knowledge, and (3) that even the voluntary (kāmya) rites may be performed for the same purpose as that of the knowledge, and (4) lastly that he does not make even the knower of Brahman free from good deeds. 50 These religious good deeds are help to the knowledge in getting Moksa; they are not for the birth of the knowledge itself (vidyot- patti), as with Sankara. Thus karman and jnana cooperate with each other in realizing Moksa 51 CHAPTER IV (Bra. Sū. IV. 2) DEPARTURE OF THE SEEKER FROM THE BODY The departure (from the body) of the ignorant man (anatmavid, istadikarin ) and his return to this world are desoribod in Bra. Sū. III.1.7-8, not in Bra. So. IV. 2, as Sańkara says. When a man begins his evolution on the Devayana Path ( asrtyupakramat ) which is the Path of the meditator unlike the Pitryana which is the Path of the ritualist, his departure from the body assumes the form of an orderly union of the senses of the knowledge, the mind, the breath, the individual soul, and the subtle elements, each preceding uniting with each succeed- ing in a sequence of order.52 This form of the union ( sampatti ) always characterizes the departure as long as the soul on the Devayāna continues his progress on it, i.e., seeks after and attains any station on it.59 On the attainment of the Immortality there comes the last departure from the body. Besides the five steps of union there is (49) P. 107. (50) P. 111. (51) P. 109. (52) P. 116. (53) P. 116.

CHAPTER V (BRA.SU. IV.3) 857

a sixth step in this final utkranti, viz, the elements unite with the Supreme Being in the heart of the knower of Brahmanbt; and the knower. then controlling his subtle body and with the top-part of his heart illumined, departs from the body through the hundred- and-first artery, unites with the Rays of the Sun and is then conducted onwards to the Supreme One.55 It seems that the subtle body of the knower of Brahman is destroyed or dissolved after he reaches the presence of the Sup- reme Being, when only his soul becomes manifest in its own original form.50 The departure and the return of the yogin described in Bhaga- vadgītā VIII are smārta, not śrauta.57

CHAPTER V. (Bra. Sū. IV.3) JOURNEY OF THE BRAHMAJNANIN ON THE DEVAYANA PATH

After his departure from the body the knower of Brahman joins the Rays of the San even if he departs at night. Coming to the Devayana, he passes by a number of worlds or stations on the Path of Gods. The Sūtrakära has tried to fix the order of these on the basis of the Chandogya and other texts. Sańkaracarya proposes to add three worlds (Devaloka, Indraloka aod Prajapati- loka) to those given by the Sutrakara, 58 We think that the Sūtrakara purposely drops them because he identifies Devaloka and Indraloka with some of the stations mentioned by hun and that he takes the Prajapatiloka as identical with Brahman It- self, i. e., with the purusavidha aspect of Brahman, which is according to the Sūtrakara the Cause Itself. The Sutrakara's identification of the Prajapatiloka with Causal Brahman is proved by his answers to the Pürvapaksaa raised by Badari and Jaimini. The main diseussion between these three Acaryas is based upon the interpretation of the Sruti 'sa enan Brahma gamayati" ( Chā, Upa.IV.155). 'Sa' refers to the Conductor (vaidyuta ativdhika) and the three teachers differ as (54) P. 117. (55) P. 117. (56) P. 121. (57) P 191. (58) P. 123.

358 CHAPTER V (BRA.SU. IV 3)

to the capacity of the Conductor to go to the Karya or the Kāraņa Itself. In Bra. Sū. IV. 3. 7 (kāryam Bādarir asya gaty- upapatteh) asya refers to the vaidyuta ativahika, the Conductor who conducts the knower of Brahman from the Varuņaloka to his destination. How far can the Conductor go ? 59 Here the difference between the Chandogya Upa. and the Brhadaraņyaka Upa. Srutis is required to be explained. Badarayana seems to us to interpret the latter in the light of the Cha. Upa. text because he takes the Prajapatiloka of the Br.Upa. as the Karana Brahman Itself, not as Karya Brahman as understood by both Badari and Jaimini and as is very probably the original sense. Badarayana does not tolerate that Brahman in the Cha. Upa. Sruti should be interpreted in a secondary sense.60 It may also be noted that Bādarāyana also sticks to the utkrānti of the knower of Brahman stated in the Cha. Upa. and interprets the Br. Upa. (both the recensions of which clearly deny the utkrantr) in the light of the Cha. Upa.

Other evidence in support of the correctness of our sugges- tion that Badarayana takes the Prajapatiloka as an aspect of the Karana Itself is as follows :- (1) He does not mention the Prajapatiloka in the series of the stations on the Devayana Path, (2) He says that Purusa or the purusavidha aspect of Brahman (=the Superpersonality of Brahman) is not subject to lokāpattidosa, (3) He gives an unqualified option of choice to the meditator from between the sākara and the nirākāra aspects, saying that either of them directly leads to Moksa; 61 and (4) nayati in Bra.Su.IV.3.15 shows that the Sutrakāra refers to the Conductor by asya in Bra.Sū.IV.3.7.62

An important point to be emphasised here is that all the three Acaryas, Badari, Jaimini and Badarayana, agree that "going to the Para" is absolutely necessary for one who gets the final liberation.63 Sankarācārya takes asya in Bra.Su.IV.3.7 as

(59) P. 126. (60) P. 5. P. 125 ff. (61) P. 129. (62) P. 133. (63) P. 131,

CHAPTER VI (BRA.SU. IV.4) 359

Brahmanah and gati as gantavyata and gives his own argu- ments as to the impossibility of going to Brahman. 04 We have discovered that during the above diseussion, Bādarāyana distinguishes between the meditators on the Pranava the Symbol of Brahman and the meditators on Brahman Itself. Pra, Upa. V.2.5 seems to us to have been referred to in Bra.Su.IV.3.15 and particularly 16. The medr- tators on the Symbol are led to Brahman by the Samans them- selves; and out of the personal and impersonal aspects of the (Causal) Brahman Itself, the former is the Prajapatiloka. Thun according to the Sūtrakāra, the difference (visesa) between the Prajāpatiloka and Brahmaloka (of the Br. Upa.) is not the difference between the Karya and the Kārana, as supposed by Bädari and Jaimini but it is the difference between the two aspects of the Karana Itself. Badarayana modifies the view of Bādari and Jaimini. 65 CHAPTER VI. (Bra.Su.IV.4) STATE OF UNION WITH BRAHMAN 'Sampadya' in Bra.Su.IV.4.1 refers to 'upasampadya' in Cha. Upa. VIII.12.3 and therefore it means "after reaching".66 After reaching Brahman, the liberated soul becomes manifest in bis own original form (of the nature of Brahinan, or of consciousness) and remains in non-separation (avibhaga) from Brahman. The Sutrakara seems to use the word "avibhaga" to denote the union of the jiva as well as the jagat with Brahman in accordance with the Sruti67 and we may note that Vijñanabhiksu emphasiscs the doctrine of avibhagādvaita as being the original Vedanta doctrine. This union is characterized by the liberated soul enjoying all objects of desire presented 'by the mere force of his will'.68 As to whether he should have a body for this enjoyment, he has an option, and he has an option also as regards the number of bodies he should have.69 We have shown that according to the Sutrakära, the (64) P. 132. (65) P. 128. (66) P. 185. (67) P. 137, Note (67) Br. Upa.IV.8.23-32. (68) P. 138. (69) P. 139.

360 CHAPTER VII

released soul has the quality of pervasion (avesa) but this perva- sion is like that of a lamp pervading the place where it is placed. In so far as he has this power of pervasion he has the substance of the power of omnipresence of Brahman.70 We have also discussed that Bra.Su IV.4.17 emphasises the fact that the libera- ted soul becomes free from the operations or dealings of the world (jagadvyāpāravarjam) in the sense that he has no sins, no old age ete., and no relationship of parents and children, castes, ete.71 Onr interpretation of Bra.Su.IV.4.17 also differs from that of Sankara because we take it to mean that the form of the released soul is above any change ( vikāravarti ) and is a permanent form (sthitim aha)72. The only point of resemblance between the soul's state of liberation and that of bondage is the enjoyment of objects of desire; in all other respects the two states differ entrely78.

The above is a very short summary of most of the points where we differ trom the interpretation of Sankaracarya. In order to make it an exact continuous account we have stated also some points where we agree with him. Now we shall briefly recount the themes treated in Chapters VII-XII which discuss the chief problems raised by our interpretation of Bra. Su.III.2.11-IV.

CHAPTER VII

THE SUTRAKARA'S INTEPRETATION OF CERTAIN SRUTIS

(1) The most important point about the Sūtrakara's interpre- tation of the Srutis about Brahman is that he holds that these Srutis do not make a sharp distinction between the two aspects of Brahman, viz., the Purusavidha and the a-Purusavidha, since they describe the purusavidha with the attributes of the a-purusa- vidha and vice versa. (1) Srutis discussed in Bra.Su. I.1 desoribe only the aripavat aspect; but those in Bra. Su. I. 2 and 3 are, in the opinion of the Sutrakara, perferably to be taken as describing Purusa. The Sūtrakara gives as arguments for this preference (70) P. 140. (71) P. 140, Note (36-37). (72) P. 141, Note (41). (73) P. 141, Note (44).

CHAPTER VII 361

the attributes (visesanas or dharmas) of the Purusa as well as the very word 'purusa' or 'purusavidha' or a word for the A15R found in the respective Srutis (See Srutis referred to in Bra. Sū.I.2-8.) Thus in the light of our inquiry the basis of the distribution of the Srutis in the first three Padas of the first Adhyaya is respec- tively that the Srutis describe the arupavat Brahman only (Pada 1); that they profess to describe the arupavat aspect but the Sntrakara prefers to take them as dealing with the rupavat aspect (Pada 2); and that they profess to narrate the rupavat while implicitly refer- ring to the arupavat and the Sutrakara takes them us dealing with the Purusa but allows a meditator to regard them, just as he does in the case of the Srutis discussed in Bra. Sū, I. 2, as describing the arupavat. We have shown how the views of the Acaryas about the Sutrakara's distribution of the seleoted Srutis discussed in Bra. Su. I. 1-3 are untenable.7+ (2) The Srutis about Brahman in the Samhitā, Brahmana, Aranyaka and Khila which form the first Kanda are not to be considered in the Brahmasutra which proceeds to discuss only the Seccnd Kanda, i. e., the Upanișads.75 (8) In the Sruti of the Br. Upa. where the Prajāpatiloka is dis- tinguished from the Brahmaloka the former is the Purusa aspect of the Karana Brahman itself, not the Kārya,76 (4) The Srutis ( and Smrtis ) stating the cogita oppositorum mention the purusavidha and a-purusavidha aspects as both being (equally) true.77 (5) Srutis which describe Brahman negatively or the aksara- Srntis deal with the a-purusavidha aspect of Brahman which is called the Avyakta,78 (6) According to a Pürvapaksa several Srutis declare the Purusa or the purusavidha aspect to be higher than the Avyakta, the aksara or a-purusavidha aspect. The Sūtrakāra also agrees .(74) P. 141. & P. 145. (75) P. 147. (76) P. 148. (77) P. 149. (78) P. 149. 46

362 CHAPTER VII

with the Pürvapaksa so far as the interpretation of the Avyakta or the Aksara and the Purusa in such Srutis is concerned; but he explains the higherness ( paratva) of the Purusa without making the Avyakta lower than Hum.79 (Vide Katha Upa.III .- 10-11, which is an instance of this kind of Srutis.) (7) The Sutrakara classifies the meditations on Brahman taught in the several Srutis into three divisions, (a) meditation ou Brahman, not fixed on its limbs or parts, and (b) meditation on Brahman fixed on its limbs, e.g., Mu. Upa.II.1.2-3,or parts, e.g., in the sodaśakalā vidyā. Both these forms of meditation lead to Mokşa. (c) The third kind of meditation is the kamya or the voluntary meditation on Brahman which leads to a worldly or otherworldly reward, e.g., the meditation on nama as Brahman in Chã. Upa. VII. 1,80 (8) The Sūtrakara regards upāsīta, veda, drstavyah, etc. as Injunctions laying down the knowledge of and meditation on Brahman.81 He takes these potential forms as prescribing an act of knowing, to be performed. (9) None of the Acarayas says that the meditation on the Pranava and the Srutis relating to it are discussed in any Sūtras of the Brahmasutra. We have discovered that the Brahmasuitra deals with the same in three different places and explains Mu. Upa.II.2, Pra. Upa. V, etc.82 (10) According to the Sutrakara, the meditation on Brahman is of the shape of "I am Brahman" aham Brahm asmi. The text laying down this method is Br. Upa. I.3.7-10 (particularly T.3.7). The result of this meditation is not the realization of one's Self as Brahman to tho exclusion of the former, but the realization of one's Self as all, as described in Br. Upa.I.3.10. This result, moreover, is Apurva 'not already mentioned in the Earlier Kanda of the Veda'.83 (11) A view based upon the Mandükya Upanisad holding that the sthanas or the three states of waking, dreaming and deep (79) P. 152-168, (80) P. 158-159. (81) P. 164, P. 168. (82) PP. 169-170. (83) P. 168.

CHEPTER VII 363

sleep affect Brahman and make it rupavat and arupavat is refuted by the Sutrakara on the ground of the Cha. Upa. Sruti, which says that Brahman is the same in all the three states. Thus, according to the Sutrakara, Brahman is both ripavat aud arupavat in all the three states. The Sutrakara's interpretation of the Māndükya Upanisad is quite different from that of ·Sankara and Gaudapāda.84

(12) Another conclusion which seems to be based upon the Māndukya Upanışad, viz., 'Brahman undergoes increment and decrement (ht. is vrddhhrasabhak ) owing to the three states which really affect it,' is also refuted by the Sutrakara on the ground of Cha. Upa. VII, parhcularly Cha. Upa.V1I.26.1, wlnch according to the Sutrakara holds that Brahman undergoes in- orement and decrement owing to the lesser or greater degree of the self-concealment of Brahman respectively. Vrddhi and hrasa are two of the six states of an entity (bhava) mentioned by Yaska and they are discussed by the Sūtrakara with reference to Brahman.85

(13) Mu. Upa.I.2.11 mentions "aksara puruşa". The Sūtrakāra discusses whether the purusa idea is a mental projection on the Aksara. He concludes that the same Brahman is aksara or apurusavidha and also purusavidha and that the meditation on Brahman as Purusa is not a mānasa kriyā but is Brahmavidyā itself.80 (14) A very great importance attaches to the Katha Upa. An important Pürvapaksa is raised by the followers of the Katha Upa. to place the sābāra aspect above the nirākara. The Sotrakars refutes this Opposition and establishes the view that these two aspects are aspects of Brahman of the same status and therefore giving the same result. In giving this judgement the Sntrakāra has done only partial justice to the doctrine most prominent in the "Earlier Metrical Upanisads " and the Bhagavadgita

(84) PP. 159-161. (85) P. 162. (86) PP.150-152.

364 CHEPTER VITI

(Vide 6 above). In accepting the rupavat as on egual status with the nirakara, the Satrakara seems to us to have been influencod more by the Cha. Upa. and Br. Upa. than by the E. M. U.87 (15) The Sūtrakara admits that the priyasirastva and other attrbutes in the Tai. Upa. are attributes of Brahman but he rejects them as implying bheda 'a distinction within Brahman Ttself,' in the form of greater or lesser degree of the Bliss of Brahman. Thus, he interprets the Sruti literally, unlke Sankara who tries to explain it with reference to his doctrine of the five sheaths of the individual soul.88 (16) Besides these there are numerous other Srutis which we have collectod and which we have shown to have been explained by the Sutrakara differently than by Sankara.89 (17) We may also note that where the Sutrakara finds a Smrt not in agreement with a Sruti, he boldly rejects the Smrti accord- ing to the rule of virodhe tv anapeksam syād asati hy anumānam (Jai. Sü ) CHAPTER VIII THE SUTRAKARA AND SANKARA The comparison offered in this Chapter ( VIII) is only tentative. (a) Both the Sutrakara and Sankara hold that Brahman has two aspects, the personal and the impersonal. But according to Sankara, they are saguna and nirguna, while according to the Sūtrakara they are rupavat and arupavat, there being no aspect absolutely attributeless.90 (b) Unlike Sankara who takes the personal aspect as lower than the impersonal, the Sutrakāra regards both as of absolutely equal status so far as the achieve- ment of Moksa is concerned.91 (c) Sańkara takes tho Prajapati- loka as the limited Brahman; the Sūtrakara takes it as an aspect, viz., the rupavat aspect, of the Karana or absolute Brahman Itself,92 and says that It is free from the fault of lokāpatti. (d) According to Sankara, Brahman is above any Vedic Injunction whatsoever; according to the Sutrakara, Brahman is laid down

(87) P. 154. (88) P. 163. (89) PP. 165-171. (90) P. 174. (91) P. 175-176. (92) P. 177.

CHAPTER IX 365

by a Vidhi and its knowledge is something to be performed (anustheya),93 and on this basis we have the Scriptural unaninnity of the two Kandas of the Veda. (e) The negative attributes (neti, netr) so important with Sankara, are not important for meditation on Brahman in the Sutrakara's System.94(f) According to Sankara, Brahman somehow associated with Maya, creates the creation. The Sutrakara, however, emphasises the dtmakrti as the transfor- mation (parinama) of Brahman and consistently with this parinama he explains the wrddhi 'increment' and hrasa 'decre- ment' by the self-concealment of Brahman, two out of the six states of an entity according to Yaska. 95 Besides thse there are several other vital points of difference bebween the Sūtrakara and Sankara, e. g., (1) the nature and the effect (karya) of the ahamgrha meditation, (2) the sampatti or the union of the senses, etc., of the released soul, (3) the giver of the fruit in the form of Moksa, (4) Brahman is hke a loka but It is no loka itself, (5) the relation of jnana and karman, (6) the state of the sage after the attaininent of knowledge, (7) the nature of the knowledge of Brahman which is, according to the Sūtrakara, something io be performed, (8) the admission of a householder as a seeker of Brahman, and (9) the relation of the nānakanda and the Karamakanda. All these points of contrast between the two Acaryas we have tried to bring out only tentatively as the present statement is intended to be only the forerunner of a more complete one. CHAPTER IX. IMPORTANCE OF BRA. SU. III.3 We regard this Pada (III. 8) as perhaps the most important part of the Brahmasutra. We have given a long quotation from Dr. Ghate and the opinion of also Dr. Belvalkar to show bow according to the Acaryas this Pada is a reconciliation of various Śrutis on the same vidya 'Lore' or vijnana 'Congnition', the various gunds or quahties about each of which are to be collected (upasamhara) from the various Srutis for the purpose of medit- (93) P. 177, (94) P. 178. (95) P. 178.

366 CHAPTER IX

ation, and how these modern scholars regard this purpose as trivial and of no philosophical importance. We suggest that after the general rule of Bra.Su.I.4.28, a discussion of tbis kmd is not hkely to be given mn the Bra.Su, Or, if at all, it should have been given in the Second Adhyaya (Virodhaparihārādhyāya) or in the first Adhyaya where some of the visayavākya Srutis of Bra.Su.III.3 according to the Acaryas are already discussed. We point out fourteen remarks made by Sankara in hıs commentary on this Pada consisting of sixtysix Sutras, which we believe are sufficient to make the accuracy of this portion of his bhasya highly suspicious.96 There are nineteen more points which we have called defects or blemishes of the bhāsya, seven of which are ordinary and the remaining twelve such as would suggest themselves only to a more critical eyc. Such defects are due to the bhasya-method of interpretation of our Scriptures, and Sankara shares them in common with all the bhāsyakaras; but these defects preponderate particularly in the interpretation of Bra.Sū.III.397. Moreover, Sankara had no correct Patha of Bra.Su.III.3. In this Pada we have to suggest several text corrections both in the words of the Sutras and in the grouping of the Sabras into Adhi- karanas, which show that the Acaryas were particularly unlueky in having neither a correet Patha nor a correct meaning of this Pāda.98. This Pada contains several critical Sutras, which in our opinion hold the key of the Sutrakara's System and of his scheme of the distribution of S'rutis discussed in Bra.Su.I. 1-3. Sūtras 11, 87-42, 48-54 are the 'most important in this respect. The threo groups of attributes ānandādayah (III 3.11), satyādayah (III.8.37) and ayatanadayah (III.3.38) mean the Srutis discussed respectively in the first, second and third Padas of Bra.Su.I. None of the Acaryas could satisfactorly explain these three groups. The meaning of Bra.SQ. 37-42 and 43-54 as discussed

(96) P. 191-P. 198 .. (97) PP. 195. (98) P. 1951-96.

CHEPTER IX 867

by us, if correct, throws a flood of light on the, Sutrakara's System.99.

There are five tad uktam Sutras in this Pada and a reference to the Bra.Su, itself seems to us to be the only proper explanation of tad uktam in all these cases, unlike the Acaryas who explain the reference to have been made to varions works, viz., Bra.Sn., Jai.Sū., Upanișads, the Bhagavata Purana, otc. The sixtysix Sutras of this Pada form according to Sańkara thirtysix Adhikaranas, while according to us only eighteen. In Chapter 9 we have given side by side the interpretation of Sankara and our own in the form of a very brief summary of the contents of this Pada. 100 This comparative statement will at once impress the reader with the sequence of thoughts and consistency of topics underlying our interpretation and the absence of the same in Sankara's. It is impossible to present here a summary of this summary. We only point out that the succession itself of the various links in the chain of thoughts in the Pada may be by itself regarded as very noteworthy. We have above mentioned several reasons which make us believe that Bra, Su. II1.3 is the most important portion of the entire work and that it holds the key of the interpretation of the book as a whole. There are other very important portions of the Bra.Sü., e.g., Bra.Sū.IIT.2.11-41, III.4 (where jñana of Brahman is declared to be something anustheya and to be of the nature of Vidhi), etc. Bra.Su,II.1 called Smrbpada deals, in our opinion, with Smrti in the sense of the Bhagavadgita, ete., and not in the sense of atheistic Sämkhya, as, is till now believed, and is thereforo im- portant, and this importauce is partly derived from the position which the Gita itself occupied in the days of the Sūtrakara and still occupies as a roligious work. Pada 3 of Adhyays III is, however, of a unique significance for the stand-point of the

(99) PP. 196-198. (100) PP. 198-211.

368 CHEPTER X

Brahmasutra itself, and for the history of the Indian Philosophy in general, since it very clearly tells us how one of the most important eternal problems of Philosophy, viz., the relation of the personal and the impersonal aspects of the ultimate Prinoiple, was understood in the days of the Sutrakara with reference to the Upanisads and, thus, it helps us in appreciating the System of the Sutrakara as well as the interpretation that must have once been given to the Upanisads. It is traditionally called gunopasamhāra Pada and yuna as in Jai.Su.II.3 may mean a secondary element, a subsidiary part, here, of the meditation on Brahman which is anustheya like a sacrifice having the gunas i.e. subsidary rites. The Sutra laying down the upasamhara ( Bra.Su.III.3.5. ) gives the illsutration of those rites which are subsidiary to a vidhi ( vidhi- Śesavat ) and supports our meaning of 'gunopasamhara' as the designation of this Pāda.

CHAPTER X

SANKARA'S METHOD OF INTERPRETATION

In this chapter we have examined Sankara's method of inter- pretation as a typical example of the method of the Acaryas. We admit that just as without the commentary of Sayana the Rgveda would have been a sealed book, even so the Brahmasūtra would have suffered the same fate had there been no commentary on it like that of Sankara. Not only this, but there are, we positively know, several cases in which a modern student would have found all his scholarship baffled by the difficulties facing him in interpreting this very ancient work, had he not got the help of Sankara's bhasya, which his successors got from him even though they started with a definitely different system of philosophy. This is particularly the case when we have to dis- cover a Sruti referred to by a Sutra, As an example, we are quite sure, it would have been almost impossible to find out the visayavākya for Bra. Su. III.3.23, had not Sankara preserved it and had we rejected his visayavākya as impossible one out of mere prejudice against the method of Acaryas. We should examine

CHAPTER X 360

the correct visavavakyas and find out the rules which ensure us of their correctness, and applying those rules we should test the validity of those visayavakyas of Sankara about which we feel doubtful. .

Similarly, we owe to Sankara the preservation of the traditional titles of the Adhyayas and of some of the Padas. Keeping in mind this tradition preserved by Sankara and inherited from him by the succeeding Acaryas we should examine how far the dis- tribution of the themes discussed by Sankara himself is in agreement with the traditional names of the Adhyayas and Padas. Thus, partly at least, the very acceptance of Sankara's interpretation as embodying correct traditions about and correet meanings of the Brahmasutra would lead us to doubt the cor- rectness of some portions of his bhāsya. While examining Sankara's method of interpretation, therefore, we meet with several difficulties which make us often doubt and sometimes reject his interpretation. These difficulties we have called defects or blemishes of Sankara's interpretation. The purpose of this Chapter (X) is to colleot such blemishes and to illustrate them. We may briefly enumerate them as follows :--

(1) As stated already, Sankara preserves a tradition about the names of the Adhyayas of the Brahmasutra and of some of their Padas. We believe that we have no reason to doubt this tradition and that the author of the Sutras strictly adhered to the division of his subject-matter as indicated by the names of the Adhyayas and the Padas. So a commentary of an Acarya is defective in those places where it neglects this division, (2) Sometimes Sankara gives two different interpretations of the same Sruti or Smrti both of which are found either in the bhasya on the Brahmasutra or one in the bhasya on the Brahma- sütra and the other in the bhasya on the Upanisad in question or in the Bhagavadgītā. 47

370 CIIAPTER X

(8) Often the visayavakya in Bra. Su.III.2-3 is either wrong or no visayavākya is meant by the Sutrakāra, if we test the visayavakya suggested by Sankara with rules deduced from those cases where he undoubtedly gives a correct visayavakya as stated above. (4) The Sutras by the nature of their very form are elliptical and require to be completed by the addition of several words. We hold that these additions should be such as can be guaranteed by the context. If an interpreter, ancient or modern, makes ad- ditions to suit his own interpretation but not supported by the context, we should take them as a blemish of tho interpretation. We find too many of such spurious additions in Sankara's bhāsya. (5) In a number of cases Sankara wrongly splits up the words of a Sutra and thereby makes twvo or more sentences where there is actually only one sentence. These are cases of wrong gram- matical construction.

(6) Another class of defects is that of the cases where Sankara gives unusual or wrong meaning or meanings to a word or words in a Sūtra. (7) As distinguished from the cases of the wrong division of the words of a Sutra ( No. 5 above) there are some cases of the wrong construction of the words of a Sutra. The former are cases where no splitting up of words is meant by the Sūtrakara, but Sankara splits them up so that in the place of one sentence as originally meant by the Sutrakara, we find more sentences. In the latter case certain word or words are construed with words in the same Sutra, other than those meant by the Sūtra- kära. In both the types of defects we have a wrong sense of the Sūtra, (8) A great number of wrong interpretations are due to Sankara's giving wrong, absurd or impossible Pūrvapaksa views. We hold that the Purvapaksa must be in agreement with the vişayavākyas and must look probable or plausible if we give a simple sense to the latter.

CHAPTER X 371

These are some of the defects of the bhasya of Sankara and we shall now illustrate them from his bhāsya. 1. Under the first kind of defects we have to consider the following varieties of defects :- (a) Sankara discusses topics which cannot be possibly discussed in the Brahmasutra becanse they cannot be even remotely con nected with the Inquiry of Brahman (Brahmajijfiasa-Bra.Sũ,- I.1.1). Thus, we find in his bhasya discussion of topics fit for discussion in a Smrti like the Law Book of Manu 101 or a book on the Rituals.102

(b) Again, if the Sūtrakara taught or accepted two aspects of Brahman of the nature admitted by Sankara, be would have discussed them in certamn regular divisions of Adhikaranas, Padas or Adhyayas. We ourselves have shown that the Sūtra- kara does accept two aspects, purusavdha and a-purusavidha, of Brahman and also that he treats them in certain definite order in his work (Padas 1-3 of Adhyāya I and Pādas 2 and 3 of Adhyaya III). Sankara gives no such order of Sutras dealing with nirguna Brahman, saguna Brahman and Ignorance ur a-vidya 103. We fail to see whether any explanation of the pro- portion in which the Sutras about these three standpoints occur according to Sankara, can be at all offered.104 (c) According to the traditional titles of the Adhyäyas of the Brahmasutra, the topic of each Adhyaya is sharply distinguished from those of the rest. But Sankarn does not observe this distinction. (i) There are several cases of cross references (of different Adhyayas) given by Sankara himself, where he says that the discussion of a particular subject in one place is resumed in another place (Adhyäya) either for further enlightenment or for (101) Vide S'ankara bhasya on Bra. Su. Vide PP.224-225. (102) Vide S'a.bha, on Bra.Su. Vide 225-228. (108) For examples of Sankara's division of a-vidya, a-para vulya and parit urdya vide PP, 216-223. (104) Vide remarks on PP. 222-228.

372 CHEPTER X

some modinication of the first view. We do not object to the comparison of the two Sutras or groups of Sutras in two different Adhyayas of the Brahmasutra; rather we adopt it as an impor- tant part of the critical method of mterpretation suggested by us (in Chapter 11). But we should remember that the Sütra style itself will mean that the same topic is not likely to be discussed once in brief and again in detail or vice versa, and that we cannot disregard a distinction made by the author of the Sutras himself.105 (ii) Besides those noted by Sankara himself there are not a few cases of cross references not noticed by Sankara as such but gathered by us from his bhāsya .106 (2) Defects of the form of two different interpretations of the same Sruti or Smrti :- (a) There are cases of the interpretation of a Sruti given by Sankara in the bhāsya on the Brahmasutra, being inconsistent with the same given by him in his bhasya on the Upanisad in question. Thus, he explains, e.g., a Sruti of the Mundaka Upa. as dealing with the personal or the saguna aspect in his bhasya on the Bra. Su., while he interprets the same as dealing with the nirguna aspect in his commentary on the Upanisad.107 (b) There are several cases where Sankara interprets the same Smrti in two different ways in ( different places of ) his bhāsya on the Brahmasutra itself. (c) Moreover, there are very curious cases where Sańkara is forced by the clear words of a set of Sütras to give an inter- pretation of a Sruti (or a Smrti) which is the correct meaning of the text accepted by the Sūtrakara; but Sankara on finding that this meaning is inconsistent with the doctrine of his School sets it aside and tries to draw out from the same group of Sūtras a sense of the Sruti ( or the Smrti) that would be accptable to his

(105) Vide examples on PP. 228-232. (106) Vide examples on PP. 232-233 and other debailed examples on PP. 286-238. (107) Vide examples on P. 233.

CHAPTER X 378

School; or, otherwise, he becomes bold and says dhat he does not agree with the sense of a text given by the Sūtrakara as interpreted by him and that therefore he rejects the Sutrakara's view, and thus, gives another interpretation suitable to his system.108 The example of the anandamaya Adhikarana is too well known to be reproduced. (Bnt, in fact, there are several Srutis in the interpretation of which Sankara differs from the Sūtrakāra, Vide Chapter VII.) (3) Cases of wrong vişayavākyas or no vişayavākyas :- We must admit that there are several Sutras in the bhasya on which Sankara gives the exact visayavakyas which it would be very difficult if not impossible for a modern Scholar to dis- cover from the ocean of the Scriptures. But having appreciated his exactness in those cases, we should draw our attention to the following facts also :-

(a) Cases where Sańkara 'gives vsayavākyas, but as a matter of fact, the Sutras in question refer to no Srutis. 100 (b) Cases where Sankara gives wrong Srutis as visayavakyas.110 (c) Sütras which Sankara takes as referring to an argument (yukti) but which really refer to a Sruti,111 (d) Cases where Sankara gives the reference to be to a Smrti or a Sütra, other than the Smrti or Sutra intended by the Satra- kāra to be the visayavākya, 112 (e) Besides these there are several cases where Sankara gives such visayavakyas or quotations from the Seripture as do not at

(108) Vide examples on P. 233-234. (109) Vide oxamples on PP.240-241. (110) Vide examples on PP. 241-246 specially in S'a.bha. on Bra. SO. III. 2. 12, 22, 81, III. 3, 24-25, 5B, III. €.50; etc. We have suggested the correct Srutis. (111) Vide examples on P. 246, particularly in S'snkara bhäsye on Bra. 80 III.4. 11, 26, 42; and on P. 247 partienlarly in S's.Bhi. on Bra.8O.IIT.4.42. (112) Vide examples on P. 247.

374 CHEPTER X

all support his own contention. For this reason, these are cases of absurd quotations. 118. (4) Cases of "unwarranted additiions" :- How far can we add to the very words of a Sutra ? How far are the Sutras elliptical ? No commentator should take too much liberty with the text itself. Every addition must be justified by the context. Sankara (and those who adopt his method of interpretation) cannot stick to the pure wording of a Sūtra-114

From the great number of Sankara's mistakes or rather defects of types (3) and (4) we conclude that the Acaryas had no un- broken tradition about Bra.Sū.III.2-3.

(6) In a number of cases, Sankara wrongly splits up the words (padas) of a Sutra and thereby makes two or more sentences where there is actually only one.115 Such defects are found in a large number in Bra.Su.III.8.

(6) Cases of words to which Sankara does not assign their correct sense or to which Sankara gives a limited or modified sense are as follows :- (a) Cases of words to which only one sense is assigned.116 (b) Cases in which Sankara gives two or more meanings to the words of a Sutra and therefore to the Sutra itself.117 (c) There are several Sutras to some words of which Sańkara gives a sense which makes these or other words of the same Sūtra redundant.118

(113) Vide examples from Bra.Su.IV.4 on P. 247-248. Vide remarks on P.248. (114) Vide examples from Bra.Su,III.3 on PP. 249-253; examples from Bra.Su III.4 on PP. 253-255; examples from Bra.St.IV.1 on P.255-256, examples from Bra.Su. IV.4., PP. 256-257. (115) Vide examples from Bra.Su,III.3 on PP. 257-259 and from Bra.Su.III 4 and IV on PP. 259-260. (116) Vide ezamples from Bra.Su,III.3 on PP. 261-262, from Bra.Su.III.4 on PP. 262-263 and from Bra.Su.IV.4. on P. 263. (117) Vide examples on PP. 264-265. (118) Vide examples on P. 265,

CHEPTER XI 375

(7) Cases of a wrong construction of the words of a Sūtra, 119 (8) Cases of wrong, absurd or impossible pūrvapaksa views, if we look to the visayavakyas.120 We may conclude by saying that we may not be correct in all the examples given by us to illustrate these defects, as we have called them, of Sankara; and that we may have oursolves committed similar mistakes. But inspite of these possibilities, our general conclusions wilf be found to be valid.

CHAPTER XI. METHOD OF INTERPRETATION : SOME SUGGESTIONS. The necessity of fixing some rules for interpreting our Scrip- tures was felt by Jaimint. The same for interpreting the Sutras was felt by Sabara. Thibaut, Srauss, Deussen, and Taliwala complain of the absence of clearness and conciseness of the Brahmasitra. Ghate enumerates his difficulties and makes some suggestions for the rules of interpretation. Ghate says that the essentials of the critical method are contained in the famous verse : Upakramopasamhārāvabhyaso s purvatā phalam Arthavādopapattis ca lingam tātparyanirțaye. But Ghate also admits that the Acaryas have followed this method. And we may say that even the modern scholars have partly at leaset followed the same method. Ghate also deserves the credit of being more critical than others. The traditional critical method of examiniug the beginning, the conclusion, ete., should not be neglected, but at the same time, it does not appear to us to be sufficient for our purpose. We must remember that the Sutras can have one and only oue meaning and one Sutrapatha as well as one Adhikaraņapatha.

(119) Vide examples on P. 266 (120) Vide examples from Bra.Su.III.2 on PP. 966-269; from Bra.SILIII.3 on PP. 269-282, from Bra.ST.III:4 on PP. 282-290.

376 CHAPTER XI

After the necessary preliminary study of the Prasthanas and the commentaries, we should devote ourselves to the Brahma- sutra itself intensively and internally. For this inquiry, we make the following practical suggestions :- (1) We should inquire whether the Sūtrakära in the course of his work refers to what he himself has said in his own work. Thus, we find that the Sutras with 'tad uktam' 'it has been stated' refer to some statement mn the Sutras that have preced- ed the particular Sutra in question. We have given a list of six Sutras with 'tad uktam' stating in a tabular form the number of each Sutra, the earlier Sutra referred to, the topic of both the Sutras and the reference according to Sankara. Be- sides these we find two more Sutras with ' tad uktam.' In our Notes in Part I, we have given the views of Rāmānuja and Vallabha about the expression ' tad uktam.' (2) A study of several bahuvrihi compounds mn the Bra. Su. shows that such compounds refer to a statement in the Sūtras- preceding the Sūtra with a bahuvrihi compound. We have shown that ānandādayah, satyādayah and āyatanādayah in Bra. Sū.III.3.11, 38, 39 refer to Bra.Su.I.1, I. 2 and I. 3 respectively. Śabdādi in Bra.Sū.III.3.58 refers to Šabda, prakarana and samjña in Bra.Sü.III.3.6-8. (3) When a Sruti which is the visayavākya of a Sūtra, is to be found out, as a rule we should expect that some word in the Sütra (or, as is sometimes the case, its synonym) must be also present in the Sruti. Also the sense of the Sruti and that of the Sütra should be the same. Both these conditions must be equally fulfilled. We have thus discovered a number of the original vişayavakyas. For the purpose of illustration, we have given a table containing the Sutras together with the visayavākyas proposed as probable by us and also the references given by Śankara. We have also given a list of the Sutras along with the Upanisadic numbers of the visayavākyas discovered by us. The arguments for these are given in Part I.

CHAPTER XI 377

(4) We should as far as possible compare and centrast the words and their contrary terms used in the Sutras. (i) The word pradhana in Bra. Su.III.3.11, III.2.14, and in III.3.48 has the same sense, viz., the arupavat aspect of Brahman. (ii) The word ' sthana' in Bra.Su. III.2.11 and III.2 34. (iif) The word ' upasamhāra' in Bra.Sū III.3.5 and III.4.48 (and also II.1.24). (iv) The word aprapti in Bra. Sa.IIL.3.12 and II.2.22, II.2.18. (5) We should also study the synonyms of the prominent words used in the Bra. Su. We find that mukhya in Bra. Si. IV.3.12 is a synonym of pradhana, one of the very important words in the Bra. Su. Similarly suksmam in Bra.Su.I.4.2 stands for arupavat in Bra.Su.III.2.14 and avyakta in Bra Su. III.2. 23. (6) Several expressions in different parts of the Bra.Su, must be compared. (i) Ekasyām api in Bra. Sū, III.3.2. means ekasyām sākhāyām api, because we find śākhāsu in Bra.Sū, III.3.55. (7) A comparison of doctrinal statements will also prove use- ful. We have given four very prominent cases of this kind of comparison, 121 (8) Like comparison, contrast presented by contrary terms should be carefully noticed. Thus, arupavat in Bra. Sa.III.2.14 should be contrasted with rupa in Bra.Su.I.2.23. The contrast shows that the Sūtrakara believes in nirākāra and sēkara aspects of Brahman. (9) Above all, the context should be the most important factor to be considered in interpreting the Sutras. The Acarvas have often neglected the context. Though the Satras by the very nature of their style are elliptical, we should add no words to the Sütras which are not strictly guaranteed by the context. We have given in Part I not a few cases of Sańkara's unguaranteed additions to the words of a Sutra. In Chapter 10 we have examined how Sankara makes such additions so often. (121) PP. 308-804. 48

378 CHEPTER XII

In the preßent Chapter we have briefly stated eight Sutras or Adhikaranas as examples where strict adherence to the context leads us to quite different conclusions than those of the Acaryas who seem to care for the context of the Sutras with the Srutis or visayavakyas as they understand the latter, rather than for the context of the Sutras themselves. 122 (10) Apart from the question of filling up the ellpses due to the nature of the Sutra style, a practical suggestion regarding tbe question of discovering the exact context can be made in the case of certain words when they ocour in the Sutras. In these cases, we must follow the context strictly, as these words can never be taken as referring to something not stated in the immediately preceding Sutra or Adhikarana. We have illustrat- ed this by interpreting words like अतः, पूर्व, तद्, अन्यथा, अन्यन्न, इतर, इमे, or arfa (in the sense of inclusion), etc. We have examined eighteen Sutras and shown how these words should be interpreted in striet agreement with the preceding Sutras, rather than with what the Acaryas add to the preceding Sutras or with the Srutis they have in mind122a The subject of this Chapter can be further amplified by that of Chapter X which deals with Sankara's method of interpreta- tion. Besides the ten suggestions about the rules of eritical interpretation some more suggestions can be made. All these we have tried to follow in Part I. More help in this direction may also be had from the fixation of the text of the Brahma- sutra proposed in the next Chapter. CHAPTER XII THE TEXT OE THE BRAHMASUTRA The problem of fixing the text of the Brahmasutra, which is of a double nature, viz., (1) the grouping of the Sutras into Adhi- karanas and (2) a change in the very reading of a Sūtra, is not less important than that of interpreting it. Sankara had already the problem before him. Dr. Belvalkar has been able to gather evidence tending to prove that the later Bhasykāras freely (122) PP. 305-308. (122a) PP. 309-812.

CHAPTER XII 379

altered the text of the Sutras in a variety of ways, even by omit- ting and actually inserting Sutras. Dr. Ghate emphasises the fact that no fixed division of the Sutras into Adhikaraņas un- animously accepted has come down to us. We propose to suggest some rules derived from critical tests to fix the text. These tests are the following :- (a) Examination of the use of the partieles, viz., (1) hi, (2) tuly (3) ca,123 (b) study of the grammatical construction of certain * Sutras, viz., (1) the Sutras with an ablative form baving the sense of hetu or argument, (2) the Sutras without such an ablative form and yet to be taken as supplying only an argument, (3) the Sütras having the characteristics of the first Sütra or the only Sutra of an Adhikarana; 124 and lastly (c) Evidence leading to & change in the reading of the Sutra itself, viz., (1) the combination of two Sütras into one, (2) the transference of some pada of one Sütra to another, (3) the shortening of a vowel e.g. $ (to $), and (4) the change of a consonant in a Sūtra,125 Without reproducing the arguments, we may here give the only possible summary of this kind of discussion, viz., the statistes of the Sütras examined and the net Satras affected by the results of the examination. (a) Examination of the use of the particles :- (1) We have altogether examined twentythree Sutras with hi. In thirteen out of these, we find ourselves in agreement with Sankara in our interpretation that hi in these Sutras snpplins an argument for a Proposition in the same Sutra in which it occurs; and in five an argument for a proposition in a preeeding Sütra. In the case of four Sütras we have shown bhat thongh Sankara takes the Sutra in question as the first or the only Sütra of an Adhikarana, we have reasons to take them ax part of the same Adhikarana to which the preceding Sntra belongs,

(128) PP. 315-319, 319-327, and 327-832, respeetively. (124) PP. 834-336, 336-338, 338-339 respoctively. - (125) PP. 339-341 respectively.

880 OHAPTER XII

In one Sūtra ( Bra. Su.III.8.3 ) we cannot explain the presence of hi. We have also noticed five Sütra with tatha hi in the sense of he, though we fail to explain why the Sūtrakara prefers to use the longer word instead of the shorter one. We have concluded that a Sutra or a part of a Sutra with hi or tatha hi is only an argument in support of a preceding Sūtra or the carlier part of the same Sutra. Whon a Sutra with hi bas no such earlier part of the nature of a Proposition, but is itself an argument only, it cannot begin an Adhikarana; it can only be in the middle or in the end of an Adhikarana. (2) In all we have examined twentysix Sutras with tu in them. In ten of these we find ourselves in agreement with Sankara who interprets it in the sense of the refutation of an Opponent's view given in a preceding Sutra, and the Sūtra in question is treated by Sankara also as a Siddhanta Sūtra. There are seven Sutras with tu which, in our opinion, refute a Pürvapaksa not stated but implied in the preceding Sūtra which is itself a Siddhanta Sutra though Sankara does not clearly assign to the tu in these Sutras the sense of the refutation of a Purvapaksa, but says that here tu means 'modification' ( visesana ) etc. of the statement in a preceding Sūtra. It would appear that Sankara sometimes takes tu as superfluous, but we suggest that it is always significant and refutes a Pürvapaksa either stated in the preceding Sūtra or not. None of all these twentysix Sūtras is a Pūrvapaksa Sūtra, even in the opinion of Sankara. Therefore, the presence of tu in a Sūtra is by itself a sufficient indication that the Sutra is a Siddhanta Sūtra. (8) Examination of the use of the particle ca. It occurs about eighty times in about 227 Sutras ( Bra.Su.III.2.11-IV ). There- fore, the valne of the information derived from the examination of ca, will be numerically far greater than that of either hi or tu. In about fortyfive cases, the particle ca has the usual sense of addition ( samuccaya ) of one more argument (either a yukti

CHEPTER XII 881

or a Śruti); while in thirteen Sutras ca adds one mcre argument which is the final argument so that it also indicates the last Sūtra in an' Adhikaraņa. In these fiftyeight Sūtras, Sańkara and ourselves are in agreement. In nine other cases Sankara takes Sutras with ca as the last Sütras of an Adhikarana, but we difir from him. (Altogether in sixtyseven cases Sankara does not take a Sutra with ca as the first Sūtra of an Adhikarana). There are thirteen Sutras with ca which Sankara takes as the first or the only Sutra of an Adhikarana, but where, in our opi- mion, we have the continuation of the Adhikarana to which' the preceding Sutra in each case belongs. In these thirteen cases, it may also be noticed here, Sankara does not take ca in its usual sense of mere addition of one more argument for the statement made in a preceding Sutra, and hence he has to find some other theme of addition or often to leave ca unexplained. There are two Sutras with ca, which we, differing from Sankara, take as the last Sutras of their respective Adhikaranas. We have also noticed nine Sutras with ca, where it indicates the end of a series of argumonts either of the Pürvapaksa or of the Siddhanta. From this inquiry about the sense of ca, we may safely conclude that (1) a Sutra with ca, cannot be the flirst Sūtra of, or cannot begin, an Adhikarana; it must be either in the middle or in the end of an Adhikarana; and (2) when a Sütra with ca occurs in the course of an Adhikarana, it generally signi- fies the last argument for the point in question and often in this case the Sütra is the last Sütra of an Adhikarana, though not always so. As an exception to (1) we have the first Sttra of Bra.Su.II.2 at the very begining of a Pada We have also proposed that like the presence of ca in a Sūtra, the absence of the same in some Sūtras also should be examined. Accordingly, Bra.Su.III.8.62 and 68 will be only one Sutra. As regards the meaning of ca, we believe that it should be always interpreted as a copulative or conjunctive particle, as Sankara also usually does, though he rarely explains it as tu 'but* or va 'or' also.

382 CHAPTER XII

(b) Study of the grammatical constructions of Sūtras ;-

(1) Among the Sutras with peculiar grammatical constructions we have first examined the Sutras with words in the ablative case having the sense of hetu 'reason'. All these hetusutras give only a reason for a conclusion in a preceding Sutra. If they are not read in this context, or in relation with the preceding Sūtra, we have to make many additions to each of them before we cau make out a connected complete sense out of it, These Sutras with the ablative form are like the Sutras with hi. We have cxamined six hetusutras which Sankara takes as the first Sūtra of an Adhikarana, but which we have proposed to take only as an argument for the statement in a preceding Sutra. A pure hetusutra can never be the first Sutra of an Adhikarana.

(2) We have also discovered that there is a third type of Sütras (about sixteen in Bra.Su.III.2.11-IV) which must also be taken as hetusutras on purely contextual grounds and each of which should therefore be only the second or a subsequent Sutra in an Adhikarana, though Sankara takes them as the first Sutras of the respective Adhikaranas.

(8) We have also discussed the nature of the first Sūtra of an Adhikarana. We believe, the first Sutra of an Adhikarana should contain only a Proposition with or without an argument for the Proposition which is either a Pūrvapaksa or a Siddhanta. We have given a list of about forty such Sutras where we agree with Sankara. Besides these we have pointed out thirteen Sütras which on contextual grounds, viz., that they contain u self-complete statement with an argument, that this statement or Pratijna is different from the one in the preceding Sūtra, eto. etc., must be taken as the first Sutras of their respeotive Adhi- karanas, though Sankara regards them as Sutras in the middle of the Adhikaranas. (c) Lastly, we have proposed changes in the case of eight Sutras, of the nature of the transposition of a pada from one,

CHAPTER XII 383

Sutra to another or of reading i for i, dh for gh, dh ffor d in a Sutra. In these changes we are not supported by any Acarya or any MS. Still we have supported them on contextual basis, just as Bohtlingk had suggested variants in the Buddhacarita, which ara naw ijetified by the recovery of its Tibetan transla- tion. The numer (twelve) of these suggestions of ours is not too great fo mab our very interpretation doubtful, since they are made in our entire portion of Sutras (Bra.Su.III.2.11-IV.), which come to 227 in all.

The End