1. Vedanta Ghate V.S. BORI (See Brahma Sutra Parmukha Bhashya Panchaka Samikasana)

CENTRAL LIBRARY Birla Institute of Technology & Science PILANI (Rajastban)

Call No. 181.4 G283V Accession No. 3854)

Acc. No. ISSUE LABEL

Not later than the latest date stamped bela

GOVERNMENT ORIENTAL SERIES

CLASS C. No. 1

GOVERNMENT ORIENTAL SERIES

CLASS C, NO. I

PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE PUBLICATION DEPARTMENT OF THE BHANDARKAR ORIENTAL

RESEARCH INSTITUTE,

POONA.

INS POONA

FOUNDED 191

तेजस्वि नावधीतमर्तु।।

POONA Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

1926

Gopernment Oricntal Scrics-Class C, No. 1.

THE VEDANTA

A STUDY OF THE BRAHMA SUTRAS WITH THE BHASYAS of Samkara. Rāmānuja, Nimbarka, Madhva and Vallabha

BY V. S. GHATE M. A. ( Bomb. ), B. A. ( Cantab. ), Dortenr de I'Universite' de Paris, Late Professor of Sanskrit at the Elphinstone College, Bombav.

Edited and seen through the press by V. G. PARANJPE. Professor of Sanskrit, Fergusson College, Poona

PUBLISHED BY The Bbandarkar Oriental Research Anstitute, Poona. 1926

Copies can be had direct from the Bhandarkar O. R. Institute, P. O. Deccan Gymkhana, Poona, India. Price Rs. Tico per copy etclusice of postage.

Printed from type set up at the Bhandarkar Institute Press, Anandashram, Budhwar Peth, Poona and published by V. G. PARANJPE, M. A., LL. B., D. Litt., Secretary, Ehandarkar Oriental Research Institute, POONA. First Edition, One Thousund Copies,

TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE

Preface by the Editor VI Author's Preface VII Introduction ... 1- 40 I. Generalities 1- 4 II. The three periods of Sanskrit Philosophy ... 5-22 The Vedic Period ... 5- 7 The Upanisadic Period 7-11 The Post-Vedic Period ... 11-22 III. The five Schools of the Vedanta 23-40 The doctrine of Samkara ... 23- 26 The doctrine of Ramanuja 26-7 28 The doctrine of Nimbārka 29-33 The doctrine of Madhva , 33- 35 The doctrine of Vallabha 35-39 Résumé 39- 40 Chapter I. General Outline . 41-57 Chapter II. Analysis 58-167 Adhyāya T, Pāda 1 58- 62 2 62- 64 3 64-70 4 70-75 II, 1 75-84 2 84-89 3 ... 89-107 ... 4 ... 107-113 III, 1 ... 113-117 2 .. 117-133 3 ... 133-141 4 ... 141-143 ... IV, 1 ... 143-148 2 ... 148-156 3 ... 156-161 4 ... 161-167 Chaptor III Conclusion ... 168-184

PREFACE BY THE EDITOR.

The literary career of the late Dr. Ghate was cut short hy a premature death which believed all expectations. The present work was offered by him in 1918 as a thesis for the Doctorate of the Paris University. Being written in French, it was inaccersi- ble to most Indian readers and therefore the authorities of the Bhandarkar Institute were very glad to accept the offer of the heirs and executors of the late Dr. Ghate to transfer to the Institute the copyright of what appeared to be a complete English translation of the work. I undertook most willingly to see the work through the press on behalf of the heirs of the late Dr. Ghate, whom I owed a debt of gratitude as his pupil at the Deccan College. On examination, however, I found that the copy entrusted to me was not a translation of the French work; but the original draft of it in English, which was changed occa- sionally while it was being translated. I had therefore to take some liberties with the text of Dr. Ghate's manuscript, although I have tried to make them as few as possible consistently with the desire to give an unambiguous text, which was also in conformity with its French version. There are a few incon- sistencies that still remain and there must be typo- graphical imperfections also in the present edition, for which I ought to take my full share of responsibility. I can only say that I have given it all my energy and vigilance, of which unfortunate- ly I have not the full measure, and I hope that the reader will accept this circumstance as some extenuation of all my faults.

V. G. PARANJPE.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE.

The problem as to what is the doctrine contained in the Brahmasutras of Badarayana or, in other words, which among the five well-known commentaries gives the most faithful inter- pretation of them has occupied my mind since long. I was therefore very glad to have the permission of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Paris to offer to it in the form of a thesis the results of my study of the subject and my reflections on it. I leave it to the reader to decide if the conclusions at which I have arrived are or are not satisfactory. I only hope that the method followed in the treatment of the subject would appear to be reasonable and in strict conformity with the rules of western criticism. If this venture of mine succeeds in arousing some interest in Sanskrit philosophy, and more particularly in remov- ing the idea which is now current in Europe that the sum of the Vedanta is to be found in the system of Samkara, I shall consider that my labour will not have been in vain.

I have to thank Dr. F. W. Thomas for the kindness which he has shown me in placing at my disposal books and manuscripts from the library of the India Office and in giving me his valuable advice whenever it was needed. The untiring co-operation of M. P. Masson Oursel has likewise been of the greatest help to me, especially on account of his unrivalled knowledge of philosophic terminology, oriental as well as occidental.

The library of M. E. Senart has been of great use to me and I inxist on giving an expression here to my sense of gratitude to him.

But above all things, I owe a debt of gratitude to M. Sylvain Levi and to M. A. Foucher. It is thanks to their guidance and their encouragement that this humble attempt has seen the light of day. I have not words with which to express all that I feel when I think of all the precious time that these savants have spared for me and of the affectionate sympathy which they have showu

viii

for me during my stay in Paris. I need not sry what a source of information and of inspiration has been to me their heart-to- heart talk, in the course of which they gave freely of their treasures of erudition and of the finesse of their critical mind. I shall ever carry with me an imperishable memory of the hours which it was my privilage to spend in their company.

INTRODUOTION. I .- GENERALITIES A Maratha who was both a poet and a saint has said in a very well known line, जगी सर्व सुखी असा कोण आहे ?- 'Who is there, in this world, who is perfectly happy?'. The reply is, of course, no one. Not only is no one perfectly happy, but no one, is happy even. For, as we see, no happiness is unmixed. And even in the midst of the highest happiness, the thought or rather the fear of losing it half mars the enjoyment. Hence it is that thinkers have always sought to find out something which would secure eternal happiness, something which you can never lose, that is to say, something which would ever remain with you. A slight consideration will show that no- thing in this world can fulfil this test unless it forms part and parcel of you, or in other words, it is yourself; for what- ever is outside you, can never remain eternally with you. It is yourself alone which you can depend upon as something that is never to leave you. Hence the search after eternal happiness led, in its turn, to the search after the self, to philosophy. 'Who am I?' ($) is the chief question with which all philosophy is in the first place concerned. 'Whence do I come ?,' 'Where do I go ?' are questions which natural- ly follow in its train. It is these questions to which every school of philosophy attempts to furnish a reply; and it is these questions which have always occupied the seers of ancient India, her prophets and teachers, her saints and poets; and if I may say so, it is not the search after truth by itself, but the search after truth as actuated by the search after eternal beatitude, that is at the root of all Sanskrit philosophy, howsoever that beatitude may be called, by the name of ' Moksa' ( deliverance ), or ānanda (jouissance ), or nirvana ( complete extinction ), or any other name. And I believe that this is more natural, as it is more human, in ac- cordance with the saying प्रयोजनमनुद्दिश्य न मन्दोपि प्रवर्तत, 'even a fool does not proceed without having some object in view.' Ghate, Vedanta 1

2 INTRODUCTION

The consideration of the main questions stated above can- not be satisfactorily carried on without at the same time taking note of many other side-question, e. g. those about the means of knowlege ( pramanas ), the nature of heaven and hell, the nature of God, the practices to be observed in order to arrive at the right knowlege, the different paths leading to beatitude, etc. Thus there are more aspects or disciplines of philosophy than one, amongst which may be mentioned the following which are principal :- (1) Metaphysics, (2) Natural Philosophy, (3) Psychology, to which may be added, ( 4) Eschatology.

(1) There are two ways of looking at the universe with all its manifestations,-one is to investigate the forms in which the universe appears to us; i. e. to our senses, which is the domain of the so-called science; the other is to consider the very essence of the phenomena, independently of how they affect our senses, leading thus to the science of Metaphysics .- This latter sets before itself the task of knowing what is behind or beyond the universe which is both in us and around us. It endeavours to grasp the hidden springs that move the world, it longs to enter into the mysteries of 'the great unknown.' Metaphysics thus inquries into the last or first cause, and is the science of the Really Existent. Thus questions about Brahman, its nature, its relation to the universe,-all fall under the discipline of Meta- physics or the doctorine of the philosophical principle. Meta- physics becomes theology when the philosophical principle be- comes less abstract and is endowed with personal attributes, so as to suit better the longings and the limited powers of the human mind, in other words, is turned into God. Thus Theology is the doctrine of God, or Metaphyiscs made conorete, whereas Meta- physics is Theology made abstract.

(2) On the other hand, when we deal with the phenomena themselves, their plurality, the order of creation and destruction of the diffierent forms of existence that surround us, in brief, when we concern ourselves with the Cosmos as opposed to the underlying principle of unity, we enter the domain of Natural Philosophy, better known in modern times by the name Cosmology. Thus questions regarding the creation of the elements like ether,

INTRODUCTION 3

air, light etc., their order of creation and destruction, the classi- fication of living beings etc., fall under the discipline of cosmology.

(3) Apart from the outer world, there is the inner world, which is in ourselves, the world of thoughts and emotions, wishes and cognitions, the subtle vital airs all having at their head the soul or the ego. An investigation into this inner world forms the subject of the third discipline, viz. Psychology. Thus the theory of the subtle body and the gross body, the sense- organs as the means of cognition, internal and external, the vital airs,-all these belong to Psychology. Allied to this, or form- ing a sub-section of this, is Logic which deals with the more concrete instruments of thought and the laws of valid reasoning, which department has been the special pre-occupa- tion of the Nyaya School of philosophy.

(4) To these we may add a fourth discipline, which is much less important and which is called Eschatology, dealing with things after death, with heaven and hell, the course followed by the jiva (life) after its departure from the body, the theory of manes, etc.

These are the four chief parts which every philosophical system must contain. In the present place, however, we shall be mainly concerned with the first or metaphysical aspect and with the rest, only occasionally.

II .- THE THREE PERIODS OF SANSKRIT PHILOSOPHY.

Ancient Sanskrit Philosophy divides itself, broadly speak- ing, into three periods :- (1) the Vedic, (2) the Upanisadic and (3) the post-vedic,-which may be also called (1) the cosmological, (2) the metaphysical and (3) the systematic,-representing three stages in the gradual intellectual evolution of the Indian thought.

1 The Vedic Period .- By the Vedic, we mean the period of the samhitas and the Brahmanas, especially of the Rgveda Sam- hitā. The philosophy of the Veda is rather a loose term, in-as- much as there is no philosophy proper in the Veda. The first philosophy of a people is its religion. And the Rgvedic religion is quite transparent, though developed, chiefly consisting of the personification of natural forces and natural phenomena. The most striking features of the Vedic religion are :-

Firstly-It is practical and utilitarian in nature, in that the hymns, though highly poetic and inspired in character, are most of them at the same time incidental to the sacrifice. 'Give and take' is the simple law which is applicable to the dealings be- tween men and gods; and 'reciprocity, frank unconditional reciprocity becomes an accepted motive.'*

Secondly-As a consequence, it is essentially a religion of priests, a hieratic religion.

Thirdly-It is a religion of the upper classes who are well- to-do, presupposing an established household of considerable extent, a wealthy and liberal householder, elaborate and expensive materials, and many priests.

Fourthly-It is essentially optimistic. It is not immortality or heaven, but a long life for full hundered years, prosperity, warlike offspring, in short all the blessings of this life, that the worshipper or the householder asks for. It is a spirit of healthy joy in the life we live that dominates; while such pessimistic * Bloomfield, Religion of the Veda, p. 184.

INTRODUCTION 5

ideas as that life is uncertain and unsubstantial, that death is nature while life is only an accident, are conspicuous by their absence.

Fifthly-It is characterised by what may be described as Arrested Personification. The Vedic poets while personifying the power of nature into gods, never allow this nature worship to be stiffened into mere admiration, fear and adulation of personal pods, and never become forgetful of the origin from which sprang the gods.

Sixthly-It shows a tendency to raise the particular god to whom the worshipper is addressing prayers for the time being, to the most exalted position, so that all other gods are subordi- nated to him for the moment,-a form of religion which has been called Kathenotheism.

Notwithstanding the religious character of the Vedic thought in general, there are frequently found references to ideas more abstract and philosophical, which may be regarded as the germs of the later Upanisad-thoughts. As in the Vedic religion the my- thological element prevailed, and the moral element,-the perso- nified natural forces being considered as the power that creates, maintains and controls what man feels in himself as constituting the moral law, opposed to the cgoistic tendencies natural to man, -though present, was not sufficiently assertive and the way was gradually paved for doubt and contempt of gods ( see for in- stance Rg. II.125, IX. 112, VII. 103, X. 119. etc.). Besides, the mere technique of the sacrificial ritual, in the course of time, must have ceased to satisfy the minds both of the patron and the rriest, so that more philosophic food was required, and questions and ans- wers regarding the origin of the world and similar topics must have been discussed , giving rise to what are called Bral.modyas. So also the old mythological gods in strong flesh tints must have begun to disconcert them and faith must have been gradually lost ; so that abstract and symbolic embodiments of the divine idea then took the place of the gods of nature. And just as the Rsis thought that the several natural phenomena had some divine forces behind them which were personified into so many

6 INTRODUCTION

gods, in the same way they advanced one step further and came to think that all three were aspects of one and the same all- pervading divine force which manifested itself in the different phenomena. Thus the thought gradually progressed from many gods to one being and from the simple give-and-take religion to abstruse speculations regarding the beginning and origin of all things.

Thus Rg. I. 164-46 declares, "They call it Indra, Mitra, Varuna and Agni, or the heavenly bird Garutmat ( the sun ). The sages call the one being in many ways, they call it Agni, Yama, Mataris'van." This whole hymn ( I. 164 ) consisting of 52 verses, is nothing but a collection of riddles to which no answers are given. "The subjects of these riddles are cosmic, that is, per- taining to the nature-phenomena of the Universe; " mythological, that is, referring to the accepted legends about gods ; psychological, that is, pertaining to the human organs and sensations ; or finally crude and tentative philosophy or theosophy. Heaven and Earth, Sun and Moon, air, clouds, and rain; the course of the sun, the year, the seasons, months, days and nights; human voice, self- consciousness, life and death, the origin of the first creature, and the originator of the universe: such are the abrupt and bold themes."*

Thus already in certain hymns of the Rgveda, there emerges the thought with which philosophy begins,-the conception of the unity of the world,-which later rose up to Monism, perceiving through the veil of the manifold, the unity which underlies it. In this connection may be particularly noticed the hymn X. 121, where the Hiranya-garbha is described as existing in the beginn- ing of the creation, the sole lord of beings, supporting heaven and earth; X. 90 where the whole world is conceived as one being, the Virat-purusa who having pervaded it from all sides, still remained over and above it; X. 82 where the waters are spoken of as being the first substance or prime cause ; X. 81, addressed to Vis'vakarman who combines in his person the characters of a primeval divine sacrificer and of a creator, in which the cosmol- * Bloomfield, Religion of the Veda, p. 218,

INTRODUCTION 7

ogical significance of the divine sacrifice finds particular expres- sion, and question like 'What was the place whereon he took his station ? what was it that supported him ? How was it? ( Verse 2 ),' are boldly asked; X. 125 where Vak is represented as the companion and upholder of the gods and as the foundation of all religious activity and its attendant boons; and X. 129, which is quite typical in character and remains unsurpassed in its noble simplicity and in the loftiness of its philosopical vision, as it attempts to explain the presence of the world and its con- tents, beyond the point of mere individual experience or analysis through empirical knowledge, by putting forth a fundamental principle without personality.

A cursory glance at these hymns will show that the general trend of thought is principally cosmological rather than metaphy- sical in the proper sense of the word, and hence we may call this period cosmological. One thing to be noticed in connection with this early philosophy of the Vedas, however, is the absence of pessimism and metempsychosis, which are the distinguishing traits of later Indian philosophy.

(2) The Upanisadic Period .- The second period of Indian Philo- sophy, that of the Upanisads, is quite distinct in character from the first, though it is but the natural result of it. If the thought during the first period was mainly religious and cosmological, with only a trace here and there of philosophy proper, the second period was mainly philosophical, though not in the narrow sense of the word, i. e. having a cut and dry- system of philosophy. The elaborate and mechanical system of worship that had grown up round the Vedic gods, and the spe- culations as regards the appropriateness of the rules and modes of worship and their efficacy for man's good in this world and the next, which prevailed in the Brahmanas, no longer satis- fied the religious spirit of the people. The overdoing of the socrificial cult brought on its own downfall; and people's thoughts were naturally drawn to subjects of a more spiritual character, such as problems about God, man and the world, and a variety of solutions was arrived at. 'Knowledge and not mere ceremonial is the way to happiness,'-that is the key-note of

8 INTRODUCTION

the literature of this period. The Upanisads, unsurpassed in their freedom and comprehensiveness and grandeur of thought, are simply marvellous, and nowhere else can we find such a sim- plicity and naïveté of style combined with profundity and depth of idea,-a circumtance which makes them untranslatable.

On the question as to what the Upanisads teach ( or in other words what is the nature of the philosophy of this period ), there are, so to speak, two views, though one of them is gradually becoming the more prevalent one. Many eminent scholars, along with the orthodox people especially about the Maharastra, hold that the Vedanta of S'amkara represents the true teaching of the Upanisads ; and that the other so-called orthodox systems as well as the other schools of Vedanta, while they lay claim to be based on the Upanisads, are all so many developments by a kind of degeneration of the original doctrine ( of the Upanisads ). Thus, according to these people, the main idea of at least the oldest of the Upanisads ( i. e. the Brhadaranyaka, the Chandogya, the Mundaka and the Katha ) can be summed up in the equation, Brahman=Atman=the world, taken in the strictest and most literal sense, (see especially Brhad. Upa. 1-4); from which it follows that the Atman is the only reality,* that it is the meta- physical unity which is manifested in all the empirical plurality, all plurality thus by implication reducing itself to Maya, that it is the knowing subject within us § and, as the knowing subject, is itself unknowable. t Thus though the expression 'Maya,' in the strict sense of ignorance, or Avidya or illusion, may be of a later date, still the doctrine that the universe is illusory was taught by the Upanisads, and the older the texts of the Upanisads are, the more uncompromisingly and expressly do they maintain this illusory character of the world of experience. The exponents of this view further add, that this bold and absolute idealism ( as

• Brhad. 2. 4. 5 " Atmano vā are dars'anena s'ravaņena matyā vijņā- nenedam sarvam viditam bhavati ". # Brhad. 3. 8. 11-" Nanyadato'sti draştr nānyadato'sti s'rotr nānya- dato 'sti mantr nanyadato'sti vijnātr. " t Brhad. 3.4.2-" Na drster drastaram pas'yer na s'ruteh s'rotāram sṛņuyi na mater mantāram manvītha na vijnāter vijnātāram vijaniyah."

INTRODUCTION 9

taught, for instance, in the so-called Yajnavalkya chapters of the Brhad. Upa. ) later degenerated first into pantheism, then into theism and last into materialiasm. For, the denial of the exis- tence of the world as it appears to us, implied by the idealism of the old Upanisads, could not be maintained in the face of the reality of the world, which forced itself upon people's minds. Thus the attempt to reconcile the two, i. e. the bold idealism and the reality of the world, led to Pantheism, according to which the world is real and yet the Atman is the only reality, for the world is Atman (cf. Chand. 3,14). Thus the equation that the world is equal to Atman led to the theory of causality,-to cosmogonism, according to which, the Brahman itself entered into the creation as the individual soul. This Pantheism has to be distinguished from Theism which is the characteristic feature of certain later Upanisads like the Svetas vatara. The absolute identity of Brahman and Atman, though perfectly true from the metaphysical stand- point, remains incomprehensible for the empirical view of things, which distinguishes a plurality of souls different from each other and from the Highest Spirit, the creative power of the Universe. This is theism. According to it there are three entities, a real world ( acid ), ätman (cid) and Brahman of which the cid and acid. form the body. But in the course of time the necessity of Brahman apart from Atman ceased to be felt and its creative power was attributed to Prakrti, non-intelligent but at the same time in- dependent of any intelligent being, which led to the materialistic dualism of the Samkhya doctrine later on.

An impartial consideration of she Upanisads taken as a whole will, however, show that this view about the teaching of the Upanisads is not tenable; nor is the order in the evolution of thought satisfactorily demonstrable. The Upanisads are nothing but free and bold attempts to find out the truth without the slightest idea of a system; and to say that any one particular doctrine is taught in the Upanisads is unjustifiable in the face of the fact that in one and the same section of an Upanisad, we find passages one following the other, which are quite opposed in their purport. Bold realism, pantheism, Ghate, Vedānta, 2.

10 INTRODUCTION

theism, materialism are all scattered about here and there, and the chronological order of the Upanisads has not been suffici- ently established on independent grounds, so as to justify us in claiming that one particular view predominating in a certain number of Upanisads (granting that this is possible ) represents the teaching ofthe Upanisads. And to say that idealism represents the real teaching of the Upanisads because it is contained in a certain Upanisad which is relatively old and that the Upa- nisad is relatively old because it contains a view of things with which philosophy should commence, is nothing but a logical see-saw. It may be true that if one insists on drawing a system from the Upanisads, replete as they are with contradictions and divergences, S'amkara has succeeded the best, because his distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrines like a sword with two edges can easily reconcile all opposites such as unity and plurality, assertion of attributes and their negation, in connection with one and the same being; but this is one thing and to say that the Upanisads taught S'amkara's doctrine is quite another thing As regards the relative order of doctrines in the march of philosophic thought, we may as well say that the first stage is represented by materialism, which is innate in us, which is persistently forced on us by our daily experience, and which very few can get rid of in practice, though there may be a few more who deny it in theory. Thus we start with plurality, and difference, ascend through difference and non-difference and qualified unity until at last we reach the highest top, i. e. absolute unity. Thus the other view regarding the teaching of the Upanisads according to which the Upanisads teach not one but many systems of doctrines regarding the nature of God, man and the world and the relations between them is more reasonable and is being more and more accepted. The germs of all the later systems, whether orthodox or heterodox, can be found in them, as is evident from the fact that all the religio-philosophic systems of later times can quote a certain number of passages from them in their support. But when the exponents of these

INTRODUCTION 11

systems try to show that theirs is the only system taught by the Upanisads and attempt to explain passages, even when directly op- posed in tenour to their doctrine, in a manner so as to favour their doctrine, the artificiality and the unsatisfactory character of the attempt is at once evident. For the Upanisads represent a large floating mass of speculations of old seers, clothed in words and handed down orally-speculations depending, on the mood of the thinker and the point of view from which he looked at things.

In spite of this free and unfettered character of the Upanisads, however, it must be admitted that they are on the whole more favourable to the Uttara Mīmāmsā or Vedānta (taken in its larger sense ) than to any other system, and that we find there some ideas which stand out more conspicuously than others,-such as for instance the immortality of the soul, its metempsychosis and transmigration, including the 'way of the fathers' for the performers of sacrifices and virtuous actions, the 'way of the gods' for the possessors of knowiedge, and the third place for the doers of evil deeds, the superiority of knowledge and meditation to action as means of attaining liberation, above all, a constant striving after the reconcilation of unity and plurality, of idealism and realism.

Such is, in general, the character of the second or Upanisad period of Indian philosophy, which we have also called meta- physical to distingush it from the first, since it concerned itself also with speculations about man and his inner soul, his inner activities and the processes of his thoght and will, and not merely with questions about nature, cosmic matter etc. ( as was the case with the first period ), in brief since it saw the beginnings of the psychological, ethical and metaphysical problems.

Next we come to the post-vedic or systematic period, which saw the development of the so called six dars'anas or orthodox systems, as well as of the heterodox systems such as Buddhism, Jainism etc .. As said above, the germs of all these systems were already present in the Upanisads; and what these systems did was to take up particular parts of the Upani- sads and deduce from them a cut-and-dry system, conniving at or explaining away in a far-fetched manner those parts

12 INTRODUCTION

which did not suit the particular system. This syste- matic period may be supposed to have begun with the collections of sutras which are regarded as the foundations of the several systems and the dates and authors of which have not yet been deter- mined with precision and accuracy. The intervening stage between the Vedas and the Upanisads, on the one hand, and the sūtras, on the other, is represented by the philosophical portions in the Mahabhārata, as for intance, the Bhagavadgita, the Sanatsujāti- yaparvan, the Moksa-dharma etc., (portions of which have formed the common basis of Buddhisim and Samkhya ), which were, however, as far from containing a systematic doctrine as the Upanisads themselves; and terms like Smkhya and Yoga, fre- quently to be met with there, do not signify the names of the later systems called by those names, but mean merely ' reflection ' and 'concentartion,' in which sense they are used also when they first occur in the S'vet. Upa. 6,13.

As for what distinguishes the orthodox from the heteredox or Nästika schools, it is generally believed to be the want of be- lief in God as the creator of the world; and in this sense the begin- nings of Indian atheism can be traced back to the Vedic period even. In the Rgveda, the God Indra is derided in JV. 24.10, X. 119; and in II. 12.5, VIII. 100-3, we read of people who absolutely denied his existence even in these early days. We have here the first traces of that naive atheism which is so far from indulging in any philosophic reflection that it simply refuses to believe what it cannot visualise, and which was later known as the Cārvāka or Lokāyatika system. As distinguished from it, there is the philosphical atheism of the Bauddhas and the Jainas, according to whom there is no eternal, supreme God, creator and lord of all things, and the so-called gods are only more highly organised and happier beings than men, -an atheism which can go hand in hand with a religious system and cannot prevent it from being one of the most influential reli- gions in the world.

But ifthe distinction be due merely to the negation of God, even the Samkhya will cease to be orthodox ; the Mimamsakas of the

INTRODUCTION 13

school of Kumārilabhatta also deny the existence of a supreme God. Even in the Vais'esika and Nyaya systems, the theistic element, far from being a fundamental point in the doctrine, is nothing but a mere appendage. Buddhism and Jainism, moreover, though they deny God, raise the personalities of Buddha and Jina almost to the eminence of a god, as the teacher of the sacred law and as the object of the highest reverence, while admitting no doubt that the world is without beginning or end, and not produced by a god or ruled by one.

It is the want of faith in the Vedas as Revelation and as the high- est authority, of 'pramanya-buddhirredesu, which, from the Brah- manical point of view, placed the so-called atheistic schools out- side the pale of orthodoxy; thus the Samkhya, the Vais'esika and the Mimamsa can call themselves orthodox or not un-atheistic, because they accepted the authority of the Vedas in theory, howsoever little they might use it in practice ; at least they did not condemn it as did the Bauddhas and Jainas.

Of the six orthodox systems that developed during this third period the Samkhya and the Vedanta are the only ones of strictly metaphysical importance. It is the Vedānta alone that has appropriated to itself the name ' Aupanisada' doctrine, since it is the only system which serionsly concerns itself with explain- ing and reconciling the various divergent metaphysical portions of the Upanisads and since it alone regards the Upanisads as the highest authoritv, not only in theory but in practice. The metaphysical importance and the ancient character of the Sam- khya is proved by the fact that the Vedānta-sūtras take special pains to refute i .. The other systems, with only a nominel meta- physical grounding, have specialised in other departments of knowledge and thus are of still greater importance for ph.losophy proper. Thus the Yoga, which is a sequel of the Samkhya and which accepts the metaphysical doctrine of the Samkhya entirely, with the only difference that it regards the Is'vara as a more impor- tant per onality than the Samkhya does, mainly concerns itself with the theory and practice of Sama /hi or concentration of mind and the various physical and mental gymnastics related

14 INTRODUCTION

to it, of course viewed as means of arriving at the know- ledge of the essence of things, or, in other words, at the vision of the highest verity. The Vais'esika dealing with the categories of substance, quality, action, commonness, particularity, invariable concomitance, to which was later added non-existence or nega- tion, elaborates the doctrine of the atoms and that of particularity or Vis'esa, from which it derives its name. Symmetry and con- sistency of division and precision of thought and expression characterised this School; and they were further carried to per- fection and emphasised by its sequel, the Nyäya, which cencerned itself solely with logic or the theory and art of valid reasoning. Thus nyaya or syllogism was its special occupation and consequent- ly, in the place of the six or seven objective categories of the Vais'esika, which were concerned more with the products of thought, the Nyaya had sixteen logical categories, which refer- red to the modes of thought or the thoughts themselves and which are mainly related to controversial discussion or dispu- tation, so necessary for the ascertainment of truth. They are :- proof (प्रमाण), object of knowledge ( प्रमेय), doubt (संशय), purpose (प्रयाजन), instance (इट्टान्न), demonstrated truth (सिद्धान्न), member of a syllogis ( 44 ), reasoning by reduction to absurdity ( ), determination or ascertainment (fvfa), discussion leading to truth ( ), wrang- ling (जल्प ), cavilling (चिनण्डा ), fallacy (हेत्वाभास ), perversion (छल), futility ( जाति ), and unfitness to be argued with (नि्रहस्थान). The Pūrva-mīmāmsā more generally called ( Mimāmsā only ) has for its special object the interpretation of the Vedas, or the determi- nation of the sense of the Revelation, and its whole scope is the ascertainment of duty or Dharma, which signifies the sacrifices and other acts of religion, ordained by the Vedas. Thus it is practical as relating to works ( karma) or religious observances to be un- dertaken for specific ends; and it is accordingly called karma- mimūmsa in contradiction to the Brahma-mimamsa, which is theological. Thus this mimamsa is not a philosophical system in the proper sense of the word. It touches upon philosophical topics only incidentally in the course of delivering canons of scriptural interpretation.

As regards the metaphysical part, the five systems, viz.

INTRODUCTION 15

Sāmkhya and Yoga, Vais'esika and Nyāya, and Pūrva-mīmāmsā may be distinguished from the sixth, the Uttar-mīmāmsa or Vedanta, by the fact that the former take their stand on duality ; while the latter on unity (excepting, of course, the particular school of Vedanta represented by Madhva). As a matter of fact, the first five systems are impossible without a belief in duality or plurality as being real. Thus according to the Samkhya, there are two entities independent and distinct, the pradhana or prakrti, consisting of the three qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas, which is the prime cause of the whole material world, and the purusas or souls that are infinite in number. The pradhana is eternal matter, indiscrete, undistinguishable as it is destitute of parts, inferrable from its effects, productive, without being itself a product. The Soul or Purusa is neither produced nor pro- ductive, multitudinous, individual, sensitive, eternal, unalterable, immaterial. Besides these two, the Samkhya teaches twenty-three other principles (tattrani) :- Intelligence (buddhi or mahat), egotism (ahamnkāra), the five subtle elements (tanmatras), the five organs of sense, the five organs of action, the internal organ ( manas), and the five gross elements. The Purusa, absolutely inactive, is a witness of the active Prakrti. It is the union of these two that leads to the creation and involves the purusa in the Samsāra. " The one unborn, for his enjoyment, approaches the one unborn ( prakrti ), which is red ( activity or rajas ), white ( goodness or sattra ), and black ( darkness or tamas ), and produces a manifold and similar offspring ; the other unborn abandons her when once she has been enjoyed " (S'vetas'vatara IV. 5.). The non-intelligent Pradhana, even without any other intelligent superintendent like Is'vara, acts for the good of the soul, just as the non-intelligent milk acts for the growth of the calf. And just as there takes place a movement in the iron in the proximity of the unmoved magnet, so there takes place a movement in Prakrti in the proximity of the unmoved soul. This union of Prakrti and Purusa is caused by mutual dependence. The lame man, mounted on the blind man's back, and the blind man, following the path indicated by the lame man, both reach their goal, though either, by himself, is help- less ; so is the creation effected by Prakrti and Purusa by their union. All this time the Purusa, though essentially udāsina (indif-

16 INTRODUCTION

ferent or passive), comes under the shadow of Buddhi through not recognising himself as distinct from it, and suffers from the pain which really belongs to Buddhi, but which owing to its being reflected upon him due to its extreme proximity, is regarded by the Purusa as belonging to himself; and he can throw it off and obtain final bliss only when he gets rid of the error of confounding himself with the prakrti. Thus it is the knowledge of the distinction or duality between the prakrti and the purusa that leads to Moksa. The Samkhya is an exponent of the doctrine of Parinama or modification, or in other words, of the Satkaryarada as regards the relation between cause and effect. The effect always is present in the cause, and is only a modification of it, without any distinction of essence. The Samkhya also lays great stress on the efficacy of reasoning. It is by inference or reasoning that aquaintance with things transcending the senses is attained; and it is only those truths which are neither to be directly perceived nor to be inferred by reasoning that are to be deduced from revelation. Thus here the scales are turned the opposite way, as compared with the Vedanta, where revelation comes first and reasoning second.

As regards the Yoga, there is nothing more to notice ex- cept the admission of an additional principle, the Is'vasa, who is a soul or spirit, distinct from other souls, untouched by affliction, action, fruit and fancies or passing thoughts, who, of his own will assuming a body in order to create, originated all secular or Vedic traditions, and who is gracious towards the living beings, scorched as they are by the fire of worldly existence, himself infinite and omniscient.

According to the atomic system of the Vais'esika and the diale- ctial system of the Nyaya, soul and matter are quite distinct enti- ties, both equally real, and it is the confounding of the one with the other which causes all the misery of the worldly existence. The soul is the receptacle of knowledge, distinct from body and the senses, different for each individual person, omni-present, eternal, perceived by the mental organ, and demonstrated by its peculiar attributes, which are knowledge, desire, aversion, pain,

INTRODUCTION 17

pleasure and effort or volition. The soul, though it animates the individual, cannot experience pain or pleasure in relation to itself, unless it is associated with the body. It is to be noted also that the soul is as much a substance as earth, water etc., being a substratum of qualities like them, and hence it is included in the list of the nine dravyas or substances. Besides these individual souls, which are infinite in number and are all equally omnipresent, there is the Supreme Soul ( Paramatman ) which is one, and the seat of eternal knowledge, and is known from valid proof as the maker of all things. The material world is of four kinds, according as it is derived from the element of earth, water, light or air. All the gross products can be ultimately reduced to atoms, which are themselves incapable of further analysis, and hence, eternal and atomic in size. It is by the will of the paramatman that a movement is produced in these atoms which are thus brought together ; and in this way the creation takes place. Freedom from Samsara or absolute negation of all pain is the highest goal; and the only means of attaining it is the right knowledge of the seven categories according to Kanāda or of the sixteen according to Gautama. A man is involved in Samsāra thus :- First he has false notions such as mistaking the body etc., which are not the soul, for the soul; these lead to faults, i. e. a desire for those things which seem agreeable to the soul, and a dislike to those things which seem disgreeable to it, though in reality nothing is either agreeable or disagreeable to the soul. Impelled by these faults, man does things which may be forbidden or laudable; both being however forms of activity, lead to a similar blamable or laudable birth or bodily manifestation ; and while this birth lasts, there arises the impres- sion of pain. Now this series beginning with false notions and ending with pain is continually going on and is what is called Samsära or mundane existence, getting on ceaselessly like a water- wheel. When, however, a man has obtain the right knowledge of the categories, which enables him to distinguish one thing from another, and the soul from the body in particular, all false notions disappear; the faults thus pass away, with them ceases activity, with activity ceases birth and with cessation of birth Ghate, Vedānta, 3.

18 INTRODUCTION

comes the complete abolition of pain ; and this alsolute abolition of pain is the final bliss. As opposed to the pariņāma and the satkūrya doctrines of the Samkhyas, the Vais'esika and the Nyaya are exponents of the arambha and the asatkarya doctrines, which maintain a creation, absolute and new. Thus, according to them the effect is absolutely different from the cause, is never present inthe cause, but is newly created it and stands in invariable concomitance ( samavaya) with it. The same is true about the relation between a qualified substance and its quality or the active object and its activity, which cannot be absolutely different according to the Samkhya or the Vedanta. Thus a jar is absolutely different from the clay, though it cannot exist apart from the clay. Thus both the Samkhya and the Nyāya-Vais'esika systems are essentially dualistic and, we may also say, materialistic. They at the same admit of the eternal existence of matter, apart from the intelligent principle and as quite independent of it. The Pūrva-mīmamsa being essntially ritualistic and practi- cal in character, and concering itself as it does with the determina- tion of religious duty and the laying down of canons of inter- pretation of the sacred texts, it need not detain us here, though the , principles of interpretation taught, by it, e.g. the relative importance of direct statement ( rule ), indicatory mark ( linga ), context ( prakarana) etc. in determining the sense of a word or a passage are accepted by all. The Uttaramimāmsa is so called to distinguish it from the Pūrvamimāmsā, since it is cencerned with the interpretation of the portions of the Revelation relating to knowledge that ccme after Karman, while the other with that of the previous or old ( Purva ) portions of the Revelation. This system, more popularly known as the Vedanta, is the only system of philosphy preperly so called, which has exercised the greatest influence over Hindu thought; and even at the present day, if it is possible to describe the philosophic thought of Hindus in general by one name, it is Vedānta. It is to be remembered, however, that the name Vedanta does not signify one system only, as is, for instance, the case with

INTRODUCTION 19

the other orthodox systems considered above. It comprehends several systems differing from each other essentially in points of metaphysical doctrine, ranging from absolute idealism down to dualism, at the same time having some iniportant features which are common and which may be the reason of their being designated by a common name, besides the fact of their professing to be based on the Vedanta or the Upanisads. Of these we may notice here only the five systems which are sttributed to Sam- kara, Ramānuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha and Madhva, and which are kown respectively by the names of Kevaladvaita ( absolute monism ), Vis'istādvaita (qualified monism ), Dvaitādvaita ( dualism and monism ), Suddhādvaita ( pure monism ) and Dvaita ( dualism ). All of these profess alike to be derived more or less from the same collection of sutras,- although it is impos- sible by the very nature of things, that the Sutrakara should have all these in view. It is however very probable that the germs of all the Vedanta systems existed long ago, although, as systems proper, attaining to a certain importance in the estimation of the people, they may be said to date from the times of the respective philosophers to whom they are generally attributed. From this point of view, S'amkara's system may be called the oldest, since, by a general consent, Samkarācārya is now placed in the latter half of the 8th century (788 A. D. to 820 A. D.). Telang's view putting Samkara in the 7th century has been conclusively disproved by Prof. Pathak. * Without going into details, I shall content myself with the following question t-"The date of the death of Bhartrhari, the Buddhistic author of the Vākyapadiya is fixed by Prof. Pathak at 650 A. D., and in relation to him Kumārila is assigned to the first half and Samkarācarya and Sures'varā- carya to the latter half of the 8th century. Mr. Telang, however, contends that these last cannot be assigned to such a late date and he would place them in the 7th century. It may be menti-

• For these two views regarding the date of Samkara, the reader may be referred to the JBRAS. Vol. XVII. P. 63, ff: ' Pūrnavarma and Samkarācārya'; Vol. XVIII. p. 88 ff: 'Dharmakīrti and Samkaracārya'; p. 147 ff: 'Subandhu and Kumarila'; p. 213 ff: Bhartrhari and Kumarila. # JBRAS Centenary Memorial Volume. 1905 p. 51-52.

20 INTRODUCTION

oned that Dharmakirti is identified with the author of the Nyāya- bindu, which is commented upon by Dharmottarācārya, who belonged to the Sautrantika school of Buddhism. This Dharma- kirti has been assigned by Prof. Pathak to the beginning of the 7th century, and it must be admitted, without opposition, that he was older than Samkaracarya, as the latter criticises his views." Thus Samkarācārya appeared at a time when his presence was urgently required to put new life into Brahmanism and Hinduism as well as to counteract the influence of Buddhism, Jainism and other heterodox systems on the one hand, and the mimamsakas on the other. The Hinayana Buddhism had already made way for the Sanskrit mahayanism and against this last, controversies were carried on by the school of nyāya and by the mimamsakas, especially by Sabarasvāmin and Kumārila- bhatta. The latter maintained the efficacy of the sacrificial religion alone, and denied it even to the faith and practices of the Aupanisadas, whose doctrine, based as it was on the Upanisads, was in danger; when there appeared prominently on the scene, Gaudapadacarya and sometime after him the pupil of his pupil, S'amkarācārya. These propounded the doctrine of illusion or Māyā. To overthrow this theory was the great object of the remainiag four Vedantic Schools which preached bhakti or devotion, as against Jnana and Karman, as the means of deliverance and which insisted on the reality of the world, both intelligent and non- intelligent, basing their arguments on the same Upanisads on which S'amkara and his school took their stand. The doctrine of Samkara, though of great merit from the meta- physical point of view, was rather too elevated and too impersonal for the ordinary people, who wanted something more definite and personal. No doubt S'amkara in order to accommodate such people admitted of a personal God; and popular belief attributes to him the introducton of the worship of the Pancayatana or the five gods together, so as to displease no one. But a god was after all of an illusory and second-rate importance in his system. Hence there arose Ramanuja and the other Vaisnavite leaders

INTRODUCTION 21

who introduced the cult of a personal God and devotion to him or adoration of him, which gained great favour with the people. These preachers of bhakti thought it impossible that Māya and bhakti could go together, as the latter necessarily included love and as love can have place only if the lover and the beloved are real entities. Hence, Ramanuja, Vallabha and Madhva all direct their efforts to the refutation of the Maya doctrine and they sometimes go so far as to call Samkara a mere incarnation of the Mādhyamika or a disguised Bauddha. But to account for bhakti, it is not always necessary togive up the doctrine of absolute unity and its sequel, the doctrine of Māya; for we see that the santas of Maharastra have always taught bhakti and at the same time held the dortrine of Samkara; the well-known commentary of Jñanes'vara ( about 1290 A. D. ) on the Gitā is a striking illustracion of this fact ; and no one could have propounded the doctrine of Maya more vehemently and more successfully than Jnanes'vara and at the same time, no one could have been a more staunch and popular representative of the bhakti cult. And this fact explains why the influence of Samkara's doctrine still holds great sway in the popular mind, in spite of the attacks made against it by the other Vedanta Schools. Of the teachers of these four Vedänta schools, the first in chrono- logical order is Ramanuja born in Saka 938, corresponding to 1016 or 1017 A.D. Rămānuja in his youth lived in Kañcipura or Conjee- veram and afterwards, when he became a successor of Yamunācārya, he lived at S'rirangam near Trichinopoli, where he did his life's work. He is supposed to have died at the age of 120, in 1137 A. D. Next comes Nimbarka who is supposed to have lived a few years after Ramanuja. The date of his death is probably 1162 A. D .* A Tailanga brahmana by birth and thus a southerner, he however lived at Vrndavana near Mathura and his followers are scatterad over the whole of northern India and exist in large numbers near Mathura and Bengal. Madhva lived in the first three quarters of the 13th century ( 1197-1276 ), and his birth place is stated to be Kallianpur in the Udipi Taluka of the district of South Kanara-perhaps the

. See Bhandarkar, Vaisnavism &c., p. 62.

INTRODUCTION

same as the Rajatapitha of the Madhvavijaya. The followers of Madhva's doctrine exist in pretty large numbers in the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency, in the state of Mysore and on the western coast from Goa to South Kanara; there are only a few adherents of this school in Northern India. Last comes Vallabha who is supposed to have been born about 1417 A. D. He was the son of a Tailanga Brahmana, who lived at a village named Kankarava in the Telugu country. He was born while his parents were on the way to Benares on a pilgrimage. He lived at Vrndavana and at Mathura. Srikrsna and Gokula figure very prominently in his doctrine. His followers are found in very large numbers in Gujarat and in Northern India. All these four schools alike preached bhakti, which presupposes & personal God, and condemned the principle of maya with equal vehemence; the chief differnces in their doctrine relate to the metaphysical or the properly philosophic part of the doctrine, that is to say, they are with reference to the nature of the relation between the supreme spirit, the indidual soul and the inanimate world. We shall next indicate briefly the philosophical connections of these five schools of Vedanta,-which forms the main subject matter of the present essay.

III .- THE FIVE SCHOOLS OF THE VEDANTA.

THE DOCTRINE OF SAMKARA :- S'amkara's doctrine, which is usually known by the name of Kevaladvaita or absolute monism, may be summed up in the four sanskrit words: 'ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या.' It is only intelligence, without form, without qualities, without any limita- tions of time, space or causality, that is real; and the unity which according to Samkara is the substratum of all ephemeral and empirical plurality, is itself without the slightest touch of plurality ; it is unity absolute; and as such the highest thought of humanity cannot go any further. The greatest merit of Sam- kara's system is his most successful attempt to reconcile the mutually contradictory texts of the Upanisads, in other words, to reconcile bold idealism, which is the result of introspection, with the realism which ruthlessly insists on forcing itself upon us from outside. This he does by the introduction of māya in his system ; or his dortrine has always two aspeets, esoteric and exoteric, be it in reference to theology, or cosmology, or psychology. The world around us consists of souls of limited knowledge or of non-sentient matter ; and if we once admit the existence of a supreme spirit with unlimited powers and intelligence, omnipotent and omniscient, ( as do all the schools of Vedanta and other orthodox schools also ), how can we explain the creation of souls of limited knowledge and of objects without intelligence, from this omni- scient spirit, except as the result of ignorance or nescience which puts limitation on the unlimitsd intelligence of this spirit? That there exists such ignorance is a fact not only men- tioned in the revealed texts, but isa matter of ordinary experience, as when one gives expresion to one's consciousness of one's ignor- ance when one says ' I am ignorant'. If this consciousness is true, well, it is a proof of ignorance ; if it is not true, so much the better proof it is of ignorance. Thus esotericlly the Brahman or the supreme spirit is knowledge or realisation itself, without qualification and without possibility of change; exoterically, it is qualified, possessed of an infinite number of auspicious attributes, capable of producing this world from itself and reabsorbing it in itself ;- in brief, it is Is'vara.

24 INTRODUCTION

The exoterie cosmology, according to the natural but erroneous realism ( avidya ) in which we are born, considers the world as real and can express its entire dependence on Brahman only by the adoption of a myth, viz. creation of the world by Brahman, imply- ing thereby a temporal character for this creation. But this goes against the doctrine that the transmigration of souls is without a beginning. To reconcile the two, Samkara teaches that the temporal charactsr does not belong to the creation for ever; but that there are long periods for which the world is created and after which it is reabsorbed by Brahman, and that this succession of creation and reabsorption lasts for eternity; so that no creation may be regarded as the first. This never-ceasing creation is a moral necessity,-it is neither for God's glorification nor for his particular amusement, nor is it created out of his love of mankind. This explains the theory of Karman, and of the Samsara, which goes on endlessly as the sprout grows from the seed, which in its own turn grows from an earlier sprout and so on.

The esoteric cosmology, however, says that all this is a mere appearance of truth. The manifold world is only an illusion, māyā, a mirage ( mrgatrsņikā ), a dream; and the reality is to be attained not by reasoning (tarka), but by introspecitve realisation ( anubhava ). If you return from this variegated world to the inmost recesses of of your soul ( ätman ), you will be aware of a reality which can very properly be deseribed as 'timeless, spaceless, changeless.' The same thing was said by Plato, accor- ding to whom this world is a world of shadows and not of reali- ties ; and the same thing has been said by Kant to whom the world is an appearance only, and not the thing in itself. What was arrived at by intuition by Samkara and Plato, Kant has demon- strated by an analysis of the human mind, showing that the three essential elements of the outside world, viz. space, time and cau- sality, are not,-as we naturally believe them to be and as the other orthodox schools of Vedanta also admit,-eternal fundamentals of an objective reality, but merely subjective, innate, perceptual forms of our own intellect. According to the esoteric psychology, the Jiva is Brahman itself in full and total possession of eternity, omnipresence,

INTRODUCTION 25

omniscience, etc., but these godly qualities lie concealed within it as the fire in the wood, and will appear only after the final deliverance. Exoterically, this concealment of the divine nature is due to the external adjuncts ( upadhis )-the mind (manas), the sense-organs (indriyani), and the vital airs (prānāh)- which form the subtle body ( Sūksma Sarira ). The whole psy- chological apparatus together with Karman accompanies the soul in all his migrations, without essentially infecting his godly nature. These Upādhis of course form part of māya and are due to the avidya which is innate in man.

But whence comes this avidya, this primeval cause of ignor- ance, sin and misery? No satisfactory answer has been given to this question ; or rather the question itself must be regarded as inadmissible; for causality cannot go farther than the Samsāra and beyond it we know nothing. From the conception of rewards in heaven and of punishments in the dark regions of hell, contained in the hymns of the Rgveda, there arose the theory of Samsara teaching rewards and punish- ments in the form of a new birth on earth. The Vedanta thus exoterically admits of a threefold division of men; those who perform good deeds, sacrifices &c. follow the path of the fathers ( pitr-yana ) and are born again; those who worship the qualified Brahman follow the path of gods ( devayana ) and are on their way to final deliverance ; and lastly those who are evil-doershave a third place (trtiya-sthana ) reserved for them. Esoterically, however, the only reality is Brahman and the knowledge of it is Moksa. Śamkara's system ( as opposed to the Parināma-doctrine) maintains the Vivarta doctrine, according to which all effects are only superimposed upon the cause, which alone is resl. Tha well-known phrase 'taltcamasi' cannot be taken literally as Vallabha does it, but must be understood by jahad-ajahat laksana. Thus tat literally means the Brahman with ominscience, omnipresence, absence of limitations; tuam literally means the jiva, with limited knowledge and powers and the copula 'asi' signifies the apposition or Samanadhikaranya of these two. Now this is not possible in the full literal sense; what is incompatible in the connotations of the two terms is therefore to be Ghate, Vedānta, 4.

26 INTRODUCTION

rejected (jahat) and what is compatible is to be retained ( a-jahat ); we arrive thus at the idea of 'intelligence' pure and simple, indivi- sible and without attributes.

The philosophical part of Samkara's. doctrine may therefore be summed up as follows :-

(1) All plurality is false or unreal, and superimposed upon one pure and eternal Brahman which is all-pervading ; and it is māya which makes us see plurality where there is unity and which itself has no independent oxistence. (2) The individual soul is really nothing but Brahman. (3) Knowledge (in the form of the actual realisation) of the identity of these two is the only means of moksa. The practical part of the doctrine amounts to this :- Actions must be performed only to purify the mind so as to make it fit to acquire the knowledg of this identity of Brahman and jiva; but afterwards they must be all given up, since without a complete abandonment ( Samnyasa) of all actions, Moksa is impossible ; for, action (Karmen) and knowledge (Jñana) are opposed to each other like darkness and light. This is what is called Nivrtti-mūrga (the path of renunciation), or Jnana-nistha (taking our stand on knowledge).

THE DOCTRINE OF RAMANUJA :- The main idea which disting- uishes che doctrine of Ramanuja from the rest of the Vedanta schools is that the individual souls and the inanimate world, essentially different in themselves, form at the same time the body and mode or atsrilbute of the supreme spirit; and, as such, they are incapable of an existence independent of the supreme spirit. This is what gives the doctrine its name of 'Visistadvaita'('non-duality qualified by duslity' or 'the non-duality of the supreme\ spirit which is qualified by the individual souls and the inanimate world'). Thus what the ordinary body is to the individual soul, so are the intelligent and the non-intelligent worlds to the supreme spirit; and just as the body can never be essentially the same as the soul, so the cit and acit can never be essentially the same as the Brahman. It is in this way that Ramanuja's doctrine reconciles the various statments in the Upanivads, referring to unity and to plurality.

INTRODUCTION 27

The Brahman or supreme spirit is the cause, both material and .efficient, of the universe, intelligent and non-intelligent; it is possessed of an infinite number of auspicious attributes; of which omnisciene, omnipresence, omnipotence and bliss are the most essential. Unconditioned existence, eternal, limitless and uniform knowledge, and an absence of all limitations of time, space and csusality, distinguish it from the individual souls and the ineni- mate world as well. Brahman is at the same time, absolutely void of evil attributes and it is thus that Brahman is sometimes described as qualified and sometimes as non-qualified (cf. sutra III. 2. 11 ff.). The creation of the universe from Brahman is not a production of something new; it is only a change of attribute or con- dition. It is a mere modification of that which is subtle into that which is gross. Thus Brahman, having for its body and mode the cit and acit in their subtle condition, is the cause, while the same Brahman having for its body or mode the cit and acit in & gross form is the effect. Similarly, the destruction of the universe is nothing but the becoming subtle of that which is gross.

The individusl soul is the subject of consciousness or knower and not mere consciousnessitself. It is, however, often called consci- ousness, simply because consciousness is its essential atribute. Even in the state of dreamless sieep, though there is no conciousness of objects, still the sense of 'T' (ahamartha) persists. Knowledge is in- tuitive by nature and does not necessarily depend upon the senses. Bliss is also another essential attribute of the individual soul. It has also the power to act ( kartrtva ) which, according to the sāmkhyas, belongs to prakrti and according to Samkars, to Buddhi. The individual souls, in the state of their pristine purity, possess all the auspicious qualities in common with Brah- man (which is the reason why the jive is often described as being identical with Brahman); but they differ from it in two points: (i) they have no power whatsoever on the movements of the world, whose crestion and control belong exclusively to Brahman, and (ii) they are atomic in size, while Brahman is all- pervading. Being atomic in size the individuel souls ere infinite in number and different for different bodies. Owing to igncrance, the individual souls are conjoined to matter and thus in spite of their original resemblance to Brahmen, suffer ; right knowledge of the

28 INTRODUCTION

nature of Brahman, from which results devotion (bhakti), brings the soul to liberation, when it is restored to its original purity and bliss But even then, it does not lose its individuality. Thus 'tat tvam asi' does not mean that jiva is essentially and absolutely the same as Brahman, but the apposition is to be understood metaphorically as when we say 'the jar is white', 'ghatah s'uklah', where the quality and the qualified stand in apposition with each other. Thus the jivs which is an attribute or mode of Brahman is Brahman in the sense that it is very similar to it in nature or is part and parcel of it.

The inanimate world, on the other hand, is also as real as the Brahman and the individual souls and is essentially distinct from both. At the same time, it forms an attribute of Brahman and so cannot exist independently of it.

Thus for Ramanuja, Brahman, cit and acit are three entities, individually distinct from each other, all equally real, at the same time all forming a unity, in the sense in which the self and its body form & unity.

Rāmānuja admits the pariņāma dcrtrine or the Eetkēryavāda which maintains that the effect is nothing but a mcdification of the form of the cause, in which it is already present.

So much for the philosophical part. The practical part may be summed up thus : The devotion to Vasudeva is the only means of obtaining moksa. This bhakti is not knowlege, but the result of knowledge; it is not belief, which is at best a subsidiary preliminary to bhakti; it is not work, for work is selfish; it is the intuiticn or immediate presentation arising from a steady remembrance ( dhruvā smrtih ), uninterrupted like the flow of oil, a result of meditation. Actions are necessary only for the origination of knowledge, but no further. Thus, the function of actions with Rāmanuja is secondary or subordinate as with Samkara.

Ramanuja's doctrine, as with the other Vedanta schools, is based on the three prasthanas, the Upanisads, the Bhagavadgitā and the Brahmasutras; to which must be added the Visnupurāna, which occupies a very important place in his doctrine and from which the Sribhasya quotes very frequently.

INTRODUCTION 29

THE DOCTRINE OF NIMBARKA-Accordingto Nimbarka, there are only three principles or entitios, cit ( the intelligent worlds ), acit ( the non-intelligent world ) and Is'vara ( the Lord or the Supreme-Spirit ), also called by the significant names of bhoktr ( the enjoyer, the Jiva ), bhogya ( the enjoyable, matter ) and Niyantr ( the controller, ruler ).

The cit or individual soul is of the nature of knowledge ( Jnana-svarupa ); it is not the phenomenon of knowledge in the sense in which Samkara understands it; in other words, the Jiva is able to know without the help of the sense-organs and it is in this sense that words like 'prajnana-ghanah ',' svayam- jyotih ', ' jnāna-mayah ' etc. as applied to Jiva are to be under- stood. The Jiva is a knower also; and he can be both knowledge and the possessor of knowledge at the same time, just as the sun is both light and the source of light. Thus the soul, who is know- ledge, and his attribute, knowledge, though they are both identical as knowledge, can be at the same time different and related as the qualified ( dharmin ) and the quality ( dharma ), just as the sun and his light, though identical as light ( taijasa ), are still different from each other. Thus there is both & difference and a non-difference between the dharmin and the dharma; and the extreme similarity hetween them implies, not neces- sarily their absolute identity, but only a non-perception of their difference. The Jiva is also Ego ( ahamarthah ). This Ego continues to persist not only in the state of deep seeep, ( because our conscious- ness immediately after getting up from sleep has the form 'I slept happily ' or ' I knew nothing' ) but also in the state of I beration. It even belongs to the Parabrahmen. Hence it is that Krera refers to himself so frequently in the first person in the Gita, of which the chief object is thus Purusottama, who is omniscient end at the same time non-different from the Ego or Asmadartha. The Jiva is also essentially active ( kartr ). This quality be- longs to it in all its conditions, even after relesse ( cf. the Sūtra II. 3. 33). Those passages which deny this Kartrtea of the soul only imply that the kartrtva is not independent ( Svatantra ). The Jiva is also enjoyer ('hoktr) essentially in all its conditions.

30 INTRODUCTION

For nis knowledge and activity, however, the Jiva depends on Hari; thus, though resembling Him in being intelligent and knower, he is at the same time distinguished from him by his .dependence. This quality of dependence or of being controlled ( Niyamyatva ) is the very nature of Jiva even in the state of release, just as Niyantrtva or the quality of being the controller, forms the eternal nature of I'svara. The Jiva is atomic in size; at the same time his attribute, knowledge, is omni-present, which makes it possible that he can experience pleasure and pain in any part of the body ( cf. the Sūtra II. 3. 25 ), just as, for instance, the light of a lamp can spread far and wide and illumine objects sway from the lamp. The Jivas are different and in different bodies, and so are infinite in number.

The Jiva has his true form distorted and obscured owing to his contact with karman resulting irom ignorance, which is begin- ning-less, but which can come to an end, by the grace of God, when his true nature is fully manifested. The acit or non-intelligent world is of three kinds; (i) a-prakrla or not-derived from Prakiti or the primordial matter, such as the sun-like refulgence of Is'vara, his abode, his orna- ments, etc; ( ii) präkrta or derived from Prakrti, consisting of the three qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas, such as prakiti, mahat, ahamkara etc. ( just similar to the twenty-four principles of the Samkhyas ); and ( iii ) Kala or time. The three categories in their subtle form are as eternal as the cit or the individual souls. The third principle is the Highest-self, the Brahman, or Krsna. This K sna is naturally free from all faults ( such as ignorance, e zoism, parsion, hatred, attachment ), is the store of all beneficent attributes, is adorable by all, has four forms or vyūhas ( i. e. Väsu- deva, Samkarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha ) and appears under various incarnations such as Matsya, Kurma etc. This Brahman both the Upadana ( the material cause) and the Nimitta ( effi- cient cause ) of the Universe. It is the material cause in the sense that it enables its natural Saktis ( capacities), viz. the cit and the acit in their subtle forms, to be manifested in gross forms; and it is the efficient cause in the sense that it unites the individual

INTRODUCTION 31

souls with their respective fruits of actions and means of enjoyments. Thus the creation of the universe is nothing but a manifestation in a gross from of what was subtle before and is thus a sort of modifi- cation or Parinama. To say that the universe is only superimposed on the Brahman and hence an illusion ( Vivarta ) is against all resason; for it is only a thing actually existing elsewhere, that can be superimposed upon another thing where it does not so exist. What is the mutual relation between these three principles, cit, and acit, and Brahman described so far ? It cannct be absolute identity or non-distinction, because it would contradict those pass- ages in the Upanisads which speak of a difference between them; and it would involve a mutual confusion of the nature and attri- butes of these three principles, although they are distinct from each other. Nor can the relation be one of absolute difference; for that would go against such passages as 'tattvamasi', 'aham brahma- smi', 'Survam vai khalvidam brahma' etc. and besides, Brahman, if it is quite distinct from cit and acit, would cease to be all-perva- ding and all-ruling and would become as limited in character as the cit and acit. Nor can we say that it is non-difference which exists in reality and that the difference we see is all dueto Upādhis or limi- ting adjuncts; for, in that case, Brahman would cease to be pure and would be susceptible to the faultes of the Upadhis; it would experience pleasure, pain, hatred etc., and it would undergo modifications, all which is contrary to its real nature. Hence the truth is that both the difference and the non-differnce are equally real. The cit and acit are different from Brahman, in-as-much as they are described by the Sruti as possessing attributes and capacities distinct from those of Brahman; at the same time they are non-different from Brahman in the sense that they are absolutely dependent on it and canno have an independent existence by themselves. Thus bheda or difference means the possibility of an existence, which is separate, at the same time dependent ( para-lantra-satta-bhavah ), while a-bheda or non- difference means the impossiblility of an independent existence ( svatantra-satta-bharah ). Thus in the sentence 'tattramasi' the word tat signifies the Brahman which is omniscient, omnipotent, of independent existence, the self of all; the word trum signifies the individual soul which depends for its existence upon the Brahman; and the word asi is the copula signifying the relation of the two,

32 INTRODUCTION

which is difference, not inconsistent with non-difference, and which can be illustrated by the relation between the fire and its sparks or by that between the sun and his lustre. To attain deliverance, the jiva has to commence with a complete submission to the Paramatman, or Prapatti, whose six constituents are: & resolution to yield ( anukūlyasya samkalpah ), the avoidance of opposition ( prutikulyusya varjanam), a faith that God will protect ( rakşisyatīti vis'vasuh ), acceptance of him as saviour ( goptrtva- varanam ), throwing one's whole soul upon him (atmaniksepah), and a sense of helpessness ( kärpanya ). God's grace extends itself to those who are possessed of these six constituents of praputti, i. e. who are prapanna; and by that grace is generated bhakti consisting of special love for him, which ultimately ends in the realisation (sākşātkāra) of the Paramātman. For a devotee, the knowledge of the following five things is quite necessary :- (i) the nature of the supreme soul, (ii ) the nature of the individual soul, (iii) the fruit of God's grace or Moksa ( which is an uninterrupted realisation of the nature and attributes of Brahman, following from the absolute destruction of all actions and the consequent extinction af all ne- science ), (iv) the feeling of enjoyment consequent on Bhakti and (v ) the nature of the obstacles in the way of the attainment of God, such as regarding the body and the mind as the soul, depending on some one who is neither God nor the preceptor, neglecting their commands, and considering God as nothing more than an ordinary being. Thus we see that the doctrine of Nimbarka has very much in common with that of Ramanuja; both regard the difference as well as the non-difference as real. But, for Nimbarka, difference and non-difference are on the same level, they co-exist and have the same importance; while for Ramanuja, non-difference is the principal; it is qualified by difference, which is thus subordinate to it. Another technical distinction between the two doctrines is that according to Ramanuja, the cit and acit, which form the body of the Brahman, are regarded as its attributes ( Vis'esana or prakāra ), and hence, the name Visistadvaita, which is explained as 'the unity of Brahman qualified by cit and acit' ( cidacidvis'istaparames'va- radvaita ); but the school of Nimbarka refuses to admit this; for being a body does not necessarily mean being an attribute, and be-

INTRODUCTION 33

sides the idea is impossible in itself. An attribute is by its nature meant to distinguish the thing that possesses the attribute from an- other which is without it; but in the present case there is nothing from which the cit and acit should distinguish the Brahman of which they are attributes *. And if the cit and acit are both different and non-different from Brahman, it is ridiculous to say at the same time that there is unity of Brahman qualified by cit and acit. THE DOCTRINE OF MADHVA :- The doctrine of Madhva, purely dualistic in character, insists on the absolute and eternal difference between Brahman, jiva and jada. Madhva denies even Brahman's being the material cause of the universe, a point clearly established in the Brahmasutras and the very fantastic and forced manner in which he interprets many of the sūtras leaves no doubt about the fact that he would have even set aside the sutras altogether, but that their uncontested authoritativeness prevented him from doing so. In opposition to the pure or qualified Monism of other Vedanta schools, Madhva propounds the five eternal distinctions, the clear understanding of which alone can lead to Moksa the distinction between God and the individual soul, between God and the inani- mate world, between one individual soul and another, between the individual soul and the inanimate world and finally between one inanimate object and another. God, according to Madhva, possesses an infinite number of qualities. His chief functions are eight : creation, protection, dis- solution, controlling all things, giving knowledge, manifestation of himself, involving the individual souls in the knowledge of the world and deliverance. His form is made up of knowledge and joy, he is independent of everything and remains one in the midst of different forms. The individual souls are all distinct from God and distinct from each other individually, innumerable, going through a succession of existences and characterised by ignorance or other defects.

• see Vedantatattvabodha (Chowkhamba Sanskrit series No. 123, pp. 27-32, also Tattvasiddhāntabindu, both by Anantarāma.) Ghate, Vedānta, 5.

34 INTROUCTION

The world is created from Prakrti, which is ever distinct from the supreme soul, who is thus only the efficient cause but not the mate- rial cause of the universe; for, it is against reason to suppose that the non-intelligent world can be produced from a being that is intelligent. Moksa is attained by the direct knowledge or perception of Hari. Some of the means necessary for this direct knowledge are :-- ( Vairagya ) aversion to the enjoyments of this world or the next, the possession of equanimity (Sama), self-control and other virtues, acquisition of knowledge from the Guru, self-surrender (Saranagati), love of God ( Paramatma-bhakti), resigning every act to Hari, knowledge of the five distinctions mentioned above, etc. Even in Moksa, jiva cannot be one with Brahman. Then again the bhoktr ( the enjoying self ), the bhogya ( the objects of enjoyment ), and the niyamaka (the controlling Supreme Spirit ) are three entities eternally distinct and all equally real. Thus Madhva alwayslays stress on those passages of the Upanisads which clearly proclaim the difference between Brahman and jīva-such as S'vetis'vatara 1. 6: 4.5; 4.6; Mundaka 3.1. 2 etc. While those passages referring to non-difference are explained away by him in various ways. Thus 'tatramasi' means' tram tadiyah asi or 'tram tasya asi' 'thou art His'; 'Ayam alma Brahma' may be a description of jiva, meaning ' this individual soul grows or advances' ( cardhanu-s'ilah), or a description of Brahman mean- ing, 'Brahman is this that pervades' (atmā atansilah), or it may be a mere eulogy of jiva, or the sentence may be meant for meditation, or finally it may be nothing but a statement of the Pürvapaksa of the exponent of the Maya-doctrine. In the same way, a passage like 'brahmacid brahmaica bharali', 'one who knows Brahman be- comes brahman itself', only means that in the condition of Moksa the individual soul in question becomes similar to Brahman, owing to his freedom from misery etc., and thus is to be under- stood in a metaphorical sense as in 'puro'hito, yam raja samvrttah,' this priest has become a king', and not like a statement in ordinary language. Moroever, it cannot be said that jiva and Brahman are different in Samsära, but become non-different after Moksa; for what are different can never be non-different and nice nersa. So also ' ekam evüdvitiyam brahma' and ' sarvam khalvidam brahma' mean

INTRODUCTION 35

that Brahman is unsurpassed and without a parallel and that it pervades the whole world, but not that the world is non-different from Brahman. ' Mrtyoh sa mrtyum āpnoti ya iha nānera pas'yati' does not imply a condemnation of the perception of plurality, but it is a censure against those who hold that there are many momentary cognitions, instead of one eternal knowledge; just as for instance, 'asad evedam agra asit' only states the view of the Nihilist for being refuted further on. Duality alone can be the truth, argues the dualist, for we everywhere see nothing but pairs or things in twos, e. g. knowledge and ignorance, merit and demerit, man and woman. So also Brahman and jiva or Brahman and prakrti must be two entities and never identical with each other. THE DOCTRINE OF VALLABHA :- The doctrine of Vallabha is called 'Suddhadvaita' i. e. the unity of Brahman which is pure or free from Maya. Thus the jiva and the inanimate world are essentially the same as Brahman, without involving any idea of Maya. According to Samkara, for instance, the Brahman can create this world only when it is conditioned by Maya ; but ac- cording to Vallabha, it is Brahman, pure and simple, and without any connection with Maya, that can create the Universe. The jiva is non-different from Brahman, atomic in size ( cf. Sūtras II. 3. 194 ) and a part of Brahman ( cf. Sūtras II. 3. 43 ). It is produced from Brahman in the sense in which sparks are produced from fire; the jiva is a mainfestation of Brahman itself, with the attribute of bliss obscured. Thus it is as eternal and real as Brahman and production in its case means only a mani- festation ( āvirbhāva ). The jiva is either ( i) suddha ( pure ), when its qualities such as greatness ( aisvarya ) are not obscured by contact with the avidyā ( ignorance ), or ( ii ) samsārin, when it is in the bondage of avidya and experiences birth, death etc., owing to its connection with the subtle and gross bodies, or (iii) mukta, when it becomes free from bondage, by means of vidyā. The jiva, though atomic can pervade the whole body by virtue of its quality of intelligence (caitanya), just as sandal-wood can by its fragrance make its existence known even where it does not exist ( cf. Sūtrās II, 3. 25, 26, 23 ). The inanimate world or prapanca is also essentially Brahman ( Brahmālmaka ), with the qualities of intelligence ( caitanya )

36 INTRODUCTION

and bliss ( ananda ) obscured, and thus possessing the one quality of existence ( Sattra ). It is st the same time created from Brahman ( Brahma-karya ) in the sense that Brahman itself is manifested in the form of the gross world. Thus the creation and destruction of objects in this world mean only the manifestation ( avirbhara ) and disappearance ( tirobhava ) of the Bhagavat in those forms; and when Brahman appears as a product and as capable of being experienced ( anubharayogya ), the world is created ; but when it goes back to its causal form and ceases to be the object of ordinary experience, the world is destroy- ed. The world is, therefore, as eternal and real as the Brahman itself, its creation and destruction being nothing but the powers ( xaktis ) of Brahman. It is neither illusory nor essentially dif- ferent from the Bhagavat. Everything being Brahman, we must find the forms of all things in everything. Thus for instance, in a jar, anything like patatra or the nature of s cloth may manifest itself by the will of God ; but as a matter of fact, all these have disappeared ( tirobhūta) and it is only ghatatra, 'the nature of a pot', that is manifest ( avirshuta ) and so a jar cannot, for the time being, serve the pur- pose of a cloth. From this it follows that the relation between cause and effect is absolute unity. That form of Bhagavat, in which another mani- fests itself is the cause, e. g. clay ; and the other form manifested is the effect, e. g. pot. Thus ' Sarvam-khalr-idam-brahma' has to be understood in a literal sense. But the infatuating ignorance affects the jiva and, for him, endows the real and actually existing world with illusory or un- real forms. While the world is real, it is only its experience ( pratiti ) which is erroneous. Just as, for instance, to a man in a boat in motion, the trees on the bank, though steady, appear to be in motion, but in the cognition of the moving trees, it is only the movement that is illusory, while the forms of the trees are real, in the same way, the world which has objectivity for us, but which is essentially of the nature of Bhagavat and so purely subjective, is real in form, but it is only the objectivity with which the jiva endows the world that is unreal and projected by ignorance. Thus this prapanca, which is real, appears to be in three different forms

INTRODUCTION 37

to three different kinds of persons : ( i ) to those who have become Brahman, it appears as pure Brahman; (ii) to those who have got the right knowledge by means of the Sastras, it appears as endowed with both subjectivity ( Brahmadharman ) and objectivity ( Mayadharman ), at the same time with a clear discrimination between the real character of the former and the unreal character of the latter ; as for instance, a grown up person seeing a piece of cloth appearing green, owing to his own green spectacles, perceives the reality of the form of the cloth and the unreality of the green- ness which does not really belong to the piece of cloth; ,(iii) finally, to those without knowledge, the prapañca appears as endowed with both these forms, but without any discrimination, as, for instance, a child with green spectacles takes the greenness of the cloth to be as real as the cloth itself. Thus all the difference or plurality is in the matter of the perception ( pratiti ) of the prapañca, but none at all in the matter of its form ( svarupa). To say that the prapañca, itself is unreal and at the same time to say that it is identical with Brahman, is against all reason, since relation of id entity cannot possibly exist between a real thing and an unreal thing ( cf. Sūtra II, 1, 14 ). The Brahman is one, eternal, omniscient, omipotent, possessed of an infinite number of attributes, and essentially of the nature of sat ( existence ), cit ( intelligence ) and ananda ( bliss ). It is Śuddha ( pure ), i. e. never contaminated by connection with Māya. It is possessed of ais'rarya ( marvellous power ) which makes every- thing possible for it and even things mutually opposed can co- exist in its case. Thus both kinds of passages, those which des- cribe the Brahman as qualified ( saris'esa ) and those which des- cribe it as non-qualified ( nirris'esa ) are equally true with regard to it. Or, the denial of attributes refers to the attributes cf non- intelligent world ( prakrta ) from which Brahman is free; while the affirmation of attributes refers to the infinite number of mar- vellous powers which it possesses and thus establishes that the Brahman is extra-ordinary ( jagad-vilakşaņa ). Brahman manifests itself at its own will, as jirn or jada, simply for the purpose of sport, without undergoing any change in essence, as when, for instance, a serpent forms itself into coils ( cf. Sūtra III, 2, 27 ) Thus the Brahman is both the material and the efficient cause of

38 INTRODUCTION

the universe ( notice in this connection the explanation of the Sutra I, 1, 4 ); and the objections on the ground of partiality and cruelty belonging to Brahman, owing to the diversity of fortune and the miseries to be met with in this world, objections which can be raised only on the assumption of a difference of nature between Brahman and jiva, have no place in Vallabha's doctrine. The Brahman has three forms, (i) the highest divine form ( adhidaivika ) as Krsna or Purusottama, possessing an infinite number of auspicious attributes, attainable by a devotee ( bhakta) ; ( ii ) the akșara form ( ādhyātmika ), in which all the attributes have become non-manifest and which alone is attainable by a sage ( jñanin ), and ( iii ) the antaryamin form as seen in the difierent in- carnations or avataras of Visnu. Now, what is the relation between Brahman, the jiva and the jada ? It is one of pure identity, one that exists between a part ( ams'a ) and the whole ( ams'in ). For Vallabha, it is non-difference ( abheda ) alone that is real ( rastarika), while all difference is simply for the sake of sport, in opposition to both Rāmānuja and Nimbarka. According to these latter, though both difference and non-difference are theoretically equally real ( castarika), it is difference only that is real, while the non-difference is accounted for by the similarity of nature between Brahman and jiva or by the relation of dependence between the two ( niyamya-niyantrtva). Thus the phrase 'tat tuam asi' is literally true according to Vallabha, whereas it has to be understood metaphorically by all the rest. The Moksa, which consists in the absolute cessation of all misery and the experiencing of the bliss which was observed in the condition of Samsara, can be attained by two means, bhakti ( devotion) and jnana ( knowledge ). Of these the former is superior, since it leads to the realisation of the divine form of Brahman as Krsna or Purusottama, in which the Ānandamsa is at its best ; while the latter is inferior, as it leads to the realisation of the second or non-determinate form of Brahman where the Anandamsa is of an inferior order. Bhakti itself is of two degrees, Maryadabhakti and Pustibhakti. In the former, the devotee attains Moksa by the practice of means ( sadhana ) on his own part, such as, the disciplines and restraints laid down in the Sastra, which produce an aversion to worldly things, or worship and prayer of

INTRODUCTION 39

the Bhagavat. In the latter,-and this is the higher kind of bhakti-the devotee, without having recourse to any sādhanas, depends upon nothing but pure and simple love of Him ; his goal is only the service of Hari; his highest pleasure is to become one of the associates of Hari and to sport with him in the celestial Vrndavana. This Pustibhakti is the privilege of only him whom Bhagavat is pleased to favour; it begins with preman which re- moves a liking for anything but Hari, and passing through as'akti which produces a positive aversion to objects not con- nected with Hari, culminates in vyusana or entire devotion to Hari.

In addition to the three prasthanas ( viz. the Upanisads, the Bhagavadgita and the Brahmasutras ), the Vallabha school has a fourth one, i. e. the Bhagavata, passages from which are very often adduced in the Vallabha-bhāsya.

Thus we see that these five schools of Vedanta agree in holding

(1) that Brahman is the supreme cause of the universe;

(2) that Brahman is all-pervading and eternal;

(3) that the Upanisads in the first instance and the Brahma- sutras and the Gita are the basis of their doctrines;

(4) that in supersensuous and purely metaphysical matters like Brahman. the scriptures are the first authority and reasoning is to be accepted as long as it does not go against the Revelation; reasoning has a juris- diction over them, but owing to its limitations, the Revelation is the final court of appeal ; (5 ) that actions are subordinate to knowledge or devotion; they are efficacious onlv for the purification of the mind or as a preparation for the right path, renun- ciation of them being quite necessary for final beatitude; (6) that deliverance from this beginningless samsara is the final goal.

40 INTRODUCTION

S'amkara's doctrine is distinguished from the rest in-as-much as (1) he admits Mäyā, which the other four schools agree in pretending to discard; (2 ) he insists on knowledge as the sole means of Moksa; while the rest insist on bhakti or devotion.

The four Visnuite schools alike maintain (1) that Bhakti is the means of attaining Moksa; ( 2 ) that Brahman is Isvara, possessed of an infinite number of auspicious attributes; (3) that the individual souls and the inanimate world are all as real as Brahman itself ; ( 4) that their individual distinctions can never be com- pletely lost ; (5 ) that the individual souls are atomic, infinite in number, all possessed of the attributes of knowing and acting.

The school of Madhva stands apart in that (1) it maintains absolute duality, while all the rest try to reconcile duality and unity in one way or another ; (2) it holds that Brahman is only the efficient cause and not the material cause of the universe; while all the rest agree in holding that it is both; and that (3) consequently its admission of the authority of the Upanisads and Sūtras in particular is rather in theory than in practice. As for the mutual relations of the three entities of Brahman, cit and acit, each of the five schools has its own doctrine, which has given each its distinctive character and name.

CHAPTER I.

GENERAL OUTLINE

The word Vedanta signifies literally in Sanskrit 'end of the Veda'; in common use, however, the word is used with reference to the concluding portions of the Vedic literature, known also as Upanisads. The name Vedanta is applied to all the five systems of philosophy, going under the names of Samkara, Ramanuja, Nimbārka, Madhva and Vallabha, because all these five systems alike lay claim to their being specially and directly derived from the Vedanta. Really speaking, the other five orthodox schools also pretend to derive their support from the Upanisads. Thus, for example, the Nyāya and Vaisesika schools quote passages from the Upanisads in support of their particular dogmas, espe- cially when they are treating of the nature and attributes of the soul, or of the difference of nature between Isvara and the inani- mate world. Above all, the Samkhyas, a very old and influential school, many of whose dogmas have been accepted even by the Vedanta, and whose general influence is clearly seen throughout the philosophical literature of India, are seen to make a very great use of passages from the Upanisads, though it must be noticed here that even according to themselves, their main-stay is not the Upanisads, but reasoning pure and simple. It is quite evident from the fact that all the Vedanta writers take great pains to refute the Samkhya doctrine, especially to show that those particular passages which are quoted by the Sāmkhyas in their own support, if properly and rightly interpreted, lend the least support to their doctrine. We cannot, of course, speak of the heterodox schools like the Bauddhas and Jainas in this con- nection; because, although from the very nature of the Upanisads, a support can be found in them for the most varied dootrines possible, and, as a matter of fact, a number of passages may be pointed out which would be favourable to the Buddhistic doctrine, still these schools never lay even the most distant claim to their being derived from the Upanisads; not only that, but they even directly oppose their authority. Ghate, Vedānta, 6.

42 THE VEDANTA

Never-the-less, the term Vedanta applies only to the Uttara- mimamsa and the various schools which it comprises; and there are solid reasons for this restricted application of the term. First of all, no other school makes as much use of the Upanisads, as does the Uttara-mimamsa; every small item of their doctrine must be based upon and fully illustrated by passages from the Upanisads. The most important reason, however, is that accord- ing to them Sruti or the Revelation is the highest authority, nay, in fact, almost the only means of arriving at right knowledge; and this follows, they say, from the very nature of the subject they have to deal with. For, in fact, the chief aim of philosophy, according to the Uttara-mimamsa, is to find out the truth about the nature of the world, of its cause, of the soul, about the mean- ing of birth and death, in a word, to arrive at that right know- ledge which would bring about the highest, eternal bliss. Reason, pure and simple ( s'uska-tarka ), would not help us in the least to achieve this end. Indeed, truth can be only one and not many; while reason, being subjective brings us to several and divergent conclusions regarding the truth for which we are making a search. And there is no means of deciding whose reasoning is more correct, because each reasoner apparently pretends to be infallible and to follow the scientific canons of argument. Thus we have to resort to Sruti or the revealed scriptures; and reasoning, being only subordinate, is valid only as long as it conforms to the Sruti. Moreover, reasoning, apart from the ridi- culous variety of conclusions to which it may lead in accordance with the nature and prejudices of the person reasoning, is very limited in its scope and cannot take us to the end of our enquiry. It can proceed only to a certain stage and then we have to make certain assumptions. Well, why not then assume what is told most authoritatively in the Sruti ? Thus it is that the term Vedanta is restricted to the Uttara- mīmāmsa only, in distinction from Samkhya and Nyaya, which take their main stand on tarka or reasoning and resort to Sruti only where convenient. The Upanisads, are beyond question the highest authority as far as the Vedanta and the schools which claim this name are concerned. But this is not the only autho- rity. If reasoning is set aside or rather subordinated, because it is many-faced (i. e. leads to conclusions mutually opposed ), tho

GENERAL OUTLINE 43

case is not in any way better with the Upanisads. From their very natures, one and the same passage can be interpreted in more than one way; and moreover, there are passages which are opposed to each other in their purport. Thus for instance, in one place it is said that there was existence in the beginning; in another place it is said that there was non-existence in the begin- ning. In one place it is said that all is intelligence, which is one and unique; in another place, on the other hand, there is a reference to two persons, one of whom eats and the other only looks on. Once it is said that Brahman created Akas'a or the element of ether to begin with ; again it is said that Brahman first created tejas or the element of light. If truth is one,-and it is this as- sumption which is at the root of all philosophical controversies- what shall we do with such mutually contradictory passages ? There were many attempts made to evolve a system from the complex and varied passages of the Upanisads, and the one attempt which has come down to us is embodied in what is known as the Brahma-sūtras, traditionally attributed to Bāda- rāyana or Vyāsa, believed to be the same as the author of the Mahabharata. We have said that there were many more of such attempts before; and there are some good reasons for it. In the collection of the Sutras before us, we find several times references to other writers and to their views on some important dogmas. Thus, for instance, in the Adhikarana 6, of Adhyāya I, pāda 4, ( sūtras 19-22 ), the question is raised, how, in the Br. U. 4, 5, 6, the individual soul which is first spoken of in its peculiar nature as being the one for whose pleasure everything is ultimately dear, is in just the next sentence spoken of as the Highest Self that is to be meditated upon and realised. This identification is explained in several ways and not less than three views have been referred to. According to Asmarathya, this is an indication of the fulfilment of the promise made in the subsequent sentence that by the knowledge of the self everything without exception becomes known. For, otherwise, if the indivi- dual soul is different from Brahman, how is this promise possible? According to Audulomi, however, the reason for the identification in question is that really the individual soul which loses its purity of nature by contact with the limiting adjuncts such as

44 THE VEDĀNTA

the body, the sense-organs etc., regains its purity by the practice of such means as knowledge and meditation etc., and thus becomes identical in nature with Brahman, in the course of its going up from this body. Finally according to Kāsakrtsna, it is the Paramātman himself who becomes the individual soul, when pro- ceeding to evolve name and form; and so the identification is quite justifiable. Many more instances of this kind could be pointed out. But, although there may have existed other similar collections of sutras, the only one available to us is the one by Bādarāyana. Thus in addition to the Upanisads, the Brahma- sutras form the second great authority for the Vedanta schools. A Sutra-collection as the source and authority of a philosophical doctrine is not peculiar to the Vedanta alone; for we know that the other five orthodox schools also, all of them, claim to be based upon Sūtra-collections attributed to some sage of mythical fame, supposed to be the orginator of the doctrine in question. Besides these two, the Upanisads sud the Sutras, all the Vedanta-systems claim to have the authority of the third great fountain of knowledge, so popularly known as the 'Srimad-bhaga- vad-gita, ' or ' the song of the Lord '. Each of the five schools of the Vedanta believes, that its own particular doctrine is the only one contained, not only in the Upanisads and the Sūtras, but also in the Gita. Thus the Upanisads, the Sutras, and the Bhagavad-gita are known as the three 'prasthanas' or starting points from which proceed the different Vedanta-doctrines and each of the so-called founders of the systems has written com- mentaries on the Upanisads, at least the principal ones, the Sutras and the Bhagavad-gita. Of these, we are here only con- cerned with the commentaries on the Brahma-sūtras. If the Upanisads by reason of their very nature, in that they contain free thoughts and attempts at guessing the truths, most freely expressed, without the slightest notion of systematising, can be interpreted in more than one way, the sūtras present in a a still greater degree this character. In fact, they are very brief notes rather than sentences, consisting of as few words as possible, many words having to be supplied from the context; there is thus the greatest scope for the ingenuity of the com- mentator, who can accordingly find in them whatever ideas he

GENELAL OUTLINE 45

wants them to convey. The sūtra literature in India presents a phenomenon met nowhere else. The desire to express as much meaning as possible in as few words as possible and to provide most convenient and compressed manuals, which could be easily committed to memory and, at the same time, which could easily bring to the mind a complete sense by apply- ing to them as it were certain keys of interpretation, was some- times carried too far, so that instead of attaining the intended purpose it often produced the contrary results. Thus, for instance, we have a number of unintelligible, apparently meaningless word-groups, which cannot be understood at all without the help of a voluminous commentary, which, after all may not represent properly what was really meant by the writer of the sutras. The extreme instance of this sutra-style is provid- ed by the Astadhyayi or the sutras on grammar by Panini, which make almost an impossible reading for the uninitiated. The desire for brevity weighed so much with the Indian mind that the saving of one word was regarded as a greater reason for icy than even the birth of a son. Fortunately, the sūtras of Bādarayana, with which we are here concerned, are much more intelligible and much less brief, especially as there are no technical terms Samjnas and canons of interpretation ( paribhasas ) specially created for the purpose. Still, they are in themselves, quite sufficient to give rise to a number of interpretations. Nothing will give a better idea of what a sutra is like than the traditional definition of a sutra, quoted by the great dualistic Vedantin Madhvācarya in his introduction to his commentary on the sutras in question. It runs thus :

अन्पाक्षरमसंदिग्धं सारवद्विश्वतोमखम्। अस्तोभमनवदं च सूत्रं सूत्रावदो विदुः ।। ( p. 10, Madhvabhāșya, edited by Cencalray Palle, at Madras, 1900 ) " It should contain as few letters as possible, it should be decisive, not leaving any doubts as to what it means, it should contain the essence, it should be comprehensive on the topic it touches, it should not contain any explanations or supplementary syllables as for instance in a chant or song, and it should be free from any fault. " One cannot help remarking here that the second

46 THE VEDĀNTA

of these conditions, i. e. 'not leaving any doubt,' is hardly fulfilled by any of the sutra-collections available ; and that the adjective ' Vis'uatomukham', if understood to mean ' omni-faced' i. e. capa- ble of being interpreted in various senses ad libitum, is best ap- plicable to many of the Sūtras. Besides this very nature of the sutra-literature in general, there are several reasons which facilitate the putting of different interpretations on the individual sutras, and the deducing of different systems from the collections as a whole. Thus for in- stance, it is very difficult to decide which sutras contain the purvapaksa or the prima facie view, and which, the Siddhanta or the author's view. Thus in pāda 3 of adhyāya II, adhikaraņa 13, sūtras 19-28 are interpreted by Samkara as representing the purva-paksa view according to which the jira is anu or atomic in size ; while sūtra 29 formulates the Siddhanta, viz. that the jiva is not really atomic ( anu ) but that it is all-pervading ( vibhu ); and that in certain scriptural passages it is spoken of as being anu only because of the internal organ ( manas ), which forms an essential condition of the individual soul as distinguished from the highest self; thus the anuten, which really belongs to manas, has only been transferred to jira. On the other hand, Rāmānuja interprets the first sūtra ( II-3-19 ) of the Adhikarana as stating the Siddhanta view, according to which the individual soul is of minute size; and sūtras 20-25 are interpreted by him as only confirming this view and refuting objections raised against it; while the remaining sutras deal with another questions concern- ing the anutva. We see here how the same set of sūtras can be interpreted as lending support to two views, diametrically oppos- ed, to each other, on an essential point of the doctrine. There is another circumstance tending in the same direction. There is a traditional division of the sūtras into Adhyūyas and padas handed down to us, on which there is a unanimity of opinion. No such division into Adhikarana, unanimously accept- ed, has come down to us. Thus for instance, in connection with sūtras 41, 42 and 43 of the third pada of the first Adhyāya, sūtra 41 forms one Adhikarana deciding that the ether which reveals names and forms, spoken of in Chandogya Upanisad, VIII, 14, 1, is Brahman, and it is neither the elemental ether nor the jiva;

GENERAL OUTLINE 47

while sutras 42 and 43 form another Adhikarana teaching that the vijñana-maya, 'he who consists of knowledge', mentioned in Br. Up. IV. 3. 7, is not the individual soul but Brahman. Accor- ding to Rāmanuja, and Nimbarka, the three sūtras form but one single Adhikarana which establishes that the ākasa in the passage in question cannot refer to the individual soul, nor even to the released individual soul, because even then the individual soul continues to be different from Brahman. So the Akasa must mean Brahman and nothing else. According to Madhva, on the other hand, the three sutras form three separate Adhikaranas, sūtra 41 referring to the akāsa, sūtra 42, to the vijnana-maya and sutra 43 referring to another passage in Br. Up. VI. 4. 22, where the words, सर्वस्यािपतिः मर्वस्येशान: (the lord of all, the ruler of all), refer to Visnu or the Lord. The necessity of having to supply words to complete the mean- ing of the Sutra is another prolific source of variety of inter- pretations. Thus in sūtra 1, pāda 3 of Adhyaya II, Tua: ( lit. not the ether, because of want of scriptural mention ) Sam- kara, Rāmānuja and Nimbārka supply the word ' utpadyate' ( is produced ), while Madhva supplies the word 'anutpattimat' ( is not produced ). Some particular words in the sutras have two meanings, a circumstance which also leads to different interpretations. Thus the word ' antara ' in the sutra II. 3. 15 may mean both 'in the midst ( madhya ) ' and ' without ( vina ) '. Samkara, Rāmānuja, and Nimbarka accept the first meaning and thus the Sūtra, ac- cording to them, means that the mention of vijnana and manas in the midst of the passage referring to the creation of the ele- ments need not disturb the order of creation; while according to Madhva, who accepts the second meaning, the sūtra means that the opposite order of destruction ( to that of creation ) holds good except in the case of vijñāna and manas. Another circumstance is the fact that there is no nadapatha or a record of the separate words singly in the sūtras, handed down by an authoritative tradition, as there is one for the Samhita of the Rgveda, which leaves no doubt regarding the splitting of a metrical line into separate words. For example, the sutra II. 3. 26 is read either as iaa or as

48 THE VEDANTA

gonarssrraa both readings being equally admissible, as the words are not usually separated in manuscripts. According to Samkara, the sutra means that the Jiva, though of minute size ( anu ) can be affected in any part of the body, owing to the per- vasiveness of the quality of intelligence, as is, for instance, the case with certain objects in the world ( loka-vat), e. g. with the light of a lamp. According to Ramanuja, Nimbarka, and Madhva, however, 'alokavat' (like the light) gives the illustrations wanted for the purpose more directly.

The fact that the Upanisad passages under discussion are not actually mentioned in the sutras must also be considered in this connection. Different commentators may take up for discussion different passages and thus one and the same adhikarana may yield quite a different meaning. For example, in the sūtra I, 1, 5, the passage referred to by Samkara, Rāmānnja and Nimbārka is is Chandogya Upanisad VI, 2, 1 and 2 and the sutra means that the sat in the passage cannot mean the Pradhana of the Samkhyas; because the act of 'willing' is spoken of in connection with it. Thus the whole of the adhikarna beginning with this sutra is an attempt to show that the passages which the Samkhya brings forth in support of his doctrine cannot but refer to Brahman, if only properly interpreted with a due consideration of the context. But Madhva interprets the adhikarana in quite a different way. The passages in question are, according to him, Prasna Upanisad V, 5, Br. U. VI, 4, 23 etc., in which the ätman or purusa is spoken of as something to be seen or meditated upon ; and the sūtra, according- ly means that Brahman cannot be said to be 'as'abda' i. e. in- expressible ( aväcya ), because it is described as being something to be seen or known ( iksaniya or jneya); and all the remaining sutras of the adhikarana are explained accordingly. Thus we see how very easy it is that the collection of sutras before us should have been interpreted in more than one way. In fact there have been five different commentaries on them, differing in essential points in the interpretation of the individual sutras, and still more so in the general purport. Five different schools have tried, more or less successfully, to derive their doctrines from these sutras and each has even gone so far as to show that his particular system is the only one which the author of the sūtras wanted to

GENERAL OUTLINE 49

communicate through them. In spite of all these circumstances contributing to the variety of interpretations, the question still remains, why is it this particular sutra-collection which has had the privilege of having so many interpretations put upon it, so as to give rise to not less than five different doctrines differing from each other as regards some essential dogmas ? There are similar sūtra-collections ; for instance, the Vaisesika sūtras by Kaņāda, commented upon by Prasastapāda, the Nyaya-sutras of Gautama, with the commentary of Vātsyāyana, the Yoga-sūtras of Patañjali, commented on by Vyāsa, the Pūrva-mīmāmsā sūtras of Jaimini, with the commentary of Sabarasvamin; and we find everywhere that each sutra-collection has only one authoritative commentary or bhasya; and though the systems of philosophy represented by these sutra-collections may have ( and as a matter of fact, they have actually in some cases ) branched off into different sub- varieties, retaining some common points but at the same time differing in some points not always unessential, still there is no difference of opinion as regards the particular doctrine represented by or supposed to be taught by the sutra-collection in each case. The sutra-collection before us does not differ materially from the other collections, as regards its literary character. Why then is it that an attempt should have been made to found on one and the same sutra-collection, five different systems,-the absolute monism of Samkara, the qualified monism of Rāmānuja, the monodualism of Nimbarka, the dualism of Madhva, and the pure monism of Vallabha ? It is not possible, of course, that the sutrakara should have more than one system in his mind. It is difficult to answer the question positively and satisfactorily ; and we can only offer a guess here. As said above, it is the Vedanta that claims to be derived oxclusively from the Upanisads and that sets the autho- rity of the Upanisads over everything else, even reason- ing. Although seeds of other systems may be traced in the Upanisads, still no other system ever cared for them except in a casual and secondary manner; some even directly condemned them. Much less did any of them try to reconcile the evidently contradictory passages and to deduce one consistent system from them. This was mainly the task of the Vedanta; and the five Ghate, Vedānta, 7.

50 THE VEDĀNTA

systems before us are the results of five such attemps at deducing a system from the Upanisads. The main question before them may be briefly stated thus : There are certain passages in the Upanisads which emphatically assert a unity and deny a plurality-e.g., 'तत्वमास', 'अहं त्रह्मास्मि', 'सर्व खलल्व:्ं ब्रह्म तज्व अानिनि शान्त उपासीन By the side of these there are other passages which clearly assert a plurality and a duality bet ween the Highest Self and the individual self, e. g. 'ss T7- वोशानीशी' (Svet.I. 9), 'द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सरवाया समानं वृक्षं परिभस्त्रजाते। तयोरन्यः पिप्णलं स्वादनि अनश्नन्त्न्यो अभिचाकशीति।' ( Mund. III, 1, 1). How to reconcile these ? Samkara would say that all plurality is illusion, while unity is the only reality, and that all passages referring to plura- lity have in view only the phenomenal existence or the popular conception of the Universe, which is however ultimately meant to be refuted. Ramanuja would say that both unity and plurality are real; and that the individual souls and the animate world, though really and in- herently different in nature from the Supreme Soul, are at the same time non-different from him, in that they cannot have an existence independent of the Supreme Self. Thus the cit and acit or the animate and the inanimate worlds are the body and thus the attributes of the Supreme Self. According to Nimbarka also both difference and non-difference are real, without the individual souls and the inanimate world being the distinguishing attributes of the Supreme Self, as there is nothing else from which to dis- tinguish it. Madhva, on the other hand denies unity altogether and holds that duality is the only reality ; and that all affirma- tions of unity are only for the sake of Upasana or meditation, nay, even tho sentence ' tat tvam asi' he reads as ' atat tvam asi'. Val- labha, without believing in Maya or the principle of illusion, holds that the individual soul in its pure and pristine nature is identical with the Supreme Soul.

Thus these five systems may be supposed to ha e come into existence, in the course of the attempts to reconcile and to deduce a system from the apparently contradictory passages of the Upa- nisads. The sutras also represent such an attempt independently made by Bādarāyana; and other similar attempts must have pre- ceded it, for instance, those by Kasakıtsna, Āsmarathya, Vārsyā-

GENERAL OUTLINE 51

yani and others. Somehow or other the sūtras of Bādarāyana came to survive all the rest and to possess a high reputation; so that every Vedantist came to look upon them as the most authori- tative source of his doctrine, next in importance to the Upanisads only. One can very well believe it to be very probable that all these five systems in their essential elements must have existed long before the sūtras of Bādarāyana attained to prominence, and that when there arose great teachers like Samkara, and Ramanuja, Nimbarka and Madhva, they thought it their first duty, for the propagation of their system, to write a commentary or bhāsya on these sutras and to prove that the sutras which are reputed as teaching the kernel of the Upanisads contain none but their own doctrines. In doing this, they naturally proceeded to interpret the sutras in the light of their own doctrines and resorted to all sorts of twistings and artificialities to make the sutras yield the sense they wanted. They had their own doctrine cut and dry before them, and their only task was to show that it had the authority of the sutras. Naturally they never cared to know what was the real and natural meaning of the sūtras. These facts are too trans- parent to any one who would just cursorily glance over the several bhāsyas to require special emphasis.

Now the question before us is: which of these bhasyas gives an interpretation of the sutras which is the most faithful to the original; in other words, which of these five systems, if there is any at all, is the one taught by the sutras or professed by their author. Perhaps we might not be able to arrive at a positive conclusion, to the effect that such and such a system is the one taught by the sūtras. Perhaps the system in the mind of the Sūtrakāra was different from the five we are considering. But still the enquiry is useful even if we can say that one of these five commentaries is a more natural and correct interpretation of the sūtras than the rest; or that all the sūtras alike do not favour any one particular system. The method of interpretation which we are going to apply to the sūtras in our enquiry is the critical one as opposed to the traditional method applied by the several commentators. For. any piece of literary work can be interpreted in two ways, either by the traditional or by the critical method. The former takes the doctrine for granted and proceeds from this assumption to find the

52 THE VEDANTA

doctrine in the work under examination. For instance. take the Bhagavad-gita. Every school of Vedanta appears to attempt to find its own system in it, shutting its eyes to all contradictory passages or more often trying to interpret them in a far-fetched manner, so as to confirm their own doctrine. Samkara, while commenting upon the work would find nothing but the reality of Brahman and the illusory character of the Universe in it; and all passages referring to a personal god and his devotees, which are there- fore theistic in character, would be interpreted as having to do with the lower form of knowledge and the lower form of Brah- man (apara Brahman or apara vidya ). Ramanuja would find nothing but bhakti in it. In all these cases, the interpreter has a certain tradition coming down from of yore and he moves always in the groove where he has once placed himself. On the other hand, the critical method pre-supposes an attitude of absolute impartiality, considering the work by itself, without a leaning to any one particular doctrine. Of course, mistakes may often be committed in applying this method and very ridiculous conclusions may sometimes be arrived at, owing to insurmountable prejudices due to birth, race and other surroudings, or owing to want of patience, or the lack of sufficient material to go upon. Thus again to take the instance of the Bhagavad-gita, one German scholar, professing to apply the critical method to it, came to the conclusion that the work was purely theistic and that all the verses which contsined pantheistic idess were later additions. But recently a distinguished Indian scholar has shown by a detailed and thorough-going study of the Gita, that not one verse can be regarded as a later addition, or as being out of place or context, that everything, as it is alresdy there, fits in most smoothly in its context and that the chief teaching of the Gita refers to neither this nor that particular system of Vedanta, but that it is entirely practical and catholic in its character. It can be summarised in one word thus-',nanapurvaka-bhaktipradhāna-nikāma-kar- munusthana'-' the performance of one's duty, without any attach- ment to reward, proceeding from a devotion to the Lord, backed by right knowledge.' The same may be illustrated from the history of the Vedic interpretation. Sayana's method is mostly one-sided, not caring for consistency or the ordinary canons of

GENERAL OUTLINE 53

interpretation. Roth, on the other hand, went to the other extreme in condemning Sayana downright and proposing sometimes quite fanciful explanations. Later on Geldner and Pischel have struck the golden mean, and they have come to find some explanations in Sayana which are correct and ingenious and based on quite sound reasons. This critical method ( as opposed to the purely traditional one ) was not unknown to the old sanskrit writers, especially in the domain of philosophy. The Mimamsakas, whose special province it was to lay down the canons of interpretation, have briefly sum- marised the essentials of this method in the following verse :- *उपक्रमोपसंहागवभ्य सोडपूर्वता फलम्। अर्थवादोपपत्ती च लिङ्गं तात्पर्यनिणये॥ 'the beginning, the end, the repetition, the novelty, the object, the glorification, and argument, -these are the canons for determining the purport.' Thus for instance in determining the purport of the sixth chapter of the Chndo- gya Upanisad, all these can be illustrated. That the chapter mainly teaches the unity of the Supreme Self follows from the beginning e. g. 'ekam eva advitiyam' (Chan. VI. 2. 1) ' one only, without a second', from the close also-e. g. 'aitadātmyam idam sarvam ' 'all this has it for the soul'-( Chand. VI. 8.7) ; there is a repetition of the same idea throughout the chapter, e. g. the phrase ' tat tvam asi' occurs there nine times. There is a novelty here in that the unity of the soul can be known from this and from no other proof. The object of the knowledge of the unity of the self is also mentional there, e. g: आचार्यवान् पृरुषों वेढ। तस्य तावनव चरं दावन्न विमोक्ष्ये। अथ संपत्स्थे।' a man who has got a teacher knows; re has to wait just until he is freed ( from the body ) and then he becomes one ( with the Brahman ) ( Chan. VI. 14. 2)'. Thus it is taught that the attainment of Brahman is the fru't of the krowledne of the entity without a second. There is also the eulogising of the unity thus: उन तमादेशमपाक्ष्यो पेनाभ्रतं अ्रतं मवत्यमनं मतमवविज्ञानं विज्ञानस, 'you have asked me that instruction by hearing which, what is not heard is heard, what is not thought is thought, what is not known

*Quoted in the Sarvadarsana-samgraba (Purņaprajnandarśana) and ascribed to the Brbat-samhita.

54 THE VEDĀNTA

is known,' ( Chan. VI. 1. 3). Arguments establishing the same are also stated in several places; 0.g., यथा साम्येकेन मृत्पिण्बेन सव मृण्मयं विज्ञान स्याद्वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येष सवम, 'just as by knowing one lump of clay, all that consists of clay would become known, the product depends only on name, it is a name, while clay alone is the reality' ( Chan. VI. 1.4). A cursory elance at the Bhasya will show how often this method is employed in determining the meaning of any particular word in an Upanisad passage. As one instance among many, one may refer to the first adhikarana in the fourth pada of the first adhyaya, where in determining what the expression 'avyakta', the undeveloped, means in Katha Up. I. 3. 10. 11, all these canons have been applied. Before proceeding with the critical examination of the sūtras, as proposed above, we must be on our guard, not to confound the question before us, with another allied to it, but quite different from it, i. e. which of the five systems of Vedanta is the most ele- vated and conducive to the satisfaction of the human impulse for the quest of truth. It is of course very difficult to pronounce judg- ment as to which philosophical system is more profound and stands the test of reason better than any other. Every system has its merits and demerits and its advocates and opponents. Perhaps, if philosophy mainly concerns itself with finding unity in plura- lity, nothing may be higher than the absolute monism of Samkara; and nowhere else can we see the human understanding reaching . such heights of elevated thought. But we are not con- cerned with this point of view at all. The question before us is one purely of literary criticism and not one of philosophy proper. Here is a literary product before us and here we have so many interpretations of it; and our object is to see which of these, if any, has faithfully represented the natural and straight- forward meaning of the priginal, apart from the inherent philoso- phical value of the doctrines propounded by them. The Brahma-sūtras of Bādarāyana are divided into four adhyayas or chapters, each of which is again divided into four pādas or quarters. The sūtras, though they appear to be un- connected from the point of view of their external form, are not really so; they are pervaded by a system running through all of of them. The first adhyaya is called the 'samanvayadhyāya' or

GENERAL OUTLINE 55

the chapter which mainly seeks to establish that all the Upanisads deal with Brahman as their final aim. The first pāda of the first adhyaya states first in general terms that Brahman is the highest object of knowledge and that from it proceed the birth, preservation and destruction of the universe, the Scriptures alone being the means of knowing it and Brahman alone being their final aim, and then discusses certain Upanisad passages in detail. A doubt is raised about them as to whether they necessarily refer to Brahman, or may refer to some- thing else, the pradhana of the Samkhyas or the individual soul, or some deity ; but they at the same time contain clear and un- mistakable indications of Brahman ( spasta-brahma-lingāni ). The second and third padas also deal with similar passages, which, however, contain only indistinct indications of Brahman (aspasta- brahma-lingani ). The fourth pada more particularly deals with those passages in which certain words are apparently inter- preted by the Samkhyas as referring to some of their principles like the pradhana or the mahat, but these are proved to refer to some categories connected with the Vedanta. The fourth pāda thus contains a polemic specially directed against the Samkhyas. After having so far established that Brahman alone is the object to which the Upanisads refer, the Sutrakara, in the second adhyaya, which is called ' avirodhadhyaya' or the chapter dealing with absence of contradiction, proceeds to show that nothing can be brought forth which would contradict the fact established so far that the systems of Vedanta refer to Brahman. In the first pāda of the second adhyaya, all objections based on Smrtis like those of the Samkhyas, claiming to contain passages of an opposite purport, as well as those based on pure speculative reasoning, are answered. After having thus defended the Vedānta doctrine against the attacks of contradictory smrtis and speculative argu- ments ( nyāya ), the second pada aims at refuting other dcctrines than Vedanta, e. g. the Samkhya, the Nyaya, the Buddhism and so forth, by the very weapons of speculative arguments, which are their forte. The third pāda tries to reconcile the passages, apparently contradicting each other, regarding the creation of the different elements and the essential characteristics of the individual soul; while the fourth pada similarly deals with those passages that refer to the vital airs and the sense-organs.

56 THE VEDANTA .

The third adyaya is called 'Sadhanadhyaya' or the chapter dealing with the means of attaining to absolution. The first pada in particular deals with the manner of the transmigration of the individual soul and inculcates ' Vairagya' or aversion to the world by describing the misery involved in it. The second pāda discusses the different conditions of the individual soul, e. g. the state of being awake, that of dreaming and that of deep-sleop. The third and fourth padas deal with the different kinds of medi- tations enjoined as leading to 'Moksa' and attempts to reconcile the contradictions and to fill up the discrepancies regarding them. The fourth adhyaya is called the 'phalādhyaya', i. e. the chapter dealing with the fruit of knowledge, the 'Salut'. The first pāda more particularly deals with whet is called 'jivanmukti' i. e. absolution in this very life. The second pada discusses the way of the passing away of a knowing soul; and the third and fourth padas deal with the condition of the released soul. Each of these sixteen pādas consists of a number of 'adhi- karanas' or sections, each dealing with one and only one topic or subject. The method of treating a topic, in each such adhikarana is also very systematic. First, the subject or the matter of discussion ( visaya ) is stated; then comes a statement of the doubt or the several alternatives proposed, of which one is to be chosen ultimately ( visaya or samsaya); next comes the statement of the prima facie view ( purvapaksa ). Then follows the opposite view (uttarpaksa) and then last comes the siddhānta or the conclusion. Thus, for example, in the first adhikarana of the third pada of the first adhyaya, the question is, who is meant in the passage ' He in whom heavenly earth etc. are all woven, know him alone to be the Self etc.' (-Here is the visaya) ; does it mean Vayu, or the pradhana or the individual soul, or the highest Brahman? ( Here is the samsaya ). He is vayu or individual soul or anything but Brahman, says the objector (pūrvapaksa ). No, it is only Isvara, says the Siddhantin. ( This is the uttarapaksa). This proves that the passage refers to nothing but Brahman. ( This is the siddhānta ). After these general remarks regarding the nature, the contents, the arrangement, and the method of treatment of the Sutras, we now proceed to examine in detail the Sutras and their interpretations

GENERAL OUTLINE 57

by the five great commentators, Samkara, Ramanuja, Nimbārka, Madhva, and Vallabha.

Ghate, Vedanta, 8.

CHAPTER II.

ANALYSIS.

ADHYĀYA I, PĀDA I. The first Sutra 'then therefore, the enquiry into Brahman' sets forth in general, the object of the treatise. The word 'then' (atha) according to Ramanuja and Nimbārka, means 'after the knowledge of karman and its fruits', but according to Samkara, it means ' after the acquisition of the four requisites' which are, dis- crimination between eternal and non-eternal things, aversion to the enjoyment of the objects of sense here and in the next world, posses- sion of self-retraint, tranquillity etc., and the desire to be absolute- ly free. Vallabha prefers to take the word in the sense of' adhi- kara ' i. e. the beginning of a new topic, and remarks that the enquiry into Brahman is possible, even without any of the requi- sites mentioned by others. Madhva is not specific regarding the meaning of the word. All agree in the erplanation of the word 'therefore' ( atah), i. e. 'for the reason that karman and its fruits are known to be perishable and limited and that it is the know- ledge of Brahman alone which can lead to eternal bliss.' The second sutra defines this Brahman by saying that it is that from which spring the origination etc., of this world. This defini- tion of Brahman is very important, because, at the very threshold of the work it gives a knock to the doctrine of Samkara, accord- inr to whom, Brahman proper ismerely existence, intelligence and bliss (sat, cit, ananda); while it is the lower Brahman which, associated with Maya, produces, sustains and destroys the world, which has nothing but a phenomenal existence. Now can we convince that one who held Samkara's doctrine would define Brahman in this manner at the very outset ? No such difficulty presents itself, however, with the other commentators for whom this twofold character of Brahman does not exist. The third sutra saysthat Scripture alone is the means of know- ing Brahman,-a fundamental point common to all systems of the Vedānta; and sūtra 4 states that all the scriptures have for their ultimate purport Brahman,-a point which the sutras in general attempt to make out.

ANALYSIS 59

Vallabha reads sutras 2 and 3 as one and interprets sūtra 4 to mean that Brahman is not only the efficient cause of the world, as stated in sūtra 2, but also the material cause, because it permeates all, in the form of existence, knowledge and bliss, rejecting the in- terpretation given by others as being superfluous, since the Saman- vaya as interpreted by them is the object of the following sutras. The same charge, however, may be brought against Vallabha him- self; for Sutra I. 4. 23 also makes out the same point i., e. that Brahman is also the material cause of the universe.

The fifth adhikarana ( Sutras 5-11 ) asserts that the non-intelli- gent pradhans of the Samkhyas cannot be the cause of the world, because it is not supported by the Sruti, since ' seeing' or ' will- ing, ' which is an attribute of something intelligent, is predicated of the cause of the world. This is the purport of this Adhik. ac- cording to Samkara, Rāmanuja and Nimbārka, who all refer to the same passage, i. e. Chand. VI. 2. 1. All the same, we are con- scious that each has his own doctrine in view, in a cut and dry form, and then proceeds to interpret the sutras in its light. At the end of the adhik., for instance, Ramanuja remarks that this is also a refutation of the nirguna Brahman, since it asserts 'willing ' as its attribute ; and' willing' is only another name for ' being possessed of the quality of intelligence'. Madhva, on the other hand, interprets the adhikarana to mesn that Brahman cannot be said to be inexpressible, because it is described as being the object of knowledre ( iksaniya ) as in the text 'p qsaa.' Vallabha also has a somewhat similar interpretation: Brahman cannot be vyavaharātita i. e. beyond all expression or proof; beacause it is described as ' seeing', which means that it made itself ' vyavahārya. '

After having stated so far in a general way that Brahman is the chief object of the Vedanta S'ästra, that it is the cause of the origination, sustenance and destruction of the universe, and that it is intelligent, the Sūtrakāra proceeds with his task of examining certain passages of the Upanisads and demonstrating that certain words in them refer to nothing but Brahman. Here again Samkara makes the introductory remarks to the effect that the question now before us is whether the higher or

60 THE VEDANTA

lower Brahman is referred to in certain passages of the Upani- sads. But this seems to be without justification, because, in the remaining part of the adhyays, we are concerned with the choice between jiva and Brahman and even Samkara's own commentary accords with the same. Thus this is only another instance of the commentator showing the influence of his pre-conceived prejudices. The next adhikarana ( sutras 12-19 ) asserts that, that the ' anandamaya' referred to in Taitt. Upa. II. 5 is the Highest Self and not the jiva. This seems to be a natural and straight-forward interpretation and all except Samkara follow it; Samkara, however, after having given this interpretations at length, finally rejects it in favour of another to the effect that the word 'brahman' in the immediately following phrase ' nfet' refers to Brahman principally and not as a member of the 'anandamaya'; and the reason given for accepting this second interpretation is that the 'anandamaya' would only refer to the savisesa Brahman and never to the nirvisesa Brahman, which is called 'ananda' itself and not ' anandamaya'. That this passage containing this interpreta- tion is not an interpolation, as Deussen seems to think, follows from the fact that it is only in this passage that Samkara refers to the distinction between the savisesa and nirvisesa Brahman of which he makes a mention before commencing this adhikarana, and secondly because Vallabha refutes this interpretation, which must therefore have existed somewhere. One sutra ' ie' ( I. 1. 18 ) is interpreted variously :- Samkara and Vallabha ex- plain it to mean that the anandamaya cannot be also the pradhana ( anumana ), for 'willing' is immediately predicated of the ānandamaya. Rāmānuja and Nimbārka, however, explain thus :- 'If the anandamaya were to denote the jiva, then it would be in need of some non-intelligent material cause ( anumāna- acit ), just as a potter is in need of clay ; but the ānandamaya has no need of any such thing because he has only to will ( kāmāt= samkalpat ) and so this is another reason why the anandamaya cannot be jiva.' Madhva explains :- 'we need not care for reasoning (anumana), for reasoning can be had at our free-will'. Now, here the interpretation given by Rāmānuja and Nimbārka seems to be more suitable, for it deals with the question between

ANALYSIS 61

Brahman and jiva which has been raised in the preceeding sūtras, while Samkara's interpretation unnecessarily brings in the pradhana, although the question regarding it has heen set at rest in the preceding adhikarana; and besides it would be only a repetition of sutra I. 1. 5. In this adhikarana, the sūtras 16, 17, 19 deserve notice, because they all rest on the conception of a difference of individuality between Brahman and jiva; and Śamkara, at the end of sūtra 17, comes forth with his usual expla- nation that such sutras as these only refer to a difference between Brahman and jiva, which is due to māyā, whereas, really speak- ing, there exists no such difference,

As regards the remaining adhikaranas of this pada, all agree in their interpretation, except Madhva, who refers to different passages of the Upanisads in the last two adhikaranas. Thus adhikarana 7 ( sūtras 20-21 ) demonstrates that the golden person seen within the sun and the person seen within the eye, mention- ed in Chänd. Up. I. 6, are not some individual soul of high emi- nence, but the supreme Brahman. Here also the sūtra 21 oTn-y:' deserves notice, as it refers to the distinction between Brahman and jīva. Adhikarana 8 ( sūtra 22 ) states that the ether mentioned in Chand. Upa. I. 9 is not the elemental ether but the highest Brahman. Adhikarana 9 ( sūtra 3) says that the prana mentioned in Chand. Upa. I. 11. 5 denotes the highest Brahman. Adhikarana 10 ( sutras 24-27 ) teaches that the light spoken of in Chand. Upa. III. 13, 7 is not the ordi- nary physical light but the highest Brahman. Adhikarana 11 ( sūtras 28-31 ) asserts that the prana mentioned in Keus. Upa. III. 2 is Brahman. In this adhikarana, the ablative 'upasa-tra'- vidhyat' in sutra 31, is explained in two ways by Semk: ra. The sutra may either mean ' if it be said that Brahman is not meant on account of the characteristic marks of individual soul and the chief vital air being mentioned, we reply, no; for your interpretation would lead to or would necessitate three-foldness of devout meditation, which it is inappropriate to assume'; or the sutra may mean ' even the characteristic marks of the individual soul as well as the chief vital air are not out of place even in a chapter whose topic is Brahman, on account of the three-foldness of devout meditation ;' i. e. the chapter actually aims at enjoining

62 THE VEDANTA

three kinds of devout meditation, according as Bahman is viewed under the aspect of prana, under the aspect of prajna or in its own nature ( or according to Ramanuja, the meditation on Brah- man in its own nature as the cause of the entire world, on Bahman as hsving for its body the totality of enjoying souls, and on Brahman as having for its body the objects and means of enjoy- ment ). Ramanuja, Nimbarka and Madhva follow the second way of explaining the ablative; while Vallabha follows the first way; and no doubt, the second way is more natural, as shown by the ablatives elsewhere and by the ablative immediately following in this very sutra.

The second pada of the first adhyaya deals with passages in which the indications of Brahman are not distinct. Adhik. 1 ( sūtras 1-8 ) shows, according to all except Madhva, that the being which consists of mind ( manomayah), whose body is breath (prana-sarirah) etc., enjoined to be meditated upon in Chānd. Upa. III. 14. 1 and 2, is not the individual soul, but Brahman. This adhikarapa is very important for our purpose, in that it con- tains many sutras speaking of the difference of nature between Brahman and jiva, e. g. sūtras 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, and Samkara has to add his usual explanation after sutra 6 that all this difference is to be understood as unreal and only due to the false limiting adjuncts of the Highest Self; wheress other commentators do not feel the necessity of any such explanation. In sutra 7, it is interesting to note that the word 'tad-vyapadesat' lit. 'owing to the mention of that' is explained by all as meaning 'alpatva( -anutva )-vyapadesat' i.'e. 'owing to the mention of minuteness' and as stating one of the reasons in favour of the jiva being referred to in the passage in question. Does it not imply an admission, on the part of the Sūtrakāra, of the minuteness of the jiva, accepted by all except Samkara, according to whom alone the jiva is as omnipresent as the Brahman? But of this, later on. So also the explanations of the word ' Vyomavacca' in the same sutra, lit. 'like the ether ', are interesting. Samkara explains it to mean that Brahman, though all-pervading, is here described as minute, just as, for instance, the ether, though all-pervading is looked upon as limited in size from the point of view of the jar etc. Of course it must be con-

ANALYSIS 63

fessed that the illustration in this sense fits in very well with Śamkara's doctrine, as it explains exactly the relation between Brahman and jiva as he believes it to be. It is very curious that Nimbarka follows Samkara in this mode of explanation, though it must be supposed that he understands the illustration only in a limited sense, i. e. to explain how a large thing may be at the same time described as small (बृहतो ऽल्पत्वं तु गवाक्षव्योमवत्संगच्छते) but without any reference to the relation between Brahman and jiva. Ramanuja very cleverly explains it thus :- Not only is the manomaya in this passage, described as minute; but it is also described as being all-pervading like the ether, in the very same passage, e. g. in 'ज्यायान् पृथिव्याः' etc.(Chand. Upa. III.14.3), which is thus an additional argument why the manomaya should denote Brahman. Madhva and Vallabha explain the word just like Samkara. So also the word 'vaisesyat' ( lit. 'owing to the dif- ference ') in sutra 8, which gives the reason why Brahman is not subject to pleasure and pain just like the jiva, is explained by all except Rāmānuja, to mean' owing to the difference of nature between Brahman and jiva;' but Rāmānuja explains it as ' owing to the difference of cause of enjoyment' i. e. it is not the abiding in the body merely which leads to the experiencing of pleasure and pain, but the being subject to actions and to the merit and demerit resulting from them, which is, however, never possible in the case of Brahman,-a point very frequently alluded to by him. The second adhikarana ( sutras 9-10 ) teaches that the Being to whom Brahmans and Ksatriyas are but food, referred to in Katha Upa. I. 2. 24 is the highest self. Adhik. 3 ( sūtras 11-12) establishes that the two 'entered into the cave'(Katha Upa. I. 3.1) are Brahman and jiva. All except Ramanuja agree in having these as two adhikaranas; but Ramanuja alone has them as one adhik. His attempt, however, to tackle them together is rather farfetched and without any special purpose (see p. 245 B. S. S. LXVIII ). Sūtras 11 and 12 deserve notice; because sūtra 11 contains the dual 'atmanau' speaking of jiva and Paramatman; and sūtra 12 lays stress on the difference of characteristics between Brahman and jiva. Ramanuja remarks on this sutra-'अभ्मिन् प्रकरणे जीवपरमात्मा- नावेवोरस्यत्वोपासकत्वप्राध्त्वप्राप्तृत्वविशिषी भवंत्र प्रतिवाधेने (in this section, the

64 THE VEDANTA

jiva and Paramatman are spoken of everywhere as the meditator and the object of meditation, as the attainer and the object to be attained '). Even Samkara says-'विज्ञानात्मानं रथिनं संसार मक्षियगिन्तार कल्प- गति ...... पग्मात्मान गन्तव्यम्' (i. e. the jiva is supposed to be the goer ; while the Paramatman, the object to be gone to ). Adhik. 4 ( Sutras 13-17) asserts that the person within the eye, mentioned in Chand. Upa. IV. 15. 1, is Brahman. Ramānuja and Nimbarka read an additional sutra 'अन एव च स (तद्-निम्बा०) त्रम्ह' ( lit. for this reason it is Brahman ) between sutras 15 and 16. But it cannot be original, because it appears to be quite unneces- sary and rather out of place, in the midst of the ablatives express- ing the reasons ; not to mention that Vallabha and Madhva also do not have it. Adhik. 5 ( sūtras 18-20 ) says that the ruler within ( antaryamin ), mentioned in Br. Up. II1. 7. 3, is Brahman; it cannot be the pradhana of the Samkhyas on account of the statement of the qualities not belonging to it ( 19); nor can it be jiva, for both the recensions of the Brhad. speak of it as differ- ent from the internal ruler ( 20 ). Here Samkara, Nimbārka, Madhva and Vallabha read Sutras 19 and 20 as न च स्मार्नमनद्धर्मा- मिलापात् and 'शरीश्रामये पि हि भेननमधीयने' while Ramanuja reads the words as forming part of the sutra 19. This way has the advantage of connecting both the ablatives with the sarirah; therefore it seems preferable to have sārirah and enam ( which refers to sarirah only ) in one and the same sutra. Sūtra 20 asserts the difference between Brahman and jiva; and Samkara, as usual, comes forth with his explanation that all these statements of difference, are due to the limiting adjuncts, which themselves are the products of Nescience. Adhik. 6 ( sutras 21-23 ) shows that the being. described as possessed of invisibility etc., in Mund. Upa. 1. 1. 5, 6 is Brahman; and it cannot be pradhana or jiva, because of the statement of distinctive attributes and difference. Here also sūtra 22 speaks of the difference of nature between Brahman and jiva. Adhik. 7 ( sūtras 24-32 ) says that the atma vaisvanarah mentionod in Chand. Upa. V. 11. 6 is Brahman. Adhik. 1 ( sūtras 1-7 ) proves that the being within whom heaven and earth etc. are woven, mentioned in Mund. Upa. II. 2. 5, is Brahman, on account of the term 'atman' being used of it; and

ANALYSIS 65

on account of its being designated as that to which the released have to resort. It cannot be Pradhana, nor the individual soul, owing to the declaration of difference. Ramanuja alone reads sūtras 3 and 4 as one ( cf. above I. 2. 19, 20 ). It is to be noted that the sūtras 2, 5 and 7 specially refer to the difference of nature between Brahman and jīva. Adhik. 2 (sutras 8-9) shows that the 'bhuman' ( that which is great ) in Chand. Up. 7. 23, 24 is Brahman only and it cannot be prana or the vital air, on account of information about it being given subsequent to Samprasada i. e. bliss or the state of deep sleep or secondarily the prana which is awake in the state of deep sleep .- ( Rāmānuja, Nimbārka and Vallabha follow this ex- planation of the words 'संप्रमादाढध्युपदेशात'. Madhva, how- ever, explains the words to mean 'on account of its being of the nature of unsurpassed bliss and on account of its being declared above all' -- which is not reasonable, owing to the absance of 'ra'. Adhik. 3 ( sutras 10-12 ) teaches that the aksara (the imperishable one) spoken of in the Brhad. Upa. III. 8.8.' is Brahman. Adhik. 4 ( sūtra 13 ) states that the parah purusah ( the highest person ) to be meditated upon by the syllable om, mentioned in Prasnopa. V. 5, is the highest Brahman, because of its being designated as the object of realisation, (ईक्षतिकर्मव्यपदेशात्) and not the lower Brahman. This is according to Samkara, Ramanuja and Nimbarka, however, translate thus- ' The object of meditation (iksati-karma) is Brahman (n.) and not Brahman (m.), because it is later desig nated (vyapadesāt) as the paramatman.' Thus the alternatives according to Ramanuja and Nimbarka are Brahman and Brahmadeva-(जीवसम टरूपो:णडाधिप तिश्रतुर्मुख उन सवेश्गः पुरुवं नमः ) and this is natural because the twofold character of Brahman, higher and lower, is not known to them. Vallabha, reads the sutra just like Samkars, but has the alternatives Paramat- man and Brahma also-'parapurusah paramatma dhyanavisayah āho- svid virātpuruso brahmā vā'. Madhva, reading the sūtra like Samkara explains thus-'In the passage, Chand. Upa. VI. 2, 3, ataa etc., 'Visnu is spoken of, because the mention of the act of seeing ( īksati-karma-vyapudesa ) cannot belong to any other '. No doubt Samkara's way of translating the phrase is more natural than that of Ramanuja for the Sutra should rather have Ghate, Vedanta, 9.

66 THE VEDANTA

been in the form ' ईक्षतिकम स व्यपदेशात्' if it were to be understood just as Rāmānujs does; though Samkara's reference to the lower Brahman is without sufficient reason, as we shall see later on. In the next adikarana 5 ( Sūtra 14-21 ), the question is whe- ther the small ether ( daharah akasah ) within the lotus of the heart, mentioned in Chand. Upa. VIII. 1. 1. is eļemental ether, or jiva or Brahman. That it is Brahman is decided owing to the many epithets applied to it subsequently, such as being free from sins etc; and owing to other indicatory marks, such as that all the individul souls are described as giving into it and that it is itself described as being the bridge or the support which prevents these worlds from being confounded. But in subse- quent passages, e. g. in Chand. Upa. VIII. 3. 4, it is the jiva which is spoken of thus-' Now that serene being ( lit. complete satisfaction ' Samprasadah' ) which after having risen out from this earthly body, and having reached the highest light, appears in its true form; that is the self ;- thus said he. And s0 ' dahara ' may as well denote jiva. The objection is answered in Sūtras 18, 19, 20. Especially Sūtra 19 is very interesting, in- as-much as the dlfferent ways of understanding it point back to a fundamental difference in the doctrine. Sūtra 19, literally translated would run thus :- ' If it be said that from a subse- quent passage, ( it appears that the individual soul is meant ), it is, however, the one whose true nature has become manifest.' Samkara interprets it to mean that what is referred to in that pas- sage is the individual soul with its true nature no longer obscured by the illusory limiting adjuncts, i. e. is absolutely non-different from Brahman. Here again Samkara adds his usual remark that, in all those places where a difference between Brahman and jiva is spoken of by the sūtrakāra, he does not mean that the difference is real; his only object is to remove the false notion which attri- butes the limited nature of jiva to Brahman; and for this purnose, he only takes for granted the popular belief that the two are dif- ferent. Thus even Samkara in the present case, shows his consci- ousness of the fact that the Sūtrakāra here refers to a difference between jiva and Brahman. All the other commentators, how- ever, interpret the sutra co mean that no doubt it is the jiva that

ANALYSIS 67

is referred to, but with its true nature manifested, and hence the similarity of epithets ; but even then the jiva cannot be Brahman and so 'dahara' cannot mean jiva. N. has 'पुर्वाक्तागृणयुक्तो नित्या- निर्भावस्वरूप: परमात्मा वहरः । आधिभृतस्वरूपो जीवस्तृ न ' Madhva also remarks that a difference must be made between the jiva, which when released has his true nature manifested through the favour of Paramatman, and the Paramatman himself, who is indicated by the ' dahara ' in a preceding passage. That this second explana- tion of the sutra is more natural is clearly stated by Vallabha- 'तु शब्देन नायमर्थो दुष्यते किं तृ किंचिदन्यक्षम्नीति न नकागप्रयोग: : here the 'tu'(but) does not refute something, but only says that there is something, else ; hence 'na' (not) is not used ( in the sutra ). The next two sutras 22-23, form an independent adhikarans according to Samkara ( whom Madhva follows also ), deciding that ' He after whom everything shines' ( Mund. Upa. 2. 2.10) is not some material luminous body, but Brahman itself. But according to Ramanuja, Nimbarka and Vallabha they form part of the preceding adhikarana, giving only additional arguments for understanding ' dahara' to mean 'Paramatman'. It is the imitating jiva that is referred to in the passage with which sūtra 19 concerns; while the 'dahare' must be the Brahman to be imitated. अनुकता प्रजापनिवाक्य निदिष्टः। अनकार्य ब्रह्म दृहराकाशः। The particle 'ca' in the rutra 22, no doubt favours Rāmanuja's explanation, as stating something additional to support what precedes ; and Samkars, conscious of this difficulty, has to explain 'ca' as referring to the fourth pada of the same sloka i. e. 'an HT सर्वमितं विभाति'-(by the light of him, everything is lighted ), in addi- tion to the first three pādas ( Mund. 2. 2. 10 or Katha, II. 5. 15 ),- which is not very satisfactory. Ramanuja gives other reasons also why these two sūtras cannot he taken as a separate adhi- karana-'Some maintain that the last two sūtras constitute & separate adhikarana, meant to prove that the text, Mund. Upa. 2. 2. 10, refers to the highest Brahman. This view is, however, in- admissible, for the reason that with regard to the texi in question, no purvapaksa can arise, it having been proved under 1. 2. 21 and I. 3. 1 that the whole section, of which that text forms part, is con- cerned with Brahman and it further having heen shown under I. 1. 24 that Brahman is apprehended under the form of light. The

68 THE VEDĀNTA

interpretation, moreover, does not fit in with the wording of the sūtras. ' Adhikarana 7 ( sutras 24-25 ) decides that the being, measured by the thumb ( Katha. II. 4. 13 ), is not the individual soul, but Brahman. And Brahman is described as having the measure of a thumb, because it dwells for the purpose of devout meditation in the heart of the devotee. The heart is of the measure of a thumb and for such meditation men alone are qualified; so that we are not concerned with the size of the heart of other animals.

The next two adhikaranas ( 26-33 and 34-38 ) form a sort of digression, suggested by the preceding adhikarana. The question is whether it is men alone who are qualified for the brahmavidyā. The eighth adhlkarana decides that the gods also are qualified for the brahmavidya and the ninth adhikarana denies this qualifica- tion to the Sūdras. Adhikarana 10 ( sūtra 39 ) says that the prana before whom everything trembles ( Katha. Upa. II. 6.2 ) is Brahman. Adhikarana 11 ( sūtra 40 ) says that the jyotih (light) mentioned in Chand. Upa. VIII. 12. 3 is Brahman. Thus sutras 24-40 form, according to Samkara, five separate adhikaranas. Ramanuja, however, regards all these as forming one main adhikarana, referring to the 'ama: qFT:'. Sutras 24- 25 refer directly to this purusa, while sutras 26-30, 31-33 and 34-38 form three sub-adhikaranas. referring to the qualification of the gods for the brahmavidya ( which forms the devatādhi- karana ), the madhu-vidya ( forming the madhvadhikarana ) and the disqualification of the Sudras ( styled as the apasudradhi- karana ) respeetively. Sūtras 39 and 40 state additional reasons for regarding the angustha-matra-purusa as Brahman; for the passages referring to him before whom everything trembles ( Katha. Upa. II. 6. 2 ) and to the primordial light ( Katha. II. 5. 15 ),-both which cannot be anything but Brahman, -- occur between the two other passages of the Katha. Upa. ( i. e. II. 4. 12 and II. 6. 17 ) mentioning the angusiha-mātra-purusa. So sūtra 40 is translated by Ramānuja thus :- ( the angustha-mātra-purusa is Brahman ) because a light is seen to be mentioned ( in the inter- vening passage ),-which means that he treats jyotirdarsanat as one compound word.

ANALYSIS 69

Nimbarka follows Rāmānuja in regarding all these sūtras ( 24-40 ) as one adhikaraņa ( pramitādhikarana ). Madhva refers sutra 24 to a passage of the Katha. Upa. 5-3, मध्ये वामनमासीनं विशेदेवा उपासंत, and translates it thus :- 'Visnu is meant or understood ( pramita ) owing to the direct mention of vamana which cannot but mean Visnu. Thus Madhva understands the word pramita to mean 'known' as against others who take it to mean 'measured'. Otherwise Madhva exactly follows Samkara, in the division of the adhikarana. Vallabha also follows Samkara generally. Adhikarana 12 ( sutra 41 ) decides that the ether which reveals names and forms ( Chand. Upa. VIII. 14.1) is neither the ele- mental ether, nor the individual soul, but the highest Brahman. The next two sūtras 42-43 form, according to Samkara and Valla- bha a separate adhikarana deciding that the vijnanamaya (he who consists of knowledge ), spoken of in Brhad. Upa. IV. 3-7, is not the individual soul, but Brahman. Rāmanuja and Nimbārka, however, regard the three sutras as forming but one adhikarana . dealing with the akasa in Chand. Upa. VIII. 14. 1. To the objec- tion that the jiva or pratyagatman is nothing but the Paramatman, owing to many passages teaching their unity and condemning duality and that therefore, the akasa may be the jiva in its rea- leased condition, spoken of in the immediately preceding passage, sūtra 42 replies, 'no; for the jiva and brahman are spoken of as being distinctly different from each other in the condition of deep sleep in the departure from the body.' And even in the state of release, the jive can never be non-different from Brahm:n. It is to be noticed that sutra 42, distinclly speaks of the difference between Brahman and jiva. And the same passage from the Brhad. Upa., i. e. IV. 3. 24, is adduced by both Samkara and Ramanuja as proof. The fact that the word 'vyapadesat' has to be implied in sūtra 42 seems to be an argument in favour of taking sütras 42 and 43 as belonging to one and the same adhi- karana. Madhva takes these three sutras ( 41, 42 and 43 ) as forming three different adhikaranas referring to the ākasa (Chand. Upa. VIII. 14. 1 ), the prājña ( Brhad. Upa. IV. 3. 21 ) and to the Lord of all ( Brhad. Upa. VI. 4. 22 ) respectively, and decides that all these are nothing but the highest Brahman.

70 THE VEDĀNTA

ADHYĀYA I, PADA 4. It was shown in I. 1. 5 that the pradhana cannot be the cause of the world, for it finds no support in the scriptures; and further it was shown that Brahman alone is the subject of the various doubtful passages of the Upanisads; still the Samkhya comes forth with certain passages in which occur terms most familiar to the Samkhya doctrine. The last pāda of the first Adhyāya specially aims at showing that such terms cannot but denote something connected with the Vedanta doctrine.

The first adhikarana ( sutras 1-7 ) establishes that the word avyakta ( the undeveloped ), occurring in Katha. Upa. I. 3. 10 and 11, does not denote the pradhana, but the subtle body as well as the gross body viewed as an effect of the subtle body. Samkara, Ramanuja and Nimbarka all agree exactly. Madhva, who reads an additional sutra 'prakaranat' between 5 and 6 and who also includes sūtra 8 in this adhikarana, tries to show that the avyakta denotes Visnu and he interprets sutra 4 1 differently from the rest. According to all except Madhva, the sutra means that the avyakta cannot be the pradhana; for if it had been the pradhana, jneyatva ( or being the object of knowledge ) should have been predicated of it, since according to the Samkhyas it is the know- ledge of the pradhana that leads to Moksa. But as it is not so predi- cated, the avyakta can mean only something else. Madhva under- stands it to mean that the avyakta denotes Visnu, because jneyatva can never be mentioned of anything but Visnu. Accord- ing to Vallabha, the avyakta in the passage in question denotes the grace of the Lord, which is also identical with the Lord him- self or with the Brahman that is subtle.

Adhikarana 2 ( sutras 8-10 ) shows that the tricoloured unborn one ( tri-rūpa aja ) in Svet. Upa. IV.5 cannot be the pradhāna or prakrti of the Sāmkhyas, but it is 'jyotirupakramā ' the causal matter of the world, consisting of the three elements of light, water and earth, ( instead of the three qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas, as the Samkhyas would say ) or it is the divine power of Brahman which creates this causal matter. And the term ' aja' ( goat ) is only a metaphorical description, a 'kalpana'. Ramanuja and Nimbarka have the same general purport for the

ANALYSIS 71

adhikarana, but, in accordance with their doctrine, the aja more particularly means 'the suksma-cid-acid-vastu' the intelligent and material world in its subtle condition which forms the very body of the Paramātman. Rāmānuja and Nimbārka, how- ever, explain the words 'jyotirupakrama' in sutra 9 and 'kalpana' in sūtra 10 to mean 'produced from Brahman' (brahma-kāraņika) and creation respectively. If it be asked how the aja be called produced from Brahman' and at the same time 'unborn', the reply is that it refers to the creation, e. g. in वाता यथापरर्वमकल्पयत् Rv. X. 190. 3-( the creator created just as before ). Rāmānuja also takes great pains to refute the explanations of the words as given by Samkara. Vallabha generally follows Samkara, though he reads sutra 9 as 'ज्योतिः उपकरमान्त &c.': the aja is jyotih i. e. the first creation of Brahman, owing to the statement at the com- mencement of the passage'. Madhva, however, who also reads sutra 9 just in the same way as Vallabha, interprets the adhikarana to mean that the words denoting karman, i. e. sacrifices like the jyotistoma, also denote none but Visnu,- an interpretation which is the natural consequence of the way how he has explained the preceding adhikarana.

Adhikarana 3 (sutras 11-13) according to all the commentators decides that the 'a GaT:' in Brhad. IV. 4. 17 are not the twenty- five principles of the Samkhyas, but the five pranas.

Adhikarana 4 ( sutras 14-15 ) asserts that there is no con- tradiction whatsoever in regarding Brahman, whose es- sence is intelligence, being the cause of the world. Ramānuja and Nimbarka have the same general purport, but they connect the adhikarana more directly with the subject matter of the preceding part of the pada, i. e. the refutation of the Samkhya. The cause is sometimes called sat, sometimes asat or avy akrta, says the Samkhya ; so it must be the pradhana and the willing (iksana) represents metaphorically 'the being ready to create of the pradhana.' No, says the Vedanta, even the word asal means Brahman and it is so called only with rezard to the vyakrta or the gross world, endowed with name and form ; and it does not mean absolute non- existence. Samkara, however, followed by Vallabha, thinking that the refutation of the Samkhya is over, connects this adhikarna with

72 THE VEDĀNTA

the general question of the samanvaya of the Vedic texts and de- cides that although there may be contradiction among the texts regarding the order of the creation, there is no such contradiction regarding Brahman being the cause of the world; and so the samanvaya need not be called into question. Madhva, explaining sūtra 14 just in the same way as Samkara and Rāmānuja, sees, however, a new adikarana in sūtra 15, which he interprets to mean thus :- ' even though all words ultimately denote the Para- matman or Visnu, still they may, at the same time, denote other objects in the world, by being secondarily transferred to them:, परस्य वावकाः शब्दा: समाकृष्यतरेष्वपि। व्यवहियन्ते सननं लोकवेदानुसारतः ।।

Adhikarna 5 ( sūtras 16-18 ), accordlng to Samkara and Vallabha, proves that 'he who is the maker of those persons, of whom all this is the work, ' mentioned in Kaus. Upa. IV. 19 is neither the vital air nor the individual soul, but the Brahman. Rāmānuja and Nimbārka, who agree in the general purport, how- ever, bring it more directly in relation to the refutation of the Samkhyas, who see in this passage the purusa.

Adhikarana 6 ( sūtras 19-22 ) demonstrates that the ' self to be seen, to be heard, etc. ' in Brhad. Upa, II. 4. 5, is not the indi- vidual soul, but the Highest Self. In this also, Rāmanuja and Nimbārka see a refutation of the Samkhyas according to whom the ' purusa' is spoken of in the passage. This adhikarana is important, because it raises the question how it is that while the passage आत्मनस्तृ कामाय सर्व प्रिवं भवनि (every thing is dear for the pleasure of the self ) is referred to the jiva, the subsequent passage आत्मनस्तु विज्ञानन मर्वं विजानं भवनि) by knowledge of the Self, every- thing becomes known ) is to be maintained as referring to the Brahman ; and three different views are stated under the names of Asmarathya, Audulomi and Kasakrtsna, the last representing the sidddhanta. Sūtra 22, however, containing the view of Kāsakrtsna is interpreted differently. According to Samkara it means ' because ( the Highest Self ) exists in the condition, 'avasthiteh' ( of the individual soul ); i. e. because the Highest Self only is that which appears as the individual soul, which is evident from such & passage as 'let me enter into them with this living self and evolve names and forms'. This implies an absolute identity of

ANALYSIS 73

the jiva and Brahman. According to Rāmānuja and Nimbārka, however, the word ' avasthiteh ' means 'on account of (Brahman's) abiding ( within the individual soul,) i. e. the words denoting the jiva are applied to Brahman, because Brahman abides as its self within the individual soul, which thus constitutes Brahman's body ( cf. 'he who dwelling within the self etc., whose body the self is etc. ' Brhad. Upa. 1II. 7. 22. Thus Rāmānuja and Nimbār- ka refer to the Antarayumin 'the ruler within', implying a real difference of individuality between Brahman and jiva. Vallabha explains the word arasthiti to mean avastha and says that the jiva is only an avastha ( condition ) of bhagavan and hence the words denoting the jiva are applied to Brahman, thus referring to his doctrine of pure monism ( without the help of māya ). It is difficult to say which of these meanings of the word 'avasthiti ' is the most natural; or very probably the advocate of this view, not having in view any definite solution of the pro- blem, used a general word to explain the relation between Brahman and the jiva. Adhikarana 7 ( sutras 23-27 ) teaches that Brahman is not only the operative or efficient cause ( nimitta karana ) of the world, but the material cause ( upadana or prakrti ) as well. Here again Ramanuja takes this as a special refutation of the Sesvara- Sāmkhya, according to whom, the isvara is only the operative cause; while the pradhana is che independent material cause. Vallabha follows Samkara. Here the world 'parinamat' in sütra 26. is most important; for it is distinctly applied to the vicarta ( superimposition ) doctrine heid by Samkara. Tha last sutra 28 of the pada is explained by Samkara and Vallabha thus: the refutation of the Samkhya view can be and is applied mutatis mutandis to other doctrines also, such as the doctrine of the world having originated from atoms. Rāmā- nuja and Nimbarka however translate it thus: all the passages of the Vedanta text are explained as referring to Brahman and Brahman alone. These two modes of translating this last sūtra are very surprising, indeed, in view of the fact that Samkara has nothing to do with Samkhya doctrine in the preceding four adhikaraņss ( sūtras 14-27 ); while Rāmānuja connects them as a rule, with the refutation of one or other point in the Samkhya Ghate, Vedanta, 10.

74 THE VEDANTA

doctrine. Samkara is, no doubt, inconsistent with himself in not referring about half of the pada to the refutation of the Samkhya doctrine, though in introducing the pāda he remarks that this pada has for its special aim, the demonstration that certain words and passages claimed by the Samkhyas as support- ing their doctrine can really speaking only refer to certain things connected with the Vedanat doctrine. On the other hand Ramanuja and Nimbarka, following him, have uniformally directed the whole of the pada against the refutation of the Samkhys docirine. Madhva differing from all the rest, sees in this pāda an attempt to show that all words without exception ultimately denote Visnu; and from this point of view, he has consistently interpreted all the sūtras. Sūtras ( 15-22 ) form one adhikarans and are ex- plained consistently with the sutra 15 explained above. Thus the use of words to denote the world by objects as opposed to Visnu is due to the popular usage and it has nothing to do with the Sastra; and thus there is no inconsistency at all; for all words denote Visnu esoterically; while at the same time, they may denote worldly objects exoterically ( sūtra 16 ). Since an object may be denoted by words referring to Visnu, all objects being dependent on and owing their existence to Visnu, the jiva and the chief vital air also may be denoted by words referring to Visnu, owing to the three-foldness of Upāsanā (see above I. 1. 31) (sūtra 17). All the following sutras are explained by him in the same strain. Thus for instance, the three sutras 20, 21 and 22 give the different views regarding the reasons why words refer to actions in the first instance and to Visnu ultimately, Kāsakrtsna's view being that words denote the worldly objects, because everything is in Paramātman, is supported by and rests in Visnu ( avasthiteh ). Sutras (23-27) form another adhikarana, proving that the word 'prakrti ' and all other similar words mean Visnu ultimately. Sutra 28 finishes the topic by asserting that all words ( like sūnya, abhāva, etc. )* may be explained or derived as meaning . Madhva derives the words 'sunya' and 'abhava' so as to mean Vianu :- 'शं क नं कुरुने असी शृन्यः' i. e. he who makes the pleasure of others inferior to his own 'and 'नम भाषयितुं योग्यः अतो आवं वउनत्येनम्' i. e.'be is not capable of being thought of and hence is called abhava. '

ANALYSIS 75

Visnu. According to Madhva, thus, the whole of this pāda serves one purpose, viz. to demonstrate that all words, like avyakta, aja, prakrti and what not, ultimately refer to Visnu. Thus Madhva's interpretation, though standing by itself, and rather fanciful in some cases, has the merit of consistency, in that it strictly takes its stand on Samanvaya, the title of the first adhyaya,

ADHYĀYA II, PĀDA I. After having established in the first Adhyaya that all the Vedanta passages aim at the intelligent Brahman being the cause ofthe universe and that no passages support the Samkhya doctrine, the Sūtrakāra next proceeds to answer objections against the doctrine of Brahman, based on the grounds of smrtis or speculative reasoning. The first adhikarana ( sūtras 1-2 ) of the last pāda of the second adhyaya answers the objections that the acceptance of the Vedanta doctrine involves the rejection of certain smrtis, such as that of Kapila, which preach the Samkhya doctrine, by saying that the acceptance of the Samkhya doctrine would in its turn involve the rejection of many other smrtis, such as that of Manu, which preach the doctrine of Brahman. And when two Smitis disagree, that alone is to be accepted which is in conformity with the Smrti; no support whatsoever can be found in Sruti for the Kapilasmrti. All agree as regards the general purport of the adhikarana. But sutra 2 is explained differently. According to Samkara and Vallabha it means 'because other principles of the Samkhyas, such as mahat etc. are not found in Smrti, nor in Veda nor in the popular belief.' According to Rāmānuja and Nimbarka it means ' because, in other Smrtis iike those of Manu, the doctrine of the pradhana is not found,' which involves & repetition of a part of the first sutra. Madhva explains it to mean ' other Smrtis are not authoritative, because other things such as the fruits etc. spoken of in these Smrtis, are not experienced directly,' which is not satisfactory. Adhikarana 2 (sūtra 3) applies the same argument to the Yoga doctrine. In adhikarana 3 ( sūtras 4-11 ), the objection that Brahman which is intelligent cannot be the cause of the world which is non-intelligent is answered by pointing out instances of dissimilar causes and effects, e. g. the cowdung and the scorpion produced from it, etc. Nor can Brahman be soiled or rendered impure by the

76 THE VEDANTA

effect being merged into it, the cause. And reasoning pure and simple will not do in such supersensuous, purely metaphysical matters owing to the diversity of the judgment of different savants, who all claim to be equally infallible. All except Madhva agree in this general purport of the Adhikarana. Sūtra 7, however, is explained differently. According to Samkara it means 'if it be objected that the effect is non-existent before its production, we do not allow that, because it is a mere negation (without any object to be negatived )'. For, as a matter of fact, the effect always exists, whether before or after its origination, through and in the form of the cause itself. Ramanuja and Nimbarka explain it thus :- The ffect cannot be said to be non-existing ; because what the preceding sutra has laid down is merely the denial of an absolute rule demanding that cause and effect should be of the same nature; it was not asserted that the effect is a thing altogether different and separate from the cause. Vallabha on the other hand says-' if it be said that even the asal is spoken of as being the cause, in Sruti, we reply, no; for the mention is made only to deny that something non-existing can be the cause, e. g. in 'कथं असनः सज्जायेत, how can sat be produced from asati ?' It is to be noticed that this adhikarsna rests entirely upon the doctrine of parinama and the instances quoted in commenting on sūtra 6 by all including Samkara are such as lend support to parinama; and none implies the idea of cirarta. Here also it is to be noted that it is the Samkhya doctrine of the similarity of cause and effect and the supposition that the pradhana consists of the three qualities in order to account for their eristence in the world which is intended to be rebutted. Adhikarang 4 (sutra 12) says that the same line of reasoning may be directed against other doctrines, like that of the atoms etc.

Madhva, however, puts rather a different interpretation on sutra (4-12.) In sutra 4, forming an adhikarana by itself, he shows that the sruti and the smrti following it, which are eternal and free from faults, are quite different in character from other sources of proof and so their prumanya must not be questioned on the ground of the fruit not being immediately perceived. Sutras 5 and 6, forming another adhikarana, answer the objection that the Veda is opposed to reasoning, because it describes the earth as speaking (e.g. 'mrd abravit' ), which is impossible, by saying that it is the

ANALYSIS 77

sentient deities that are meant here; and that they have & special power which is seen only by great beings ('asqd a' instead of 'na a' which is the reading of all others ). Sutras (7-12) forming an adhikarana prove that the mention of asat as the cause of the world does not involve any contradiction, since it is only meant for denying that ast can be the cause. And even in pralaya, the non- existence (asttcr) of the world and its cause is contrary to reason ; for, instances can be given in favour of saltra, but none in favour of asattva. Nor can we resort to another mode of reasoning than this; for in that manner, moksa and the otner things, admitted to be true so far, will have to be given up. In the same way, i. e. owing to the presence of favourable instances and the absence of unfavourable instances, all other doctrines not accepted by Śruti can be repudiated. Sutra 13, which comes next and forms adhikarana 5, is very interesting, since each commentator has his own peculiar way of interpreting it. According to Samkara, it teaches that although the enjoying souls ( bhoktr ) and the object of enjoy- ment ( bhogya ) are really non-different from Brahman, still they will not necessarily be identical with each other, i. e. their mutual distinction may at the same time be main- tained; just as, for instance, in the world the waves and ripples, though all non-different from the sea, still pre- serve their mutual discinction. Vallabha strictly follows Samkara, though he takes another instance, i. e. that of the brace- let and the ear-ring, both being non-different from gold, at the same time, being individually distinguished from one another. He also prefaces his explanacion hy savino 'कममवं पग्हित्व कार्यदोष रर्रह र्िम्' 'SO far the objections revarding the cnuse were removed; now we proceed to remove those with regard to che effeci ( i. e. the world consistinc of enjoying souls and the objects of enjoyment )'.

Raminuja, however, translates the sutra thus :- 'If it be said that from ( Brahman ) becoming an enjoyer there f llows non-distinc- tion ( of Brahman and jiva ) ; we reply, it may be as in ordinsry life'. If the cit and acit, whether in a suitable or gross condition, form the body of Brahman, then Brahman heing as much embodi- ed as the jiva, would like him, be also an enjoyer; so the differ- ence of nature between Isvara and jiva ( i. e. that one is the en-

78 THE VEDANTA

joyer, while the other is not ) would no longer be possible. No, we reply,it would be possible, because bhoktrtva, 'being an enjoyer', is not due to mere sa-śariratva ' having a body', but to karma- vasyatva ' being subject to merit and demerit.' And we see in the world that a king, though an embodied being just like his servants, does not experience their pleasure and pain.

Nimbaraka very similarly explains thus: If Brahman is the cause of the world, then Brahman, in the form of jiva would have to be the experiencer of pleasure and pain ; and so the distinction between Brahman and jiva that Brahman is niyantr, 'thec ontroller,' and jiva is the bhoktr,' the enjoyer,' would no longer be possible. The reply is that it would be possible simultaneously with the non-difference of Brahman and jiva, just as, for instance, the sea and the wave, or the sun and the lustre, are both non-different and different. According to Madhva, the sutra teaches thus: If the indivi- dual soul ( bhoktr ), when released, is described as being one with the Highest Self, so that there is non-difference between the two, then, even before release, we shall have to admit a similar non- difference ; for, that which is once different can never be non-differ- ent. The reply is that the released soul, though being one with the highest self, still continues to preserve its difference, just as one mass of water mixed with another becomes apparently one, but is really different and not the same, as is proved, for instance, by the increase in the volume of the water.

The difference of interpretation mainly turns on the transla- tion of the word bhoktrapatti. Samkara and Vallabha take it to mean 'the bhoktr becoming bhogys and the bhogya becoming bhoktr,' Ramanuja and Nibarka, 'Brahman being the bhoktr' and Madhva, 'the bhoktr being Brahman.' Now it is quite evident that the first translation is not natural. The Sutrakara would rather have said 'इतरेतरभवापनेः' or 'भोक्तभोग्यापनः'. And moreover, the question of the difference or non difference between bhoktr and bhogya seems to be rather out of place, inspite of the explanation given by Val- labha. For, we expect something regarding the relation between cause and effect ( and this is the subject of the following sūtra also ); and the question regarding the relation between Brahman and the

ANALYSIS 79

material world being already disposed of in the third adhikarana, the Sutrakara would naturally occupy himself with its sequel, i. e. the relation between Brahman and jiva as cause and effect. Also the illustration of the wave and ripple and the sea does not quite fit in with the bhoktr, the bhogya and the brahman; for the relation between bhoktr and bhogya cannot bear comparison with that between a wave and a ripple or that between a bracelet and an ear-ring. And how is it conceivable that one who held the doctrine of absolute monism should devote a separate adhikarana to the establishing of the difference between bhoktr and bhogya ? And as usual, Samkara comes forth with his explanation. that what this sutra has to say does not refer to the highest verity, but only to the popular conception. Madhva explains the sūtra so as to establish his doctrine of absolute difference between Brahman and jiva; but his way of taking the word ' bhoktrapatteh' is far from satisfactory; and moreover, his reference to the released condition of the individual soul makes the adhikarana more appropriate in the phaladhyaya; and Madhva himself, conscious of this, tries to show the propriety of the adhikarana in the present pada which deals with a-virodha or the removal of contradictions: 'फलत्वे अि यु्तिविरोधे अन्तर्भावाद- त्रोक्तम् '

Ramanuja's way of taking the word 'bhoktrapatteh' is the most natural; and the question he refers to is also quite in place here. He also quotes the authority of the Dramida-bhāsyakāra in support of his view, and, before concluding, tries to show the unreasonableness of Samkara's way of interpretation, by remarking that no one ever doubts the difference or non-difference between bhogya and bhoktr, whatever be the relation between Brahman and the Universe as cause and effect. The same remarks may be made about Nimbarka's explanation, though he tries to bring out more clearly his doctrine of 'bhedābheda '. Adhikarana 6 ( sūtras 14-20 ) states according to all except Madhva the Vedanta-doctrine of the non-difference between cause and effect, which is opposed to the Vaisesika view accord- ding to which the effect is something new created from the cause.

80 THE VEDANTA

But this non-difference itself is interpreted by the different com- mentators according to their respective doctrines. Thus Samkara thinks that the non-difference of cause and effect means that the cause alone is the reality ; while the effect is mere delusion; some- thing super-imposed upon the cause. Brahman alone therefore is the reality; while the universe, both intelligent and non-intelligent. is only illusory ( vivarta ). Rāmānuja thinks that the effect is only a modification of the cause (parinama); thus Brahman with the cit and the acit in their subtle condition as body is the cause, which sometimes transforms itself into the effect, Brahman with the cit and the acit in their gross condition as body. Nimbarka explains 'ananytva' as 'na atyantabhinnatva'' not absolute difference' and holds that the effect is both different and non-different from the cause. Vallabha maintains a non-difference without any reference to maya. The passage, expressly referred to in sutra 14, is that which contains the word-'arambhana'- 'वाचार्म्णं विकारो नामधेयं मृनतिकेत्येव सधम्' (Chand. VI. 1. 1. All depends upon how the word 'vacarambhanam' is understood. Samkara translates it thus-'the modification ( i. e. the effect, the thing made of clay) is a name merely, which has its origin in speech, while the truth is that it is clay merely.' Thus he deduces the doctrine of mithyatva, the unreality of all effects, Brahman alone being real. Rāmānuja translates it thus :- ' on account of speech ( i. e. for the sake of the accomplishment of certain activities such as the bringing of water etc., which are preceded by speech ) the clay takes an effect (form) and a name; they all( the things made of olay ) are clay, this only is true ', i. e. the substance clay itself receives a new configuration and a new name. A little consideration will show us that Samkara's interpreta- tion is open to the objection that the two words 'vacarambhanam' and 'namadheyam' convey the same idea and are almost synonyms, so that one of the words is superfluous; whereas, according to Ramanuja the two words convey two distinct ideas. 'Namadheyam ' means 'name' as opposed to'form'; while ' vacarambhanam' means 'having nothing but a practical purpose in view,' the idea being that the products of clay, for instance, are clay, with the difference, however, that they can serve a. practical purpose, which clay in itself cannot.

ANALYSIS 81

The illustration of clay and its products is dis- tinctly in favour of the parinama-vada and makes it difficult to deduce the vivartavāda. Vallabha very aptly makes some scathing remarks against those who deduce the doctrine of the unreality of all products from the Upanisad passage in question, which is quite against the spirit of the whole seotion and which is not supported at all by the wording of the sutra before us. Ramanuja also criticises Samkara's explanation. To the same conclusion lead the two illustrations in the sūtras 19 and 20. The effect is non-different from the cause just as a piece of cloth is non-different from the threads etc. of which it is made, or just as the different vital airs performing different functions and as such receiving different names are none but the vital air. All this only supports the parinamavada and cannot, even by the highest stretch of imagination, be made to favour the vivartavada. Madhva, on the other hand, interprets the adhikarana differ- ently. According to him the question is whether Brahman wants the help of Karanas or instruments like ordinary agents in this world. The reply is that Isvara creates the world without the help of any other instrument ( ananyatvam ) as is seen from Rgveda X. 81. 2, in which all instruments etc., are denied. 'कं स्विद् आरम्भणभ्,' etc. And if there had been any such instruments they might have been known or demonstrated in the Vedas; but as a matter of fact they are not. The remaining sutras of the adhikarana are also interpreted by him in the same strain. It is quite evi- dent that the topic is irrelevant in the present place. Adhikarana 7 ( sūtras 21-23 ) answers the objection that if Brahman and jiva are exactly identical, as evidently follows from such passages as ' tat tvam asi ' etc., then the Lord would be open to such faults as not always doing what is good and he would be also subject to the miseries of the worldly existence, by saying that Brahman is something over and above and superior to jiva, because their difference is clearly and explicitly stated as in Brhad. Upa. II. 4. 5 ' the self is to be seen, to be heard etc.' and elsewhere ( Chand. Upa. VIII. 7.1, Brhad. Up. IV. 3. 35 ). This adhikarana leaves not the slighest doubt that according to the sūtrakāra, the jiva and the Brahman cannot be absolutely non-differ- ont as understood by Samkara ; and one can easily see that Samkara Ghate, Vedānta, 11.

82 THE VEDANTA

was conscious of this, since he comes forth with his usual expla- nation that the difference, maintained in sutra 22, is not real, but due to the soul's fictitious limiting adjuncts. On the other hand, Rāmanuja, Nimbarka and Vallabha simply follow the words of the sutras, of which sutra 21 formulates the objection, while sūtra 22 states the reply. Sutra 23 is explained by Samkara to mean that the objections raised by others cannot be established, because the case is analogous to that of stones etc., i. e. just as some stones are worthless and others are very precious, though all are alike stones, in the same way one and the same Brahman may perform different kinds of functions (नदनुपपनिः=रकल्पितद्ोषानुपपनिः). Ramanuja, however, explains thus :- 'just as the material world or acit, ( of which stones are & type ) can never be absolutely identical' with Paramatman in the same way, the jiva or cit can never be absolutely identical with the Paramatman ( तदनुपपनि := इतरव्यपदेशानुन- qa: ). Nimbarka has :- 'the jiva though non-different from Brahman is at the same time, individually different, just like adamant, diamond etc., which are all modifications of the element earth ( prthivi ).' Vallabha interprets somewhat similarly to Samkara. It is difficult to say which of these interpretations is more natural than others, still sutra 22 ' अ.धकं तु भढनिर्देशात् ' decides the purport of the adhikarana beyond doubt.

Adhikarana 8 ( sūtras 24-25 ) affirms, according to all except Madhva, that Brahman can create the world by its mere will, without the employment of other external instruments, just as gods can do ; and just as milk can, of itself, turn into curds. Adhikarana 9 ( sutras 26-29 ) teaches that Brahman can create the world, witnout entirely passing over into it, and at the same time remaining one and undivided ; for it is so stated ex- pressly in the scriptures. Adhikarana 10 (sūtras 30-31 ) says that Brahman, although unassisted by other means, can create the world, by virtue of its manifold wondrous powers. Rāmānuja and Nimbarka regard sutras 26-31 as forming one adhikarana, though they agree with Samkara as regards their general purport. However, Samkara would explain this sort of the creation of the world, by its illusory character ; while Ramanuja would say that the creation of the world means merely the visible and tangible manifestation of what previously existed in Brahman in a subtle,

ANALYSIS 83

imperceptible condition. Vallabha explains the creation as being possible through the unfathomable greatness and the incompre- hensible powers ( aisvarya ) of Brahman in which all sorts of opposites are possible.

Adhikarana 11 ( sutras 32-33 ) states that Brahman in creating the world has no purpose but mere sport. Adhikarana 12 (sutras 34-36 ) says that Brahman cannot be laid open to the charges of cruelty and partiality owing to the unequal fortunes of the beings in this world and the universal suffering; for Brahman acts only with a view to the merit and demerit of the individual souls; and this succession of merit and demerit and their corresponding consequences, i. e. this Samsara, is without beginning. Adhika- rana 13 ( sūtra 37 ) finishes the pada by declaring that all the qualities, such as omniscience or omnipotence, are possible in Brah- man and thus make it capable of the creation of the world. Vallabha, Rāmanuja and Nimbārka agree as regards the inter- pretation, although Ramanuja regards sūtras (32-37) as forming one adhikarana.

Madhva, on the other hand, regards sutras ( 21-26 ) as forming one adhikarana, whose object is to refute the view that jiva is an independent creator of the universe. If the jiva were such an inde- pendent agent, he should always do what is good and never do what is bad; but as a matter of fact, the case is quite the contrary; there- fore, jiva cannot be an independent agent (21). Paramesvara, on the other hand, is possessed of superior powers and therefore no such faults are possible in his case ( 22 ). And the jiva, even though intelligent like Parameśvara, cannot possibly be the maker of the world, because he is dependent and not a master of himself, just like the non-intelligent stones etc. ( 23). If it be said that this denial of kartrtva to jiva is not right, because he is seen to finish or put an end to things, we reply, that even in this he is depend- ent on Isvara ( 24 ). Isvara, though unseen, can be the maker just like gods and goblins etc. ( 25 ). Moreover, if jīva is the maker, either he should exert his whole strength entirely in every little thing,-but this is not seen,-or he should exert himself only partially,-but that would contradict his being one without parts. For all these reasons jiva cannot be an independent creator (26).

84 THE VEDANTA

Sūtras ( 27-31 ) form another adhikarana which says that no similar objections can be brought against the Paramesvara being the independent creator ; for his kartrtva is based on śruti ( 27). And Paramesvara does possess marvellous and manifold powers ( 28 ). And all the objections raised above can be applicable only to jiva but not to Isvara ( 29 ). Isvara is moreover possessed of all powers ( without exception ) ( 30). Nor can the objection on the ground of the absence of helping instruments be raised, because such absence is admitted by the scriptures. The remaining sūtras of the pāda are divided into adhikaranas and interpreted just in the same way as is done by Samkara. ADHYĀYA II, PĀDA 2. In the second pāda of the second adhyāya, the Sūtrakāra pro- ceeds to refute the philosophical theories regarding the origin of the world which are opposed to the Vedant view, by means of speculative argument, independent of passages from the sorip- tures. Adhikarana 1 ( sūtras 1-10 ) is, according to all except Madhva, directed against the Samkhyas and goes to prove that & non-intelligent cause like the pradhana cannot possibly create or proceed with any activity without the guidance of an intelli- gent being. The secoud sutra means according to Samkara and Nimbārka that' the pradhana cannot be the cause, because of the impossibility of activity, thus implying the word ' anupapatteh' from the first sutra. Ramanuja has: 'because a non-intelligent cause is seen to be active' when guided by an intelligent being (नज्ज्ञानाधिष्ठितम्य कार्यारम्भप्रवृनेर्डर्शना्ञ). Sutra 4 is also interpreted differently by Samkara, Rāmānuja and Vallabha; but the differences are of no material importance. At the end of this adhikarana, Ramānuja remarks that the doctrine of the nirvisesa Brahman is even more unreasonable than the Samkhya doctrine, in that the latter admits of a plurality of souls to account for births and deaths; while the māyavadins do not even admit that. Madhva regards sūtras ( 1-4 ) as forming one adhikarana refuting the nirisvara-samkhyas, sutra 5 as another adhikarana refuting the Sesvara-samkhyas, sutra 6 as the third adhikarana, levelled against the cārvākas, sūtras (7-8) as the fourth adhikarana, denying the activity of the primordial matter as being subordinate to the purusa ( पुरुषोपसर्जनप्रकृतिकतृत्व ) and sutras (9-10) as forming

ANALYSIS 85

the fifth adhikarana, directed against the activity of the purusa being subordinate to the primordial matter ( प्रकृत्युपसर्जनपुरुषकर्तृत्व). The next sutra (11) forms an adhikarana by itself according to Samkara, who sees in it a reply to the objection raised by the Vaisesika against the doctrine of the intelligent Brahman being the cause of the universe. Just as a binary atomic com- pound differs in its dimensions from the cause, the atoms, in the same way the world may be produced from Brahman and may .not possess all its qualities. Sutras 12-17 form an adhikarana refuting the doctrine of the Vaisesikas, according to whom the world is created from atoms set in motion by the adrsta. According to all the other commentators, however, sutras 11-17 form one adhikarana directed against the Vaisesikas, sūtra 11 meaning that the whole of the Vaisesika doctrine is unreasonable, just like the production of the binary and tertiary atomic com- pounds from the atoms and binary atomic compounds respective- ly, though they differ in dimensions; and this appears, no doubt a more reasonable procedure than that of Samkara ; for in the midst of the refutation of the several doctrines, opposed to the Vedanta, with which the entire pada is occupied, it is rather awkward to understand one solitary sutra as answering an objection raised against the Vedanta-doctrine, especially on the ground of the vilaksanatva or the difference of nature between cause and effect, a point which has been sufficiently thrashed in the preceding pāda. Sūtras ( 18-32 ) are directed againsi the Bauddhas who can be distinguished either as bāhyāthavādins or sarvāstitva-vādins ( Realists ), according to whom both material objects and their cognitions are real, or as viiñāna-vādins or yopācāras ( Ideslists ), who hold that ideas only are real and that external objects apart from their cognitions have no independent existence, or as sūnyavādins ( Nihilists ) according to whom everything is void or unreal. According

86 THE VEDANTA

and Nimbarka agree with Samkara in all points except that they regard this last sutra as directed against the Nihilists. Madhva regards sutras 18-25 as directed against the Realists, sūtras 26-29 against the Nihilists and sutras 30-32 against the Idealists. Owing to the peculiar nature of the sūtras, it is not possible to decide exactly which sutras refute which particular school of the Bauddhas, though Prof. Stcherbatskoi holds that the Buddhist doctrine referred to in the sūtras is the vijnānavāda and Prof. Jacobi that it the sunyavada,* not to speak of the fact that what is a refutation of the idealist ( e. g. proving the existence of external objects ) may as well be a refutation of the nihilist. The truth of this may be illustrated by noting here some of the sūtras which have been interpreted differently. Thus sūtra 26 ' 87: aaria' is explained by Samkara, Vallabha and Nimbārka to mean that an entity cannot spring from a non-entity on account of this being not observed, whereas the Bauddhas who deny the existence of permanent stable causes are driven to maintain that an entity springs from a non-entity. Ramanuja, who directs the sūtra against the sautrantika Bauddhat in particular, maintaining that s thing can become an object of cognition, even though not in actual existence at the time of the cognition, interprets it thus : 'The special forms of cognition such as blue colour etc. cannot be the forms of things that have perished and therefore are not in being, since this is not observed. For it is never observed that when a substrate of attributes has perished, its attributes pass over into another thing.' Madhva directing the sutra against the Nihilist explains it to mean that a non-entity (sunya) cannot be the cause, because, it is never so observed. So also sūtra 28, according to Samkara, Nimbārka and Vallabha, means that the non-exi- stence of external things cannot be maintained, on account of our consciousness of them. According to Ramanuja it means: The non-existence of things apart from ideas cannot be maintained, be- cause we are conscious of cognitions as something that renders the knowing subject capable of thought and intercourse with regard to particular things'. According to Madhva, who directs the sūtra * Journal Am. Or. Society, Vol. 31. t The Realistic Bauddhas are of two kinds,-Sautrantikas, who hold that external objects are only inferrable, and the Vaibhasikas, according to whom they are also perceptible.

ANALYSIS 87

against the Nihilists, it means: 'It should not be said that the world itself is a void ( Sunya ), for we actually see it.' Sūtra 30, according to Samkara, Nimbarka and Vallabha, maintains the impossibilty of the existence of mental impressions in the absence of the perception of external objects; while according to Rāmā- nuja, it maintains the impossibity of the existence of mere cogni- tions devoid of corresponding things, owing to our never perceiv- ing cognitions not referring to a cognising object. Madhva, di- recting the sutra against the idealist, explains it to mean that the world cannot be mere idea or thought, because of the absence of such a consciousness in us. The next adhikarana (sutras 33-36) contains a refutation of the Jaina doctrine and sutras 37-41, forming a single adhikarana, are directed against the Pasupatas, according to whom Isvara is only the operating or efficient cause of the universe, but not its material cause. The last adhikarana of the pada ( sūtras 42-45 ) refers to the Pancaratra or Bhagavata doctrine. According to Samkara and Vallabha, this is also refuted just like the other doctrines in the rest of the pada. According to Ramanuja, however, the first two sūtras only of the adhikarana ( 42-43 ) contain objections against the doctrine in question ; but the last two sūtras ( 44-45 ) refute those objections and ultimately establish the Bhagavata doctrine, which is, thus, the doctrine held by the Sūtrakāra. Nim- bärka agreeing neither with Samkara nor with Rāmānuja, re- gards the adhikarana as a refutation of the Sakti doctrine, ac- cording to which, the Sakti, independent of the intelligent being, can create the world. Madhva also follows Nimbarka. To come to the meaning of the sutras individually, Samkara commences by remarking that the Bhagavata doctrine deserves our acceptance, so far as it holds that Isvara is both the efficient and material cause of the Universe. So also when it says that the one holy Väsudeva, whose nature is pure knowledge, is what really exists, and that he, dividing himself in four parts, ap- pears in four forms as Vasudeva (denoting the Highest Self ), Sam- karsana (individual soul), Pradyumna (the mind), and Aniruddha ( the principle of egoism ), we have nothing to object. But when it

88 THE VEDANTA

further adds that Samkarsana springs from Vasudeva, Pradyumna from Samkarsana, and Aniruddha from Pradyumna, we must take exception to it. For it is impossible that the individual soul would spring from the Highest Self, which would make the for- mer non-eternal ( 42 ); nor is it observed that the instrument ( i. e. the mind ) is produced from the agent ( i. e. the individual soul, 43 ). Or even if it be said that in consequence of their being endowed with knowledge, glory, ruling capacity etc., Samkar- sana and others are really all Lords, all Vasudevas, free from faults, and without any imperfections, still the objection raised above remains uncontradicted ( 44 ). And moreover, the Bhaga- vata doctrine cannot be accepted owing to there being many contradictions in the doctrine itself and owing to its containing many passages contradictory of the Vedas ( e. g. 'not having found the highest bliss in the Vedas, Sandilya studied this Sastra'). Vallabha follows Sainkara except in sutra 44, where 'तद् अप्रतिषेधात्' is explained by him to mean 'ईश्वगणां अप्रतिषेधात्' i.e. because of the plura- lity of lords-which is unreasonable-remaing uncontradicted. Rāmānuja, however, translating the first two sūtras just like Samkara, explains sūtra 44 thus :- 'or if they are of the nature of that which is knowledge and so on, there is no contradiction of that ( i. e. the Bhagavata doctrine ).' What the doctrine really means is that Samkarsana etc., are of the nature of the highest Brahman, which, from kindness to those devoted to it, voluntarily abides in a fourfold form, so as to render itself accessible to its devotees, its birth being nothing but a voluntary assumption of bodily form. Sutra 45, moreover, says that the origination of the jiva, which is brought forth as an objection, is distinctly controverted in the books of the Bhāgavatas also. Rāmānuja winds up the adhikarana with a long discursion on the authoritativeness of the Bhagavata doctrine, being strongly recommended in the Mahabharata, by Vyasa himself, the author of the sutras, and remarks that the statement that Sandilya, not finding any satisfaction in sruti and smrti, at last found it in this doctrine is opposed in no way to sruti and smrti, on the other hand, it means a high eulogy of them. Nimbarka explains the sutras thus :-- It is impossible that the world can be produced ( from sakti without the purusa ) (42)

ANALYSIS 89

( If you think that the purusa is there in touch with the sakti ), still there is no instrument, ( because all instruments are pro- duced only after the creation has begun ) (43 ). And if you think that the sakti is possessed of inherent knowledge etc., then there is no objection (because you have thereby come over to our doctrine of Brahman ) (44). ( Moreover the doctrine of sakti cannot be accepted ), because it is opposed to sruti etc. ( 45 ) .* It is very difficult to decide which of these interpretations is the correct one, especially, whether the adhikarana is only a refu- tation of the Bhägavata doctrine or whether it aims at establishing it. Between the two explanations of sutra 44, which turns the whole drift of the adhikarana, there is nothing to choose;t and the argument that it is not an un-natural procedure to end the polemical päda with the defence of the doctrine which is to be viewed as the true one is without force ; since, the exposition and defence of the true doctrine, whatever it be, is the subject directly or indirectly of the whole book, and, what is more important, we do not meet with, even once in the sūtras, terms like Vāsudeva, Samkarsana etc., so peculiar to the Pañcarātra doctrine; not to mention the fact that Ramanuja is the only commentator who sees in this adhikarana such a defence of the doctrine. The fact that this particular doctrine is refuted last of all, can be explained by the circumstance that it is the most allied to the Vedanta doctrine, and Samkara has adm tted this at the beginning of the adhi- karana, as we have remarked above. ADHYĀYA II, PĀDA 3. The third pada of the second adhyaya proceeds to discuss the question whether the different forms of existence which constitute the universe are produced or not. The first fifteen sūtras deal with the elements, while the remainder of the pada deals with the individual soul. Adhikarana 1 ( sūtras 1-7 ) teaches that the * It is very curious that, though Srinivasa in the Kaustubha exactly follows the Parijatasaurabha of Nimbarka, Kesava-kasmirin in the Kaustu- bhaprabha begins with a lengthy explanation, word for wordid entical with that in the Sribhasya, and in the end very briefly observes that, really speaking, this adhikarana should be a refutation of the śakti doctrine, and then gives a short explanation, exactly following Nimbarka and Srīnivasa. # Perhaps the particle ' va' in the sutra 44 goes well with Samk ara's way of interpreting. Ghate, Vodanta, 12.

90 THE VEDANTA

ether is not co-eternal with Brahman, but springs from it as its first effect. Adhikarana 2 ( sutra 8 ) shows that air similarly springs from ether. Adhikarana 3 ( sūtra 9 ) is a kind of digres- sion saying that Brahman, which is only sat 'that which is' cannot have originsted from anything else. These nine sūtras are regarded by Ramanuja as one adhikarana, without any special rea- son ; the other commentators are in entire accordance with Samkara. The next three sutras ( 10-12 ), forming three adhikaranas, teach respectively that fire springs from air, water from fire, and earth from water. Adhikarana 7 ( sutra 13 ) proves that it is Brahman only in these various forms, to which the creation of the elements is due; and that it is not effected by the elements themselves. Adhikarana 8 ( sutra 14 ) teaches that the order of re-absorption of the elements is just inverse to that of their creation or emission. Adhikarana 9 ( sūtra 15 ) observes that the above-mentioned order of creation and absorption of the elements is not disturbed by the organs of sense and the mind; for these latter, being themselves of elemental nature, are created and destroyed along with the elements of which they consist. Thus Samkara has six adhikaranas for the six sūtras (10-15); and Vallabha is quite in accordance with him. Rāmānuja, however, regards all these sūtras ( 10-15 ) as form- ing one adhikarana, of which sūtras 10-12 ( sūtra 12 is split into two by Rāmānuja 'prthivī and adhikāra etc.' ) form the pūrva- paksa, stating that every preceding element itself produces the subsequent element, and sūtra 13 begins the siddhānta to the effect that it is Brahman that creates. Sūtra 14 is interpret- ed by him differently so as to be an argument in favour of the siddhanta view in sūtra 13: 'The order of succession ( kramah ) which is contained in such passages as 'एतम्माज्जायते प्राणः मनः सर्वेन्द्रियाणि च। खं वायुज्योनिगप: पृथिषी विश्वस्य धारिणी॥ ( Mund. Up.2.1.3), describing the direct origination from Brahman of all effects, and which is reverse ( viparyayena ) from the order mentioned so far ( i. e. each preceding element producing the subsequent one ) is possible ( upipadyate ) only on the supposition of the origination of each effect being really from Brahman itself ( atah ) in the form of a special causal substance.' That this interpretation is far less natural than the one given by Samkara goes without saying.

ANALYSIS 91

Nimbarka also, just like Ramanuja, regards sutras 10-13 as one adhikarana of which sūtras 10-12 state the pūrvapaksa and sūtra 13 states the siddhanta; but he reads sutras 14-15 as forming two separate adhikaranas and interpretes them just like Samkara. Madhva regards sutras 10-14 as forming five adhikaranas; but he interprets the sūtras 10-12 as meaning that the elements are all produced from Visnu and not that the subsequent element is produced from the preceding one. Sutra 13 is interpreted as asserting that not only the creation but the destruction also proceeds from Visnu ard from no other being such as Rudra etc. Sutras 15 and 16 according to him form one adhikarana, sūtra 15 stating the pūrvapaksa and sūtra 16, the siddhānta. Sūtra 16 and the rest of the pada deal with the nature of the individual soul, and as such is very important for our purpose. As we know, all the five schools agree in holding that the jiva is unborn and eternal ; and that the birth and death, spoken of in the case of the jiva, are only metaphorical, as they really belong to the body of the individual soul. This is the purpose of sūtra 16. Samkara, Nimbārka and Vallabha agree literally. Rāmānuja ( according to whom this is sutra 17, forming part of the preceding adhikarana ), on the other hand, interprets the sutra differently thus :- The words in ordinary use, which are connected with and thus denote the moving and non- moving things, possess with regard to Brahman a denctative power which is not secondary but primary and direct ( Rāmānuja reads ' a-bhaktah' while others read 'thaktah' ), because the de- notative power of all words is dependent on the being of Brahman. The very obscurity of the explanation is sufficient for its rejection. Madhva's interpretation also is equally unsatisfactory. He con- nects it with the preceding sutras and thus explains :- The produc- tion of vijnana from manas (which has been put forth as disturbing the order of creation and that of destruction, which are exactly opposite ) does not mean that the category called vijñāna is produced from the category called manas; but it only means that knowledge arises from the act of reflection, referring to moving and non-moving things; this is thus a kind of metaphorical statement. The next sūtra (17) means that the individal soul is never

92 THE VEDĀNTA

produced; because the scriptures never speak about its produo- tion, on the other hand, everywhere assert its oternal character. Here Sarkara and Nimbarka read 'न आत्मा अभ्रुतेः' while Ramanuja, Vallabha and Madhva read 'a r a: '; but that does not make any difference as regards the ultimate sense. Here also all agree in referring this sutra to the denial of birth for the individual soul, except Madhva, who explains it to mean that the soul, i. e. the Parmätman is not destroyed or absorbed in some- thing else. That the interpretation of the preceding sūtra, as given by Ramanuja, is not natural enough follows from the following sutra itself; since the denal of the birth of the jiva is the logical corollary of the statement that the so-called birth and death of the jiva really belong to the material body.

The next sutra (18) which runs as 's: 37: (a ' is interpreted by Samkara to mean that the individual soul is 'Knowledge' (jnanam); while Ramanuja and Nimbarka explain it to mean that the jiva is a knower * (ज्ञानस्वरूपत्वे सनि ज्ञानाश्रयः), Nimbarka taking it as an adhikarana by itself like Samkara, while Rāmanuja connecting it with the following sutras. Vallabha, who also holds with Ramanuja and Nimbarka that ' knowledge' or 'intelligence' is an attribute ( guna or dharma ) of the jiva, interprets the sūtra &s stating the prima facie view, according to which jiva is know- ledge and is therefore Brahman itself, and all distinctions are due to the principle of Maya; though really, the jiva is a part (amsa ) of Brahman, and is related to it just as sparks are related to fire. And, while refuting this view, Vallabha makes the very interesting remarks: तस्मात् तदंशस्य तव्धपदेशवाक्यमात्रं स्व्रीकृत्य शिटपरिप्रहार्थ माध्यमिकस्य एव अपरावतागे नितगं सद्रिरुपेक्ष्यः 'The Maya- vädin is only an incarnation of the idealist Buddhist, who takes his stand on only those statements in which what is only a part is spoken of by the name of the whole, using this device only to make his doctrine acceptable to the learned.' Of course : this interpretation of the sutra is far-fetched, though it makes no material difference, as ultimately he means that the soul is a knower. Madhva, as usual, has an absolutely new interpre- tation that the knowing self ( jñah ), i. e. jiva, is produced from

. Jna ought to mean ' knower'; see Pan. III. I 135 (ff'

ANALYSIS 93

the Paramatman ( spoken of, according to him, in the preceding sūtra ), and after this, he resds a new sutra ' y% ', not found in any other bhasya, and explains it to mean that such a birth, with reference to the upadhi or the limiting adjunct in the form of the body etc., is possible or reasonable in his case, though he is otherwise beginningless and eternal. Madhva's interpretation, though plausible in itself, has to be rejected, as it necessarily depends upon a reference to the Paramatman in the preceding sutra,-an interpretation which is without doubt far- fetched. And as between Samkara on the one hand and Rāmā- nuja and Nimbarka on the other hand, the latters' view is acceptable, since the word 'jnah' can mean only 'one who knows 'and not 'knowledge' ; and if indeed the sūtrakāra had held the doctrine of Samkara that the jiva is ' knowledge' and thus absolutely non-different from Brahman, we should have expected him to say 'jñanam ', instead of saying 'jñah' and then understanding it in the sense of ' jnanam.' There is a similar diversity of interpretation regarding the following adhikarna, which is made up of sūtras 19-32. After a discussion of the beginninglessness and the knowledge of the individual soul, the next question naturally concerns the spatiality* of the soul, whether it is all-pervading ( vibhu ), or of the middle size ( madhyama-parimāna ) or atomic ( anu ). Re- garding the literal or verbal sense of the sūtras, there is, in general, no difference of opinion; but it is regarding the general purport of the adhikarana that materially different opinions are held. Sūtras 19-28 affirm that the jiva is anu or atomic in size; but this is regarded as the siddhanta by all ex- cept Samkara, who regards it as only the prima facie view to te refuted immediately in sūtras 29-32. Before deciding which of these ways is more natural, it is necessary to examine the sūtras in detail. As regards sutras ( 19-28 ), all agree in the interpretation, except that Ramanuja and Nimbarka regard ' व्यतिरेको गन्धवत्, नथा च दर्शयति' as one sūtra, instead of regarding them as two sūtras as Samkara and Vallabha do. The real difference * Pariņāma, lit. dimension, signifies here the soul's relation in space, i. e. spatiality.

94 THE VEDANTA

turns upon the interpretation of sutra 29 which runs thus: 'नदणसारत्वात् तु नव्यफ्वेशः प्राज्ञषत्' and which may be literally translated : 'but, on account of that quality ( or those qualities or the qualities of that ) being the essence. there is that designation ( or the designation of that ), just as is the case, for example with the prūjña. " Now, Samkara begins the siddhanta with this sūtra, refuting the atomic size of the jiva. He means that the jiva, though really all-pervading and non-different from Brahman, is called anu, be- cause, the qualities of the Buddhi, the limiting adjunct, form its essence, as long as it is in the condition of the worldly existence; in other words, the samsaritva of the jiva consists essentially in its being limited by and possessing the qualities of the Buddhi, and so the atomic size of the Buddhi is only metaphorically pre- dicated of the jiva and ( sūtra 30 ) this connection of the jiva with Buddhi lasts as long as the jiva continues to be in samsāra i. e., continues to be jiva; and so there is no difficulty and ( sutra 31 ) this connection with Buddhi, though not manifested in the state of deep sleep for instance, is present all the same. And ( sūtra 32 ) if we do not admit of such a Buddhi or internal sense-organ, the jiva would be always perceiving or would never perceive. Thus Samkara ultimately establishes that the jiva is- really not anu. Rāmanuja, on the other hand, interprets sūtra 29 thus: The jiva, though really a knower, is, however, designated as knowledge, because that quality, knowledge, forms his very essence. It must be remembered here that Ramanuja tackles on the sūtra (18), ' the self is a knower', with this adhikarana. If the soul, says he, is a knower by his vory nature, then he will be knowing every thing, in every place, if he is all-pervading. This objection is answered by saying that the jiva is not all-pervading, but only atomic in size. After having established this point in nine sūtras, he again turns back to the original question of the relation betwee jlva and jnana. If jnana is only an attribute of jiva, how is it called jñāna, instead of jñātr ? Because, he replies, jñāna is the very essence of him. And ( sūtra 30) as knowledge ever continues to be his essence, such a designaticn involves no objection. And ( sūtra 31 ) this knowledge is present always,

ANALYSİS 95

thou th it may be sometimes not manifested, e. g. in the state of deep sleep. And ( sūtra 32 ) if the jiva is only knowledge and not a knower, and if he is all-pervading and not atomic, then there would be always perception or always non-perception. Nimbarka holds with Ramanuja that anutva is the siddhanta; but interprets the last four sutras differently. The jiva, though really atomic in size, is sometimes designated as all-pervading, because the quality of knowledge, which is all-pervading, forms his essence; in other words, the jiva, which is gunin (the qualified), is sometimes designated as all-pervading on account of the all-pervading nature of his guna ( attribute ); and this guņa continues to be always with the gunin in all conditions, whatever the condition of the latter, though it may be sometimes manifested and sometimes not; otherwise, that is, if the jiva by its nature were all-pervading, its bondage and release would be impossible or would be always present. Vallabha interprets the last four sutras in a still different way. The jiva though anu, is designated as Brahman, e. g. in such sentences as 'Hfa', because the qualities of Brahman form the essence of jiva, distinguishing it from the inanimate world. Here also Vallabha passes some scathing remarks against the Mayaradins, who misunderstand such passages as 'arauia* and deduce therefrom the doctrine of Māyā.

Madhva regards sutras 19-26 as one adhikarana, establishing the atomic size of the soul ; then he takes sūtra 27 as an adhikarana by itself, trying to reconcile the passages, speaking of the uniform or multiform nature of the jiva; he then reads sutras 28-29 as another adhikarana,-which is very interesting as it attempts to reconcile passages like 'araaa ,-speaking of the non-difference of jiva and Brahman, with passages like 'द्वा सपर्णा सयुना सखवाया' etc., which speak of their difference. Sutrs 28 would state the siddhanta that the jiva is different from Brahman, owing to such & mention in the scriptures ; ( it is to be remembered here that this very sütra has been interpreted by the other commentators as referring to the difference between the thing qualified, the jiva and the quality, knowledge) ; and sūtra 29 would say that there is the statement of non-difference, only on account of the fact that the

96 THE VEDĀNTA

attributes of Brahman, such as knowledge, bliss etc. form the essence or nature of jiva.

Now if we compare all these interpretations, especially of sūtra 29, we find that none is quite satisfactory by itself; and an impartial critic, it would appear, will find the interpretations of Samkara and Ramanuja least satisfactory of all. That the Sūtrakārs is in favour of the atomic size of the individual soul is very probable, though not absolutely certain. It is no doubt curious, as Thibaut observes that as many as nine sutras should be devoted to the statement of a mere prima facie view to be refuted afterwards. At the same time such s course is not impossible and especially the word 'tu' ( but ) in sutra 29, leads us at first sight to believe that a new point of the siddhanta, as opposed to the prima facie view, begins. But Samkara's interpretation of sūtra 29 strikes us as very far-fetched indeed. That the pronoun 'tad' in the word 'तद्गणसारत्वात्' should refer to Buddhi all at once, without any reference whatsoever to it in the sutras preceding, is rather awkward; I do not agree with Thibaut in finding fault with the meaning of the compound word, if once it is admitted that 'tad ' means' Buddhi'. When Samkara says that the qualities of the ' buddhi ' form the essence of the jiva, he means that the "essential characteristic which distinguishes the jiva from the Brahman ( though they are really identical ) is the connection of the former with ' buddhi', whose attributes belong to the jiva also, as it were, for the time being ; and so far, in a certain sense, they constitute his essential nature.

But the explanation of the word 'prujna-vat' in the sutra offers a serious difficulty; because, really speaking, we see no difference whatsoever between the ' drstanta' the illustration, and the ' darstantika', the thing illustrated. Jir is called atomic etc., owing to the atomic size of the limiting adjunct buddhi, just as, for instance, the prajna or the Paramatman is designated as being atomic etc., owing to the qualities of its upadhis or limiting adjuncts. But Brahman and jiva being the same, we fail to see how one illustrates the other. As for the interpretation of the follow- ing sutras they fit in well with sutra 29, if once we accept the interpretation of the latter, though, throughout the subject of the

ANALYSIS 97

connection of the jiva with the manas or buddhi seems to be foreign to the general trend of the adhikarana. Rāmānuja's interpretation of sūtra 29 is no doubt straight- forword, if taken by itself, but it is evidently out of context, asit raises the question of the jiva being knowledge or knower, touch- ed upon in sutra 18. To say that it recurs here afer as many as nine sūtras dealing with its atomic size is to make too great a demand on the complacence of the reader. The meaning of the word 'prajnavat' too, according to him, is quite appropriate. Just as the prujna or Paramatman is designated as Ananda, because the ananda is his essential attribute, in the same way, the individual soul is called Vījñāna, because vijñāna is his essential attribute. Moreover, Ramanuja's way of construing the nine sutras establishing the atomic size of the individual soul seems no doubt more natural than that of Samkara. I am inclined to believe that, on the whole, the interpretations as proposed by Nimbarka and Vallabha are most satisfactory and least far-fetched. After having established the atomic size of the individual soul, the question naturally arises, if the jira is atomic, how and why is it that he is often designated as being all-pervading ; the answer according to Nimbārka is that he is so called, because his quality of intelligence is all-pervading ; and this is quite appropriate, when we consider some of the preceding sutras, e. g. 'व्यतिरको गन्धवत्' 'गुणाद्वा आलोकवत्' The same question is proposed and answered by Vallabha, but in a more general way. The jiva, though atomic, is called Brahman, because the qualities of Brahman form his essence. Madhva's interpretation also of this particular sutra is quite good ; but his splitting up of what forms a single adhikarana ac- cording to others into so many different adhikaranas is anything but satisfactory.

Taking this adhikarana with the last, which says that the individual soul is a knowing being, we can sefely assert so much that on this essential point regarding the characteristics of the individual soul, we cannot see our way to find Samkara's system in the sutras; and very probably the sūtrakara holds that the jiva is atomic and has knowledge as his attribute, being at the Ghate, Vedānta, 13.

98 THE VEDANTA

same time of the nature of knowledge,-a point common to all the four Vaisnava schools. The following eight sūtras ( 33-40 ) deal with question whether the individual soul is an agent or not. All except Samkara agree in rogarding these eight sutras as forming one adhikarana, establi- shing the kartrtva as a natural attribute of the individual soul, though they may differ amongst themselves regarding the inter- pretation of a sutra here and a sutra there. Thus the sutra उपलब्धिवदनियम:' (II. 3. 37 ) is explained by Ramanuja thus: if the self were not an agent ( and all activity belonged to Prakrti ), there would be no definite determination ( rogarding the distribution of the experiences resulting from actions, becanse Prakrti is a common possession of all souls and thus there would be enjoyment on the part of all souls, or else, on the part of none) ; just as ( there would be no definite determination ) with regard to consciousness, ( if the soul were all-pervading, as shown in sūtra 32 above ). Nimbārka, on the other hand, explains it thus : 'फ लोप लब्धिकरियार्यां नियमो नास्नि', which is not quite clear, and which does not explain the 'vat' in the sūtra at all. It is however explained by the commentators Srinivasa and Kesava Kāsmirin to mean that there is a definite determination regarding the acquisition of the fruits of good or bad actions; but there is no such determination regarding the soul's proceeding to do an act. This is not satisfactory and is evidently far-fetched. Valla- bha and Madhva however explain + +hus: There is no definite determination regarding the doing of acts ( i. e. doing only good acts and avoiding all bad acts ), just as there is no such determi- nation regarding perception ( i. e. the soul has to perceive some- times beautiful things, sometimes ugly things, has sometimes pleasant experiences, sometimes not ). This is also the interpre- tation of Samkara and is apparently the most natural and straight- forward one.

But the most important difference is regarding sūtra 40 l TATHI' which naturally would mean 'just as a carpenter is both or does both ways' i. e. just as a carpenter, though an agent, is sometimes active and sometimes inactive; in the same way, the soul though possessed of the natural attri- bute of Kartrtva is sometimes found to be active and sometimes

ANALYSIS 99

not .: It is so interpreted by Ramanuja and Nimbarka. Madhva explains that just as the carpenter both acts for himself, at the same time is controlled by the master; so the self is an agent, at the same time, is at the disposal of the Parmatman. Thus this sūtra naturally provides an answer to the question how it is that the jiva is sometimes active and sometimes not, if Kartrtva is its natural and inherent attribute; and it fits in well with the preceding sūtras. Samkara, on the other hand, takes this sūtra as a separate adhikarana, answering the question whether the kartrtra which has been proved as belonging to the soul, in the preceding sūtras, belongs to it by nature as its inherent attributes or is only attributed to it by superimposition ; and he comes to the conclu- sion that it is only superimposed. But that the sūtra cannot at all- mean this is apparent even to a casual reader. In the first place, the particle ' ca' in the sutra goes against the interpretation of Samkara. Had it been the object of the sūtrakāra to modify what was established in the preceding sutra he would have more naturally used ' tu'-and in fact this difficulty, Samkara is con- scious of, and he has to say त्वर्थ चायं पठितः-'this 'ca' is used in the sense of 'tu' here.' And even then, one cannot see how the instance of the carpenter illustrates the point in question, i. e. that the soul is not really an agent. 'Just as a carpenter, however, with the tools, is an agent and thus becomes miserable, but the same carpenter, when he returns home and leaves aside the tools, takes rest and is inactive, in the same way, the self, in the conditions of dream and awakening, united to the plurality set up by nescience, becomes an agent and suffers, but when he enters into the Highest Self, in the state of deep sleep, he being freed from the objects and sense-organs, becomes inactive and happy.' If we understand this illustration in the straightforward way, it would only go to establish the kartrtva of the self which may sometimes manifest itself and sometimes not. But ona cannot see, how it is an argument for the super- imposed and therefore unreal kartrtva of the self. Samkara also quite sees the difficulty and, to clear off his conscience, thinks it nacessary to add: 'The illustration of the carpenter is to be understood only so.faz. Just as the carpenter, in the case of the.

100 THE VEDĀNTA

particular acts of chopping etc., is an agent, only through the par- ti cular tools, but is quite inactive, as far as his own body is con- cerned, in the same way, the self, in all the actions, is an agent only through internal sense-organs like manas and others, but is quite inactive by himself.' But to this we demur. The carpenter is, as & matter of fact, active through his body too; or in other words, the body acts, as much as the tools act; and what is more, the tools cannot act without the body. This illustration cannot support the point which Samkara has tried to make out, in spite of all the explanations which he has given. And what is more strange is that he adds explanations of his own, refut- ing each and every sütra in the preceding adhikarana establishing the kartrtva of the self. Samkara's interpretation seems to be even more far-fetched, when we look to the sutra that follows: I a: but this kartrtva ( of the self ) is from the Highest Self, for it is so said in the scriptures' The question raised is whether the self is absolutely independent in his action or is dependent on some one else; and the answer is unanimously given that the self derives his capacity as an agent from the Highest Self. At the same time, the Highest Self has regard for the efforts made by the self and He makes him act only with a view to these efforts. Now if it were decided that the self is not an agent at all, that his kartrtva is only super-imposed on him, how could the question arise whether the self is an independent agent or a dependent one? Of course Samkara does refer the question to the kartrtva of jiva' as due to the limiting adjuncts in the condition of Nescience etc. ', but this is far from convincing; while the ques- tion proposed in this adhikarana arises quite naturally from the interpretation of the preceding adhikarana as given by Rāmānuja and others.

It is to be noticed here that Madhva regards all these sūtras ( 32-42 ) as forming one adhikarana; while all the rest divide them into two adhikaranas ; but this does not make any difference in the ultimate sense. So also Ramanuja reads उपादानादू विहारोपदेशाज्ञ (II. 3. 34 and 35) as one sutra, while all the rest read them as two sutras, in the inverse order as विहारोपदेशात्। उपादानाञ्ज.

ANALYSIS 101

The sutra 'शक्तिविपर्ययात्' ( II. 3. 38 is also interpreted differently. Samkara explains it to mean that if the kartrtva belongs to Buddhi as in the phrase विज्ञानं यजञं तनुते 'the vijnana performs the sacrifice,' then it would cease to be the Karana or the instrument as opposed to the Kurtr or the agent; and this would amount to nothing but a change of name. Nimbārka and Rāmānuja, explain it to mean that if Kartrtva belongs to the Buddhi, then the bhoktrtva or the capacity of enjoying would also belong to it; as these two must always go together; so bondage and release would also refer to Buddhi. instead of to the Purușa, who is the enjoyer even according to the Samkhya. Madhva and Vallabha, on the other hand, explain that the self, though an agent, is not free to do only good actions and avoid all bad actions; because of the want of absolute, unrestrained power which belongs to the Paramatman and which makes all the difference between the kartrtva of the self and of the Highest Self.

It is very diffcult to decide which of these interpretations is better than the others; still this does not affect onr general con- clusion tnat according to the sūtrakara, the individual self is an agent by its nature, though it depends upon the Parmatman; and that Samkara's way of interpreting the general meaning of the adhikarana in question is far from being natural or satisfactory. As regards sutras ( 41-42 ), which establish the point that the kartrfra of the self depends upon the Highest Self, who has regards for the efforts made by the former, there is nothing de- serving to be noticed; as all agree in their explanation of them. The next adhikarana ( sūtras 43-53 ) is most impcrtant for our purpose, in-as-much as it deals with the vital question of the relation between the Highest Self and the individual seif, between Brahman and jira; whether they are absolutely the same, or one forms the body of the other, or whether both are abso- lutely different from each other. The question arises naturally, because there are passages speaking of the difference as well as the non-difference of Brahman and jiva. Sūtra 43, literally translated, would run thus: ( The individual soul is ) a part ( of Brahman ), on account of the declaration of difference and because in a different way also, some record that Brahman is of

102 THE VADANTA

the nature of slaves, fishermen eto.' Now here the sūtrakara distinotly says that the individual soul must be regarded as a part of Brahman, because it is both spoken of as being different and non-different from Brahman. So, we must understand this ' Amsatva' or being a part, in such way as to make room for both difference and non-difference. Before discussing the relative value of the meanings put upon this ' being a part, ' we can dis- pose of one point; and it is that Samkara's theory cannot at all fit in with this. Whenever there is an opposition like this be tween passages asserting difference and those asserting non-differ -. ence, he always cuts the gordian knot by saying that the passages asserting non-difference represent the truth and are to be under- stood literally ; whereas those asserting difference only refer to the popular notions of things and they are there only to be refuted and to make room for the passages asserting non-difference. Thus all nlurality is delusion; while unity is the only reality. Accordingly, in the sutra before us, Samkara has resort to the device of understanding the word 'amsah' as meaning amsah iva'' as it were a part', for which there is no justification what- soever. And why can we not say that the jiva is the same as. Brahman? Because there is the declaration of difference. Thus Samkara finds himself in a dilemma. On the other hand, the sutra goes very well with the doctrine of Nimbarka, which is also generally called the 'bhedābheda-rūda' 'the doctrine of difference and non-difference ( being both true; at the same time )'. By ' amsa' or a part is not to be understood. 'a piece cut and separated, ' for that would involve an absolute difference, and would contradict such passages as ' thou art that. ' But 'amsa' here means 'sakti' or capacity; and Brahman possesses various capacities which are of the nature of the animate and in- animate worlds. Ramanuja also interprets it similarly with some modifications. Both the classes of passages, those asserting difference and those asserting non-difference, must be understood to be true and to represent the reality ; and for this it must be admitted that the. jiva is a part of Brahman; i. e., it forms the body of Brahman and is dependent on it, at the same time being individually dis- tinct in nature.

ANALYSIS 103

Madhva understands the word 'amsa' to mean literally 'तद्भिन्तत्वे मति तच्छेषत्वम्' (that which remains, when there is a separate existence from it ). He opines that the passages speaking of ' bheda' or difference are to be understood literally and as repre- presenting the truth; while the passages speaking of ' ahheda' :or non-difference are to be understood metaphorically, in the sense of 'तनो न्यूनत्वे सति किंचित्तत्सदशत्वम्', i. e. being inferior to it and at the same time having some little resemblance to it; and both these meanings of bheda and abheda, he includes in the connotation of of the word ' amsa.' Vallabha interprets this sūtra very much like Rāmāņuja or Nimbarka. It goes without saying that the interpretations of Ramanuja and Nimbarka are most natural; and that Samkara's interpretation is forced on the face of it. And if the Sūtrakāra had held Samkara' theory, he would never have called jiva an amsa of Brahman, leaving to the reader the task of supplying such an important word as . jiva '. The same conclusion is confirmed, if we examine the following sutras of this adhikarana. After having stated that the ' amsatva' ( i. e. the fact that the jiva is a part of Brahman ) is supported by śruti as as well as smrti, the sūtrakāra naturally proposed to answer the question how Brahman can escape being affected by the pleasure and pain of jiva, if the latter is only a part of the former. The sutra in question (46) literally translated runs thus : and ' as light &c. ( are not really affected ), so the Highest Lord ( is ) not (affected)'. And Samkara interprets it to mean that Brahman is not affected by pleasure and pain like the jiva; just aslight etc., though apparently assuming different forms corresponding to the objects on which it shines, is not really affected by them at all. According to Samkara, however, there is no reason why such a question should arise at all ; because Brahman and jiva are absolutely one. On the other hand, Nimbarka interprets in a natural way thus: . Brahman is not affected by the faults of jiva, though he is an amsa of it, just as light ( fire ) is not affected by the attributes of its part, e. g., being connected with an improper place etc ; or just as the akasa is not affected by the qualities of the different sounds, which are only so many amsas or Saktis or capacities of the ukasa.

104 THE VADÂNTA

Ramanuja interprets thus : though the jiva is a part of Brah- man, a part being only an attribute of the whole, and the jlva is only a prakara or visesana of the Brahman, still the Brahman is not like jiva, but is distinct from it, just as fire ( which has light as its attribute ) is distinct from light. 1t must be admitted that the interpretations of Ramanuja and Nimbarka sre in any case more natural than that of Samkara.

In sūtra 48, the question raised is, if all individual souls are alike the parts of Brahman, how can we account for the possibili- ty of injunctions and prohibitions for the different jivas. The answer is : this arises from the connection of the self with bodies. Just as though the sun's light is one and the same, still that part of it which shines on an unholy place is shunned, while that which falls on a holy place is resorted to, or just as fire, though alike everywhere, is accepted if it is from the house of a Śrotriya, but avoided if found in a cemetery, in the same way are to be explained the injunctions and the prohibitions.

In sūtra 49, the question proposed is how we can avoid a confusion of the results of actions of the different individual souls. It is auswered by Samkara thus: though the soul is one, still, the limiting adjuncts or ' upadhis ' which distinguish the jiva from the Brahman are limited in character; so, on account of the non-extension of the individual soul, resulting from it, a confusion of the results of actions is not possible. Ramanuja, on the other hand, explains thus: although the souls, as being parts of Brahman are essentially of the same character, still there is no confusion of the individual spheres of enjoyments and experiences, since they do not form a continuous series, i. e., because the souls, though alike, are actually separate, one from the other. Nimbarka exactly follows Ramānuja. Sutra 50, 'आभास एव च' is very interesting; literally translated, it would mean, ' it is just an appearance. ' Now Sam- kara interprets it to mean that the jiva is only a reflection, 'prati- bimba ' of Brahman. It is neither the same a8 Brahman nor a different entity from it. Thus it is that one soul is not affected by the acts of another soul, though they are all non-different from it; just as the reflections of one and the

ANALYSIS 105

same original object, in different media or reflecting sub- stances, are different and are not confounded, one with the other. Vallabha also translates the sutra in the same way, saying that the jiva is only a reflection of Brahman, and not quite the same; because, according to his doctrine, the quality of bliss, ananda which is manifested in Brahman, is, however, obscured in jiva. Vallabha here warns the reader that the word 'abhasa ' in the sūtra is not to be understood to mean ' something absolutely un- real' as, for instance, in the doctrine of Samkara, but ' an appearance' i. e., 'something apparently the same as or having the appearance of. something else, but not quite the same.' Ramanuja and Nimbarka, on the other hand, explain the word 'abhasa ' to mean 'hetrabhasa ' 'a fallacious argument. ' The former directs this sutra mainly against the school of Samkara, saying that those who hold the view that the soul is only Brah- man deluded cannot explain away the confusion of the indivi- dual spheres of enjoyments, on the ground of the difference of the limiting adjuncts presented by Nescience ( and Samkara actually uses this very mode of reasoning in the preceding sutra); because to say so is nothing but a fallacy, in-as-much as the obscuring of the light of that which is nothing but light, means only the destruction of that iight. Nimbarka who reads 'abhasa eva etc. ' ( and Ramānuja also proposes this as another reading ), directs it in general against those who hold that the individual souls are many and at the same time all-pervading, saying that all their arguments for explaining away the confusion of indivi- dual spheres of enjoyment are fallacious. The three remaining sutras of the adhikarana are directed by Samkara, Nimbārka and Vallabha against the doctrine of the individual souls being many and at the same time all-pervading. Ramanuja interprets them as directed against those who hold that the individual soul is Brahman in so far as determined by real limiting adjuncts; but the interpretation of the sutras is not sub- stantially different. Coming over to Madhva, we find that he iuterprets sūtras 46-55 in an altogether different way. The jivas are of two kinds, those which are ' bhinnamsa ' i. e., parts of Brahman and quite different from it; and those which are 'abhinnamsa' or Ghate, Vedānta, 14.

106 THE VEDANTA

'svarupamsa' i. e., parts of Brahman, but substantially and poten- tially non-different. The former are the ordinary individual souls, which are of inferior capacities and possess only a little resem- blance to the Highest Self; while the latter are such incarnations as the primeval Fish, the primeval Tortoise etc., which do not differ in the least from the Highest Self in point of power and nature. Now sütra 46 states that the Paramatman ( assuming the form of Matsya etc.) is not like jiva, just as, for instance, the fire of general destruction ( pralayirni ) is notthe same as the fire of the fire-fly, though both are parts of the element oflight alike, or just as the ocean and urine, thouph both parts of the element of water, are not for that rcason alike. Sutra 48 contains another reason why ordinary souls are different from the incarnation-souls. Ordinary souls are solely dependent on Paramatman, for their activity and cessation of activity, for their bondage and release, on account of their connection with che body ; but such is not the case with the other class of souls. Similarly there is no confusion of the ordi- nary souls with the other proper class of souls, on account of 'a-santati' i. e. want of complete and unrestrained power (sūtra 49 ) : for the ordinary souls are of inferior and restricted powers, while the others are not so. And the ordinary souls are, after all, only the reflections or pratibim's of the Paramaiman ; while the others are not. The former are technically called ' pratibimbamsa- ka ' and have very little resemblance to the Paramatman; while the latter are called ' pradurbhava ' or full manifestations and so have complete resemblance to the Parmatman ( sutra 50); and so, the two classes of individua! souls cannot be confounded. With sutra 51, Madhva begirs a new adhikarana, proposing the same question as others, viz. how to account for the distinc- ti:n of the individual souls, when all are alike the 'pratibimbamsa' . or 'bhiunamsa' of the Highest Self. What reg ulates this distinction is the variety ('a-niyama') of the adrsta or the unseen result of merit and demerit ; and tha differences with regard to the will, thought, etc., are also themselves due to the differences of adrsta; nor can it be said that these individual distinctions of souls are due to the difference of place ; ( thus, for instance, the souls in heaven are gods, these on earth are men ) ; for, even this variety of places or abodes is included in the variety of adrsta, the former being due to the latter ( sūtras 52 and 53 ).

ANALYSIS 107

Now considering these several interpretations of the different sutras of this adhikarana (excepting the first which we have already discussed above ), we can at once dispose of the inter- pretation of Madhva as being uncalled for by the context and very sectarian. As for the rest, it is very difficult to decide which is better; because all appear to be equally natural or far- fetched. Even the two ways of interpretin: the word 'a'hasa' in sutra 50 are both equally justifiable. But the first sutra of the adhikarana, i. e., sutra 43, is decisive. The word 'amsah' therein makes it impossible that there can be even the least ground for holding that the Sutrakara held Samkara's doctrine. The invidi- dual soul may be a part of the Highest Self, because the statements of difference as well as non-difference between them can be asserted by him alone who holds that the individual souls are as real as the Highest Self, being at the same time not absolutely different from Him. Thus the doctrines of Samkara and Madhva are out of the question, at least as far as this adhikarana is concerned. ADHYĀYA II, PĀDA 4. After having reconciled the several Upanisad passages referring to the creation of the clements and after having dis- cussed some of the essential characteristics of the individual soul, the Sūtrakara next, in the fourth pāda of the second adhyāya, pro- ceeds to consider the passages referring to the pranas or the sense- organs which form the necessary accrmpaniment of the indivi- dual soul as long as it is in this worldly existence or samnsāra. The first adhikarana, consistin : of the first four sutras, asserts, according to all commentators except Valtabha, that the pranas are created from Brahman, just like the elements spoken of in the preceding pada, though there are some differences in the inter- pretation of the individual sutras. Thus, according to Samkara, the adhikarana means : The pranas ( i. e. the organs of sense, those of action and the internal organ or manas) are produced like ether and other elements ( sutra 1); their production in a metaphorical sense is impossible (sūtra 2), because ctherwise the knowlege of all, resulting from the knowledge of the one Brahman, would not be possible; and moreover the word meaning 'is produced ' is the same both for the elements and for the pranas

108 THE VEDĀNTA

and if it is to be understood literally in the one case, it has to be understood also in the same way in the other case, ( sūtra 3) ; and even in those passages, where the production of the pranas is not specifically mentioned, it is all the same implied ; because, vc (speech), prann, and manas are described as being preceded by light, water and food ( i. e. earth ) (sutra 4); and the latter being themselves produced, it but follows that the former are produced. Nimbarka exactly agrees with Samkara, in the interpretation of these four sūtras. Rāmānuja, however, reads sūtras 2 and 3 as one sūtra and interprets them to mean that the word 'pranah' in the passage ' ..... OT *T4: ' ( Satapatha Brah. 6, 1, 1. ) cannot mean the ordinary pranas or sense-organs, but Paramalman; and the plural number of the word is only metaphorical ( gauni ), owing to the impossibility of the plural sense in the circumstances ( a-said ha- vat ) ; and owing to the fact that it is the Paramatman that is spoken of as existing before the creation. Sūtra 4 also is inter- preted by him differently. Since names or things having names are preceded by the creation of ether and other elements, there were no functions before the creation for the sense-organs at all and they could not have existed before the creation; and so the word ' pranah ' in the passage above cannot mean the organs, but the Paramatman. Thus we see that the phrase'gaunyasambha- tt' is taken as a genitive tatpurusa compound by Samkara, but as two words' gauni' (nominative singular ) and 'asaml harat' by Ramanuja; so also the pronouns ' tat ' in the next two phrases are interpreted differently. Though, on account of the very nature of the sūtra style, it is difficult to decide which interpreta- tion is better, still one cannot help remarking that Ramānuja's in- terpretation seems rather forced and farfetched ; and one thing can be said in favour of Samkara, that there is another commentator who entirely agrees with him.

Madhva has three adhikaranas instead of one and reads one more sūtra 'masugufraa' between sutras 2 and 3. The passages refer- ring to the beginninglessness of pranas are only metaphorical (gauni) for him, because beginninglessness in the literal serse is impos- sible ( sūtra 2 ). Sūtra 3, which is, according to Madhva, directed

ANALYSIS 109

against those who hold that manas is unborn, though the rest of the organs are produced, asserts that even manas cannot be said to be unborn, because it is mentioned even before the other organs (e. g. in ' ' Mundaka. 2, 1, 3. ). Sūtra 4 refers to the organ of speech in particular and asserts that it can- not be unborn, because it is preceded by manas; and as the latter is produced, the former must be also produced. ( of. नस्मान्मन एव पूर्वरूपं वागुटन्तररूपम् ' Aitareya Aran. 3,1, 1. ).

Vallabha entirely differs from the others, in coming to the con- clusion that the pranas are just as unborn as the individual souls. The word tatha in the first sutra ' A'T mUTT: ' means according to Vallabha 'यथा जीवा: तथा' in contradiction with the others, according to whom it means 'यथा वियदाढयः तथा' Thus the pranas, according to Vallabha, possess all the attributes of the individual souls, except that the intelligence ( cid-amsa ) is obscu- red in them, while it is manifested in the individual souls. And the passage referring to the going up ( ut-kranti ) of the pranas cannot be metaphorical, because it is construcd literally with the individual soul in the same context ( sūtra 2 ). The Prānas also are spoken of as existing before the creation ( in the passage referred to above, as denoting Paramātman according to Rāmā- nuja ); so the pranas aiso are as unborn as the individual souls, which both spring alike from the Brahman (udgati and not utpatti), but are not substantially created (sūtra 3). And the speech is preced- ed by numas; and if the speech (i. e., the scriptures) is not produced, how can manas which precedes it be produced ?

It is very interesting, indeed, to see two absolutely different conclusions arrived at from the same sutras: that the pranss are born and that they are unborn. It must he admitted that Vallabha's interpretation is quite natural, and the way in which he understands the word ' tatha ' is even more natural than that of the other commentators, in-as-much it refers to something discussed just in the immediately preceding sūtras; whereas the others refer it to ether and other elements discussed in the first half cfthe preceding pāda. For this reason, it is difficult to re ect Vallabha's interpretation, though it must be said that all the rest are at one in holding an opinion opposed to his, i. e. that the prūnas are born.

110 THE VEDĀNTA

The second adhikarana (sutras 5 and 6) asserts that these prūnas are eleven in number ( i. e. the five organs of sense, five organs of action and the internal orzan or intelligence ). The word ' gati ' in sutra 5 is interpreted in two ways, either as 'going up' ( ut-kranti ) or 'being understood' ( avagamyamānatra ). As re- gards sūtra 6, Samkara, Nimbārka and Vallabha agree in trans- lating it thus: 'But ( there are also in addition to the seven pranas ) the hands and so on; this heing a settled matter, there- fore, we must not conclude thus ( i. e. that there are se.en pranas only )'. But Rāmanuja interpretes thus: 'But the hands and so on also ( assist the soul ) abiding ( in the body ), hence it is not so ( that the pranas cannot be seven, but that they must be eleven ).'-It appears that Rāmānuja proposes this ex- planation of the word 'sthite' for the reason that, otherwise, according to Samkara's interpretation, the two wcrds 'sthite' and 'atah' would mean one and the same thing. Madhva, as usual, has a fanciful interpretation. The pranas are spoken of as seven, out of regard for the organs of sense (गतेः = ज्ञानेन्द्रियाण्यपेक्ष्य). The hands etc., on the other hand, refer to action, and so they are not mentioned along with the seven organs of sense (स्थिने=कर्मणि विषय). This way of understanding the words 'gatih' and 'sthitam' as meaning 'jnana' or knowledge and 'karman' or action is, indeed, very curious and unwarranted, though Madhva quotes a passage* in support from some unknown work. After having said that the pranas are created and that they are eleven in number, the Sūtrakāra, in the next sūtra (7), says that they are anu or minute also. This minuteness here does not mean being of the size of an atom, but being subtle ( i. e. diffi- cult to be perceived ) and limited in size. All acree as regards this sūtra. In the next sūtra (8), all the attributes of the prānas, so far mentioned, are transferred (atidesa) to the chief vital air ( mukhya-prāņa ). Samkara, Nimbārka and Vallabha regard these two sūtras as two separate adhikaraņas, while Rāmānuja * संसारस्थिनिहेतृत्वात् गभितं कर्म बिढ़ो विद्ुः। नस्मादुद्वनिहेतु त्वाजज्ञानं गातीगहिच्ि ते।।

ANALYSIS 111

regards them, without sufficient reason, as forming one adhi- karana. Madhva, on the other hand, regards sutra 7 as forming an adhikarana by itself, but connects sutra 8 with the following one ; and this is more reasonable, as both these refer to the same subject, i. e. the chief vital air. The next adhikarana ( sutras 9-12 ) deals with the nature and character of the chief vital air. It is neither the element, air, nor the activities of senses, but a separate entity, on account of its being mentioned separately. It is at the same time subordi- nate to the individual soul like the eye and other organs; and it should not be objected that in this case there will have to be admitted another sense-object or function as peculiar to this prana, hecause it is not a regular instrument like the other sense-organs. (Here Rāmānuja explains, and aptly too, that the objection is invalid, because the scripture actually speaks of its special function, viz., the supportine of the body and the senses; e. g. 'यस्मिन्तुत्कान्त इढ़ं शरीरं पापिष्ठनर्गमत्र दृश्यत स एव अषः' Chandogya Upa. 5, 1, 7, 'that is the chief prana on whose going away this body appears as if most sinful or morbid. ') The chief prana besides is designated as having five functions like the mind. All the commentators interpret this adhikarana in the same way (but for the slight difference in Rāmanuja just noted above), except of course Madhva, who, as usual, has very different explanations, especially of sutras 9 and 11. In sutra 9, he says that although the word prana is used to denote the chief prana, the element air, and the activities or external movements, still the passage, speaking of its creation, must refer to the chief vital air only and not to either the elemental air or the activities, owing to a special and separate mention of the creation of the chief vital air as opposed to the other two. Madhva regards, as stated above, sutras 8 and 9 as forming an adhikarana by themselves; while sūtras 10 and 11 form another adhikarana asserting that the chief vital air also is subject to Paramatman like the eye etc. with the difference, how- ever, that the chief vital air is not an instrument, while the eye etc. are, and this is the meaning of the passages speaking of the independence of the chief vital sir. Sutra 12 also forms an inde- pendent adhikarana, meaning very much the same as in the

112 THE VEDANTA

other commentaries. Sutra 13. asserting that the chief vital air also is anu, i. e. subtle and limited in size, forms an independent adhikarana according to all commentators without exception. One cannot help remarking here that the division into adhika- ranas, followed by all the commentators except Madhva, is rather arbitrary. Either all these sutras from 8 to 13, all alike referring to the chief vital air, should form one adhikarana or we should have four adhikaranas predicating four characteristics of the chief vital air. That, as a matter of fact, is the division adopted in Madhva's commentary. The next three sutras ( 14-16 ) form one adhikarana according to all. It is interpreted by Samkara thus: The pranas perform their functions as presided over by their respective deities and not independently, as is declared in the scriptures ( ara. ) Nor can it be objected that in that case the deities would be the enjoyers and not the souls; for the pranas are connected with the individual soul ( = pranavat ), as we know from scriptures; and because the individual soul abides permanently in the body as the enjoyer; but not so the deities, who cannot possibly abide as enjoyers in the earthly bodies, so full of imperfections. Nimbarka follows Samkara except in the third sutra, which he explains as meaning that the connection of the pranas with the individual soul ( as opposed to their connection with the deities presiding over them ) is eternal. Ramanuja, though agreeing with the above in the verbal trans- lation of the sutras, refers them to a different topic. He reads sutras 14 and 15 as one and explains that the rule over the pranas on the part of Fire and the other deities, together with the indivi- dual soul, is owing to the thinking of the Highest Self ( tad-ăma- nanät ), * and is not independent, as we have scriptural state- ments to that effect. And this conclusion follows also from the eternity of this quality of baing ruled by the Paramatman, who has entered all things. To my mind, the interpretation seems rather farfetched. . The word ' amanana ' is very rarely met with ; we do not find it given even in the St. Petersburg Lexicon; all the same, the meaning, attributed to it by Samkara, is no doubt the more natural one ( cf. sttra I. 2. 32 ).

ANALYSIS 113

Madhva, as usual, offers a different interpretation. Though the pranas are subject to and instruments of the individual soul, still it is the Brahman which abides in Fire etc. and which causes the pranas to perform their functions. Brahman, again, does all this through the individual souls and so there is no objection to the statement that the pranas are the instruments of the indivi- dual soul ; and this follows moreover from the fact that the rela- tion between the individual soul and the pranas is eternal. The point made out here is very much the same as that of Rāmānuja. Vallabha's interpretation is almost obscure and far from satisfactory. The next adhikarana (sutras 17-19), which is interpreted exactly alike by all, asserts that the pranas are the senses, i. e., inde- pendent principles, and not mere modifications of the chief vital air, on account of the designation being applicable to them with the exception of the best, i. e., the chief vital air, and on account of the scriptural statement of difference and also on account of the difference in their characteristics. Rāmanuja reads sutras 18 and 19 as one and Nimbarka follows him. The next and last adhikarana ( sūtras 20-22 ) is also inter- preted alike by all and it asserts that the fashioning of the names and forms belongs to the Paramatman and not to the individual soul; and that it is on account of the preponderance of a particular element that there are distinctive names, such as, earth, water etc., though really speaking everything contains all the elements. Madhva regards sutra 20 as forming one adhikarana and the next two sutras as forming another adhikarana. Thus this last adhi- karana discusses the question as to whether the activity of cre- ation * belongs to the Paramatman or to the individual soul; whereas the preceding adhikaranas of this pāda and some of the preceding padas dealt with the production itself of the products. ADHYÃYA III, PĀDA I. The third and the fourth adhyayas essentially differ from the first two adhyayas as regards the contents. The main object of the first two adhyayas may be briefly described as being to set

संदर्भण निरस्तः। संप्रत्युत्पावनाविवयश्तुनिविरोधो निरस्यते। Ghate, Vedānta, 15.

114 THE VEDANTA

forth the essential nature of the Brahman. Every thing in them may be said to contribute to the same end : the attempt made in the first adhyaya to show that the various doubtful passages of the Upanisads have for their purport nothing but the Brahman, the refu- tation of the objections against the doctrine of the Brahman, whether based on smrti or on reasoning, the proof of the invalidity of other doctrines than that of the Brahman even from the merely speculative point of view, and the reconciliation of the apparently divergent Upanisad passages referring to the creation of the ele- ments, the nature of the individual self, and the nature and origi- nation of the accompaniments of the individual self. Now the sutrakara procedes to enquire , in the third and fourth adhyāyas respectively, into the nature of the means of attaining the Brah- man and the nature of that attainment. And first, in the first pada of the third adhyaya, he goes on to describe the imperfections of the individual soul and its course from one birth to another, with a view to produce vairagya or aversion to worldly pleasures, a most necessary antecedent condition without which one cannot even so much as enter upon the path to Moksa or final beatitude.

To begin with, the first adhikarana ( sūtras 1-7 ) deals with the question whether the individual soul, in obtaining a different body, goes enveloped by the subtle material element or not. The answer to it is in the affirmative, because these ( subtle material elements ) are quite necessary as an abode to the pranas which are always attached to the soul and which also depart with the soul. All commentators agree in the general in- tarpretation of the adhikarana, except for a few differences here and there, which are not important. Thus, for instance, in sūtra 6, the question raised according to Samkara, Rāmānuja and Nimbār- ka is: how do we know that it is the souls that are accompanied by water, though water alone is mentioned and not the souls, in Brhadaranyaka Upa. V. 3. 3? And the answer is that the perform- ers of sacrifices are understood there, being mentioned in Br. U. V. 3. 10. According to Vallabha, however, the question is : is it all kinds of souls that are so invested with the subtle elements, no particular kinds of souls being mentioned ? And the answer is, it is only the performers of sacrifices that go thus, and not all. Madhva has a separate adhikarana for each sutra; and in sūtra 4,

ANALYSIS 11

he translates the world 'bhaktatvat' by 'partially' ( bhagatah ) and explains the sūtra to mean that the speech etc. only go partially into their respective deities, Agni etc., but that the parts that remain accompany the individual soul. And if it be ob- jected that the going of the elements with the individual soul is not directly mentioned, just as, for instance, the going of speech etc. into Fire etc. is actually mentioned, the reply is that it is also mentioned in connection with the performers of sacrifices in some passages, whose source is, as usual, unknown (sūtras 6). The immortality, again, spoken of in 'अपाम सोमममृता अभूम' ( Rgveda VIII. 48. 3 ) 'we drank the soma juice and have become immortal' is only metaphorical; because the real immortality can belong only to an atma-vid, the possessor of the knowledge of the soul; and the performer of sacrifices etc. is in no sense an atma-vid. The second adhikarana ( sutras 8-11 ) says that, when the souls of those who had enjoyed the reward of their good wcrks in the moon descend to the earth, in order to undergo a new embodi- ment, they return with some remainder (amsa) of their former deeds cleaving to them, the remainder of deeds which cannot bear their fruit in the moon, but which must be enjoyed in this world only, and which thus determines the nature of the new embodiment. All agree in the interpretation of this adhikarana, except that Madhva splits sutra 8 into two, 'कृतात्यये अनुशयवान् दृष्टस्मृनिभ्याम्' and 'यथनं अनेवं च', and has two adhikaranas for these two sūtras and has a third adhikarana for the remaining three sūtras. The third adhikarana ( sūtras 12-21 ) discusses the question regarding the fate of those whose good deeds are not sufficient to take them to the moon, and establishes the conclusion that it is those only who have knowledge ( vidya ) and who perform sacri- fices etc. ( karman ), that ascend to the moon for the enjoyment of their good deeds ; while for the rest, there is the third place, the world of Yama; and they cannot go to the moon at all. Ramanuja and Samkara, while agreeing in the purport of the adhikarans as stated above, differ from each other in that Rāmā- nuja regards sūtras 12-16 as stating the pūrvapaksa or the prima facie view and the rest as Siddhanta, while according to Samkara sūtra 12 alone states the prima facie view,

116 THE VEDĀNTA

the siddhanta beginning with sutra 13. This sutra, when literally translated, would run thus :'but of the others, having experienced ( the fruits of their actions in Samyamana, i. e. the world of Yama ), there is an ascent and a descent, as such a course is declared.' Samkara remarks that the particle 'tu ' (but) in the sūtra refutes the pūrvapaksa. But the difficulty is as regards the word 'aroha' ( ascent ) in the sūtra. The sūtra dis- tinctly says that there are both ascent and descent; and this can apparently mesn the ascent to the moon and the descent from it to this world. Samkara has to understand the descent to Yama's world and ascent therefrom to this world, which seems & bit far-fetched, especially when the question is regarding the ascent to and descent from the moon; whereas according to Rāmanuja, the sutra is only a qualification of the preceding sūtra, which asserts in an unqualified manner that even those who do not perform sacrifices ascend to the moon. This sutra says that they have, however, to experience sufferings in the world of Yama. Thus the words aroha and avaroha can be explained in the most natural way. And again the particle 'tu' ( but ) in sūtra 17, ' but, of knowledge and work, those two being under discussion ', can be construed well with Ramanuja as marking the refutation of the purvapaksa; but it is apparently purposeless according to Samkara, and he has to remark that the word 'tu' is meant to preclude the ides, arising from the passage of another Sākhā, that all departed go to the moon-which is, in any case, less natural than Ramanuja's explanation. Nimbarka exactly follows Rāmānuja here. Vallabha regards sutras 12-16 as forming one adhikarara, and interprets sūtra 13 just like Samkara, to mean that those who do not perform sacrifices etc. go to the world of Yama to suffer the fruits of their bad deeds. But with sūtra 17 in his opinion be- gins another adhikarana just to confirm what has been establish- ed in the preceding adhikarana. Madhva regards sutras 12-14 as forming one adhikarana, establishing that even the performers of bad deeds have to go up and down, with the difference, however, that they have to pass through Naraka. Sutra 15 forms another adhikarana, asserting that there are seven Narakas ; sutra 16 forms another adhikarana,

ANALYSIS 117

asserting that even in Naraka, it is the Paramesvara who com- mands and directs. Sutra 17, also forming a separate adhikarans, asserts that the individual souls are not independent in their courses upwards and downwards; but they depend upon Vidya and Karman for the path of gods ( Devayana ) and the path of the fathers ( Pitryana ) respectively. The remaining four sūtras (18-21) form one adhikarana saying that in the Naraka, the world of great darkness, there is only misery ( duhkha ) and no sukha at all.Sutra 21 is interpreted by Madhva in quite a different way from the rest, to mean that the word ' Sabda', used in connection with the third place ( i. e. the Naraka ), involves ( avarodha ) Murccha or faintness arising from extreme sufferings ; whereas all the rest interpret it to mean that 'the third term,' i. e. Udbhijja ( that which springs from a germ ) comprises that which springs from heat ( i. e. sredaja, i. e. the fourth class of the embodied beings ). Madhva also reads an additional sutra 'smaranacca' ' on account of its being found in the smrtis, ' with which he ends the adhikarana.

The next adhikarana ( sutra 22 ) asserts that the subtle bodies of the souls, decending from the moon, through the ether, air etc., do not become identical with them, but only resemble them. Samkara and Vallabha read 'sabhavyapattih'; while Rāmānuja, Madhva and Nimbarka read. 'tat-svabhavyapattih', but both the words mean alike. The next sūtra (23) forms an adhikarana stating that the entire descent of the soul occupies a very short time only. The last adhikarana ( sutras 24-27 ) lays down that when the souls finally enter into plant; and so on, they do not participate in the life of the latter, but are merely in external contact with them. Madhva has three adhikaranas ( 24-25, 26, 27 ) instead of one. There are no differences of interpretation worth noting. ADHYĀYA III, PĀDA 2. After having described the Samsara-gati or the course from one birth to another of the individual soul, in the first pada of the third adhyāya, the Sūtrakāra next proceeds to discuss the nature of the dreaming and sleeping conditions of the soul. The first adhikarana ( sūtras 1-6 ) treats of the individual soul in the dreaming state. This adhikarana is very important for our purpose, because inter-

118 THE VEDĀNTA

pretations, quite opposed to each other and involving a difference of opinion as regards essential points, have been put upon it by the different commentators; hence we are quite justified in examining in detail the meaning of the individual sūtras.

According to Samkara, the question raised in the first three sūtras is whether the creation in a dream is as real as the creation by which the waking soul is surrounded. The first two sūtras state the pūrvapakss: the creation in a dream (is real ), for so say the scriptures ( sūtra 1) and some ( state that the Highest Self is ) the creator ( of the things seen in a dream ), sons and so on, (being the beloved things, 'kamah', which He shapes) ( sūtra 2 ). Sūtra 3 states the siddhānta: 'but it ( viz. the dream world ) is mere illusion, ' māya-matram ', on account of its nature not manifesting itself with the totality ( of the attributes of real- ity such as place, time, etc., ). So far there is nothing to object to this interpretation, except perhaps the meaning of the word 'māya' (the word nowhere occuring again in the sūtras). But when we go to the next sutra, the difficulty is how to connect it logically with the one that precedes. Sutra 4 literally translated would run thus: 'For the dream is also indicative according to Sruti; the experts also declare this.' If at all, this may be an arg ument to support the reality of dreams. But Samkara connects it with the preceding sutra in a very unsatisfactory way. Having assert- ed in the previous sutra that the dream world is mere illusion, he further adds : but it is not altogether so, i. e. unreal and illu- sory, for dreams are prophetic of good and bad fortunes to come; so it follows that there is some reality in dreams. To guard against such a notion, Samkara comes forth with his qualifying remark to the effect that though in all these cases the thing indi- cated may be real, still the indicating dream remains as unreal as ever, refuted as it is by the waking state. Thus the doctrine that the dream itself is mere illusion remains uncontradicted. This very necessity of offering an explanation is a proof of the unsa- tisfactory character of the interpretation. The want of connection becomes still more glaring when we come to the next two sūtras which run thus: 'but by the meditation on the highest, that which is hidden ( i. e., the quality of the Lord and the individual soul ) ( becomes manifest ) ; for, from him ( i. e. the Lord ) are its

ANALYSIS 11

(i. e. the soul's) bondage and its opposite (i. e. release) (sūtra 5); or that ( viz. the concealment of the soul's powers, ) springs from its connection with the body' (sūtra 6). Naturally Samkara commences his comments on these sutras with the question, why should the dream-world be not the creation by the individual soul, if both the Lord and the Soul, one being a part of the other, have in common the powers of knowledge and rulership, just as for instance fire and the spark, which is its part, have in common the powers of burning and giving light. We do not see how this question arises here at all, when the three preceding sutras deal with the unreal character of the dream-world. Thus this adhikarana, if we follow Samkara's interpretation, seems to be made up of two groups, apparently without any direct logical connection. According to Ramanuja, on the other hand, the question raised in the first three sutras is whether the creation in a dream is the work of the individual soul or of the Highest Self. The first two sūtras state the purvapaksa that the creation is effected by the individual soul, and that some describe the individual soul to be the shaper of the things seen in a dream. The third sūtra states the siddhanta and is translated thus, in an altogether different way from Samkara: 'But ( the creation in a dream is) pure Maya; on account of the true nature ( of the individual soul ) not being fully manifested.' The term 'Maya' he explains as meaning 'the wonderful power of the divine being'. And thus he argues that the creation in a dream must be the work of the Supreme Soul; as the maya can belong to none but the Supreme Soul, who can immediately realize all his wishes. A further reason why it cannot be the work of the individual soul is that although the individual soul is fundamentally possessed of that power, still he is incapable of accomplishing such wonderful creations, being as he is in the Samsāra state where his true nature is not fully manifested. The question naturally arises, why is it not fully manifested, if it is fundamentally possessed by the individual soul? And the answer is: 'But owing to the wish of the Highest Self, it is hidden ; for, from that ( i. e. the wish of the Supreme Self ) are its bondage and the opposite.' ( Here it is to be noted that Ramānuja changes the order of the sūtras & little. Sutra 4 according to Samkara is read by him last in the

120 THE VEDANTA

adhikarana ). ' Or that (results) also from his connection with the body. And the things seen in the dreams are not created by the wish of the individal soul for this reason also that ( the dream ) is suggestive ( i. e. prophetic of future good or ill fortune) according to scripture.' Well, according to this interpretation, the mutual relation between the first three sutras and the last three sutras is very naturally explained; but the translation of the word 'māyā- mātram' in sūtra 3, is unusual, though quite justifiable. That the meaning of the word 'maya-matram ', as given by Samkara, is more usual than that given by Rāmanuja is evident; and the same follows from the fact that Vallabha and Bhāskarācarya* interpret the word in the same way. It is very curious that the Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha of Nimbārka and the Bhāsya of Bhās- kara which on the whole quite agree with each other, ( Mr. Eggeling t is inclined to believe that Bhāskarācārya is only another name for Nimbarka ), differ in the present case.t The former entirely follows the interpretation in the Sribhasya, though keeping the order of the sutras as found in Samkara's commentary; while the latter has a new interpretation, which, on the whole seems to me better, as it apparently is free from the objections, raised above, azainst the interpretations as given by Samkara and Ramanuja. Bhaskara is in entire agreement with Samkara, as regards the translation of the first three sutras ; but in the third sutra, he further adds that as the creation in a dream is mere illusion, so it must belong to the individual soul and not to the Supreme Soul, whose creation, like that of ether, air etc., is bound to be absolutely real. Another reason why the dream is a creation of the individual soul is that it is indicative of good or ill fortune ; and no such good or ill fortune is possible in the case of the Supreme Soul. Then the question naturally arises, why the creation by the individual soul should be illusory; the reply is,

• The auther of a commentary on Brahma-sutras, ( see Chaukhamba Sanskrit series Nos. 70, 185, 209 ). t Catalogue of Mss of the India Office, Part IV, pp. 802, 803, $ A detailed examination of the Vedanta-parijata-saurabha and the com- mentary of Bhaskaracarya, leads us to hold that Nimbarka and Bhaskara- carya are two different persons, representing two different schools.

ANALYSIS 121

the full nature of the individual soul is concealed, but it becomes manifest through meditation on the Highest Self, ( just the same as the translation given by Samkara ). I think this way of in- terpretation as given by Bhaskara to be better. It is necessary to note here how three different views are held regarding the subject in question. According to Samkara, the creation in dreams is illusory ; the whole world, the so-called real creation, even the creation by which the individual soul is surrounded in its waking state is also illusory ; but the difference is that the latter, the world consisting of ether, etc., remains fixed and distinct up to the moment when the soul cognizes that the Brahman is the self of all ; the former, the world of dreams, on the other hand, is daily sublated by the waking state. According to Ramanuja, the world of ether, etc., and the world of dreams, are both equally real and not at all illusory, both being alike creations of the Supreme Soul. According to Bhaskara, the world of ether, etc. is of course absolutely real, being creations of the Supreme Soul, while the world in dreams is unreal and illu- sory, being the creation of the individual soul. The three views may be described as idealistic, realistic and idealistico-realistic respectively. Vallabha also practically follows the third view and inter- prets just in the same way as Bhaskara does, with the difference that he interprets sūtra 5 just as Ramānuja does it, the word 'parā- bhidhyanat' being translated as 'owing to the will of the Supreme Self ' instead of as ' through meditation on the Supreme Soul.' Madhva takes the first four sutras only to form one adhikarana, and interprets them to mean that the creation in a dream does exist, i. e., is real and that it is the work of the Supreme Self; but it is caused by His will alone, being otherwise without any material cause, like the ordinary world in the waking state. Thus maya-matram means 'स्वेच्छामान्रं प्रदशयति.' He shows it only by his own free will and the reality of the creation is further proved by the fact that it is suggestive of future good or ill for- tune. Sutra 5 forms another adhikarana, stating that the world of dreams is made to disappear also through the will of the Supre- me Being; i. e., He is both the creator and the destroyer of the dream-world. Sutra 6, again, forms another adhikarana asserting Ģhate, Vedanta, 16.

122 THE VEDANTA

that even the world in the waking state or the waking state itself ( 'वेहयोगेन वासः' literally means 'abiding in connection with the body ' ), and not only dream and sleep, proceed from Him. As usual Madhva quotes passages in support from obscure sources. One may remark here that in sutra 3, the svarupa should naturally refer to the creation in a dream, since it is this dream- world which is described as maya-matram ; and that in sūtra 5, the translation of the word, prabhidhyana, as given by Rāmānu- ja, i. e., ' the willing by the Supreme Self' is supported by sūtra II. 3. 13, where anema means owing to the willing or reflecting by the Brahman.' Thus the three sūtras ( 3, 4 and 5 ) may be rendered thus : 'The creation in the dream is exclusively māyā, i. e., absolutely outside the normal order of things ( whether it be superior or inferior to the normal order ), because its nature is entirely non-manifested ( i. e., it does not in any way possess, the characteristics of the normal crestion. ) Moreover, the creation in the dream-state supplies indications ( about the future ), be- cause the great part ( of reality ) remains concealed in the dream, on account of the will of the Supreme Being.1 ' The second adhikarana ( sūtras 7 and 8 ) teaches that in the state of deep, dreamless sleep, according to all commentators, the individual soul abides in the Brahman within the hesrt. The third adhikarana ( sutra 9 ) expounds that the soul awa- kening from sleep is the same that went to sleep, because, other- wise, the reassuming of the action left incomplete before going to sleep, the remembering of past experiences and the injunctions about sacrifices etc. leading to definite results, would not be possi- ble. Madhva explains this sutra to mean that the same Paramā- tman is the shaper of the different conditions for all the individu- al souls and not for some only. The fourth adhikarana ( sutra 10 ) explains the nature of the condition of swoon, that it is neither of the three known condi- tions of being awake, sleeping and dreaming; but it is mid-way between sleep and death. The next adhikarana is full of difficulties inasmuch as it has been intarpreted in various ways; and at the same time it is next

1 We owe this interpretation to M Sylvain Lèvi,

ANALYSIS 123

to impossible to decide which of the interpretations is more natu- ral than the rest. According to Samkara, its purport is to deter- mine, on a scriptural basis, the nature of that Brahman in which the individual soul is absorbed in the state of deep sleop, as described in the immediately preceding adhikaranas. The question is whether the Brahman is nirvisesa ( absolutely void of attributes ) or savisesa ( qualified by attributes ); for there are passages in the sruti which lend support to both these views. The Brahman cannot be both savisesa and nirvisesa, begins the adhi- karana, even through the limiting adjuncts ( स्थानतः= पृथिव्याद्यपाधि- ra); for, everywhere the Brahman is described as being nirvisesa ( sūtra 11 ). If it be said that this is not reasonable owing to the different descriptions of Brahman in different passages, we reply, 'no'; for in every such passage describing the adjuncts of the Brah- man, it is described as being itself free from all diversity (sūtra 12); and some directly speak of abheda ( absence of diversity ), at the same time condemning all bheda ( diversity ) ( sūtra 13 ). And the Brahman must be regarded ar void of all diversity ; for passages describing the Brahman as nirvisesa have the Brahman for their principal subject ( tat-pradhana ) ( while passages describing the Brahman as savisesa are not so, but they aim at upāsanā or meditation ; and when there is an opposition between pas- sages which have the Brabman as their chief subject ( tat- pradhana ) and those which have it not, the former must naturally be accepted and the laiter rejected, in determining the nature of the Brahman (sutra 14). And in order that the savisesa passages should not be devoid of significance, the Brahman must be regarded as being like light ( which seems to assume as it were different forms, but which does not really possess the forms ( sūtra 15). The Scripture, moreuver, declares the Brahman to consist of that only ( i. e., intelligence ) and thus to be absolutely nirvisesa ( sūtra 16). The same is stated also in the sruti and smrti ( sūtra 17 ). For this very reason there are comparisons with reflections of the sun in water etc. ( which aim at nothing but showing the unreal character of the apparent manifestations of the Brahman, due to the limiting adjuncts ) ( sūtra 18 ). ( But it may be objected that ) there is no parallelism ( of the two things compared), since ( in the case of the Brahman)

124 THE VEDANTA

there is not apprehended ( any separate substance ) comparable to the water ( sutra 19). (The objection, however, does not hold good; for, what the comparison means is that) the Brahman participates ( as it were ) in the increase and decrease of the limiting adjuncts, since it is implied in them'; and owing to the appropriativeness of the two things compared; it is thus ( i. e., the comparison holds good ). ( The meaning is that as the reflected images of the sun participate in the changes which the water undergoes, while the sun himself remains un ffected thereby so the true self is not affected by the attributes of the upadhis) (sūtra 20). The Scripture also declares ( that the Brahman itself enters into the upadhis ) ( sūtra 31 ). It is to be noted here that the explanation of the word 'sthana- tah ' in sūtra 11, is not satisfactory, also that Samkara uses the word ' as it were' ( iva ) in the interpretation of sutras 15 and 20, to which nothing in the sutras corresponds, and that the words 'darsayati ca' in sūtra 17 are superfluous. Ramanuja, however, connects this adhikarana with what pre- cedes, quite in a different way, i. e. by asking the question whether the imperfections of the individual soul, whose conditions have been so far discussed, affect also the Brahman or not. Not even owing to its abiding ( in such placee as the earth, the individual soul etc. is there any imperfection ) attaching to the Highest Self; for everywhere, it is described as having twofold characteristics (i. e. being, on the one hand, free from all evils, and, on the other hand, being endowed with all auspicious quali- ties ) ( sūtrā 11 ). ( If it be said that the antaryāmin, the ruler within, also is affected by imperfections ) owing to the variety ( of bodies within which it abides, just as, for instance, the indi- vidual soul, although essentially free from evil, is yet liable to imperfections owing to its connection with a variety of bodies ), we reply, 'no; because in every section ( of the chapter referring to the antaryamin in the Brh. Upa. 317 ) he is expressly called the opposite of that,' ( i. o., free from the short-comings of the indi- vidual soul ) (sutra 12). And some moreover expressly assert that,

1 Thus the ether ( to which the Brahman to compared ) has more or lens volume according to the greater or smaller dimensions of the recipient ( the upadhi or condition ) which contains it.

ANALYSIS

though the Lord and the soul are within one body, the soul only is important, but not the Lord ) (sutra 13). Another proof of it lies in fact that the Brahman in itself is devoid of form (i. e. not subject to imperfections due to the connection with the bodies) ( ... nngog- मेव जीववच्छरीरित्वनिबन्धनं कर्मवश्यतत्वमस्य न विद्यत इत्यर्थ:), it being the principal element in the bringing about of names and forms ( sūtra 14 ). Again, just as we must admit that the Brahman is of the nature of light and intelligence ( in order not to deprive passages like ' satyam jñanam etc.' of their significance ), in the same way, not to deprive such passages as assert satya-samkalpatva etc. of their significance (we must admit that the Brahman is possessed of the double character, i. e. being free from the faults and being the abode of all auspicious qualities ) ( sūtra 15). ( Moreover, the Taitti. Upa. pasage ( 2. 1) ' satyam jnanam etc.' only asserts so much ( i. e. the prakasa-svarupatva of the Brahman, but does not at the same time deny other qualities such as 'satya-samkalpatva' etc. known from other passages ) (sūtra 16). ( And this two-fold character of the Brahman) is asserted in many passages of theéruti and the smrti (sutra17). It is, because (the Brahman, although abid- ing in many places, is not touched by their imperfections ) that the similes of the reflected sun of the ether limited by a jar etc. are applicable to it ( sutra 18). If it be objected that the simile is not applicable because the sun is apprehended in the water errone- ously ( bhrāntya ), while the antaryāmin really ( paramārthatah ) abides in the earth etc., and so he must share in their changes and defects ( sūtra 19), we reply that what is negatived by the simile is that the Brahman should participate in the increase and decrease of the many places in which it inheres ; on this view both similes (that of the sun and of the ether) are appropriate ( sutra 20). And we observe analogous similes (i. e. to be understood only in some particular aspects ) employed in ordinary life, e. g. whon we compare Mānavaka to a lion ( sūtra 21 ). It must be confessed here that the meaning of 'tan-matram' in sutra 16 is rather unfamiliar, the meaning given by Samkara being no doubt the more usual one. On the other hand, sūtra 17 is construed much better, and has not the appearance of super- fluousness. It is very curious how the very same simile in sūtra 18 can lead to two diverse views regarding the nature of the

126 THE VEDANTA

Brahman. In sutra 20, Ramanuja has not to supply ' iva' of his own invention, which Samkara is compelled to do. Nimbarka agrees with Ramanuja as regards the general pur- port of these sutras, but differs from him in the interpretation of some individual sutras. Thus according to him, sutra 15 means that the Brahman must be regarded as prakasavat ( the source of light) and at the same time as aruarmye ( not touched by the defects of the objecst to be illumined) in order to give the following sentence its full significance: 'नभेष भान्तमनुभाति सर्वम्। आवित्यवर्ण तमसः वररतात्'.This sentence, by itself confirms the twofold character of the Brahman. Sūtra 16 also is explained differently to mean that a sentence can have its full significance only when it signifies all that it expresses, without leaving out anything. Madhva divides the sutras ( 11-21 ) into five adhikaranas. The purport of the adhikaranas ( sutras 11-13 ) is that the Highest Self dces not inherently possess difference of forms and that when it is described as having infinite forms, it is out of regard for its greatness or aisvarya. The next adhikarana ( sūtras 14-17 ) shows that when the Brahman is spoken of as being without fcrm, it means that it is without forms of the material world ( prākrta- rupa-hina); at the same time the passages describing the rupa of the Brahman have their full significance in that they describe the vila- ksana or extraordinary form of the Brahman. The next adhikarana ( sutra 18 ) says that though the jiva is similar in nature to the Brahman, still it cannot be void of all difference like it, because the jiva is only its reflection (pratibimba ); and so it is absolutely different from, dependent upon and similar to the Brahman, just as a sun's reflection is different from, dependent upon and similar to the sun. The next adhikarana ( sūtra 19 ) states that this similarity of nature of jiva is not manifested without bhakti (devotion) (अम्युघतप्रहणात् = अम्युपत् स्नहेन ग्रहणं ज्ञानं भार्कति बिना ) and that this bhakti has different degrees, (वृद्धि-द्ास-माक्तम्) some higher and some lower is stated in the next adhikarana ( sūtras 20-21 ). The way in which Madhva interprets the words aum and anagna is fantastic and not less curious is the way in which he explains the simile of the sun's reflection so as to support the duality of the Brahman and the jiva. According to Vallabha, all these sutras ( 11-21 ) form one ad-

ANALYSIS 127

hikarana; but the question proposed is whether the attributes of the indlvidual souls and of the material world, sometimes affirmed of the Brahman and sometimes denied, belong to him or not. Sutra 15 says that just as the light of the sun is both capable of being pointed out ( vyavahara ) and otherwise, in the same way the Brahman is both object of definite description vyavahāravisa- ya and transcending all predication ( vyavahārātita ), in order that the mutually opposed passages in the scriptures should retain their significance. Sutras 16-18 state the prima facie view saying that the Brahman is only tan-mātra ( i. e., in- telligence pure and simple ), and that the simile of the sun's re- flection indicates thai the attributes of cit and acit are only me- taphorically predicated of the Brahman, while their total absence is its real nature. Sutras 19-21 state the siddhanta, to the effect that the Brahman both has and has not the attributes of cit and acit and that it is the abode of all sorts of attributes opposed to each other ; and that there is no real contradiction between the several texts of the scriptures. Sutras 22-30 form a new adhikarana according to Samkara, the subject-matter of which is the passage from the Brh. Upa. (2. 3.6), 'अयान आदेश नेति नेति नह्मेतम्मादिति नत्यन्यत्परेस्नि' (now then the teaching, by 'not so, not so': there is nothing higher than this, hence 'not so'; there is Another over and above ' ). The question is : whether these negations negative the Brahman also or only the two forms of the Brahman, corporeal and incorporeal, men- tioned in the preceding sentence. Sutra 22 replies that the passage negatives only the two limited forms; while that which is be- yond these forms negatived is the Brahman, and it is non-manifest (sutra 23). The yogins realise this Brahman, void of all distinctive attributes, at the time of the samradhana (devotion, meditation etc.) (sütra 24). The Brahman is devoid of all distinctive attributes as light, which appears to be different as it comes in contact with different objects ( which are the upadhis or adjuncts, the karman ), but which is itself unchanged. And the non-difference of the Brah- man and the jiva is repeatedly mentioned (sutra 25). Hence is the jiva spoken of as becoming one with the prajña or the Highest Self, which is possible only if the distinctions are unreal ( sūtra 26 ).1 The question proposed in the remaining four sūtras of this

128 THE VEDANTA

adhikarana is how to reconcile passages speaking of the difference between the jiva and the Prajña (e. g. Mund. Up. 3.1. 8; 3. 2. 8 &c.) and those speaking of their non-difference (e. g. Chand. Up. 6. 8. 7; Brhad. Upa. 1. 4. 10 etc. ) One view is that the relation between the prajna and the jiva is like that between a serpent and its coils, which are non-different in as much they are both serpent, at the same time different, from the point of view of the coils, the hood, the length eto. (sutra 27). Another view is that the relation is like that botween light and its source, which are not absolutely differ- ent, both being alike tejas, but which at the same time are differ- ent and have different names ( sutra 28). But the siddhanta is the one stated in sutra 25 above that all difference is unreal and that the Brahman is the only reality (sutra 29). This follows from the denial of any other intelligent being than the Highest Self ( e. g., in Br. u.3. 7. 23, a-m ai 'there is no other seer than this' ). It has to be noted here that the meaning of the word 'karmani' in sutra 25 is anything but satisfactory. According to Ramanuja, however, sutras 22-26 form a con- tinuation of the preceding adhikarana. The question being, how the twofold character of the Brahman, as understood above, can be possible, when the clause 'aa ma' denies the forms of the Brah- man described before. The reply is that this clause denies only the limited nature of the Brahman, i. e., it denies that the Brahman is possessed of only these attributes and no more; and this is corrobrated by the fact that more attributes are later on spoken of as belonging to the Brahman ( sutra 22 ). Here Ramanuja oriticises Samkara's interpretation thus : it would be ridiculous to hold that the attributes are described first just in ac- cordance with the popular conception (anuvada ) to be. only denied afterwards; because in the first place it is futile; and secondly, such a course would be justifiable only if these attributes of the Brahman can be known from ordinary xperience ; but, as a matter of fact they can be known from scripture alone. And scripture as a matter of fact declares the Brahman to be non-manifest, i. e., not accessible to any other proofs but scripture (sutra 23). The realisation of this Brahman ensues only from contemplation which has taken the form of bhakti or devotion, or from its being propitiated by the worshipper's

ANALYSIS 129

devotion 'samradhana' (sutra 24). The interpretation given above of ara aa ' is confirmed by the fact that the quality of being differen- tiated by the corporeal and incorporeal world ( मूताम्रनांदिपप अ्वीस्षिट्टता) of the Brahman is realised just in the same way as the lumin- ousness, intelligence etc. are and these latter are realised only through repeated practice in the act of Samradhana ( Fhua ) ( sutra 25 ). For all these reasons, the Brahman possesses an infinite number of attributes; for thus the twofold indications ( linga ) met with in the Scriptures are justified ( sūtra 26 ). The remaining four sūtras (27-30) form a new adhikarana, pro- posing to discuss the relation in particular between the Brahman and the acid-vastu or non-sentient matter ; for there are passages referring to the non-difference of the two (e. g. 'ब्रह्मेवेढं सर्वम' Nrsimha Up. 5 ) as well as to their difference ( e. g. हन्नाहमिमास्तिस्त्रो देवता अनेन जीवेनात्मनामुप्रविश्य Chan. Up. 27. 6.3.2). The relation, says sutra 27, is like that between a serpent and its coils, i. e., the non-sen- tient matter is only a special arrangement (samsthāna-visesa) of the Brahman. But this view has to be rejected, remarks Rāmānuja, because it goes against the passages referring to the difference be- tween the Brahman and the non-sentient matter as well as those which describe the Brahman as being incapable of transformation ( parinama ). Or the relation in question is like that between light and its abore, which, though really different, are at the same time non-differant, since both alike are tejas (sūtra 28). The Siddhānta, however, is that the relation is just as it was decided before ( pūrvavat ) in sūtra II. 3. 43, i. e. non-sentient matter is only & part of the Brahman and hence its attribute, incapable of existing independently of it (sutra 29). And the same follows from the denial of the attributes of non-sentient matter as belonging to the Brahman ( sūtra 30 ). It must be admitted, that the explanation of Fonma' in sutra 25 is decidedly superior to that given by Samkara. At the same time the meaning of ' anantena' in sutra 26, though justi- fied by the context, is rather unusual. Nimbārka, like Śamkara, begins a new adhikaraņa with sūtra 22 and continues it upto sutra 30. As regards sutras 22-24, he generally agreos with Ramanuja; but he interprets sutras 25 and

Ghate, Vedanta, 17.

130 THE VEDANTA

26 a little differently. Just as sūrya ete. are- manifested to cer- tain persous only, after the repeated practice of certain mantras oto., though they are otherwise common to all, in the same- way the Brahman, though present everywhere, is realised only by. some after the repeated practice of Samradhana or contemplation as- suming the form of devotion. And from this realisation of the Brahman ( atah), the jiva becomes similar to or united with the Brahman. Thus Nimbarka explains the words rjoywuran like Rāmānuja, but anantena like Samkara. As for the remaining four sūtras, Nimbārka has a different purport altogether, although their literal meaning may not appear different. That the passage na afa does not negative the mūrta and amurta forms of the Brahman but only its limited character follows from the fact that the world stands to the Brahman in the relation of bhedabheda, i. e. both difference and non-difference. just like that between a serpent and its coils in conformity with both kinds of mention, i. e. of difference as well as non-difference, found in the Scriptures. This is the siddhanta according to Nimbarka as regards the relation between the Brahman and the inanimate world; and not a mere prima-facie view, as for instance, Samkara and Rāmānuja suppose it to be. So also sūtra 28 states the siddhanta regarding the rela- tion between the Brahman and the jiva or cit, which is also bhe- dabheda, just like the one existing between light and its abode. If then, one might object, the world is only & special arrangement of the Brahman, as follows from the metaphor of a serpent and its coil, the Brahman is capable of transformation : then eithor the whole of it must be transformed, partless as it is; or it should cease to be partless, so that a part of it only is transformed. Ac- cording to sūtra 29, which negatives the objection, these objections are to be answered as above ( pūrvavat ) in sūtra II. 1. 27, which says that the nature of the Brahman is to be solely determined from the sruti and not merely by ordinary reasoning. Moreover, the conclusion that the Brahman is not affected by any defects or impurities is reached from such express negations as facn orr- gam, 'he is not touched by ordinary worldly misery.'. This interpretation, although very satisfactory, has, however, a defect and it is that if it is admitted, the particlo.va (or) in tho two sutras, 28 and 29, loses all significance.

ANALYSIS 131

According to Madhva, sutra 22 forms an adhikarana, saying that the sruti denies the Brahman being only the creator and de- stroyer ; for it asserts something more, i. e. that it is also the pro- teotor. Sutras 23-26 form another adhikarana, saying that the Bra- hman is by :taelf non-manifest; that it can become manifest only by repeated practice of sravana, manana etc. ( कर्मणि विषयभूते तस्मिन् म्साण प्रकाश: : क्षात्कारो मवति।) 'there results the realisation, 'prakasa,' of the Brah nan which is the object, 'karman'; and that it becomes so only through the favour of the Brahman itself, of infinite and wonderful powers ( अनन्तेनापरिमितसामर्थ्येनान्वितस्य तस्य प्रसादात्) and not through the unaided efforts of the jiva. The subject of sūtras (27-30 ) is, 'how can the Brahman be both bliss and the possessor of bliss ( ananda and anandin )'. The Brahman can be both, says sutra 27, just as a serpent can be both a coil and one having a coil; for we have both kinds of mention in the texts. Thus for instance, in Tattiriya Up. II. 4. आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान 'knowing the bliss of Brah- man', the Brahman is spoken of as anandin; and in r qra , Brhad. Up. 6. 3. 33, ' this itself is the great bliss', the Brah- man is spoken of as ananda. Exactly in the same manner the sun is both light and the abode of light ( sūtra 28) and time is the measurer ( avacchedaka, as when we used a word like pūrva ' former' : gfugr ), as well as the measured one (sutra 29). That the Brahman is both the quality and the qualified follows from such negations as 'एकमेवाद्वितीयम्' Or 'नेह नानास्नि फिंचन'. Madhva's explana- tions of sutras 22 and 29 are unnatural on the face of them.

Vallabha divides sutras 22-30 into four adhikaraņas. Sūtra 22, forming the first adhikarana, says that the negation of at- tributes with regard to the Brahman only refers to ordinary worldly attributes and that it only means that the Brahman is extra- ordinary ( jagad-vilaksana ). The next adhikarana ( sūtras 23-24) rejects the view according to which only those passages which dony all attributes about the Brahman represent the truth, where- as those that predicate attributes are to be understood only meta- phorically; and it establishes that the Brahman is in res' both possessed of attributes and void of attributes : Sife मल्यक्षपिववस्वादुभववाक्यार्थसपमपि ज्ह्मय। 'being the subjeot of or' extra-ordinary perception, the Brahman has its r'

132 THE VEDANTA

by both kinds of sentences'. The next adhikarana ( sūtras 25-27) deals with the same question. The purvapaksa runs thus : just as tejas, 'light', is of one nature and possesses only one touch, i. e. hot, although under different ciroumstances different kinds of touch may be experienced ( e. g. cool touch in the moon; but that does not mean that the cool touch belongs really to tejas); in the same way, though the Brahman may be manifested in the act of contemplation ( karmani ) as possessed of an infinite variety of forms ( anantena ) according to the inclination of the devotee, still it is really only ( nirvisesa ) void of any attributes. But, no, says the siddhanta; the Brahman is both void of qualities, and possessed of infinite qualities, just as a serpent can be both straight and crooked. Sutras 28-30 discuss the relation between the Brabman and its attributes ( dharma ), which is like that between light and its abode. Thus the Brahman either exists always as possessed of its dharmas, which we can never conceive as being separated from it, or the truth may be as represented above ( pūrvavat ) in sūtras 14-18, i. e. the Brahman is void of attri- butes (nir-dharmaka). Just as to reconcile certain passages we admit that the Brahman is possessed of a twofold character (ubhaya- rūpe ), in the same way to reconcile passages like 'satyam', 'ekam eva advitiyam ' we must admit that the Brahman is nir- dharmaka Here Vallabha remarks that both these views are favoured by the Sutrakara ( उभयमपि सूत्रकारस्य संमतमिति). Thus from a consideration of the several interpretations of sutras 11-30, two points are quite clear. In the first place there is not the least reference to the maya ; for, we see how Samkara has to put in the word ' iva' several times. In the second place, the Sutrakara's attempt to reconcile passages of a radically opposed character, regarding the nature of the Brahman and its relation to the jiva and the non-sentient matter, has not led to any docisive result; in other words, instead of laying down any hard and fast theory, as for instance, that the jiva is a transformation (parinama) of the Brahman or an illusory aspect (vivarta), he only illustrates the relation by various examples ( cf. especially sūtras 27-89 and the particle'va' used there ). Or perhaps he is prepared to believe that both distinction ( bheda) and non-distinction ( abheda ), absence of attributes ( nir-dharmatva )

ANALYSIS 133

and the possession of infinite attributes ( ananta-dharmatva) are possible in the Brahman, since it is only to be known from the Scriptures. If however we want to see some definite system in the sutras, the most probable one, as far as these particular sutras go, would be the doctrine of Bhedabheda, which sees both bheda and abheda, without involving any third principle to reconcile them and to which especially the illustrations of the serpent and its coil or of light and its abode are suitable. The next adhikarana ( sūtras 31-37 ) discusses certain terms applied to the Brahman, terms which, if literally understood, would imply the idea of limitation, but which are to be under- stood only in a metaphorical sense as far as the Brahman is con- cerned, without in any way affecting its unlimited character. The last adhikarana of this pāda ( sūtras 38-41) decides that the fruit of actions is given by the Highest Self; and that mere karman, whether through adrsta ( the unseen) or without it, is in- capable of producing it, if it is not aided by Him. It is to be noted that here Badarayana and Jaimini are mentioned as the advocates of Isvara and karman respectively.

ADHYĀYA III, PĀDA 3. The first and second padas, though belonging to the Sadha- nadhyaya or the chapter dealing with the means of attaining Moksa, really dealt with the nature and attributes of the Brah- man and the nature of transmigration. It is with the third pada that the consideration of the meditations or cognitions leading to the attainment of the Brahman really begins. We know, that in the different Upanisads, belonging to the different Vedas or belonging to the different Sakhas of the same Veda, meditations or cognitions (vidya ) of the Brahman are described, sometimes under the same name, but with some dif- ferences of detail. Thus, for instance, the so-called Sandilya- vidyā, which is met with in Chan. III. 14, is found again in an abridged form in Brhad. V. 6 and again in Satapatha Brahmana X. 6. 3. All these three passages enjoin a meditation on the Brahman as possessing certain attributes, some of which are specified in all the three texts ( as for instance, manomayatva, bhārūpatva, &c. ) while others are peculiar to each separate pas-

134 THE VEDANTA

sage, prāņasariratva and satya-samkalpatva, for instance, being montioned in the Chand. and Satapatha Brah., but not in the Brhad., which, on its part, specifies sarvavasitva, not referred to in the two other texts. Now the question is whether all these meditations are one and the same or whether they are different. In the case of ritual or of the sacrifices, the different descriptions of a sacrifice bearing one name, found in different passages, do not present any such difficulty; for acts may be performed in different fashions, according to circumstances; since they are all sädhya ( to be accomplished ), and each one may follow the practice taught in his own Sakha to the exclusion of the rest. But with cognitions, the case is quite different. The object of these cognitions is the Brahman, which is one, eternal, and un- øhangeable in character; it is something siddha (accomplished ) as opposed to karman which is sadhya; 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 false, it being im- possible 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 farm the subject of the different Vedanta texts, are separate cogni- tions 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; in-as-much as, if the cognitions are separate, he will have to practise so many different meditations, whereas if they are all one, only one medi- tation would suffice.

The question is answered in a general way, in the first adhi- karaņa ( sūtras 1-4 ) thus : The cognitions or meditations of the Brahman, taught by all the Vedanta-texts, are identical on äccount of the non-difference of injunctions &c .; to wit, because the special activities enjoined by different verbal roots, such as 'upasita' 'he should meditate', ' vidyat' 'he should know' etc. in connection with the different vidyas are non-different. And adhikaraņa 2 ( sūtra 5 ) further adds as a corollary of this that in the case of a devout meditation on the Brahman, common to several sakhās, the particulars mentioned in each éakha have. to

AĶALYSIS 135

undergo a combination (upasamhara), since there is no difference of essential matter. Thus, in the instance given above, the Sandilya-vidya in the three passages is one and the same and the variant details have to be all combined, though they differ in the different passages. Or, to take another instance, the Vaisvanara- vidya, or the meditation on the Brahman under the aspeot of Vaisvanara, found in Chand. V. 12-2 and Satapatha. Brāhmana 10-6-1-11, is identical, because we meet with one and the same injunction ( viz. वेश्वानरमुपासीत, 'he should meditate on Vaisvanara); the form (rupa) of the meditations is also the same, for the form of a cognition solely depends on its object ; and the object is in both cases the same, viz. Vaisvānara; and both these vidyās are de- clared to have the same result, viz. attaining the Brahman. All these reasons establish the identity of the vidyas even in different Śakhas, which in its turn involves the combination of the 'gunas' or details mentioned in the different passages. This conclusion is confirmed by the Scriptures also in so many words: e. g. Katha I. 2. 15-' that word which all the Vedas record ' or Aitereya Aranyaka III. 2. 3. 12, ' Him only the Bahvrcas consider in the great hymn, the Adhvaryus in the sacrificial fire, the Chandogas in the Maha- vrata ceremony. All the commentators agree in a general way in holding that such is the subiect matter of this pada. Vallabha more particu- larly connects the question with different forms of the Bhagavat, i. e. His incarnations ( avataras ), and asks whether the particu- lars 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 worships in particular. Madhva also is of accord with the rest, but he translates the word ' ve- dānta' in the first sūtra as 'veda-vinirnaya' or ' the decision of the Vedas', not accepting the usual meaning ' Upanisads' and insisting on the point that the samhitas also are as important for his doctrine as the Upanisads. But taking our stand more particularly on the doctrine of Śamkara, we may ask, how the question attempted to be answerad in this pada arises at all. For, according to Samkara, the Brahman is free from all distinctions whatsoever and is one and of absolutely

136 THE VEDANTA

uniform nature like a lump of salt ( saindhavaghana iva ). Hence there appears to be no reason for even raising the question whether the cognitions of the Brahman are separate cognitions or constitute only one cognition, not the least shadow of plu- rality being possible in connection with the Brahman. Much more out of place is the question of the combination of details. since no idea of details is possible in Samkara's Brahman. Sam- kara himself is aware of this difficulty, and hastens, at the very commencement of the pada, to explain that no objection can be raised against a discussion of the question proposed, since it refers only to the qualified Brahman. For, says he, devout meditations on the qualified Brahman may, like acts, be either identical or different and may have various results, e. g., release by successive steps (kramamukti) &c.

No such difficulty, however, can arise for the other cemmen- tators: for, according to Rāmānuja and Nimbārka, the Brahman is possessed of an infinite number of auspicious at- tributes ; and according to Vallabha, the Brahman, owing to its marvellous and mysterious powers, can possess any forms what- soever, even mutually opposed. 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 connect- ed with the saguna Brahman, which is not after all to him the highest verity.

So far we have discussed the vidyas which have for their object the Brahman under one aspect or another or possessing these or other qualities ; but there are other cognitions or meditations which refer to the constituents of a sacrifice; e. g., the Udgitha- vidyas in Chand. 1. 1. 3 and in Brhad. I. 3. Now the question is whether these two form but one vidya or two separate vidyas. The reply is given by the third adhikarana ( sutras 6-8 ) to the effect that though both these passages glorify the chief vital air, they cannot be one vidya, owing to the difference of the subject- matter ; because the subject of the Chandogya vidya is not the whole udgitha but only the sacred syllable om; while the Brhada- ranyaka Upanisad represents the whole udgitha as the object of meditation.

ANALYSIS 137

Another question which naturally arises from the point settled in adhikarana 2 is whether in all the meditations on the Brahman, all its qualities are to be included or only these mentioned in each special vidya. The reply is given in adhikarana 6 (sūtras 11-13). The essential and unalterable attributes of the Brahman, such as bliss ( ananda ) and knowledge ( jñāna ), are to be taken into account everywhere; while those which admit of a greater or less degree( e. g., the attribute of having joy for its head, in Taittirlya 2. 5) are to be confined to special meditations; or rather, as Ramanuja would have it, such attributes are not to be viewed as qualities of the Brahman, and therefore not to be included in every meditation ; for, if they were admitted as qualities, difference would be introduced into the nature of the Brahman. What we have said so far is quite sufficient to give a general idea of the subject-matter of this pada. As the majority of the adhikaranas treat of nothing but special cases to which the deci- sions given above are to be applied, and as they are of no import- ance for the question before us, it is not necessary to review their contents in detail, as we have done with the preceding pādas. We shall content ourselves with noticing only those adhikaranas which are of interest directly for our purpose. Sūtras 27-31 deserve notice, because Samkara finds in them a reference to the twofold distinction of the Brahman and its know- ledge. Sutra 27 says that the freeing himself from the good and evil deeds, affirmed of the sage possessed of knowledge, ( for inst- ance in Chand 8. 13. 1, Kausitaki 1. 3. 4 etc. ) takes place not on the road to the world of the Brahman, but just at the moment of the soul's departure from the body ; for there exists nothing to be reached by him on the way through his good and evil works. And moreover, ( on this supposition, ) there is no contradiction to both ( his making an effort to free himself from his deeds and his actually freeing himself ) according to his liking; ( but if he be supposed to free himself from his deeds on the way, after having departed from the body, he cannot accomplish the effort to free him- self, an effort which consists in self-restraint and pursuit of know- ledge and which necessarily requires the body) (sūtra 28). Rāmānuja and Nimbarka agree with Samkara, as far as the general idea is con- cerned, though the word ' ubhayavirodhat' in sūtra 28, is explain- Ghate, Vedānta, 18.

138 THE VEDANTA

ed by each in his own way. According to Ramanuja, the sutra means:('the several words of the passages must be construed ) as it is desired, i. e. so as not to contradiot both ( viz. the declaration of the Soripture and the reason of the thing )'. According to Nimbarka, it means: '(a friend or a foe receives the merit or demerit of the knowing sage ) of his own free will (i. e. a friend, because he thinks sympathetically of the vidvat, receives his merit; while a foe, because he thinks ill of him, receives his demerit). Thus both ( the giving up (hana) and the receiving (upayana) of the merit and demerit ) are without any contradiction.' It is with sutra 29 that the interpretations differ materially. The sutra गतेर्र्थवत्त्वमुभययाऽन्यथा हि विरेध: may be literally translated thus : "the going ( on the path of gods ) has a purpose in a two- fold manner, for otherwise there would be a contradiction. " According to Samkara it means that the giving has a sense in certain cases, i. e. with him who knows only the saguna Brah- man; while in other cases, it has no sense, i. e. with him who knows the nirguna Brahman; for, otherwise, i. e. if men, in all cases-whether knowing the saguna Brahman or the nirguna Brahman,-proceeded on that path, a going will have to be under- stood, even where it is not mentioned, e. g. in Mund. III. 1. 3. Sutra 30 further adds that this twofold distinction ( i. e. that the going has a sense in some cases, and in others, not ) is justified, for we observe the purpose of going (e. g. in saguņopāsanā, but not in samyag-darsana or the highest knowledge); as for instance in ordinary life, the actual motion is necessary for attaining to a village, but not in attaining to good health.

According to Ramānuja, however, sūtra 29, which raises an objection against the statement made in sūtra 27, means : 'The soul's going on the path of the gods has a sense only on the twofold hypothesis ( i. e. if the soul's freeing himself from his works takes place in both ways ( ubhayatha), i. e. partly at the moment of death and partly on the road; ) for otherwise, (ff this freeing himself from works takes place entirely at the moment of death, the subtle body also would be destroyed and the soul's going in the absence of a subtle body ) is impossible'. Thus the hypothesis in sūtra 27 cannot be maintatned. Sutra 30 amswors this objection by saying: '(the complete shaking off of the

ANALYSIS 139

works at the moment of death ) is possible, since we observe (in the Scriptures) matters of this nature ( i. e., there can be a connection with the subtle body even after the soul has divested itself of all his works and become manifest in its true nature )'; and that this subtle body can persist, even when the works which originate it have passed away, owing to the power of kmowled_e. Nimbarka explains sutra 29 to mean that the going on the path of gods has a sense only when both the evil and good works are shaken off ( ubhayatha ) and not only the evil works; for if the good works still persist, the going and the absence of return ( anavrtti ) would be contradicted. For, the soul will have to re- turn after the enjoyment of the fruits of the good works. The Kaustubha strictly follows Nimbarka, but the Prabha follows Ramanuja. And sutra 30 adds that this going is possible even when both the evil and good works are alike shaken off, with- out leaving behind the good works.

Thus we see how the word ' ubhayatha' in sutra 29 is capable of being explained. All the three interpretations are alike natural and in conformity with the wording of the sūtras. All the same, one carnot help remarking that Samkara's way of understanding it is forced; for how can 'having a double sense' mean 'having a sense in some cases and not having a sense in others'. Besides nothing in the sūtras has a semblance of suggesting the distinction between saguna and nirguna Brahman; but wo shall have to return to this point later on in the fourth adhyaya. Samkara himself remarks at the end of his commentary on sutra 50, भूयभ्रेनं विभागं चतुर्थाध्याये निपुण तरमुपपादमिष्यामः

Sūtra 31 also presents a similar difference of interpretation. According to Samkara it means that this going on the path of gods is followed not only in the case of those vidyäs where it is spe- oially mentioned, but in the case of all saguna-vidyas (सर्वासाय्=सगुण- fu ). Ramanuja, who reads this sutra as number 32 and reads सर्वेशाम instead of सर्वसाम, explains it to mean that there is no restric- tion, since all knowing sages have to go on that path, and does not suggest in the least the distinction of saguna and nirguna vidyas. Nimbārka, who reads the sūtra in the same order as

140 THE VEDANTA

Śamkara and who has 'aig ', explains it just like Rāmānuja. Here also we have to make the same remark as above, i. e. that the wording of the sutra offers no ground for the distinction of saguna and nirguna Brahman which Samkara sees in it.

Vallabha, according to whom these sūtras ( 27-31 ) refer to the bhakta and the jnanin, establishing the superiority of the former, explains sutra 29 thus : Sometimes devotion alone is said to lead to Moksa, sometimes devotion accompanied by knowledge, some- times knowledge only, and sometimes moksa is said to be attained even without devotion or knowledge; thus there is a contradic- tion. No, replies the sutra; the knowledge ( gati ) produces its fruit or has its utility in both the ways ( ubhayatha ), i. e. it is useful in the Maryada-marga, but not so, in the Pusti-marga. Thus Vallabha refers to his usual distinction between the path of discipline and the path of grace and his way of explaining the word 'ubhayatha', analogous to that of Samkara, is alike open to the same objection.

Madhva interprets this sūtra (29) to mean that Moksa ( gati ) is desired as the goal, because a Mukta can remain either way ( ubhayatha), i. e. he may either do works or not, according to his will. As regards his explanation of the rest of the sutras, nothing is noteworthy for our purpose.

The distinction of saguna and nirguna Brahman is again re- ferred to by Samkara, in his commentary on sutra 39. Literally translated it means :'having true wishes and other qualities have to be combined there and here, on account of the abode and so on '-a wording which no doubt points to the unity of vidyas. The passages in question are Chand. VIII. 1, " that is the Self free from sin ... .... whose desires are true ...... " and Brhad. IV. 22 "he is that great unborn Self ...... the ether within the heart etc.". And the sutra asserts that both these constitute one vidya, since there is no difference of character ; both the texts referring to the Brahman as having the same abode, i. e. the heart, as being & bridge and so on Samkara explains the sutra thus at first, but at the end adds that, inspite of these common points, a difference has to be made between the two; for the Chandogya vidya has for its object the qualified Brahman, while in the Vajasaneyaka,

ANALYSIS 141

the highest Brahman, devoid of all qualities, forms the object of instruction, the chapter winding up with the passage IV. 5. 15: 'The Self is to be described by 'No, no"'. Now not only is there nothing in the sutra which warrants this; but this is directly against the wording of the sūtra. Rāmānuja and Nimbarka, however, are content with giving the straightforward explanation.

The last nine sūtras of the pāda ( 58-66 ) lay down some gene- ral principles regarding the combining of meditations and hence we notice them briefly, though they have nothing to do with the question before us. Satra 58 teaches that those meditations which refer to the same subject but are distinguished by different medi- tations, for instance the Dahara-vidyā, Sāndilya-vidyā etc., ought to be regarded as separate. Sutra 59 says that those meditations on the Brahman for which the texts assign one and the same fruit are optional, there being no reason for their being cumulated. Sutra 60, on the other hand, decides that those meditations which refer to special wishes may be cumulated or optionally employed accord- ing to choice. Sūtras 61-66, forming the last adhikarana of the pāda, extends this conclusion to the meditations, connected with constituent elemonts of action, such as the Udgitha etc.

ADHYAYA III, PĀDA 4. The fourth and last pada of the third adhyaya deals with mis- cellaneous questions regarding Brahma-vidya and its auxiliaries, for instance the following : that the knowledge of the Brahman is not subordinate to action, but independent; that hence for the pra- vrajins, only vidya is prescribed, though the actions enjoined by the Scriptures such as sacrifices, conduct of certain kinds etc. are conducive to the rise of vidya in the mind; that the duties proper for the different stages of life (Asrama-karmāni) are obligatory on him also who does not strive after mukti; that balya ' the child- like innocent state of mind,' panditya 'learning' and mauna 'the condition of a muni ', whose characteristic mark is pre-eminence, of knowledge, are three conditions enjoined for the samnyasin etc. We do not think it necessary to notice the contents of all the adhikarana in detail. We shall content ourselve with noticing the last two sutras ( 51, 52 ), which are interesting because Śam-

142 THE VEDANTA

kara finds in them a reference, though very remote, to the dis- tinction of the saguņa and nirgunņa vidyās.

Sutras 51 and 52 run thus : ऐहिकमप्यपस्तुतप्रतिबन्धे तद्दशनातू and एवं मुक्िफलानियमलदवस्थावधृते :- The question is regarding the origination of vidya or knowledge, whose means or sadhanas have been so far discussed in this pada. According to Samkara sūtra 51 means:'vidya-janman, the origination of knowledge takes place even in this world, but only when there is no obstaole in the way; ( otherwise in the case of such an obstaole existing, the knowledge may originate in any of the subsequent births ) '. Sūtra 52 means '(But) there is no such rule regarding the fruit of the vidya, i. e. mukti, since its nature is fixed and uniform.' What Samkara means is that though there may be a difference as regards the vidyā, sometimes originating in this very life and sometimes not, still there is no such variation regarding mukti, which is noth- ing but the self. Samkara further adds that it is only with re- gard to saguna vidyās, which refer to more or less attributes of the Brahman, that their fruits may differ accordingly. Now this interpretation is open to two objections; firstly, 'aniyamah', mean- ing ' absence of a definite rule', should apply alike to both the vidya-janman and the mukti-phala. Samkara takes the origination of the vidya, sometimes taking place here and sometimes not, as involving a niyama ( which is quite contrary to nature ) and says that no such niyama is possible with regard to mukti. Se- condly, the word ' evam ' implies a similarity of circumstances in the two cases; if there had been intended an opposition, we should expect ' tu ' ( but ), which Samkara is obliged to add in- spite of its not being present in the sūtra. And further, his re- ference to the saguna-vidya has nothing to warrant it in the sūtras.

Ramanuja takes ' aihikam' as the subject and construes it as 'रेहिकाम्युवयफलमुपासनम्'. Thus, those vidyas which have some worldly objects as their goal may originate immediately or may not, accord- ing as there are obstacles or not. In the same way, adds sūtra 52, there is absence of a definite rule regarding those vidyas which have mukti as their fruit; i. e., they also originate after a long or short time. Ramanuja's way of explaining ' aihikam ' is not

ANALYSIS 143

satisfactory ; for the sutrakara should have mentioned aihika-phala corresponding to mukti-phala. Nimbarka, explaining sutra 51 just like Samkara, explains sūtra 52 to mean 'in the same way, the fruit of vidyā, i. e. mukti, originates immediately after the fall of this body or after the fall of many more bodies; thus it is also equally without any fixed rule ( niyama )'. To me, this appears to be the most natural and straightforward way of construing the sutra, not open to any of the objections suggested above. It is very natural that the Sūtra- kāra, after having discussed at length the nature of the vidyas and their auxiliaries, should wind up the adhyaya with a brief reference to the question as regards the origination of vidya in general and that of its fruit or mukti. In any case, the refer- ence to the saguna aad nirgupa vidya is without any ground. We are further confirmed in this by the fact-and it is no doubt least expected-that Madhva explains these two sūtras exactly in the same way as Nimbarka.

ADHYĀYA IV, PĀDA 1. Adhyaya 4, as its name 'phaladhyaya' indicates, deals with the fruit or the nature of the moksa. The first pāda, however, de- votes a few of its adhikaranas to the consideration of the sadha- nas or the meditations etc., leading to the moksa. Adhikarana 1 ( sūtras 1-2 ), according to all, teaches that the meditation on the Atman, enjoined by the Scriptures, is to be repeated again and again until the realisation of the fruit takes place. Vallabha first gives this explanation, and then, remarking that it refers to sadhana, whereas it should refer to phala, proposes another : The fruit of the path of action ( karma-mārga ) as opposed to jnana-marga and bhakti-marga, i. e. transmigration ( āvrtti ) is repeated indefinitely, ( āvrtti ), i. e. the path of action can only help the path of knowledge and devotion, but cannot by itself bring about freedom from births and deaths. This explana- tion is no doubt not satisfactory ; and, besides, the word ' avrtti' has to be repeated twice.

Adhikaraņa 2 ( sūtra 3 ) says that the Brahman on which the devotee meditates should be viewed as his very self. This means, aocording to Samkara, that the devotee should see absolute identi-

144 THE VEDANTA

ty between the Brahman and himself. According to Ramanuja, however, it means that the Brahman to be meditated on ( upasya), ( of which the cit and acit form the body), would be viewed as the soul of the jiva ( the meditating one, upasaka ), just as this latter, being the soul of his body, thinks that he is a god or a man. ( It is only in this sense that the Brahman is jiva. ) Nimbārka explains the same by saying that the Brahman is to be viewed in medi- tation as the atman of the jiva, ( which is a part of the Brahman and which is individually different from it ), just as, for instance, a tree is the soul of the leaf or the sun is the soul of his ray. Madhva sees in this sutra a meditation on Visnu as the Lord of all or as the self of all. Vallabha remarks that this sūtra descri- bes the fruit of the path of knowledge ( while the last adhikarana referred to the path of action ) and explains it to mean that those who follow the path of knowledge look up to the Lord as their self and thus become one with him ( उप=समीपे, गच्छन्ति प्रविशन्नि). He also proposes another interpretation saying that even the followers of the path of action enter into the Lord, because he is the self of all and so favours all. Here it is to be noted that the word ' upa- gamana ' more usually means ' attending upon, ''adoring'' con- templating ' than' entering into' or ' being one with'.

Adhikaraņa 3 ( sutra 4) says that in the pratikopāsanās, or meditations on the Brahman under a symbol, the symbol is not to be considered as constituting the devotee's own self. This is ac- cording to Samkara and Ramanuja. Madhva, however, explains it differently: one is not in the meditation to regard that symbol it- self as the Brahman, but that the Brahman abides in the symbol (प्रतीके न ब्रह्मवृट्टः कार्या किंतु तत्स्थानेनैवोपासनं कार्यम्). Vallabha, who reads 'pratikena ' as one word instead of 'pratike na', explains that the moksa cannot result from the meditation on a symbol. Adhi- karaņa 4 ( sutra 5 ) further adds that in such pratikopāsanas, the symbol is to be looked upon as one with the Brahman, but not vice versa. Ramanuja and Nimbarka, explaining the sutra in the same way as Samkara, however, interpret it as containing an argument for the statement in the preceding sutra and thus take sūtras 4 and 5 as forming one adhikarana. Madhva takes this sütra as an independent adhikarana and makes it to mean that it is Vișnu and Visnu alone who is to be meditated upon as the Brahman;

ANALYSIS 145

for the word Brahman, which denotes ' greatness ', is applicable to Visnu alone. Vallabha, taking the sūtra to form part of the pre- ceding adhikarana, means by it that the contemplation on the Brahman is produced in a devotee of the hightest qualification without there being any Sruti text conferring this privilege on him. Adhikarana 5 ( sūtra 6 ) says, according to Samkara, Rāmā- nuja and Nimbarka, that in meditations connected the with consti- tuent paris of the sacrifice ( angopasanas ), the part which serves as an object of meditation is to be looked upon as the divinity and not vice versa. Thus, for instance, in the meditation enjoined in य एवासी तपति तमुद्रीथमुपासीत ( Chand. I. 3.1), it is the udgitha which is to be viewed as Aditya and not Āditya as the udgitha. Vallabha explains the sūtra to mean that in such meditations as the one en- joined in य एतमेवं विद्वानाहित्यं त्रह्मोत्युपास्ते it is the sakara ( possessed of form ) Brahman whose idea is to be transferred to Aditya and meditation on whose constituent part, whatever it may be, brings about the same fruit. He also remarks that the singular ('ange' in the sutra implies that all the members of the sakara Brahman really constitute a unity, being nothing but the Bhagavat-svarupa (the form of the Lord). Madhva says that in such passages as elr: सूर्यो अजायन (Rgveda X. 90. 13), the sun and other deities should me- ditate on the eye of Visnu etc. as being their abode and support. The two last explanations are evidently not natural, though :. 1l alike refer to what may be called ' angopasanas. ' Adhikarana 6 ( sūtras 7-10 ) according to Samkara asserts that the devotee should have a sitting posture while carrying on his meditations. Adhikarana 7 ( sūtra 11 ) adds that there is no rule regarding time and place; for the meditation may be carried on at any time, and in any place, favourbale to concentration of mind. Adhikarana 8 ( sūtra 12 ) further says that the medita- tions are to be continued until death. Samkara refers all these statements to only one particular kind of upāsanās, viz. the abhyudaya-phalopāsanas, 'meditations intended to bring about some reward in the form of good fortune etc. ', as opposed to karmangopāsanās, ' meditations referring to constituents of sacri- fioial actions', which naturally depend upon the nature of actions and for which consquently no special rules regarding the posture eto, Ghate, Vedanta, 19.

146 THE VEDANTA

can be laid down, and the samyagdarsana-phalopasanas, 'meditations with a view to have right knowledge or the realisation of the Brahman, ' which may be practised in any posture and only till the hour of realisation. Rāmanuja and Nimbarka and Madhva, interpreting the sutras much in the same way, however, refer them all to the meditations leading to the realisation of the Brahman,-which are specially excluded by Samkara. Samkara reads in sūtra 12 ' ā prāyaņāt', while Rāmānuja and Nimbārka read 'a prayanat'. In both cases, the meaning of the words, however, is nearly the same. Madhva, reading ' a prayanat ', explains it as meaning 'till the moksa or final beatitude takes place ' and not only uptil death; but this meaning of the word 'prayana ' is without doubt unusual. Vallabha's explanation is quite phantastic and sectarian in character, refer- ring to two kinds of devotees, having the Bhagavat manifested externally or internally in the heart. He also takes the word 'prayana' to mean 'परमं पारलै।किकं फलम्,' 'the highest reward belonging to heaven.' So far, the sutras dealt with the meditations and things re- lating thereto as means of moksa, thus forming a sort of supple- ment to the precediag adhyaya. Now commences & discussion of the phala or the nature of the fruit proper. Adhikarana 9 ( sutra 13 ) says that when the devotee has, by means of these medita- tions, attained to the knowledge of the Brahman, he ( the vidvat, the possesscr of knowledge, ) is no longer affected by the conse- quences of either his past or future evil deeds. Adhikarana 10 ( sütra 14 ) says that the same is the case with good deeds, which also lose their efficiency. Both good and evil deeds having thus ceased to affect the vidvat, the mukti or final beatitude takes place just after the fall of the present body. This is how Samkara and Nimbārka explain 'pāte tu' in the sūtra. Rāmānuja, how- ever, connects it with the remaining words of the sūtra more directly and explains that the cessation of the efficacy of the good deeds takes place net immediately, like that of the evil deeds, but only on the death of the vidvat,-an explanation which is distinctly more natural, from the point of view of the wording of the sūtras and of the antithesis between the words pate and tadadhigame. .Madhva explains the sutra to mean that just as the evil deeds of

ANALYSIS 147

the devotee of Visnu perish, so also the good deeds of the enemy of Visnu perish, when he is about to fall into ta nas or the abyss of darkness. Thus, 'itarasya ' refers to both the brahma-dvesin as opposed to the brahma-bhakta and to good deeds as opposed to evil deeds. The explanation is fantastic. Vallabha explains 'pāte tu ' to mean that when there is again a fall from the con- dition of being one with Bhagavat ( e. g. as with Bharata, etc. ) owing to the attachment to worldly objects, there results only the cessation of the efficacy of evil deeds, but not that of good deeds. He also criticises the interpretation of Samkara by saying that there is no such word as ' mukti' in the sutra and that it would give the same idea as contained later on in sūtra 19.

Adhikarana 11 ( sutra 15 ) adds that the non-operation of works good or evil, spoken of so far, refers only to the 'anarabdhakārya' works, i. e. those which have not yet begun to produce their effects; while it does not apply to the 'arabdhakarya' works, which have already begun and produced their effects, and on which, in faot, the present existence of the devotee depends. Adhikarana 12 ( sūtra 16-17 ) says that those good works which are enjoined permanently ( nitya as opposed to kāmya and nai- mittika ), such as the ' Agnihot:a' etc., form an exception to the statement made in sutra 14, inasmuch as they, inspite of their being works, promote the origination of knowledge. Adhikarana 13 ( sūtra 18 ) says that the origination of knowledge is promoted not only by such sacrificial works as are accomplished by the knowledge of the upasanas, referring to the different constituent parts of those sacrifices, but also by those that have not this accompanying knowledge. Adhikarana 14 ( sutra 19) concludes by saying that the vidvat becomes united with the Brahman, only when the arabdhakārya works have been worked out fully by the fruition of their efforts. According to Samkara, this working out of the arabdhakārya works can be completed only in the present existence; so that, immediately after death, the vidvat becomes mukta, all the nescience which would otherwise lead to future births and deaths, having been completely destroyed by knowledge. According to Ramanuja, however, the vidvat may have to pass through several embodied existences before the ärabdhakārya works will have

148 THE VEDANTA

their effects completely exhausted. Nimbarka's Parijatasaurabha is not explicit on this point; but the Kaustabha and the Prabha distinctly follow the Sri-bhasya.

ADHYĀYA IV, PĀDA 2. The second and the remaining two padas of the fourth adhyāya describe the condition and the path of the vidvat ( the possessor of the knowledge of the Brahman ) after death. It is to be noted, however, that Samkara all through makes a distinction between the superior vidvat and the inferior vidvat, i. e. between one who possess- es the knowledge of the higher Brahman ( para vidya and para Brahman ) and realises that he is one with it and one who knows only the lower Brahman ( apara vidya and apara Brahman ) and for whom the distinction of the upasya and the upāsaka (the object meditated upon and the person who meditates ) is not completely extinguished. According to Ramanuja and the other commenta- tors, however, no such distinction seems to be made, the vidvat boing one and the same throughout the three padas. We shall see in the course of a detailed examination whether the sūtras themselves justify such & distinction. The first six sutras, according to Samkara, describe the fate after death, of the inferior vidvat and form three adhikaranas (1- 2, 3, and 4-6 ) affirming that the senses of the lower vidvat are merged in the manas, the manas is merged in the vital air, the vital air, in the jiva and the jiva with all these is merged in the subtle elements. This merging of one into another does not take place materially ( svarūpeņa ) but only functionally ( vrtyā ); that is to say, it is not the sense of speech that is absorbed in the mind, the mind not being the material cause ( prakrti ) of the organ of speech, but it is only the function of the mind that is so absorbed in that of speech, since the former is lost, while yet the latiar continues to be present. Thus, the verbal statement in Chand. Upa. VI. 8. 6, अस्य सोम्य पुरुवस्य प्रयतो वाङ् मनासि संपधते &c., 'of this person passing away, the speech is merged in the mind', has to bo understood metaphorically ; the word for the functioning sense being used in the sense of the function itself. Ramanuja and Nimbarka, however, according to whom these sutras forming four adhikaranas ( 1-2, 3, 4 and 5-6 ) refer to the fate of the vidvat in

ANALYSIS 149

general, this laya or sampatti means, not a mere funotional absorption, not a complete material absorption, but a samyoga, a conjunction. Madhva, as fantastic as usual; refers these sūtras to the moksa ( liberation) and utkrānti ( passage after death) of the several divinities, such as Rudra, Agni, etc., taking the words vak, manas, prana, etc. in the sūtras to denote the respective deities presiding over them. Vallabha interprets sūtras 1-4 as referring to the Pusti-bhakta ( the devotee who possesses the special grace of the Lord ) who directly becomes one with the Bhagavat, all his senses, pranas, etc. being absorbed in Bhagavat, who manifests Himself either externally or internally in the heart of the devotee in question. Sutra 5, on the other hand refers to the Maryada-bhakta ( the devotee who by the practice of disciplinary acts seeks for Mukti ) whose senses etc. are all merged in the elements and not directly in the Bhagavat. Sutra 6 says that the disciplinary rules apply both to the possessor of knowledge ( jñanin) and the possessor of devotion ( bhakta ) alike. The very sectarian character of this interpretation deprives it of importance for our present investigation.

The remaining sutras of this pada are somewhat important for our purpose, because most of them have been interpreted different- ly by the different commentators and because Samkara and Vallabha see in them a reference to the two-fold distinction of knowledge and devotion respectively.

According to Samkara, adhikarana 4 ( sūtra 7 ) says that the departure from the body, so far described, is common to the possessor of the lower knowledge ( apara vidya ) and to the ordinary person without knowledge ( a-vidvat) and that the distinction com- mences only at the beginning of the path, that is to say, the path followed by the soul after passing out of the body through a partioular vein ; and that the immortality spoken of in connec- tion with the lower vidvat is only relative, since he has not absolutely burnt ignorance and the consequent bonds of Samsara. After this departure, however, there is a difference, viz. the a-vidvat goes to receive a new embodiment; while, the vidvat resorts to the vein ( called susumna or the moksa-nādi, the vein of deliverance ); but up to that point, both are alike accompanied

150 THE VEDANTA

by the subtle elements, forming what is called the sūksma-sarlra ( the suble body ).

According to Ramanuja, however, ( whom Nimbarka follows all through the remaining part of this pada ),the mechanism of the departure is common to both the vidvat and the a-vidvat. His interpretation of the texts also is different from that of Samkara. If it be objected that in Brhad.IV. 4. 7, यदा सर्वे प्रमुच्यन्ते कामा ये ऽस्य हदि िनाः। अथ मर्त्यो पमृतो भवत्यत्र ब्रह्म समक्ुते ॥'when all the desires that stick in his heart are abandoned, then the mortal becomes immortal, then he attains the Brahman', the vidvat is described as cbtain- ing amrtatva ( immortality ) all at once ( i. e. without any depar- ture etc.), we reply, 'no'; for this immortality is only metaphori- cal, not implying a complete extinction of the union of the soul with the senses and the subtle body. It means only the non- operativeness of good and evil acts, described in the preceding pada, while the reaching of the Brahman is only the intuition of the Brahman at the time of a devout meditation. Sutras 8-11 form a separate adhikarana according to Samkara. Even in the case of the inferior vidvat ( i. e. the possessor of the lower knowledge ), the subtle elements which are described as being combined with the highest Deity ( तेजः पस्या देवनायाम् &c. Chand. VI. 8. 6 ) are not completely merged, but remain distinct upto the time when the final emancipation is reached ( ra- ffa: ). These subtle elements ( the sūksmasarira) are those that pass out of the body ( the sthūla-sarira ) of the dying person and take away with them the heat. Hence, the sūksma- sarira is not destroyed by the destruction of the gross body. According to Ramanuja and Nimbarka, these sutras ( 8-11 ) form a continuation of the preceding adhikarana. The immorta- lity ( amrtatva ), spoken of above ( in Brhad. IV. 4. 7 ), does not imply a complete destruction of the connection between the body and the soul, and therefore, of bondage; for the Scriptures declare that the samsara exists until the Brahman is reached. That the subtle body continues to accompany the soul is another proof of it. ( It is to be noted in passing that sūtra 10 becomes, according to this interpretation, only a repetition of sutra 7 and therefore super- fluous ). To this subtle body belongs the warmth which we per-

ANALYSİS 151

ceive in some part of the gross body of the dying person (even though he be a vidvat ). This warmth cannot belong to the gross body itself; for in that case we should find it in all parts of the gross body. Thus, we have another confirmation of the meta- phorical character of the immortality, spoken of above in sutra 7. Sutra 12-14 form, according to Samkara, a separate adhikarana ( the sixth ), referring to the fate of the possessor of the higher knowledge ( parā vidyā ), in whose case no such departure of the subtle elements from the gross body takes place. Sutra 12 states a purvapaksa and may be literally translated thus: 'If it be said ( that the departure does not take place in the case of the higher vidvat ) on account of its denial ( in Brhad. IV. 4.6' T प्राणा उत्क्ामन्ति । ब्रह्मेव सन् ब्रह्माप्येति ), no, (is the reply; for the word 'tasya' in the passage means ) sarirat, ( from the individual soul and not sarirāt, from the body ). Thus the pūrvapaksin maintains that the subtle elements depart from the body even of the higher vidvat. Sutra 13 states the siddhanta : 'for, ( a denial of the departure of the subtle elements from the body is ) distinctly made in the texts of some schools, ( e. g. in Brhad. III. 2. 11 ' Emri पुरुषों प्रियत उदस्मांत्माणा: क्रामन्त्वाहो नेति। ... नेति होवाच याजवल्क्यः।''when a man dies, do his vital airs pass outside or not ?' 'No' says Yajña- valkya'). And even in Brhad. IV. 4. 6, it must be understood that this departure of the subtle elements from the body is denied in the case of the higher vidvat as opposed to the lower vidvat, in order to justify the antithesis implied in the two phrases in the same passage, इनि नु कामयमान: and अथ कामयमानः

According to Rāmānuja and Nimbārka, who regard sūtras 12- 13 as one sūtra, these sūtras ( 12-14 ) form a continuation of the same adhikarana, referring to the vidvat in general. "If it be objected ( that no such departure is possible for a vidvat ), owing to its denial ( in Brhad. IV. 4. 6 ), we reply, no, ( for the 'tasya' in that passage means ) sārirāt ( from the soul ) and ( not 'sarlrat' 'from the body' ) and ( this allusion to sarira is ) clear according to the Madhyandinas ( who read 'tasmat' instead of 'tasya' in the same passage. ) " So that ultimately what is denied is the departure from the soul and not the departure from the body. With regard to Brhad. III. 2. 11, the expression T4 yFT: does not mean the vidvat, but an ordinary person. Thus we see that what is

152 THE VEDANTA

purvapaksa according to Samkara is the siddhanta itself according to Ramānuja Now to compare these two ways of interpreting sutras 12-14, it must be remarked in the first place that we have nothing in sutra 12 which would justify us in thinking that a new topic is comneoted with it, much less that another kind of vidvat is the sabjeet of the sutra. The form of the sutra goes against the hypothesis of a new adhikarana having commenced. This would appear from the case of a very large number of sūtras exaetly similar in form ( cf. I. 1. 13, I. 1. 25, I. 2. 8, II. 1. 17 and many more; it must be confessed that this cannot be laid down as a rule ). Secondly, the ' hi' in sutra 13 would naturally support what is affirmed beforehand in the preceding sutra ; ( cf. I. 2. 11, I. 2. 20, II. 1. 34 etc. ); and thirdly, if sūtra 13 were a refuta- tion of sutra 12, as Samkara understands it, we should have 'tu' as is generally the case with sütras combatting something af- firmed before ( of. I. 3. 33, II. 1. 22, II. 1. 33 etc. ). And fourthly the word ' ekesam' should refer to some other group than the one mentioned before, i. e. the Madhyandinas as opposed to the Kanvas, who read 'tasya' in the passage in question. But Samkara refers to another passage of the same Sakha, i. e. the Kanvas; while Ramanuja refers to the same passage as read by the Madhyandinas, with the reading 'yasmat' in place of ' tasya'.

Sutras 15 and 16 form two adhikaranas ( 7 and 8) according to Samkara, who refers these also to the higher vidvat. In the case of this latter, the subtle elements with the senses and the vital airs, instead of departing from the gross body of the dying person ( as is the case with the lower vidvat and the a-vidvat ), are immediately merged in the Brahman so as to be no longer distinct from it in any way (a-vibhaga ). Ramanuja and Nimbarka explain them in much the same way, but as referring to the vidvat in general, in whose case the elements, senses, etc., after doparture from the gross body, are finally merged in the Brahman. It is to be noted here that Ramanuja explains the word 'अविभाग:' 86 'अपृयग्मावः'or पृथग्व्यवहारानई: संसर्ग:,'a connection such that the things connected cannot be spoken of as being separate' or ' absolute non-separation'; the same as exists between vak

ANALYSIS 153

and manas etc., but not laya or complete absorption, as that of an effected substance int) its cause. Nimbarka, on the other hand, explains ' avibhāga' as 'tādātmyāpatti' i. e. being absolutely reduced to the condition of another thing ; and Kaustubha, if we can trust him to represent correctly Nimbarka, makes the mean- ing clear by saying that it is not ' samyoga', a mere conjunction, as exists in the case of vak and manas; but a complete merging, as when a river falls into the sea. Ithink this is more consistent than Ramanuja's explanation, who confounds the 'samyoga' between vak and manas with the avibhaga between the elements and the Brahman ; or perhaps Ramanuja wants to emphasise the individual distinction between the two, which never completely disappears. In any case, the word 'avibhaga' is not specially favourable to the doctrine of Samkara, at least much less than the word ' laya' or ' sampatti '. Adhikarana 9 ( sutra 17 ) says that the jiva of the dying man passes into the heart and thence departs out of the body, that of the vidvat through the hundred and first vein called susumna which passes through the head, while that of the a-vidvat, through some other vein. Samkara refers this of course to the lower vidvat, while Ramanuja and Nimbarka to the vidvat in general. Adhikarana 10 (suras 81-19) says that the departing soul passes up to the sun by means of a ray of light, which exists at night as well as by day. Rāmānuja and Nimbārka, regarding sūtra 19 as a separate adhi- karana, explain it to mean that even death during night would lead the vidvat to the Brahman; for the connection of the vidvat with karman lasts only upto the last body and so, there being no longer any cause of bondage, the vidvat can go to the Brahman even when dying at night. The last adhikarana of the pada (sütras 20-21) says that the vidvat may die during the daksiņāyana and still he may reach the Brahman, the vidvat being of course the lower vidvat according to Samkara, but the vidvat in general, according to Ramanuja and Nimbārka. Madhva interprets these sūtras ( 7-16) quite in a different way, having nothing to do with the fate of the vidvat, which should be the natural topic in the present adhyāya ( the phala- dhyaya ), and we notice the interpretation here, not because it is of any importance for our purpose, but simply as a sample of Ghate, Vedanta, 20.

154 THE VEDANTA

the fantastic explanation of which the sutras are capable by their very nature. He combines Sūtras 7-14 so as to form one adhikara- na dealing with the question whether Prakrti or Laksmi, like other gods mentioned in the immediately preceding sūtras, is merged in Visnu or not; and discusses, en passant, the relative natures of Visnu and Laksmi. Prakrti or Laksmi ( Madhva reads ' samana' instead of 'samana' explaining 'sama-na' as ' one equal, sama, to Visņu, nā ) is not merged in Visņu, but al- ways remains separate from him; for hers is the immortality not obtained by meditation ( anuposya=anupāsya=svata eva ) but belonging to her as part of her true nature. That the two are ever distinct in their natures follows from the fact that being merged in Prakrti is termed samsāra or bondage, while being merged in Visnu is termed mukti or emancipation. And the Brahman is superior to Prakrti, because it is more subtle and has greater knowledge, bliss, power etc. The Brahman and Prakrti are also similar, but without affecting or destroying their points of distinction. Thus, for instance, one point of difference is con- stituted by the fact that the Brahman is possessed of lustre, while Prakrti is not. This denial of similarity with the Brahman really refers to the individual soul and not to Prakrti; and so it cannot be said that there is no similarity of nature at all between the Brahman and Prakrti. And, moreover, this discussion about simi- larity and difference between the Brahman and Prakrti is clearly enunciated in some vedic passages; and the smrti also says the same, viz. when it says that Prakrti is both similar and dissimilar to the Brahman. Sutras 15 and 16 form two adhikaranas saying that all deities, besides those mentioned above, are merged in the Paramatman through Virinci, the deity presiding over the vital air, and that these deities and other emancipated souls are neces- sarily dependent on the Paramatman, the terms satyakamatva eto. ( lit. having all one's desires realised ) spoken of in their case meaning nothing but that their desires have the same object as those of the Paramatman. Thus, the term RrT: (cf. above) is to be interpreted as परमेश्वरकामाय्विभाग: non-separateness from the desires of the Paramatman. ' The last five sūtras ( 17-21) of the pada are only sutras dealing with the fato of the soul possessed of knowledge, the subject of the adhyaya, and are interpreted

ANALYSIS 155

much in the same way as Samkara, except that they are made to refer to the vidvat in general, without implying any distinction of a lower and higher vidvat. Vallabha interprets sutras 7-16 as describing the condition of mukti attained by the Pusti-marga or the path of Grace of the Lord ( which is superior to the other, i. e. the Maryada-marga or the path of knowledge and meditation ). In the Pusti-märga, the im- mortality is attained without having gone through vows etc. (अन्नुपोष्य=वरतमकृत्वा ). The mukti attained by the maryada-marga is named samsara, as contrasted with the mukti attained by the Pusti-marga ; because in the former the experience of the joy of adoring Purusottama, which can be had only in the latter, is absent. The real nature of the Pusti-marga is really very subtle and incomprehensible ; and the condition of mukti attained there- by is incapable of description, because all things are then obscur- ed, whether it be the condition of separation ( virahi-dasa ) with its unbearable pangs or the condition of union ( priyasamgama- dasā ) with its unsurpassed joy. Those pangs ( ūsman ) of separa- tion from Purusottama can belong to such a bhakta only, because they are really of the nature of joy, in that they are sure to be followed by the joy of union with Him. The denial of all suffering in the case of such a bhakta only refers to the sufferings due to the body and the bondage of actions; but not to the pangs of separation referred to above. The manifestation of the Bhagavat, whose essence is love, the sentiment of separation from him and the resulting pangs, then the intensity of love for Him and the experience of the joy of reaching the full form of Purusottama, all these, not elsewhere known, exist in Gokula, which is superior even to Vaikuntha. And the devotee following this path of grace, when he once enters into this Gokula and becomes united with Purusottma, is never again separated from Him. Sutras 17-21 are interpreted by Vallabha much in the same way as by Samkara, but as referring to the devotee following the Maryada-marga or the path of knowledge and meditation. It is to be noted here that the sutras which refer to the higher knowledge according to Samkara refer to the Pustimarga according to Vallabha; while sutras 17-21, which refer to the lower know- ledge according to Samkara, refer to the Maryada-marga accord-

156 THE YEDANTA

ing to Vallabha. So a twofold distinction of muktis and the paths leading to them, very much anologous to that held by Sam- kara, is established in the system of Vallabha also. ADHYĀYA IV, PĀDA 3. After having described in the second pada the departure of the soul with its subtle body from the gross body of the dying devotee, the Sutrakara, in the third pada, proceeds to describe the path along which the soul goes up to the Brahman and the nature of the Brahman attained thereby. Sutras 1-3, forming three adhikaranas, try to reconcile the different accounts, given in the Upanisads ( e. g. Chānd. V. 10. 1 and 2; Kausi. I. 3; Brhad. VI. 2. 15 eto. ) as to the stations of this path and establish the path ( Deva-yana or the path of gods, followed by the vidvat, as oppos- ed to the Pitr-yana or the path of the men, followed by the per- formers of sacrifices, etc. ). The stages are Agni, the day,the bright half of the month, the uttarayana, the year, Vayu, Aditya Candramas, lightning, Varuna, Indra, Prajapati and the Brahman. Adhikarana 4 ( sūtras 4-6 ) teaches that these stations along the path of the vidvat mean, not the places or subdivisions of the path, but the corresponding divine beings that lead the soul on. Sam- kara, of course, refers all these sutras to the lower vidvat, who is destined for the krama-mukti or emancipation coming gradually ( as opposed to the sadyo-mukti or emancipation, direct and im- mediate ); but Rāmānuja, Nimbārka and Madhva refer them to the vidvat in general. Vallabha explains the sutras much the same way ; but refers them to the devotees of the Maryāda- märga only ( very much analogous to the lower vidvat of Samkara ). One sutra, however, उभयव्यामोहात् तत्सिद्वेः (IV. 3. 5) is interpreted by him differently : 'This deva-yana path is followed because the Lord himself causes an infatuation in his devotees for the jñāna-mārga or the maryāda-mārga, who, therefore, feel a desire to follow it.' Vallabha after this refutes the explanation of Samkara, which is as follows : 'there are the guides on the way, because the individual souls as well as the non-intelligent stations are bewildered ( unconscious and so incapable of leading them ).' For Rāmānuja and Nimbārka this sūtra does not exist at all. Vallabha has also one additional sutra वरुणाञ्चाधीन्द्रमजापनी, 'Indra and Prajapati after Varuna ', between sūtras 3 and 4,

ANALYSIS 157

Sūtras 7-14 form an adhikarana ( the fifth) according to Samkara and discuss the question as to what kind of Brahman it is to which the devotee ( i. e. the lower vidvat ) is guided along the path described so far. Sutras 7-11 state the Siddhanta, the view held by Badari, that ( the soul is guided to the lower Brah- man, because the act of going is ) possible only in its case ( and not in the case of the higher Brahman ) ( sūtra 7); and be- cause ( the goal to be reached ) is specified ( by the word 'brahmalokan ' in Brhad. VI. 2. 15, and this can apply only to the lower Brahman ) ( sutra 8 ). This goal is, however, mentioned as 'Brahman ' (e. g. in Chand. IV. 15. 6,) a word which can literally signify the higher Brahman, owing to its proximity to it (sūtra 9). ( If it be objected how one can speak of anāvrtti, 'absence of return ' from this lower Brahman, the reply is that the possessors of the lower knowledge, ) after the destruction of the Brahma- loka along with Hiranyagarbha, go to the higher Brahman, from which there is no return ( sūtra 10 ). Sūtras 12-14 state the view of Jaimini, which is the pūrva-paksa, to the effect that ( the soul is guided ) to the higher Brahman, for the word ' Brahman ' in Chand. IV. 15. 6 can directly denote the higher Brahman ( sūtra 12 ). Sūtras 15-16 form the last adhikarans ( the sixth ) of the pada, and assert that according to Bādarāyana, even this lower Brahman can be reached by only those who do not worship it under a symbolic form ( pratika). And this twofold distinction ( ubhayatha ) of some being led to the lower Brahman and some not is without fault ( a-dosat ) ; for it depends on what one meditates upon ( sūtra 15 ); and the Scriptures declare & difference of fruit between one meditation on a symbol and another ( sūtra 16 ).

Rāmānuja, on the other hand, takes all these sūtras ( 7-16) as one adhikarana, the question being what worshippers are led to the Brahman by the path described so far. The views of Bādari ( sūtras 7-11 ) and Jaimini ( sūtras 12-14) are two pūrva-paksas and the view of Bādarāyana ( sūtras 15-16 ) is the final siddhanta. Badari holds that ' the guardians lead to the Brahman those who worship the Brahman which is an effect, i. e. Hiranyagarbha, for movement is possible in the case of such a worshipper only ( sūtra 7 ), The text ( Chand, IV. 15, 6) reads

158 THE VEDANTA

स रतान् अह गमपति instead स एनान् ब्रह्माणं गमयति on account of the near- ness of Hiranyagarbha to the Brahman, i. e. on account of his being the first born from the Brahman ( sutra 9 ). Jaimini holds that it is those worshippers who meditate on the higher Brahman only that are led to it. Badarayana's view, the siddhanta, is however, that the guardians lead to the Brahman all those who do not worship the Brahman under a symbolic form ( pratika ), i. e. those who worship the highest Brahman and those who meditate on the individual self as dissociated from prakrti and having the Brahman for its self. For, both the views above ( ubhayatha ) are faulty ( dosat ). The kārya-brahma view con- tradicts such passages as Chand. VIII. 3. 4, VIII. 12. 3, and the para-brahma view, such passages as that in the Pancāgnividyā in Chānd. V. 10. 1. When we compare these two interpretations, we must confess that Samkara's way is open to the objection that it is rather un- usual to have the siddhanta stated first and the pūrvapaksa afterwards; and Samkara also shows himself conscious of this and so gives himself great pains, while commenting on sutra 14, to establish his point. At the same time it must be granted that his translation of the sūtras is more natural as far as the'r wording goes ; while Ramanuja's translation is altogether far- fetched. For in sūtra 7, after the word 'kāryam', Rāmā- nuja has to understand the word 'upasinan', while according to Samkara the sutra can be construed well as it stands. So also 'asya' should naturally refer to kāryam, the word near it; but Rāmanuja takes it to mean 'kāryam upāsīnasya'. Moreover, in the following sūtra ( 8), what is specified ( visesita ) by the word brahma-lokan in the passage, 'a person, not human, leads them to the worlds of the Brahman ( Brhad. VI. 2. 15 )', is the goal to be reached ( ganta- vya ),-( for the word is ' gamayati' )-and not the object to be meditated upon ( upāsya ). Again, sūtra 10 contains a reply to the objection how one, going to the effected Brahman, can be said to return never. We are, therefore, concerned here with something to be gone to ( gantavya ) and not with something to be worship- ped (upāsya ). Sūtra 13 supports the same opinion, because it refers to a passage ( Chand. VIII. 12. 3 ) in which the highest light

ANALYSIS 159

is spoken of as having been reached and not as having been worshipped. If Ramanuja has been led to refer sūtras 13-14 to Che worshippers of the effected or the higher Brahman, it it only because of sūtra 15, which speaks of those who practise medita- tions other than those of a symbolic form (pratika). But this is in no way a sufficient justification for the procedure he has followed. It is very probable that sutras 7-14 form one adhikarana and that sutras 15-16 form another adhikarana, as Samkara has actu- ally understood them. The first adhikarana, in accordance with the wording of the sutras, must deal with the question regarding the 'gantavya, ' the goal to be attained, or the kind of Brahman to which the soul is led along the path described above. So far only we are one with Samkara. According to the Sutrakara, the view of Bādari, first stated, is the pūrvapaksa, while that of Jaimini which follows represents his siddhānta. The Sūtrakāra intends to refute those according to whom only the lower Brahman can be attained by the path described above; he asserts that nothing but the higher Brahman is the goal, implying thus that to his mind there existed no such distinction as that between the lower and the higher Brahman. The objection, supposed to be answered by Bādari in sūtra 10, has, I think, special reference to the sūtra अनावृत्ति: शद्दात् , which the Sutrakara has in view in this place. That there existed, even before the time of Samkara, some one who held this view ( viz. that Jaimini's view, being the siddhanta, followed Badari's view, although it is the purva-paksa ) is clear from the remarks which Samkara makes in commenting on sūtra 14 *; and from the great pains which he gives himself to refute this way of interpreting the sūtras. After having treated of the question of the Brahman to be at- tained to, the Sūtrakara in sūtras 15-16, forming a new adhika- rana, tells us which particular worshippers are thus guided along the path to the Brahman. Thus, the pada in question falls into

• केचित्पुन: पूर्वाणि पूर्वपक्षसूत्राणि मतन्त्युत्तराणि सिद्धान्तसूत्राणीति व्यवस्थामनुरुष्यमाना: पर- विचय। एव गनिश्षुती: प्रतिष्ठापयनन्ति तदनुपपत्नम्।' On the other hand, there are por- sons who, assuming the preceding sutras to represent the purva-pakga and the following, the siddhanta, maintain that the soriptural passages relating to ( the ) gati ( of the soul ) can only refer to the highor Bral- man; this is not a reasonahle view'.

:30 THE VEDANTA

three divisions ; sutras 1- 6 dealing with the movement along the path, 'gati '; sūtras 7-14, dealing with the Brahman to be reached, 'gantavya '; and sūtras 15-16 dealing with the worship- per, 'gantr '. Our conjecture that the above way of understanding the order of topics in the present pada is the right one and the one intended by the Sutrakara is confirmed by the commentary of Vallabha, who also takes sūtras 7-14 as forming one adhikarana and referring to the question of the gantavya and sūtras 15-16 as another adhikarana referring to the question about the gantr. He also holds that Badari's view represents the purva-paksa and Jaimini's, the siddhanta. The alternatives according to him are the world of Brahman (m.) and the higher Brahman. He argues very cogently that in the passage, Kaus. I. 3, स प्रजापतिलोक त्रह्मलोकं &c., the word ' brahmaloka' must mean the higher Brahman and not merely ' the world of Brahman or Hiranyagarbha'; for ' prajā- pati-loka' is separately mentioned just before it and moans nothing but 'the world of Brahman (m. )'. He also tries to refute Samkara's view about the higher Brahman being incapable of attainment. Sutra 15 mentions the kind of worshippers that go to the higher Brahman. Only those who understand all things to be really nothing but the pure Brahman and meditate thus on them are led to the Brahman ; while those who first regard things as different from the pure Brahman and then meditate on them as being identical with the Brahman, i. e. those who who are worshippers of a pratīka ( pratikālambana ), are not led to the Brahman; for this involves a twofold error ( ubhayatha dosat ) : ( i) to mistake things which are really the pure Brahman for something else, and (ii) to meditate on things which are not the pure Brahman in one's opinion as such. So far for the jnanin, the follower of the path of knowledge. The bhaktas, the followers of the path of devotion, however, are taken to Purusottama direct as soon as he has a wish for it ( tatkratu ). Sūtra 16 says that thus there is a difference ( visesa ) between the followers of the path of knowledge and the follower of the path of devotion, the former going to the Brahman and the latter to Purusottama. Nimbārka translates sutras 7-14 just like Samkara, referring them to a Brahman which is to be reached, but makes the following

ANALYSIS 161

remark, to me incomprehensible; on sutra 15, which he explains just like Ramanuja : 'इति सिद्धान्तो भगवान् बाढरायणो मन्यते,"this is the siddhanta, and such is the opinion of the venerable Badarayana'. Śrinivāsa everywhere follows Rāmānuja exactly; it is Kesava- kasmirin, however, who, explaining sūtras 7-14 after Samkara, remarks on sutra 14 to the effect that Jaimini's view is the siddhanta, and that those who hold that the saguna or apara Brahman alone can be reached and that no movement is possible with regard to the nirguna or para Brahman are in the wrong. This only supports our conjucture above. Similarly, on sutra 15 he says: तानुभयविधान् परत्रह्म नयति, 'he leads both kinds of men to the higher Brahman', in conformity with the above. After all this he remarks in the beginning of his commentary on sūtra 15 एवं पभङ्यं द्शयित्वा स्व्रमतेम निर्णयमाह।'having thus indicated the two views, he gives the conclusion according to his own view, ' which is difficult to understand. Madhva regards all these sutras ( 7-16) as forming one adhikarana. He interprets sūtras 7-14 just like Samkara. But regards the views of Badari and Jaimini as being only two pürva- paksas, while the siddhanta is represented by the view of Bādarā- yana to the effect that a devotee goes to the effocted Brahman or the higher Brahman, according to his adhikāra ( qualification ). By प्रनीकालम्ना: in sutra 15 he means स्वदेहे ब्रह्मबृटय: ( those who see the Brahman in their own body ) and these only go to the karya Brahman; while others who see Visnu overywhere ( व्याप्विष्णुवर्शनाः) go to the higher Brahman in Vaikuntha. Thus, the diversity of interpretation as seen here is very interest- ing ; and although we cannot be sure about the meaning intended to be conveyed in these sūtras by the Sūtrakāra, we have suffi- cient reason to believe at least this much-that the twofold dis- tinction in the Brahman, in its knowers and its knowledge, did not form part of his doctrine ; and that the path described leads the soul of the vidvat not necessarily to the lower Brahman, but to the higher Brahman also. ADHYAYA IV, PĀDA 4. The last pada of the fourth adhyays deals with the nature and attributes of the relensed soul and its relation to tho Ghate' Vedānta, 21.

102 THE VEDANTA

Highest Self. Hore also Samkara has his twofold distinction of the higher and the lower vidvat, devoting sutras 1-7 to' the former and the rest to the latter ; whereas Ramanuja and Nimbarka see in them none but the vidvat in general. Adhikaraņa 1 ( sūtras 1-3 ), according to Samkara, Rāmānuja and Nimbarka, says that the soul when released only returns to its own nature and dees not acquire any new chatacteristics. Adhikarapa 2 ( sätra 4 ) discusses according to Samkara the re- lation between the released jiva and the Brahman and says that it is' avibhaga or absolute identity. According to Rāmānuja and Nimbarka, however, the question is whether the released soul views itself as separate from the Lord ( because we have passages which speak of the jiva as being in the company of the Lord, e. g. Taitt. II. 1, सो पशुते सर्वान् कामान् सह त्रह्मणा विपाश्रता, or as non-separate from the Lord, being his mode or body, e. g. in passages like arara, Chand. 8. 7, etc. ). The conclusion is that the jiva views itself as non-separate from the Lord ( tat-prakāratayā tadavibhaktam ). Nimbarka remarks :- 'भागाषिरेधिभागेन जीव आत्मानमनुभवनि, 'the jiva experi- ences himself as being in the relation of non-separateness which is not opposed to separateness, or as being both different and non- different at the same time, from the Lord, ( cf Kaustubha : F- aisornfeuna ). Here again it is to be remarked that the word ' avi- bhagena, ' used by the Sutrakara, to express the relation between the Brahman and the roleased jiva, is, by its nature, susceptible of all these three explanations; and that the sutrakara employs a word negative in form like ( non-division ) instead of using a positive torm like, 'identity '( tādātmya ) or the like ( cf. the use of ' ananyatva, ' a similar word, to express the relation between cause and effect in sutra II. 1. 14),-a circumstance confirming the conjecture that the Sutrakara was either not prepared to specify the idea too strictly or that he thought of reconciling the two ideas of difference and non-difference, of separateness and identity, by regarding both of them as true at one and the same time. Adhikaraņā 3 ( sūtras 5-7 ) states three views regarding the nature of the released soul. Jaimini says that it is possessed of all sorts of attributes like ' satya-samkalpatva' ( having all its desiros realised ) etc. Audulomi holds that it is nothing but in- telligence pure and simple. Finally Badarayana, whose view

ANALYSIS 163

represents the siddhanta, asserts that it is both intelligence pure and simple and characterised by several attributes. Here again the manner of reconciling both these conceptions is different with the different commentators. According to Samkara, the released soul is intelligence pure and simple from the point of view of reality ( paramarthatah), but it possesses attributes only from the phenomenal point of view ( vyavahārāpeksayā ). Acrording to Ramanuja and Nimbarka, however, both these conceptions are equally real, i. e., the released jiva is as really intelligence pure and simple as possessed of ' satya-samkalpatva etc.,' just as, for instance, a mango-fruit has one flavour (ekarasa ) and at the same time has varjous flavours ( rasa-bheda ) with reference to its dif- ferent parts, the skin, the pulp etc .; or just as the same mango may be described as ' rasa-ghana eva ', 'only a mass of flavour,' but is not at the same time prevented from having colour, touch etc., which are actually cognised by other means of knowledge. In other words, Samkara reconciles unity and plurality, by re- garding the former only as real and the latter as illusory; while Ramanuja and Nimbarka do the same by regarding both as real in their own spheres. So far, the higher knowledge (parā vidya) was the subject mat- ter of the pada according to Samkara; while the rest of the pāda down to the ond is concerned with the lower knowledge ( aparā vidyā ). Adhikaraņa 4 ( sūtras 8-9 ) says that the vidvat effects all his desires by mere samkalpa, i. e., will. Adhikaraņa 5 (sūtras 10-14 ) states three views on the question whother the released soul is embodied; or not. According to Badari, the released soul is not embodied; according to Jaimini, it is embodied; but according to Badarayana, whose view, of course, represents the siddhanta, it is embodied or not embodied accerding to its free will; when embodied it enjoys ploasures as in the condition of waking ; when not embodied, it does so as in the condition of dream. Adhikarana 6 ( sūtras 15-16 ) raises the question how the soul which is described as having more than one body, e. g. in & (oeT नवनि विधा भवति पझ्चधा सप्तधा नवधा। (Chand. VII. 26.2), it can have the sensation of joy through all these simultaneously and decides that it can animate the several bodies at the same time, just as

104 THE VEDĂNTA

one and the came lamp can shed its light through seyeral wioks. Now how oan suoh a question arise at all according to Samkara whe holds that the soul is all-pervading ? According to Rama- naje and Nimbarka, however, the question is most natural : how can the jiva whioh is atomia in sise, as proved in II. 3. 19-22, can be the soul animating several bodies at the same timo ? Yes, the answer is, it oan do so by virtue of its intelligence, just as a lamp can illumine several places by virtue of its light; and the same is the process when, for instance, the atomic jiva, in the samsara state, experiences pleasure and pain throughout its one body, the difference between them being only one of degree. Sutra 16 says that the absence of speeific cognition, declared as belonging to the jiva in passages like Brhad. IV. 5. 15 and IV. 3. 30 oto., should not be any objeetion to the released soul's cognising through several bødies; for, this absence of cognition refers only to the condition of sväpraya, 'deep sleep, ' or of sampatti, which means kaivalya or abselute release according to Samkara, or ' death' or ' doparture from the gross body' ( utkranti ) according to Ramanuja and Nimbarka. ' The last adhikarana ( sūtras 17-22 ) declares that the released soul participates in all the perfections and powers of the Lord, except the power of creating and sustaining the world, the last sutra proclaiming that the released soul never returns to new forms of embodied existence. Before proceeding to the interpretation of this pada as given by Madhva and Vallabha, we may ask ourselves the question, if there is any justification for the two-fold character of the vidvat as conceived by Samkara. In the fourth adhyāya, taken as a whole, there are only two groups of sutras which according to

1 It is very difficalt to decide which meaning of the word ' sampatti' is the more correct one; for it is one of those words which are frequently used, but whose meaning is never clearly defined. The root-meaning is ' being one with ' aud honce the word may mean ' ontering into ' or 'approaching' according to the explanation of sutra IV. 4. 1 by Satkara and Ramanuja, or ' fmaginative indentifcation ' according to their explanation of sutra I. 2. 31,-the other two places where the word occura, Samkara has the credit of being consistent with krimself, inaemnoh as sutra IV. 4. 1. according to him, refers to the higher knowledgo, just as the word bore rofors to absolute release,

ANALYSIS 165

Śamkara refer to the parā vidyā, viz., IV. 2. 12-16 and IV. 4. 1-7. We have already dealt with the first, pointing out the objections agaiast Samkara's way of interpretation As for the second, it may be pointed out that there is nothing distinctive in these suitras which would lead us to regard them as detached from the rest and as referring to a different topic. But this in itself is: merely a negative, and therefore, indecisive argument. Sutra 7, howaver, furnishes a more decisive argument. That sūtra states the view of Badarayana as siddhanta, according to which the released soul is both intelligence pure and simple and, at the. same time, possessed of a number of attributes. Now, if this refers to the released soul of the higher vidvat, how can it possess the various attributes ? And if it can possess them, what difference is there between the higher and the lower vidvat ? Samkara's attempt to reconcile the two aspects by saying that one refers to reality ( paramartha ) and the other to the phenomenal world (vyavahara) is ridiculous ; for how can vyavahara have anything to do with the higher vidvat ? And if there is vyavahars also for him, how is he to be distinguished from the lower vidvat ?

What is, however, most decisive against Sarhkara is the fact that, aooording to his interpretations, the work of Badarayana would end with a section, dealing with only the lower vidvat, the fate of the higher vidvat having been disposed of only in a few sūtras; and that the last sutra, ' from thence, there is no return', would refer only to the lower vidvat. If the Sutrakara really had in viow this twofold distinction, was it not natural that he should wind up with a disoussion of the fate of the higher vidvat ! For, as compared with the latter, the lower vidvat, howsoever exalted he may be over the ordinary beings, is after all in a secondary position, and is only on the way to the absolute release, a condi- tion which the higher vidvat has already made his own.

Madhva sees in this pada a description of the enjoyment which is the lot of the released soul. After having reached the Brahman, the released soul enjoys the same pleasures as the Brahman ('a-vibhagena ', sutra 4). The released souls experience joy through the body of the Brahman ('brahmena ' in sutra 5) being themselves bodiless; or through their proper bodies oonsisting only of intelligence ( sutra 6); or in both the ways (sūtra 7),

166 THE VEDANTA

i. e., with the body of intelligence and without tho body, this absence of body referring only . to material bodies. Sutras 10 to 14 are explained just in the manner of Śamkara and Ramanuja The released soul, though entering a body, only experiences joy and pleasure and never suffers pain, just as a light placed in a lamp, only swallows up the oil, the wick etc., but not its black colour ( sūtra 15 ). And passages like स्वर्गे लोके न भर्य किंचनास्। ( Katha. I. 12) refer to the states of deep sleep and moksa, but not to svarga (?) ( sūtra 16 ). As regards the remaining sutras also there are differences of interpretation and differences regarding the division into adhikaranas; but they are not worth noting, being of no importance for our purpose. According to Vallabha, the pada refers to the condition of the released soul who has followed the path of grace ( pustimrga ). Such a released devotee, even after having attained to the Brahman ( sampadya ), has again a body or a kind of birth ( avirbhava ), not of the ordinary character, in order to be able to enjoy pleasures ( sūtra 1). The word ( avirbhava ) in sutra 4 is explained in a curious way. In the passages afquna परस Or सोपमुते सर्वान् कामान् सह ब्रह्मणा विषाश्रेता, the same nirguna Brahman is meant, because both the passages are recited together, without a cessation of contiuuity ( avibhāgena ). Sūtras (5-7) state the three views regarding the nature of the body of this released soul. He enjoys, says Jaimini, pleasures through the extraordinary body provided by the Brahman ( brahmena ) as opposed to a prakrta ( ordinary or material ) body; acccrding to Audulomi, he enjoys pleasures only in the form of intelligence ( tanmātrena ), because he has to enjoy in the company of the Brahman which is pure intelligence ( Aifa = fru d ); but Bādarāyana holds ( and this is the siddhänta ) that the devotee has a body which is extraordi- nary and eternal, fit for his enjoying in the company of the Brah- man. Sutra 8 says that he alone can reach Bhagavat whom He wills ( samkalpādeva ). Sūtras 10-12 are explained just like Samkara, but are referred to the devotee following the path of grace. The illustration of the light in sūtra 15 is curiously ex- plained thus: Bhagavat enters into the devotee, who thus becom- ing like Bhagavat is enabled to enjoy pleasures in His company; just as a light enters into the wick and makes it capeble of the

ANALYSIS 167

same function as itself, and becomes at the same time arinhofa ( depending on oil or the love of the devotee ). The word ' sam- patti' in sūtra 16 is explained to mean " the higher release obtained by the path of grace,' ( pustimargiya-moksa ). This agrees with the explanation of Samkara. The whole sutra means that the absence of enjoyment spoken of in a passage like ' aha aaa' refers to the condition of profound sleep; whereas the enjoyment spoken of in texts like सह ब्रह्मणा अक्षुते refers to the higher release. Sutra 17 is explained in this peculiar manner : the enjoyment in the com- pany of the Brahman is not accompanied by the ordinary opera- tions ( jagad-vyapara ) of the body, speech and mind. The absence of return proclaimed in the last sutra refers to both the jnanin ( the follower of the path of knowledge, who occupies an inferior rank ) and the devotee, the follower of the path of grace, though it is to this latter only that the rest of the pada applies. Thus, Vallabha who maintains a twofold distinction of release and of devotees, somewhat analoguous to that held by Samkara, has however, the merit of seeing only the higher kind of release and of devotee ( i. e. the follower of the path of grace ) in the last pāda of the last adhyãy

CHAPTER III.

CONOLUSION.

After having made a detailed analysis of the five commenta- ries on the Brahma-sutras, we shall now proceed to consider what conolusions we are justified in arriving at. As we have com- pared and criticised the diverse interpretations and hinted at the possible inferences already in the course of analysis, it remains for us now only to bring together and classify the different points suggested and to state the conclusions in definite form, positive or negative. To begin with, the commentary of Madhva is evidently in- ferior in character and is a performance of little or no merit. His interpretations differ from those of the rest very widely and in a very large number of cases; but the reader has seen that in a majority of instances, his explanations are far-fetched, fantastic and too sectarian in character; the scriptural passages he refers to for discussion more often belong to the Samhitas than to the Upanisads, a procedure which can be easily explained by the fact that it is very difficult for him to find in the Upanisads a support for his own doctrine. It is interesting on this point to note his explanation of the word ' vodanta' in III. 3. 1, which means, according to him 'vedavinirnaya,' or the decisions of the ' Vedas ' and not of the Upanisads, and he insists on the point that the samhitas also are as important for his doctrine as the Upanisads. As instances of how considerably his interpretations differ from the rest and are unsatisfactory and groundless, the following places may be pointed out : I. 1. 5, where his explanation is not supported by the remaining sutras of the adhikaranas; I. 3. 8, where the absence of the particle 'ca' goes against him; 1I. 1.13, where the word 'bhoktrapatteh' is not satisfactorily explained and where moreover he himself feels the necessity of giving an ex- planation how a sutra, referring to the released condition of the soul and therefore fit for the fourth adhyaya, occurs in the second adhyaya; II. 1. 14, where his explanation is quite irrelevant to the topic : II. 3. 46-53, where his explanation is quite uncalled

CONCLUSION 169

for and very sectarian in character ; III. 2. 11-21, where his ex- planations of the words अरूपवत्, अम्बुवद्ग्रहणात् and वृद्धिड्ासमाकत्वम् are very fantastic; and equally curious is his way of understanding the simile of the sun's reflection in support of his doctrine of duality; III. 2. 29, where his explanation is most unnatural ; IV. 1. 12, where he explains the word 'prayana' as meaning 'moksa', which is unusual ; IV. 1. 14, where his explanations of the words 'itarasya ' and 'pate' are a bit fantastic; the whole of IV. 2, which according to him refers to the ' moksa' and 'utkranti' of divinities like Rudra, Agni, Laksmī, etc. We can add many more instances, but those already given are quite sufficient. To do justice to Madhva, however, it must be admitted that there are cases, though few, where his explanations though different from those of Samkara or Ramanuja cannot be said to be absolutely unnatural or inconsistent. Thus, for instance, the whole of I. 4 is interpreted by him to show that words like 'avyakta', 'prakrti' etc., all ultimately denote Visnu and that every word may esoterically denote Visnu and at the same time exoterically, other objects of the world : a procedure which, though many times fantastic as regards the translation of indivi- dual sūtras, has the merit of being consistent with the subject- matter of the first adhyaya, which is samanvaya. As regards II. 2. 42-45, he follows Nimbärka in referring the adhikarana to the sakti-doctrine, which is intended to be refuted by it. In II. 3. 19-31 he accepts the atomic measure of the jiva ( anutva ) as the siddhānta and explains sūtra 29 to mean that the statements of non-difference between jiva and the Brahman are only due to the fact that the at ributes of the Brahman such as knowledge, bliss etc. form the essence or nature of the jiva : a procedure to which we cannot object. In II. 4. 8-13 Madhva shows himself more reasonable than all the cther commentators in connecting sūtra 8 with the following adhikarana, referring to the chief vital air; and his division of the sutras into four adhikaranas is natural, whereas all the other commentators follow an arbitrary division. His interpretation of III. 2. 27-30, dealing with the question how the Brahman can be both quality and the qualified, both ananda and anandin, also are unexceptionable. His explanation of III. 4. 51-52 as referring to the origination of vidya and of its fruit, Ghate' Vedānta, 22.

170 THE VEDANTA

i. e. mukti, in which he and Nimbärka stand alone, is the best and most natural.

In spite of all this, we cannot help having the impression that his commentary is far from being the right interpretation of the sutras taken as a whole and that nothing can be further from truth than that his doctrine of absolute duality is the doctrine of the Sutrakara. Madhva's denial of the Brahman being the material cause of the universe ( see his curious explanation of sūtra I. 4. 23 ) is especially against the spirit of the sūtras ; and when we consider the fact that the sutras represent an attempt to reconcile the different passages of the Upanisads like 7ryara on the one hand and द्वा सपर्णा सयुजा सगवाया on the other, it is impossi- ble to believe that the doctrine of absolute duality, not having anything to do with unity or non-difference, can be the teaching of the sūtras.

Thus, having disposed of Madhva, when we pass on to the com- mentaries of Samkara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka and Vallabha, we have to observe at the outset that the doctrine of Samkara stands in flagrant contrast to those of the other three. Though all the four alike attempt to reconcile unity and plurality, the way in which Samkara does it stands by itself. He thinks that both unity and plurality cannot be true at the same time ; one alone can be real and that must be unity ; while plurality is unreal, illusory, the result of Māyā. Māyā, once accepted, leads to the two-fold dis- tinction of the real and the phenomenal world, the higher or un- qualified and the lower or qualified Brahman, the superior and the inferior knowlecge, the superior and the inferior vidvat ; so also to the absolute and eternal identity of the Brahman and the jiva. The relation between cause and effect is according to him vivarta ( superimposition or illusory manifestation ) as opposed to pariņāma' ( transformation ). Naturally the jiva, as it is identi- cal with the Brahman, is like it omnipresent ( vibhu ), without activity ( a-kartr ), and is completely merged into it and only regains its own nature when it is released, i. e. when the nescience is extinguished. The Brahman is nothing but sat, cit, änanda, and all the descriptions of attributes belonging to it represent only the popular notion, the phenomenal Brahman.

CONCLUSION 171

Now let us consider if the sutras lend support to any of these dogmas. First, as regards the relation between the Brahman and the jiva, there is a very large number of sutras which distinctly affirm the difference ( Bheda ) between the Brahman and the jiva. Thus for distance, we may point to sutras 16, 17, 19, 21 of I. 1; sūtras 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 20, 22, of I. 2; sūtrās 2, 5, 7, 19 of I. 3. Śamkara himself, conscious of the difficulty of finding his view in the sutras, thinks it necessary to add an explanation in several cases (e. g. I. 1. 17 ; I. 2. 6, 20 ; I. 3. 19 ) to the effect that all such sutras refer to the differerence between the Brahman and the jiva, which is only due to Māyā, being phenomenal or 'vyā- vaharika' as opposed to real or 'paramarthika ' and that the Sutrakara in such cases has regard only to the popular conception, which is mentioned only to be refuted. On sūtra I. 2. 12, Śam- kara himself has to say that one of the two souls, the jiva, is 'gantr ' and the other ( Brahman) is 'gantavya.' But if there is left any doubt on the point, we refer the reader to sūtras II. 1. 22 and II. 3. 43, the former proclaiming that the Brahman is some- thing over and above (adhika) the jivs and that the jiva is a part ( amsa) of the Brahman. So also sūtras III. 2. 27-30, giving vari- ous examples to illustrate the relation between the Brahman and the jiva, though not sufficiently definite, do not in any case sup- port the doctrine of absolute unity. From the relation between the Brahman and the jiva we now pass on to the nature and attributes of jiva. which specially forms the subject matter of II. 3. 19-53. As already shown in the ana- lysis above, sūtras 19-32 establish the siddhānta that the jīva is atomic ( anu ), sūtra 18, that the jiva is knower ( jña ), and sūtras 33-40, that the jiva is an active agent ( kartr ). Samkara stands alone in arriving at exactly the opposite conclusions by putting on the sutras an interpretation which has been shown above to be obviously forced and open to several objections ( see especially II. 3. 29 and II. 3. 40 ). Thus the sutras lend no support to the two main points in Śamkara's doctrine, viz. ( 1 ) the relation between the Brahman and the jiva which is according to him absolute unity and (2) the nature of jiva which is omni-present, which is of the nature of knowledge ( and not knower ) and which is without activity

172 THE VEDANTA

( kartrtva ). We arrive at the same conclusion on the point of the two-fold distinction of the higher and lower Brahman. As shown above none of the sutras where Samkara refers to this dis- tinction lends support to it; e. g. III. 3. 29, where Samkara's way of understanding the word 'ubhayatha' is altogether unnatural; III. 3. 31, 39; III. 4. 51,52; and the last three pādas of the 4th adhyāya, where sutras IV. 12-16 and IV. 4. 1-7 refer to the higher vidvat, while all the remaining sutras including the last IV. 4-22 refer to the lower vidvat. So also at the commencement of his commentary on I. 1. 12 Samkara remarks that the question in the following adhikaranas is to decide between the higher and the lower Brahman ; but he himself only very rarely refers to it after- wards. He does so, for instance, in the second interpretation he proposes of the adhikarana dealing with the anandamaya ( I. 1. 12-19 ), which is unnatural on the face of it and has been also criticised severely by Vallabha, and in commenting on sūtra I. 3. 13 where according to him the higher person to be meditated on by the syllable 'om' is the highest Brahman and not the lower one, though according to Ramanuja, Nimbarka and Vallabha the choice is between the Brahman (n.) and Brahman (m.). The only section where there is an appearance of an indirect implication of the twofold character of the Brahman is III. 2. 11-21, but even this may be regarded as nothing more than a mere attempt to reconcile the two kinds of passages, i. e. those which deny all attributes of the Brahman and those which predicate the same of it, there being nothing in the sūtras of this adhikarana directly leading to the establishment of a distinction between the savisesa and the nirvisesa Brahman Moreover, Ramanuja and others have interpreted the ' ubhaya-lingatva ' differently from Samkara and these interpretations, especially that of Ramanuja, are at least as natural as that of Samkara, if not more. That this two- fold distinction is, however, quite against the general spirit of the sutras follows more positively from the manner in which the Sutrakara defines the Brahman in I. 1. 2 and from the fact that even according to Samkara only an insignificantly small number of sutras in the fourth adhyaya refers to the higher Brahman; above all from the fact that the last sutra of the work, अनावृत्ति: शङ्ात, refers to the inferior vidvat only, not to mention the circumstance

CONCLUSION 173

that the sutras have been interpreted by other commentathrs with- out being obliged to refer to this distinction and that withal their interpretations are not unnatural, perhaps less so than those of Śamkara. The distinction: between the higher and lower the Brahman not finding any support in the sutras, it naturally follows that the idea of Maya in the sense in which Samkara understands it cannot have any place in the doctrine of the Sutrakara. Those who hold that Samkara's doctrine, in which of course the notion of Maya plays a very important part, is that of the Sūtrakāra, how can they explain the circumstance that it is only once (in III.2.3) in the sutras that the word 'Maya' expressly occurs ? And there it is used in connection with the creation of the dream- state and not with that of the waking-state; and even in this connection, the meaning which Samkara puts upon the word, has been shown to be objectionable from the point of view of the context, as it ignores the logical connection between the two questions raised by Samkara in that adhikarana : is the creation of the dream-state real or not and how is it that the natural powers of the jiva are obscured ? Bhaskara, who also understands the word as meaning ' illusion' ( and whose interpretation of the adhikarana as a whole seems to be on the whole the most satisfactory ), restricts it, however, only to the dream-creation as opposed to the waking creation, which is real according to him. If, however, the word means only 'the wonderful marvellous power of the Lord', as Ramanuja has it ( and according to his interpretation all the sutras of the adhikarana can be very well connected, at least more satisfactorily than to Samkara's ), there need not be the least objection against it. No doubt, both these ways of explaining Maya, whether as meaning 'illusion' or 'wonderful power ', alike imply the idea that the world as it stands is inexplicable by the ordinary means of knowledge. But what a gulf between the developments undergone by these two conceptions ! According to one, the world, as we perceive it, is unreal, only an appearance superimposed through nescience on the real entity, i. e. Brahman, just like that of serpent super- imposed on a rope. According to the other, the world, though inexplicable, is however, as real as the Brahman.

174 THE VEDANTA

Another sutra which would appear to suggest the idea of illusion is II. 1. 14, where the Sūtrakāra expressly refers to the word 'arambhana' and therefore implicitly to the passage वाचारम्भणं विकारो नाम धेयम् eto. We have already seen how Samkara's way of explaining vacārambhana so as to deduce the doctrine of 'vivarta' from it is open to objection and how it is not confirmed by the illustrations in the following sūtras ( II. 1. 19 and 20 ), not to mention the fact that Ramanuja's interpreta- tion is very reasonable and that Vallabha severely criticises Śamkara's explanation. The only other sutra bearing on the point is II. 3.50, where the word ' abhasa ' occurs and is interpreted by Samkara to mean 'a reflection which has no existence in reality in the sense in which the original exists'; but we have shown above that Vallabha's way of explaining the word as meaning 'an appearance ', i. e. ' something apparently the same, but not quite the same' is as good ( notice the warning which Vallabha gives here against the word being understood to mean something absolutely unreal ), and it may be mentioned further that the meaning of ' fallacious argument ' given to the word by Rāmā- nuja and Nimbārka has nothing objectionable in it. Coming in particular to the relation between the cause and the effect, we have sufficient reasons to believe that the Sūtrakara held the dectrine of 'parinama' as opposed to 'vivarta'. For in the first place, we have the word 'parinama ' expressly mentioned in sūtra I. 4. 26 and secondly, in replying to the objection against the intelligent Brahman being the cause of the non-intelligent universe, an objection based on the dissimilarity between cause and effect ( cf. JI. 1. 4 ff ), the Sūtrakāra never says nor even suggests that this is possible owing to the superimposition of the effect upon the cause, as for instance, that of silver on a mother-of-pearl. On the other hand, he refuses to admit that the effect is non-existent in the cause, before its production ( cf. II. 1. 7), which would be the case if the vivarta view be accepted. We may add to this that the in- stances of dissimilar causes and effects given in the commentary on sūtra II. 1. 6 according to all commentators, including even Śamkara, are such as lend support to the notion of parināma.

CONCLUSION 175

Thus we are quite justified in arriving at the conclusion that Samkara's doctrine is out of court so far as the sutras are concerned, whatever be its value as a philosophical system, and whatever be its merit as an attempt to draw a system from the Upanisads. As long as Samkara's commentary on the sutras was the only one to be known and widely read (it being very difficult or almost impossible to understand sūtras without the help of a commentary ), such a conclusion would have appeared absurd; but when we have other commentaries which equally deserve our consideration and which widely diverge from Samkara's commentary, one must think twice before label- ling this judgment as heterdox. Now if we bring together all those cases where Samkara and Ramanuja differ from each other in the explanation of the sutras, we shall find that there is a large number where it is difficult to decide who is better, both being equally natural or farfetched; but there is also an equally large number where Ramanuja is decidely more acceptable than Samkara and vice versa. Thus, for instance, in the explanations of I. 2. 7, 8; I. 4. 8-10; II. 2. 42-45; II. 3. 19-32 ( at least as regards the general purport of the adhikarana, sūtra 29 being explained in a much less satisfactory manner by Samkara than by Rāmānuja); II. 3. 38; II. 3. 50; III. 2. 11-21, 22-30 ( as regards the general purport of the adhikarana ); III. 4. 51-52; IV. 1. 19 ; IV. 2. 7-16, it is difficult to decide whether Samkara is better or Rāmānuja is better. As regards I. 2. 9-10, 11-12, 19-20; I. 3. 13 ; II. 1. 2; II. 3. 14; II. 3. 16, 37 ; II. 4. 1-4, 14; III. 2. 26 Samkara's explanntions are decidedly more satisfactory than those of Ramanuja ; but on the other hand, Rāmānuja's explana- tions are more natural and decidedly to be preferred to those of Śamkara in the case of I. 1. 18; I. 3. 19; I. 3. 14-21 and 22-23 ( which form two adhikaranas according to Samkara, but only one according to Rāmānuja ); I. 3. 41 and 42-43 ( a similar case exactly ); I. 4. 14-27 ( which Ramanuja connects with the refuta- tion of the Samkhya, while Samkara with the samanvaya in

176 THE VEDANTA

general); II. 1. 13', 14; II. 2. 11; II. 3. 18; II. 3. 40° ; II. 3. 43, 46; II. 4. 6; III. I. 12-21 ; III. 2. 1-6, 25, 26; III. 3. 29; IV. 1. 14 ( where Samkara supplies the word 'mukti,-a procedure criticised by Vallabha ); IV. 2. 12-14. Coming to the commentary of Vallabha, we find that there are instances where he stands apart, differing from all the rest, in the interpretation of certain sutras. Thus, for instance, we can point to I. 1. 2 and 3 which he reads as one sūtra, with some justifica- tion too, in that the position of the word 'janmadi' in sutra 2, inspite of the upanisad passage running as यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ने &c., would look natural if ' sastrayonitvat' be read along with sūtra 2 ); I. 1. 4 ( where, the 'tu' cannot be construed well, the sūtra itself being superfluous ); II. 4. 1-4 ( where he comes to the conclusion that the pranas are as unborn as the individual souls and where he has the merit of interpreting the word tatha in sutra I, more naturally than the other commentators ); III. 2. 11-21; III. 2. 22-30 ( where he deals with the question how the Brahman can be both possessed of attributes and be without attributes,- which thus amounts to only a repetition of the preceding adhika- raņa ); IV. 1. 1-6, 12, 14 ; the second and fourth padas of the fourth adhyaya, where he all through makes out a distinction between the pustimarga and the maryada-marga, peculiar to his doctrine. But we see that in many of these cases, Vallabha's explanations are far from satisfactory, besides being sometimes too sectarian. It is interesting to note that sometimes Vallabha follows Samkara in the interpretation of certain sutras, where Samkara differs from the others; e. g. in I. 1. 18 ( where Samkara's explanation is no doubt far less natural than that of Rāmānuja and Nimbārka ); I. 1. 31 ( where Vallabha follows, of the two interpretations pro- posed by Samkara, the one which is less natural ); II. 1. 13; II. 2. 42-45 ; II. 3. 16, 37 ( in both cases Samkara's explanation is more satisfactory than that of Ramanuja ). In other cases Valla- bha follows Samkara as far as the literal translation of the sutra 1 Ram Enuja makes some remarks showing the unreasonable character of Samkara's interpretation, 2 Samkara himself, conscious of the unsatisfactory character of his inter- pretation, remarks that the example is to be understood only in a limited sense.

CONCLUSION 177

goes. but differs from him as regards the general idea of the adhi- karana or arrives at altogether different conclusicns. Thus, Val- labha explains sūtra II. 3. 18 just like Samkara, understand- ing jña to mean jñāna; but he regards it as a pūrvapaksa sūtra, while it represents the siddhanta according to Samkara; and he criticises the latter view, remarking that the Māyavadin is only an avatara of the Madhyamika Bauddha. In II. 3. 29-32 also Val- labha, accepting the anutva of the individual soul and explaining the last four sutras of the adhikarana differently from Samkara, censures the Māyāvādin for misunderstanding passages like ' tat tvam asi ' so as to deduce the doctrine of maya from them. In II. 3. 50 Vallabha explains the word ' abhasa ' to mean ' a reflec- tion, ' but arrives at a different conclusion from Samkara and warns the reader against Samkara's doctrine of the unreal character of the jiva. There is one case where Vallabha's interpretation, differ- ing from the rest, is, at the same time, the only one which is most natural and reasonable, i. e. IV. 3. 7-16, the whole pāda dealing with the three questions of the gati ( the going along the path ), gantavya ( the goal to be reached ) and the gantr ( the worshipper who goes ).

It is very dificult to assert dogmatically whether Vallabha's doctrine receives or does not receive any support from the sūtras ; but so much may be said that his commentary strikes us many times not as a very creditable performance, being in places very sectarian or unsatisfectory, although one can point out instances where he is brilliant or reasonable and where he offers very interesting criticisms of the views cf others. It is to be observed, however, that his special references to Gokula, the pusiimarga and the maryada-marga, and his manner of reconciling the mutu- ally contradictory passages in the Upanisads by postulating the miraculous and incomprehensible greatness ( aisvarya ) of the Brahman, and his assertion of pure monism without any reference to plurality make it far from possible that his doctrine could have been the one propounded by the Sūtrakāra.

Now, there remain for consideration Ramanuja and Nimharka. Their doctrines are very similar to each cther," though technically they are quite different and represent two schools going by the Ghate, Vedānta, 23.

178 THE VEDANTA

names of Visistadvaita and Bhedabheda. The main point of dis- tinction between them is that plurality according to Ramānuja is an attribute of unity, or in other words, the intelligent and non- intelligent world forms the body and the distinguishing attribute ( visesana ) of the Brahman; whereas the school of Nimbārka refuses to admit this idea of visesana, there being nothing from which the Brahman can be distinguished. Unity and plurality are both true and are on an equal level without any idea of subordination of plurality to unity, an idea implied in the doctrine of Rāmanuja. Apart from this, there is little or no difference as far as the metaphysical part is concerned. Naturally the commentary of Nimbarka, which is, it must be remembered, very brief, almost a kind of literal interpretation of the sūtras ( just like the commentaries of Mallinatha on the works of Kālidāsa ), but which is at the same time sufficiently clear as far as the doctrine it intends to convey is concerned, is generally seen to follow that of Ramanuja. Notwithstanding this, Nimbarka's work shows many traces of originality and his manner of reconciling the mutually contradictory passages of the Upanisads has something to recommend it. Thus, for instance, there are many cases where Nimbārka differs from Rāmānuja and is more natural, many times following Samkara at the same time. Thus with regard to I. 2. 9-10 and 11-12, Nimbārka, fol- lowing Samkara, has two adhikaranas, a procedure decidedly more natural than that followed by Ramanuja who has one adhi- karana only. The same may be said with regard to I. 2. 19 and 20 where Nimbarka follows Samkara and differs from Ramanuja, who stands apart from the others. The same is true of II. 3. 16, 29-32, 46 ; II. 4. 1-4, 14; III. 2. 25 and 26 ( where Nimbārka explains the word ' karmani' like Ramanuja, but 'anantena' like Śamkara); IV. 2. 16 ( where Nimbārka explains 'avibhāga' differently from but more satisfactorily than Ramānuja ). But what is even more important is that there are instances in which Nimbarka follows neither Samkara nor Rāmānuja, but has inter- pretations of his own which are far from being unsatisfactory under the ciroumstances. Thus as regards the last adhikarana of the second. pada of the second adhyāya ( sūtras 42-45 ), Nimbārka sees in it a refutation of the doctrine according to

OONCLUSION 179

which the world oan be produced from the sakti alone without the purusa. So also in the case of sūtras III. 2. 27-28, Nimbarka's interpretation of the two examples: (1) the serpent and its cuil and (2) light and its substrate, which differs from those of both Śamkara and Rāmānuja, is most natural and quite fits in with his doctrine of bhedabheda. Nor can we object to his answering in the following sutra ( III. 2. 29 ) the objection how the Brahman can be void of parts and at the same time capable of partial trans- formation, an interpretation in which he stands alone. His ex- planation of III. 3. 28, accounting for the fact that the merits and demerits of the sage are shared by his friends and foes respective- ly, is quite welcome; and his interpretation is the best and most natural of all as regards sutras III. 4. 51-52, where the question of the origination of the vidya and of its fruit ( mukti ) is dealt with. We cannot be equally sure with regard to his interpretation of IV. 3. 7-16 : but the commentary of Kesa- va-kāśmirin leads us to think that here too Nimbārka has the cre- dit of giving the only satisfactory explanation, which, besides himself, has been given by no cther commentator but Vallabha.

As for the cases in which Ramanuja's interpretations differ from those of Samkara and are more satisfactory, we have only to refer to the cases already noticed.

Now we may ask ourselves: is it the doctrine of Rāmānujs or that of Nimbārka which the sūtras profess to teach ?

Any one who has followed us in the analysis given above would agree with us in holding that the following points very probably formed part of the Sūtrakara's doctrine :

( 1 ) The jiva is atomic in size as compared with the Brahman which is all-pervading ( II. 3. 19-32 ; IV. 4. 15-16 ; I. 2. 7 ).

( 2 ) The jiva is not quite identical with the Brahman but has an individual difference of nature. At the most it can be said to be not entirely different ( I. 1. 16, 17, 19, 21 ; I. 2. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 20, 22 ; I. 3. 2, 5, 7, 19 ; II. 1. 22 ; III. 2. 27-30 ).

( 3 ) The jiva is a part of the Brahman ( II. 3, 43 ).

180 THE VEDANTA

(4 ) The jiva is of the nature of intelligence, at the same time it is a knower or has knowledge as its attribute ( II. 3. 18 ).

(5 ) The jiva is an aotive agent; but its antivity is derived . from the Brahman ( II. 3. 33-40 ).

( 6 ) The Brahman is the cause of the origination, sustenance and destruotion of the universe (I. 1. 2 ).

( 7 ) The Brahman, which is intelligent, is the cause of both the intelligent and the non-intelligent world ( II. 1. 4-11 ).

( 8) The Brahman is both the material and the efficient cause of the universe ( I. 4. 23 ).

(9 ) The meditation on the Brahman leads to knowledge, which in its turn leads to a beatitude from which there is no return. ( III. 4. 51-52 ). ( 10) The Brahman is only one without any distinction of higher or lower; and consequently there is no such distinction as & higher or a lower stage or a gradual or an immediate release ( see the analysis of IV. 2 and IV. 4 ).

(11 ) The effect is a modification of the cause ( II. 1. 6, 14; I. 4. 26 ).

( 12 ) Scripture is the chief means of arriving at the know- ledge of the Brahman (I. 1. 3; II. 1. 27 ).

( 13 ) Tarka or reasoning has its proper domain; but on super- sensuous and purely metaphysical subjects like the Brahman, it is not sufficient by itself and soas to confirm itself to the Śruti ( II. 1. 11 ).

Now all these points no doubt are found to have a place in the doctrines of Ramanuja and Nimbarka; but it is equally true that they belong more or less to all the schools in question, ex- cept of course that of Samkara. What distinguishes these four Visuite schools from each other is in the first place the theolo- gical part of their doctrines. Thus the Highest Self is called Vāsudeva by Ramānuja, Krsna by Nimbarka and Vallabha, and Visnu by Madhva. But the sutras provide us with no indications

CONCLUSION 181

whatsoever on this and other allied points ; for the sutras represent a stage where the Aupanisada doctrine had not yet lost its essentially metaphysical character, which was latter to be supplemented. and metamorphosed by theological and sectarian elaborations. And if, as we have shown above, the probability of the system of Vallabha or of Madhva being identical with that of the Sūtra- kara is very small, wehave also to say that the system of Ramanuja, or in other terms the Bhagavata system which Rāmānuja up- holds in II. 2. 42-45, is far from being the system of the sūtras : there being no indications in them that they support the essential dogmas of the Bhagavata system and the very words like Vasudeva, Vyuha, etc. being absent from them. In the second place, these four systems are distinguished from each other in their metaphysical portions. Thus according to Ramanuja and Nimbarka, the creation of the world from the Brahman is nothing more than that the cit and acit, which existed bafore in a subtle condition, are afterwards developed into gross forms. According to Vallabha the creation possible through the Aisvarya of the Brahman. This is the case also as re- gards the reconciliation of the passages which predicate attribu- tes of the Brahman with those which deny them all : the former, according to Rāmanuja and Nimbārka, tend to establish that the Brahman is possessed of all auspicious qualities, while the latter, that it is void of all faults. According to Madhva, the Brahman is really savisesa, 'possessed of attributes'; whereas what is meant by 'nirvisesa' is i. e. 'pra- krtiruparahita', ' not possessing the form of the material world.' According to Vallabha, on the other hand, the Brahman is both 'vyavaharavisaya' and 'vyavahararahita' ( both capable and inca- pable of description by ordinary words) and it has and has not the attributes of the intelligent and the non-intelligent world, owing to its marvellous greatness, 'aisvarya' which makes all sorts of opposites possible. Unfortunately, on these points the Sūtrakara provides us with indication of a very vague character, so that it is very difficult to dogmatise that the Sūtrakāra favours one particular view out of these. This is the case with the question, raised in I. 4. 19, how it is that the jiva, which is disouesed in Brhad.

THE VEDANTA

IV.5.6 is immediatoly in the subsequent passage spoken of as the Brahman. The Siddhanta view is given by the sutra I. 4. 22, 'अवस्थिनेरिति काशकृत्स:'. As shown above the word avasthiti is very vague and can be with equal reason interpreted by each one so as to fit in with his own view. So also in II. 1. 14, the word ' ananyatva', used to express the relation between cause and effect, is negative in character and so perfectly vague in its connotation. The word ' amsa ' in II. 3. 43, though it olearly makes Samkara's doctrine out of question, is not however sufficiently explicit to decide in favour of any one out of the remaining systems. The word 'maya' in III. 2. 3 is equally vague in that it may mean 'illusion' or 'wonderful power' or 'free will ' or ' something not ordinary ', as we have already sug- above. Sūtra III. 2. 29 (pūrvavad vā ), referring to the question of the relat'on between the Brahman and the jiva or the Brahman and the non-intelligent world, is very vague and, as we have seen above, the various interpretations put upon it may be all equally just or unjust. Moreover the phraseology of sutras III. 2. 27-28 leaves on our mind an impression of uncertainty as to the Sutrakara's opinion on the point. The same impression is confirmed by the use of the negative word 'a-vibhaga' in sūtras IV. 2. 16 and IV. 4. 4 ( the latter referring to the relation between the released soul and the Brahman ). In the same direction point the sūtras IV. 4. 7 and 12, where an attempt to reconcile opposite views on the question of the nature of the released soul, whether it is pure intelligence or possessing various attributes and whether. it is embodied or not, is attributed to Bādarāyana, the use of the words 'avirodha' ' absence of contradiction' and 'ubhayavidha' 'both ways' being characteristic. This last word reminds us of the other instances where the word ' ubhaya' is used in the sutra, to be interpreted according to the whim and necessity of him who explains it. We may in particular also notice ' ubhayatha, in II. 3. 40, ' ubhayalingam' in III. 2. 11, 'ubhaya-virodhat' in III. 3. 28, 'ubhaya-vyapadesāt' in III. 2. 27, 'ubhayatha ' in İIL. 2. 29. All these instances of the employment by the Sutrakara of vague and general words, not capable of being explicitly cefined, lead usto believe that the sutras, though they were in the first instance intended to formulate a system from the Upanisads, reconciling the

CONCLUSION 183

contradictions which meet us at every step, represent a stage of tran- sition from the freedom and absolute want of system of the Upani- sads to the cut and dry systematisation of the commentaries. There was the so called Aupanisada doctrine in the limited sense of the word as distinguished from the other orthodox doctrines (like Samkhya, Nyaya etc. ) as well as the heterodox ones like Buddhism and Jainism; but that is all. The further formulation of the particular dogmas found in the later Vedanta is absolutely unknown to the sūtras. Or, if at all we insist on seeing in the sutras one of the five systems under discussion, it can be at the most the 'bhedabheda' system of Nimbarka, according to which both bheda and abheda are equally real, without the idea of any subordination of one to the other. (See in this connection especially sūtras III. 2. 27-29, which fit in with the doctrine of Nimbarka better than with any other; also sutras IV. 4. 7 and 12, which represent a clumsy combination of both the views contained in the immediately preceding sūtras. ) For if we classify the five schools in question from the point of view of the formation of a system based on the reconcilation of the passages teaching difference and non-difference, or plurality and unity, the school of Nimbarka ( leaving out of consideration the later theological and sectarian encumbrances ) represents the first and, in a sense, elementary and rather clumsy stage; and the very title bhedabheda bears testimony to this fact. Next in grade would stand the school of Ramanuja which claims the title of Visistadvaita, thus giving prominence to advaita or Monism, at the same time admitting dvaita or plura- lity, but only as qualifying ( and thus subordinate to ) the Monism. A further grade in the progress of the elimination of contradiction is represented by the school of Madhva on the one hand, which is entitled Dvaita ( explaining away all passages referring to advaita in a most fantastic way,-a retrograde step from the philosophic point of view), and on the other hand by the schools of Vallabha and Samkara, respectively called Suddhadvaita and Kevalādvaita (representing a certain progress from the philosophic point of view ), which afirm monism, pure and monism absolute, thus explaining

184 THE VEDANTA

away all plurality by means of unity, the former through the medium of the marvellous greatness ( aisvarya ) of the supre- me spirit, the other by means of illusion of pescience ( Mayt or avidya ), both the principles, however, being equally inexplicable and incomprehensible ( a-van-manasa-gocara ). It needs hardly to be remarked that the more advanced a system is in the degree of systematisation and the elimination of contradiction, the farther removed it is from the system of the sutras, whatever that be. In any case the sutras are absolutely unaware of the particular dogmas enunciated by each of the different Vedanta sohools of the later times.