1. Vedanta Kalpalatika-Madhusudana BORI

BHANDARKAR ORIENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Post-Graduate and Research Department Series No. 3.

VEDANTAKALPALATIKĀ

EDITED

With an Introduction, English Translation

and Appendices

BY

R. D. KARMARKAR

Ex-Director, Post-Grauuate and Research Department,

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona 4

POONA

1962

The Publisher herewith gratefully acknowledges the substantial financial help given by the University of Poona towards the cost of publication of this work

Price Rs. 5

Printed and published by Dr. R. N. Pandekar, M. A., Ph.D., at the Bhandarkar Institute Press, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona No 4.

PREFACE

The Vedantakalpalatika by Madhusūdana Sarasvatī is a well-known Sanskrit manual embracing all important topics relating to Vedanta philosophy. It is most probably the first work written by the author who all the same thinks highly of it, as is clear from the ambitious title bestowed upon it.

The aim of the writer is to show how the non-Advaita philosophic doctrines fail to give a true evaluation of the ultimate Reality which must be admitted to be Nirvisesa and Nirdharmaka, if one is to do proper justice to both Śruti and Tarka.

A detailed summary in English of the work is given in the Introduction, for the benefit of the reader.

I have to thank Prof. R. N. Dandekar ( Poona Univer- sity ) for many useful suggestions. Thanks are also due to Prof. Dr. Sulochana Nachane, M. A., Ph. D. ( Baroda Univer. sity ), Dr. Shilavati Oke, M. A., rh. D., Miss Vimal Thakar, M. A. and other Research workers of the Post-Graduate Department, Shri G. N. Shrigondekar, Librarian, and Shri S. N. Savadi of the Manuscript Department for help in various ways.

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Ķșipañcamī, R. D. KARMARKAR

4th September, 1962

CONTENTS

Pages

Preface III

Introduction IX-XLV

(I) Text IX-XI

( II ) Author, Date and Works XI-XV

( III ) Summary XV-XLII

( IV ) Critical estimate XLIII-XLV

Text ( with English translation ) 1-176

Paras

(1) Salutation and scope of the work 1

( 2 ) Different vicws about Moksa 2

(3) The Upanisad view and the means to secure Moksa 3 (4) Desire for Moksa cannot arise in the case of 4-13 Nastika-Darsanas; the views of the Naiyayikas, Bhāttas, Sankhyayoga etc. (5) Refutation of the opponents' views and defence 11-22 of Upanisad views (6) Jñana can remove Ajuana; the nature of Ajnana 23-25 (7) The nature of Sabda-jñāna; different Śabda- 25-32 Vrttis ; the nature of Laksana (8) No Sabda-Vrtti can function in respect 33-45 of Brahman

(9 ) Brahman is not Jñana-Vişaya 46-50

(10) Ajñana is removed directly 51-53

(11) Manas cannot act as Karana 54-58

(12) Sabda cannot act like the Indriyas 59-68

Appendix I Authors and works mentioned by name 177 II Quotations from the Upanisads etc. 178-80

ABBREVIATIONS

ऋ. सं. ( R. Sam. ) ऋगवेदसंहिता कठो. ( Katho. ) कठोपनिषद् का. रुद्रो. ( Kā. Rudro. ) कालाभिरुद्रोपनिषद् केनो. ( Keno. ) केनोपनिषद् गीता ( Gītā ) भगवद्गीता चित्यु· ( Cittyu. ) चित्युपनिषद् छा. ( Chã. ) छान्दोग्योपनिषद् तैत्ति. ( Taitti. ) तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् ना. प. ( Nā. Pa.) नारदपरित्राजकोपनिषद् निरा· ( Nirā ) निरालम्बोपनिषद् न्या. भा. (Nyā. Bhã. ) न्यायभाष्य

न्या. सू. (Nya. Sū. ) न्यॉयसूत्र

पञ्ञ- ( Pañca. ) पञ्चपादिका प्रभो. ( Praśno. ) प्रभोपनिषद् बृ. (Br. ) बृददारण्यकोपनिषद् बृह ( Brha. ) बृह. सं. वा. ( Brha. Sam. Vā. ) बृहदारण्यक सं. वार्तिक बृह. वा. का ( Bṛha. Vā, kā. ) बृहदारण्यक वार्तिक- कारिका ब्र. सि. ( Bra. Si. ) ब्रह्मसिद्धि ब्र. सू. (B. S.) ब्रह्मसूत्र ब्रह्मो. ( Brahmo. ) ब्रह्मोपनिषद् भ. गी. ( Gītã ) भगवद्गीता म. (Ma.) महाभाष्य मी. भा. ( Mī. Bhã. ) मीमांसाभाष्य मी.श्रो. वा. चो. सू. का. ( MI-Ślo-Va-Co Su-kā ) मीमांसा-श्लोक-वार्तिक- चोदनासूत्र कारिका

(2)

मी. सू. (Mi. Su.) मीमांसासूत्र

मुण्ड. (Munda.) मुण्डकोपनिषद् मैन्रा. ( Maitrā. ) मैन्रायण्युपनिषद् वा. सं. ( Vā. Sa. ) वाजसनेयसंहिता

शाठ्या. ( Śātyā. ) शाठ्यायन (तैत्तिरीय ब्राह्मण) शि. सू. ( Śi. Sū. ) शिवसूत्र

श्वेता. ( Śvetā. ) श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद्

सा. का ( Sā, kā.) साङ्गयकारिका

सुबालो ( Subālo. ) सुबालोपनिषद् सं. शा. ( Sam. Śā. ) संक्षेपशारीरक

INTRODUCTION

I Vedantakalpalatika: Text The present text of the Vedantalalpalatila is based upon a collation of two manuscripts ( one from the India Office Library-I.O., and the other from the Anandasrama, Poona - A ) and the printed edition of the work edited by Ganganath Jha and Gopinath Kaviraja ( Banaras 1920). This printed work is itself based upon a collation of two manuscripts as is pointed out by the editors. We have designated this printed edition as A. Details about the manuscripts I. O. and A consulted by us are as follows :-

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका No. 539 India Office Library [ I. O.] I. O. Lib. E 2399

Size - 92" x 3&" Extent - 43 leaves; 9-10 lines to a page; 42 letters to a line. ( foll. 8, 9, 10 missing ) Description - Country paper; Devanagarī characters; handwriting clear, legible and uniform; red pigment occasionally used; the MS. is in a bound book along with two other works viz. : ( 1 ) Krsnāmrtamahārņava and (2 ) Tattvasara. Foll. 8, 9, 10 missing. The MS. has been described in the India Office catalogue Vol. 1, pt. 1V, pp. 768-769. Age - Appears to be old.

x VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

Author - Madhusūdana Sarasvatī.

Subject -" A treatise on Moksa by Madhusūdana Saras- vati wherein the author refutes the views of Jaimini, Kapila, Kaņāda, Akșapāda and others and follows those of Vyasa, Sankara and Sureśvara " - Colebrooke. Begins - मीमांसया कपटतो भुजगांबयेव स्वाधीनतामुपनिषद्विनतेव नीता। येनोद्धतामृतफलेन गरुत्मतेव तस्मै नमो भगवतेऽद्ुतशंकराय ।

Ends - इति वेदान्तकल्पलतिकायां परमहंसपरित्राजकमधुसदनसरखतीकृतायां ससाधनाप- वर्गनिरूपणं नाम प्रथमस्तबकः ॥ गोविन्दो व्यलिखत्सार्थपक्षे भाद्रेऽसिते तिथौ। चतुर्थ्यां त्वरया तेन प्रसीदतु रमापतिः ॥ नमः श्रिये In Bengali characters -

श्रीकृष्णभट्टाचार्यपुत्रगोपालभट्टाचार्यणेदं पुस्तकं .... या .... मुद्रया गृहीतम् ॥

Ānandāśrama ( Ā ) No. 7175

Size - 114" x 3%" Extent - 50 leaves; 8 lines to a page; 42 letters to a line. Description - Thick country paper; Devanagari characters; handwriting beautiful, clear, legible and uniform; red pigment used for marking certain portion of the text and yellow used for corrections; modern paper with watermarks used for the last two folios ; complete. 1st Stabaka only. Age - Not very old.

Subject - Vedānta. Begins - fol. 1'

श्रीमत्सद्गुरुचरणारविन्दाभ्यां नमः ॥

श्रीसद्गुरोश्षरणपंकजमादरेण।

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका परिलिख्यतेसौ। विद्वद्वसंततिलकात्मसुखप्रदास्तु॥

Ends - fol. 50

न्यायैरनिर्दय दुष्टानिह कपिलकणादाक्षपादादिवादा- नादायादुष्टमेकं श्रुतिमितमम्ृतासारमद्वैतवादं। वेदान्तैकप्रमेयं परमसुखमयं ज्ञानमज्ञानशून्यं मोक्षं व्याचक्षतेयं कमपि सुकृतिनः सेहमेवास्मि पूर्णः ॥ १॥

ससाधनापवर्गनिरूपणः प्रथमस्तबकः संपूर्णः ॥१॥ शिवं॥

The important variants have been given in the foot- notes; these do not materially involve any change in the many passages concerned. We hare taken the I. O. text as authoritative; in two or three places, however, it was found desirable to admit readings from A or A to make the meaning clearer.

IL THE AUTHOR : DATE AND WORKS

Madhusūdana Sarasvatī is generally accepted to have been born and bred in Bengal. The following facts about his genealogy can be cited as follows :-

xii TEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

Pramada( Pramodana )purandarācārya

• Śrīnātha Yādavānanda Kamalaja- Vāgīśa- Cūdāmaņi Nyāyācārya nayana Gosvāmin ( Madhusūdana Sarasvatī )

Kamalajanayana spent his days at Banaras and became a Samnyasin, changing his name to Madhusūdana Sarasvatī. The famous Hindi poet Tulasidasa was his contemporary. He had been invited to his court by Emperor Akbar, and the Pundits at the court praised him for his scholarship,1 ' Madhusudana Sarasvatī knows the bounds of the Goddess of Learning; the Goddess of Learning knows the bounds of Madhusūdana Sarasvatī'. Madhusūdana was a contem- porary of Gadadharabhatta also. Madhusudana Sarasvati appears to have studied under more than one preceptor. He mentions Srīrama, Viśveśvara- sarasvatī and Madhavasarasvatī as his Gurus in his Gūdhar- thadīpika' ( one Śrīpāda is also mentioned as his Guru). Balabhadra, Purușottamasarasvatī and Seșa Govinda (author of Sarvasiddhantarahasyarivarana ) are described as his pupils. Date

Madhusudana is generally taken to have lived about 1540-1647 A. D.1 Shri S. L. Katre2 has, however, shown

1 वेत्ति पारं सरस्वत्या मधुसूदनसरस्वती। मधुसूदनसरस्वत्याः पारं वेत्ति सरस्वती॥ 2 श्रीरामविश्वेश्वरमाधवानां प्रणम्य पादाम्बुजपुण्यपांसून्। तेषां प्रभावादहमस्मि योग्यः शिलापि चैतन्यमलब्ध येभ्यः॥ 3 P. C. Divanji - Introduction to Siddhantabindu GOS. * Ganganath Jha Research Institute Journal p. 181, Vol. VIl, parts 2 and 4

INTRODUCTION xiii

that the Vedantakalpalatika and Siddhantabindu must have been written before 1500 A. D., on the strength of a con- temporary Ms. of the Mahimnastotra-tīka copied in 1593 A. D. Dr. Miss Nachane takes the verse

अद्रीन्द्वद्रीन्दुसंख्येऽळदौ राक्षसे चैत्त (त्र)मेचके। द्वितीयेऽब्दौ पश्चवट्यां कृत्वार्पितमिदं गुरोः ॥

which occurs after the colophon in the Anandāśrama Ms. of the Vedantakalpalatika, as having been written by Madhu- sūdana himself. Shri S. L. Katre shows more or less convincingly that the year 1717 in the above verse can only be of the Saka era and that the verse in question could have been written only by the copyist and not by Madhusudana, the author.1

WVorks

The following works ( alphabetically arranged ) can be definitely attributed to Madhusūdana. ( 1 ) Advaitaratnarukşana - It is a criticism of Bhedaratna ( cf Sankaramiśra ), and contains references to Advaita- siddhi and V. L. ( Vedāntakalpalatikā ).

( 2 ) Advaitasiddhi - A voluminous work, refuting the Nyāyāmrta ( of Vyāsarājasvāmin, a Dvaita ). ( 3 ) Bhagavadbhaltirasāyana ( Bhaktisāmānyanirūpana ) - Referred to in V. L. and in Gūdhārthadīpika and Para- mahamsapriyā. ( 4 ) Gūdhārthadīpika - A commentary on the Bhagavad- gita from the point of view of Sankara. ( 5 ) Harililamrtațīka - A commentary on Harilīlamrta of

1 Poona Orientalist, Vol, XIII, Nos. 3 and 4.

xiv VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

Vopadeva ( 12th century ). It refers to his work Paramahamsapriyā. (6 ) Mahimnastotratīla (7) Paramahamsapriya - A commentary on the first verse of the Bhagarataprana. ( 8 ) Prasthānalheda. ( 9 ) Samkşepusarirakatīka - A commentary on the Samlse- pasāriraka of Sarvajuātman. (10) Siddhanta( tattva jbindu - A commentary on Sankara's Dasasloki. Refers to V. L. twice and is itself referred to in V. L. ( 11 ) Vedantakalpalatika - The Mss. mention this work as प्रथम: स्तबकः ससाधनापवर्गनिरूपणं नाम. It is referred to frequent- ly in the other works. Madhusudana is also credited with haring been the author of the following works,-commentaries on ( 1) Atmia- bodha, ( 2 ) Vedastuti and ( 3 ) Śandilyasūtras. Anandamandalinī, Krsnakutūhalanațaka and Rājnam Pratibodhah are also ascribed to him.

The V. L., S. B. and M. S. T. are most probably his earliest works. Some Mss. describe the V. L. as a Stabaka ( of the Kalpalata ), but the work is obriously complete in itself and no Ms. describes any other work as a Stabaka. It appears that both the V. L. and S. B. are intended to give the reader Madhusudana's ideas about the Advaita-Vedanta in a nutshell, and the other works are just expositions of these in greater detail. Similarly the Mahimnastotratīld explains Madhusudana's views on Bhakti in general. Taking all this into consideration, we have come to the conclusion that the name Vedantakalpalatika for the present work is a misnomer; all the works of Madhusudana can be

INTRODUCTION

jointly considered as Vedantakalpalatika with many Sta- bakas. In that case the present work may better be styled Sasadhanapavarganirūpana.

III. A SUMMARY OF THE VEDANTAKALPALATIKA

( 1) Madhusudana gives his aim in writing his work- (1) Explaining the Sastra correctly ( this could be done due to the grace of his teacher Vi'vesvara ).

(2) Refutation of the riews of Jaimini, Patanjali, Gautama, Kaņāda, Kapila, Śaiva etc., in accor- dance with the interpretation given by Vyāsa, Śankara and Sureśvara. ( Madhusudana fervently salutes Sankara who, in his opinion, has correctly interpreted the Upa- nisads, and shows how the views of the Mimamsa- vādins are fallacious. ) (3) Explaining the true nature of Moksa and the means thereof, and pointing out the fallacies in the views of the opponents. (2) Philosophers ( both Nastika and Astika ) hold different riews about the nature of Moksa, and the means of securing Mokşa. Thus - (1) The Carvakas do not admit any Caitanya apart from the body, and admit only Direct perception as a means of proof. So, there is no question of any eternal thing like Moksa being admitted in their system. (2) A section of the Carvakas admits the sense-organs ( individually or collectively ), mind or Prāņa as the Cetana element. (They are no better than Carvakas referred to in ( 1 ) above. )

xvi VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

(3) The Vijñānavādins ( Bauddhas ) regard Vijñāna- santana as momentary, and its total extinction as Mokșa. (4) The Madhyamikas ( Bauddhas ) describe ' void' ( Sūnyabhava ) as Moksa. (5) The Jainas ( Arhatas ) regard Moksa as the ascent of the Jiva upwards, when frecd from the clutches of the eight-fold Karman-bondage.

(6) The Vaisesikas regard Moksa as the realisation of the Atman as freed from his special qualities. (7) The Naiyayikas regard Moksa as the extinction of the twenty-one divisions of Duhkha, due to the coming to an end of the Karman, as a result of the disappearance of Raga, Dvesa and Moha, caused by the realisation of the two-fold Atman.

(8) Others regard Moksa as the extinction of all Karman in the present birth, due to the proper observance of the Nitya and Naimittika Karmans, and the avoiding of the prohibited and Kāmya Karmans.

(9) The Prābhākara Mīmāmsakas regard Mokșa as the total extinction of Dharma and Adharma which are connected with the body and sense- organs, through the absence of the Vedic Karmans enjoined, preceded by the ordained knowledge of the Atman.

( 10) The Bhatta Mīmāmsakas regard Mokșa as arising from the combination of Jnana and Karman. Mokșa is the manifestation of eternal bliss. ( 11 ) Some Mīmāmsakas regard Mokșa as the mani-

INTRODCCTION xvii

festation of bliss or absence of misery through mental realisation.

( 12 ) The Sankhyas regard Moksa as the realisation of the Purusa as quite apart from the Prakrti. ( 13 ) The Patanjalas regard Moksa as the attainment to the highest Samadhi, through the complete restraint of the five-fold mentsl tendencies by following the Yogic practices. ( 14 ) The Tridandins regard Moksa as the merging of the Jiva into Brahmnan, through Jñana and Karman.

( 15 ) Some Tridandins regard Moksa as the attainment to the Highest Lord. ( 16 ) Some regard Moksa as the attainment to the changless state of Brahman, by giving up the state subject to change, through the combination of Jňana and Karman. ( 17 ) According to the Pāsupatas, Mokșa is to be always near Pasupati. ( 18) According to the devotees of Visnu, Moksa is to stay in the world of Visnu, through devotion to Vișņu. ( 19) According to the devotees of Hiranyagarbha, Moksa is attainment to Hiranyagarbha, through the devoted observance of the Five-fire-Vidya etc.

( 20 ) Others hold similar views about Moksa that are opposed to Sruti and reasoning. ( 21 ) The followers of the Upanisads, who are graced by Narayana, hold Atman alone with the Avidya

xviii VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

gone away, constituted of limitless bliss and enlightenment, to be Moksa. The last view is the most reasonable one, because Avidya is the cause of all misery ; with its disappearance all misery vanishes. Mokşa, being just the true nature of Atman, stands in no need for any means to secure it. We talk of means only metaphorically, when we say that Moksa is due to the rea- lisation of the nature of Atman, freed from the four obsta- cles -(1) the Vāsanās for enjoyment of the objects of senses, ( 2, 3 ) wrong notions about the means of proof and the object of knowledge and ( 4 ) perverted conceptions. The practice of Sama, Dama etc., ( which lead to the proper Sravaņa ), Śravaņa, Manana, and Nididhyāsana re- move respectively the above four obstacles, and the Brahma- sūtras of Bādarāyana help in the removing of these obstacles.

(3) In short, the Upaniad view is that one desirous of salvation, practising Sama etc., should approach a duly quali- fied teacher and under his direction should revolve upon the Vedānta-passages in the Brahmasūtras till his purpose is achieved, viz. the removal of obstacles for the realisation of the one.ness of Brahman and Atman, which ensures salvation.

(4) It is necessary first to have a clear idea of the nature of Moksa, before a desire arises to secure Moksa; then the question of the proper means could be properly consi- dered.

(5) Excepting the followers of the Upanisads, other philo- sophers propound views not supported by the means of proof. Thus, amongst the Nastika philosophers -

INTRODTCTION xix

(1) The Cārvākas admit no permanent entity which can survive the body etc., and so there can be no question of Moksa, according to them. (2) The Bauddhas regard everything to be momen- tary; their Moksa can thus be only the destruc- tion of Atman ( People committing suicide at Prayaga for securing Moksa, no doubt destroy themselves in popular parlance, but they actually believe in a permanent imperishable enjoyer ). (3) The Vijñānavādi-Bauddhas who admit a stream ( Santāna ) of Vijñāna fare no better; the San- tana can not be separated from its members, and it must come to an end when the members are no more. (4) The Sūnyavādins can not even dream of Moksa. (5) According to the Jainas, rising upwards (ऊर्ध्वगमन) is Mokşa, but that being a Kriyā must be im- permanent. Secondly, the Jiva being screened by the eight Karmans, can not be proved. Thirdly, the Jiva has a fluctuating dimension which means that the Jiva is liable to destruction, and lastly the Jain idea of Moksa, attaining to heaven etc., can not be the highest human purpose in life. So, the above Nāstika systems ( not believing in any permanent entity ) can be ruled out of consideration with- out much ado. (6) But the different Astika systems can not be so summarily dismissed; for, a desire for securing Moksa can arise there :- All these systems admit the existence of the Atman, eternal, all-pervading and apart from the body, sense-organs; thus -

VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

(i ) Recognition in the form ' I who perceived my parents in my childhood, am now per- ceiving my grand-sons'-this shows that the Atman must not be a momentary entity. (ii) A child newly-born is able to suck the breasts of the mother - this shows that the Atman remembers the impressions in the previous birth. Anumana - Buddhi, Sukha etc., are Gunas; they must have a Gunin ; that is the Atman. An object of enjoyment must have an enjoyer; the body is Bhoga; it must have a Bhoktr, viz. the Atman. Atman can have no prior existing cause and so is not liable to destruction. Śruti - The Śruti passages, all of them describe Atman as imperishable. Such an Atman can only be atomic or Vibhu. As the effect of Atman is seen everywhere, Atman should be con- sidered to be Vibhu as his nature is not different from that of Brahman.

Vaiśeșikas, Naiāyikas, and Prābhākaras ( Mīmām- sakas ) - They admit the nine Visesagunas, Buddhi etc., due to the contact of the mind, as existing in the Atman in the Samsara state. Moksa is the simultaneous disappea- rance of these. Thus, for the sake of the absolute cessation of pain, desire for Moksa does arise in the case of the thinking people. The refutation of the above riews would be as follows :- (1) As long as the Dharmin ( Atman ) exists, the das- truction of the natural Dharmas is impossible. Both Dhar- mas and Dharmin must disappear together. This means that there would be no Atman !

INTRODUCTION XXI

(2) There is no proof to show that Atman can exist even when the Visesa-Gunas are no more. (3) The absence of pain which cannot be known can not be the human purpose in life. (4) The Sruti can be no help here, as it deals with the Atman who is bereft of the Dehabhimana. (5) Again if one Duhkha is destroyed, there is no guarantee that a fresh Duhkha would not arise. (6) The suggestion that as Dubkhaprāgabhāva is res- ponsible for Duhkha (in the sense that the destruction of Duhkhaprāgabhava is due to Duhkha ) why should not Duhkha cease to exist if there is no Duhkhaprāgabhāva at all? The answer is :- How many Duhkhapragabhavas are you going to eliminate and when and how ? They can not be eliminated all at once and the elimination can not be effected by any human effort. What use then can one have for Sravana, Manana etc., which involve Pravrtti which surely does produce Duhkha ? Actually this view shows no prospect of Sukha being achieved, involves the elimination of Sukha of every kind and deserves to be kept at arm's length ; who would indeed like to stay on like a dried piece of wood ? (7) The view of the author of the Nyayabhasya that the absence of all Duhkha should be the Purusartha is also objectionable. Dhhkhābhāva can only be acceptable if it leads to Sukha. One enjoying a little Sukha craves for more; Sukha is not Duhkhabhava; at the Dissolution and in Deep sleep, there is no Sukha when Duhkhābhāva is there. So, it is better to say that one yearns for positive Sukha, not merely for Duḥkhābhāva. (8) The view of Kumārila, viz. Mokșa is the mani- festation of permanent Sukha is also not acceptable. If we

xxii VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

analyse the view, we would find that if the Sukha is differ- ent -from Atman and is to be produced, no one would desire for such an impermanent Sukha. If it is not differ- ent from Ätman, how can it be known or experienced ? There being no connection with the mind and sense-organs in Moksa, such a Sukha cannot be experienced. If the mind and sense-organs persist in Moksa also, what difference is there between Samsara and Moksa? If Atman is des- cribed to be enveloped by some covering element, which is neither Sat, nor Asat, and indescribable, then this is exactly the view of the Brahmavadin. That is why the Neo- Mīmamsakas having given up the view about Sukha being not different from Atman who is always uncovered and the same at all times, have preached Moksa to be only negation of Duhkha; but as has already been pointed out, this view cannot stand, as Atman cannot have any Vikriya in himself to get rid of the Duhkha resorting to him.

(9) The view of Sankhya and Yoga, which ad- mits Atman to be Asanga and Duhkha to be a dharma of the Buddhi - it is true -rules out of order Atman being exterminated, and further Atman being self-illuminating, is able to work consciously - this view also fares no better. Because if Duhkha is Sat, it cannot be destroyed, and what exists not cannot be produced either. So, the Samsara and Moksa according to the Sānkhyas who are Satkāryavadins are hardly different from each other. (The Vaisesikas are more honest when they say that an Asat thing can be pro- duced and destroyed ! ) To say that production and destruc- tion are just manifestation and non-manifestation would also not help; for they are just Sattva and not different from Sattva. If they are admitted to be Anirvacaniya, that: would be admitting the Brahmavadin's view. ( 10) It would thus be seen that all the above views

INTRODUCTION xxiii

cannot get rid of the basic objection viz., Moksa, whether described as an entity or negation, is an adventitious thing and is non-eternal, being regarded as a product. Even ad- mitting some Dharma residing in the counter-entity, makes no difference, because that Dharma also is perishable. Mokşa can never be regarded as Utpādya, Āpya, Vikā- rya or Samskārya; for, that would make it perishable ( This has been very well explained by Sankaracarya in his Bhāsya on Bra. Sū. I. 1. 4.) The view that there is both Bheda and Abheda in the case of Moksa is most absurd, being opposed to all means of proof. A real Bheda cannot be removed by Jñana ( which can remove only non-knowledge or ignorance). If both Bheda and Abheda are regarded to be known from the Veda, they would persist in the Moksa-state as well ! Limiting the respective spheres of action such as, - from Jnana comes the cessation of false knowledge, and from Karman, of Bheda - also does not stand. For, if once you admit Bheda and also Abheda, everything would be Prama and false Jñana cannot be singled out; nowhere again is ever seen the disappearance of Bheda by Karman. The combination of Jñana and Karman is opposed to the Śruti which preaches Advaita, and the attainment to the Nirvisesa Brahman would be an impossibility, if such a combination of Jñana and Karman is admitted. The Bauddhas talk about the four-fold Bhāvanā ( per- taining to individuality, momentariness, grief and 'void') as the means of salvation. But there is no proof for this, beyond the word of Buddha, and this is opposed to the Śruti, and the Bhāvanās are just illusion. Likewise, the Jaina doctrine is not proved by any proof, and the means of salvation spoken of by them cannot. be acceptable,

VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

Thus, there is no proof whatsoever to show that the Jiana of the six Padarthas ( of the Vaisesikas ) or of the sixteen Padārthas ( of the Naiyāyikas ) leads to Moksa, the knowledge of which could be had only through the Scrip- tures. A mere statement about Moksa by some sage like Krnada can not be held to be authoritative; in that case, there would be no necessity for the definition, examination etc., of any statement. The Sruti of course never counte- nances this. Further a knowledge of the Padarthas, whe- ther in a general way or in their characteristics, cannot produce Moksa. A general knowledge everybody has; it is impossible to know the special features of all Padarthas; to understand the Padarthas as merely being Dravya is both obvious and useless.

( Some who hold that Karman gives its fruit in the present one birth only, hardly deserve any consideration. ) Similarly, the knowledge of the discrinination between Purusa and Prakrti is of no use, whether.general or parti- cular. The knowledge of Atman only, in a general way, is patent to everyone, as one is conscious of the same when one says ' I know'. That such a knowledge gets rid of the false Vasana, after practising 'hearing' etc., by producing another knowledge is also untenable; for, in that case the direet knowledge of Atman, which is not illusion, would appear superfluous. The followers of Prabhakara who do not admit illusion are in a worse position. For, the knowledge of Reality does not help at all. It cannot destroy the Karman, as such a knowledge is always there; so, the question of the destruction of Karman does not arise. The rery idea that Jñana could be enjoined to achieve something is ridiculous. Again, the nature of Atman, untramelled in any way can alone be Moksa. The Sruti referring to the destruction of

INTRODCCTION XXV

Karman, does not refer to any direct destruction, but through the destruction of false knowledge removable by the realisation of the Atman. Self-realisation is impossible for the Sankhyas who regard Atman to be always inferable, and so, indirect know- ledge being always there, it cannot be means for realisation. Yogic practices help only in intensifsing the indirect know- ledge; they cannot bring about realisation.

The objector says that Kamana cannot arise in the Upanisadic scheme of things either. Thus -

(1) Kāmanā can arise in respect of an entity to be established or known. But Atman is neither Heya nor Upadeya, and is always Siddha.

(2 ) There cannot be any desire for something already established. (3) It cannot be said that Atman in the Samsāra state is enveloped by Avidya, and so a desire for the remo- val of Avidya can arise, because the remoral of Avidya is difficult to envisage, whether it is different from or not different from Atman.

The Siddhantin replies - (1) Simply because an entity is Asiddha, it is no cause for the absence of Kamana.

(2) After all, what is meant by being Siddha ?

( i ) lt cannot he 'really existing'; for, in that case, the removal of the illusory serpent on the rope wonld not be concerned with a Siddha entity. A Siddha thing forgotten for the time being is Asiddha. 4

xxvi VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

( ii ) It cannot be ' being known'; for that cannot be produced by desire. A desire can arise about something known in a way. ( iii ) It cannot be the object of unobstructed reali- sation; for, in the present case, the obstruct- ions are there which prevent the realisation. A person suffering from biliousness cannot realise the sweetness of sugar. Further, one desires for a thing, which is

( A ) actually not secured, (B) thongh secured, is associated with illusion. Likewise a thing to be avoided is ( C) something which really exists and which has to be avoided ( like a big trench on the way) ( D) which, already avoided and not existing ( the serpent on the rope ) but as good as not avoided owing to illusion. Now, as regards A and C, some Kriyā or action is necessary, before A is secured and C is avoided. B and D can only be accomplished through direct realisation; that is why the highest purpose in life, Moksa, is said to have nothing to do with Kriyā.

A desire for Atman who is always Siddha arises as the attainment to the highest bliss and cessation of Avidyā are Asiddha owing to illusion. The removal of Avidya cannot be described as impos- sible to demonstrate. It is true that Avidyā (and it Kārya ) cannot be described as (1) Sat, (2) Asat, or (3) Sadasat; and so usually it is described as (4) Anirvacanīya; but owing to this position, while Avidya becomes identical with anirvacanīya, its Nivrtti and Pratiyogin ( counter-

INTRODUCTION xxvii

entity ) cannot be regarded as identical with it; so a fifth method viz. Anirvacanīya-vilaksana, should be accepted to describe Avidyā. ( Actually, the Advaita-Sruti concerns it -. self with the Sad-Advaita only. ) In this way the Atman could be described as free from the Bheda idea, whether homogenous or heterogenous. Thus the Advitīya Sruti ( as also the Asthuladi Sruti ) could be properly explained. This is the view of the author of Istasiddhi, and others. Really speaking, the Anirvacanīya-vailaksaņya method is unhelpful in cognising Abhava. Abhava, after all, must be connected with some Caitanya; if it is just imaginary, it is rooted in Avidyā. The Sruti-passages, Asthula etc., (describing the Atman ) point out to Atman's nature being different from Sthula etc., and not their Abhava; because both Bhāva and Abhava natures of imaginary things are nothing but the nature of their Adhisthana. For instance -

A conch-shell, not cognised properly, can be said to be possessed of the Bhava of the silver; but when cognised it is known to be constituted of the Abhava of the silver.

In the same way the Atman, not realised properly, is constituted of all Dvaita; but when realised he is known to be constituted of the Abhava of Dvaita. This is not a novel view at all. The followers of Prabhakara admit the nature of the yas as giving us the idea of any Abhava (as घटाभाववत् भूतलम्). The logicians also explain घटाभाव as घटो न भवति, and do not admit any घटाभाव-अभाव as any counter-entity for the Abhava. All this shows that 54 itself is competent to give the idea of Abhava. Thus Atman who is Sat, Caitanya, Advitiya and entire perfect Bliss, is spoken of as ' the cessation of Avidya' when reaļised.

xxviii VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

The objector says - When the expression ज्ञात आत्मा is nsed, ज्ञान particularises Atman and that means Moksa is particularised by 7; if ज्ञान is not there, Moksa also would disappear. ज्ञान, therefore, must be taken to be just an accidental characteristic ( 34- r ) in which case, Moksa would be there even before the realisation. The answer is :- An err can not affect the object in question. When we say ' Devadutta's house is the one on which a crow is sitting' that does not mean that Deva- datta's house was not there before the crow came in the scene. An yagur, therefore, performs its function after it is there. The case is similar here. Avidya being begin- ningless does not function again, like the antecedent nega- tion, when the right knowledge is secured. Now, what is the nature of Jñana involved in the ex- pression ज्ञात-आत्मा, which removes Avidya or the Ajnana? It cannot be -

(1) Merely Sentiency, because that being always there, Avidya would always be not existing. with the result that Samsara based upon Avidra would not be there and all Sastra would be without any job! Further, there would arise contradiction with actual experience :

Atman - (2) It cannot be any functioning on the part of

(A ) If the functioning is real, its cause, the Avidyā in the mind, must also be real, with the result that the functioning could not possibly remove the cause and there would be the uselessness of all Vedanta. (B) If the functioning is unreal, how could any-

INTRODUCTION xxix

thing unreal remove the Ajnana? In that case, even the knowledge in a dream can be effectire: Our experience is that only the real knowledge of the rope can remove the illusory knowledge of the serpent. (3) This Jfiana, whether it is सप्रकारक or निष्प्रकारक, is in- potent to achieve its object - (A) A सप्रकारकज्ञान is useless to tackle the निष्प्रकारक Brahman in any way, as it is arref. If it is gea, there would be no Advaita left. (B) A निष्प्रकारकज्ञान is nowhere seen to remove Ajnana. can remove that Ajuana only which has समान आश्रय, प्रकार and विषय with the Jnana. Other- wise, even a general knowledge, like ' A sub- stance is knowledge' would enable us to remove the Ajmana about a jar ! (4) Further, if this sa is indirect, it cannot remove the Ajnana which is the cause of direct superimposition; otherwise, an inferenti»l knowledge about whiteness of the conch-shell would remove the illusion about the yellowness on the shell. The Jñana cannot be direct, as az can only give us in- direct knowledge which is the :. Even in the case of expressions like ' You are the tenth' ( where the speaker who had forgotten to count himself is reminded of that fact ), there is first the indirect knowledge and later the direct knowledge is produced in the mind. In the present case about Brahman, there is no other u than the Vedanta to cognise Brahman ( Ordinary oam cannot have any power to produce knowledge about any supersensuous entity ).

xxx VEDÄNTAKALPALATIKĀ

It is true that Vedanta passages like सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म although producing indirect knowledge are not productive of illusion, because they do not refer to any other entity than Brahman. But our Siddhanta is that direct knowledge is identical with the Pramatr himself; if it were not so, the knowledge of Brahman ( as being apart from the Pra- mātr ) would be unauthoritative! No other Kāraņa can function in the case of Brahman without a second; from Śabda no direct knowledge can proceed and so no Mokșa from Śabda-jñāna.

It cannot be argued that the beginningless Ajñana of a positive form can be removed by the Sabda-jñana, because a beginningless entity, like the Atman is invariably associated with indestructibility; otherwise Atman also being an entity would be destructible like a jar. It cannot be argued that the comparison with Atman is misleading, because in the case of the Ätman, it is not the beginning- lessness of the Atman that is the cause of his being eternal but his real or self illumining nature, - the answer is - No similar instance can be produced owing to no highest Reality other than Atman being admitted. Further, if Ajñana is the object of the means of proof, it cannot be removable by the means of proof which cannot remove its own object; if it is not the object of the means of proof, it would be just like the horn of a hare ( as it is not admitted to be self-illumin- ing ) unable to produce anything. Again, Ajñana cannot be removed by itself (no one can remove oneself); otherwise it would be just momentary; nor by another Jñana which would require another Jnana to remove itself and so on, there would be the fault of endlessness. It is further im- possible to find any resort for this Jñana; it cannot be Atman who is without any Dharmas; it cannot be the mind, for the Jnana in the mind cannot remove the Ajñana

INTRODCCTION xxxi

in the Atman. Ajnana cannot be resorting to the mind, as Ajmana exists prior to it and all agree in holding that Caitanya alone can be the resort. Further, what is the sphere of activity of this Ajnana ? It cannot be the High- est Brahman, for, no proof to that effect can exist. The mind cannot do anything in the matter, for, it itself is not self-proven, being merely a co-worker ( and in addition, this concept would be contrary to the Sruti). Manas (mind ) can only tackle particularised entities, never ans Advaita. The mind polished and strengthened by Śravana, Manana etc., can do this, but the real means in that case is the Vedanta-passages themselves. In this connection it is necessary to clarify our ideas about what the Vedanta-passages actually do in the matter - (1) Are ther ( the Vedanta-vakyas ) the actual means of proof for Brahman ? (2) Is the Jñana preduced by them Direct, or (3) Is the Jmans produced in the mind dependent on the knowledge of the Vedānta-passages ? As regards No. 1, no Vakya ean have any authoritative nature as regards any निर्धर्मकवस्तु. In the case of निर्धर्मक Brahman, Direct perception is impossible, as Brahman is not possessed of any Rūpa ete., Anumana is impossible, there being no Linga and Vyapti, possible; Upamana also is impossible, there being no rosemblance with anything; similariy Arthāpatti is impossible as also Abhāva ( as Brahman has a positive form ). Sastra cannot help, as it deals with possible Dharmas denoted by the words - To explain the same in detail -- Different views are held as regards the function of a word for giving its meaning -

xxxii VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

(1) The Logicians hold that it is God's will that ena- bles a word to give its conventional meaning pointing to a particularised individual entity. This view is untenable as God's will must be supposed to be one only, and so all words would have only one mean- ing, or there would be as many meanings as there are limiting adjuncts. Synonymous words are necessarily taken to have different Saktis tu denote their meanings. If the Will is regarded as related to the different objects, it would mean that its denotation is merely formal and there would be no scope left for a metaphorical meaning. There is no point in associating Sakti along with God's will for which there is no proof. The natural Sakti of words cannot be questioned on the ground that it is not included in the six categories admitted. Sakti can be described as playing the same role as the Samavāya admitted by the Vaisesikas. Lakșanā or metaphor can still function as it is regarded merely as the cause of the remembrance of the object; it cannot denote anything. ( The Anvitabhidhanavadins hold that words in a sentence denote their object, being already grammatically connected with one another. ) The Abhihitanvayavadins hold that the words are gra- mmatically connected after they have denoted their mean- ing. It is, therefore, better to hold that Sakti is concerned with merely the Samanya as the Mimamsakas declare. There is no necessity of holding that Samavaya as a separate relation should be admitted; for, that purpose is secured by admitting the Tadatmya relation. As the Vedantins regard Atman as the only Sat, it matters very little, if the Sakti refers to Vyakti or Vyakti particularised by some Upadhi. The Sakti ( or, denotative

INTRODUCTION xxxiii

power of words ) is two-fold. Conventional or Etymological; of these Conventional meaning is the more important. The Naiyayikas and Bhattas combine the above two and regard Etymology-convention as the primary power of the word. The Prabhakaras and Vedantins contest the above riew, declaring that in that euse, one cannot possibly have the sense ' the bank of the Ganges' from the expression SPTi T:, if etymology and convention are to prevail everywhere. Though a word may have more than one meaning, the fre- quency with which a word is found used in a particular sense, enables one essily to find out the proper meaning. However, it does not matter much if Etymology-con- rention is regarded as an independent function. The Subordinate functioning is two fold :- ( i ) Indication ( where there is actually possible the connection with the primary sense, e. g. गङ्गायां घोषः, where the indicated sense of nsr, viz. ak is actual- ly connected with the primary sense gnsare. ) ( ii ) Qualitative ( where the primary sense is connect- ed with the yrs of the indicated entity, e. g. माणवक: सिंहः). Some regard Metaphor (उपचार ) as a separate वृत्ति, dis- tinguishing it from लक्षणा as follows - In उपचार, th connec- tion between the primary sense and the indicated sense is vecasional, e. g. in मश्चाः (मन्चस्था वालकाः) क्रोशन्ति; while in लक्षणा it is pormanent (e. g. गङ्गाप्रवाह and गङ़तीर). But it is unnecessary to multiply such divisions. A possible counection between the primary sense and the indicated sense is surely to be met with in both agur and उपचार. 5

Xxxiv VEDANTAKALPALATIKA

The grammarians give a six-fold division, but it can be easily shown that रुड, यौगिक and योगस्ट can be included in मुख्या वृत्ति; and लाक्षणिक, औपचारिक and गौग inl जघन्चा.

The Rhetoricians believe in व्यञ्तनापत्ति, based upon शक्ति, लक्षणा and व्यजना; but this is also unnecessary. It can be included in अर्थापत्ति ; Even if it is regarded as a separate वृत्ति, we do not mind at all. Lakşaņā is three-fold -

(1) अजहृद्दक्षणा - where the primary sense in retained, e. g. काकेभ्यो दधि रक्ष्यताम्, where काक means'a crow and others capable of injuring Dadhi'. (शोणो धावति, where शोण means a red horse, is not an example of this type of Laksana; there is the ararry relation involved here. The remark of the नहाभाष्यकार, चनुष्टयी शव्दानां प्रतृत्ति: (जाति, गुण, क्रिया and इ्य) also shows that no लक्षणा is pos- sible here. If however, सामवाय relation is admitted, then, this might be taken as an instance of जहदक्षणा where the primary sense is totally given up. ) (2) जहृदजहत्खार्था - e. g. सोडयं देवदत्तः, where a part of the primary sense is given up (तत्कालवशिष्टय is given up); also called भागलक्षणा.

(3 ) जहत्सार्था - e. g. गङ्गायां घोषः. This three-fold लक्षणा is more poworful than the गौणी ( based on the Gunas). In this way we have listed the various ways in which a word can give its meaning in the particular context.

It is now pointed out that not one of these is in a posi- tion to make us know the Brahman without a second, which is without any Dharmas. (1) रूडि, which is the outcome of वृद्धव्यवहार and can only

INTRODUCTION

be associated with a tangible object, is powerless to inform us about Brahman;

(2 ) so also, Anumana based upon the connection with a tangible object.

(3) Upamana, based upon HIER with a tangible object, or knowledge based upon a dissimilar object. (4) Aptavākya is actually the matter under dispute and so cannot help. (5) Being in the same case with a well-known word is also impossible in the case of the Nirvikalpa Brahman.

Similarly वाक्यशेषs, both विधिरूप and निषेधरूप are of no avail as they cannot point out to the Afancy Brahman. ' Yoga' also based upon the eTf of the word is practically based upon ae. The etymology of Atman also cannot take us to the Nirvikalpa Brahman.

Laksaņā, with its three divisions, based upon connec- tion with the primary sense, is equally impotent. Vyañjana is not supported by any means of proof. Thus, none of the available means being helpful in find- ing the import of Atman, the objector says that the descrip- tion of salvation as अविद्यानिवृत्त्युपलक्षित आत्मा cannot be sustained.

The Siddhantin's reply is - First of all, the objector's obsession that only सत्यखरूप ज्ञान is capable of being effective must be removed. The Logi- cians admit the imaginary Akāsa (bounded by the hollow of the ear ) as capable of perceiving the Sound; the Mīmām- sakas admit the imaginary shortness or length of the syllables for their thesis. The knowledge in a dream is not contradicted as long as the dream lasts, though it is certainly Mithya. In short, it is possible to have the reali-

xxxri FEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

sation of Brahman even from the Mithya-jñana. Again, it must not be forgotten that we admit the Anirvacanīya- khyāti and Vyāvahārika-sattā. Similarly Nisprakāra can also remove Ajñāna, as it is the right knowledge ( Prama ) of the Adhisthana, that really removes the Ajuana. According to the different circumstances this Prama may be Nisprakāra and Saprakāra. This does not mean that we accept a two fold Karya- karanabhava. For, what really matters is the Adhisthana. This is not to suggest that even a general Prama like 'A substance is that which is capable of being known' would give the knowledge of everything. A possible solution that we should accept a particularised causal relation is no good in the case of Brahman, as the right knowledge about Brahman can remove the ignorance about Brahman, with- out imagining any additional Brahma-prakāra. This view must not be confused with the Nirvikalpa idea of the Logicians. For, the Logicians do admit the Jñana of the Viseșuna as the cause of the particularised knowledge. Actually the Nirvikalpaka is inferable accord- ing to the Logicians, - according to our view it is directly realised by the Witness. So, all this means that directly realisable right know- ledge is the proper Prama and it cannot be one overlapping the Nirvikalpaka that is inferable.

The argument, that Brahman being void of Dharmas, cannot likewise be the object of any knowledge involving Karman, otherwise it would be non-sentient like a jar, cannot be upheld, as it would mean that all the Vedāntas would be regarded as unauthoritative. Brahman cannot be said to be metaphorically an object of knowledge, because nothing is known to remove Ajnana merely by having that

INTRODCCTION xxxvii

as its object. -This can be answered as follows- Brahman is not the object of knowledge, but Jnana can have Brahman as its object. Jñana is a dharma of the Antabkarana and so a Dravya, hav.ng a form conforming to the different objects. The difference of forms is actually perceived and that cannot be questioned. Even if being the object is imagined in respeet of Brahman, that would not make Brahman non-sentient. Or, we might say being the object of sentiency is the cause of non-sentiency, but that does not make it the object of funetioning. The word Phala used in this connection in the Sruti refers only to the Caitanya, and not to the functioning. The objector asks -- Just as you admit the imaginary object, why not admit also an imaginary mode? That would put an end to any awkward positions. The reply is that in that case, the object of knowledge would be a parti- cularised one, and the mode could not be removed by the Jnana which is incapable of removing its object. So, only the Nisprakara Jnana can have Brahman for its object. When Adhyasa of various kinds is removed, nothing stands in the way of Moksa. The objector says - There can be no removal of Ajnana by the knowledge of the identity of Brahman and Atman ; nowhere is it seen that Jnana causes the removal of Ajñāna. In believing this, you secure neither Jñāna, nor the removal of Ajñana. The answer is - When we talk of the removal of dream-knowledge by the knowledge of the waking state, we presume that the original Ajnana is possessed of wonderful powers and so if one power is removed, other powers pro- ducing other dream-knowledges exist. But when the root- Ajuana is removed, there cannot be any further manifesta- tions of Ajñāna.

VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKA

Jñana is, it is true, a function of the Antahkarana, but as the Antalkarana is super-imposed upon the Caitanya, no objection need be taken. Even the Logicians have no objection to admit the perception of sound resorting to the Mahakasa by being intimately connected with the ear- hollow. We hold that Brahmajnana is able to remove the Ajnana not on the strength of any inference, but on the strength of the Sruti, and the presumption based on Sruti. Both Sruti and Smrti declare Ajnana as the obstacle for Mokșa. It is ridiculous for the objector to doubt the removal of Ajñana, which is so patent to everybody, by the Jñana purified by the worship of the Lord of the Nila-mountain. If the remoral of the Ajnana is not effected sometime, it must be due to some unknown obstacle. It cannot be argued that Ajnana having the nature of an entity which is beginningless cannot be removed, because in the first place that inference is not warranted by the Sruti and Smrti, and secondly whaterer you understand by the nature of Bhava, it cannot produce indestructibility. Bhavatva cannot mean Sattva as it is not proven in the case of Ajñana which is neither Sat nor Asat; it cannot be Abhavatva which must be discarded, as no favourable inference is available and unfavourable inference can be produced. Further only Sattva can prove the non-destruc- tibility of Atman. There being no Sattva other than Atman, no Vyapti is possible in the case of Ajnana. The Śruti again and again points out to the destructib lity of Ajnana which is established in the form ' I am ignorant'. Further the Sruti is interested in describing Brahman, not in establishing Ajnana which can very well be proved by inference.

INTRODUCTION Xxxix

Thus, Ajuana is but something superimposed upon the Atman and can be removed by the knowledge of the nature of Atman. This Jnana is direct. Sabda-jnana by nature gives indirect knowledge, and in respect of Atman no means of knowledge is possible. (1) Some hold that Śabda gires indirect knowledge and direct knowledge arises from the mind assisted by Bhāvanā.

(2) Others hold that Sabda to start with gives in- direct knowledge alone, but later on assisted by hearing, thinking etc., direct knowledge arises, like recognition from the sense-organs assisted by the impressions. The first riew is wrong because Jhana arising from Bhavana can never be authoritative, like the realisation of the absent lady, revolved in the mind by some lover. The objector argues - Being produced by Bhavana is not the cause of the unauthortative nature, but having its object contradicted. In this case of Brahman which is always uncontradicted, the knowledge produced by Bhavana must be regarded as authoritative. The answer would be - Any Bhavana based upon in- direct knowledge cannot produce direct realisation. Infer- ential knowledge about fire, even though repeated a thou- sand times cannot make onc directly realise the fire. Likewise the mind cannot be authoritative, whether it is assisted by Bharana ( in which case the blemishes pointed out above would be there ) or alone by itself ( in which case, there would always be realisation of Brahman as Brahman is always there. ) This would also mean that Sabda cannot be regarded as anthoritative, if it is dependent upon some-

x1 VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

thing else. Again Śruti describes Brahman as capable of being thought by the mind. The Sruti स मानसीन आत्मा means that the Atman is fit to be associated with the Upadhi, Manas, not that it can be realised by the mind. मनसैवानु- gon really means that Atman is not the doer, not that the mind is the instrument. The Sruti काम, संकल्प etc., shows that Manas is the 34TTTTT of these qualities, Atman is Nirguna, is the Drastr and the Drsyadharmas cannot belong to him; they are just super-imposed on him. विज्ञानं यज्ञं तनुते does not speak of विज्ञान as an instrument, but as being over and above the sense-organs. The case of Sabda can not be similar to that of recogni- tion ( Pratyabhijñana ) because the eye cannot produce the तत्तांश (in सोऽयं ) and प्रत्यभिज्ञा gives direct knowledge; and remembrance is admitted to produce the aniar which is produced by the impressions, while the eye is not known to be dependent upon the impressions. It is better, therefore, to say that Sabdai tself is res- ponsible for the realisation directly. Anyway the mind does not come into the picture. The Sabda alone is the cause of Sāksātkāra. This does not mean that the sense-organs have no function to perform. The eye and the impressions though intended to produce Jñana having a different genus are found to produce the same type of Jñana in the case of recognition. We find the mind producing direct or indirect know- ledge somewhere or other, so the same can be postulated in the case of Sabda also. It is unnecessary to imagine in the case of Sabda, two kinds of characteristics producing direct and indirect knowledge. Śabda ( or Vākya) can be shown by the law of Pre- sence and Absence, to ward off the illusion and another mental cognition for that purpose is redundant,

INTRODUCTION xli

The objector sars that just as in the case of the six sense-organs, eye and others, it is usual to admit another sense-organ which may be said to be the general cause, so in the case of Sabda we may allow a general cause. Even if this is done, Sabda cannot function like a sense-organ for the purpose of the popular dealings. The Sruti makes a distinction between the ten Pranas and the eleventh Atman. The detailed deseription in this context given in the Sankhya philosophy makes it clear that a sense-organ is the material cause of the Sattrika Ahamkara. It could not be argued that a sense-organ not concern- ed with the eleven (ten Pranas and Atman) is quite useless. An Indriva is that which is the Upadana of the five elements not mixed up five-fold. The Sruti-passages like तेजोमना वाक do not mean that Vak is made of Tejas. This is dealt with in detail in the Pañcadari. Anyway Sabda cannot be called a sense-organ, even though it produces direct knowledge. This does not mean that there would be a commixture of direct and indirect knowledges, for such a commixture like that of Upadhis, does not cause any flaw in the argu- ment. It must not be forgotten that direct perception asso- ciated with Cuitanya is not anything apart from its nature. Direct knowledge is produced by the Sabda pointing out to the identity of the l'ara with the Tram-entity properly understood. Even with all this, the question still remains. - Where does the Vicara ( consideration ) come in, as the Sabda is capable of producing the direct knowledge even before the Vicara? The answer is - Vicara gets rid of the obstacles in the way of the Direct knowledge to be produced. The procedure is as follows - 6

xlii VEDANTAKALPALATIKĀ

(1 ) Instruction about Brahmavidya, accompanied by the proper performance of the prescribed duties, gets rid of the Citta-dosa which obstruets the discrimination between Nitya and Anitya entities. (2) The Nityanitra-viveka gets rid of the Cittadoșa coming in the way of aversion to enjoyments here and there hereafter. (3) Then by the Visaya-vaitrsnya is got rid of the Cittadosa obstructing Sama, Dama etc. (4) Then is got rid of, the Cittadosa causing improper activity, by the practice of Sama, Dama etc. (5-7) Then is got rid of, the Cittadosa which believes in the unauthoritative nature of the Vedanta preaching the oneness of Brahman and Atman, by means of Sravana, Manana, Nididhyasana in succession. ( 8) Thus, ultimately the idea about the real purport of the Vedanta passages gets firm root in the Citta cleansed of all blemishes, and drives away Ajñana and its effects automatically. It would be seen that the Vicara of the Vedānta- Vākyas plays a very important part in removing the blemishes in the Citta; Vicara does not produce any positive result; thus the Svatah-prāmānya (self-authoritative nature ) of the Vedantas remains unaffected. Moksa, therefore, is Atman himself from whom Avidya has disappeared, and that can be secured by the realisation of the oneness of Brahman and Atman from the proper scrutiny of the Vedanta passages. So, a person, removing the world and turning a recluse intent upon securing salvation, should approach a properly qualified teacher and indulge in consideration of the Mimamsa Sutras and passages, till the fruit is achieved.

INTRCDCCTION xliii

IU. A CRITICAL APPRECIATION The Vedantakalp atila, as has been pointed out, is probably the author's tirst work and contains jottings or important points for detailed exposition later ou, bearing on the Advaita doctrine in the Upanisads. Madhusudana first of all brietly refers to the ideas about Moksa in the different systems of philosophy ( both Astika and Nastika ) and weeds out the Nastika systems ( of the Materialists, Bauddhas and Jainas, with their sub- sects ) as not deserving any consideration, because they do not admit any changeless, permanent entity which could experience the state of Moksa which likewise must not be undergoing any change. There could not exist even a desire for seeuring Moksa among the Carvakas ( who believe that with the extinction of the body, nothing is left behind) or the Bauddhas ( who regard everything as momentary ) or the Jainas ( according to whom Moksa is the going up higher and higher, thus involving some Kriyā ). In the case of the Astika systems, a desire for Moksa can arise, but according to these systems, Moksa is either something to be newly attained or reached or produced or improved, and certain Sadhanas are mentioned for securing this end. But such a Moksa would necessarily be transient or non-cternal as it is bound to be after all adven- titious. Whether Moksa is described as absence of misery, or aquisition of new qualities or removal of blemishes, the result is the same. According to the followers of the Upanisads, Moksa is Atman himself realised in his proper nature as being with- out any Dharmas. The Bauddhas, Jainas, Naivayikas, Vaiseșikas mention certain Sadbanas as leading to salvation; so also the Sankhyas speak of as Sadhana for Moksa, the discrimination

xliv VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ

between Prakrti and Purusa; the Mīmamsakas denounce Jñāna as a means for Moksa, But all these agree in re- garding Moksa as something to be produced, and hence their views are unacceptable. It might be argued that as Moksa ( Atman ) is always Siddha, there cannot arise a desire for the same; possibly the removal of Avidya may be said to be the desired end, but Avidya itself can hardly be described in an intelligible manner, whether it is regarded as different or non-different from Atman. This objection can easily be answered as follows - It cannot be a rule that only an Asiddha entity can produce Kāmana for it. A Siddha entity, if it be for- gotten or misunderstood on account of illusion or if there is some obstructing agency, can certainly produce the nece- ssary Kamana. The removal of Avidya can be demonstrated as being something peculiarly Anirvacaniya. When Atman is spoken of as Advitiya, we do understand that there is the negation of any second entity and this in no way affects the Advaita idea. Actually there is no necessity for going about in this round about way. The notion of Abhava is also based upon Avidya and so Anirvacaniya can very well express the correct position and no Anirvacanīya vailak- sanya need be admitted. The Highest ( Atman, Brahman ) is void of any Dhar- mas and so there can not be any particularised knowledge of the same. The well-known Pramāņas,-Pratyaksa, Anu- māna, Upamāna, Arthāpatti etc.,-cannot help in realising Brahman as they are unable to tackle an entity that is not tangible. The Vedanta-passages ( Sabda Pramāņa) are helpful, but not in the ordinary way. The well-known powers of Sabda, - Denotation, Indication and Suggestion with their accepted divisions according to the Naiyāyikas and Rhetoricians are useless for the purpose of knowing a Nirdharmaka entity, so also Convention and Etymology.

INTRODUCTION xlv

In short, Brahmnan cannot be the object of Jñana, but Jhana can certainly lead to Brahman. Jñana and Ajñāna have different resorts, so Jnana cannot possibly demolish Ajmana - this objection can be met with by admitting the superimposition of the Antahkarana on the Caitanya. The Śruti in so many words assures us that Ajñana can be re- moved by Jñana, and that is also a matter of actual expe- rience. Avidya is got rid of by the Jhana of the nature of the Atman. The Sabda produces direct Juana. When Atman is described in the Sruti as Mānasīna, there it is not meant that the Manas is the Karana; but Kartrtva is attributed to the Manas. Sabdajiana cannot be equated with Pratyabhijua which is indirect, and the sense-organ ( eye ) there cannot directly perceive the Tattamsa ( the portion not directly present ). Sabda is not to be confused with any Indriya. Though Sabda produces direct know- ledge, consideration of the Vedanta-passages is necessary, and this gradually remores the blemishes in the Citta which, when it is cleansed of all blemishes is, with the grace of God, able to realise the Atman, with the removal of Avidyā. Madhusūdana, like all Advaitins, is interested in point- ing out that Moksa can never be described as a product, as that would make Moksa impermanent. At the same time he wishes to keep in tact the invulnerable nature of the Śruti-passages. He himself is greatly influenced by devo- tional fervour and so tries to show that while Moksa requires no Karana for its realisation, the Vicara of Śruti- passages, devotion, instruction from a qualified teacher-all help in preparing the back-ground for the realisation of Atman, and in removing the Ajuana, by ensuring all round purity of the Citta, automatically bring about the Realisation or Moksa.

॥। श्री ।। श्रीमधुसूदनसरस्वतीविरचिता वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

[ ₹ ] मीमांसया कपटतो भुजगाम्बयेव स्वाधीनतामुपनिषद्विनतेव नीता। येनोद्धृतामृतफलेन गरुत्मतेव तस्मै नमो भगवतेऽद्ुतशङ्कराय ॥। १ ॥ दुरापः शास्त्रार्थो नियतयतमानैरपि बुधै- रने संप्राप्तुं शक्यो मलिनमतिना यद्यपि मया। तथापि श्रीविश्वेश्वरचरणपङ्केरुहसुधा- सुधाराभिः सिक्तो न कथमपि रिक्तोऽस्मि भविता ॥ २ ॥

Śrī

VEDĀNTAKALPALATIKĀ ( Composed by Sri Madhusudanasarasvati ) [ 1 ] (1) A bow to that divine wonderful Śankara, by whom, with the fruit, immortality, the Upanisad brought under control through fraud by the ( Pūrva-) Mīmāmsā ( Karmakanda ) was rescued, as by Garuda with the securing of nectar Vinatā, made a slave by ( Kadrū) the mother of serpents. (2) Although by me with confused ( soiled ) intellect is not possible to comprehend the meaning of the Sāstras difficult to arrive at even by wise persons striving for it continuously, still ( I hope that ) I, sprinkled over by the auspicious showers of nectar from the lotus-like feet of the

बेदान्तकल्पलतिका

सच्तर्कपुष्पनिकरैः परमात्मबोध- निष्ठाफलेन दधती परमां विभूतिम्। शारीरकार्थसुरशाखिगता सुधीभि- र्वेदान्तकल्पलतिकेयमुपासनीया ॥ ३॥ निर्धूय जैमिनि-पतञ्जलि-गौतमोक्तीः काणाद-कापिल-शिवादिमतानि चाहम्। श्रीव्यास-शङ्कर-सुरेश्वर-सूचितार्थ- शुद्धिं व्यनज्मि विशदं मितभाषितेन।। ४ ।। मुमुक्षूणामनुष्ठेयविक्षेपविनिवृत्तये। मोक्षं ससाधनं वच्मि परपक्षनिरासतः ॥५।।

Revered Visveśvara ( Brahmadeva- the Lord of the uni- verse; the name of the author's teacher ), would not be somehow or other deficient ( empty ). (3) This ' Vedāntakalpalatikā' should be respectfully taken to by the persons of great talents, -growing on the heavenly tree in the form of the true nature of the indivi- dual Soul, exhibiting the highest glory by the heaps of flowers in the form of excellent logical reasonings, ( and ) by the fruit in the form of devotion to the illumining knowledge of the highest Atman. (4) Having shaken off the statements of Jaimini ( Pūrva-mīmāmsā ), Patañjali ( Yoga ), Gautama ( Nyāya ) and the views of Kaņāda ( Vaiśeșika ), Kapila ( Sānkhya), Śiva ( Paśupata ) etc., I am going to propound clearly in measured words the true sense indicated by Sri Vyasa, Śankara and Sureśvara. (5) I am going to speak of salvation, with the means thereof, by refuting the views of the other parties, for the purpose of removing the obstacles in the prescribed acti- vities of those desirous of salvation.

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

[ २ ]अथ, मोक्षे तत्साधने च विप्रतिपद्यन्ते विपश्चितः-तत्र (१) लोकायतिकाः, तावत् प्राकृतलोकानुसारिणः मनुष्यत्वादि- विशिष्टभूतचतुष्टयसंघात एव चैतन्यं मन्यमाना:, नानागमपुराणानु- मानादिं:IGI रप्रसिद्धमपि देहादिव्यतिरिक्तं चेतनं बन्धमोक्षभागिनम- शुद्धबुद्धयोऽपलपन्ति, 'नाप्रत्यक्षं प्रमाणम्' इति वदन्तः । तत्र कस्य मोक्षप्रत्याशां? (२ ) तदेकदेशिन:, अपि प्रत्येकसमुच्चयाभ्यामिन्द्रियाणि मनः प्राणं वा चेतनमुपगच्छन्तः, तथैव वश्चकाः। (३) विज्ञानवादिन:, तु क्षणिकविज्ञानस्कन्धं देहेन्द्रियादि-

[2] Now, in the matter of salvation and the means thereof, wise men hold different contradictory views :- (1) There to begin with, the Laukāyatikas ( Materia- lists ) following ( the views of ) the man in the street ( prak- rta), holding the aggregate itself of the four elements particularised by the nature of man etc., as the Sentient principle, of perverse mind, deny the Sentient sharing in bondage and salvation, distinct from the body etc., although well-established by various Agamas ( Sāstras ), Purāņas, and other means of proof such as inference etc., foolishly proclaiming ' what is not directly perceived, cannot be the means of proof'. In that case, how can there be any hope of salvation for any one ? (2) Followers of a sect of them ( Materialists ) also, taking the sense-organs, the mind or the vital air severally and jointly as the Sentient, are but cheats in the same way. (3) The followers of the Vijuana-vada as well, holding the momentary Vijuana-aggregate distinct from the body,

१ A मोक्षं प्रत्याशा

वेदान्तकल्प लतिका

व्यतिरिक्तमात्मत्वेन मन्यमाना:, चतुर्विधनैरात्म्यभावनया तस्य सोपपुव- विज्ञानसन्तानस्यात्यन्तोपरमं वा निरुपष्ठवसर्वज्ञसन्तानान्तर्भावं वा मोक्ष- मिच्छन्ति। (४ ) माध्यमिकाः, पुनः शून्यमात्रमात्मानसुपयन्ताः, न किश्चिदपि तत्वमस्ति, इति शून्यभावनाप्रकर्षपर्यन्तात् तत्त्वज्ञानाच्छून्यभाव- मेवापवर्गमाहुः। (५ ) आईता:, तुँ देहेन्द्रियादिव्यतिरिक्तं देहपरिमाणमात्मान- मेभ्युपगम्य तस्य पुर्यष्टककर्माष्टकपरिवेष्टितस्, आर्हतशास्त्रोक्तेन तपसा, आत्मैकाकारसमाधिनॉं परिपाकेन चाष्टविधबन्धप्रध्वंसे सति, सुखैकतानस्य

sense-organs etc., as being the Atman, consider salvation to be the complete cessation of the Vijnana continuity along with the impediments of that ( Vijňana-skandha ) or its in- clusion within the all-knowing continuity without any impe- diments, on account of the concept of the four-fold state of being void of Ātman. (4) The Madhyamikas as well, holding the Atman to be mere Void, and as there is no reality of any kind, speak of salvation as just the void-nature, from the metaphysical knowledge extending orer the full development of the concept of Void. (5) The followers of the Arhat ( i. e. the Jainas ) as well, admitting the Atman to be of the measure of the body, distinct from the body, sense-organs etc., speak of salvation as the constantly going-high-up, or, not-going-to- the-Lokākāśa (the region meant for the unliberated beings) on the part of the Atman, having uniform bliss, freed from the covering knowledge, when there comes about the total

१ A माध्यभिकास्तु- २ A उपगना, :तो. 4 उपयंतास्ततो. ३ A आर्हता: स्वदेहेन्द्रियादि. .... ४ - 'नमुपगन्य ५ A ·धिपरिपाकेन.

वेदान्तकक्पलतिका ५

निरावरणज्ञानस्य सन्ततोर्ध्वगमनम्, अलोकाकाशगमनं वा मोक्षमाचक्षते, पञ्जरभञ्जन इव पञ्जरस्थस्य शुकस्य स्वातत्र्यम्। इदमेव च स्वातन्त्रयं मोक्ष इति प्रेसिद्धम्। (६ ) काणादाः, तु देहेन्द्रियादिव्यतिरिक्तं वि: मात्मानं नव- विशेषगुणाश्रयं कल्पयन्तो जल्पन्ति द्रव्य-गुण-कर्म-सामान्य-विशेष-सम- वायानां षण्णां पदार्थानां साधर्म्यवैधर्म्याभ्यां यत्तत्वज्ञानम्, तत्पूर्वकादात्म- तत्त्वसाक्षात्कारात्, ईश्वरोपासनासहितात्, नवानां वैशेषिकगुणानां प्राग- भावासहवृत्तिः प्रध्वंस एवात्मनः कैवल्यम्, इति।

destruction of the eight-fold bondage for him enveloped by the Puryastaka and the eight-fold Karman on account of penance prescribed in the Arhata-sastras, and by the culmi- nation of concentration on the unique form of the Atman, like the freedom of a parrot confined in a cage, when the cage is broken; and this very freedom is well-known as salvation. (6) The followers of Kaņāda ( the Vaiseșikas ), again, imagining the all-pervading Atman, distinct from the body, sense-organs etc., as the resort of the nine Visesa-qualities ( Iccha, Dveșa etc. ), prattle on :- What the real knowledge of the six Padārthas ( categories ) - Dravya ( substance ), Guņa ( quality ), Karman ( action ), Samānya (generality ), Vieșa ( particularity ), Samavāva (intimate relation ), owing to the similarity and dis-similarity -from the realiss- tion of the nature of Atman, preceded by the above ( know- ledge ), together with the worship of Isvara, (the resulting ) destruction itself of the Atman not staying with the ante- cedent negation of the nine Gunas admitted by the Vaise- șikas, is salvation.

१ A भिद्धभ्

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

(७) नैयायिका:, तु प्रमाण-प्रमेय-संशय-प्रयोजन-दृष्टान्त-

स्थानानाम्, उद्देशलक्षणपरीक्षाभिः, आत्म-शरीर-इन्द्रिय-अर्थ-बुद्धि-मनः-

त्मद्वयसाक्षात्कारात् श्रवण-मनन-निदिध्यासनपूर्वकात् सवासनमिथ्याज्ञान- निवृत्तौ तत्कार्याणां रागद्वेषमोहानां निवृत्तिः, ततस्तत्कार्ययोः प्रवृत्तिपूर्व- कयोर्धर्माधर्मयोः, ततः पूर्वार्जितकर्मणां कायव्यूहपूर्वकभोगेन क्षयात्, शरीरान्तरानारम्भः । ततो वाधेनालक्षणस्यैकविशतिप्रभेददुःखस्य, अत्यन्त- त्रिमोक्षः, अपवर्गः, इति कल्पयन्ति।

(7) The followers of Nyaya as well imagine that when there is the realisation of the two Atmans by the proper appraisal of the twelve-fold Prameyas called Soul, body, sense-organ, object ( or categories), cognition, mind, activity, defect, trans-migration, fruit ( or result of deeds ), pain and salration - by the enumeration, definition and examination of proof, object of knowledge, doubt, motive, instance, tenet ( or, demonstrated truth ), member of syllogism, hypothe- tical reasoning, conclusion, discussion, wrangling, cavilling, fallacy, perversion, futility and ground for confutation ; and when there is the turning away of the false knowledge with the Vasanas, there is the turning away of passion, hatred and infatuation, the products of that; and then of Dharma and Adharma, preceded by activity regarding the products of them,-then there comes about the non-production of another body on account of the destruction of Karmans done in previous birth, by the enjoyment preceded by the body- array; and thereupon the total freedom from misery with twentyone-fold variety, causing obstruction, which is the salvation.

१ A निष्कर्षेंप न बाधलक्षण ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

(८) अपरे तु, ऐकभविकन्यायेन, आत्मज्ञानमन्तरेणापि निषिद्ध- काम्ययोरननुष्ठानात्, नित्यनैमित्तिकानुष्ठानात्, च न, आगामिकर्मोत्पाद:। विद्यमानस्य चोपभोगेन क्षयात्, सकलकर्मोन्छेदलक्षणमपवर्गम्, आहुः। (९) प्राभाकरा:, अपि वैदिककर्मानुष्ठानात्, विहितात्मज्ञानपूर्व - कात्, देहेन्द्रियादिसंबन्धस्य धर्माधर्मपरिक्षयनिमित्तम्, आत्यन्तिकोच्छेद- लक्षणं मोक्ष मन्यन्ते। (१०) भाट्टाः, तु ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयात्, एवात्मनो जडबोधात्मकस्य नित्यज्ञानं नित्यसुखं च, उदेति। ततश्च विषयविशेषानपेक्षया नित्यज्ञानेन नित्यसुखाभिव्यक्तिमुक्तिः, इत्याहुः । (8) Others again say :- There is no production of future Karman on account of the non-performance of the prohibited and voluntary Karmans and by the performance of the compulsory and occasional Karmans, even without the knowledge of Atman, confining to what happens in one birth; and the present Karman being destroyed by the enjoyment, they speak of Salvation as characterised by the destruction of the entire Karman. (9) The followers of Prabhākara ( Pūrvamīmāmsā ) also, consider Salvation, characterised by the most complete annihilation ( of Karman ), due to the destruction of Dharma and Adharma associated with the body, sense-organs etc., through the right performance of Karmans prescribed by the Veda, preceded by the knowledge of the Atman as ordained. (10) The followers of Bhatia ( Kumārila), again, say: - Only through the combination of knowledge and Karman, there arises eternal knowledge and eternal bliss for the Atman steeped in the knowledge of non-sentient objects; thereby afterwards, there is the Salvation, - the manifestation of eternal bliss, by the eternal realisation, owing to its being not dependent upon particular objects.

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

(११) मानसज्ञानेन सुखाभिव्यक्ति:, वा दुःखाभावमेवे वा मुक्ति तदीया: केचित्। (१२) साङ्ख्या:, तु प्रकृतिपुरुषविवेकात्, अनाद्यविवेकनिवृत्तौ तं पुरुषं प्रति चरिताधिकारायाः प्रकृतेः पुनस्तद्भोगार्था, अप्रवृत्तिः, इति त्रिविधदुःखस्य एकान्तात्यन्तविरोधेः, एव स्वभावतः केव्रलस्यापि पुरुषस्य केवल्यमित्याहुः। (१३) पातञ्जला:, तु प्रकृतिपुरुषविवेकेन, अभ्यासवैराग्यपरि पाकात्, यम-नियम-आसन-प्राणायाम-प्रत्याहार-धारणा-ध्यान-संप्रज्ञात-

(11) Some belonging to the same (Bhatta school ) ( think ) Salvation ( which ) is, through mental realisation, to be either the manifest ition of eternal bliss or merely the absence of misery. (12) The followers of Sankhya ( Kapila ), again, say :- When the beginningless non-discrimination is turned away by the discrimination between Purusa and Prakrti, there is not again activity for the sake of the enjoyment ( by Purusa ) of the Prakrti that had been lording it over in respect of the Purusa - so, the unreserved total obstruc- tion to the three-fold misery alone, is the Salvation of the Purușa, although quite unattached ( kevala ) by his very nature. (13) The followers of Patañjali ( the Yoga school) think thus :- Owing to the maturity of passionlessness by practice, due to the discrimination between Purusa and Prakrti, preceded by the ( proper observance of) Yama ( restraint), Niyama (regulations), Asana ( Yogic-posture), Prāņāvāma ( breath-control ), Pratyāhāra ( continuity ), १ A दुःखाभावनात्रम एव वा. ३ A न पुनः ्था प्रवृत्तिः २ A मुक्ति: इत्यपि.I मुक्तिरिति. ४ A निरोध:

वैदान्तकल्पलतिका

समाधिपूर्वकात् परमेश्वरप्रसादनात् पश्चविधानां चित्तवृत्तीनां निरोधादेव धर्ममेघशब्दितात्, असंप्रज्ञातसमाधे: कैवल्यम्, इति कल्पयन्ति। (१४ ) त्रिदण्डिन:, तु जीवन्रह्मणोर्भेदाभेदमभ्युपेत्य ज्ञानकर्म- समुच्चयाभ्यासादेव कारणात्मके ब्रह्मणि कार्यात्मकजीवस्य कर्मवासनासहित- भेदांशनिवृत्तिः, मोक्ष:, इति वदन्ति। (१५) परमेश्वरप्राप्ति:, इति, अन्ये। (१६) सतरङ्गनिस्तरङ्गभेदेन समुद्रद्वैविध्यवत् सविकारनिर्विकार- रूपेण, अवस्थादवयं ब्रह्मणः परिकल्प्य ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयाभ्यासादेव स- विकारावस्थापरित्यागेन निर्विकारावस्थाप्राप्तिः, एव मोक्षः, इति, अपरे।

Dhāraņā ( contemplation ), Dhyāna ( meditation), and Sam- prajnata-Samadhi (particularised deep concentration ), there ( arises ) Salvation, through the restraint alone of the five-fold mental tendencies, effected by the grace of the Highest Lord, due to the Asamprajñāta-Samādhi ( deep concentration, distinctionless ) called Dharma-Megha. ( 14 ) The three-staff Ascetics, again, admitting differ- ence-cum-non-difference between the Jiva and Brahman, say that Salvation is through the constant combination alone of Knowledge and Karman, the cessation ( merging ) of the part differentiated along with Karman and Vasana, of the Jiva as the Effect, in Brahman constituted as the ( one ) Cause. (15) Others ( belonging to the same Tridandin-order speak of Salvation ) as the attainment of the Highest Lord. (16) Others ( of the same Order), having imagined two states of Brahman, in the forms-changing and change- less, like the two-fold state of the seu, due to the distinction of being with waves, and being without waves, speak of Sal- vation, as the attainment of the changeless state by the २

वेदान्तकल्पलविकां

(१७) पायुपताः, तु यैथोक्तपाशुपतधर्माचरणात् पश्युपंतिसमीप- गमनमेव पुनरावृत्तिरहितं मोक्ष:, इति, आहुः। (१८) एवं यथोक्तविष्णुभक्तिधर्माचरणाद् विष्णुलोकगमनमेव मोक्ष:, इति वैष्णवाः। (१९) पञ्चाम्निविद्याद्युपासनैः, अर्चिरादिमागेण हिरण्यगर्भप्राप्ति:, एव मोक्ष:, इति हैरण्यगर्भाः । (२०) एवम्, अपरे, अपि स्वकपोलकल्पितश्रुतियुक्तिविरुद्धमेव बहु जल्पन्ति। (२१ ) औपनिषदाः, तु भगवता नीलाचलनायकेन नारायणे-

abandonment of the changing state through the constant combination of Knowledge and Karman alone. (17) The followers of Pasupati (Śiva, the Śaivas ) speak of Salvation as going near Pasupati, without any return therefrom, through the observance of the Dharmas of the Pāsupatas as ordained. (18) The followers ( or devotees ) of Visnu, likewise ( say ) that Salvation ( is ) going to the world of Visnu, by the observance of the Bhakti-ritual as ordained. (19) The followers of Hiranyagarbha ( the Golden Egg, say ) :- Salvation (is ) just the attainment of Hiranya- garbha by the path, ' Arcih etc.,' through the devoted observance of the Five-fire Vidya etc. ( 20) Thus, others also prattle in various wuys, what is conceived by themselves, contrary to the Sruti (meaning) and reasoning. (21) The followers of the Upanisads, on the other

१ A omits यथोक्त: न यथोक्ताव. A कल्पयन्ति

वेदान्तकल्पलतिकां

नानुगृहीता:, निरतिशयानन्दबोधरूप आत्मा, एव, अनाद्यविद्यानिवृत्युप- लक्षितो मोक्ष:, इति, आचक्षते। अविद्यायाश्र सर्वदुःखोपादानत्वाद, तन्निवृत्या, आत्यन्तिकदुःख- निवृत्तिरप्युपपद्यते । तस्य चें स्वरूपे साधनानपेक्षत्वेऽपि व्यञ्जकतया महैावाक्यकरणकः, तत्स्रूपसाक्षात्कारः, एव प्रतिबन्धचतुष्टयरहितः, मोक्ष- साधर्नेम्, इत्युपचर्यते। प्रेतिबन्धचतुष्टयं च विषयभोगवासना, प्रमाणगता- संभावना, प्रमेयगतासंभावना, विपरीतभावना च, इति। तत्र विषयासक्तेः श्रवणाङ्गभूताः शमदमादयो निवर्तकाः, प्रमाण-

hand, graced by Narayana, the divine Lord of the Nila mountain, speak of Salvation as the Atman alone, consti- tuted of limitless bliss and enlightenment, characterised by the cessation of beginningless Avidyā ( Nescience ). And as Avidya is the material ( cause ) of all misery, when that is removed, the total cessation of misery duly follows. And although the nature of that (Salvation ) stands in no need of any means, the realisation itself of its nature, freed from the four-fold impediment ( and ) caused by the 'Great sentence' manifesting it is metaphorically spoken of as the means of Salvation. The four-fold impedi- ment is :- the Vasana for the enjoyment of the objects of senses; the wrong conception in respect of the means of proof; the wrong conception in respect of the objects of knowledge, and contradictory conception. There Sama ( control ), Dama ( restraint ) etc., which form part of the ' hearing' ( Sravana ) are the removers of the attachment to the objects of sense; Śravana is the

१ A निरतिशयाद्वयानन्द ? A omits a. ३ A वेदान्तमहावाक्य ४ A omits साधन ५ A साधनप्रतिबन्ध ६ A शमादयो

१२ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

गतासंभावनायाः श्रवणं निवर्तकम्, प्रमेयगतासंभावनाया म्ननं, विपरीत- भावनायाश्च निदिध्यासनं निवर्तकम् इति। अतः श्रवणादिसंपादनेना- संभावनादिप्रतिबन्धपरिक्षयाय चतुर्लेक्षणी शारीरकैमीमांसा समारम्भि भगवता बादरायणेन। मोक्षकामः, च अस्यामधिकारी, 'शान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षुः श्रद्धावित्तो भूत्वात्मन्येवात्मानं पश्येत्।' (बृ. ४।४।२३)

'अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा' (ब्र. सू. १।१।१)

remover of the wrong conception in respect of the means of proof ; meditation ( is the remover ) of the wrong conception in respect of the object of knowledge ; and contemplation is the remover of the contradictory conception. Therefore, ( the Sastra of ) Mimamsa dealing with the embodied soul, consisting of four Adhyaras ( Lalsans ), has been composed by the Revered Badaravana for the destruction of the im- pediments - wrong conception etc., by taking to Sravana etc. And one desirous of salvation is the proper ( autho- rised ) person for (the study of ) this ( Uttara-mimamsa ); because ( the Sutra ) being based upon the injunctions with their consideration augmented by control, etc., mentioned in the Sruti (passages ), such as 'Having become coutrolled, restrained, inactive, enduring ( and ) full of taith, one should behold the Atman within the Atman him- self'. (Br. IV. 4. 23) in the Sūtra ' Now then the desire to know Brahman' (B. S. I. 1. 1)

A नननं निवनंकन् ₹ : omits प्रतिबन्ध 3 A शारीरनीमांसा

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १३

इति सूत्रे, अथशब्देन शमादिविशिष्टस्य सुमुक्षोरेव सूत्रणात्। [ ३ ] तदयं निर्गलितार्थ :- शमादिसहितेन मुमुक्षुणा गुरुमुपसृत्य मोक्षसाधनब्रह्मात्मैक्यसाक्षात्कार प्रतिबन्धासंभावनीदिनिवृत्तये चतुर्लक्षेण- मीमांसया वेदान्तवाक्यविचारः प्रतिबन्धनिवृत्तिपर्यन्तम्, आवर्तनीयः, इति। [४ ] तत्र, मोक्षस्वरूपं यावद्विशिष्य न निश्चीयते, तावत्तत्र कस्य कामनोदेतु१ तत्सवरूपमात्रनिश्चयात्कामनायां जातायामपि विचारेण साधनविशेषनिश्चये सत्येव तत्र मुमुक्षोः प्रवृत्तिः संभवति, इति तत्तदवाद-

by the word Atha, one alone desirous of salvation, chara- cterised by ( the possession of the qualities ) control etc., has been referred to. [ 3 ] Thus this is the sense ultimately conveyed - By one desirous of salvation, endowed with ( the qualities of ) control etc., approaching ( studying under ) a teacher, the consideration of the Vedanta-passages by the Mimamsa of four Adhyayas is to be repeatedly gone through till the removal of the impediments, for the purpose of the removal of the wrong conception etc., standing in the way of the realisation of the oneness of Brahman and Atman, which is the means of salvation. [ 4 ] There, so long as the nature of salvation is not definitely ascertained specifically, in whom could any desire for that rise up? Eren when desire is produced by the ascertainment of only its nature, it is only when there is the ascertainment of specific means ( that ) the activity of one desirous of salration is possible in that behalf,-so, by the refutation of ( the wrong idea of ) apparent salvation and its means admitted by the various disputants, salvation in its

उ प्रतिबन्धकासंभावना A -तुर्कक्षणी ३ A सत्येव मुमुक्षोर्तत्र प्रवृत्ति:

१४ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

भ्युपगतमुक्तितत्साधना मासनिरासेन परमार्थसती मुक्ति:, तत्साधनं च विचार्यावधार्यते [ ५ ]तत्र, औपनिषद्पक्षव्यतिरिक्तपक्षेषु न तत्साधनेषु कामनो- देतुमर्हति, तत्तद्वाद्यभ्युपगतानां मोक्षप्रकाराणामप्रामाणिकत्वात् प्रमाण- विरुद्धत्वाच्च। तथाहि (१) चार्वाकनये तावन्मोक्षस्वरूपस्यैवानभ्युपगमात्, देहस्येन्द्रिय- प्राणमनसां च भौतिकत्वेन विनश्वरत्वाम्युपगमात्, तेषामेव च स्वरूपतो दुःखरूपत्वात् दुःखहेतुत्वाच्च, न तन्निवृत्तिसमये सत्तोसमये वा दुःख-

true nature and the means thereof are definitely ascertained after ( due ) consideration. [ 5 ] There, a desire for its means does not deserve to rise in respect of the views, other than the view of the followers of the Upanisads, on account of the modes of salvation admitted by the various disputants being not sup- ported by the right means of proof and being opposed to the means of proof. Thus- (1) Apropos the Carvaka-system, for the matter of that, on account of the nature of salvation itself not being admitted, on account of admitting the perishable nature of the body and of the sense-organs, vital airs and the mind, because they are constituted of the material elements, and on account of their being themselves by nature constituted of misery and being the cause of misery, there is no scope either at the time of their removal or during the period of

१ A मुक्तितत्तत्साधना, : A न मोक्षतत्साधनेषु A न मोक्षे तत्ताधने वा ३ A ... भ्युभगतानां सर्वेशां ४ A विनाशिन्वाभ्युपगमात् ५ A संस्षारसमये, A तत्सत्तासमये.

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

निवृत्यात्मकफलभागितावकाशः । (२) अत एवं, सौगतमतमप्यपास्तम् । तत्रापि क्षणिकविज्ञानस्य सोपफ्ठवत्वेन सर्वदुःखँरूपत्वात्, तन्निवृत्तौ च सवस्ैर्वाभावात्, कस्य मोक्ष- वकाश: ? न च, आत्मनो नाश: कस्याप्यभिमतो निरुपाधिप्रेमास्पदत्वात्। खवनाशाद्वरं दुःखितया जीवनम्। यत्तु प्रयागादौ निःश्रेयसकामनया मरण- विधानं, कुष्ठाद्युपहतानां चान्यत्रापि, तदविनश्वरभोक्तृसद्भात्रमेव गमयति, इति न निदर्शनम्। (३ ) एतेन सर्वज्ञसन्तानान्तर्भावपक्षोऽपि निरस्तः, सर्वज्ञस्य सर्व-

existence, for sharing in the fruit ( salvation ) constituted of the removal of the misery. (2) Hence too the Buddha-doctrine is also cast away. Even there, on account of the momentary Vijnana being constituted of every (kind of ) misery, owing to being full of impediments, and when that is removed, for whom would there be the scope for salvation on account of the absence of himself? Surely, nobody favours one's own destruction, on account of ( oneself ) being the target of unequivocal love. A miserable life is preferable to one's own destruction. As to the statement about death at ( the holy Tirtha ) Prayaga etc., through the desire to secure the highest bliss, and elsewhere also in respect of those completely affected by leprosy etc. - this cannot be an illustrative instance, be- cause it points out to the existence itself of an imperishable enjoyer. (3) By this ( above argument ) is cast away the view advocating the inclusion of an omniscient stream, on account of the all-knower having the form of the entire knowledge

१ A drops अत एव २A क्षणिकविज्ञानसन्तानस्य ३ A सर्वदा दुःखरूपत्वात् ४ A स्वयमेवाभावात ५ A तदविनश्वरमोक्षसन्भाव ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

सोपप्ठवज्ञानाकारतया संसारिसन्तानापेक्षयापि सोपष्ठवाधिक्येनात्यन्तदुःख- रूपत्वात्, अन्यस्यान्यान्तर्भावानुपपच्तेश्र। अन्यथा, नीलधर्वलानामपि तथा प्रसङ्गात्, विश्वाद्वैतवादापत्तेः, सन्तानस्य सन्तान्यभिन्नत्वेन सर्वज्ञसन्तान- स्यापि विनश्वरत्वाच्च, अविनश्वरत्वे वा स्थैर्यापत्तिरित्युपेक्षणीया: कुषुद्धयः। (४) शून्यवादे तु किं केन काम्येत कामिनः कालत्रयेऽप्यसच्चात्? (५ ) आर्हतपक्षेऽपि सततोर्ध्वगमनस्य अलोकाकाशेवध्ानद

with impediments, being made of extreme misery, as com- pared to the continuity of one associated with the worldly existence, on account of the greater degree of the impedi- ments and on account of the impropriety of another thing being included in another. Otherwise, there would be the undesirable result of admitting the doctrine of World-Ad- vaita, on account of the ( qualities ), blue, white, being looked upon as similar and even the all-knower stream would have a perishable nature on occount of the continuity not being different from one associated with continuity, or there would be the undesirable contingency of stability ( being admitted), if the continuity is not possessed of a perishable nature - thus these perverse views deserve to be ignored. (4) Apropos the doctrine of the Void, however, what ( and ) by whom can be desired, on account of one possessed of desire, not being in existence in all the three times ( past, present and future ) ? (5) Even according to the view of the Arhatas ( Jainas ) on account of ( the Atman ) always going up, re- siding in the Alokākasa and as involved in action, being of a perishable nature, there is no object for the desire of salva-

१ A नीलधवलादीनामपि २ म अलोकाकाशगमनरय

१७

च क्रियात्वेन विनाशित्वा न, अपुनरावृत्तिलक्षणमोक्षकामनाविषयता; सुखस्य वा मोक्षरूपत्वाभ्युपगमे तस्य जन्यत्वे पूर्वोक्त एव दोषः। अजन्यत्वेऽपि मुक्तसंसारिणोरविशेषात् स एव दोष: । संसारदशायां कर्ाधक तदावृत:, कर्माष्टकनिवृत्तौ तु निरावरणं सुखमिति चेत, न, कर्मणामावरणत्वस्य कुत्राप्यदर्शनात् । आत्मस्वरूपत्वतद्धिन्रत्वादिनापि तस्यानुपपत्तिमग्रे वक्ष्यामः । कि च, आत्मनो देहपरिमाणत्वाभ्युपगमा- देहानां च, अव्यवस्यितप माणवत्वात्, गजमशकशरीरादाववयवोपचयाङ्गी- कारेणानियतपरिमाणवच्वः, आत्मनो वाच्यम् । तथा च परिमाणभेदे

tion, characterised by a non-return; or, if happiness is admit- ted to have the form of salvation there would be the same aforesaid defect, as that would be a product. Even if ( it is held that ) it is not originated, the same defect remains on account of there being no distinction between the released Soul and one continuing in the Samsara. If it is argued that the happiness is veiled by the eight-fold Karman in the state of Samsara, but when the eight-fold Karman ceases that is without any veil,-( our answer is )-No, on account of the nature of having a veil in respect of the Karmans not being seen anywhere. We shall be speaking of that being impossible later on, on the strength of the nature of the Atman and his being distinct from that etc., as well. And further, by admitting the size of the body for the Atman, and that the bodies are possessed of dimensions not fixed up, and by the acceptance of ( the theory of) the in- crease and decrease of parts in respect of the bodies, of an elephant, a mosquito etc., it will have to be said that the Atman is possessed of dimensions not fixed. And accordingly when there is the change of dimension, the destruction of

9 A सुखस्य च २ A सुखमिति विशेष इति चेन्न ३ A कर्मणामनावरणत्वस्य

१८ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

आत्मनो विनाश: प्राप्तः प्रदीपादिवत्, द्रव्यभेदं विना परिमाणभेदानुप- पत्तेः । यावत्प्रत्यभिजं वस्तुस्थितिरित्यभ्युपगमेऽपि सावयवत्वेन विनाशि- त्वध्रौव्यात्, न, अविनाशिमोक्षफलभागिता, विनाशिन: फलस्य तु सवर्गा- दान्तर्भावेन नात्यन्तपुमर्थमोक्षरूपता, इत्यलमतिविस्तरेण। [ ६ ] ननु नास्तिकमतेषु मास्तु मोक्षकामना, फलफलिनोर्विनाशि- त्वात्। आस्तिकमते तु नास्ति स दोष इति तत्रोपपद्यत एव सा। तथा हि- देहेन्द्रियादिव्यतिरिक्तो नित्यो विभुरात्मा, इति तावत्सर्वप्रमाण-

Atman would perforce be there, like that of the lamp etc., on account of the change of the dimension not being reason- able without a change in substance. Even though the sta- bility of a thing is admitted so long as the recognition takes place, there cannot be the sharing of the fruit -the im- perishable salvation-on account of the perishable nature being certain owing to its being possessed of parts; and there cannot be that nature of salvation - the very highest human purpose - owing to the perishable fruit being in- cluded in heaven etc.,-so enough of this great prolixity !

[ 6 ] I say ( says the objector ) - Let there be no desire for salvation in heretical theories, on account of the fruit and the enjoyer of the fruit ( being both ) perishable. That blemish does not exist in the orthodox view. And so, that (desire for salvation ) properly fits in there. To explain the same -

It has been established, for the matter of that, by all means of proof, that the Atman is eternal, all-pervading, distinct from the body, sense-organs etc. Regarding this ( tatra ), Direct perception, for the matter of that, is of the १ A विनाश: प्रदीपादेवत् प्राप्तः २ A वस्तुस्थितेरभ्युपगमेऽपि

वेदान्तकललविक १९

सिद्धम् । तत्र, प्रत्यक्षं तावद्, 'योऽहं पितरौ बाल्येऽन्वेभूवं सोऽहं वार्धके प्रणप्तुननुभवामि', इति प्रत्यभिज्ञात्मकम्, अनन्यथासिद्धम्, अबाधितं च बाल्यवार्धकयोर्देहभेदेऽप्येकं प्रतिसंधातारं विषयीकुर्वत्तदतिरिक्तमेव स्थायि- नमात्मानं विषयीकरोति। तस्य च पूर्वकोटिरहितत्वं, जातस्यास्मिञ्जन्मनि किश्चिदप्यननुभूतवतः स्तनपानादयर्थप्रवृत्त्यन्यथानुपपच्या तज्जातीयेष्टसाधन- तास्मरणतञ्जनकसंस्कारतञ्ञनकानुभवाश्रयत्वनियमेन ततः पूर्वमपि तथैवा- भ्युपगमात्पूर्वानुभव संस्कारस्मर णेच्छादीनामेकाश्रयाणामेकविषयत्वेन कार्य- कारण मावतियशद । तथा च पारमर्षसूत्रम्-

nature of recognition in the form, ' That I, who noted ( my ) parents in childhood, in old age am noting great-grandsons', ( that perception ) not proven otherwise and uncontradicted having for its province the one same continuous perceiver, even though in childhood and old age the body has become different, refers to a permanent Atman definitely over and above that ( body etc. ). And it is void of any previous contact ( i. e. beginning ), on account of the rule of the relation of cause and effect, because there being no other way to explain reasonably the activity towards the purpose, drinking the milk from the breast etc., in his case, when born, having no experience whatsoever in this birth and being invariably the resort of the experience of the remem- brance of the desirable means of that type, of the impres- sions producing that, and of those producing the same, and that same ( state of things ) being admitted ( to exist) even prior to that, and because of the previous experience, impressions, remembrance, desire.etc., having the same re- sort and referring to the same object. To the same effect is the Sutra of the great sage -

१ A योडहं बाल्ये पितरौ, अन्वभूवम् : A पारमर्ष सूत्रम्

२० वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

'इच्छाद्वेषप्रयत्नसुखदुःखज्ञानान्यात्मनो लि्ङ्गेम्' (न्या. सू. १. १.१०) इति। संघातस्य परार्थत्वाच्च, शय्यासनादेः, हि, अचेतनस्य भोग्यस्य भोक्त्रर्थत्वं दृष्टम्। एवं देहस्यापि भोग्यत्वाविशेषाद्भोक्त्रर्थत्वम्। यश्च भोक्ता से स्वयमसंहतः सार्थ एव सिद्धयति, अन्यथानवस्थानात्। एवं जड- वर्गद्रष्टृत्वेनापि तत्सिद्धिः। एवं च सर्देकारणवत्वेनोत्तर रोटिसलपपि तस्य विनाशकारणासंभवाच्च 'अविनाशी वा अरे अयमात्मा' (बृह. ४.५.१४)

' Desire, hatred, mental effort, pleasure, pain, knowledge- these are the logical mark ( to prove the existence ) of the Atman.' (Nyä. Sū. I. 1. 10) As the aggregate of objects is for the sake of another, it is seen that the non-sentient object of enjoyment - the bed, seat etc., is for the sake of the enjoyer. Thus in the case of the body also, it is ( intended ) for the sake of the enjoyer as it is of no different nature than ( other ) objects of enjoy- ment. And he who is the enjoyer, himself keeping apart, is proved to have his own purpose, otherwise he would not be staying there. Similarly his establishment ( is proved ) also on account of his being the perceiver of the non- sentient class of objects. And such being the case, there is in his case even the absence of the other end (i. e. des- truction), owing to his having no prior existing cause and owing to the impossibility of any cause of destruction, and on account of the Sruti-passage ' O dear, this Atman is, verily, imperishable' ( Brha. IV. 5. 14 )

१ A ... लिङ्गानि २ ३ A स स्वयमस्वार्थ ४ A सत्यकारण ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका २१

इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यक्च। एवं प्रत्यक्षानुमानशब्दैस्तस्य नित्यत्वसिद्धेस्तद्विरोध्य- नित्यत्वव्याप्यसावयवरत्वमध्यमपरिमाणवत्तासंभवात्, निरवयवत्वे निश्चिते, परमाणु: परममहान् वा, इति विशये, सर्वत्र दृष्टकार्यत्वात्परममहानेवेति निश्चीयते

'आकाशवत्सर्वगतश्च नित्यः' इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यश्च। परमाणुत्वपक्षेपि जिव्यत्संभवादापाततो न मुमुक्षानु- पपत्तिः, विचारनिष्कर्षे तु परममहद्दह्माभिन्नत्वरूपमोक्षासिद्धया तदनुपपचि वक्ष्याम:।

and others. Thus, on account of that (Atman ) being proved to have a permanent nature by ( the means of proof). Direct perception, Inference and Word, and on account of the impossibility of his being possessed of the nature of having parts and middle dimension, being pervaded by the non-eternal nature opposed to that - when it is conclud- ed that Atman is without parts, there being the doubt whether ( the Atman) is atomic or of the highest dimen- sion, it is concluded that he is of the highest dimension, on account of his activity being seen everywhere and on account of the Sruti-passage such as ' Like Akaśa, all-pervading and eternal'. Even according to the view of his being atomic, prima facie, though the desire for salvation can be regarded as reason- able owing to the possibility of his possession of the eternal nature, still, as a result of serious pondering, we shall state its unreasonableness ( impossibility ) on account of the non- establishment of salvation as having the nature of not being different from Brahman of the highest dimension.

१ A त्व is dropped

२२ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

[ ७ ] तदेवं सर्वास्तिकसाधारण्येन देहेन्द्रियातिरिक्ते भोक्तरि बन्धमोक्षभागिनि नित्ये सिद्धे, तस्य बुद्धिसुखदुःखेच्छाद्वेषप्रयत्धर्माधर्म- भावनाख्यान् नवविशेपगुणान् मनःसंयोगजन्यान् मन्यन्ते वैशेषिक-तार्किक- प्राभाकरा:। नवविशेषगुणोदय एव तस्य संसारः, युगपन्निवृत्तिश्र मोक्ष:, इति। तथा च पारमर्षसूत्रम्- 'दुःखजन्मप्रवृत्तिदोषमिथ्याज्ञानानामुत्तरोत्तरापाये तदनन्तराभावादपवर्गः।' (न्या. सू. १.१.२) इति। तस्मादात्यन्तिकदुःखनिवृच्ेरविनाशित्वात्परमपुमर्थत्वाच्चात्र विवेकिनां कामनोपपद्यते, इति।

[ 7 ] Thus then, in common with all orthodox systems, the Enjoyer, apart from the body and the sense-organs sharing in Bondage and Salvation, being established as eternal, the Vaisesikas, the followers of Nyaya and the followers of Prabhākara ( Pūrva-Mīmāmsā ) attribute to him nine particular qualities, - cognition, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, activity, merit, demerit, Bhāvanā (mental impression ) - as being produced by the contact with the mind. The rise of the nine particular qualities in him is Samsāra, and salvation is the simultaneous destruction ( of them ). To the same effect is the Sutra of the great sage - 'On the passing away in succession of pain, birth, acti- vity, blemish, false knowledge, there is the salvation due to their absolute absence.' (Nyä. Sū. I. 1. 2) Therefore, owing to the absolute cessation of pain, owing tu its imperishable nature, owing to its denoting the highest human purpose, reasonably enough is produced the desire for this here in the case of the discriminating persons -

वैदान्तकल्पलतिका २३

मैवम्-स्वाभाविकधर्माणां धर्मिणि सति, इत्युच्छेदासंभवाद् घटे सति तद्गतयावद्विशेषगुणनिवृत्त्यदर्शनात्। तथा चोक्तं वार्तिके- 'आत्मा कर्त्रादिरूपश्रेन्मा काङ्कीस्तर्हि मुक्तताम्। न हि स्वभावो भावानां व्यावर्तेतौष्ण्यवद्रवेः ॥' (बृह. वा. का. ५५-५६) इति। तथा च धर्मिणा सहैव तेषां निवृत्तिरङ्गीकरणीया, इति र्वोक्तनैर- त्म्यवादप्रसङ्ग: । तदुक्तं ब्रह्मसिद्धिकारे :- 'विज्ञानादिविशेषगुणनिवृत्तिलक्षणा च मुक्तिरुच्छेदपक्षान्न भिद्यते। न

( The Siddhāntin replies ) - ( Do ) not ( say ) so, owing to the impossibility of destruction of the natural qualities, when the entity possessing the qualities is in existence, as when the jar is there, it is not perceived that there is the absence ( or, turning away ) of the entire partisular ( or, special ) qualities in it. To the same effect has been stated in the Vartika - ' If the Atman has the nature of the doer etc., then expect not (his ) release from that; for, not indeed does the nature of entities turn away, like heat from the Sun." ( Bṛha. Vā. Kā. 55-56) Consequently, the turning away of them ( the special quali- ties ), verily, along with the entity itself possessing the qualities has to be admitted - which would bring forth the ( undesirable ) contingency of ( accepting) the theory of Atman-less-ness spoken of before. That is spoken of by the revered author of Brahmasiddhi - 'Salvation having the characteristic of the turning away of the special quality, Vijnana etc., is not different from the theory of extinction. Not indeed is the total

१ A समुच्छदासंभवाल २ A काहस्तिद्विमुक्त्तताम

२४ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

हि सतोऽप्यात्यन्तिको दर्शनाभावोऽभावाद्विशिष्यते, कश्च सर्वतः प्रेयस: आत्मनोऽभावमभिकाङ्केत्, इति, अपुरुषार्थो मोक्षः स्याद्' (ब्र. सि. ब्र. का.) इति। सर्वविशेषगुणनिवृत्तिविशिष्टे चात्मनि प्रमाणाभावात्, अज्ञाय-

ज्ञायमानस्यापि स्वरूपेण पुमर्थत्वमित्यपि न, मानाभावेन तत्स्वरूपस्यै- वासिद्धेरुक्तत्वात्, तत्प्रमाणत्वाभिमतानामनुमानानामाभासत्वाद्। 'अशरीरं वाव सन्तं न प्रियाप्रिये स्पृशतः ।'

(छा. ८.१२.१)

absence of perception in the case of an entity although exist- ing, different from negation; and who indeed would be hankering after the absence of the Atman dear ( to him ) in all respects ? - thus salvation would be serving no human purpose.' ( Bra. Si. Bra. Kā. ) Because there is the absence of any means of proof in regard to the Atman characterised by the turning away of all special qualities, and because the absence of pain not known, serves no human purpose, there is the invariable concomitance with the non-existing nature, like dancing in darkness. ( Even if it is argued that ) there would be the human purpose served in the case of something not known by its very nature, ( the answer is ) - No; the non-establish- ment of its own nature on account of the absence of means of proof has been ( already ) stated, on account of the inferences taken as favouring the existence of means of proof in their case being mere fallacies. If it be said that the Sruti itself, ' The agreeable and the dis-agreeable, verily, touch not him without a body", ( Chā. VIII. 12.1)

१ A प्रवृत्तवत् दुर्लक्षण ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ₹4

इति श्रुतिरेव तत्र मानमिति चेत्, न । जीवतोऽपि देहाभिमानरहितस्य सुखदुःखसंबन्धाभावप्रतिपादनपरत्वाचस्या:, नवविशेषगुणरहितावस्थाविशेष- प्रमापकत्वाभावाद्, तत्प्रतिपादकपदाभावाच्च। किं च, दुःखध्वंसस्य न पुरुषार्थत्वम्, पुनर्दुःखान्तरोत्पादसंभवात, इदानीन्तनदुःखध्वंसवद्। [ ८ ]अथ दुःखप्रागभावस्य दुःखकारणत्वात्, तन्निवृत्तौ दुःखान्त- समुत्पाद:, इति मतम्, तत्, न। कियतां प्रागभावानां निवृत्तावप्यन्येषां सद्भावसंभवात्, सर्वेषामेकदा निवृत्तौ मानाभावात्, प्रागभावनिवृत्तेः पुरुष- व्यापारासाध्यतया तदर्थ पञ्चाध्यायीप्रभृतिशास्त्राभ्यासश्रवणमनननिदि-

is the proof, (the reply is)-No. Because that (Śruti pass- age ) is concerned with postulating the absence of connec- tion with pleasure and pain in the case of one bereft of egoism about the body although he is living, and there is the absence of anything to measure the special state bereft of the nine particular qualities, and also the absence of any word postulating that. And further, the destruction of pain cannot be the human purpose, owing to the possibi- lity of the rise of another pain again, like the destruction of pain obtaining at the present moment. [ 8 ] Now, if the idea is favoured viz. as the antecedent negation of pain is the cause of pain; when that is removed there would be the non-production of another pain -( our reply is ) - No. Even if some antecedent negations be re- moved, there would be the possibility of the existence of others owing to the absence of any proof regarding the removal of all ( antecedent negations ) once for all; owing to the removal of antecedent negation not being capable of being accomplished by human effort, there the continuous study of the Sastras such as Pancadhyayi and others, and

१ A नच ...

३६ वेदान्तंकल्पलतिका

ध्यासादिप्रयासानां निष्फलत्वापत्तेः, दुःखोत्पत्यर्थमेव प्रवृत्तिप्रसङ्गाच! परमपुमर्थभूतसर्वप्रकारसुखनिवृच्तित्वेन द्वेषस्यैवात्रोचितत्वात्, को हि सर्व- प्रकारसुखपरिहारेण शुष्कक्ाष्ठवदवस्थातुमिच्छेत्? [ ९ ]यत्तु न्यायभाष्यकृतोक्तम् 'शान्तः खल्वयं सर्वविप्रयोगः सर्वोपरमोऽपवर्गः बह्नत्र कृच्छूं घोरं पौपकं लुप्यते, इति कश्वे बुद्धिमान् सर्वदुःखोच्छेदं सर्वदुःखा- संविदमपवर्ग न रोचयेत् ? इति। तद्यथा-मधुविषसंपृक्तान्मना- देयम्, इति, एवं सुखं दुःखानुषक्तमनादेयम्।' (न्या. भा. १.१.२ )

efforts for that ( as involved in ) hearing, thinking, medita- tion etc., are bound to result in being fruitless, and further there would be the undesirable contingency of activity being meant for the purpose of production of pain itself. Actually the feeling of hatred itself being proper here on account of the removal of every kind of pleasure, which is the highest human purpose, who possibly would desire to remain like a dry piece of wood, by the removal of every kind of pleasure ? [ 9 ] As to what has been said by the author of the Nyāya-bhāsya ' Tranquil, verily, is this Salvation-the detachment from all, the cessation of all. A lot of difficult, terrible sin is wiped off in it-what talented person would not like this Salvation, -the uprooting of all pain and the non-cognition of all pain? It is like this-as food mixed up with honey and poison should not be taken, so pleasure mixed up with pain is unacceptable.' ( Nyã. Bhā. I. 1. 2)

१ A पातकं, २ A कश्चिद्.

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका २७

इति, तत्, न- दुःखाभावस्यापि सुखशेषत्वेन पुरुषार्थत्वात्, स्वतत्रपुरुषार्थ- द्वयकल्पने मानाभावात्, सुखकाले दुःखाभावस्य नियतत्वात्, दुःखाभाव- काले च सुषुप्तिप्रलयादौ सुखस्याप्यभावात्, न सुखस्य दुःखाभावार्थत्वेन पुमर्थत्वसंभावना, व्यभिचारात् । अधिकसुखेच्छया खल्पसुखोपेक्षा युज्यते, न तु केवलदुःखाभावाय, इति प्रेक्षापूर्वकारिणां पन्थाः। [ १० ] अस्तु तर्हि नित्यसुखाभिर्व्यक्तिः, इति भट्टाचार्यमतम्, तत्र पूर्वोक्तदूषणासंभवात्। न, विकल्पासहत्वात्-तन्नित्यं सुखं, आत्मनो भिन्नं, अभिन्नं वा। आद्ेऽपि जन्यं, अजन्यं वा। तत्राद्ये, जन्यस्य क्षयित्व-

-(Our reply is )-That is not (so). On account of the absence of any proof for postulating two independent human purposes of life, as even the negation of pain, being sub- ordinated to pleasure, is a human purpose of life, on account of the negation of pain being there as a rule at the time of ( experiencing ) pleasure, and on account of the absence even of pleasure in the states of deep sleep, Dissolution etc., at the time of the absence of pain, there cannot be the conception of pleasure as the human purpose of life, as conveying the negation of pain, owing to the violation ( of the concomitance between 'Sukha' and ' Duhkhā- bhava' ). However, indifference towards pleasure in a small measure is proper with a desire for more pleasure, but not merely for the sake of negation of pain - this is the way of ( argument of ) those who act after proper scrutiny. [ 10 ] Well then, let ( Salvation ) be the manifestation of permanent pleasure,-the view of Bhattācārya ( Kumārila), on account of the impossibility there of the blemishes spoken of before. (Our reply is)-No; because that would not allow any alternatives - is that permanent pleasure different from Atman or not different? And in respect of

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

नियमेन कथं, अक्षयपुमर्थकामनाविषयता? ब्रह्मलोकान्तसुखवितृष्णो हि मुमुक्षुरुच्यते, तद्वैतृष्ण्यं च जन्यत्वेन क्षयित्वादेव। अन्त्येऽपि पक्षे, तस्य ज्ञापकं वाच्यम्, स्वप्रकाशत्वासंभवात्, अनम्युपगमाच्च। मोक्षे च ज्ञान- करणमन:संयोगाद्यभावात्, असंवेद्यत्वेन तदेवापुमर्थत्वमायातम्। न ह्यसं- वेद्यसुखस्य पुमर्थत्वमस्ति, परसुखस्यापि तत्प्रसङ्गात्। इन्द्रियाद्यभ्युपगमे च संसारावस्थातो न विशेष:, संसारावस्थायां च तस्य भाने हेतुर्वाच्यः । कस्यचिदावरणस्याभ्युपगमे च तस्य सत्वासत्वभिन्नत्वादिरूपेण विचारासह-

even the first, is it produced or not produced ? Apropos the first, as what is produced is as a rule perishable, how could it be the object of desire for the imperishable human purpose of life ? For, one desirous of salvation is spoken of as one having no longing for the pleasure ending in the Brahmaloka; and that absence of longing ( arises ), verily, because of its being perishable, on account of its be- ing produced. Apropos even the last view, some agency for making it known should be stated, on account of the impossibility of its being self-illumining and on account of this not being admitted. Further, there being the absence of the connection between the mind and the organs of know- ledge in salvation, that same viz. not being the human purpose in life, would be the (undesirable ) result on account of its not being comprehended. For, pleasure not capable of being comprehended cannot be the human purpose in life ; otherwise, the pleasure of another also would have perforce to be (treated ) like that. If the sense-organs etc., are admitted ( to function in salvation ), there would be no distinction from the state of worldly existence and further in that case you will have to state ( some ) cause for its comprehension in the Samsara-state. If some enveloping factor be admitted, there would be the undesirable contin- gency ( from your point of view ) of the admission of the

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका २९

त्वात्, अनिर्वचनीयमायाभ्युपगमत्वप्रसङ्ग:, तथा च सर्व ब्रह्मवादिमतमङ्गी- कृतं स्यात्। अत एवात्माभिन्नं तत्सुखम्, इति परास्तम्, आत्मरूपस्य सर्वदा, अनावृतत्वेन तदभिन्नसुखस्य संसारावस्थायां, अपि भानप्रसङ्गात्। अनया चातुपपच्या नव्यमीमांसकै: केवलदुःखाभाव एव परिगृहीतः। स च निराकृत एव, आत्मनि वृत्तिमन्तरेण तदाश्रितदुःखनिवृत्त्ययोगात्, भाट्टैः कार्यकारणयोस्तादात्म्याभ्युपगमात्, समवायकारणनिवृत्यैव लोके कार्य- निवृत्तिदर्शनाच्च। [ ११ ] अस्तु तर्हि सांख्ययोगमतम् । तत्र हि, असङ्गस्यात्मनो

indescribable Māyā, on account of the impossibility of pon- dering, with its nature being different from existence and non-existence; but in that case you would be admitting the entire view-point of the Brahmavadins. For this very reason, ( the view ) that pleasure is not different from Atman is dismissed, because the form of Atman being always uncovered, the pleasure not different from it would per- force be comprehended, ( an undesirable contingency), even in the state of Samsara. On account of this very impropriety, the Neo-Mimamsakas have admitted merely the negation of pain. But that stands, verily, dismissed; because without activity in the Atman, there would not be any chance of the removal of pain, resorting to him, on account of the followers of Bhatta having admitted the identity of cause and effect, and on account of the removal of the effect being seen in the world by the removal of the material cause itself.

[ 11 ] Well then, ( let us ) accept the view of the foll- owers of Samkhya and Yoga. For, there on account of Ätman, who is without any attachment, being bereft of १ A drops त्व २ A तत्सुखमिति मतं परास्तम् A ततसुखमित्यपि परास्तम्

३० वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

निर्विशेषत्वाद्, दुःखस्य बुद्धिधर्मत्वाभ्युपगमात्, दुःखसमवायिकारणध्वंस- हेतुकदुःखनिवृत्त्यभ्युपगमेऽपि नात्मन उच्छेदसंभावना। खप्रकाशत्वाच्च नान्धकारप्रनृत्ततुल्यता। न, अ्मिन्नयि पक्षे सतो दुःखस्य निरोधासंभवात्, असेतो निरोधस्य च उत्पत्यसंभवात्, 'नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः' (गीता २।१६ ) इति स्मृतेः। संसारान्मोक्षस्याणुमान्रेणापि विशेषानुपपत्तेः, अपुरूषार्थत्वं तुल्यमेव। वरं वैशेषिकादिमते, असतोऽपि दुःखस्य निरोधः संभवति,

any particularity, and the admission of pain being the quality of Buddhi, there is no possibility of the extinction of the Atman even though it is admitted that the removal of pain has for its cause the destruction of the constituent cause of pain. And on account of ( the Atman himself ) being self-illumining there cannot be any comparison with the dancing in darkness-(Our reply is )-No. Apropos even this view there is the impossibility of destruction of pain having the sat-nuture, and the impossibility of the origination of the destruction having the asat-nature, on account of the Smrti-passage ' There cannot be the existence of what is asat, nor is there the non-existence of what is sat.' ( Gītā II. 16 ) On account of the impossibility of any distinction of the slightest degree in the case of salvation from Samsara- its not being the human purpose in life remains there equally. It is better ( to admit ) that according to the Vaisesika view, the destruction of pain eren though not existing is possible, and the origination of the non-existing

प्रनृत्व २ असतोऽनि निरोधत्योत्न ... ३ A वैशेषिकादि मतं तन्मते ..

बेदान्तकल्पलतिका

असतश्च निरोधस्योत्पत्तिः संभवति। तदपेक्षयापि तुच्छ एवायं सत्कार्य- वार्दपक्षः । सच्वेऽप्याविर्भावतिरोभावौ संभवतः, इति चेत्, न, तयोरपि सत्चाविशेषात्। तत्राप्यन्यकल्पने, अनवस्था मूलक्षतिकरी। तयो: सदस- द्विलक्षणत्वाङ्गीकारे च, अनिर्वचनीयत्वाभ्युपगमात् ब्रह्मवादिमतापत्तिः। तस्मादस्मिन्पक्षे नितरां नोपपद्यते मोक्षः। [ १२ ] सर्वस्मिश्व मैते मोक्षस्यागन्तुकत्वाभ्युपगमे भावत्वे, अभावत्वे वा, जन्यत्वेन अवश्यं विनाशित्वम्, जन्यत्वमात्रस्यैव लाघवेन विनाशित्व-

destruction is possible .- As compared to that view, this doctrine of the effect being always sat ( satkāryavāda) is absolutely without any substance. If it be argued that appearance and disappearance can exist even in an existing nature, (our reply is)-No; even those two are not distinct from the existing nature. If some other thing is imagined even there, there would be ( the fault of ) Endlessness, which strikes at the very root ( of the doctrine ). On the other hand, if the two are admitted to be possessed of the characteristic of being different from sat and asat, that would be ( tantamount to) the acceptance of indescribable nature for them; so, there would be the undesirable con- tingency ( from your point of view ) of accepting the view of the Brahmavadins. Therefore, salvation is quite impossible according to this view. [ 12 ] According to all these views, salvation being admitted to be an adventitious thing -whether it is possess- ed of a positive nature or a negative nature, there is bound to be the perishable nature on account of its being some- thing produced, because merely being something produced becomes straight away the cause of perishable nature.

drops वाद २ न मूलक्षतिकरिणी ३ A पक्षे

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

प्रयोजकत्वात्। प्रतियोगिनिष्ठस्य कस्यचिदतिशयस्य भावरूपस्यैव विना- शिनो ध्वंसत्वाभ्युपगमात्, अधिकरणातिरिक्ताभावानभ्युपगमाद्वा, न ध्वंसे व्यमिचारः। घटो ध्वस्तः, इति प्रतीतेः, ध्वंसाश्रयत्वेन वा तत्प्रतियोगित्वा- श्रयत्वेन वा, घटविषयीकरणत्वात्, तस्मिन्काले घटासत्वे च निराश्रयधर्म- प्रतीत्ययोगात् । घटस्य ध्वंस:, इति षष्ठयर्थसंबन्धस्य राहो: शिरः, इतिवत्, इष्टत्वात्, न तार्किकाभ्युपगता निष्प्रतियोगिकध्वंससिद्धिः। घटस्य ध्वंस- कालेऽपि सच्वे पूर्ववत् प्रत्यक्षत्वं स्यात्, इति चेत्, न। प्रत्यक्षत्वमन्तरे- णापि कुड्यादिव्यवहितस्य सत्ताङ्गीकारात्, प्रत्यक्षत्वाव्याप्येन सच्वेन

Whether is admitted the destruction of some peculiar special feature residing in the counter-entity which is perishable and possessed of a positive nature itself, or whether a non- entity over and above the basic resort is not admitted,- nothing can come in the way of destruction. Because the apprehension-The jar is destroyed-whether as resorting to the destruction or as resorting to the nature of its counter-entity, it involves the jar as the object of know- ledge, because at that time, the jar being not in existence there cannot be any apprehension of a quality without any resort. As regards ( the statement ) ' the destruction of the jar' relating to the meaning of the genitive, -that is welcome to us like the statement, the head of Rahu ( who was headless ), and thus there cannot be the establishment of the destruction without any reference to the counter- entity as admitted by the Logicians. If it be argued that even at the time of the destruction, there would be the perception of the jar as before, on account of its existent nature, - ( our reply is )-No. Because even without direct perception, the existence of something screened by

१ A तार्किकाभ्युपगतनिष्प्रतियोगिक ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिकां ३३

तदापादनायोगात्, व्यवधानांनां च फलैकोनेयत्वाट्, कुड्यादिविलक्षण- व्यवधानं ध्वंसान्यथानुपपत्तिरेव गमवति, इति न दोष:। न चैवं सति सत्कार्यवादोक्तदोषापत्तिः, सदसद्विलक्षणलाभ्युदगमेन, उभयपक्षोक्तदोष- परिहाराद्। विस्तरेण चैतर्दुपपादयिग्यामः । तथा च, आत्मनो दुःखाभावो नाम कश्चित्, अतिशयो गुणाधानलक्षणो मलक्षालनलक्षणो वा वक्तव्यः। उभयथापि तस्य घ्रुवमनित्यतम्, उत्पत्ति- आप्ति-विकृति-संस्कृति-लक्षणानां चतुर्णामयि क्रियाफलानां विनाशित- the fencing etc., is taken for granted; because that cannot be obtained through the existent nature not in invariable concomitance with direct perception, and the screening objects can be inferred only by the result thereof, the impossibility otherwise of the destruction alone causes the screening things of a different nature like fencing etc. to be comprehended-so, there is no blemish ( on our side ). (You cannot argue that ) if that is the case, then there would be the undesirable result of the blemishes being there spoken of in connection with the satkaryavada, on account of the removal of the blemishes stated by both the parties by the admission of the unique state of being neither sat nor asat. We shall propound this further in detail. And further likewise, apropos some particular distinc- tion called the absence of pain in the case of the Atman- you have to state whether it is characterised by the addi- tion of good qualities, or characterised by the wiping away of the blemishes. According to even both of these views there ( would result ) its impermanent nature surely, because even the four-fold results of action characterised by origina- tion, attainment, transformation and polish are as a rule possessed of a perishable nature and the imperishable nature

9 A drops सति २ त विस्तरेण चैतदुपरिष्टादुपपादयिश्यामः।

३४ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

नियमात्, मोक्षस्य सर्ववादिमिरविनाशिलाम्युपगमाद्। तदुक्तं वार्तिक- कारैः- 'उत्पत्तिराप्तिर्विकृतिः संस्कृतिश्र् क्रियाफलम् । मुक्तिर्वित्टक्षणैतेभ्यस्तेनेहानर्थको विधिः । (वृह. वा. का. २३६) इति। भाष्यकाररेश्र महता प्रबन्धेन प्रतिपादितमेतत् समन्वयाधिकरणे। [ १३ ] अत एव, एकदेशिमतानामप्यनवकाशः, मेदाभेदपक्षस्य सर्वप्रमाणविरुद्धलात्, पारमार्थिकमेदस्य निवृत्ययोगाच्च। किं वा तस्य निवर्तकम्१ तत्त्वज्ञानं इति चेत्, तैत् किं भिन्नाभिन्नविषयम्, अभिन्नमात्र-

of salvation is admitted by all the disputants. To the same effect has been stated by the venerable author of the Vārtika- ' Origination, attainment, transiormation and polish- that is the result of action. Salvation is different from these. Therefore, injunction serves no purpose here.' ( Brha. Vā. Kā. 256 ) And by the venerable commentator ( Sankara ) has this been propounded in great detail in the topic Samanvaya ( harmonising ). [ 13 ] For this very reason, there is no scope for the view of those who partially agree (with the above), on account of difference-cum-non-difference being opposed to all means of proof, and on account of real difference not admit- ting removal. What, again, can be its remover ? If you say ( it is ) the knowledge of Reality, ( we further ask )- Does that refer to the different and the non-different, or does it refer only to the non-different? In respect of the first ( alter- ₹ À drops aa

वेदान्तकल्परतिका ३५

विषयं वा १ आद्ये, न तस्य मेदनिवर्तकतवं संभवति, ज्ञानस्य स्विषयनिव- र्तकत्वायोगात्। द्वितीये, ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वेन कल्पितत्वप्रसङ्ग:, कल्पितस्यैव ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वनियमात्। पुरुषोत्तमदर्शनादिना पापादिनिवृत्तौ व्यभिचार:, इति चेत्, न। तत्र विहितक्रियाविशेषत्वेनैव पापादिनिवर्तकत्वात्। इह च ज्ञानत्वस्य निवर्तकत्वावच्छेदकत्वेनैव विवक्षितत्वात्, स्वनगन्धर्वनगरशुक्ति- रजतादौ तथा दर्शनात्। तदुक्तं पश्चपादिकाकृद्भि: 'यतो ज्ञानमज्ञानस्यैव निवर्तकम्।' (पञ्च.) इति। अज्ञानस्य चे विश्वभ्रमोपादानत्वेन, अद्वितीयचैतन्ये कल्बितत्वं

native ), that cannot possibly be the remover of difference because knowledge cannot be associated with the nature of the remover in respect of its own object. In the case of the second ( alternative ), the difference being removable by the knowledge, it will have to be admitted as being imaginary, because as a rule only an imaginary thing is removable by knowledge. If it is argued that there is vio- lation ( of the above rule ) in the removal of sin etc. by the sight of Purusottama, (our reply is)-No. For, there exists the nature of the remover of sin etc. by the very distinctive prescribed rite. Here, on the other hand, the nature of knowledge is definitely intended as being restricted to the remover-nature, because that is seen in respect of dream, the Gandharva-city, conch-shell and silver, etc. As has been said by the venerable author of Pañcapādikā- 'Because the knowledge is the remover of non-know- ledge '. ( Pañca. ) We shall describe further on, the Ajñana as being super- imposed on the Sentient without a second, on account of its being the constituent cause of the world-illusion. When

१ A तत्र हि विहित ... २ A निवर्तकत्वावच्छेदकत्वरेन ३ A drops च

38 वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

वक्ष्यामः । अभिन्नमान्रस् वेदप्रमेनत्े सेदांशस्य कथं शास्त्रीयत्वम्? भिन्नाभिन्नस्य वेदप्रमेयत्वे मोक्षदशायामापि तथेव स्थाद, भिन्नमात्रे प्रमाणाभावात्, इत्यलं मृत्मारघेन। ज्ञानान्मिष्याज्ञाननिवृत्ति: कर्मना मेदनिवत्ति: इत्यपि तुच्छम्, भेदाभेदवादिमते मिथ्याजाजत्वस्य दुर्निरुपत्वाद। मेदाभेदेन सर्वत्रैव सर्व- प्रमासंभवान्। कर्मगां च न कुनापि मेदनिवर्तकलं दृष्ट न वा श्रुतम् । कर्मजन्यस्य चानित्यतमचोचान। 'न स पुनरावर्तते' (निरा. ३३ ; ना. प. ९.२२ ; का. रुद्रो.)

only the non-different ( knowledge of Reality ) is the thing to be known from the Vedas, how can the difference-portion be in accordance with the Sastras? If different as well as non-different ( knowledge of Reality ) is the thing to be known from the Vedas, it would be exactly the same even in the state of salvation, on account of there being no means of proof regarding that as different - enough of this killing a dead person : The removal of the false knowledge is due to Jnana, the removal of difference is due to Karman, - this ( argu- ment ) also is extremely flimsy, on account of the nature of the false knowledge being diffieult to point out according to the view of those who advocate the ' difference-cum-non- difference' view, ( and) on account of the possibility of every kind of apprenension everywhere indeed, by ( resort- ing to the view of ) Bhedabheda. And regarding the Karmans, nowhere indeed is seen or heard their nature as the remover of difference. And we have already spoken of the impermanent nature of what is produced by Karman. If it is argued that inference about returning again is contradicted by the Sruti-passage ' He does not return again' ( Nira. XXXIII; Na. Pa. IX. 22, Kä. Ru. )

वेदान्तकल्पलति- ा ३७

इति श्रुत्या पुनरावृच्यनुमानं बाध्यते, इति चेत्-न, विरोधाभावात्। न हि यदा ब्रह्मलोकं प्रामोति तदैव पुनरावर्तते, इति वयं ब्रूमः। श्रुतिश्र नावर्तते, इति वर्तमानकालेऽनावृततिं दर्शयति। नावर्तिष्यते, इति तु कल्पना कृत- कत्वेन विनाशित्वानुमानविरुद्ा, इति ब्रूमः । उपासनाविधे: स्तुतिपरलाठ् च नास्य प्रमाणान्तरबाधकत्वम्, श्रुतिश्च 'तद्यथेह कमजितो लोकः क्षीयते, एवमेवामुत्र पुण्यजितो लोकः क्षीयते' (छां. ८. १. ६ ) इति केवलक्कर्मजन्यत्वात्, च । ज्ञानकर्मजन्यत्वे कोऽपि न विशेष: । अश- नायाद्यतीतात्मज्ञानस्य सर्वकर्मविरोधितात्, च न समुच्यावकाशः। नि-

( Our answer is ) - No, on account of the absence of contra- dietion. We say ( in this connection ) it is not that when one reaches the Brahmaloka, he returns again at the very time. Further, the Sruti-passage -does not return-points out to non-return obtaining at the present time. We say that the idea ( that this means ) would not be returning, is opposed to the inference about its perishable nature, because it is artificial. The injunction about the worship being laudatory, no other means of proof contradicts this, and there is the Sruti-passage ' Just as the world secured by Karman perishes, in the same way, verily, hereafter the world secured by merit perishes.' ( Cha. VIII. 1.6) And on account of being produced by mere Karman only, there is no difference if ( it is regarded as ) produced by Jñäna and Karman. There is no scope for ( such a ) combi- nation on account of the Jnana of the Atman being beyond hunger etc. and on account of its being opposed to all Karman. And the attainment of Brahman free from all changes and states - all this would become unreasonable, on account of there being no means of proof, on account of

३८ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

रविकारावस्थव्रह्मप्राह्यादिकं च सर्वमनुपपत्नम् प्रमाणशून्यत्वात्, अद्वैतश्रुति- विरोधान्, उक्तदूषणगणग्रासात्, च- इत्यास्तां तावद। [ १४ ] सौगताधुक्तसाधनाभासानां च, अप्रामाणिकत्वेनैव न मोक्ष- साधनत्वसंभावनापि। तथाहि- स्वलक्षणभावना क्षणिकभावना दुःखभावना शून्यभावना च, इति भावनाचतुष्टयं मोक्षहेतुः, इत्यत्र न किश्चिदपि मानमस्ति 'तमेव विदित्वा, अतिमृत्युमेति ' (चा. सं. ३१.१८; श्वेता. ३.८, ६. १५) इत्यागमविरोधश्र, सौगतागमस्य च पौरुपेयस्य सूलप्रमाणशून्यत्वेनाप्रमाण-

the contradiction with the Sruti-passages advocating non- duality and on account of ita being steeped in the host of blemishes spoken of-let this stand over for the matter of that.

[ 14 ] In the case of the apparent means spoken of in the Buddhist and other ( systems ), there is not even the possibility of their being the means of salvation, on account of their very nature, not supported by means of proof. To explain the same - There is not the slighest proof ( about the contention ) here viz. the four Bhavanās - the Bhāvanā in respeet of the individual, the Bhavana about the moment- ariness, the Bhavana about pain, the Bhavana about the void - are the cause of salvation; and there is also the contradiction of the Scriptural passage such as Haring, verily, known that (Atman ), one goes beyond death' ( Vā. Sa. XXXI. 18; Śvetā. Ill. 8, VI. 15) and further on account of the Buddhistic Scriptures being composed by human agency, being unanthoritative as they

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

त्वात्, नामजात्यादियोजनासहितेषु स्थिरेषु सुखसाधनेषु सदात्मकेषु स- लक्षणादिभावनानां विभ्रममात्रत्वाद्, च । यथा चैतत्तथा वक्ष्यामः। अत एव, आर्हतशास्त्रस्य, अप्रमाणत्वात्, तदुक्तसाधनीनादेयत्वमेव। [ १५ ] एवं षद्पदार्थज्ञानस्य षोडशपदार्थज्ञानस्य वा हेतुत्वे न किश्चिन्मानमस्ति, अलौकिकफलसाधनताया आगमैकवेद्यत्वाद्। न च कणादादिमहर्षिवाक्यमेव मन्वादिवाक्यनत्, अत्र प्रमाणमिति वाच्यम्। युक्तिशास्त्रत्वेनागमविधया प्रामाण्याभावात्। अन्यथा प्रतिज्ञामात्रेणैव

are wanting in the basic means of proof; and on account of the Bhavanas about the indiridual ete. being just illusion as regarding the permanent means of happiness, constituting the sat-nature, associated with the purapharnelia of name, genus etc. How it is so, we shall describe ( later on ). For this very reason, the Arhata-Sastra ( Jaina-Sastra) being unauthritative, the means mentioned there are indeed not fit for acceptance. [ 15 ] Thus, there is not the slightest proof to regard the knowledge of the six categories or the knowledge of the sixteen types, as the cause ( of salvation ), on account of the nature of the means for ( securing ) the non-mundane fruit being fit to be known only from the Scriptures. Nor should it be said that the statements themselves of the great sages Kanada and others are the authority here like the statements of Manu and others, on account of there being no authoritative nature in them in accordance with the statement in the Scriptures, on the strength of logical reasoning. Otherwise, if an entity is established merely by an authoritative statement, nobody would be taking --- १ ... तदुक्तसाधनानामनादेवत्व ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

वस्तुसिद्धेः, उद्देशलक्षणपरीक्षादिप्रयासो न स्ात्। 'य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्त्यथेतरे दुःखमेवापियन्ति ' (कटो. ६. ९, १३.४. १७; श्वेता. ३.१० } मृत्योः स मृत्युमाम्ोति य इह नानेन पश्यति' (कठो. ४.१०; बृह. ४.४.१९; आ. प्र. १ ) इत्यादिश्ुतिवाधितत्वाच्च। कीदशं च पदार्थतच्चज्ञानं मोक्षहेतुः, सामान्या- कारेण वा, विशेषाकारेण दा? आद्ये, प्रमेयत्वादिरूपेण सर्वेषामस्त्येव तज्ज्ञानम्। द्वितीये तु, सर्वेषां पदार्थानां तेन रूपेण ज्ञानं ब्रह्मणोऽप्य- शकयमनन्तत्वात् । द्रव्यत्वादिना ज्ञानं कारणमिति चेत्, तर्हि तैद्विभाग- दचनादेव तल्लाभात्, प्ृथिवीत्वादिरूपेण तन्ुत्पादनं व्यर्थम्। यथा the trouble about enumeration, definition, examination etc. And further, this is opposed to the Sruti-passages such as ' Those who know this. they become immortal -- and others get sunk into pain alone.' ( Katho. VI. 9, XIII. 4. 17; Śvetā. III. 10) 'From death to death he goes, who perceives here as though manifold.' ( Katho. IV. 10; Brha. IV.4.19; A. Pra.1) Of what nature, again, is the real knowledge of entity as the cause of salvation - is it in its general form, or in a particular form? Apropos the first ( alternative ), there does exist that knowledge in the form of being the object of knowledge etc., in the case of all. Apropos the second ( alternative), the knowledge of all entities in their different forms is impossible even in the case of Brahma- deva, because they are infinite. If it be argued that the knowledge as characterised by the nature of the substance etc., is the cause, then that is secured by the statement of that division alone Its exposition in the form of the nature of earth etc., is useless. How there is the unauthoritative १ म कीटृशं तज्ज्ञानं ... : .1 तेन तेन रूपेन ३ न तर्हि विभागवचनात्

वैदान्तिकल्पलतिकां ४१

च, अप्रामाणिकत्वमनयोः पक्षयोस्तथा विशिष्य वक्ष्यामः। [ १६ ] ऐक्भविकपक्षनिराकरणं निराकर्तुस्तपामापादयति। केवलं निर्युक्तिकत्वात्, इत्युपेक्षते। [१७ ] एवं प्रकृतिपुरुषविवेकेऽपि विकल्पनीयम्। तत्रापि सामान्या कारज्ञानस्यातिसुलभत्वात्, विशेषाकारेण चाशक्यत्वात्, तुल्यैवानुंपपत्तिः। आत्ममात्रज्ञानं कारणम्, इति चेत्, तत्र तार्किकादिपक्षे 'जानामि' इति, आत्मज्ञानं वर्तत एव सार्वजनीनम्। न चास्य परोक्षत्वं भ्रान्तित्वं वा शक्यं वक्तुम्। एतस्य, अपरोक्षप्रमात्वेऽपि मिथ्याज्ञानवासनावशीकृतत्वात्, न nature of these two, we shall explain in a special ( detailed) manner (later on ). [ 16 ] The refutation of the doctrine of those who believe only in one life, only brings on a sense of shame for one who refutes! It is ignored, being just completely void of reasoning ! [ 17 ] Thus also would be the process of thought ( or the alternatives ) in respect of the discrimination bet- ween Purusa and Prakrti. Therein also, knowledge in a general form is extremely easy to have, but on account of the impossibility of ( having it ) in a particularised form, there is the same kind of impropriety ( as in the other systems criticised above ). If it be argued that the compre- hension of only the Atman would be the cause ( the reply is )-There, according to the view of the Logicians, does exist the knowledge of the Atman, viz. 'I know', which is a public experience. It is not possible to speak of ( or dub ) it as being non-perception or illusion. ( If it is arged ) even though it be regarded as Direct right comprehension, there can not be the power to remove the false knowledge, owing to its being under the control of the Vāsana and ६

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

मिथ्याज्ञाननिवर्तकता, किन्तु पदार्थतत्त्वविवेकोत्तरकालीनश्रवणादिपरिपांक- जनितज्ञानान्तरस्यैव सवासनमिथ्याज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वम्, इति चेत्- न । आत्मापरोक्षप्रमात्वेन वासनानिवर्तकत्वाभावः, तत्रापि समान:, तन्निष्ठ- वैजात्ये न च किश्चिन्मानं पश्यामः। [१८ ] प्राभाकराणां तु आ्रन्तित्वानभ्युपगमात्, तत्चज्ञानस्य कोपयोगः १ 'क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि ' (मुण्ड. २. २. ८ ) इति श्रुतेः कर्मक्षय एव ज्ञानेन क्रियते, इति चेत्, न तर्हि, आत्मतत्व- ज्ञानस्य सर्वदा विद्यमानत्वात्, कुतो न कर्मक्षयः! त्वया तु गुणगतजाते-

false knowledge ; but it is another knowledge, produced as a mature result of hearing etc., at a period subsequent to the discrimination about the real nature of the entity, which alone is the remover of the false knowledge along with the Vāsanā - (our reply is ) - No. There too is common the absence of being the remover of Vasana on the part of the direct knowledge of Atman; we cannot see even any slight proof ( to postulate ) about any different state of things associated with it. [ 18 ] As for the followers of Prabhakara, where can be the use of the knowledge of Reality ( to them ) on account of their not admitting any illusory nature! If it be said that the destruction of Karman itself is etfected by know- ledge on the strength of the Sruti-passage - His Karmans perish ( Munda. Il. 2. 8) -( our reply is ) - No; then why is there no destruction of the Karmans as the real knowledge of the Atman exists there always ! There is an additional ( point against you )

१ A निवर्तकता, इनि

वेदान्तकल लतिका

रनङ्गीकाराद्वैजात्यं शङ्कितुमपि न शक्यते, इति अधिकम्। अपचर्यादे शमद्माद्युपबृंहितं, अपुनरावृत्तिफलकं विहितं ज्ञानं तभिवर्तकर, इति चेत्, न, ज्ञानस्य कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथाकर्तुमशक्यत्वेन विधेयत्वानुपपत्तेः। कीदशं च ज्ञानं विधीयते, ज्ञानादिविशिष्टात्मविषयं वा, केत्रलात्मविषयं वा! आद्ये, सांसारिकज्ञानात्, न कोऽपि विशेष: । द्वितीये तु, मोक्षसाधनतत्वज्ञान- विपेयस्वरूपमेव्रात्मनो वास्तवम्, शास्त्रीयत्वात्, ज्ञानमत्त्चादित्यायातं ब्र्म- वादिमतम्। अशनायाद्यतीतात्मज्ञानस्याभ्रान्तित्वेन मोक्षे हेतुत्वायोगाद्। in that it is not possible even to suspect any ditferent posi- tion as you do not admit any generality associated with the qualities. If it be said that the ordained knowledge streng- thened by the accessories control, restraint etc., leading a celibate life etc., having for its ultimate fruit, no return again, is the removing factor, ( our reply is ) - No; as it is impossible for knowledge to do, not to do, or to do other- wise, its being the subject of injunction would be impossible. ( We ask you )- What kind of knowledge is to be enjoined -it is concerned with Atman particularised by knowledge etc., or is it concerned with mere Atman? Apropos the first ( alternative ) there is here not the slightest distinc- tion from the knowledge associated with the Samsara. Apropos the second ( alternative ), again, that nature itself of Atman which is the province of the knowledge of Reality -the means of salrution -is real, as it is based upon the Śāstras and is constituted of knowledge, - so comes in here the view of the Brahmavadins; because the knowledge of Atman, beyond hunger etc., is not linked with being the cause of salvation as it is not of an illusory nature. We shall

A omits न (only-श्ञानस्य कर्तुमकर्तु ... ) A ... विषयं स्वरूपनेव ... .1 विषयश्वरूपनेव वास्तवम् ३ 4 ज्ञानात्मत्वादिस्यायानन् कास्त्रीयं तत् ज्ञानादिम्त्त्वं तथत्यायानन् ४ A नोक्षहेतुत्वयोगात् A मोक्षहेतुत्वायोगात्

88 वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

प्रत्यक्षादीनां चान्यथोपपतति वक्ष्यामः।उदाहृतश्रुतेश्च कर्मकारणीभूतमिथ्या- ज्ञानस्य तत्वज्ञाननिव्त्यत्वात्, तद्वारा कर्मक्षयप्रतिपादने तात्पर्यम्, न तु साक्षाद्, विरोधाभावाद्, इर्त्यंबधेयम्। [१९]सांख्यादिमतेऽपि, आत्मनो नित्यानुमेयत्वाद्, तत्साक्षात्कारो न संभवत्येव। परोक्षज्ञानं तु, अदापि, अस्ति, इति न तत्साधनम्। परोक्ष- सभावस्याप्यात्मनो योगजधर्मप्रभावात्साक्षात्कार:, इति, अपि न, योगज- ध्वर्मस्यापि पदार्थसामर्थ्यानुसारेणैवातिशयहेतुत्वात्। तदाहुः भट्टाचार्या :- 'यत्राप्यतिशयो दृष्टः स स्वार्थानतिलङ्गनात्।

describe later on the propriety of Direct perception ete., in a different way. As for the Sruti-passage quoted here, its purport is the propounding of the destruction of Karman -because the wrong knowledge which is the cause of Karman is fit be removed by Right knowledge,- hy means of that ( tattvajňana ) and not directly, there being no con- tradiction in this war -this has to be borne in mind. [ 19 ] Even according to the view of the Sankhya and others, as the Atman is always to be inferred, his realisation is absolutely impossible. Indirect knowledge ( of the Atman) cunnot be its means as it continues to exist even today. ( The argument that ) there is the realisation of the Atman, with his nature although berond the sense-organs, on account of the efficacy of the power due to Yogic practices, cannot stand either; becnuse even the power produced by Yoga is (just) the cause of ( producing ) an excess in con- formity with the origiral capacity of the object concerned. The renerable Bhattacarra says in that connection - ' Where again is seen an excess of power, that ( is there ) without transgressing the limits of its own province ;

१ 4 इलेवावधयन् A योगजधर्मस्य पदार्थ ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ४५

दूरसूक्ष्मादिदृष्टौ स्यान् रूपे श्रोत्रवृत्तिता ।।' (मी. श्लो. वा. चो. सू. का. ११४) इति। हेयोपादेयशून्यत्वाच्च तस्प वैयर्थ्यमवोचाम। आस्तां तावदितः परं कृतधियामद्वैतनिष्ठावतां तत्तद्वादिबिभीषिकानिरसनैः किं कर्णकोलाहलैः। यत्तु प्रस्तुतमद्वितीयपरमानन्दैकज्ञानात्मकं वस्तु प्रत्यगभिन्नमेतदधुना निर्णीयते न्यायतः ॥ [ २० ] ननु, औपनिषद्पक्षे, अपि, अनुपपत्तिः समाना। तथाहि

the activity of the ear may extend to the comprehension in respect of ( hearing ) what is at a distance and subtle, but not in respect of its visual form.' ( Mī. Ślo. Vā. Co. Sū. Kā. 114)

We have already spoken of the useless nature of this view, on account of this being void of what is fit to be abandoned and what is fit to be taken. Let this discussion stand over: What is the use of the refutations of the ( so-called ) threatening ( arguments ) of the various disputants and their howlings jarring upon the ear, in the case of those who have fixed their thoughts and are wedded to non-duality ? - After this, now would be convincingly proved by right reasoning, what again is this matter in hand - the Entity constituted of the one knowledge, without a second, the highest bliss, not different from the inmost ( Atman ). [ 20 ] ( I say, says the objector ) - The impropriety is the same even in the view of the followers of the Upanisads. To explain the same-As desire cannot rise in respect of something unknown, the desire must be spoken of there in

४६ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

अज्ञाते कामनानुदयात्, ज्ञाने तत्र कामना वाच्या। तथा च, कथमहेया- नुपादेये नित्यसिद्ध आत्मनि सा भवतु! सिद्धे, इच्छाविरहात् संसारा- वस्थायामपि मोक्षापत्तेश्र । तदुक्तम्- 'किं च मानादविज्ञाता विमुक्तिः काम्यते न चें। ज्ञातायां त्वात्मनित्यत्वान्नितरां नास्ति कामना ॥' (वृह. वा. का. २८९) इति। न च संसारावस्थायाम्, अविद्यावृतत्वाद्विद्यमानोऽप्यद्वयानन्दो न भासते, विद्यया त्वविद्यायां निवृत्तायां स्वप्रकाशत्वादानन्दरूपेण खयमेव प्रेथते, इति, अविद्यानिवृत्तिविशिष्टत्वेन कौम्यते, इति वाच्यम्, अविद्या-

respect of what is known. And so, how can it arise in respect of the Atman alwars existent, which has nothing to be abandoned and nothing to be taken? If the Atman is ( already ) established, there cannot be any desire ( for the same ) and there would be the undesirable result of salva- tion even in the Samsara-state. As has been said ---

' And further, salvation not known by any means of proof-is it longed for or not: If it is known, as the Atman is eternal, there cannot be any desire for the same whatsoever.' ( Brha. Vā. Kā. 289) Nor again should it be argued by you - In the Samsara- state, because it is screened by Aridyā, the bliss due to the realisation of non-duality although existing, does not appear on the scene; but when the Avidya is removed by Vidya, it by itself spreads on in the form of bliss owing to its self- illumining nature,-thus arises the desire characterised by the removal of Avidya -because the removal of Avidya is difficult to point out. ( We ask you ) - Is that Avidyā ... १ A काम्यने न वा प्रकारन ३ A कामनेति वाच्यन्

वेदान्तकल्पलतिकां

निवृत्तेर्दुर्निरूपच्वात्। सा, अविद्या, आत्ममिन्ना तत्खरूपा वा? आद्ये, द्वैतापत्तिः, अद्वैतश्रुतिव्याकोपश्च; द्वितीये पूर्वोक्तदोप:, इति। [ २१ ] अत्रोच्यते-न सिद्धत्वमात्रेण, आत्मनि, इच्छाविरहः। सिद्धत्वं किं सत्चं वा, ज्ञायमानत्वं वा, अप्रतिरुद्धसाक्षात्कारविषयत्वं वा? नाद्:, विस्मृतग्रैवेयकप्राप्ती रज्जुभुजङ्गमनिवृत्तौ च व्यभिचारात्। अत एव न द्वितीयोऽपि, तसेच्छाप्रद्योतकत्वात्। तृतीयस्तु भवति, इच्छापरिपन्थी। स तु प्रकृते नास्ति, असंभावनादिप्रतिबन्धात् । अत एव पित्तदूपितरसनस्य सिरतामश्नतो मधुरत्वेन तां जानतोऽपि न माधुर्यनिमित्तवप्तिविशेषोत्पत्तिः,

different from Atman, or his own nature? Apropos the first ( alternative ), there would arise the undesirable admis- sion of duality, and also the wrath of the Sruti advocating his being one without a second; apropos the second ( alter- native ) there would be the fault pointed out before. [ 21 | In this connection, we reply ( as follows) - There is not the absence of longing in respect of the Atman, merely on the ground of his being established. Is being established, existence or being known or being the object of unobstructed realisation ? Not the first ( alternative can stand ). Because it is vitiated in respect of the finding of the necklace that is forgotten and in respect of the disap- pearance of the snake on the rope. For the same reason, the second ( alternative ) also ( cannot stand ), because it points out to the desire. The third ( alternative), however, can stand in the way of desire. But that exists not in the present case, on account of the obstacles, wrong conception etc. For this very reason, in the case of a person whose tongue is spoiled by the bile, in eating sugar although knowing it to be possesed of sweetness, there is no rise of

A अद्वितीयश्रुति A नासिद्धत्व 3 A प्रयोजकत्वात् शुद्धसिताश्रतो ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

पित्तदोषेण माधुर्यसाक्षात्काराभावात्। तथा च द्विविधमिष्टम्-वस्तुतोऽप्राप्तं ग्रामादि, प्राप्तमपि भ्रमव्यवहितं कण्ठचामीकरादि । एवं परिहार्यमपि द्विविधम्-वस्तुतोऽपेरिहतं गर्तादि, सर्वदा परिहतं रज्जुसुजङ्गादि भ्रम- मात्रादपरिहृतमिव । तत्राद्ययो: क्र्कियाव्यवधानौ प्राप्तिपरिहारौ । द्वितीय- योस्तु साक्षात्कारमात्रसाध्यौ। अत्रैव परमपुमर्थत्वं मन्यते क्रियाव्यवधाना- भावात् । तथा च परमानन्दआध्यविद्यानिवृत्योरपि भ्रमव्यवहितत्वात्, असिद्धत्वप्रत्ययेन कामनाविषयत्वं, उपपद्यते, एव। तदुक्तं वार्तिके- 'न युक्तं कामना मुक्तौ पुंसां नास्तीति भाषितुम्।

the special contentment due to the sweetness, on account of the absence of the realisation of sweetness, due to the blemish of the bile. Thus there are two things desirable- (1) the village etc., which is not really reached, (2) the golden necklace etc., although already secured, screened by illusion. Similarly things fit to be discarded are also two- fold -(1) ditch etc., which cannot actually be discarded, (2) the serpent on the rope etc., always given up, are as good as not discarded on account of there being only illusion. There, in the case of the first two, the impediments for the action are ( respectively ) the attainment ( already ) and the discarding. In the case of the second two, they are to be attained by realisation ( realistic attitude ) alone. Here, verily, one understands the highest human purpose owing to action not being the intervening ( or screening ) factor. Similarly, even in the case of the attainment of the Highest bliss and the removal of Avidya, there does exist rightly the nature of being the object of longing, owing to the con. clusion that they stand as unestablished, as they are screen- ed by illusion. As has been said in the Vartila - ' It is not right to say that longing does not exist in -. १ A वरतुतोऽपरीनं ...

वेदान्तकक्पलतिका ४९

देशकालानवछिन्नसुखाद्यर्थित्वदर्शनाद्।।' (बृह. सं. वा. २९०) इति। आत्मत्वेन सिद्धत्वेऽपि निरतिशयसुखत्वेन, असिद्धत्वाद्, तेन रूपेण कामनोपपद्यते, इत्यर्थः । अन्यच्च- 'ग्रामादि किञ्विदप्राप्तं प्राप्तुमिष्टमिहेच्छति। हेमादिविस्मृतं किश्चित्करस्थमपि लिप्सते ॥ परिहायं तथानिष्टं कण्टकादि जिहासति। रज्वां सर्पादि किश्चिच्च त्यक्तमेत्र जिहासति ॥ नियतोपायसाध्यत्वादवाप्यपरिहार्ययोः । विधितः प्रतिषेधाच्च सोधनापेक्षिता भवेत् ॥

men on being Released; because there is seen the longing for happiness etc., not circumscribed by space and time.' ( Brha. Sam. Vā. 290) The sense is - Even though the state of being the Atman is established, the state of having unlimited happiness, not being established, the desire ( or, longing ) rightly persists in that form. And further, 'One desires to reach the desired (goal) here, what little -the village etc.,-has not been secured; one also longs for something, gold etc., forgotten, although ( actually ) held in the hand; similarly, one wishes to abandon the undesira- ble thorn etc., that are fit to be abandoned; one wishes to abandon, though already abandoned, something, the snake etc., on the rope. In the case of objects fit to be secured or fit to be abandoned, because they can be had by definite means, there would be the expectancy for the means, through a positive injunction and the prohibitory statement; but in

१ A निरतिशयसुखत्वादिना २ A साध्यना

५० वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

अज्ञानान्तरितत्वेन संप्राप्तत्यक्तयोः पुनः । याथात्म्यज्ञानतो नान्यत्पुरुषार्थाय कल्पते ॥' (बृह. सं. वा.८८५-८८८) [ २२ ]यत्तु, अविद्यानिवृत्तेर्दुर्निरूपत्वप्ुक्तम्, तत्, न, पश्चमप्रकार- त्वाभ्युपगमात्। यथा हि सत्मसत्वं सदसत्वं वा, अविद्यातत्कार्ययोर्न संभवति, इति चतुर्थी कोटिरनिर्वचनीयत्वमेवाश्रिता, तथा, अनिर्वचनीयस्य, अविद्यातादात्म्यनियमान्निवृत्तितत्प्रतियोगिनोश्च तादात्म्यायोगादनिर्वच- नीयविलक्षणत्वमपि, अविद्यानिवृत्ते: सिध्यति, अन्यथानुपपत्तेः सर्वतो बलवच्ात्। अद्वैतश्रुतेश्र सदद्वैतनात्रविषयत्वात्, न विरोधः । एवं सेति,

the case of things, secured or abandoned, characterised by the intervention of Ajnana, nothing else than the knowledge of things as they are, can be conducive to the human pur- pose.' ( Brha. Sam. Vā. 885-888 ) [ 22 ] As to what has been stated (by you ) - the removal of Avidyā is difficult to point out, ( our reply is ) - That ( is ) not ( so ), on account of our admitting a fifth mod.o Just as the fourth mode, the 'indescribable nature ' itself, was admitted, as (1) existence, (2) non-existence, or (3) exist- ence and non-existence, are not possible in the case of Avidyā and its effects ; so, as the Anirvacaniya is invariably identi- cal with Avidya, and because its removal and counter-entity cannot have identity with it, even something different from Anirvacaniya is established, in the case of the removal of Avidya; everywhere ( the argument ) the impossibility otherwise' being the strongest. Again, as the Sruti advo- cating non-duality, is concerned merely with ' Sat-Advaita', there is no conflict with it. Such being the position, the passages ( describing the Atman )as ' not gross' etc., would

१ A तथा हि २ A एवं च सति

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ५१

अस्थूलादिवाक्यमप्यनुगृहीतं भवति, स्थूलत्वाद्यभावानामात्मनि प्रमेयत्वात्, अद्वितीयशब्देनापि द्वितीयाभावबोधनाच। अन्यथा केवलात्मबोधने सजा- तीयविजातीयभेदाभावाप्रतीतौ किमद्वैतश्रुत्या विरुध्यते? तस्मात्, अभावा- भ्युपगम:, अद्वितीयसाधक एव, इति न काप्यनुपपत्तिः, इति इष्टसिद्धि- कारादयः । वस्तुतस्तु, अभावस्य चैतन्यात्मकत्वात्, स्वप्रकाशचैतन्यसंबन्धेन, एव भानमभ्युपेयम्, कूटस्थासङ्गस्वभावस्यँ वास्तवसंबन्धायोगात्, काल्पनिक- त्वेऽवश्यं वाच्ये, सर्वस्या अपि कल्पनाथा अविद्यामूलत्वाद, अभावकल्पना,

also be rightly given their due, as the negations of being gross etc., can be cognised in the Atman, and the cognition of the absence of a second, by the expression ' without a second' also. Otherwise, if there is the knowledge only of the Atman, in the absence of comprehension of the absence of homogenous and heterogenous distinctions, what is being opposed by the Sruti advocating non-duality ? Therefore, the admission of ' negation' ( as a means of proof), verily, establishes the nature of being without a second - thus there is no impropriety whatsoever ( in concluding thus ) - so hold the author of Istasiddhi and others.

In reality, however, as negation is constituted of sen- tiency, its apprehension ought to be taken as being con- nected with the self-illumining sentiency itself; if its ima- ginary nature has to be necessarily spoken of owing to the impossibility of connection with reality of something abso- lutely unchanging and of contactless nature, then as the whole fancy is based upon Avidya, the fancy about negation is also based upon Avidya - and so, there exists not the

A केवलात्ममात्रबोधने २ A अद्वितीयत्वसाधक ... ३ A कूटस्थासङ्गस्वभावस्य च

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

अपि, अविद्यामूला, इति न, अनिर्वचनीयवैलक्ष्यण्यम्। तदुक्तं वार्तिककृद्भि :- 'नान्यदज्ञानतोऽस्तित्वं द्वितीयस्यात्मनो यथा । निवृत्तिस्तु तदेवास्य नावगत्यात्मनोऽपरा ॥' (बृह. वा. ३. ८. १२२)

इति। अस्थूलादिवाक्यानां च स्थूलादिविलक्षणात्मखरूपमात्रबोधकत्वम्, न तदभावबोधकत्वम्, कल्पितपदार्थभावाभावयोरधिष्ठानस्वरूपमात्रत्वात्। यथा, अज्ञातं शुक्तिद्रव्यमेव रजतभावात्मकम्, तदेव ज्ञातं रजताभावात्मकम्, तदसाधारणसरूपस्यैव रजताभावत्वाद्। एवं, अत्र, अपि, अज्ञांत आत्मा सर्वद्वैतभावात्मक, ज्ञातश्च तदभावात्मक:, तदसाधारणस्वरूपस्यैव द्वैता-

unique indescribable nature about it, So has been spoken of by the author of the Vārtika-

' There is no other existence apart from Ajnana like that of a second other than Atman. Its removal is, verily, that ( comprehension ) itself; and no other (removal) by the comprehension of Atman is there.' (Brha. Va. III. 8. 122 )

As for the passages (describing the qualities ) ' not gross etc., - they only convey the nature of the Atman as being quite different from the 'gross' etc. ; they do not convey the negation of them; because the presence and the absence of fancied entities have only the nature of their basis ( adhis- thana ). As the conch-shell substance itself, when unknown is constituted of the nature of silver; that same when com- prehended is constituted of the negation of silver, on account of its unique nature itself being constituted of the negation of silver. - Thus here also the Atman, unknown, is consti- tuted of the nature of all duality; but when known he is constituted of its negation, on account of the nature of

१ निवृत्तिस्तावदेवास्य २ A रजताभावात्मकत्वात्

बेदान्तकल्पलतिका ५३

भावरूपत्वात् । तदुक्तम्- 'स्थूलापह्ुतिरत्र स्याद् वस्तु यत्पारमार्थिकम्। नाभावनिष्ठोऽन्यत्रापि निषेधः किमुताक्षरे ॥' (बृह. वा. ३. ८. ७४) 'अक्षरं येन रूपेण स्थूलं वस्तु निषेधति। तेनैवात्रापि निःशेषं तस्य सर्वविरोधतः ॥ अन्येनान्येन रूपेण विरुद्धान् हन्ति पावकः । विरोधिना यथा तद्वन्नैह स्थूलाद्यप्रक्रिया ॥ मानित्वादिनिषेध: स्याद्यथैवाक्रियरूपतः । प्रत्यक्कूटस्थरूपेण तथा सर्वनिषेधकृत्।। कूटस्थबोधपूर्णत्वं प्रत्यक्षं वस्तुतः खतः ।

the negation of duality of that unusual form itself. So has been said- ' Here there is the concealment of the gross, inasmuch as the entity concerns reality. There can be no denial based upon negation even elsewhere; what then in the case of the Immutable ?' ( Brha. Vã. III. 8. 74 ) ' By which form the Immutable denies the gross entity, by that itself, here too there is a complete ( denial ), on account of its being opposed to everything. As the fire destroys the opposites with various different opposite forms, like that there is not here the driving out of the gross etc. As there might be the denial of being associated with the means of proof ( manitva ) etc, with the form of the actionless, so ( here also ), on account of the inmost abso- lutely unchanging form it is the denier of eyerything. There the direct realisation, the fullest comprehension

9 A ... रुद्धो हन्ति न ... २ A सर्वनिषेधतः

48 वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

एतदस्य विरोधित्वं कार्यकारणवस्तुभि: ॥

(बृह. वा. ३.८. १०१-१०४) इति। भूतलादिस्वरूपस्यैवाभावव्यवहारहेतुत्वं प्राभाकरैः, अङ्गीक्रियते। तार्किकैरपि घटाभावो घटो न सवति, इत्यादौ, अभावप्रतियोगिकाभावा- न्तरानभ्युपगमात् तत्सरुपस्यैवाभावबुद्धिहेतुत्वमङ्गीक्वतम्, तत्तु, अस्माकं किं न स्यात्१ एतदेवाभिप्रेत्योक्तम्- 'नाभावनिष्ठोऽन्यत्रापि निषेधः' (बृह. वा. ३.८. ७४) इति। तस्मादखण्डानन्दाद्वितीयचैतन्यसन्मात्र आत्मा ज्ञातः सन्, अविद्या- निवृत्तिः, इत्युच्यते। अत्रैव चे सर्वपुमर्थविश्रान्तिः,

of the unchanging, is, in reality, from itself. -This is why it has opposition to objects governed by the relation of cause and effect.' ( Brha. Vā. III. 8. 101-104) The followers of Prabhakara admit the real nature itself o the ground-region etc., as the cause of dealing with negation. As the Logicians also not admitting another negation, the counter-number of negation in the case of the ( cognition of ) absence of a jar - 'The jar exists not ' etc., admit the nature itself of that as the cause of the idea of negation, - then why should it not be for ( applicable to ) us also ? Concerning this itself, it has been said- ' There can be no denial based upon negation even elsewhere. ' ( Brha. Vā. III. 8. 74 ) Therefore, the Atman being known as continuous Bliss, without a second, sentiency and merely Sat, is spoken of as the removal of Avidya. Here itself is the culmination of all human purposes, as from the Smrti passage-

तद्वदसार्क drops

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

'कृतं कृत्यं, प्राप्तं प्रापणीयम, आत्मलाभान्न परं विद्यते।' इति स्मृतेः। ननु, ज्ञात आत्मा, इत्यत्र ज्ञानस्य विशेषणत्वे ज्ञानविशिष्टस्थैव मोक्ष- त्वात्, विशेषणनाशे, तदभावप्रसङ्ग:, तेनोपलक्षणत्वमेव तस्य वक्तव्यम्। तथा च ततः प्राक्कालेऽपि मोक्षव्यवहारापत्तिः, इति। मैवम्, 'काकवन्तो देवदत्तस्य गृहा:' इत्यादावपि काकसंबन्धात्प्रागपि देवदत्तस्य गृहत्वादि- व्यवहारापत्तेः, तुल्यत्वात्। उपलक्षणस्यापि खोत्तरकाल एव व्यावर्तकत्वम्, इति चेत्, इहापि तुल्यम्। न हि दृष्टे, अनुपपन्नं नाम। अविद्यायाश्च,

What is fit to be done, has been done; what is fit to be reachad, has been reached; there exists nothing beyond the attainment of Atman.' I say ( says the objector ) - Here in (the expression ) ' Comprehended is the Atman', Jnana being the qualifier, something qualified by Jnana itself would be salvation, - so, with the destruction of the qualifying attribute there would follow the undesirable result viz., the negation of that (Atman ), therefore that should be regarded as just its characteristic. Further still, even prior to that time, there would be the absurd position of practical association with salvation. -(Our reply is ) - ( Do) not ( say ) so. Even (in expressions ) like ' Devadatta's houses are associated with crows ( sitting upon them )' etc., even prior to the associa- tion of the crows, the undesirable contingency about the practical use of the houses etc., is the same. If it is argued that the characteristic feature also has the power of turning away something only in the time after its own ( establish- ment ), then ( our answer is ) - here also the state of things is similar. Surely there cannot be indeed ( any discussion about ) the impropriety ( impossibility ) in respect of what is ( actually ) perceived. Now Avidyā being beginningless, even though (there is ) the removal of the jar in the form of

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

अनादित्वात् प्रागभावनिवृत्तिरूपघटनिवृत्तावपिं प्रागभावानुत्पत्तिवत्, न तत्त्वज्ञाननिवृत्तावपि पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्ग: । [ २३ ] कीदृशं पुनर्ज्ञानमज्ञाननिवर्तकमभ्युपेयते१ न केवलचैतन्यम्, तस्य सर्वदा सच्वेन, अविद्याया नित्यनिवृत्तिप्रसङ्गात्। ततश्र तन्मूलकसंसारो- पलब्ध्यनुपपत्तेः- सर्वशास्त्रानारम्भग्रसङ्ग:, अनुभवविरोधश्च। नापि वृत्तिरूपम्, तस्य सत्यत्वे तत्कारणान्त:करणाविद्यादेरपि सत्यत्वस्यावश्यकत्वात्, न तेन तन्निवृत्तिः सर्ववेदान्तार्थविष्ठवापत्तिश्र । मिथ्यात्वे कथमज्ञाननिवर्तकता? न हि मिथ्याज्ञानम्, अज्ञाननिवर्तकं दृष्टम्, खप्ज्ञानस्यापि तत्प्रसङ्गात्।

the removal of the antecedent negation, there is the non- producticn of the antecedent negation,-like that even when the exclusion ( of Avidya ) by the knowledge of Reality is effected, there is not the undesirable contingency of its advent again. [ 23 ] What kind of knowledge, again, is admitted as the remover of Ajñana ? ( It ) cannot be merely sentiency, because it being always in existence, Avidya would be always removed - an undesirable contingency. And as a consequence, there is the impossibility of the existence of Samsāra as based upon that, the unwelcome position of there being no scope for activity on the part of all Sastras and further, the contradiction with the experience. Neither can it be of the nature of functioning, - if that is real, the Avidya in the antahkarana would also necessarily be real on account of that cause ; it cannot be removed by that, and further there would be the unwelcome position of the viola- tion of the implications of all the Vedanta. If that is false, how is there the capacity to remove Ajnana ? Not indeed is ( any ) false knowledge seen to be the remover of Ajñāna; otherwise, even in the case of knowledge in dreams, that १ A ... घटनिवृत्तावपि पुनः प्रागभाव ...

वैदान्तकल्पतिका

सत्यस्यैव हि' रज्वादिज्ञानस्य भुजङ्गादिभ्रमोपादानाज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वमुप- लब्धम्। किं च, तत्, सप्रकारं निष्प्रेकारं वा? आद्ये, निष्प्रकारे ब्रह्मणि सम्रकारज्ञानस्यायथार्थत्वान्नाज्ञाननिवर्तकता, तस्य यथार्थत्वे वा, नाद्वैत- सिद्धिः। न द्वितीयः, कुत्रापि निष्प्रकारर्केज्ञानस्य, अज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वादर्शनात्, समानाश्रय-समानप्रकार-समानविषयज्ञानस्यैव तथात्वदर्शनात्। अन्यथा, 'प्रमेयं द्रव्यम्', इति ज्ञानादपि घटाद्याकाराज्ञाननिवृत्तिप्रसङ्गः। समान- विषयत्वस्य घटत्वप्रकारकाज्ञानादिना तुल्यत्वात्।

would take place - an undesirable result! Only the real knowledge of rope etc., is found as being the remover of Ajmana, which is the producing cause of the illusion about the serpent etc. And again, is that ( Jñana ) possessed of some mode, or without any mode whatsoever ? Apropos the first ( alternative ), the Jnana having a mode being unreal in respect of Brahman without any mode, there can be no capacity to remove the Ajñana; even if it is possessed of a real nature, there can be. no establishment of Advaita. Neither is the second ( alternative possible ) - Nowhere indeed is seen the modeless Jñāna to be the remover of Ajana, because that kind of nature ( of removing ) is seen in the case of ( that ) Jnana alone, having the same resort, the same mode and the same object. Otherwise, even from the knowledge viz., 'a substance is the object of knowledge', there would be the unwelcome position about the removal of Ajñana about the form of the jar etc .; because it is on a par with the Ajñana etc., having the mode of the nature of the jar on account of having the same object.

A omits हि २ A किं च तत्सप्रकारकं निष्प्रकारकं वा? नाथ: आधे ३ A सप्रकारकज्ञानस्य ... ४ निष्प्रकारश्ञानस्य ५ A प्रकार, विषय transposed

वेदान्तककष्पलतिका

किं च, तत्परोक्षं, अपरोक्षं वा १ आद्ये, न तस्यापरोक्षाध्यासोपादानां- ज्ञाननिवर्तकता, श्वैत्या.मानादिनापि शङ्कपीतत्वभ्रमनिवृत्तिप्रसङ्गाद्, अप- रोक्षाध्यासस्य, अपरोक्षप्रमानिवर्त्यत्वात्। न द्वितीयः, शब्दस्य, अपरोक्ष- ज्ञानजनकत्वादर्शनात्, ज्ञानकरणत्वावच्छेदेन परोक्षज्ञानजनकत्वनियमाद्। 'दशमस्त्वमसि', इत्यादावपि शब्देन परोक्षे ज्ञाने जनिते, पश्चान्मानसा- परोक्षज्ञानं,-अन्यथा कारणसभावभङ्गप्रसङ्ग:। न च, अत्रापि तथास्तु, इति वाच्यम्, औपनिषदसमाख्याविरोधात्,

And further, is that ( Jñana) indirect or direct ? Apropos the first ( alternative ), it cannot have the capacity of being the remover of Ajnana which is the producing cause of super-imposition on the direct (perception); other- wise, even by the inference etc., about whiteness, there would be the undesirable contingency viz, the removal of illusion about the yellow colour of the conch, because the direct superimposition is fit to be removed by the direct know- ledge. Not the second ( alternative either), because the Word is not seen to be producing direct knowledge, because it is a rule that the Word is the producing cause of the in- direct knowledge, as characterised by being the means of knowledge. Even in cases like ' You are the tenth', when ( at first ) the indirect knowledge is produced by the word, then afterwards is ( produced ) the direct knowledge in the mind. - Otherwise, there would be the undesirable con- tingency, viz. the loss of its nature as the cause ( of know- ledge ). Neither can it be said that the same might take place even in the present case, because it would go counter to the explanations in the Upanisads; because there is a denial of any instrument of knowledge over and above the Vedānta in the Sruti-passages like -

१ A परोक्षज्ञाने २ A परोक्षश्ञानं जन्यते

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका 48

'नावेदविन्मनुते तं बृहन्तम्!' (इतिहा. २०; शाट्या. ४ ) इत्यादिश्रुत्या वेदान्तातिरिक्तकरणनिषेधाच, अमह्षवस्तुनि परोक्षज्ञानं जनयतः शब्दस्य प्रामाण्यायोगाच। यद्यपि

'सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तम् ' (तैत्ति. २.१) इत्यादिवाक्यजनितं स्वरूपतः परोक्षमपि ज्ञानं परोक्षत्वाग्राहकत्वात्, न भ्रमत्वमर्हति व्यधिकरणप्रकारत्वाभार्वात्, तथापि स्वसिद्धान्ते प्रमात्रमिन्न- त्वेन भासमानत्वमपरोक्षत्वम्; तत् चेतू, तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यजन्ये ज्ञाने नास्ति तर्हिं ब्रह्मणः प्रमात्रभेदानवभासादबोध कत्वलक्षणमप्रामाण्यं वाक्यस।

(Brahman ).' 'None, not knowing the Vedas, comprehends that Big (Itihā. XX; Sātyā. IV) and because the Word would lose its authoritative nature in producing an indirect knowledge in the case of an object directly visible. Even though the knowledge produced by passages- 'Truth, Knowledge, Infinite' (Taitti. II. 1) and others, although by nature irdirect, should not be regarded as illusory, because it cannot grasp the indirect state, owing to the absence of the mode of having a different resort; still what appears as not different from the Knower, has the nature of directness according to our own conclusive view; if however that (directness ) exists not in the know- ledge produced by the passages, That thou art, and others, then as Brahman would not appear as not different from the Knower, the scriptural passages would have an unauthorita- tive status, marked by the non-enlightening nature. Now ( if you say ), the cognizance of Brahman is accepted as not

१ A व्यधिकरणप्रकारकत्वाभावात् २ A तन्च तत्व ..

६० वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

अथ प्रमात्रभिन्नत्वेन ब्रह्मणो भानमङ्गीक्रियते, तदा तदेवापरोक्षत्व्रम्, इति न तत्तमस्यादिवाक्यस्य परोक्षज्ञानजनकत्वम्, इति सिद्धम्। तस्मात् कारणान्तरस्य, अद्वितीये ब्रह्मण्यसंभवात्, शब्दस्य च परोक्षज्ञानजनकत्व- नियमात्, न अपरोक्षज्ञानसिद्धिः। तदभावाच्च न, अपरोक्षभ्रमकारणज्ञान- निवृत्तिः, इति अनिर्मोक्ष: । [ २४ ] किं वा तज्ज्ञाननिवत्य भावरूपम्, अनाद्यज्ञानम्, इति चेत्- अनोदिभावस्य, अविनाशित्वव्याप्तत्वात्, आत्मनि तथा दर्शनात्। अन्यथा, आत्मनोऽपि भावत्वेन घटादिवद्विनाशित्वप्रसङ्ग:। तस्मात्, अनादिभावत्वात्, न, अज्ञानस्य निवृत्तिप्रसङ्गः । न च, आत्मनि परमार्थसच्चं वा खप्रकाशत्वं different from the Knower, then ( we say ) that same is the direct nature; so, on that ground it is not established that the passages, That thou art, and others are the producing causes of indirect knowledge. Therefore, no other cause being possible in the case of Brahman without a second, and as the Word as a rule produces indirect knowledge, there is not the establishment of the direct knowledge. And in its absence, there would not be the removal of Ajuana - the cause of direct illusion, and so there would be the absence of salvation. [ 24 ] And further, if it be argued that the beginning- less Ajnana of a positive form is capable of being removed by that knowledge, ( our reply is ) as the beginningless state is co-extensive with the imperishable nature, so is it seen in the case of Atman. Otherwise, Atman also being an entity, there would be the undesirable contingency of his having the perishable nature of a jar and others. Therefore, there can- not be the contingency of the removal of Ajñana as it is possessed of a beginningless nature. Further, it should not

१ A कि तावत् ... २ अनादिभावस्य ... विनाशित्वप्रङग:। dropped in IO

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ६१

वा नित्यत्वप्रयोजकम्, न त्वनादिभावत्वम्, इति वाच्यम्, दृष्टान्ताभावेन प्रयोज्यप्रयोजकभावस्य, असिद्धत्वात्, आत्मातिरिक्ते परमार्थसच्वाद्यनङ्गी- कारात्। कि च मानविषयत्वे, मानस्य सवविषयानिवर्तकत्वात्, न मान- निवर्त्यत्वं संभवति; मानाविषयत्वे च खप्रकाशत्वानङ्गीकारात्, शशविषाणा- दितुल्यत्वेनार्थक्रियाशून्यत्वात्, न कारणत्वसंभवः, इति। किं वा तस्य निवर्तकम्१ न तावत्सवयमेव; न हि क्वापि ख्निवर्तकत्वैसुपलब्धम्, स्वस्य तथात्वे क्षणभङ्गापत्तेः । नापि ज्ञानान्तरम्, तदपि न खनिवर्तक्म्, इति be said ( by you ) that in the case of the Atman either his nature as the highest Reality or (his ) self-illumining nature is the cause of eternal existence and not his being possessed of a beginningless nature, ( our reply is ) - Owing to the absence of a similar illustration, the relation of product and the producing cause is not established, as we do not accept the existence of the highest Reality etc., in something other than the Atman. And further, in the case of the object of some mneans of proof, the position of being fit to be removed by some means of proof is not possible, because the means of proof cannot be the remover of its own object. If (Ajnana) is not the object of some means of proof, as its self-illumi- ning nature is not accepted, there is no possibility of its being the cause, as it would be incapable of doing anything for some purpose, being on a par with the horn of a hare etc. What, aguin, is its remover ? Not for the matter of that it itself; for, nowhere indeed is found the self-removing nature; otherwise, if it is so, there is bound to be the un- desirable contingency of momentariness. Nor again, some other knowledge, - that also cannot be removing itself and so there too, ( for the other knowledge ) another ( would be the remover ), there too, another - by such endless proce- i १ A कि च, तस्य अनाद्यशानस्य मानवि ... A कि च, अनाधन्वानस्य मानवि ... A कारणत्वादिसंभवः ३ A स्वस्य स्वयं निवर्तकत्वं ... ४ dropped in A

६२ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

तत्राष्यन्यत्, तत्राप्यन्यन्, इत्यनवस्थया न कदापि कैवल्यसिद्धि: स्यात्। को वा तस्याश्रयः१ न तावदात्मैव, तस्य निर्धर्मकत्वाभ्युपगमात्, जन्यधर्मा- श्रयत्वे कौटस्थ्यव्याघातेन, अनित्यत्वप्रसङ्गात्; नापि, अन्तःकरणम्, तदाश्रितज्ञानस्यात्माश्रिताज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वानुपपत्तेः, समानाश्रययोरेव हि ज्ञानाज्ञानयोर्विरोधो नेतरयो:, अन्यथातिप्रसङ्गात् । अज्ञानस्य च नान्त :- करणाश्रितत्वं संभवति, तस्य तत्कार्यत्वेन तदुत्पत्तेः प्रागपि सत्त्वात्, केवल- चैतन्यमात्राश्रयत्वाभ्युपगमाच्च। को वा तस्य विषयः१ प्रत्यगमिन्नम्, अद्वितीयपरमानेन्दज्ञानस्वरूपं ब्रह्म, इति चेत्, किमत्र मानम्! न तावन्मनः, dure there would never be the establishment of salvation. Which again is its resort ? Not, for the matter of that, the Atman himself; he is admitted to be not possessed of any Dharmas. If he is the resort of Dharmas that are to be produced, there would be the undesirable contingency of his being of an impermanent nature, owing to his immutability being jeopardised thereby. Nor again, the mind, on account of the impossibility of knowledge resorting to it, being the remover of Ajñana belonging to Atman, because there is contradiction between Jnana and Ajnana belonging only to the same resort, not between any two; otherwise, there would be an unwarranted extended application ( of the rule). Further, Ajuana cannot have the mind as its resort, because that ( Ajñäna ), its product, exists even prior to its being produced from it and because it is admitted that it has for its resort pure sentiency. What again is its object ( sphere of activity )? If ( you say that ) it is the Brahman, not different from the inmost, ( and ) its nature being - without a second, highest Bliss, knowledge, -( we ask you) - What is the proof here ? It cannot, for the matter of that, be the mind ; because it lacks the nature of being self-proven

A तदाश्रितशानस्वात्मान्नराज्ञान ... २ A अद्वितीयपरमानन्दं ज्ञानस्वरूपं ...

वेदान्तकल्पलविका ६३

तस्य प्रमाणान्तरसह का रत्वेनालोकादिवत्स्वतः प्रमाणत्वाभावात्, 'यन्मनसा न मनुते' (केनो. १.५) इत्यादिश्रुतिविरोधाच्च । तस्य मानसप्रत्यक्षत्वाभ्युपगमे च तार्किकमत- प्रवेशात्, अद्वैतवादहानिः, मनसा सुखादिविशिष्टस्यैव ग्रहात्। वेदान्त- श्रवण-मनन-निदिध्यासनसंस्कृतं मनस्तत्र मानम्, तेन नोक्तदोष:, इति चेत्, वर्हि, उपजीव्यत्वात्, वेदान्तवाक्यमेवें। मनस्तु केवलमपरोक्षत्वाधाय- कम्, इत्यवधेयम्। [ २५] तत्तु वादान्तरम्। प्रथमं वेदान्तवा चस्यैव तत्र मानत्व- स्ुपपाद्यताम्, ततस्तजन्यं ज्ञानं वा, अपरोक्षम्, तदुपजीवि मानसं ज्ञानं वा,

on account of its being just a co-worker with other means of proof, like light etc., and because it would be against the Scriptural passage ' What one thinks not by the mind' (Keno. I.5) and others. If it is admitted to be perceptible by the mind, there would be the giving up of the Advaita-doctrine by accepting the creed of the Tarkikas, because the mind can grasp only what is particularised by pleasure and others. If you say that the mind perfected by hearing, thinking ( and ) contemplating the Vedanta-passages is the proof there - thereby would not ensue the blemish spoken of - then the Vedanta-passages themselves would be (the proof), being something on which the others are dependent; the mind, however, is only concerned with the direct state - this should be noted. [ 25 ] But, all that is but another point at issue. First, let the nature of proof of Vedanta-passages themselves be propounded; then (should be considered ) whether the know- ledge produced by them ( is ) direct, or the mental compre-

१ A तार्किकमते प्रवेशात् A वेदान्तवाक्यमेव तत्र मानम्।

वैदान्तकल्पलतिका

इति। न हि निर्धर्मके वस्तुनि वाक्यस्य प्रामाण्यं संभवति। वाक्यं हि पदार्थ- ज्ञानद्वारा बोधकम्। पदार्थज्ञानं च गृहीतसंगतिकेभ्यः पदेभ्यो वृत्या भवति । संगतिग्रहश्च वाक्यार्थज्ञानात्पूर्वमेव अ्रमाणान्तरोपस्थिते वृद्ध- व्यवहारादिना भवति। न चात्र निर्धर्मके ब्रह्मणि प्रमाणान्तरं प्रक्रमते, रूपाद्यभावेन प्रत्यक्षत्वायोगात्। तव्यारसैलिङ्गाभावेन, अनुमानागोचरत्वात्। सादृश्यरहितत्वेन, उपमानाविषयत्वात्। तद्विना, अनुपपद्यमानार्था- भावेन, अर्थापच्यागम्यत्वात्। रूपत्वेन, अभावागोचरत्वात् । यूपाहवनीया-

hension depends upon that. For, surely, the authoritative nature of a sentence is not possible in the case of an entity without Dharmas. For, a sentence enlightens through the knowledge of the meaning of words. The knowledge of the meaning of words ensues through the power of the words with their inter-relation grasped. And the comprehension of the inter-relation takes place even before the knowledge of the import of the sentence by the practi- cal behaviour etc., of the elders in respect of what is put forth by other means of proof. Here, however, in the case of Brahman without any Dharmas, no other means of proof can function, because, Direct perception is untenable owing to the absence of form etc. It cannot come within the province of Inference on account of the absence of a logical mark pervaded by that. It cannot be the province of Analogy, on account of its being bereft of similarity. It cannot be understood by Presumption, on account of the absence of any object, which cannot be accounted for with- out that. It cannot come within the ken of Negation, because it is possessed of a positive form. If ( you say that) it can come in through the Sastra itself like the sacrificial post, Ahavaniya fire ete., (our reply is)-No, there is here

A भावत्वेन

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ६५

दिवन, शास्त्रादेव तदुपस्थितिः, इति चेन्,-न, वैषम्याद्, यूपाहवनीयादीनां शब्दराक्यताचच्छेदकधमत्रचाद। इह च सर्वधर्मातीतत्वेन पंदवृत्यविषय- त्वात् । [ २६] तथाहि-पदद्टत्तिस्तावद् दवेथा-सुख्या, जघन्या च। तत्र सुख्या, सामान्यविशिटव्यक्तिविषया, अस्माच्छब्दादयमर्थो नोद्धव्य:, इति, ईश्वरेच्छारूया, सङ्केदा, इति तार्किकाः। सामान्यमात्रवियय: स्वाभाविक एवार्थप्रतीतिजननसामर्थ्र्यविलक्षणः संवेन्धः, इति मीमांसका:। तत्र, आद्यो न क्षोदक्षम:, ईश्वरेच्छाया एकत्वेन सर्वशब्दानामेकशक्ति-

complete dissimilarity - because the sacrificial post, Aha- vaniya-fire etc., are possessed of Dharmas, characterised by the words and the possibility; while here ( Brahman ) being beyond all Dharmas, carnot be the object of any function of the word. [ 26 ] To explain the same - the word-function, for the matter of that, is two-fold -(1) Principal and (2) Subordinate. There the Principal ( function ) is concerned with an in- dividual particularised by generality, - of the nature of God's will in the form ' from this word this meaning is to be understood'-the convention, so ( say ) the Tarkikas. ( The Principal funetion ) is a relation concerning itself only with generality, by its own nature having the unique power of producing the comprehension of the meaning, -so ( say ) the Mimamsakas. There, the first ( view of the Tarkikas ) cannot bear investigation ( pounding ), on account of the unwelcome

A सामर्थ्यलक्षणः २ A सर्वसंबन्ध:

६६ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

प्रसङ्गात्। उपाधिभेदाच्तद्भेद:, इति चेत्, प्रतिशब्दं तद्भ्ेदापत्तिः । शक्य- तावच्छेदकैक्यादनुगमः, इति चेत्, तदैक्येऽपि पर्यायशब्दानां शक्ततावच्छे- दकभेदेन शक्तिभेदस्वीकारात्, इच्छाया: शब्दनिष्ठत्वाभावाच्च। विषयता- संबन्धाभ्युपगमे वा, औपचारिकत्वप्रसङ्गात्, अतिरिक्तविषयताभ्युपगमाच्च, लाक्षणिकशब्दस्यापीश्वरेच्छाविषयत्वेन शक्तत्वसंभवेन लक्षणोच्छेदप्रसङ्गाच्च, ईश्वरेच्छायाः साधारणकारणत्वेन तत्र सच्वनियमात् । अन्यथा, कार्यानु- दयप्रसङ्गात् । ईश्वरेच्छया समं स्वरूपसंबन्धविशेषः शक्ति:, स च न

result viz., all words having only one power, as the will of God is only one. If (it be argued that ) there is division on account of the division of limiting adjuncts, ( the reply is) - there would necessarily be that division in respect of each word. If (it be argued that ) there is the proper understanding through the unity characterised by possibi- lity, then even though the unity is there, the difference of power of the synonymous words is accepted through the division due to the characteristics of the power and because the will cannot have its dependence upon the word; or, even if its ( of the will ) connection with the object is accepted, it would perforce be of merely conven- tional nature, and also because no separate nature of the object is accepted, and further there would be the undesira- ble position, viz. there would be the destruction ( end ) of all figurative use; for, even in the case of a figurative word there would be the possibility of the denotative power ( per- sisting ) owing to its being the object of God's will; because God's will exists as a rule there, because it is a general cause. Otherwise, there would be the contingency of the effect not coming into existence. If (it be argued that ) the denotative power is a special connection with its

१ A चेन्न तदैक्येऽपि ... २ A ... अभ्युपगमे च, औप ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ६७

लाक्षणिकेषु, इति न दोष:, इति चेत्, तस्पानिर्वचनीयत्वापत्तेर्नैवम्, ताद शेश्वरे मानाभावाच्च। स्वाभाविकं शब्दसामर्थ्यमपि घट्सु पदार्थेग्वनन्त- र्भावाद, असदिति चेत्,- अहो महतीयं विभीषिका, ष्पदार्थातिरिक्त. शक्तिवादिना यथा तृणारणिमणिषु वह्निजननसामर्थ्य कल्प्यते, लाघवात्, न तु वह्निनिष्ठमतिशयत्रयं गौरवात् । तथा घटकलशकुम्भादिपदानां घटत्वप्रकारकप्रतीतिजननसामर्थर्यमेकं कल्प्यते, लाघवात्। अन्यथा, व्यभिचारेण, कार्यकारणभावग्रहानुपपत्तेः । तथा च पारमर्षसूत्रम्- nature along with God's will, and that exists not in the case of the figurative ( words); 20, there would not be the blemish referred to above, -then (our reply is ) it is not so; because in that case there would perforce be its indescriba- ble nature, and also there is no proof to postulate the exis- tence of that kind of God. If ( it be argued that ) even the natural denotative power of the word is non-existent on account of its non-inclusion in the six categories ( of the Vaiśeşikas ), ( the reply is )-then O! What a big frighten- ing argument this (is )! As by one who advocates the existence of the denotative power over and above the six categories, is imagined the power to produce fire in the case of grass, the seat of kindling wood and the jewel,-this way being simpler, - but not this three-fold speciality depen- dent upon fire, as that would be more cumbrous; in the same way, in the case of synonymous words like Ghata, Kalasa, Kumbha etc., only one power producing the apprehension referring to the mcde of jarness is imagined, on account of simplicity. Otherwise, there would be the impossibility of grasping the relation of cause and effect owing to the viola- tion of the rule. To the same effect is the Sutra of the great sage ( Jaimini ) -

१A इत्यदोष: A वहिजननसानर्थ्यमेव; A ... सामथ्यमेकं ३ A पारमर्ष सूत्रम्

६८ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

'औत्पत्तिकस्तु शब्दस्यार्थेन संबन्धः' (मी. सू. १.१.५) इति, तस्मात्, सैव, अभिधा नाम सुख्या वृत्तिः। न च घटपदे गृहीत- शक्ते: कुम्भपदश्रवणादप्यर्थबोध: स्यात्, तदैक्यात्, इति वाच्यम्, तन्निष्ठ- त्वेनाग्रहणात्तव 'समवायः' इव ममापि शक्तिपदार्थः, इत्यवधेहि। [२७ ] न च लाक्षणिकस्यापि तत्तत्प्रेकारकप्रतीतिजननसामर्थ्य- रूपशक्तिसंभवात्, लक्षणोच्छेदप्रसङ्ग:, अन्यथा तत्र कार्यानुदयप्रसङ्गाद्, इति वाच्यम्-(१) अन्विताभिधानवादे लाक्षणिकस्य, अन्वितानुभवजनन-

' The word is connected with the meaning due to etymo- logy.' (Mī. Sū. I. 1.5) Therefore, that same is the principal function called Deno- tation ( abhidha ). Nor again should it be argued (by you) that there would be the apprehension of the meaning even on hearing the word Kumbha from the denotative power understood in respect of the word Ghata on account of their identity, because it is not understood as residing in there; like your 'intimate relation', understand the Sakti-category also of mine ! [ 27 ] Nor again should it be argued by you, that on account of the possibility of the denotative power in the form of the capacity of producing the apprehension of various modes even in the case of the figurative (word) there would be the undesirable position, viz. the destruction of the figura- tive use (itself); otherwise, there would follow the disaster, viz. the non-production of the effect, -(the reply is)- (1) According to the view of the Anvitābhidhānavādins ( those who advocate that words already grammatically connected, have the denotative power ), in the case of a figurative word, the capacity to produce a connected appre-

१ A इति, अवेहि २ A तत्र तत्प्रकारक ..

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ६९

सामर्थ्यानङ्गीकारेण, अन्वितानुभवजननसामर्थ्यरूपायाः शक्तस्तत्राप्रसङ्गात्, लक्षणाया: केवलपदार्थस्मृतिमात्रहेतुत्वात्। लाक्षणिकपदयुक्त रकवाचकपदस्यै- वान्वयानुभावकत्वाभ्युपगमात्। अर्थवादपदानां सर्वेषां लाक्षणिकत्वेऽपि तद्युक्तविधिपदस्य, अन्वयानुभावकत्वाविरोधात्। अत एव लाक्षणिकं नानुभावकम्, इति प्रसिद्धि: शास्त्रेषु। २८ अभिहितान्वयवादे तु पदशक्त्या पदार्थोपस्थित्यैव तत्र, अन्वयायोग्यतायां पदार्थेनैव ससंबन्धी पदार्थो वाक्यार्थान्वययोग्य उप-

hension not being admitted, there could not be the butting in of the denotative power, forming the capacity to produce the connected apprehension, because Laksaņā is merely the cause of remembrance only of the meaning of words. Be- cause only in the case of a denotative word connected with the figurative word is admitted the power to make one comprehend connectedly. Even though all the words in the glorificatory passages are figurative, there is no contradic- tion in having the power to make one apprehend connected- ly in the case of the injunctive word connected with it. For this very reason, it is an established fact in the Sastras that a figurative word cannot make one apprehend (the denotation ). [ 28 ] (2) According to the view of the Abhihitānva- yavadins ( those who advocate that there is the subsequent connection of the words denoting their meaning ), however, there being no possibility of the relation involved, as the denotative power of the word merely points out the mean- ing of the word, by the meaning of the word itself is brought forth the meaning of the word connected with it, which is fit for the connection with the meaning of the sentence. -There, the figurative use is, verily, based upon

१ A लाक्षणिकपदं मुक्त्वा वाचक ...

७० वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

स्थाप्यते, तत्र पदार्थनिष्ठैत् लक्षणा न तु पदनिष्ठा। वाक्यार्थोऽपि पदार्थैरेव लक्ष्यते, न तु पदैरिति न लाक्षपिकानां शक्तत्प्रसङ्ग: । पदोपस्थापित- यदार्थस्थाप्ये लक्ष्ये पदवृत्तिविषयत्वव्यवहारो वाक्यार्थशब्दत्वत्परम्परया, इति, अदोषः । दस्य च शक्तिपदार्थस्य सामान्यमात्रविषयत्वं लाघवात्, आनन्त्यव्यभिचारदोपाभावाच, न तु सामान्यविशिष्टव्यक्तिविषयत्वरं गौरवात्। तदुक्तम्- 'विशेष्यं नाभिधा गच्छेत् क्षीणशक्तिर्विशेषणे' इति। उपाधितद्वतोक्च तादात्म्याभ्युपगमान्, उपाधिवांचकादपि व्यक्त्यु- the meaning of the word, and not based upon the word. The meaning of the sentence also is indicated by the mean- ings themselves of the words and not by the words, - thus the indicative words would not have the contingency of possessing the derotative power. In the case of the indica- ted ( sense ), which is to be brought forth by the meaning of the word established by the word, the practical method about its being the object of the functioning of the word takes place in (successive ) order, being possessed of the meaning of the sentence and the meaning of the words - thus there is no blemish. And that sense of the denotative word refers only in a general manner, on account of ( this procedure involring ) simplicity, and also on account of the absence of the blemishes - endlessness and violation, - and does not refer to an individual particularised by that gene- rality, because that would be cumbrous. As has been said- ' Denotation does not reach the particular object, with its power coming to an end in respect of a qualifying attribute.' On account of the admissicn of the identity of the limiting adjunct and the object possessing that, even from the de- notative word of the limiting adjunct could be accounted for, १ A वाक्यार्थ शाब्दत्व ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ७१

पस्थित्युपपत्तिः, सामान्यस्य जातिरूपतया पच्यादिक्रियारूपोपाधिरूपतया च व्यक्तौ समवायः, तथा च सामान्यवाचकस्य व्यक्तौ, आक्षेपो लक्षणा वा, इति, अपरे -तत्, न, समवायानङ्गीकारात्, 'नीलो घटः', इत्यादौ तादात्म्यप्रतीतेः, तत्रापि लक्षणानङ्गीकारात्। २९ वेदान्तिमते सद्रूपस्यात्मनः सर्वतादात्म्यापन्नस्यैव किश्चिद्विशिष्टस्य तत्तत्सामान्यरूपत्वात्, अनिर्वचनीयगोत्वादिसामान्या- भ्युपगमेन वा, तन्मात्रे शक्तिर्न विरुध्यते। उपाधिविशिष्टव्यक्तौ शक्ति- स्वीकारेऽपि नास्माकं कापि क्षतिः । सापि द्विविधा रूढिः, योगश्र। तत्र

the presence of the individual; there is the intimate rela- tion of the generality in respect of the individual in the form of the genus and also in the form of the limitation of the nature of the action ' cooking' etc .; in the same way ( there is the intimate relation ) of ( the word ) denoting the generality with the individual, ( that is to say), the implica- tion or indication - so ( argue ) others. ( Our reply is ) - That is not ( right ), because we do not admit any intimate relation, on account of the apprehension of identity in cases like a 'dark jar', and Indication not being admitted there too. [ 29 ] (3) According to the view of the Vedântins, in the case of the Atman having the Sat-nature, involving identity with everything, denotation in respect of merely that, is not contradicted, owing to something particularised having the form of the varied generality concerned, or by admitting the generality bull-ness etc., that is indescribable. Even if the derotative power is regarded as belonging to the individual particularised by the limiting adjuncts, we do not stand to lose anything. That ( denotative power ) also is two-fold-(1) Convention, (2) Etymological usage.

सामान्यस्य. व्यक्तौ -dropped in IO.

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

रूढि:, नाम निखिलजनपदेष्वविप्रतिपन्नप्रयोगेण वी, गवोद्याकृतिवाचक- त्वेन वा, वृत्ति: समुदायशक्ति:, इत्याख्यायते, यथा, अक्षादिपदानां गवादि- पदानां च। योगो नाम शब्दस्यान्यत्र छप्तावयवद्वारेणार्थान्तरे वृत्ति:, यथा चन्द्रे रूढस्य सोमशब्दस्य, उमया सह वर्तते, इति व्युत्पच्या महेशे वृत्तिः, यथा वा, पाचकपङ्कजादिपदानाम्। अत एव रूढि: सर्वतो बैलवती, सा हि श्रुतिः, योगस्तु वाक्यम्। तेन मण्डपाश्वकर्णादिपदेषु न मण्डपान- कर्तृत्वादेरन्वयः, श्रुतिलिङ्गाधिकरणन्यायविरोधात्। अत्र, न बाध्यबाधकभावे सापेक्षत्वनिरपेक्षत्वे, एव तत्रम्। पदात्, There Convention is indeed declared as the combined power functioning either on account of the unchallenged use in all the regions, or as denoting the forms of bull and others, as in the case of the words Aksa ( sense-organ ) etc., and of the words Bull and others. Etymological usage, verily, is the functioning of the word, giving another sense by its component parts intended for some other meaning, as the word Soma having convention in respect of the moon, has its power to denote Siva on the strength of the etymology - one who stays with Uma, or as in the case of the words Pācaka ( a cook ), Pankaja ( a lotus ) etc. It is for this reason, that the convention is the most powerful factor, that is ( as infallible as ) the Scripture, while etymological meaning is just a (purport-) sentence. Therefore, in respect of the words Mandapa, Aśvakarna etc., there is no connec- tion with being the agent of the drinking of Manda etc., on account of this being in contradiction with the maxim ( spe- cifying the respective importance ) in the topic dealing with Sruti, logical mark, ( etc). Here again, apropos the relation of the stultified and the stultifier, the states of being dependent upon another १ A drops वा २ A गवाकृति ... ३ A यथाक्षादिपदानां ४ A क्लप्तावयवशक्तिद्वारेण ... A पाचकपाठकादि ... ६A रूढि: सर्वबलवती ७ A मण्डपाश्वकर्णादिषु ८A अत्र च

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

विलम्बोपस्थितिकत्वशीघ्रोपस्थितिकत्वे, इति केचित्। अत्र पङ्कजादिपदेषु पद्मत्वादेर्नियमत उपस्थितेः, तस्याश्र रूढि- साध्यत्वात्, योगरूढ्यार्या, सुख्यवृत्तिः, इति भाट्टा नैयायिका:, च मन्यन्ते। प्राभाकरा वेदान्तिनः च तन्न क्षमन्ते । यथा गोशब्दस्य नानार्थ- त्वेऽपि भूरिप्रयोगवशात्, सास्त्रादिमदाकृतिविशेषस्यैव नियमत उपस्थितिः, पदान्तरसमभिव्याहारादिना च शैरादेः, तथा पङ्कजपदस्यावयवशक्तैः कुमुदपद्मयोरविशिष्टत्वेऽपि भूरिप्रयोगवशात्पंद्ये नियमोपपचेः । न च

and not being dependent upon anything, - this alone is the determining factor. Some say ( that the determining factor is ) the state of presenting itself with delay and the state of presenting itself quickly from the words. Here in the case of words Pankaja and others, as the nature of lotus etc., presents itself as a rule, and as that is capable of being established by convention, there is the chief function called Etymology-cum-convention. - So think the followers of Bhatta and the Naiyayikas. The followers of Prabhakara and the Vedantins, how- ever, do not tolerate that. Though the word Go conveys many senses, the particular form possessing the dewlap etc., alone, as a rule presents itself (to the mind), on account of the very frequent use ( of that word in that sense ), and that of Sara and others, by its being men- tioned along with other words, in like manner. Though the power of the parts of the word Pankaja equally concerns Kumuda and Padma lotuses, it is rightly confined to the Padma on account of the very frequent use ( in that sense ).

१ पझमादेनियमतः २A adds तृतीया after योगरूढाख्या ३ A रश्म्यादे: ४ A पद्तत्वे १०

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

शब्दाद् वृत्युपस्थितस्यैव शाब्दबोधे भाननियमात्, पद्मत्वे वृत्यभावे तस्य शाब्दबोधे भानं न स्यात्, इति वाच्यम्, कर्त्रादिकारकस्य, अशाब्दस्यापि शाब्दबोधे भानाभ्युपगमात्, शाब्दबोधे नियतोपस्थितिकत्वस्यैव तदन्वय- नियामकत्वात्। अन्यथा, लक्षतावच्छेदकस्य वृत्तिविषयत्वानभ्युपगमेन 'गङ्गायां घोष:' इति तीरत्वादेर्भानं न स्यात् । [ ३० ] अथवास्तु योगरूढिः, अपि तृतीया वृत्तिः, न नः किश्च्िद- पचीयते। जघन्यापि द्विविधा, लक्षणा गौणी च । तत्र शक्यसंबन्धो लक्षणा, यथा गङ्गायां घोष:, इत्यत्र प्रवाहशक्तस्य गङ्गापदस्य तत्संबन्धे

Nor again should it be said that there is invariably the apprehension regarding the meaning of words from the words associated with its functioning; there being no functioning in respect of the nature of Padma, there is no apprehension in regard to the meaning from the word, because apprehension is admitted in the meaning from the word, even of the causal factors the agent etc., although not expressed in ( so many ) words; in respect of the mean- ing from words only that which presents itself invariably determines the connection with it. Otherwise, by not ad- mitting the state of functioning in respect of what chara- cterises the thing to be indicated, there would not be the apprehension of the state of the bank etc., in the expression ' The cow-pen on the Ganges ' etc.

[ 30 ] Or, let there be even the third function ' Etymo- logy-cum-convetion ;' nothing is lost by us. The subordi- nate ( funotion ) also ( is ) two-fold-Laksaņā and Qualitative ( Lakșaņā ). There 'Indication ' is the possible connection ( with the denotative sense ) as in the expression ' A cow-pen on the Ganges', the word Ganges denoting the

१ A reads वृत्त्यौ उपस्थितस्यैव २A लक्ष्यतावच्छेदकस्य

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

तीरे वृत्तिः। एतस्या: साक्षात् शक्यवृत्तित्वेऽपि परम्परया पदवृचित्वम्, इति, अविरोधः । अत्र च, उद्देश्यान्वयानुपपचिर्बीजम् । शक्यवृत्तिलक्ष्य- माणगुणसंबन्धो गौणी । यथा 'सिंहो माणवकः' इत्यत्र सिंहपदस्य सिंहवृच्िशौर्यादिगुणलक्षणया तद्वति माणवके वृत्तिः, इति। अत एव लक्षणा गौणीतो बलवती, गौण्या वृत्तिद्वयात्मकत्वा । तदुक्तम्- 'अभिधेयाविनाभूतप्रतीतिर्लक्षणोच्यते । लक्ष्यमाणगुणैर्योगादू वृत्तेरिष्टा तु गौणता ।।' (कुमारिल) इति। [ ३१ ] अत्र, उपचाराख्या, अपरा जघन्या वृत्तिः, इत्येके-अनि- current has the function regarding the bank - the connec- tion with it. Though here this ( Laksana ) has a direct function with the denotative sense, it is the function of the word indirectly, so there is no contradiction. And here the basic factor is the impossibility of the connection with what is to be pointed out. The Qualitative ( Laksaņā ) is the connection with the qualities that are to be indicated by the denotative function. As in the expression ' Mānavaka is a lion', there is of the word Lion the function in regard to Manavaka who is possessed of those qualities, by the indication of qualities, heroism and others residing in the lion. For this very reason, Indication is more powerful than the Qualitative, because the Qualitative is made up of two functions. As has been said- ' The apprehension not existing otherwise from the object denoted is called Laksana. The function thereof is accepted as qualitative on account of its connection with the qualities to be indicated ( or of what is to be indicated ).' ( Kumārila ). [ 31 ] Some say that in such cases there is a different subordinate function called Metaphor. Metaphor is the func- १ A एतस्या: च ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

यतसंबन्धेनान्यत्र वृत्तिरुपचारः। नियल न्धेनान्यत्र वृत्तिर्लक्षणा। यथा 'मञ्चाः कोशन्ति' इत्यादौ चुरुषैः सम मञ्चसंबन्धोऽनियतः । गङ्गातीर- योस्तु नियत एव संबन्ध:, इदि-तत्, न । एवम्, अवान्तरभेदेऽपि लक्षणायामेवान्तर्भावाठ्, शक्यसंबन्धस्योभयत्रापि तुल्यत्वात्। गौण्यास्तु वृत्तिद्वयात्मकत्वात्, न लक्षणायामन्तर्भाव: । न च सादृश्यसंबन्धेन सिंह- पदस्य माणवके वृत्ति:, लक्षणैव इति साम्प्रतभ्, सादृश्यस्य शाब्दबोधे भानाभावप्रसङ्गात्, शक्यसंबन्धस्य स्वोपस्थापकत्वाभावात्, संबन्धिमाना- र्थमेव तस्य वृत्तित्वाम्युपगमात्। तस्पात्, लक्षणावैलक्षण्यादतिरिक्तव

tion ( of the word ) elsewhere on account of its unregulated connection; ( while ) Lakșaņā is the function elsewhere by an invariable conneetion. As in the case of expressions like 'The cots are shouting', the connection of the cots with the men is not invariable. But there is an inrariable connection between the current of the Ganges and the bank. - This ( reasoning ) is not ( right). Though there might be such minor differences in this way, they can be included in Lakșanā itself, because the connection with the denotative sense is the same in both. But in the case of the Qualita- tive which has two functions it cannot be included in Indica- tion. Nor again is it right ( to say ) that the word Lion having some function in respect of Manavaka on account of the connection of similarity is Laksana itself; because similarity cannot be apprehended when the word is under- stood; a possible connection ( with the denotative sense ) would have nothing to establish itself, because its function is admitted to be solely for the purpose of the apprehension of something connected with it. Therefore the Qualitative function is quite different on account of its dissimilarity with Laksana - this appears to be proper from every point.

9 A नियतसंबन्धेन ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

वृत्तिर्गोणी, इति चतुरस्रम् । यत्तु 'यौगिको योगरूदश्च शब्दः स्यादौपचारिकः । मुख्यो लक्षणिको गौणः शब्दः षोढा निगद्यते ॥' इति वैयाकरणैः षड्िधत्वमुक्तम्, तन्मुख्यजघन्ययोरेवावान्तरभेदमादाय योजनीयम्। तथाहि-मुख्यो रूढो यौगिको योगरूढ: इत्येकं त्रिकं मुख्यायाम्। लाक्षणिक:, औपचारिको गौण:, इत्यपरं त्रिकं जघन्याया- मिति। [ ३२ ] व्यञ्जनाख्या, अपरा वृत्तिः, इत्यालङ्कारिकाः। ते तु गौणी लक्षणामध्ये, अन्तर्भाव्य, मुख्या लक्षणा व्यञ्जना चेति त्रैविध्यमाचक्षते।

As to the six-fold division spoken of by the gramma- rians, viz. - ' A word may be (1) etymological, ( 2) etymological- cum-conventional, (3) metaphorical, ( 4 ) primary, ( 5 ) indi- cative and ( 6 ) qualitative - ( thus ) the word is described as six-fold.' that has to be explained by taking into account other sub- sidiary divisions of the primary and subordinate varieties themselves. To explain the same -( 1 ) Primary conven- tional, (2) Etymological, (3) Etymological-cum-conven- tional, - this is one triad in the case of the Principal, ( 4) Indicative, ( 5 ) Metaphorical, ( 6 ) Qualitative - this is the second triad in respect of the Subordinate. [ 32 ] There is another function called Suggestion - so ( say ) the rhetoricians. They indeed having included the Qualitative in Indication speak of the three-fold nature as (1) Denotation, (2) Indication, (3) Suggestion. There is Suggestion conveying various meanings in respect of many

१ म पड्विधत्वं शब्दस्व, उक्तम्। २ A. drops इति

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

व्यञ्जना च यत्र 'गतोऽस्तमर्कः' इति वाक्यप्रयोगानन्तरं 'दूरं मा गा:' इति, 'पण्यान्यपसार्यन्ताम्' इति, 'संध्योपास्यताम्' इत्यादि बहूनां बहुविधार्थप्रत्ययो भवति ! तत्र च न शक्ति, न वा लक्षणा, किं तु शब्द- स्यैवान्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यामपरा व्यक्षनाख्या वृत्तिराश्रयणीया। तद्भेदाच्च न वाक्यभेद:, शक्यलक्ष्यार्थभेद एव तदभ्युपगमात् । अत एव सा नार्था- पत्तिः, नियतलिङ्गाभावात्। अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां शब्दस्यैव तत्र कारण तावधारणात्। यथाकथंचिदर्थापत्तिसंभवे च शब्दप्रमाणोच्छेदापातात्, सर्वत्रैव तस्या: सुलभत्वात् । सा च शक्तिमूला लक्षणामूला व्यञ्जनामूला च, इत्याद्यवान्तरभेदमप्याहु :- तत्, न । तस्या अर्थापत्तावन्तर्भावस्य व्यक्तिविवेकमहिस्रा दर्शित- things, after the use of the sentence 'The sun has set', - 'Do not go far away', ' Let the articles of merchandise be removed', 'Perform the Sandhya-ceremony' etc. In these cases there is neither the Denotative power nor Indication; but another function called Suggestion has to be accepted in accordance with the ( law of ) presence and absence of the word alone. By that division, there is not the splitting of the sentence, because that is admitted only when there is the difference in the denotative and indicative meanings. For this very reason, it ( Suggestion ) is not Presumption, on account of the absence of a definite characteristic. For, the word alone is ascertained to be the cause there by the ( law of ) presence and absence. If Presumption is somehow possible, then there would be the total annihilation of the Word- ( means of) proof-because that ( Presumption ) is available everywhere. They also speak of subsidiary divi- sions, viz. based upon Denotation, based upon Indication, and based upon Suggestion. ( Our reply is ) - That is not so. Because it has been

? A हठं मा गा: २ ... भदाभेद्

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

त्वात्। शब्दो हि नियतसंबन्धेनैव व्यञ्जयति, अन्यथा, अतिप्रसङ्गाद्। तथा च तेनैवर संबन्धेन वक्त्रमिप्रायभेदानुमानं केन वार्यते! खार्थानुमाने च व्यमिचारादीनामप्रसरात्। यदि च न, अर्थापत्तावन्तर्भवति तर्हि, अस्तु सापि शब्दवृत्तिः, इति न काप्यस्माकं क्षतिः। लक्षणापि त्रिविधा-अजहत्स्वार्था, जहदजहत्खार्था, जहत्खार्था च, इति। तत्राद्या, वाच्यार्थापरित्यागेनैवान्यत्र वर्तमाना शकतितल्य सर्व- जघन्यातो बलवती, यथा 'काकेम्यो दधि रक्ष्यताम्' इति लोके, उप- घातकत्वेन काकपदस्य काकतदितरेषु वृत्तिः । यथा वा 'सृष्टीरुपदधाति' shown in the Vyakti-viveka of ( Rajanaka ) Mahiman that it ( Word ) is included in Presumption. For, Word can sug- gest only on the strength of invariable connection; other- wise there would be sheer anarchy. And further, on the strength of that very connection, who can keep outside, the inferences from the various intentions of the speaker? In respect of Inference, there is no scope for violation etc. If again it cannot be included in Presumption, then let that again be a function of the Word; we do not lose anything thereby. Indication (is ) also three-fold -(1) Ajahatsvārthā ( where the primary sense is not adandoned ), ( 2 ) Jahat- ajahatsvārtha ( where the primary sense is partly abandon- ed and partly not abandoned ), ( 3 ) Jahatsvārtha ( where the primary sense is abandoned ). There the first ( Ajahat- svartha ), by the very fact of the non-abandonment of the denotative sense, leading to another ( sense ), equal to the denotative power, is the strongest of the subordinate ones- as in the expression-'Let the curds be protected from the crows ', used in the world, the word Crow has power to refer to the crow and others on account of their being the

१ A अप्रसारात्

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

इत्यत्र सृष्टिशब्दस्य मत्रोपाधेयेष्टकासु वृत्ति: सृष्टिमत्रबाहुल्येन, इति । 'शोणो धावति' इत्यादि तु नोदाहरणम्, तादात्म्यसंवन्घेन तत्रापि मुख्यत्वोपपत्तेः। अत एव, 'चतुष्टयी शब्दानां वृतिः ।' (म. १. १. २. शिव सू. २. १) इति महाभाष्यकारैरुक्तम्। चतुष्टयं च जाति-गुण-क्रिया-द्रव्य-स्वरूपम्। तत्र 'गौः' इत्यादौं जातिः। 'शुक्को, नीलः 'इत्यादौ गुणः। 'चल :' इत्यादौ क्रिया। 'डित्थः' इत्यादौ द्रव्यस्वरूयमेव। लक्षणाङ्गीकारे च तद्विरुध्येत, वाक्यपदीये चैतेंद्विविच्य व्याख्यातम्। येषां तु समवायाङ्गी-

causes of injury. Or, in the expression -'He lays on the Srstis' - here the word Srsti has power to refer to the bricks that are to be laid in conformity with the Mantras, on account of the preponderance of the Srsti-mantras. Expressions like ' The Sona runs' are however not an in- stance ( of this kind of Laksana); for, there also, their con- veying the primary sense is proper on account of the rela- tion of identity. For this very reason, it has been laid down by the venerable ( Patañjali ) author of the Mahabhasya, that 'The function of words is four-fold.' And the four-fold division refers to the nature of Genus, Quality, Action and Substance. In such cases, there is the genus ( Bull-ness ) in the expression-Bull etc. In expres- sions like - White, Dark, there is quality. In expressions like - Moving, there is action. In expressions like - Dittha (a proper name ), there lies the very nature of the substance. If Indication were to be admitted ( there ), that would go counter to what has been stated above. This has been explained with proper scrutiny in the Vākyapadīya ( of १ A सृष्टिशब्दस्य सृष््यतृष्टिनत्रगधेयेष्टकासु A मश्रपधय A शब्दानां प्रवृत्तिरिति ३ A चलति इत्यादौ x drops

वैदान्तकल्पलतिकां

कांर:, तेषां तत्र जहल्क्षणेति संतोष्टव्यम्। जहदजहत्खार्था शक्यैकदेशपरित्यागेन शक्यैकदेशे वृत्तिः। इयमपि जहल्लक्षणातो गौणीतश्च बलवती, वाच्यैकदेश्यात, यथा 'सोडयं देवदत्त:' इत्यादौ। अत्र हि तत्कालवैशिष्यैतत्कालवैशिथ्ययोर्युगपदन्वये विरोधात् तदुपलक्षितदेवदत्तस्वरूपमेव शक्यैकदेशलक्षणया पदाभ्यामुप- स्थाप्यते । इयमेव 'भागलक्षैणा' इत्युच्यते। न च विशेषणस्य बाधात्, तत्र, अनन्वयः; न तु विशेष्ये लक्षणा, इति वाच्यम्, परिभाषामात्रत्वापत्ते:,

Bhartrhari ). Those who admit the Samavaya relation, may remain contented by ( calling it ) Indication where the primary sense is abandoned. Indication where the primary sense is partly abandoned and partly not abandoned, is the function possible in one part by the abandonment possible in another part. This also is stronger than the Jahat-laksana and also than the Qualita- tive, because it is connected with a part of the denotative sense, as in the case of ( the expressions ) like-'That is this Devadatta'. For here, there being contradiction re- garding the simultaneous association with something parti- cularised by that (past ) time, and the same particularised by the present time, the very nature of Devadatta indicated thereby is brought forth by the two words through the possible Indication in one part. This same is spoken of as ' Part-Indication'. It should not be argued that owing to the qualifying being stultified, there is no connection there, but there is no Indication in the case of the qualified - because that would merely be indulging in a technical terminology, because it is admitted that only the counter- entity involving the connection is ushered by the functioning

१ A तत्राजहल्लक्षणेति ₹ A ... अन्वयविरोधात् ३ A भागत्यागलक्षणा 99

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

अस्ति तृरीया, अि-जहत्सार्था-चाच्यार्थस्य सर्वाशत्यागेन, अन्यत्र दृचिः, पधा 'मझायां घोष:' इत्यादौ। इयं च गौणीतो बलवती, सर्व- लक्षणाते दुर्बला, इररवृचिसंनवे नाद्रियते, सर्वथा मुख्यार्थबाधात्। [ ३३] ह, एवं सिद्धान्तमतानुसारेणैव निरूपिताः शब्दवृत्तयः । आसामेकरापि नमितीये प्रह्मणि भवितुमर्हति । तत्र रूढेरसंभवः प्रथमं प्रतिपाधरे, अन्याल न्दूलत्वेन तन्निेधादेव निषेधसंभवाद्। सा हि व्युत्पित्सुना रच्छिद्त्ेक्चित्प्रवृत्तिलिङ्गानुमानात्, यथा 'घट- मानय' इति वाक्वश्रदणसननन्तरं कश्चित् कम्बुग्रीवादिमन्तमर्थमानयति। known and mere different terminology not being capable of producing anything - there is also a third, Jahat-svārtha, functioning eisewhere by the total abandonment of the primary sense as in ' A cow-pen on the Ganges' etc. This ( type of Laksana ) stronger than the Qualitative, but the weakest of all Laksanas is not favoured, when there is the possibility of any other functioning power, on account of the contradiotion of the primary sense in every way. [ 33 ] Thus have been pointed out the functioning powers of words, in accordance with the conclusive view itself ( accepted by us ). Not even one of these deserves to exist in respect of Brahman without a second. Apropos that, first is propounded the impossibility of convention. Other ( powers ) being based upon that ( convention ), there would arise the denial of them by the denial itself of that. That (convention ) is analysed by one going deep into the matter. - Somewhere ( this is achiered ) from inference based upon the logical mark - the activity concerned. As for instance, regarding ( the expression ) ' Bring the jar', immediately after hearing the sentence, some one brings the object possessing a tortoise-like neck ete. Having actually noticed his process of

१ A नादये

वेदान्तकल्पल्लतिका

तस्यानयनक्कियां प्रत्यक्षत उपलभ्य, तत्कारणत्वेन तस्य कृतिमनुमाय, तस्या: कृतेः सवकृतितश्रान्तेन प्रवर्तकज्ञानजन्यत्वमनुमिनोति। तच् ज्ञानं शब्दान्वयव्यतिरेकानुविधायित्वात्, कारणान्तरस्य चानुपस्थितेः, तस्य शब्दस्यैव घटकर्मकानयनकर्तव्यताप्रतिपादने सामर्थ्य कल्पयति, तत आवापोद्वापाभ्यां प्रत्येकसामर्थ्य क्रमेण निश्चिनोति, इति शक्तिग्रहक्मः । एवं 'दिध्या वर्धसे' 'भद्र पुत्रस्ते जातः', इत्यादिवाक्यश्रवणसम- नन्तरं श्रोतर्मुविक्याशादिलिङ्गेन हर्षमनुमाय, तस्य च कारणान्तरानु- पस्थितेः, पुत्रजन्मनश्च मानान्तरेणाज्ञातत्वात्, तजन्यतां निश्चित्य, तज्ज्ञानं

bringing ( the jar ), having inferred the action as its cause, one infers that action, as being produced by the promoting knowledge on the strength of a similar type of action of his own. And that knowledge, following the presence and absence of words, there being no other cause forth-coming, postulates the power of the word itself in establishing what is to be done, viz. the bringing with a jar as its object, and then one gradually concludes the power of each ( of the words ) through the inclusion and the exclusion ( of the words concerned ) - such is the order of the understanding of the ( word-) power.

In a similar manner, immediately on hearing the sen- tence ' Congratulations:' 'O good one, a son is born to ' you!' etc., haring inferred the (rise of) joy through the cha- racteristics, the blooming of the face etc., of the hearer and there being no other cause forth-coming, the birth of the son not being known br some other proof, having concluded it ( the joy ) as being produced, having postulated this sentence as the cause referring to that knowledge by apply-

१ A नच्च ज्ञानं शाब्दं अन्वय :... २ A. मुखविकासादि ३ a मानान्तरेण ज्ञातत्वात् x A तज्ज्ञानजन्यनां

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका 24

प्रत्यन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यामिदं वाक्यं जनकमिति कल्पयित्वा, क्रमेण पूर्ववत् प्रतिपदशक्तिग्रहः । तद्वत्, अत्र ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य प्रवृत्यादिजनकत्वाभावाद्, मानान्तरागोचरत्वाच्च, न तत्र शक्तिग्रहावसरः। [३४ ] क्वचिदुपमानात्, शक्तिग्रहः । यथा 'गोसदृशो गवयः' इति वाक्यं श्रुतवतो नागरिकस्य कदाचिदरण पमनान्तं, गोसदशव्यक्त्य- न्तरदर्शने पूर्वश्रुतवाक्यार्थस्मरणेन गोसादृश्याद् गव्येपदनिश्चयः। [३५] क्चित्, वैधर्म्याद्-यथा 'धिकू करभम्, अतिदीर्घग्रीवं कठोरकण्टकाशिनम्' इत्यादि निन्दावाक्यं श्रुतवतस्तादृशव्यक्तिदर्शने

ing the rule of presence and absence-there is in order as before the understanding of the power of each word. Follw- ing the same line ( tadvat), here the knowledge of Brahman cannot be the producing cause of activity etc., and that does not come within the province of any other proof; so, there is no scope for the understanding of the Denotative power in that case. [ 34 ] Somewhere the understanding of Sakti is through analogy. As for instance, in the case of a city-dweller who has heard the sentence ' A Gavaya is like a bull.', there is the ascertainment (of the primary sense) of the word Gavaya, through resemblance to the bull, on the strength of the remembrance of the sentence heard before, when he per- ceives another individual like a bull, perchance after he had been to the forest. [ 35 ] Somewhere ( the understanding of Śakti is ) through dissimilarity- as for instance, in the case of one who has heard the condemnatory sentence, -'Fie upon this camel, with its very long neck, eating the rough thorns'

१ त ... प्रतिपदं शक्तियहः २ A add3 वाच्यत्व after गवयपद ३ A तादृग्व्यक्तिदर्शने

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

पूर्ववत् करभपदवाच्यत्वनिक्चयः । तदुभयं ब्रह्मणि न संभवति साधर्म्य- वैधर्म्यशून्यत्वात्, मानान्तरायोगाच्। [३६] क्रचित्, आपवाकयात्-यथा 'रम्हुश्ीवादिनान् घटपद- बाच्यः' इति। तद्वत्, अपि, अत्र न संभवति, उद्देश्यांशोपस्थावकपदः- भावात्, तस्पैव, अधुना विचार्यत्ाह। [ ३७] कचित्, प्रसिद्धार्थपदसामानाधिकरण्यात्-यथा हि 'सह- कारतरौ पिको रौति' इति रुतकर्तरि प्रत्यक्षसिद्धे पिकपदवाच्यत्वनिश्चयः। यथा 'वज्रहस्तः सहस्राक्षः पुरंदरः' इत्यादौ वज्रहस्ताद्याकतिविशिष्टे चुरं-

etc., there is the ascertainment of the primary sense of the word Karabha at the sight of the individual of that nature as before: Both of these are not possible in the case of Brahman, on account of its being void of similarity and dis- similarity, and on account of no other means of proof being available. [ 36 ] Somewhere (the understanding of Sakti is ) from the sentence of a reliable person - as for instance ' ( The object ) possessing a tortoise-like neck etc., is to be denoted by the word Ghata'. It is not possible like that also here ( in the case of Brahman ), on account of the absence of a word establishing the matter to be mentioned, because that itself is the matter under consideration now.

[ 37 ] Somewhere ( the Śaktigraha is ) from the case- coordination of words with the meaning established, as for instance, in (the expression ) ' Here a cuckoo (Pika ) coos on the mango-tree ',-there is the ascertainment of the deno- tative sense of the word Pikn, when the agent of the cooing is established by Direet perception. As in (the expression ) ' Thunderbolt in hand, thousand-eyed, smasher of for-

१ A adds वा after चथा

बेदान्तकल्पलतिका

दरादिपद्वाच्यत्वाध्यवसायः- तद्दपि नेह संभवति, निर्विकल्पके तस्मिन् सर्वस्यापि पदस्याप्रसिद्धार्थकत्वात्। [ ३८] कचिद् वाक्यशेषात्-यथा यववराहादिशब्दानाम् 'यदान्या ओषधयो म्लायन्ति, अथेंतों मोदमाना एवोवतिष्टन्ति । वराहमनुधावन्ति।'

इत्यादिवाक्यशेषाद, कङुकाकादिव्यावृत्त्या वाच्यार्थविशेषनिश्चयः । यथा वा स्वर्गयूपाहवनीयादिशब्दाना: 'यन्न दुःखेन संभिन्नम्' इत्यादि- वाक्यशेषात्, अलौकिकार्थविशेषनिर्णयः। तद्वदपि ब्रह्मणि न संभवति,

tresses' etc., particularised by the form of having the thunderboit in hand etc., there is the ascertainment of the denotative sense of the words, Purandara etc. - Here any- thing like that is not possible, because in the case of that ( Brahman ), which is void of any distinction, all the words have their meanings not established. [ 38 ] Somewhere (the Saktigraha ) is from the remain- ing part of the sentence, as in the case of the words Yava, Varaha etc. From the remaining part of the sentence such as,

'When other herbs fade out, then these, verily, remain, full of jov. ( The cows ) run after the Varaha ( Boar )'

there is the ascertainment of the particular denotative sense, by the exclusion of the Kangu-seed, and crow etc. Or, as for instance, in the case of the words Svarga, Yupa, Ahavaniya ( fire of that name ), there is the ascertainment of a super-mundane particular sense on account of the re- maining part of the sentence -' What is not mixed up with

१ A अथने २ A एवावतिष्ठन्ते ३ A वराइं गावोऽनुधावन्ति ४ इत्यादि dropped ina

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

वाक्यशेषस्यापि ब्रह्मविषयत्वासंभवात्। अन्यविषयवाक्यशेषेण च ब्रह्म- विषयशक्त्यवधारणायोगात्। ननु ब्रह्मणि प्रकारान्तरासंभवेऽपि वाक्यशेषात् शक्तिग्रहो भविष्यति। तथाहि 'ब्रह्मविदाम्नोति परम् ' (तैत्ति. २. १) इतिपरमपुमर्थप्राप्तिसाधनं ब्रह्मज्ञानम्, इत्यभिहिते किं तद् ब्रह्म, इत्या- काङ्डायां 'सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म ' (तैत्ति. २. १)

misery' etc.,- anything like that too either, is not possible in the case of Brahman, because the remaining part also of the sentence cannot possibly have Brahman for its object. On the strength of the remaining part of the sentence refer- ring to some other matter, it is not right to ascertain any denotative power referring to Brahman. I say ( says the objector ) - There would be the com- prehension of the denotative power from the remaining part of the sentence in the case of Brahman, even though any other method is impossible there. To explain the same -- When it is stated that the knowledge of Brahman is the means for attaining the highest human purpose in ( the passage ) ' The Brahman-knower secures the Highest' ( Taitti. II. 1) with the expectancy to know what that Brahman is, ( the Śruti ) points out to the characteristic of Brahman as ' Existence, Knowledge, Infinite ( is ) Brahman'. (Taitti. II. 1)

A परमपुरुषार्थ २ A तत् न

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ८९

इति ब्रह्मलक्षणसुपदिशति। तथा च सत्यादिपदोपस्थापिताद्वितीये वस्तुन्येव ब्रह्मपदशक्तिग्रहो भविष्यति, इति चेत्-न, सत्यादिपदेभ्योऽपि निर्विकल्पो- पस्थितेरसंभवात्। तत्रापि वाक्यशेषानुधावने, अनवस्था। मा भूद् विधिरूपवाक्यशेषाच्छक्तिग्रेहः, निषेधरूपवाक्यशेषात्तु शक्तिग्रहो भविष्यति, 'तदेतद् ब्रह्म, अपूर्वमनपरमनन्तरमबाह्यमयमात्मा ब्रह्म ।' (बृह. २. ५. १९) इति पूर्वादिनिषेधद्वारा निर्विकल्पकोपस्थितिसंभवात्, इति चेत्-न। तेन

And subsequently if there is the establishment of power regarding the word Brahman, verily, in the entity without a second, established by the words Satya etc., - ( then our reply is ) - No (that is not so ), on account of the impossibility of the distinctionless ( Brahman ) being brought home even from the words Satya etc. There also would arise the fault of endlessness in running after another re- maining part of the sentence. If it be argued - Let there n t be Saktigraha from the remaining part of the injunctive sentence, but there would be Saktigraha from the remaining part of the prohi- bitory sentence, on account of the possibility of the distinc- tionless ( Brahman ) being brought home through the denial of being prior etc., as in the passage 'This is that Brahman, not prior, not posterior; not inside, not outside; - this Atman is Brahman.' (Brha. II. 5. 19) -( our reply is ) - No. There being the denial of some particularities by that ( passage ), there is no establishment of a distinctionless Brahman. If, however, there is the denial १ A मा, अस्तु २ A drops शक्तिग्रह ३ निषेध ... ग्रहो dropped in IO. १२

60 वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

कियद्विशेषनिषेधे न निर्विकल्पकब्रह्मसिद्धिः । सकलविशेषनिषेधे च पद- वाच्यत्वस्यापि निषेधात्, न तत्र जञक्तिग्रहसंभव: । 'यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते' (तैत्ति. २. ४) 'न चक्षुषा गृह्यते नापि वाचा।' (मु. ३. १. ८ ) इत्यादिशास्त्रेण साक्षात्पदविषयतानिषेधाच्च। एतेन 'अस्थूलमनणु' (सुबालो. ३.२; बृह. ३.८.८; यो. गि. ३.१९) इत्याद्यपि व्याख्यातम्। 'यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते येन जातानि जीवन्ति यत्प्रयन्त्यभि- संविशन्ति तद्विजिज्ञासख तद् ब्रह्म।' (तैत्ति. ३. १) इति वाक्यशेषात्, जगदुपादानत्वादिविशिष्टे शक्तिग्रहः संभवति, इति चेत्-

of all particularitics, there would be no possibility of the Saktigraha, on account of the denial eren of the denotation of the word, and on account of the direct denial of ( Brah- man ) being the object denoted by the word, in the Sastra- ( or Sruti- ) passage ' From which the words turn away' ( Taitti. II. 4) 'Which is grasped neither by the eye, nor by word'

etc. ( Munda. Tfl. 1.8) Thus is explained away also ( the passage ) ' Neither gross, nor atomic' (Brha. III. 8. 8 ) etc. If it be argued - From the remaining part of the passage in ' From which these beings are originated, by which these when originated live, to which they go, into which they enter - know that fully, that is Brahman' ( Taitti. IlI. 1 ) the Saktigraha is possible in the case of Brahman parti-

१ त इत्यादि व्याख्यानम् २ A इति, इति वाक्यशेपात्

वेदान्तंकल्पलतिका ११

संभवतु, निर्विशेषस्य किमागतम्? [ ३९] अत एव न योगोऽपि तस्यावयवशक्तिरूपत्वेन रूढिमूल- तात्। वृहि वृद्धाविति धातोरौणादिकेन मन्प्रत्ययेन ब्रह्मपदस्य व्युप्तन्र- त्वाद्, योगवृत्या वृहद्वाचकत्वे तस् बृहतः संकोचकाभावात्, देशकाल- वस्तुपरिच्छेदशून्वत्वं पर्यवस्यति । तेन योगवृत्यैव सर्वपरिच्छेदशून्यं वस्तु त्रह्मशब्देनोच्चते। तदुक्तं भाष्यकारै :- 'बृहृतेर्धातोरन्वयानुगमाद्' (त्र. सू. शां. भा. १. १.१)

cularised by being the material cause of the world, - ( our reply is ) - Let that be possible there ( we hare nothing to do with it ). Where does the distinctionless thing come in here ? [ 39 ] F'or the same reason the etymological ( method ) is also not possible. For, it is based on convention consti- tuted of the denotative power of the parts. If it be argued - The word Brahman, being etymologically derived from the root Brha meaning increase, addition, by the termi- nation Man, as belonging to the Unadi-Sutras, has the deno- tative sense of increase on the strength of the etymology, and there would be in it the absence of any limitation of space, time and the entity, on account of the absence of contraction of that big (thing, Brahman ). Therefore, on the strength of the etymology itself, by the word Brahman is spoken of, an entity void of all limitations. So also is stated by the vencrable author of the Bhāsya ( Sankarā- carya ) - ' On acconnt of the exi tence of the connection with the root Brha' (Śa. Bhã. on I. 1.1)

म अथ वृहिदृद्धाविति -1 'वृहवृहि बृद्धौ'इनि adds व after तस्य ३ A ... धातांर थानुगमात्

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

इति। तथा, आत्मपदस्य यौगिकत्वं पुराणे दर्शितम्- 'यच्चाप्नोति यदादत्त यञ्चात्ति विषयानिह। यच्चास्य संततो भावस्तस्मादात्मेति कथ्यते ॥' इति। आमोतेर्वा, आददातेर्वा, अत्तेरततेर्वा रूपम्, आत्मेति। तथा अत्रापि प्रकृतोपयोगित्वात्, आह्येर्थ एव ग्राह्यः । तत्र संकोचकाभावात् सर्व्यापकं सर्वपरिच्छेदशून्यं वस्तु, आत्मशब्देन योगवृत्या, उच्यते, इति चेत्-न, एवं सति ब्रह्मात्मशब्दयोः पर्यायतापातात्, अनन्तशब्देन सह पौनरुक्त्यात्, सत्यादिपदवैयर्थ्यापाताच्च। निर्विकल्पकस्य मानान्तरानु- पस्थितत्वेन बुद्धावनारोहात, तत्र योगवृत्तिविषयत्वाग्रहाच्च । एवं ज्ञाना-

Likewise, the etymological position of the word Atman is pointed out in the Purāņa - 'Inasmuch as, he secures, he takes to, he eats the objects here, and in that there is his continuous existence, therefore, he is described as Atman.' This means that Atman is the form from Apnoti ( Ap), Adadāti ( 'Dā with ), Atti ( Ad), Atati ( V At). Like that here also, the meaning of securing should be understood as it is useful for the matter in hand. There, on account of the absence of any contracting factor, by the word Atman is pointed out on the strength of etymology the all-pervading entity, bereft of all limitations. - ( Our reply is ) - No. If this be the case, there would arise just the synonymous state of the words Brahman and Atman, there would be the repetition with the word Ananta ( Infinite ), and also there would arise the meaningless state of the word Satya etc, as a distinctionless thing cannot be grasped by the understanding, there being no other means of proof arailable, and also on account of the absence of the grasp of १ A यदाप्नोतत २ A आत्माप्त्यर्थ

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

दिपदेऽपि यौगिकत्वं निराक्कार्यम्। [ ४० ] अत एवं शक्येन समं संबन्धाग्रहणा, न लक्षणा, अपि। न हि लक्षणयैव लक्ष्यस्वरूपोपस्थितिः, तस्याः समारकत्वा, स्मरणस्य च र्वज्ञानजन्यत्वनियमार। यथाकथंचित्, अस्थूलादिवाक्यात्, निर्विशेषो- पस्थितौ, अपि शक्यसंबन्धस्यापि तेनैव निराकरणात्, न सत्यादिवाक्येन ब्रह्मेणो लक्ष्यत्वसंभव: । का वौ, अत्र लक्षणा स्वीकर्तव्या? न, अजहत्सार्था, विशिष्टोपस्थितिप्रसङ्गात्, 'तत्त्वमसि' आदि-वाक्यविरोधेन, अनन्वया- पत्तेः । न, अपि, जहद्-अजहत्खार्था, तस्याः शक्यसंबन्धवति प्रमाणान्त-

the object of the etymological power. In this way, the etymological factor has to be discarded in the case of the words Jnana and others.

[ 40 ] For this very reason, there ( can not be ) Indica- tion also, owing to the impossibility of grasping the connec- tion with a possible thing. Nor indeed is the forth-coming of the nature of the thing indicated by Indication alone; for, that is the cause of remembrance, and remembrance is invariably produced by the prior knowledge. Although, somehow or other, there might come forth ( the idea, under standing of) the distinctionless, from the passage-Not gross, - and others, the possible connection ( with the Laksya) being put out of question by itself, there is no possibility of Brabman being the thing indicated from the passage - Truth etc. What again is the Indication to be admitted here ? (It can ) not ( be ) Ajahat-svārtha, because of the unwelcome result viz. the understanding of something parti. cularised, and on account of there being the unwelcome non-connection, owing to the contradiction by the sentence- That thou art, etc. Neither again is Jahat-Ajahatsvartha

१ A अत एवाशक्येन २ A मह्षणि ३ A का चात्र

९४ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

रोपस्थिते सर्वसंबन्धशून्ये, अनवकाशात्। अत एव न जहत्सार्था, अपि, तदङ्गीकारे वा गङ्गापदलक्ष्यस्य तीरस्य, अगङ्गात्ववत्, सत्यादिपदलक्ष्यस्य, असत्यतादि स्यात्, वाच्यत्वस्य सर्वात्मना परित्यागात्। न, अपि गौणी तंत्र संभवति, सर्वसादृश्यशून्यत्वात्। सिद्धान्तेऽपि प्रभ्वादिगुणयोगेन गौण्या: स्वीकारः संक्षेपशारीरककाराणां प्रौढिवादमात्रम्, इति संप्रदाय:।

[४१ ] न, अपि व्यञ्जनावृत्तिस्तत्र संभवति, तस्या अप्रामाणिक- त्वात्, प्रामाणिकत्वे वा निःसंबन्धेऽप्रसरात्, इति । तस्मात्, अद्वितीयस्य

also; although it is possible in the case of Devadatta etc., that are understood from the other means of knowledge and which can have a possible connection with that (Indication ), it has no scope in the case of something void of all connec- tion, and which cannot be understood from other means of knowledge. For this very reason, nor the Jahat-svartha also; for, if that is accepted, the indicated sense of the word Truth etc. would be Non-truth etc., like the bank indicated by the word Ganga conveying the non-Ganga nature, because the primary nature is totally abandoned. Nor is the acceptance of the Qualitative ( Indication ) possible on account of its being void of all similarity. The acceptance of the Qualitative owing to the quality, being all-powerful etc., even according to our demonstrated doctrine, is but a show of his over-ingenuity by the venerable authór ( Sarva- jñātman ) of the Samksepa-Sariraka - this is the traditional view.

( 41 ] Nor, again, is possible there the Vyañjana-power, because it is not supported by any means of proof. Even if it is supported by any means of proof, it would not be functioning owing to the absence of connection. Therefore,

१, A वाच्यार्थस्य

वैदान्तकल्पलतिका ९५

ब्रह्मणः पदार्थत्वाभावात्, अपदार्थस्य वाक्यार्थत्वायोगात्, पदार्थवाक्यार्थ- योर्भेंदेऽखण्डासिद्धे:, अभेदे च वाक्यार्थवैयर्थ्यात्, केनापि रूपेण न, अद्वितीयब्रह्मात्मैक्यानुभवः संभवति। तदेवं स्वरूपतः प्रकारतो विषयतः आश्रयतः फलतः कारणतश्च, अविद्यानिवर्तकज्ञानानिरूपणात्, अविद्या- निवृत्युपलक्षित आत्मैर मोक्ष:, इति न क्षोदक्षमं पशयामः, इति, अनुपासि- तगुरवो मन्दबुद्धयः स्यं संदिहाना एव पूर्वपक्षयन्ति ते व्युत्पत्तिप्रकार- दर्शनेनानुकम्पनीया: कारुणिकैः, इति। [४२ ] अत्रोच्यते-यत्तावदुक्तं ज्ञानस्वरूपं सत्यं मिथ्या वा, इति, because Brahman without a second is not the meaning of the word, it has no connection with the import of the sentence, because there the undifferentiated nature is not proved on account of the difference between the meaning of the words and the meaning of the sentence; and if non- difference is admitted, the meaning of the sentence would be purposeless - by no device whatsoever there is possible the realisation of the identity of Brahman without a second, with the Atman. Therefore in this manner, from its very nature, the mode, the object, the resort, the effect, the cause, the knowledge removing the Avidya not being pointed out, we do not see that the view that Atman himself characterised by the removal of Avidya is salvation, capable of being challenged. Thus dull-witted people, who have not properly learnt under their preceptors, themselves not quite clear in their minds put forth this prima-facie view, -they have just to be pitied by the kind-hearted by pointing out to them the proper method ( of understanding ). [ 42 ] To this, we reply - As to what has been said - Is the nature of knowledge true or false ? - we do not see any fault in both the views in this case. Because sentiency, १ A वाक्यवैयर्थ्यांत् २ A न केनापि रूपेणाद्वितीय ..

९६ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

तत्र नोभयत्रापि दोषं पश्यामः । सत्यस्यैव चैतन्यस्य प्रमाणजन्यापरो- क्षान्त:करणवृत्त्यभिव्यक्तस्य, अज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वात्, वृत्तेश्र कारणतावच्छेदक- त्वेन दण्डत्वादिवदन्यथासिद्धत्वेन कारणतानङ्गीकारात्। अवच्छेदकस्य कल्पितत्वेऽपि, अवच्छेद्यस्य वास्तवत्वं न विहन्यते। अत्र, यत्, रजतत्वेन भातं तत्, शुक्तिद्रव्यम्, इतिवत्, तार्किकैराकाशस्य शब्दग्रहणे कर्णशष्कु- लीसंबन्धस्य कल्पितस्यैवावच्छेदकत्वम्, अङ्गीकारात्। मीमांसकैश् कल्पित- हरस्वत्वदीर्घत्वादिसंसर्गावच्छिन्नानामेव वर्णानां यथार्थज्ञार्नेंजनकत्वमिष्यते,

which is quite real and which is manifested by the direct realisation in the mind, produced by the means of proof, is the remover of Ajnana because the function of the mind being characterised by the nature of the cause, like the nature of the staff ( as in the case of Dandi Devadattah ) is not accepted as the cause, becau e it is established other- wise. Even though the characterising factor is imagined, the real nature of the thing characterised is not vitiated. In such a case, as here - what appears as having the nature of silver, is the substance, conch-shell. Thus Logicians have admitted imaginary characterising connec- tion with the cavity of the ear, in apprehending the sound from the sky. The Mimamsakas admit the letters them- selves as producing the right knowledge, - ( letters ) chara cterised by the contact with the imaginary shortness, long- ness etc.,-why should not such a case be applicable to us as above? Nor again is that to be accounted for by admitting a real connection; as there exists the mere contact with the cavity of the ear, in its entirety, in the otherwise there would be here anarchy. And that also

१ A अवच्छेद्यवास्तवत्वम् २ À drops ३ A अवच्छेदकत्वस्याङ्गीकारात A अवच्छेदकत्वाङ्गीकारात

बेदान्तकल्पलतिका ९७

तद्वदस्माकं किं, न स्थात्१ न च तत्र वास्तवैसंबन्धेनोपपत्तिः, कर्णशष्कु- लीसंयोगमात्रस्य निरवयवे नभसि सर्वात्मना वर्तमानत्वेनाति प्रसञ्जकत्वा- त्संबन्धान्तरमङ्गीकर्तव्यम् । तच्च नभसि कल्पितमेव वास्तवसंबन्धान्तरा- भावात्। एवं ध्वनिधर्माणां ध्वनिगतत्वेन भाने, वर्णानां विभूनामानुपूर्वि- विशेषाज्ञानादतिप्रसङ्गेन, ततोऽर्थंबोधासंभवात्, वर्णनिष्ठत्वेनैव हृस्वत्वादि- भानमङ्कीकर्तव्यम्, तच्च कल्पितमेव। प्रत्युत, अन्यथाख्यात्यभ्युपगमात् तेषामसतोऽपि संसर्गस्यावच्छेदकत्वम्। अस्माकं तु, अनिर्वचनीयख्यांत्य- भ्युपगमात्, असद्विलक्षणत्वेनार्थक्रियाकारित्वमुपपद्यत एव । अत एव

would be just imaginary on account of the absence of any other real contact in the sky. Likewise, when the ramifica- tions of the sound are apprehended as belonging to the sound, there would be just anarchy on account of the non- comprehension of distinction as regards the order of priority, in the all-pervading letters, and therefore as there would be the impossibility of understanding the meaning, we have got to admit the comprehension of shortness etc., as residing in the letters themselves, - and that would be all imagi- nary. Further again, because they admit Anyatha-khyati, according to their view, even a non-existing contact can be a characteristic. But in our view, because we admit the Anirvacaniya-khyati, there would rightly be existing the power to bring into effect the effective action, on account of its being different from non-existence. For this very reason, there is no fault even if the direct realization in the mind produced by the means of proof is admitted to destroy the Ajnana in the case of the non-dual Sentiency, because

9 A वास्तवसंबन्धान्तरासंभवात् २ A ... आनुपूर्वी ...

३ A अनिर्वचनीयख्यात्यभ्युपगमात् १३

वेदन्तिकलपलतिका

दोष:, पारमार्थिकस च्वाभावेऽपि व्यावहारिकसचाङ्गीकारात्। न च खमा- दिज्ञानतुल्यता दोष:, भावानवबोधाद स्वरूपसत्यत्वं हि न प्रामाण्यप्रथेज- कम्, त्वन्मते घटादौ तत्सच्वेऽपि प्रामाण्याभावात् । किंतु, अवाधितज्ञांत- विषयत्वम्। तच्च खप्नादिज्ञाने नास्त्येव। अत एव मिथ्याज्ञानविषयत्वात्, ब्रह्मापि खम्नादिवन्मिथ्येति परास्तम्, स्वरूपतो मिथ्यात्वस्याप्रयोजकत्वात्। विषयतो मिथ्यात्वस्य बाधाभावादसिद्धेः । धूमभ्रमजन्यवह्वयनुमितेरपि, अवाधिता षयतयाआमाण्यानङ्गीकाराच्। कल्पितेनापि प्रतिबिम्बेन वास्तव- विम्बानुमानप्रामाण्याच्च, स्वम्ार्थस्याप्यरिष्टादिसूचकत्वाच्च। क्वचित्तदुपल-

although there is no real nature, existence for practical purposes is admitted. Nor, further, is there the fault viz. its being similar to the knowledge in dreams etc., for, owing to the non-comprehension ( of the object ) its real nature is not the producer of its authoritative nature, as according to your view even though that exists in the case of a jar etc., there exists not its authoritative nature, but its referring to an unstultified object. And that surely exists not in the case of the knowledge in dreams etc. For this very reason, is discarded the view that Brahman also being the object of false knowledge is false like a dream etc., because from its very nature it is not the cause of false nature. And the false nature from the point of view of the object is not established owing to the absence of stulti- fication. And because the unauthoritative nature is not admitted even of the inference about fire, produced by the illusion of smoke, because it concerns an object not stultified. And because the inference about a real object from the re- flection although imagined is authoritative, and because the objects in the dream do indicate good fortune etc .. And

१ A drops पारमार्थिक ... दोष: २ A सत्ताभावेऽपि ३ A भावावबोधरूपसत्यत्वं ... ४ A अबाधितज्ञानविषयत्वम्

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ९९

ब्धमत्रादेर्जागरेऽप्यनुवृत्तेरबाधाच। एवं मिथ्याभूतादपि ज्ञानात्पारमार्थिकी ब्रह्मप्राप्तिर्न विरुध्यते। पारमार्थिकत्वे बाधाभावस्यैव प्रयोजकत्वाद्। [ ४३ ] एवं सप्रकारत्वनिष्प्रकारत्वविकल्पोऽप्यनुपपन्नः । सप्रकार- त्वस्यानङ्गीकारपराहतत्वात्। न च निष्प्रकारकस्याज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वमनुपपन्नम्, अधिष्ठानप्रमात्वेनैवाज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वात्। यत्र सप्रकारकमधिष्ठानं तत्र स- प्रकारा प्रमा, अपेक्ष्यते । यत्र तु निष्प्रकारकमेधिष्ठानं तत्र निष्प्रकारिकैव प्रमा, अपेक्ष्यते तस्या एव तत्र समर्थत्वात्। न चैवं कार्यकारणभावदय कल्पने गौरवम्, अधिष्ठानप्रमात्वेनानुगतत्वाँत् । अधिष्ठानत्वं च भ्रम-

because the continuity of some chants etc., sometimes understood in dream, in the waking state stands unstultified. -Thus even from the knowledge that is dubbed as false, the attainment in reality of Brahman is not open to question, because the absence of stultification alone is the sine qua non of a thing being real. [ 43 ] In this way, the alternatives, being possessed of a mode, or not being possessed of a mode also cannot stand. Being with the mode is out of question, because it is not admitted ( by us ). Neither is it improper for some- thing not possessed of a mode to be the remover of Ajñana, because the removing of the Ajñana is due to the right knowledge itself about the basis thereof. Where there is a base with a mode, there is required the right knowledge with the mode. But where the base is without a mode, there is required ( only ) the modeless right knowledge itself, because that alone is competent ( for the task ) there. Nor in this manner would there be clumsiness in postulating two ideas about the relation of cause and effect. Because there is the persistence of the right knowledge of the base.

१ A सप्रकारस्या २ A अनङ्गीकारण पराहतत्वात् ३ A सप्रकारमधिष्ठानं ४ A निष्प्रकारमधिष्ठानं ५A निष्प्रकारैक ६ A कारणभावद्वयकल्पनागौरवम् A अनुआमात्

१०० वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

जनकाज्ञानविषयत्वम्, अज्ञानविषयत्वमात्रं वा। न चैवं सति प्रमेयं द्रव्यम्, इत्य।दिनापि घटाद्याकाराज्ञाननिवृत्तिप्रसङ्ग, अधिष्ठानविषय- प्रमात्ववत्, इति वाच्यम्, प्रमेयत्वस्य केवलान्वयिनोऽनङ्गीकारान्, न तज्ज्ञानस्य सर्वविषयत्त्रम्। 'द्रव्यम्' इति ज्ञानस्य च घटत्वादिसामान्य- विषयत्काद्, व्यक्तिमात्रविषयत्वेऽपि न विशिष्टविषयत्वम्। एवम् 'इदम्' इति ज्ञानस्यापि पुरोदेशवृत्तिव्यक्तिमात्रविषयत्वम्, न घटत्वादि- विषयत्वम्, उत्तरकाले संशयदर्शनात्। तेन ततो न विशिष्टविषया, ज्ञाननिवृत्तिप्रसङ्ग:, समानप्रेकारविशेषणप्रक्षेपेऽपि प्रमेयवानितिज्ञानात्

The nature of the base has for its object the Ajnana, pro ducing the illusion or it is merely of the nature of the object of Ajnana. Nor again should it be argued - if that be the case there would be the unwelcome result, the removal of Ajmana of the form jar and others even from ( the know- ledge ) what is to be known is a substance etc., like the right knowledge of the object of the Adhisthana - because the nature of being the object of knowledge is not ad) mitted in only the object having a positive ( affirmative - connection, that knowledge cannot cover all objects. The knowledge, '( this is ) a substance', concerning itself with the generality jarness etc., does not concern a particular object although it concerns only the individual. Likewise even in the case of knowledge, 'this',- it concerns only the individual situated in front, and does not concern jarness etc., because a doubt is entertained later on. Therefore on account of this there is no unwelcome contingency of the removal of Ajñana about particularised objects; ( and ) there wonld be the unwelcome contingency of the removal of Ajuana concerning all objects, from the cognition (I)

२ A समानप्रकारकस्व्रविशेषेण ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १०१

सर्वविषयाज्ञाननिवृत्तिप्रसङ्ग:। घटत्वादेरपि प्रमेयत्वेन तज्ज्ञानस्य घटत्वा- दिप्रकारकत्वात्। अत एव सामान्यधर्माप्रकारकेतिविशेषणप्रक्षेपेऽपि न निस्तारः। प्रमेयो घट इत्यादिज्ञानात् घटाद्याकाराज्ञाननिवृत्त्यभावापातात्, अविषयत्वंप्रकारविषयत्वप्रकारकत्वादेरनुगतस्याभावाच्। अथ, एतद्दोष- परिजिहीर्षया विशिष्य कार्यकारणभावः कल्पनीयः, घटाज्ञानत्वेन नाश्यता घटत्वप्रकारकप्रमात्वेनैव नाशकता, एवं सर्वत्रापि, इति चेत्, तर्हि सर्वत्र कार्यकारणभावानां मिन्नत्वाद्यत्र थावता विशेषणेन विना न निर्वहति तत्र

know the object, even though the qualifying factor, viz. a similar mode is thrown in. Even in the case of jarness etc., which can be the object of knowledge, the know ledge is possessed of the mode jar-ness etc. For this very reason, even though the qualifying factor as not having the mode of the genus-quality is thrown in, there is no clearing away of the field. Because from the know- ledge ' the object of knowledge is the jar' etc., there would follow the absence of the removal of Ajnana having the form of a jar etc., and there would be the absence of conti nuity of being the mode and the object, and mode and the non-object etc. If it is argued - in order to get rid of this fault a particularised relation of cause and effect should be entertained, (so that ) there would be the perishable nature on account of the Ajñana about a jar and the destructive nature by the nature itself of the right knowledge with the mode jar-ness, ( and ) this ( would be the state of things ) everywhere; -(our reply is ) -then in that case, the relation of cause and effect being different everywhere, ( the reasonable view should be ) where ( the ' cause and effect' relation ) does not become completely effective without which qualifying factor, there only that much

१ A drops अविषयत्वप्रकार ... A ... अविषयत्वाप्रकार : २ A भिन्नत्वादपि यत्र

१०२ वेदान्तकलपलतिका

तावदेवोपादातव्यम्। अत्र च ब्रह्माज्ञाननिवृत्तित्वेन ब्रह्मप्रमात्वेनैव कार्य- कारणभावोपपत्तौ न ब्रह्मत्वप्रकारकेति विशेषणसुपादेयम्, गौरवात्, अनु- पयोगात्, विरोधात्, च। अत एव व्यवहारत्वेन व्यवहर्तव्यज्ञानत्वेन कार्यकारणभावे व्यवहर्तव्यत्वस्यानुगतस्याभावात् घटव्यवहारत्वेन घटज्ञान- त्वेनेत्यादिविशेषपर्यवसाने, घटज्ञानव्यवहारत्वेन घटज्ञानत्वेनैव कल्प्यते कार्यकारणभावो न तु घटज्ञानत्वेन, गौरवात्, अनुपयोगात्, विरोधात्, च, इति। घटज्ञानस्यैव स्वव्यवहारहेतुत्वेन स्वप्रकाशत्वसिद्धिः, इति, अन्यदेतत्। अथवा सामान्यधर्ममात्राप्रकारकसमानविषयप्रमात्वम्, अज्ञान

should be accepted. And here in this case, the relation of cause and effect being properly accounted for by the right knowledge of Brahman itself owing to the removal of Ajñana about Brahman, the qualifying factor, having the mode of being Brahman, should not be accepted on account of its being clumsy ( to do so), on account of its serving no purpose and on account of the contradiction For this very reason, on account of the absence of the conti- nuity of the nature of being fit for practical dealings in the relation of cause and effect, due to the knowledge of ( things) fit for practical dealings on account of its having practical dealings, when it culminates into something particular owing to its possessing the knowledge of 'a jar' etc., owing to the practical dealing with the jar, the relation of cause and effect is entertained by the possession of the knowledge of the jar itself, owing to the practical dealing associated with the knowledge of a jar; not on account of the possession of the knowledge of a jar, on account of its being clumsy ( to do so), on account of its serving no purpose, and on account of the contradiction, That the knowledge of a jar itself establishes its self-illumining nature owing to its being the cause of practical dealings regarding itself - this is quite another matter. Or, the right knowledge about the

वेदान्तंकल्पलतिका

निवृत्तौ प्रयोजकम्। अत्र प्रमेयमिति ज्ञानेऽतिव्याप्तिनिवारणाय सामान्येति। प्रमेयो घट इत्यादावव्याप्तिवारणाय मात्रेति विशेषणम् । तेनेदं विशेष- प्रकारके निष्प्रकारे चानुगतम्। न च सामान्यमोत्रप्रकारके ज्ञानेऽव्यापि:, इदम्, अनिदं वा, प्रमेयम्, अप्रमेयं वा, इत्या।देसंशयाद्यदर्शनात्, सामान्यमात्रप्रकारकज्ञानानङ्गीकारेण तद्वारणस्यानौचित्याद्। अत्र च, अप्रामाण्यशङ्कानास्कन्दितत्वं प्रमाविशेषणं सर्वत्र द्रष्टव्यम्। तच्च, अप्रामाण्य शङ्कासाम्यसमवहितत्वं दोषविशेषासदकृतत्वं वा, तेन नासंभावनादि- कलुपितज्ञाने व्यभिचारः। न हि प्रतिबन्धवशेन कार्यमजनयतो हेतोर- same object possessing only the generality-nature without any particular mode, is the cause of the removal of Ajnana. Here, the expression ' generality' is put in to ward off the fault of being over-extensive, in the case of the know- ledge '(This is ) the object of knowledge'. (The expression) 'only' is put in as the qualifying factor, in order to ward off the fault of being less extensive in ( cognitions ) like ' a jar is the object of knowledge'; so that 'this' would be continuing in something modeless and in that having a particular mode. Nor does this involve being less extensive in the case of cognition which has the mode of generality only, because there is no doubt perceived such as 'this' or 'not this', 'object-of-knowledge' or ' no-object-of know- ledge', because when you do not admit the cognition having the mode only of generality, it is improper to ward it off. And here, however, the qualifying factor 'right knowledge', not challenged by any doubt about its unautho- ritative nature should be understood everywhere. And that is, not being affected by the parapharnelia of doubt about its unauthoritativeness or its not being associated with a parti- cular fault, so, there would not be any violation in

१ A निष्प्रकारके २ A सामान्यधर्मप्रकारके A सामान्यधर्ममात्रप्रकारके ३ A सामान्यधर्ममात्रप्रकारक

१०४ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

हेतुत्वं भवति। [ ४४ ] यत्तु सत्तावधारणरूपस्य, अज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वाभ्युपगमात्, अनभ्यासदशापन्नज्ञानस्य च तदूपत्वाभावात्, उक्तविशेषणमन्तरेणापि न व्यमिचारः, इति तदसत् । एककोटिकज्ञानस्य सच्तावधारणरूपज्ञानात्, अन्यूनानधिकविषयस्य प्रमाणजनितस्य किं नाम सत्तानवधारणरूपत्वम्, येन न व्यमिचारः! इति । निश्चयत्वाभावः, इति चेत्, न । संशयमिन्नत्वस्य जातिविशेषस्य वा निश्चयत्वस्य, अत्राप्यङ्गीकारात्। संशयादिविरोधित्वं निश्वयत्वम्, तच्च, अत्र, नास्ति, उत्तरकाले संशयादिदर्शनात्, इति चेत्, respect of cognition soiled by improbability etc. For surely a cause not producing the effect under the force of obstruc- tion does not cease to be a cause. [ 44 ] As to (what is stated about) the cognition having a definite form about the existence because it is admitted as the remover of Ajnana; and because the cognition which has not attained to the state of repetition not being pos- sessed of that form, there would be no violation of the rule even without the qualifying factor spoken of - that is wrong. What kind of non-ascertainment of the existence can there be in the case of cognition pointing out to only one end, produced by means of proof, having an object neither more nor less, from the cognition having a definite form of existence, so that there would be no violation of the rule ? If ( you say that there is ) the absence of certainty, ( our reply is ) - no. For, here also has been admitted the certainty as being different from doubt or as having a particular genus. Certainty is being opposed to doubt etc., - that however exists not here, owing to the doubt etc., being noticed later on, -if (you argue like that), then you have come to the right path. And we do not see ₹ Ā drops

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १०५

तर्हि, आयातं मार्गे। तच्च, अस्मदुक्ताप्रामाण्यशङ्कानास्कन्दितत्वातिरिक्तं न पश्याम:, इति, अलमव्युत्पन्नविडम्बनया। [ ४५ ] ननु, इदं तार्किकमतसिद्धनिर्विकल्पकेऽतिव्याप्तम्, तत्र, उक्तरूपसत्वात्, अज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वाच्च। न तत्र मानाभावात्, विशिषज्ञान- मात्रं प्रति विशेषणज्ञानत्वेन कारणत्वात्, 'घटोऽयम्' इति विशिष्टज्ञानेऽपि विशिष्टज्ञानत्वेनैव हेतुता, विशेषणज्ञानजन्यत्वं 'दण्डी पुरुषः' इत्यादि- ज्ञानदष्टान्तेनानुमीयते। तच, ज्ञानम्, अनवस्थाभयात, अविशिष्टमेव सिध्यति, इति चेत्, न । प्रत्यक्षानुमितत्वव्यतिरेकेण विशिष्टज्ञानत्वस्य कार्यताव-

that it is different from being unchallenged by any doubt about the unauthoritative nature spoken of by us - enough of these stupid vapourings of an uncultured one ! [ 45 ] Now, I say (says the objector ) -this ( your view) is over-extensive in respect of the indeterminate esta- blished by the view of the Logicians, because that possesses the form spoken of and has the capacity to remove Ajñana. In that connection, owing to the absence of ( other ) means of proof, the cognition of the qualifying attribute being the cause with reference only to the particularised cognition, even in the case of the particular knowledge in the form 'This is a jar', there is not the nature of the cause by its being the qualifying knowledge itself; that it is produced by the knowledge of the qualifying attribute is inferred by the illustrative instance of the cognition in the form ' A man possessed of a staff' etc. And if it is argued that that cogni- tion becomes established as unparticularised itself, otherwise there would be the danger of endlessness-(our reply is )- no. No means of proof other than Direct Perception and Inference exists for the nature of the particularised cogni- tion being characterised by the nature of the product. And

A drops २ A ह्रेतुना ३ A अविशिष्टविषयमेव

१०६ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

च्छेदकत्वे मानाभादात्। ता्मिन् सत्यपि प्रत्यक्षत्वादिरूपेण कार्यकारण- भावस्यावश्यकत्वाद्, तस्य च विशेषणविशेष्येन्द्रियसंनिकर्षादिरूयेण कृप्त- त्वादेव, न, अलौकिकं कार्यकारणभावान्तरं कल्पनीयम्। तस्य च नित्या- नुमेयत्वाभ्युपगमात्, न मानान्तरसंभावना, अपि । यदि च तार्किकै: सहैक्यमपेक्षितम्, तदा, अपरोक्षसवरूपा, इति ग्रमा विशेषणीया। तार्किक- सिद्धनिर्विकल्पस्य नित्यानुमेयत्वेन, अपरोक्षस्वरूपत्वाभावात्। अस्मन्मते तु तस्या: साक्षात् साक्षिवेद्यत्वात्, न कोऽपि दोष:। [ ४६ ] तदयं निर्गलितार्थ :- सामान्यधर्ममात्राप्रकारकसमानविषय-

even though it is there, the relation of cause and effect in the form of Direct Perception etc. being essential, and that being postulated, verily, in the form of the qualifying and the qualified, the close contact with the sense-organs etc, another unusual relation of cause and effect need not be thought of. And that being admitted as always inferable, there can not be the possibility of another means of proof also. If you, however, desire its having the same form, in company with the Tarkikas, then you will have to qualify ' the right knowledge' as 'having a nature directly per- ceivable'. Because the 'indeterminate' established by the Logicians being always inferable has not a directly per- ceivable nature. According to our view, however, there is no blemish whatsoever, because that is directly cognisable by the Witness. [ 46 ] Therefore, this is what the whole sense boils down to. The nature of directly perceivable right know- ledge which is possessed of only the attribute of generality, without any particular mode, and is not associated with particular blemishes referring to the common object, is

१ A ... तस्यार्थान्

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १०७

कदोष विशेषासहकृतापरोक्षप्रमात्वम्, अज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वमज्ञाननिवर्तकतावच्छे- दकम्। अपरोक्षत्वं च स्वरूपतो विषयतश्च विवक्षितम्, इति न, अनुमा- नादौ निर्विकल्पके चातिव्याप्ति:। ननु ब्रह्मणो निर्धर्मकत्वात् तत्र विषयताया अप्यनुपपन्नत्वात्, तद्वि- षयज्ञानत्वमपि दुर्लभम्; विषयता हि कर्मता, तदङ्गीकारे तस्य क्रियाफल शालित्वेन घटादिवज्डत्वापत्तेश्र, तद्विषयतासंभवेनैव ज्ञानं तदज्ञाननिव- र्तकमिति चेत्, न। समानविषयत्वस्य निवर्तकतावच्छेदकत्वात्, अन्यथाति- प्रसङ्गात्, तद्विषयज्ञानाजनने तत्र वेदान्तानां प्रामाण्यानुपपत्तेश्। न तेत्

being the remover of Ajñana, characterising being the remover of Ajñana. Being directly perceivable is meant to be understood from its nature and its object, and so it cannot be over-extensive respecting Inference etc. and the indeterminate. ( If the objector argues )-if Brahman is not pos- sessed of Dharmas and the nature of object also is im- possible there, the knowledge of its object also is difficult to have; for, being the object is the state of Karman; if that is admitted, then that being habituated to giving the fruit of action, it would perforce be non-sentient like jar etc .. If it is argued that its knowledge, verily, possibly referring to its object would be the remover of that Ajñana - ( our reply is ) -no. Because only something having a common object is characterised by the nature of being the remover; otherwise, there would be all anarchy. And there would be the absurdity of the Vedanta passages not being the authority, by the non-production of cognition about that

१ A अज्ञाननिवर्तकतावच्छेदकम् २ A वा अतिव्याप्ति: ३ A विषयतया ४ A क्रियाजन्यफलशालित्वेन ५ A तद्विषयकज्ञानाजनने ६ A न च तस्य A न च तत्र

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

अज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वम्, तेन च तत्, अज्ञाननिवर्तकतामात्रेण तददिषेयसुपचर्षसे, इति वाच्यम्। अन्योन्याश्रयत्वाह्, तद्विषयत्वेन तदज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वम्, तेन च तद्विषयत्वमिति। न च तद्विषयँतामात्रेण, अज्ञार्नेनिवर्तकं क्वापि सिद्धम्। तस्यैवाधुना विचार्यत्वात्। कल्पिता विषयता न कर्मतवमावहृति,इति चेत्, न, वास्तवविषयताया: कुत्राप्यनङ्गीकाराद् व्यावहारिकत्वस्य समानत्वाह्। [४७] अत्र ब्रूमः-ब्रह्मणो ज्ञानविषयेतासंभवेऽि ज्ञानस्य ब्रह्मविषयता वर्तते, सा च तद्विम्बग्राहकत्वं वा, अन्यदेव वा किंचिद- निर्वचनीयम्। न च द्रव्यातिरिक्तस्य उन्यधर्मानाशगलाह, अजन्यत्वे च,

object. Further, you cannot say that it has the nature of being the remover of Ajñana and by that very nature, being the remover of that Ajñana, its being the object is stated metaphorically. Because there is the fault of mutual interdependence -there is the nature of being the remover of Ajñana owing to its being the object of that; and by that ( being the remover of Ajñana ) it is the object of that. Further, nowhere is it established that one is the remover of Ajñāna, merely by being the object. Because that itself is now being considered. If it be argued that the nature of being an object which is iniagined, cannot lead to its being the cbject - ( our reply is ) no; because nowhere have we admitted the real nature of the object, its being there for mere practical dealings is common ( to both ). [ 47 ] In this connection we say - Though it is impos- sible for Brahman to have the nature of the object of knowledge, the knowledge has Brahman for its object, and that ( having Brahman for its object ) is either the nature of perceiving the original object or quite something else in-

१ A अज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वमात्रेण A तद्विषयत्वमुपचर्यते ३ A तद्विपयतामन्तरेण ४ A अज्ञाननिवर्तकृर्त्व ५ A ज्ञानविषयताया असंभवऽपि

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १०९

अतिप्रसङ्गात्, अनिरूपणाच्च कथ ज्ञाननिष्ठा विषयता, इति वाच्यम्, ज्ञान- स्थाप्यन्त:करणपरिणामत्वेन द्रव्यत्वात्, द्रव्यत्वाभावेऽपि जन्यधर्माश्रयत्वे विरोधाभावाच्च, द्रव्यादिपरिभाषाया अप्रयोजकत्वाच्च। विषयतैव चाकारः प्रतिविषयं विलक्षणः। अत एव ब्रह्माकारापरोक्षप्रमात्वेनैव, अज्ञाननिवृत्ति- कारण तायामनतिप्रसक्तायां संभवन्त्यां न सामान्याप्रकारका, इति विशेषणम- पेक्षितम्, अज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वस्वरूपाकारापरोक्षप्रमात्वस्य सर्वत्रानुगमाच्च। न च 'इदम्' इत्याकारं ज्ञानं 'घटाकारम्' इति शङ्कितुमपि शक्यम्, आकारभेदस्य स्फुटतरसाक्षिप्रत्यक्षत्वात्। अन्यथा, तयोर्ज्ञानयोरेकप्रैकार-

describable. Nor should it be argued - How can the nature of an object be residing in knowledge on account of something apart from a substance, not being the resort of the Dharmas produced? And if they are not produced there would be just anarchy, and that cannot bear scrutiny - for, the knowledge also is a substance because it is a transform- ation of the inner sense-organ, and even though it has no nature of a substance, there can be no contradiction regard- ing the resort of the Dharmas produced, and the termino- logy ' substance ' etc. serves no purpose. The nature of an object is some form, and that too is different for each object. Therefore, because of the removal of Ajñāna not over-exten- sive being quite possible by the direct right knowledge itself in the form of Brahman, the qualifying attribute - not having the mode of generality - is not wanted as the direct right knowledge having the form of the nature of being the remover of Ajnana persists everywhere. And further, it is not possible even to think of the cognition in the form ' this' as 'having the form of jar', because the diffe- rence in form is directly perceivable by the Witness quite distinctly. Otherwise it would be possible to state shame- १ A आकारः २ A सम्भवत्यां ३ प्रका कस्यापि

११० वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

त्वस्यापि निस्त्रपेण वक्तुं शक्यत्वात्। तत्र चानुभव एव शरणम्। तच्च प्रकृतेऽपि तुल्यम्। [ ४८ ] अस्तु वा ब्रह्मण्यपि कल्पिता विषयता। न च कर्मत्वेन जडत्वापात:, इति वाच्यम्, खसमानसत्ताकविषयताया एव कर्मत्वापा- दकत्वात्। सा च घटादौ संभवति। उभयोरपि व्यावहारिकसच्वेन तुल्यत्वात् । ब्रह्मणि तु परमार्थसति व्यावहारिक्यपि विषयता परमार्थ- सच्ाभावेन न समाना, इति किमनुपपन्नम् १ एतेन 'तं त्वौपनिषदम्' (बृह. ३. ९. २६) इति श्रुतिरप्यनुगृहीता भवति।

lessly that both these cognitions have just only one mode. In such cases, realisation alone is the (last ) resort. And that is equally available in the present case. [ 48 ] Or, let there be an imagined nature of object even in the case of Brahman; but it should not be argued that the nature of Karman involves ( Brahman's ) being non- sentient, because only the nature of object which has a com- mon existence with itself, produces the nature of Karman, and that is possible ( only ) in jar and others, because even both of them stand on the same footing, existing for practi- cal dealing. But in the case of Brahman which has 'real existence', the nature of being an object even concerned with practical dealing, is not common as there is the absence of 'real existing nature'- thus what is not accounted for here ? Thus ( by taking such a view), the Sruti (passage) ' Him, ( the Purusa ) propounded in the Upanisads' (Brha. III. 9. 26) would also be properly respected.

१ A व्यावहारिकत्वेन

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १११

अथवा चैतन्यविषयतैव जडत्वापादिका, न तु वृत्तिविषयतापि। 'यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते' (तैत्ति. २ . ४) 'न चक्षुषा गृह्यते नापि वाचा' (मु. ३.१.८) 'तं त्वौपनिषदं पुरुषं पृच्छामि' (बृह.३. ९. २६ ) 'नावेदविन्मनुते तं बृहन्तम्' (शाट्या. ४ ) 'वेदेनैव यद् वेदितव्यम्' (बृह. ५. १) इत्याद्युभयविधश्रुत्यनुसारेण कल्पनात्। यत्तु फलव्याप्यत्वम् एव, अस्य शास्त्रकृद्धिर्निराकृतम् । ब्रह्मण्यज्ञान- नाशाय वृत्तिव्यापतिरपेक्षिता, इत्युक्तत्वात्, फलव्याप्यत्वमेव जडत्वापादक-

Or, being the object of sentiency itself is the producing cause of non-sentiency, but not also being the object of the functioning. Because that would be the idea in conformity with the Sruti-passages propounding both these, such as- ' From whom words turn away' (Taitti. II. 4 ) 'It is neither perceived by the eye, nor by words' (Mu. III. 1.8) ' But I am asking you about that Purusa propounded in the Upanisads' (Brha. III. 9. 26 ) ' One who does not know the Vedas, cannot think of that vast one' ( Śātyā. 4) ' What is fit to be known only by the Vedas' ( Brha. V. I) As to what they say that the Sastra-authors have disproved merely its being pervaded the fruit ; some argue that being pervaded by the fruit itself, is the producing cause of non-sentient nature, because it has been stated that for the destruction of Ajnana about Brahman is needed invariable association witb its functioning -(to this we

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

मित्याहु:, तत् न । प्रमाणजन्यान्त:करणवृत्त्यभिव्यक्तचैतन्यस्ैव शास्त्रे फलत्वव्यपदेशात्, तदव्याप्यत्वस्यैव जडत्वापादकत्वे ब्रह्मण इव साक्षि- भास्यानामपि जडत्वं न स्यात्। चैतन्यकर्मता तु चिद्धिन्नत्वावच्छेदेन सर्वत्रवेति, सैव जडत्वप्रयोजिका। उदाहृतकारिकायामपि चैतन्यमात्रपरसेव फलपदम्, इति द्रष्टव्यम्। न तु वृत्तिविषयत्वे। तर्दुपरक्तचैतन्यविषय- त्वमपि नियतम्, वृत्तेश्रिदाकारगर्भिण्या एवोपपत्तेः। तदुक्तम्- 'वियद्वस्तुस्वभावानुरोधादेव न कारकात्। वियत्संपूर्णतोत्पत्तौ कुम्भस्यैवं दृशा धियाम्।

reply ) that is not so. Because the sentient nature itself manifested by the functioning of the mind, and produced by the means of proof, is designated in the Sastra as the nature of the fruit; and if not being pervaded by that itself is the producing cause of non-sentient nature, there would not be the non-sentient nature of entities appearing to the Witness also, like that of Brahman. The activity of senti- ency does exist, however, everywhere, characterised by the difference from ' Cit', and that same is the producing cause of non-sentient nature. Even in the Kārikā, given as an instance, the word fruit must be understood as pointing out only to the sentiency, but not to being the object of the functioning. There does exist invariably the nature of the object of sentiency affected by it, because the functioning rightly takes its place as involving the form of the ' Cit' within. It has been said - 'In the case of the origination of the complete sky, verily, it exists in conformity with the nature of the Viyat- entity itself, not from any producing cause; the same obtains in the case of the jar, on account of the perception of the ideas.'

१ Ā drops ₫ २ A ननु तदु ... ३ A एवोत्पत्ते:

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ११३

घटदुःखादिरूपत्वं धियो धर्मादिहेतुतः । स्वतःसिद्धार्थसंबोधव्याप्तिर्वस्त्वनुरोधतः ॥ (बृह. वा. का. ५४३-५४४ ) इति। तथा च चैतन्यविषयत्वेन जडत्वं दुर्वारमेव। वृत्युपरक्तचैतन्यस्य स्वयमेव चैतन्यरूपत्वात्, न तद्व्याप्यता फले फलान्तरानुपपत्तेः । तद्भ्ि- ननानां तु सतो भानरहितानां तद्व्याप्तिरवश््यमेवाश्रयणीया, इति न कोऽपि दोष:। तदुक्तम्- 'परागर्थप्रमेयेषु या फलतवेन संमता। संवित् सैवेह मेयोऽर्थो वेदान्तोक्तिप्रमाणतः॥(पञ्च. ८.११) इति।

The nature of jar, pain etc., is caused by the Dharma etc., of the Understanding. The invariable association with the comprehension of the self-established entity is in confor- mity with the entity.' ( Brha. Vā. Kā. 543-544 ) In the same manner, the non-sentient nature being the object of the sentiency cannot, verily, be avoided; as the sentiency affected by the functioning, having itself the form of sentiency, cannot be pervaded by it, ( the existence of ) another fruit in a fruit being out of question. In the case, however, of those that are different from it and are by themselves lacking comprehension, the invariable concomitance with it has got necessarily to be resorted to, - thus there is no fault whatsoever. As has been said - ' What Samvit has been agreed to as the fruit in the case of outside objects of knowledge, that same here is the thing to be known on the strength of the Vedanta- passages. ( Pañca. 8. 11)

१ A वेदान्तोक्तिप्रमादतः १५

११४ वेदान्तकल्पलतिकां

[४९ ] ननु, एवं कल्पितविषयतावत् कल्पितप्रकारोऽपि किमिति नाङ्गीक्रियते१ तथा सति न, उक्तकार्यकारणभावादिकल्पनाक्केशः, इति। मैवम्। प्रकारस्य भासमानवैशिष्यप्रतियोगित्वात्, विशेषणत्वेन ज्ञान- विषयत्वमवश्यं वाच्यम्। तथा च ज्ञानस्य स्वविषयानिवर्तकत्वात्, तस्य प्रकारसानिवृत्तिप्रसङ्ग:, केवलचैतन्यागोचरस्य केवलचैतन्यगोचराज्ञान- निवर्तकत्वायोगाच्च। अन्यानुपर क्तचैतन्यभानस्यैव पूर्वोक्तरूपेण ज्ञाननिवर्त- कत्वात्, विषयतायास्तु तज्ज्ञानभासकसाक्षिवेद्यत्वेऽपि तज्ज्ञानाविषयत्वात्, अन्यानुपरक्तचैतन्यगोचरत्वसुपपद्यते, इति वैषम्यम्। तस्मादुपपद्यते ब्रह्म-

[ 49 ] I say ( says the objector )-why then is not admit- ted the imaginary mode also like the imaginary nature of the object in this way ? In that case, there would not be any trouble about imagining the nature of cause-and-effect etc., spoken of-( our reply is ) - Not so. As the mode has for its counter-entity, the particular nature of what is being presented, the object of knowledge has got to be spoken of as particularised And further, the knowledge not being the remover of its object, there would not be the removal of its mode - an undesirable contingency. And in the case of what is not perceivable by the pure sentiency, there could not be the possibility of its being the remover of the Ajñana perceivable by the pure sentiency ; and because only the presentation by the sentiency not tinged by anything else, has the capacity of removing the Ajñana in the afore- said manner. In the case of being the object, however, the state of being perceivable by sentiency not tinged by any- thing else is proper, because though it is fit to be known by the Witness who presents that knowledge, it is not the object of that knowledge - that is the difference ( between the visaya and prakara ). Therefore, it is proper that the

१ A adds ज्ञानस्य after केवल चैतन्यागोचरस्य

चेदान्तकल्पलतिका ११५

विषयता निष्पकारकज्ञानसय। अत एव चाद्यक्षणे वृत्तितद्वतोः साक्षिभास्य- त्वेपि न वृत्तेरनिर्विकल्पकत्वविरोधः । तस्या: पदार्थशोधकतर्कसंस्कृतशब्द- जन्यायाः, अद्वितीयचैतन्यमात्राकारत्वाद्, इयमेव प्रमाणफलावस्था, उच्यते। द्वितीयक्षणे तु चिन्मात्राकारग्रहणलब्घवलया वृत्या चिन्मात्रगोचराज्ञानं निवर्त्यते, रज्ज्वाकारग्राहिण्या वृत्येव तदज्ञानम् । ततोऽहंकारजीवब्रह्म- विभागादध्यासनिवृत्ति:, उपादाननाशस्यैवाव्यवधानोपादेयनाशप्रयोजक- त्वात, अज्ञानस्यैव च तदुपादानत्वाद्। ततस्तेन सहैव वा तदनन्तरं वा तदुपादेयचैतन्यामिव्यञ्जकवृत्तिनिवृत्तिः। एवम्, इन्द्रियदेहाद्यध्यासानामपि

modeless knowledge can have Brahman for its object. For this very reason, although at the first moment, the function- ing and the object functioning are fit to be presented by the Witness, there is no contradiction of the functioning with the indeterminate nature. Because that (functioning ) be- ing produced from the words fortified by logical reasoning investigating the meaning of the word, has the form of mere Sentiency without a second, this same is spoken of as the state of the result of the means of proof. At the second moment, however, by the functioning gathering strength by the grasping of the form of mere 'Cit' is removed the Ajnana, associated with the pure ' Cit', as by the functioning of grasping the form of the rope, the Ajñana concerning it. Thereupon follows the removal of the super-imposition of the divisions, Ahamkara, Jīva, Brahman etc, because the destruction itself of the constituent cause is the cause of the destruction of the unscreened constituents, and Ajnana itself is the constituent cause of that (super-imposition). Thereupon ( follows ) along with that, or subsequent to that, the removal of the manifesting functioning of the sentiency, which is the constituent of that. Thus comes about also the removal of the super-impositions of the body, sense-organs

११६ वे दान्त कल्पलतिका

निवृत्तिः। एवं तदुपरि कस्याप्यवच्छेदकस्याभावादनुपहितचैतन्यं जीव- ब्रह्मजगद्विभागशून्यं कालीकृताज्ञानतत्कार्य सवप्रकाशपरमानन्दरूपतया सर्वदा भासमानमेव तिष्ठति, सैव मोक्षावस्था, इत्युच्यते। अज्ञानस्य चाना- दित्वेनाजन्यन्वात्, पुनरनाद्यज्ञानान्तरस्य चानङ्गीकारात्, एकस्या एवा- ज्ञानव्यक्ते: सर्वोपादानभूनाया आत्यन्तिकनिवृत्तौ, तत्कार्यप्रमात्रादिप्रप- श्स्य, आत्यन्तिकनिधृत्या न संसारस् पुनरावृत्तिः। [ ५०] एतेन तज्ज्ञोनं सवनिवर्त्यम्, अन्यनिवर्त्य वा, इति विक- ल्पोऽपि निरस्तः, तस्य स्वकारणनाशनिवर्त्यत्वात्। उपादानकारणनाशस्य कार्यनाशकत्वे सर्वेषामविव्यादात्। दृश्यत्वेन रूपेण, अविद्यया सह सवनिव-

etc. Thus, over and above that, there being no limiting factor, only the unscreened Caitanya remains, void of the divisions Jiva, Brahman and the world, with the Ajñana and its products all swallowed up, and flashing up always in the form of self illumination and the highest bliss, - this same is spoken of as the Salvation-state. As Ajñāna, again, being beginningless is not something produced, and another beginningless Ajñana is not admitted; when the only one Ajñana-individual, which is the constituent cause of every- thing is totally removed, the paraphernalia, its effect, knower etc. also being totally removed, there is no return again of the Samsara.

[ 50 ] By this argument is removed also the doubt w hether that knowledge is removable by itself or by some- thing else, because that is fit to be removed by the destruc- tion of its cause. It is a matter beyond dispute for all, that the destruetion of the constituent cause causes the destruc- tion of the effect. There is no blemish either even though ( it is held that ) it is fit to be removed by itself along with the Avidya in its form as the perceivable. If there is the

१ A तत्कार्गमात्रादि. : A एतेन ज्ञानं

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ११७

त्र्यत्वेऽपि न दोषः। निवर्त्यतानिवर्तकतयोरवच्छेदकैक्ये क्षणभङ्गो भवेत्। अत्र चोक्तप्रमाविशेषत्वेन निवर्तकता, दृश्यत्वेन निवर्त्यता, इति नोक्तदोषः। ननु तर्हि, स्वम्ाद्यध्यासादिकारणीभूताज्ञानस्य जागरादिग्रमाण- ज्ञानेन निवृत्तौ, पुनः सम्नाद्यध्यासो न स्यात्, उक्तयु क्तेस्तुल्यत्वाद्। तत्र, अनेकाज्ञानस्वीकारे, आत्मन्यपि तथा संभवेन मुक्तवनाश्वासप्रसङ्गात्। ननु, अनयैवानुपपच्या तत्राज्ञाननिवृत्तिर्नाङ्गीक्रियते। एकस्यामेव रज्ज्वाम- ज्ञातायां सर्पभ्रमेण धराभ्रमतिरोधानवज्जागरादिभ्रमेणापि खमादिभ्रम- तिरोधानमात्रं क्रियते। अज्ञाननिवृत्तिस्तु ब्रह्मात्मक्यविज्ञानादेवेति न identity of the limitations of the nature of thing to be removed and that of the remover, there would be the viola- tion of the rule about moments. In this case, there is the removing nature on account of the particularised right knowledge mentioned before and the nature of being fit to be removed on account of its being perceivable, - so there is no fault referred to. ( The objector says ) - Well then, when the Ajñana which is the cause of the super-imposition in dream etc., is removed by the knowledge of the means of proof, the waking state etc., there would not be again the super impo- sition in dream etc., because the reasoning adumbrated ( by you ) is the same. If it is admitted that there are many Ajñanas there, the same is possible in the case of Atman as well, and so there would be the unwelcome result - the absence of relief in Salvation. ( Another objector says ) - It is for this very absence of propriety, that the removal of Ajñana is not accepted there. Like the screening of illusion about a stream of water by the illusion about the serpent on one and the same unknown rope, here is effected merely the screening of the illusion about dream etc., even by the illusion about the waking state etc. The removal of Ajñana,

१ A स्वप्नभ्रम ... ...

११८ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

मुक्तौ, अनाश्वासप्रमङ्ग:। मैवम्। ब्रह्मात्मैक्यज्ञानादपि, अज्ञाननिवृत्तिसंभा- वना न स्यात्। कुत्रापि ज्ञानात्, अज्ञाननिवृत्तेरदर्शनात्, इति वृद्धिमिष्टवतो मूलमपि हारितम्। अत्र ब्रूम :- नोभयथाप्यनुपपत्तिः । तथाहि-जागरादिज्ञानात् सन्नाद्यध्यासादिनिवृत्यभ्युपगमपक्षे मूलाज्ञानस्यैव विचित्रानेकशक्तिसवीका- रात्, एकशक्तिनाशेपि शक्त्यन्तरेण स्वन्ान्तरादीनां पुनरावृत्तिः संभ- वति। सर्वशक्तिमतो मूलाज्ञानस्यैव निवृत्तौ तु कारणान्तरासंभवात्, ताद शस्य च द्वितीयस्यानङ्गीकारात्, न, अहंकाराद्यध्यासानां पुनरुत्पत्ति however, is from the realisation itself of the identity ef Brahman and Atman, and so there is not the unwelcome result, -the absence of relief in Salvation. ( The first objector says ) - Not thus. Even from the realisation of the identity of Brahman and Atman, there is not the possi- bility of the removal of Ajñana. Because nowhere indeed is seen the removal of Ajñana from the knowledge. Thus ( you are in the state of a person described as one by whom) ' the capital itself is defrauded, of one who was hankering after the interest'. Here we say - Even under both conditions there is no impossibility. To explain the same - Even according to the view which admits the removal of the super-imposition in dream etc., from the knowledge in the waking state etc., because the original Ajñana itself is held to be possessed of many various powers, even when one power is destroyed, by another power is possible the repetition again of other dreams etc. But when the original Ajñana possessed of all powers is removed, there being no other cause possible, because a second ( Ajñana ) like that not being admitted, there cannot be again the origination of the super-imposi-

१ A adds अपि after ज्ञानात्

वैदान्तकल्पलतिकां

संभवति, इति, अपुनरावृत्तिसिद्धिः । रज्जुज्ञानादिना, अज्ञाननिवृत्त्यङ्गीं- कारेऽपि न कोऽपि दोषः । चिन्मात्रस्यैवाज्ञानाश्रयत्वविषयत्वसंभवाद्। जडे प्रमाणप्रयोजनाभावेन तदनङ्गीकारात्। न च, अज्ञानस्य चिन्मात्राश्रयत्वे कथमन्तःकरणवृत्तिरूपेण ज्ञानेन तन्निवृत्ति:, भिन्नाश्रयत्वात् ? ज्ञानस्य च जन्यत्वेन चिन्मात्राश्रयानुपपत्ते:, तस्य कूटस्थस्व्रभावत्वात्, अज्ञानस्य च, अनादित्वेन कौटस्थ्याव्याघात- कत्वात्, इत्युक्तमिति वाच्यम् । चैतन्यान्तःकरणयोस्तादात्म्याध्यासेन, अन्त:करणधर्मस्थापि चैतन्यधर्मत्वानपायात्। तदुक्तं पश्चपादिकाकृद्भि :- tions of Ahamkara etc. Thus is established the non-return again. There is again no blemish either, even if the removal of Ajñana by the knowledge of the rope etc., is admitted. Because only the pure 'Cit' can possibly be the resort of the object of Ajñana. That is not accepted to exist in the non-sentient owing to the absence of the means of proof and the purpose. Further, it should not be argued that if Ajñāna has the pure ' Cit' as its resort, how can take place its removal by the Jnana in the form of the functioning of the mind, having a different resort? And Jnana being a product could not possibly have the pure ' Cit ' as its resort, because that ' Cit' has an immutable nature, and Ajñana being beginningless cannot destroy its immutable nature, as we have stated accordingly. ( Our reply is ) - In the case of the Caitanya and the mind, owing to the super-imposition of identity, even the attributes of the mind cannot be going away from the attribute of sentiency. It has been said by the venerable author ( Padmapādācārya ) of the Pañca- pād kā -

१ A drops इत्युक्तम्

१२० वेदान्तकल्पलतिकां

'आनन्दो विषयानुभवो नित्यत्वं चेति सन्ति धर्मा:, अभेदेऽपि चैतन्यात्पृथगिव भासन्ते' इति। तार्किकैरपि कर्णशष्कुल्यवच्छिनाकाशेन ससमवायसंबन्धेन महाका- शाश्रितशब्दग्रहणमङ्गीक्रियते। उपहितेऽपि स्वरूपैक्यानपायात्, इति ज्ञाना- ज्ञानयो: समानाश्रयत्वोपपत्तिः। न च ज्ञानस्य क्वापि, अविद्यानिवर्तकत्वादर्शनात्, ब्रह्मज्ञानेऽपि तत्कल्पनं न स्यात्, इति वाच्यम्। न हि, अनुमानाद् ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य, अज्ञान- निवर्तकत्वं वयं साधयामः, येन व्याप्तिग्रहार्थम्, उदाहरणापेक्षा भवेत्, किं तु श्रुत्या श्रुतार्थापच्या च, इति ब्रूमः । तत्रे श्रुतिस्तावत्। 'Bliss, realisation of the object, eternal nature - these are the attributes ( of Caitanya); though identical they appear to be as though apart from Caitanya.' Even the Logicians admit the comprehension of the sound resorting to the great Äkāsa through its intimate connec- tion with the Akasa limited by the hollow of the ear. Although screened, the identity of the natures does not disappear, - thus is accounted for, the state of having a common abode in the case of Jñana and Ajñāna.

Further, it should not be argued by you - Jñāna is nowhere seen as the remover of Avidya, so it cannot be thought of in that capacity even in the case of the know- ledge of Brahman. ( Our reply is ) -Not indeed do we establish the knowledge of Brahman being the remover of Ajnana from Inference, in which case there would arise the necessity of an illustrative instance for the sake of grasping the invariable concomitance; but we say ( that it is established ) by the Sruti and by Verbal Presumption. In that connection, there is the Sruti passage for the matter of that,

१ A पृथग्वाव २ A drops तत्र

वैदान्तकल्पलतिका १२१

'तमेव विदित्वातिमृत्युमेति' (बा. सं. ३१.१८; श्वेता. ३.८, ६.१५) मृत्युः, अविद्या, इति शास्त्रे प्रसिद्धम्। तथा तत्त्वभावात् 'भूयश्चान्ते त्रिश्वमायानिवृत्तिः ' (श्वेता. १.१०; ना. प. ९.९) स्मृतिश्व- 'दैवी ह्रेषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया। मामव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते ॥' (भ. गी. ७.१४) 'ज्ञानेन तु तदज्ञानं येषां नाशितमात्मनः । तेषामादित्यवज्ज्ञानं प्रकाशयति तत्परम् ॥' (भ.गी. ५.१६) इत्यादि। एवं 'ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति' (मुण्डक. ३. २.९)

'Having known that alone, one goes beyond death.' ( Vā. Sa. XXXI. 18; Śvetā. III. 8, VI. 15) - Death (is ) Avidya; this is well-established in the Śastra. Likewise, through the nature of reality, ' There is the removal of the world-illusion at the end further again' ( Śvetā. I. 10; Nā. Pa. IX.9) And ( there is the following ) Smrti ( passage ) ' For this my divine illusion constituted of 'gunas' ( is) difficult to surmount; who take refuge in (or, worship ) me alone, they cross over this illusion.' ( Gita VII. 14) 'But ( in ) whose ( case ) that ignorance of the soul is destroyed by knowledge, their knowledge like the Sun reveals ( or causes to shine forth ) that Supreme.' ( Gītā V. 16) etc. To the same effect ( are the passages ), ' One who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself.' (Mundaka. III. 2.9) १६

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

'तरति शोकमात्मवित्' (छा. ७.१.३) 'तरत्यविद्यां विततां हृदि यस्मिन्निवेशिते । योगी मायाप्रमेयाय तस्मै ज्ञानात्मने नमः ॥'

इति। 'अविद्यायाः परं पारं तारयसि' (प्रश्नो. ६.८)

इत्यादि श्रुतार्थापत्तिश्र । ब्रह्मज्ञानाद्वह्मभावः श्रूयमाणः, तद्वयवधायका- ज्ञाननिवृत्तिमन्तरेण नोपपद्यते, इति ज्ञानादज्ञाननिवृत्तिं गमयति। 'अनृतेन हि' प्रत्यूढाः' (छा. ८.३.२)

'नीहारेण प्रावृताः' (ऋ. सं. १.८२.७)

' The knower of Atman crosses over grief. ' ( Chã. VII. 1. 3) 'A bow to that Jnanatman known through his wonderful power, with whom established in the heart, the Yogin crosses over the wide-spread Avidya.' etc. And also the Verbal Presumption in ' You make one cross the farthest end of Avidya. ' ( Praśno. VI. 8) and other passages. Because identity with Brahman from the realisation of Brahman, spoken of in the Sruti-passages, cannot be accounted for without the removal of the inter- vening Ajñana, - it points out to the removal of Ajñana by the Realisation. From ( the passages in ) the Srutis and Smrtis such as - ' Enveloped, verily, by Untruth' (Chã. VIII. 3.2) ' Covered up with mist' (R. Sa. I. 82.7)

१ Ā drops fe

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १२३

'अन्यद्युष्माकमन्तरं बभूव' अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः' (भ.गी. ५.१५) इत्यादिश्रुतिस्मृतिभ्योऽज्ञानमेव मोक्षव्यवधायकमवगन्तव्यम्। [५१] किं च भगवतो नीलाचलनाथस्य भजनाञ्जननिर्मलीकृत- ज्ञानचक्षु: प्रत्यक्षेणैव, अज्ञाननिवृत्तिमनुभवति । तत्र का विप्रतिपत्तिः? यदि हि कस्यचिदपि तत्त्वावबोधे जाते, न, अज्ञानं निवर्तेत ततो व्यभि- चारात्कारणता न स्यात्, न तु क्वापि तथादर्शनमस्ति, एकस्यैव तच्व- ज्ञानेन, अज्ञाननिवृत्त्यभ्युपगमात्। जीवान्तरप्रतिभासस्य च स्वाभिकजीवा- न्तरप्रतिभासतद्विभ्रममात्रत्वात्। जीवन्मुक्तौ तु, उपपत्ति वक्ष्यामः । एतेन

' Your heart became something else' ' Knowledge is covered up with ignorance; by that are bewildered the creatures.' ( Gītā V. 15) etc., it is known that Ajñana alone comes in the way of salvation. [ 51 ] And further, one whose Jñana-eye is rendered pure through the collyrium in the form of devotion to the divine Lord of the. Nila mountain experiences the removal of Ajñana by Direct Perception itself. What ( room for ) any different opinion there? If, however, in the case of some one Ajñana could not be turning away when the knowledge of Reality is produced, then there ( Jñana ) would not be the cause on account of the violation of the rule on that account; but that is nowhere seen, because it is admitted that there is the removal of Ajñana by the right knowledge of oneness alone. Because the presentation of Jīva as different is just mere illusion like the appearance of another Jīva in dream etc. We shall speak later on of its validity in the case of the Living-Liberation. By this (argument )

१ .. प्रतिभासवद्विभ्रम ...

१२४ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

अज्ञानं न ज्ञाननिवर्त्यम् अनादिभावत्वात् । भाववत् इति परास्तम्, उक्तश्रुतिस्मृत्यादिवाधितत्वात्। कीदृशं च भावत्वम्, अज्ञानस्याविनाशित्वे प्रयोजकैम्, सच्चमभावत्वलक्षणं वा? आद्यं सदस- द्विलक्षणेऽज्ञानेऽसिद्धम्, तस्य सर्वप्रमाणाबाध्यत्वस्वरूपर्स्य स्त्वायोगात्। द्वितीयं तुन, अविनाशित्वप्रयोजकम्, अनुकूलतर्काभावाद, प्रतिकूलतर्क- पराहतत्वाच्च स्त्वस्यैवात्मोविनाशित्वप्रयोजकत्वाच्च।

is brushed away ( contention ) - Ajñāna is not to be removed by Jñāna Because it is possessed of a beginningless nature, Like the ( existence ) positive nature because it is contradicted by the Sruti and Smrti passages mentioned above. Further ( we ask you ) - What kind of positive nature is there which makes the Ajñāna indestru- ctible -- ( is it) existence, or a characteristic of the nature of negation? Apropos the first ( alternative ), it is not established in the case of Ajnana, which is different from ( both ) Sat and Asat, because it cannot be associated with existence being of the nature which cannot be stultified by all means of proof. Apropos the second ( alternative ), it cannot be the producing cause of an indestructible nature, because there is no suitable logical reasoning, and is driven away by an unfavourable logical reasoning, and because only the 'Sattva' ( existent nature) can be the (effective) cause of the indestructible nature of Atman.

१ A ब्रह्मवत् A आत्मवत् A Added उच्यते after प्रयोजकम् ३ A सत्वमभावविलक्षणं A सर्वप्रमाणबाध्यत्व ... ५ A सत्त्वस्यैवाविनाशित्व .. , A ... विनाशित्वे प्रयोजका ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १२५

न च, आत्मातिरिक्ते सच्वाभावेन व्याप्तिग्रहावसरः, सत्वाभावस्य विनाशित्वप्रयोजकत्वेन व्यतिरेकिणस्तस्य सिद्धेः । एवं दृशयत्वपरिच्छिन्न- त्वजडत्वादिना, अपि, अज्ञानस्य विनाशित्वनिश्चयः। 'भूयश्च्ान्ते विश्वमायानिवृत्तिः' (श्वता. १. १०; ना. प. ९,९) इत्यादिवाक्यैः कण्ठोक्तमेव विनाशित्वप्रतिपादनाच्च। न च श्रुतिविषयत्वे ब्रह्मवत्, अबाध्यत्वप्रसङ्ग:, श्रुतितात्पर्यविषयत्वस्य, एव, अवाध्यत्वमयो- जकत्वात्। श्रुतेश्च प्रयोजनवति मानान्तरानधिगते तात्पर्यम्, उपक्रमादि- षड्डिधलिङ्गेनावधार्यते। अज्ञानस्य च, अहमज्ञ इति साक्षिसिद्धत्वात्, तत्प्र-

Further, it is not that there is no scope for the compre- hension of the invariable concomitance on account of the absence of the Sat-nature in anything apart from Atman, because the absence of the Sat-nature is established as being apart because it produces the destructible nature. Thus, it is concluded that the Ajñana is destructible, even on the ground of its being perceivable, limited and non-senti" ent. And it is proclaimed to have a destructible nature ( dis" tinctly and ) singly in so many words by passages like - 'At the end-the removal of Viśva-illusion further again' ( Śveta. I. 10; Nā. Pa. IX. 9) Neither can there be the undesirable contingency, that it would not be stultified like Brahman, if it were the province of Sruti, because only being the province of the purport of the Sruti is the cause of non-stultification. And in the case of the Sruti with a definite purpose, its purport in respect of what is not known by other means of proof is ascertained by the six-fold characteristics - Introduction etc .. As Ajñana, however, is established directly by the Witness in the form ' I am ignorant', there is no purpose

१ A व्याप्तिग्रहानवसरः २ वाक्यैः . साधारणमिष्यते। * dropped in A ३ कण्ठत: in A

१२६ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

तिपादने प्रयोजनाभावाच्च न श्रुतितात्पर्यविषयत्वम्, वक्ष्यमाणरीत्या तु ब्रह्मण्येव तात्पर्यनिश्चयात्। एवं च सति, साक्षिसिद्धस्यैव भावरूपाज्ञानस्य, अभावविलक्षणत्वादिकम्, अनुमानादिना साध्यते, इति न कोऽपि दोषः। 'शुक्तौ रजतज्ञानवानयम्' इति मिथ्यासंसर्गस्यापि तत्वज्ञानविषयत्ववत्, अस्माकं किं न स्याद?

एतेन मानविषयत्वेऽज्ञानस्य मानानिवर्त्यत्वम्, मानाविषयत्वे तु स्वप्रकाशत्वानङ्गीकारात् शशविषाणादिवत्, अलीकत्वम्, इत्यपास्तम्। स्वरूपतो मानाविषयस्यापि साक्षिसिद्धत्वाभ्युपगमात, तस्य च भ्रमप्रमा- साधारणत्वात्। तदुक्तम्

served in propounding that. And so it cannot be the province of the purport of the Sruti, because the purport ( of the Sruti ) is ascertained in respect of Brahman alone in the manner to be stated later on. It being so in the case of Ajñāna possessed of a positive nature and, verily, established by the Witness, is established by Inference etc., its being different from negation etc., and so there is no flaw whatsoever. Even a false connection like ' This one is possessed of the knowledge of silver in the conch-shell' becomes the province of the real knowledge, ( then ) why should not that obtain in our case ?

By this ( reasoning ) Ajñana not being capable of being removed by some proof if it is the object of the means of proof, and if it is not the object of the means of proof, it is possessed of a false nature, like the horn of a hare etc., because its self-illumining nature is not admitted - all this is brushed aside. Even though it is not the object of the means of proof by its very nature, its being established by the Witness is admitted, and it shares in the features of illusion and right knowledge. As has been stated-

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १२७

'अविद्याया अविद्यात्वे इदमेव तु लक्षणम् । मानाद्यसहितत्वमसाधारणमिष्यते ॥ अविद्यास्येत्यविद्यायामेवासिद््या प्रकल्पते। ब्रह्मद्ृष्टया त्वविद्येयं न कथञ्चन युज्यते ।।' (बृह. वा. कारिका. १८१, १७६ ) इति च । तस्मात्, अविद्याया अपि रज्जुभुजङ्गचत्, आत्मन्यारोपितत्वात्, आत्मस्वरूपज्ञानेन तन्निवृत्तिरुपपद्यते, इति। [५२ ] त्वर्दुंक्तम्, तज्ज्ञानं परोक्षम्, अपरोक्षं वा, इति तत्राप- रोक्षम्, एव, इति वदाम: । तत्र करणासंभव उक्त, शब्दस्य परोक्षज्ञान- जननस्वाभाव्यात्, कारणान्तरस्य च, अत्रासंभवात्, इति। ' This, verily, is the characteristic pointing out to the Avidya-nature in the case of Avidya, not tolerating the scrutiny by the means of proof, and desired as a peculiar feature. The Avidya in the case of a person is imagined the Avidya itself by non-establishment. This Avidya, however, functions nowhere from the point of view of Brahman.' ( Brha. Vā. Kārikā. 181, 176 ) Therefore, Avidya also being super-imposed upon the Atman like the serpent on a rope, its removal by the know- ledge of the nature of the Atman stands to reason. [ 52 ] It has been said ( by you )- Is that Jñana direct or indirect? - We say (respecting this), it is direct alone. (The objector says )-The impossibility of there being a means of knowledge has already been stated by us, because the word has the nature of producing indirect knowledge; and here there is no possibility of any other cause. १ A मानाघातासहिष्णुत्वमसा ... २ नाविद्यारयत्यविद्यायामेवासित्वा प्रकल्प्येत ३ A रज्जुभुजङ्गदिवत् ४ A यत्तु उक्तम् ५ A कारणासंभव

१२८ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

अत्र केचित् तार्किकेभ्यो बिभ्यतः शब्दात्परोक्षज्ञानमेवाङ्गीकृत्य भावनासहकृतान्मनसोऽपरोक्षज्ञानमाचक्षते। अन्ये तु मन्यन्ते-शब्दा्, आपाततः परोक्षज्ञानमेव जायते करणखाभाव्यात्। उत्तरकालं तु श्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनादिसहितात्, शब्दात्, एव, अपरोक्षज्ञानमुदेति, संस्कारसहकृतेन्द्रियादिव प्रत्यभिज्ञान- मिति। तत्र, आद्यः पक्षस्तावदयुक्त, भावनाजन्यत्वे ज्ञानस्याप्रामाण्यप्रसङ्गात्, कामातुरस्य कामिनीं भावयतो व्यवहितकामिनीसाक्षात्कारवत्। ननु न भावनाजन्यत्वं तत्र, अग्रामाण्यप्रयोजकम्, किन्तु बाधित-

In this connection, some, afraid of the Logicians, admit- ting only the indirect knowledge ( as produced ) from the word, speak of direct knowledge from the mind, associated with the Bhavanas. Others, however, think - From the word is produced prima facie only the indirect knowledge, that being the nature of the instruments ( of knowledge ). Later on, how- ever, from the word itself associated with hearing, thinking, meditating etc., arises the direct knowledge, as from the sense-organs associated with the impressions, recognition. Now the first alternative ( that the knowledge is in- direct ) is, for the matter of that, improper. Otherwise, if that Jñana is produced by the Bhāvanās it would be un- authoritative - an undesirable result, like the clear percep- tion of the beloved who is away in the case of a love-sick person pondering over the beloved. I say ( says the objector ) there,-being produced by the Bhavana is not the cause of the unauthoritative nature

१ A ... निदिध्यासनसंस्कारसहिताम् २ A इन्द्रियादिवत् 3 Ā adds सर्वदा after कामातुरस्य

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

विषयत्वम्। भावनानपेक्षेऽपि शुक्तिरजतादित्रमे बाघादेव, अग्रामाण्य- स्व्रीकारात्। ब्रह्मणि तु सर्वमानागोचरे बाधासंभवाद्, तद्भावनेाज्ञानजन्य- स्यापि प्रामाण्यं न व्याहन्यते। न च व्यवहितकामिनीविभ्रमादौ दोषत्वेन भावनायाः कृप्तत्वात्, तज्जन्यत्वे ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारस्य दोषजन्यत्वेन भ्रमत्वं भविष्यति। बाधितविषयत्ववत्, दोषजन्यत्वस्य, अपि भ्रमत्वप्रयोजकत्वाद। तथा च मीमांसाभाष्यकृद्धि: 'यस्य च दुष्ट करणं यत्र च मिथ्येतिप्रत्ययः । स एवासमीचीनो नान्यः' (मी. भा. १. १. ६)

but having its object stultified. In the case of the illusion of silver etc., in the conch-shell, without even requiring any Bhavana, its unauthoritative nature is admitted as due to the stultification itself. In the case of Brahman, however, which is beyond the ken of all means of proof, as there is no possibility of any stultification, the authoritative nature of the ( result ) produced by the knowledge of the Bhavana does not become vitiated. And further, on account of the Bhavana being found out as a flaw in the case of the illusion about the distant beloved etc., there would not be in the case of the realisation of Brahman any illusory nature due to its being produced by a flaw, even when produced by that. For, like the nature of the object stultified, being produced by some flaw also, is the cause of the illusory nature. To the same effect is stated by the venerable author of the commentary on Pūrva-Mimamsa ' In whose case, there is the instrument of knowledge which is full of flaw, and where there is the convietion that it is false-that alone is untrustworthy, not any other.' ( Mĩ. Bhā. I. 1. 6.)

१ A तद्भावनाजन्यज्ञानस्यापि १७

१३० चेदान्तकल्पलतिका

इति। तद्वार्त्तिककारैश्र 'तस्माद् बोधात्मकत्वेन प्राप्ता बुद्धेः प्रमाणता। अथान्यथा तु हेतूत्थदोषज्ञानादपोद्यते' (मी. वा., चो. सू. कारिका ५३) इति तुल्यवदेव, अप्रामाण्यप्रयोजकद्यम्, उक्तम् । तस्मात्, बाधाभावेऽपि दोषजन्यत्वात्, अप्रामाण्यम्, एव, इति वाच्यम् । भावनायाः क्वचित्, दोषत्वेऽपि सर्वत्र दोषत्वानिश्चयात्। अन्यथा, शङ्गपीतत्वभ्रमकारणीभूतस्य पीतद्रव्यस्य सविषयज्ञानेऽपि, अग्रामाण्यप्रयोजकत्वं स्यात्। कचित्, कश्रित्,

and also by the venerable author of the Vartika- ' Therefore, the authoritative nature of the knowledge arises from its being constituted of enlightenment. Any- thing else, however, is brushed aside because it is a faulty knowledge arising from some cause.' ( Mī. Vā. Co. Sū. Kārikā. 53)

-here two causes of the unauthoritative nature have been given as being equally potent. Therefore, even though there is the absence of stultification, one must speak of the unauthoritative nature when it is produced by some flaw. Though Bhavana is possessed of a flaw at times, it cannot be conclusively spoken of as being faulty everywhere. Other- wise, in the case of a yellow substance which is the cause of the illusion about the yellowness in the conch, it would be the cause of producing unauthoritative nature even in respect of the knowledge about its own object. And there would be the supposition of the stultification of the object itself producing the flaw simply because some flaw is admit- ted to exist somewhere. And further also, there would be the admission of the authoritative nature of inference and

9 A क्वचित् क्वचित्

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १३१ दोष:, इत्येवाङ्गीकारात्, विषयवाधेनैव दोषजन्यत्प्रल्पनाय। दुष्टकरण- जन्यस्य, अपि, अनुमानादेविषयाबाधेन पामाण्यास्युपगमाच्च । अन्यथा, परिभाषामांन्रापतेः । मीमांसाभाष्यवार्ततिकुकाराभ्यामपि बाधितविषय- व्याप्यत्वेनैव दुष्टकरणजन्यत्वमप्राँमाण्यप्रयोजकत्वयुक्तम्, न सवातन्त्रयेण । तस्मात्, भावनाजन्यमपि ब्रह्मज्ञानमबाधात्य्रामाण्यं लध्स्यताम्, इति। मैवम्, परोक्षज्ञानजन्यभावनाया अपरोक्षज्ञानजनकत्वासंभवात्। न हि वह्मयनुमितिज्ञानं सहस्रकृत्व आवृत्तम्, अपि वह्निसाक्षात्काराय कल्पते। कपप्रमाणसामग्रीमन्तरेण जायमानस्यैव ज्ञानस्याप्रामाण्यनियमाद्।

others, even though produced by the faulty instruments of knowledge, because there exists the non-stultification of the object. Otherwise, the whole thing would merely boil down to technical terminology. The venerable authors of the Mīmāmsa-bhasya and Vartikas also have spoken of what is deduced by the faulty instruments of knowledge as the cause of unauthoritative nature, because that is, verily, in invariable concomitance with the object that is stultified, and not in an independent manner. Therefore, the know- ledge of Brahman even though arising from Bhavana may have the authoritative nature because it is not stultified.

( Our reply is ) - Not so, the Bhāvana produced by the indirect knowledge cannot possibly produce direct know- ledge. Not indeed does the inferential knowledge about fire, although repeated a thousand times, lead to the direct presentation of the fire. Because it is a rule that only that knowledge which is being produced without the para- phernalia necessary for the right knowledge is unauthori-

१ A परिभाषामात्रत्वापत्तेः २A बाधितविषयत्व्रव्याव्य ... ३A .. जन्यत्वस्य, अप्रामाण्य ... ४ A लभताम् ५ कल्प्तप्रमासाम ...

१३२ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

अन्यथा, 'चैत्यं वन्देत स्वर्गकामः' इत्यादि पौरुषेयवाक्यानामपि विषय- बाधाभावात्, अप्रामाण्यं न स्यात्। न हि चैत्यवन्दनं स्वर्गसाधनं भवति, इत्यत्र किश्चिन्मानमस्ति, अलौकिकहिताहितसाधनताया वेदैकमेयत्वात्, तत्र मानान्तिराप्रसरात्, पुरुषवचसां च मानान्तरमूलत्वेनैव प्रामाण्यात्। तत्र मूलाभावात्, अप्रामाण्यम्, पुरुषस्य भ्रर्मेंप्रमासंभवात्, इति चेत, प्रकृतेऽपि तुल्यम्। न चात्र शब्दप्रामाण्यस्य मूलत्वात्, न, अमूलतेति वाच्यम्, संवादात्प्रामाण्याङ्गीकारे पूर्वतत्रोपपादिततत्खवतस्त्वभङ्गप्रसङ्गात्। आवश्यक-

tative. Otherwise, even in the case of the sentences uttered by human beings, such as ' One should bow down to the shrine, desirous of securing heaven' there would not be the unauthoritative nature owing to the absence of the stultification of the object. For, not indeed is there any means of proof ( to ensure ) that the salutation to the shrine is a means of securing heaven, because the means for supra- mundane welfare and the absence thereof, are to be known only from the Vedas, there being no room for any other means of proof; while in the case of words uttered by human beings, they are authoritative only when they are based upon some other means of proof. If it be argued that the unauthoritative nature exists there on account of the absence of any base, because of the possibility of illusory knowledge, in the case of human beings, ( our reply is ) - the same obtains even in the present case.

It should not be argued ( by you ), that in the present case, there is no baselessness as the Word-proof is the base, because if the authoritative nature is admitted as being

१ A आलौकिकहित ... A मानान्तराप्रसङ्गात् ३ A मूलाभावादेव ४ A भ्रमप्रमादादिसंभवात् ५ A adds भावनाया: after तुल्यम्

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १३३ त्वेन शब्दस्यैवात्र प्रामाण्यस्योचितत्वाच्च। अन्यत्र, अदृष्टमपि फलान्यथा- नुपपत्या, अत्रैव प्रामाण्यं कल्प्यते, इति चेत्, न। अपूर्वप्रमाणान्तरकल्पने मानाभावात्, फलस्य च क्प्प्रमाणेनवोपपत्तेः । परोक्षभावनाया अपरोक्ष- विषयत्वम्, तस्या: प्रमाणान्तरत्वं च, अन्यत्र, अदृष्टचरम्, अपि त्वया कल्पनीयम्। तदुभयकल्पनात्, वरं क्ृप्प्रामाण्यस्य शब्दस्यैवापरोक्ष- विषयत्वमात्रकल्पनम्। धर्मिकल्पनातो धर्मकल्पनाया लघुत्वात्। [ ५३ ] अस्तु तर्हि मन एवात्र प्रमाणम् । तर्त्कि भावनासहकतं

due to mutual discussion ( etc., ) there would be the un- desirable contingency of violating the self-authoritative nature profounded in the previous ( Pūrvamimāmsā ) Doc- trine, and because here, it is right that there should be the authoritative nature of the word itself, as it is necessary. If it be said that, here we suppose that there is the autho- ritative nature, although not seen elsewhere, on account of the result not capable of being accounted for otherwise,- ( our reply is ) No; there is no proof for the supposition of some other unusual means of proof, as the result can be accounted for by the means of proof ( already ) admitted. You also will have to suppose that the indirect Bhavana is concerned with a direct object, and any other means of proof in that case is not seen elsewhere. Instead of supposing the two ( things mentioned above ), it is better to suppose that the word itself is concerned only with the direct object, where the authoritative nature is taken for granted; because the supposition about Dharmas is less clumsy than that about the Dharmin ( the entity possessed of Dharmas ). [ 53 ] Well then, let the mind itself be ( regarded as ) authoritative here (says the objector )-( our reply is )- Is it associated with Bhāvanā or merely on its own?

१३४ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

केवलं वा १ आद्ये पूर्वोक्त एव दोष:। यदसाधारणं कारणमासाद्य मनः प्रमां जनयति तस्य प्रमाणान्तरत्वनियमात् । अन्यथा, चक्षुरादिव्यासिज्ञानादि- सहकृतस्य मनस एव सर्वत्र प्रामाण्यसंभवे प्रमाणान्तरोच्छेदापत्तेः। चक्षुरादीनामेव सर्वत्र, असाधारण्यात्प्रामाण्यम्, इत्यभ्युपगमे भावनाया अपि तुल्यत्वम्। न द्वितीय :- वेदान्तवाक्यश्रवणात् पूर्वमपि केवलमनसो विद्यमानत्वेन ब्रह्मणश्च सर्वदा संनिहितत्वेन साक्षात्कार: स्यात्। तथा च श्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनादिसाधनानामानर्थक्येन तत्प्रतिपादकचतुर्लक्षणी- मीमांसारम्भो न स्यात्। (कि च भावनासापेक्षत्वे शब्दस्याप्रामाण्यप्रसङ्ग:।

Apropos the first ( alternative ), there accrues the flaw already spoken of before. For, the rule is-the special cause, resorting to which the mind produces right know- ledge, has another means of proof ( to prove it). Other- wise, if the mind alone associated with the knowledge of the invariable concomitance with the eye and others, is possibly authoritative everywhere, there would ensue the destruction of all other means of proof,- an undesirable result. If it is admitted that even the eye and others are possessed of the authoritative nature owing to some peculiar nature everywhere, the same thing obtains in the case of Bhavana as well. Neither is the second ( alternative possible ). Because the mere mind exists even prior to the hearing of the Vedanta-passages and as Brahman is always near at hand, there would always be the realisation. And because the means, hearing, thinking, meditating etc., would be useless, there would not be the beginning of the Mīmamsa in four chapters propounding them. ( And further, the Word would have perforce to be admitted as unauthori- tative if it were to depend upon Bhāvanā. For, dependence upon but not resorting to the nature of the cause pointed

१ A सदा २ A ... चतुर्लक्षणमामांसा. dropped in IO and Ā

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १३५

शब्दप्रमात्वावच्छिन्नकार्यतानिरूपितकारणतानाश्रयसापेक्षत्वं हि, अप्रामा- ण्यप्रयोजकम्, चक्षुरादावपि तादृशमेव, अप्रामाण्यम्।) किंच तस्य प्रमाणानुग्राहकत्वेन तर्कालोकादिवद् न प्रमाणान्तरत्वं संभवति, असाधारणविषयाभावाद्, सिद्धान्ते सुखदुःखेच्छादीनां मनोधर्माणां करणव्यवधानाभावेनैव साक्षिवेद्यत्वाभ्युपगमात्, न च ब्रहैवासाधारणो विषयो मनसः, इति 'यन्मनसा न मनुते' (केनो. १.५) इत्यादिश्रुतिविरोधात्। ननु

out by the nature of the effect, limited by the right know- ledge produced of word is the cause of the unauthoritative nature; ( and ) in the case of the eye and others, there is the same type of unauthoritative nature. ) Further, as that ( Manas ) has the capacity to favour ( or strengthen ) a means of proof, there is no possibility of another means of proof, as in the case of Inference, light etc., because, on account of the absence of any uncommon object, as the attributes of the mind, pleasure, pain, desire etc., are admitted, in the Siddhānta view, as to be known by the Witness, verily, in the absence of the intervening instruments ( of perception). Nor again (is ) Brahman itself the peculiar object of the mind, because that would be in contradiction with the Sruti ( passage ) ' What one thinks of not by the mind' (Keno. I. 5) and others. I say (says the objector ) - Even, in the Siddhanta view, there is equally the contradiction with the Śruti ( passages )

१ A drops ननु

१३६ वेदांन्तकल्पलतिका

'यद्वाचानभ्युदितम्' (केनो. १.४) 'न चक्षुषा गृह्यते नापि वाचा ' (मुण्डक. ३.१.८) 'यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते' (तैत्ति. २.४. ५)

इत्यादिश्रुतिविरोधः सिद्धान्तेऽपि समः, इति चेत्, 'नावेदविन्मनुते तं बृहन्तम्' (शाट्या. ४ ) 'वेदैनैतत् यद्वेदितव्यम्' (बृह. ५. १) 'तं त्वौपनिषेदं पुरुषं पृच्छामि ' (बृह. २.९.२६) इत्यादिश्रुतिबलेन निषेधश्रुतीनां मुख्यवृत्त्यविषयत्वेनाप्युपपत्तेः । मनसि च मुख्यामुख्यभेदाभावात्।

'What is not spoken of by words' (Keno. I. 4 ) ' It is neither grasped by the eye, nor by words also' ( Mundaka. III. 1.8) ' Whence words retreat' ( Taitti. II.4. 5) and others -( our reply is ) - On the strength of the Śruti ( passages ) 'One who is a non-knower of the Veda, knows not that big one' ( Šātyā. IV ) ' This what is fit to be known by the Veda' ( Brha. V. 1) ' I ask about that Man propounded in the Upanisads' (Brha. III. 9. 26) and others, the condemnatory Sruti passages can be rightly accounted for, as not being within the province of their primary ( denotative ) power, there being the absence of the division, principal and subordinate in the case of the mind.

A वेदेनैव R A तत्त्वौपनिषदं

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

'सर्वे वेदा यत्रैके भवन्ति' (चित्यु. ११. १) 'स मानसीन आत्मा' (चित्यु. ११.१.२) 'मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्' (बृह. ४. ४. १९) इत्यादिश्रुतेः, का गतिरिति चेत्, शणु। मानसीनत्वं मनस्युपाधावुप- लभ्यमानत्वम्, न मनोजन्यसाक्षात्कारविषयत्वम्। 'मनसैव' इति तु कर्तरि तृतीया आत्मनोऽकर्तृत्वप्रतिपादनार्था मनसो दर्शनकर्ततामोह न करणताम्। औपनिषदसमाख्याविरोधात्। असाधारणेन हि व्यपदेशा भवन्ति, व्यवहारे मानसीनसमाख्यानवत्। [ ५४ ] अत एव प्रमाश्रयत्वादपि न मनसस्तत्र करणतावकाशः

If ( you ask ) - What happens then to the Śruti ( pas- sages ) such as ' Where all Vedas become one' ( Cittyu. XI. 1) 'That Atman belongs to the mind' ( Cittyu. XI. 1.2) ' It has to be perceived by the mind alone' ( Brha. IV. 4. 19) - (our reply is ) - Listen. Mānasīnatva (means ) what is fit to be found in the limiting adjunct, the mind, and not being the object of the direct perception produced by the mind. Manasaiva -(here) the instrumental case denoting agent, intended to propound the nature of the non- doer in the case of Atman, speaks of the mind being the agent of perception, and not its being the instrument, on account of the contradiction with the well-known view of the Upanisads. References (names ) are in conformity with (some) uncommon (characteristic) like the expression Mānasīna in practical use. [ 54 ] For this very reason, there is no scope for the

१ A यत्रैकं २ A दर्शनकर्तृत्वमाह ३ A कारणतावकाश १८

१३८ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

'कामः संकल्पो विचिकित्सा श्रद्धाश्रद्धा धृतिरधृति- हीर्धीर्भीरित्येतत्सर्वं मन एव' (बृह. १.५. ३; मैत्रा. ६. ३०) इति श्रुतौ मृद्धट इतिवत्, उपादानकारणत्वेन मनःसामानाधिकरण्य- प्रतिपादनात्। 'दण्डो घटः' इत्यादिसामानाधिकरण्यादर्शनेन निमित्त- कारणत्वाभ्युपगमेनोपपत्तिः, निमित्तकारणताग्रहणार्थम्, अवश्यकल्प्ययो- रन्वयव्यतिरेकयोः समवायिकारणविषयत्वस्यैवोचितत्वात्, समवायिकारणा- न्तरोपस्थित्यभावान्। आत्मनश्च 'साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च' (श्वेता. ६.११ ; ब्रह्मो. १६ )

mind to be the instrument, even on the ground of its being the resort of right knowledge. In the Sruti ( passage ) ' Desire, thought, doubt, faith, non-faith, firmness, slackness, shame, understanding, fear - all this is the mind only' ( Brha. I. 5. 3; Maitrā. VI. 30) the mind is described in case-co-ordinatien, as being the constituent cause, as in (the expression ) ' the clay-jar'. As no case-co-ordination is seen in 'the staff, the jar' (in such cases, the position ) is to be accounted for, by admitting the nature of the Instrumental cause; the presence and absence ( of factors ) which have necessarily to be under- stood for the purpose of understanding the nature of the Instrumental cause, are themselves properly the province of the constituent cause, there being no other constituent cause in evidence. And the Atman is described as attri- buteless in the Sruti ( passage ) 'The Witness, Sentient, Pure and Attributeless' ( Śvetā. VI. 11; Brahmo XVI)

१ A निमित्तकारणभावग्रहणार्थम्

बेदान्तकल्पलतिका १३९ इतिश्रुत्या निर्गुणत्वप्रतिपादनात् । दृश्यानां द्रष्टधर्मत्वानुपपत्तेः, दृश्यानां घटादीनां स्वरूँपतो धर्मत्वेन वा, तादात्म्याभावस्य सर्वसिद्धत्वात्, काम- संकल्पादीनां च सवप्रकाशत्वाभावेन दृश्यत्वात् द्रष्टधर्मत्वाभावनिश्चये, 'मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्' (बृह. ४. ४. १९) 'यदा सर्वे प्रमुच्यन्ते कामा येऽस्य हृदि श्रिताः' (कठो. २. ३. १४ ; बृह. ४. ४. ७ ) 'तीणा हि तदा सर्वान् कार्मोन् हृदयस्य भवति' (बृह. ४. ३. २२) इत्यादिश्रुतिभिर्मनोधर्मत्वमेव कामादीनां निश्चीयते। मनस्तादात्म्याध्या- साच तद्धर्माणाम्, अपि, आत्मन्याध्यासिको व्यवहार:।

as the Perceivables cannot rightly be the Dharmas of the Perceiver, as, in the case of the perceivables, jar and others either from their nature, or from their being the Dharmas, the absence of their being identical ( with Ätman) is all- established; and when ' Desire, thought etc.', are definite- ly ascertained as not being the attributes of the Perceiver, as they are perceivable, owing to their not possessing the self-illumining capacity, it is concluded that ' Desire etc.' are just the Dharmas of the mind, by the Sruti ( passages ) ' It is fit to be perveived only by the mind' ( Brha. IV. 4. 19) ' When all the longings which had resorted to the heart of this one are cast away' ( Katho. II. 3. 14; Brha. IV. 4.7) 'Verily, then he has crossed over all the longings in the heart' (Brha. IV. 3. 22 ) and others. And on account of the superimposition of the identity of the mind ( on the Atman), there is the state- ment of its attributes also involving superimposition on the Ātman ( as is clear ) from the Sruti ( passages )

१ A इत्यादि श्रुत्या २ A धर्मत्वानुपपत्तेश्र ३ A रूपेण वा ४ A शोकान्

१४० वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

'बुद्धेर्गुणेनात्मगुणेन चैव आराग्रमात्रो ह्यवरोऽपि दृष्टः' (श्वेता. ५.८) 'स समानः सन्नुभौ लोकावनुसंचरति ध्यायतीव सधीः खमो भूत्वेमं लोकमतिक्रामति' (बृह. ४. ३.७) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। 'विज्ञानं यज्ञं तनुते कर्माणि तनुतेऽपि च ' (तैत्ति. २. ५ ) इतिश्रुतौ विज्ञानशब्दवाच्यस्य मनस एव प्रथमान्तपदनिर्देश्यत्वे कर्तृत्व- श्रवणाच्। 'मनसा ह्येव पश्यति मनसा शृणोति' (बृह. १.५.३; मैत्रा. ६.३०) इत्यादौ कारणत्वमपि श्रुतम्, इति चेत्-न । इन्द्रियातिरिक्ते मनसि

' By the attribute of the Buddhi, and also by the attri- bute of the Atman he is perceived even as the lowest - having the measure just of the point of the awl' ( Śvetā. V. 8) 'He, remaining uniform, moves about in both the worlds, as though meditating' ( Brha. IV. 3. 7) ' With the understanding, having become the dream, he goes beyond this world ' (Brha. IV. 3.7) and others. In the Sruti ( passage ) 'The Vijnana spreads the sacrifice, and also spreads about the Karman' ( Taitti. II. 5) the mind itself, denoted by the word Vijñana, although referred to by a word in the nominative case, is described as the agent. If it be argued, that it is stated in the Sruti as being the Instrument as well, as in the ( passage ) ' He, verily, perceives by the mind itself, hears by the mind' ( Brha. I. 5. 3; Maitra. VI. 30) and others, ( our reply is ) - No, because that Sruti pas- sage purports to point out only to the existence ( of the

१ A ज्ञानशब्दवाच्यस्य .. पदनिर्देक्येन

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १४१

विप्रतिपन्नान्प्रति तदतिरिक्तमनःसद्भावमात्रे तस्याः श्रुतेस्तात्पर्यात्, न तु करणत्वेऽपि, एवकारानन्वयापत्ते:, चक्षुरादीनामपि करणस्यान्वर्यव्यतिरेक- सिद्धत्वेन तद्व्यवच्छेदेन नियमानुपपत्तेः, हेतुमात्रेऽपि तृतीयास्मरणात्। मनसः करणताप्रसिद्धिस्तु निर्धर्मकसवप्रकाशस्य, आत्मनोऽसङ्गस्य सतो विषयोपलभ्यायोग्यस्य स्वतादात्म्याध्यासेन तदाकारवृत्तिभिर्विषयोपलम्भ- द्वारत्वादेव, न तु चक्षुरादिवत् तटस्थत्वेन, इति, आस्तां तावत् । खप्रका- शप्रक्रियायां विस्तरेणैतदुपपादयिष्यामः। [५५ ] अस्तु तर्हि प्रथमं परोक्ष ज्ञानं जनयतोऽपि शब्दस्यैव सह- mind ) as apart from ( the sense-organs ), for ( the benefit of those ) who hold conflicting opinions about the mind which is apart from the sense-organs; ( the Sruti passage is not intended ) to point out to its being the instrument; other- wise its connection with the Eva (alone ) would not be properly explained; even in the case of the eye and others, their being the instrument is established by the (law of) presence and absence, and so, no rule can be rightly laid down, when they are separated from it, and the Instrumen- tal case is known to be used (lit. remembered), to point out only to the cause. The well-known fact of the mind being the instrument, however, is, verily, due to the fact that the Atman, without any Dharmas, and self-illumining, unattached, himself incompetent to experience the objects, ( of senses), experiences the objects, by functioning in the form ( of the mind ) due to the super-imposition of his oneness on it; and not by remaining indifferent like the eye and others -Let this suffice for the present; we shall propound this at length in ( our work ) ' Prakāśaprakriyā' (or, in connection with the technique of 'self-illumination'). [ 55 ] ( The objector says ) - All right then! Let it be that the word itself, although producing indirect know-

A करणत्वस्यान्वय ... RA दूरस्थत्व्रेन

१४२ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

कारिविशेषलाभेन पश्चात्, अपरोक्षज्ञानजनकत्वम्, इति-तत्, न, अर्ध- जरतीयन्यायापातात् । शब्दस्य परोक्षज्ञानजननस्वाभाव्ये सहकारिसहस्त्रे- णापि तदन्यथाकरणयोगात्, आगन्तुकस्य स्वभावत्वानुपपत्तेः। [ ५६ ] यत्तु दृष्टान्तत्वेन प्रत्यभिज्ञानमुदाहृतम्, तत्र किं विवक्षितम्? अपरोक्षज्ञोनजनकसवभावस्य चक्षुषः संस्कारसहकारेण परोक्षज्ञानजनकत्वम्, अथवाँ, संनिकृष्टविषयेऽपरोक्षज्ञानजनकस्वभावस्य चक्षुषः संस्कारसहकारेणा- संनिकृष्टेऽपि तत्तांशे, अपरोक्षज्ञानजनकत्वम्, किं वा संस्कारनिरपेक्षत्वेन ज्ञानं जनयतोऽपि चक्षुषः संस्कारसापेक्षत्वेऽपि न, अग्रामाण्यम्, इति? ledge at first, would produce direct knowledge afterwards, through the assistance of the particular associates. ( Our reply is ) - No, that (it) not so, because in that case, there would come in the 'maxim of the half-old woman'. If the word has the nature of producing the indirect know- ledge, that cannot be pushed away from it by even a thousand associating agencies, because an accidental charac- teristic cannot be the nature ( of a thing ). [ 56 ] As to 'recognition' cited forth as the illustra- tive instance ( we ask you ) - What is it that is intended to show up there? (1) Is it that the eye, which has the nature of producing direct knowledge, can produce the in- direct knowledge, with the co-operation of the impression ( samskāra ), or (2) is it that the eye, having the nature of producing direct knowledge in respect of the object near at hand, is the producing cause of the direct knowledge in respect of an object of the portion, viz. the nature of that, not near at hand with the co-operation of the impression, or ( 3 ) is it that the eye although producing the knowledge independent of the impression is not unauthoritative even when it depends upon the impression ? १ A तदपाकरणयोगात् २ A ... श्ानजननस्वभावस्य ₹ Ā reads ar ४ A ... ज्ञानजनन ... ५ A संस्कारसापेक्षत्वेऽपि प्रामाण्यम्

वैदान्तकल्पलतिका १४३

तत्र न, आद्यः, प्रत्यभिज्ञाया अपरोक्षत्वात्, तत्तांशे चक्षुषोऽजनक- त्वाच्च।

अत एव न द्वितीयोऽपि, तत्तांशेऽपरोक्षत्वानङ्गीकारात्, तदंशे संस्कारमात्रजन्यत्वेन स्मृतित्वस्यैवाभ्युपगमाच्च । एतेन प्रत्यभिज्ञायाः संस्कारजन्यत्वे स्मृतित्वापातात् संस्कारजस्मरणमेव विशेषणज्ञानत्वेन तत्का- रणम्, इत्यपास्तम् , संस्कारजन्यत्वांशे स्मरणत्वाङ्गीकारात्, स्मृतिहेतुत्वेना- वश्यकल्प्योद्वुद्धसंस्कारादेव प्रत्यभिज्ञोत्पादसंभवे, अन्तरा स्मृतिकल्पनानव-

In this connection, the first ( alternative ) cannot stand because recognition is direct and the eye cannot produce the portion involved in that.

For this reason, not even the second ( alternative can stand ) because in respect of the portion involving the nature of that, directness is not admitted, and only the nature of remembrance is admitted in respect of that portion while it is produced only from the impressions. Thus recognition produced by the mental impressions would be having the nature of remembrance, and so the view viz. the remebrance produced from the impressions is its cause, on account of the knowledge of the qualifying factor alone, is brushed aside. Because the nature of remem- brance is admitted in respect of the portion produced by the mental impressions; and because there is no scope for the supposition of remembrance intervening between, when there is the possibility of the production of the recognition from the mental impressions rising up and that have nece- ssarily to be postulated as being the cause of remembrance, and in accordance with the maxim ' Let it be in accordance

१ A संस्कारज स्मरणमेव २ A विशेषज्ञानत्वेन ३ A प्रत्यभिज्ञानोत्पादसंभवे A प्रत्यभिज्ञानोत्पत्तिसंभवे

१४४ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

काशात् 'तद्धेतोरेव तदस्तु किं तेन' इतिन्यायात्, स्मरण इव प्रत्यमिज्ञा- यामपि पूर्वानुभवान्वयव्यतिरेकयोस्तुल्यत्वाच्च। प्रमात्वाप्रमात्ववत्, अनु. भवत्वस्मरणत्वयोरेकज्ञानवृत्तित्वे विषयकृतांशभेदात्, न विरोधः । स्मृति- त्वानुभवत्वयोर्जातित्वानङ्गीकारात्। अत एव न तृतीयः । न हि चक्षुषः स्विषये संस्कारसापेक्षत्वमस्ति येन सापेक्षत्वलक्षणमप्रामाण्यं स्यात्, किन्तु स्वस्सहकारिसमवधानात्खे से विषये युगपज्ज्ञानं जनयतोश्चक्षुःसंस्कारयोरार्थसमाजेनानुभवस्मरणात्म- कैकज्ञानजनकत्वं पर्यवस्यति। अन्यथा, संस्कारसहकारेण चक्षुषोऽसंनिकृष्ट-

with the cause. What is the matter about it ?' - as in the case of remembrance, so even in the case of recognition the presence and the absence of the previous experience are equal in the picture. As in the case of the nature of right knowledge and the nature of wrong knowledge there is no contradiction in the case of experience and remembrance having the power to produce the same knowledge, on account of the difference in the portions affected by the objects of knowledge. Because remembrance and experience are not admitted as being possessed of a generality. For this very reason ( cannot stand ) the third ( alter- native ) - Not indeed exists for the eye the dependence upon the mental impressions in respect of its own object, so that there could have been the unauthoritative nature, characterised by dependence, but there comes in ultimately in the case of the eye and the mental impression producing a simultaneous cognition in their respective objects by taking into account their respective associates, the nature of the producer of only one knowledge involving experience and remembrance by the combined objects. Otherwise, if the eye produces the cognition even in respect of an object not at hand with the co-operation of the mental impression,

वैदांन्तकल्पलतिका १४५

विषयेऽपि, ज्ञानजनकत्वे रजतसंस्कारसहकारेणासंनिकृष्टेऽपि रजते चाक्षुष- ज्ञानापत्तेः, अन्यथाख्यातिस्वीकारप्रसङ्ग: । रजतचाक्षुषत्वेन रजतसंयोगत्वे- नैव कार्यकारणभावनियमे तद्देशकालसंबन्धरूपायां तत्तायामपि तुल्यम्, प्रत्यक्षस्य विद्यमानोपलम्भत्वनियमात् । किन्तु भिन्नजातीयज्ञानहेतुत्वेन कृप्तयोरपि चक्षु:संस्कारयोः, अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्याम्, एकज्ञानहेतुत्वं प्रत्य- भिज्ञायां कृप्तम्। इदम्, एव, अन्यथाख्यातिवादनिराकरणेन, अनिर्वच- नीयाख्येमिथ्याज्ञानोत्पत्ति व्यवस्थापयद्भि: पश्चपादिकाकारैर्द्ष्टान्तितम्। न, एतावता सापेक्षस्यापि प्रामाण्यं भविष्यति। इह च पूर्वम्, अपरोक्ष-

there would be the undesirable contingency of the occular cognition in respect of the silver even though it is not nearby through the co-operation of the impression of silver; or there would perforce be the acceptance of ' Akhyati'. When the relation of cause and effect is regulated by the occular perception of silver through the connection itself with the silver, that is the same in respect of the cognition of thatness having a connection with the particular space and time, because Direct Perception is as a rule the cogni- tion of what actually exists. But in the case of the eye and the mental impression, although accepted as the cause of the cognition of the different generality, has been postu- lated, in respect of the recognition, the nature of being the cause of one cognition, in conformity with the law of presence and absence. This itself has been given as an illustrative example by the venerable author ( Padmapāda ) of the Pañcapadika establishing the production of the false knowledge known as ' Anirvacaniya', by the refutation of the view of ' Anyathakhyati'. But, by this there cannot be the authoritative nature of something which is even dependent upon something else. Here, however, in the

१ A ... स्वीकारभङ्गप्रसङ्ग: २ A. चनीयाख्यातिमिथ्या १९

१४६ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

ज्ञानासमर्थस्यैव शब्दस्य विचारजनितसंस्कारविशेषसहकारेण, अपरोक्ष- ज्ञानजनने सापेक्षत्वलक्षणप्रारमाण्यस्वभावभङ्गयोः प्रसङ्गो वज्रलेपायते। तस्मात्, शब्द एव विचारात्पूर्वमूर्ध्व च स्वतः प्रमाणभूतो विषयमहिस्रा साक्षात्कारं जनयति, इति युक्तमाश्रयितुम्। नच स्वभावभङ्गदोष:, मनस इव परोक्षापरोक्षज्ञानजननस्वभावाङ्गीकारात्। यथा मनः कवचित्परोक्षं ज्ञानं जनयति, क्वचिच, अपरोक्षम, इत्युपेयते परैः, तद्वदस्माकं शब्देऽषि किं न स्यात् १ नतु तत्र, अवच्छेदकद्वैविध्यमस्ति। मनस्त्वेन परोक्षज्ञानजनकता,

case of the word, formerly quite incompetent to produce direct knowledge, ( now ) producing the direct knowledge through the special co-operation of the impression produced by thoughts, the undesired contingency of there being the authoritative nature depending upon something else, and the loss of the nature become all the more inevitable and unshakable. Therefore, it is better to accept the position that the Word itself self-authoritative, prior and posterior to pondering, produces direct realisation by virtue of the special importance of the object. Further, there is no flaw of the loss of the nature, because as in the case of mind, the nature of producing indirect and direct cognition is admit- ted. As is admitted by the opponents that the mind some- times produces indirect knowledge and sometimes direct knowledge, why may not that obtain in the case of the Word in our case ? Now I say ( says the objector ), there exists a two-fold nature of a limiting charateristic. (1) In the capacity of the mind, there is produced the indirect knowledge. (2) There is produced the direct knowledge in the capacity of

A सापेक्षत्वलक्षणा ...

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

इन्द्रियत्वेन चक्षुरादिवत्, असाधारणेनापरोक्षज्ञानजनकता। इन्द्रियत्वं च शब्देतरोद्भूतविशेषगुणा भावसमानाधिकरणज्ञानकारणमनःसंयोगाश्रयत्वम्, स्मृत्यजनकवृत्तिज्ञानकारणमनःसंयोगाश्रयत्वम्, वा। तत्, चक्षुरादाविव मनस्यपि वर्तते। एवं शब्देऽपि द्वैरूप्यं वाच्यम्। एवं परोक्षज्ञानजनकता- वच्छेदकम्, अपरोक्षज्ञानजनकतावच्छेद कम्, इति। [५७ ] उच्यते-विषयाजन्यज्ञानजनकत्वेन वा, ज्ञानकरणत्वेन वा, शब्दस्य परोक्षज्ञानजनकत्वं योग्यपदार्थनिरूपितत्वं पदार्थामेदपरशब्द- त्वेन, अपरोक्षज्ञानजनकता। 'धार्मिकस्त्वमसि' इत्यादौ व्यभिचारवारणाय,

the sense-organs having a peculiar nature, like the eye etc. And the nature of sense-organs depends upon the connection with the mind which is the cause of cognition, having the same substratum with the absence of special qualities arising from ( the means of proof) other than Word, or it depends upon the connection with the mind which is the cause of cognition, with its functioning not caused by re- membrance. And that exists in the case of the mind also as in the case of the eye and others. Thus even in the case of the Word, a two-fold form should be stated, thus-(1) being characterised by the nature of producing the indirect cognition, and (2) being characterised by the nature of producing the direct cognition. [ 57 ] ( To the above objection ) it is stated in reply (by us as under)- In the case of the Word, either through being the producer of cognition not produced from the object or through being the instrument of cognition, there is the nature of producing indirect cognition ; there is the nature of producing direct knowledge, through the word pointing out to the identity with the object 'you' after a १ A ततः चक्षुरादादिव A तत् चक्षुरादरिव २ A स्वविषयाजन्य ३ A ज्ञानजनकता ४ A धर्मस्त्वमसि

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

आद्यं विशेषणम्, इतरविशेषणव्यावर्त्य तु स्पष्टम्। एतत्, च 'दशमस्त्व- मसि' 'राजा त्वमसि,' इतिवाक्याद् 'दशमोऽहमस्मि' 'राजाहमस्मि,' इत्यादिसाक्षात्कारदर्शनात्; अन्यथा, 'नाहं दशमो नवमोऽहमस्मि' 'नाहं राजा व्याध एवास्मि', इत्यादिसाक्षात्कारिभ्रमनिवृत्तिः, ततो न स्यात्। साक्षात्कारिश्रंमे साक्षात्कारिविरोधिज्ञानत्वेनैव विरोधित्वकल्पनात्। [५८ ] न च तत्र वाक्यात्पदार्थमात्रोषस्थितौ मानसः संसर्गबोधः, इति वाच्यम्। सर्वस्मिन्नपि वाक्ये तथा संभवेन शब्दप्रमाणमात्रोच्छेदापत्ते:, असाधारणमनःसहकारित्वेन पदार्थज्ञानस्य प्रर्मोणान्तरत्वावश्यकत्वाच्च, यद-

proper scrutiny of the objects. The first qualifying attri. bute is for the sake of warding off the violation in respect of expressions like 'you are religious'; being turned away by the other qualifying attributes is obvious ( enough). And that is so, because from passages like ' you are the tenth', ' you are the king', there is seen the direct realisa- tion, such as ' I am the tenth', ' I am the king' etc., other- fwise there would not be from them, the direct discarding o the illusion, such as ' I am not the tenth ; I am the ninth', ' I am not the king, I am the hunter', because it is postu- lated that in the case of a direct illusion there should be contradiction by the direct contradictory knowledge itself. [ 58 ] It should not be argued that there is no compre- hension there of the contact .with the mind, when the unqualified object is brought to view from the sentence ( uttered ), because in the case of all sentences that possibi- lity exists, and so would follow the undesirable contingency of the means of proof ' Word' being just scotched off; and because in the case of cognition of an object through the peculiar co-operation of the mind being another means of

१ A इत्यादिवाक्याद् २ A एवाहमस्मि ३ A साक्षात्कारभ्रमे साक्षात्कार- पोधि ... ४ Aनतरावश्यकत्वाच्च

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १४९

साधारैणं कारणमित्यादिन्यायात्।

अत एव वाक्यात्परोक्षज्ञानानन्तरं मोनसज्ञानान्तरमेव भ्रमनिवर्तकम्, इत्यपास्तम्। अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां तत्रँ वाक्यस्यैव कारणतावधारणात्। अन्यथा, वाक्यश्रवणात् पूर्वमेव सामग्र्याः संभवेन मनसा चक्षुरादिना वा साक्षात्कारजननप्रसङ्गात्। वाक्यमपि तत्र सहकारीति चेत्, तर्हिं, आयातं वाक्यस्यैव प्रामाण्यम्, मनसोऽसाधारणसहकारित्वात्। तस्मात, शब्द एव साक्षात्कारहेतुः । यथा च परोक्षत्वव्याप्यमेकं मानसत्वम्, अपरोक्षत्व- व्याप्यम्, अ्परम्, तद्वत् शाब्दत्वमपि द्विविधम्, तेन न सार्ङ्कर्यप्रसङ्ग: । proof has to be necessarily there, in conformity with the maxim ' What is peculiar, is the cause' etc. For this very reason ( the view ) that after the indirect cognition from the sentence, another mental cognition is the cause of turning away illusion is brushed aside, because there the sentence itself is ascertained to be the cause in conformity with ( the law of ) presence and absence. Other- wise, with the whole paraphernalia existing even prior to the hearing of the sentence, there would be the undesirable contigency of the mind or the eye and others, producing the direct realisation. If you say that the sentence also is the co-operating agency there, then it follows that the sentence itself has the authoritative nature, the mind being (just ) a peculiar co-operator. Therefore the Word itself is the cause of direct realisation there. As the nature of the mind pervaded by the indirect is one, that one pervaded by the direct is another, so the nature of the word also is two-fold; hence there would be no confused mixing up (either ).

१ A यदसाधार णकारणमिति २ A मानसं ज्ञानान्तर ... ३ A तत्र तत्र A adds इन्द्रियत्वम् after अपरम्

१५० वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

[५९] नन, एवं विशेषरूपेण कारणतासंभवेऽपि चक्षुरादीनां षण्णां चक्षुष्टादिविशेषकारणतावच्छेदकार्वच्छिन्नानां यथा सामान्यकारणतावच्छे दकम्, अपरमिन्द्रियत्वम्, इष्टम्, एवं शब्देऽपि, सामान्यकारणावच्छेदकं षडिन्द्रियानुगतं वक्तव्यम्। अन्यथा, शब्दजन्ये ज्ञानेऽपरोक्षसामान्यमाक- स्मिकं स्यात्, शब्दे तत्प्रयोजकाभावात्। तथा च, व्यापकाभावे तद्वयाप्य- शब्दापरोक्षम्, अपि न स्यात्, चाक्षुषत्वादिवत्। उच्यते- परोक्षत्वानधिकरणज्ञानकरणत्वमेव सप्तस्वनुगतम्, अप- रोक्षज्ञानजनकतावच्छेदकं तव षद्खनुगतम्, इन्द्रियत्वमिव विशेषज्ञान-

[ 59 ] I say ( says the objector ) - Even though being the cause is possible in a special form as in the case of the six ( sense-organs ) the eye and others, limited by the cha- racteristic of being a special cause -the nature of the eye etc.,-there is the characteristic of being the general cause and there is desired another ( characteristic ) - the nature of the sense-organ. Likewise, even in the case of the Word, you have to state a characteristic involving a nature of a general cause in conformity with the six sense-organs. Otherwise, in respect of the cognition produced by the Word, the direct generality would be an accidental. feature, there being no producing cause of that in the word. And similarly, in the absence of the more extensive, there would not be the direct cognition from the Word, pervaded by it, like the perceptibility of the sight etc. ( To the above objection ) it is stated ( by us in reply ) - Being the instrument of knowledge not having the base of indirect knowledge only, is found in seven ( entities ) like the nature of the sense-organs characterised by being the producing cause of direct knowledge existing in the six

१ A व्यापकाभावेन

वैदान्तकल्पलतिकां १५१

कारणतायाः सामान्यकारणतावच्छेदकत्वं तव मम च समानम्। अन्यथा, सामान्यरूपेणेन्द्रियाणां कारणत्वासिद्धया ज्ञानजनकमनःसंयोगविशेषा- श्रयत्वेन कारणता न स्यात्। तेन चक्षुष्टादिविशेषरूपेण गृहीतकारणाना- मिव चक्षुरादीनां केनचिदुपाधिनैवोक्ति: शब्देऽपि न व्याहन्यते। [ ६० ] न चैवं शब्देऽपि, इन्द्रियव्यवहारापत्तिः प्रत्यक्षज्ञानकारण- तावच्छेद कस्यैवेन्द्रियव्यवहारहेतुत्वात्, इति वाच्यम्। इन्द्रियाणामतीन्द्रिय- त्वेन तत्र लौकिकानां प्रत्यक्षव्यवहाराभावात्। परीक्षकाणां च सवखपरि- admitted by you. The natnre of the cause of the special cognition being the characteristic of the nature of the general cause, obtains equally in your view as well as in my view. Otherwise, if the sense-organs are not established as the cause in a general manner, there would not be the nature of the cause by resorting to particular contact with the mind producing the cognition. Therefore, the state- ment that the eye and others that are accepted as the causes in the special form - the nature of the eye etc., - by some limiting adjunct or other - this is not vitiated in the case of the Word also. [ 60 ] It should not be argued that in that case, the Word would have the functioning of the sense-organs, foist- ed upon it, because something characterising the nature of the cause of the direct perception is the cause of the func- tioning of the sense-organs. (Our reply to this is ) - Because the sense-organs are super-sensuous, there is the absence of only popular direct functioning in their case and the scrutineers carry on their dealings in their own techni- cal terminology. Even though in the case of that ( Vyava- hara ) of the nature described, there is the particular feature of its not being heard, there is no flaw because it is admit- ted that it is the cause of the practical dealing. And further, the nature described is not the cause of the

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

भाषया व्यवहारात्। अश्रावणत्वविशेषेऽपि तस्योक्तरूपस्य वा तद्वयवहार- प्रयोजकत्वाङ्गीकारात्। ने तेषु मानाभाव:, 'दशेमे पुरुषे प्राणा आत्मैकादशः' (बृह. ३.९.४) इत्यादिश्रुतिस्मृतिप्रतिपाद्यमानत्वात्, वचनादानगमनविसर्गानन्दाख्यकार्य- पश्चकान्यथानुपपत्तेश्र । तथा च, अविरोधलक्षणे चतुर्थपादे व्युत्पादितं भगवता सूत्रकारेण, 'त इन्द्रियाणि तव्वपदेशादन्यत्र श्रेष्ठात्' (ब्र. सू. २.४. १७) इति। साङ्ख्यैरप्युक्तम्- 'अभिमानोऽहंकारस्तस्माद् द्विविधः प्रवर्तते सर्गः । इन्द्रियैकादशकश्च गणस्तन्मात्रपञ्चकं चैव ॥

functioning of the sense-organs, because it does not cover the five organs of action. There is no absence of proof in respect of them, because that has been propounded by the Śruti and Smrti passages, 'There are these ten Pranas in a man, the Atman is the eleventh' (Brha. III. 9.4 ) and because the five-fold action known as speaking, grasp- ing, going, evacuating, sexual-joy cannot be accounted for otherwise. Further in that same way has been described in the fourth part, named ' Avirodha', by the Revered author of the Sūtras - 'Those sense-organs, on account of that appellation other than the best. ' ( Bra. Sū. II. 4. 17) The Sankhyas also say - ' Egoism is the Ahamkara; from it the two-fold crea- tion proceeds, ( the creation ) concerning the sense-organs is the eleven-fold host; there are also the five-fold subtle elements.

१ Aन च तेषु २ A इत्थादिश्रुतिस्मृतिशतैः प्रतिपाद्यमानत्वात ३ A ऐन्द्रिय एकादशकश्र

वैदान्तकल्पळतिकां १५३

सास्विक एकादशकः प्रवर्तते वैकृतादहंकारात्। भूतादेस्तन्मात्रः स तामसस्तैजसादुभयम् । बुद्धीन्द्रियाणि चक्षुःश्रोत्रघ्राणरसनत्वगाख्यानि। वाक्पाणिपादपायूपस्थान् कर्मेन्द्रियाण्याङ्कः ॥' (सा. का. २४-२६) इति। अस्यार्थ :- प्रकृतेः प्रथमकार्यभूतात् महासत्तासामान्यात्मकात् महत्तोऽहंकारो नाम पदार्थो जात:, इत्युक्तम् 'प्रकृतेर्महांस्ततोऽहंकारः' (सा.का. २१) इत्यत्र। अधुना, अहंकारस्य लक्षणमुच्यते,-अभिमान:, इन्द्रियोपनीतेऽर्थे,

The eleven-fold host constituted of the Sattva-quality proceeds from the Vaikrta Ahamkara The subtle elements proceed from the elements ( Tamasa Ahamkara ) etc. That is constituted of the Tamas. From the Tejas proceed these both varieties.

The organs of knowledge are known as the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, and the skin. They speak of the organs of action as speech, hands, feet, the organ of excre- tion, and the organ of generation.' (Sā. Kā. 24-26 )

The meaning of this is - From the Mahat which existed as the first effect of the Prakrti constituted of the genera- lity ' the great existence' was produced the entity called Ahamkara. - This has been stated in the passage

' From the Prakrti, the Mahat; from that the Aham- kāra.' ( Sā. Kā. 21 ) Now is stated the characteristic of Ahamkāra - Abhimāna ( egoism ) in respect of the entity here put forth by the sense-organs, - I am the authorised master, I am indeed powerful, these objects are for my sake alone, there is २०

वेदान्तकल्पलत्तिका

अहमत्राधिकृतः, शक्तः खल्वहं, मदर्था एवामी विषयाः, मत्तो नान्योऽत्रा- धिकृतः कश्चित्, अतोऽहमस्मि, इति योऽभिमान: सोऽहंकारव्यापारत्वाद- हंकारस्य लक्षणम्। तेन, अभिमानहेतुः, अहंकारः। सामानाधिकरण्यं चे कार्यकारणयोस्तादात्म्यविवक्षया। स च त्रिविधो भवतिकारणीभूत- गुणत्रयभेदात्, साच्विको राजसस्तामसश्। साच्विक एव, वैकतवैकारिका- भ्यामुच्यते, राजस एवं तैजसशब्देनोच्यते, तामसो भूतादिशब्देन। ततश्र सात्विकात, अहंकारात, एकादशेन्द्रियसर्गः, यस्मात्स लघुः प्रकाशकश्ष। तामसात्, अहंकारात् शब्द-स्पर्श-रूप-रस-गन्धाख्यवश्चतन्मान्रसर्ग:, यस्मात्स तामस:, गुरुत्वात्, आवरणात्मकत्वाच्च। राजसस्य तु स्वतत्रकार्याभावात्,

no authorised master elsewhere than I, thus am I - the Abhimana (self-importance ) of this nature, engaged in activities associated with Ahamkara, is the characteristic of Ahamkara. Therefore, Ahamkara is the cause of self- importance. And the case-coordination is used with a desire to point out identity of cause and effect. And it is three-fold -( 1) constituted of the Sattva, ( 2) constituted of the Rajas, and ( 3 ) constituted of the Tamas, from the three-fold distinction of the Gunas that are the cause. The Sāttvika itself is spoken of as Vaikrta and Vaikārika, the Rajasa itself is spoken of by the word Taijasa; the Tamasa by the word Bhuta etc .. And from that Sattvika-Aham- ķara (proceeds ) the creation of the eleven sense-organs, because that ( Sattvika-Ahamkara ) is light and illumining. From the Tamasa-Ahamkara (proceeds ) the creation of the five subtle elements called sound, touch, form, taste and smell, because that (Tamasa is ) heavy and constituted of the covering nature. The Rajasa, however, having no independent function, merely acts as the co-operating

9 A नान्योधिकृतः A drops A वैकृतवैकारिकशब्दाभ्या ४ A सातत्विकाहकारात्

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १५५

उभयसहकारित्वमात्रम्, स्वतो निश्चलयोः सच्वतमसोः स्वकार्य प्रति चाल- कत्वाद्रजस: । 'सत्त्वं लघु प्रकाशकमिष्टमुपष्टम्भकं चलं च रजः । गुरु चावरणमेव तमः।' (सा. का. १३ ) इत्युक्तत्वात्। कारणानुविधायि च कार्यम्। एषां च परस्परविरोधिनाम्, अपि एककार्यकारित्वं न विहन्यते, तैलवर्तिवद्विषु परस्परविरुद्धत्वेऽपि, एकप्रकाशकाख्यकार्यदर्शनात्.। तच्चोक्तं "प्रदीपवच्चार्थतो वृत्तिः ' (सा. का. १३ ) तस्मादेष विभाग:। तत्र सास्विकाहंकारोपादानकत्वम्, इन्द्रियत्वम्, तन्नये, -

agency with the both, because the Rajas ( quality ) pushes on in respect of their functions the Sattva and Tamas ( qualities ) that are by themselves inactive. Because it has been stated 'Sattva is desired to be light and illumining, the Rajas strengthening and active, the Tamas alone heavy and screening. (Sã Kã. 13) And the effect follows in the wake of the cause. And even in the case of these, opposed to one another, their perform- ing the same action is not vitiated, because the oil, wick and fire, although opposed to one another, are seen to produce one activity, viz. light. And that has been stated - 'Like the lamp there is the functioning in effect.' ( Sā. Kā. 13) Therefore, this is the division. There the sense-organs have the Sattvika Ahamkara as the constituent cause ; and according to the view no other Prana apart from the general functioning of the sense-organs being not admitted, there is no over-extension in that case. Because it has been stated

१ A ... प्रमाणानङ्गोकारात

१५६ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

'सामान्यकरणवृत्तिः प्राणाद्या वायवः पञ्च ' (सा. का. २९) इत्युक्तत्वात् । तन्मात्राणां भूतानां च तामसाहंकारकार्यत्वात्। [ ६१ ] ननु सिद्धान्ते 'अन्नमयं हि सोम्य मनः आपोमयं प्राणस्तेजोमयी वाक्' (छा. ६.५. ४ ; ६. ६. ५) इति श्रुतौ भौतिकाहारोपष्टम्यत्वश्रवणात्, समानजातीयेषु च तत्संभवात् मृन्मयम् इत्यादेरेव मृदन्तरेणोपष्टम्भदर्शनाद् 'अग्निं वागप्येति .... चक्षुरादित्यं .... दिशः श्रोत्रम्' (बृह. ३.२.१३) इति च भूतेषु लयश्रवणात्, लयस्य च, अकारणे, अनुपपत्तेः, भृतगुण-

'The general functioning of the sense-organs - five airs, Prana etc. ' ( Sā. Kā. 29) The subtle elements and the elements are the effect of Tāmasa-Ahamkāra. [ 61 ] I say ( says the objector )- In the Sruti-passage, according to the Siddhanta-view - 'My dear, the mind, verily, is constituted of food ( earth ); Prana, constituted of water; speech of Tejas' ( Chã. VI. 5. 4; VI. 6.5) being strengthened by the material food is stated there; and that is possible only when they belong to the same genus; from ( the expressions like ) ' constituted of earth' ( in the case of the entities constituted of earth ) is seen the strengthening by another piece of clay, and in the passage Speech merges into the Fire, the eye into the Sun, the ear in the Quarters' (Brha. III. 2. 13) the Sruti speaks of the merging in the elements and the merging cannot be accounted for without there being a cause, - and so, it is established that the sense-organs are

9 A सामान्याकरणवृत्ति: २ A वाणी ३ A जातीयत्वे

वेदान्वकल्पलतिका १५७

व्यञ्जकत्वे च, आलोकादिवत् भौतिकत्वम्, इन्द्रियाणां सिद्धम्। यथा च श्रोत्रत्वक्चक्षूरसनघ्राणानां शब्दस्पर्शरूपरसगन्धग्राहकत्वात्, एकैकशस्तु तत्तद्व्त्वेम्। तथा पश्चगुणग्राहकत्वाद्, मनसोऽपि पञ्चगुणवच्त्रम्, यदिन्द्रियं यद्गुणग्राहकं तदिन्द्रियं तद्गुणवत्, इति व्याप्ेः । तथा च मनसः पञ्च- भूतात्मकत्वम्, अन्येषां च, एकैकभूतात्मकत्वं पर्यवस्यति। [ ६२ ] न च मनसः स्पर्शवत्वेन, आरम्भकत्वग्रसङ्ग, चक्षुरादि- तुल्यत्वाभ्युपगमात्, आरम्भवादानङ्गीकाराच्च। न च सर्वविशेषगुणशून्ये परमाणावभौतिके किंचन मानमस्ति,*तत्साधकानुमानानामाभासत्वात्,

made up of the material elements for the manifestation of the qualities of the elements like light etc. As the ear, skin, eye, tongue and nose enable one to grasp respectively sound, touch, form, taste and smell, they belong to those ( Gunas ) respectively; likewise the mind also is possessed of five attributes, because it enables one to grasp these five attributes because of the invariable concomitance ( expres- sed in the formula ) 'which sense-organ enables one to grasp which quality, that sense-organ is possessed of that quality'. Thus likewise, it would follow that the mind is constituted of the five elements, and the others are constituted of one element each. [ 62 ] You cannot say that because the mind is possess- ed of the qualities of touch etc., there would be the undesi- rable contingency of its being the cause, because it is admitted to be on the same footing as the eye and others, and also because the Arambha-doctrine is not admitted by us. Further again, there is no proof whatsoever ( to admit ) the existence of the atom not constituted of the elements and void of all particular qualities, because the inference proving that, are fallacious and that is known by the ' I' १ A भूतगुणव्यञ्जकत्वेन २ A तत्तद्गुणवत्त्वम् * dropped in I.O,

१५८ वेदान्तकल्पलविका

अहंप्रत्ययेन च सवप्रकाशकेवलात्मगोचरेण सर्वदेहव्यापित्वेनव तस्य ग्रहात्। एतच सर्वमुक्तं वार्तिके 'खग्राह्यार्थसजातीयमिन्द्रियं स्यात्प्रदीपवत्। रूपस्यैवावभासित्वान्न चेत्स्याच्छ्रोत्ररूपवत् । न चेदर्थसजातीयं सर्वार्थग्रहणं भवेत्। एकैकस्येन्द्रियस्येह मनोबुद्धयोर्यथा तथा। सर्वभूतात्मकत्वात्तु सर्वार्थग्रहणं तयोः। मनोबुद्योरिति ज्ञेयमन्यथा तदसंभवात् ॥ त्वगादिज्ञानेव्यक्तीनां बुद्धिः सामान्यमिष्यते। प्राण एव क्रियाशक्ति: सामान्यं तद्वदुच्यते ॥

idea itself, which comes within the province of the self- illumining pure Atman and pervading the whole body. And all this has been stated in the Vārtika -

'The sense-organ would be like. a lamp, homogeneous with the object to be grasped by it. If it were not like that, on account of the manifestation of the form alone, it would be like grasping the form by the ear. Here, in the case of each independent sense-organ, there would be the grasping of all the objects, like that of mind and intellect, if there be no homogeneity of objects ( to be grasped ) In the case of these two - mind and understanding- as they are constituted of all the elements, the grasping of all the objects is to be understood; otherwise that would be impossible. The understanding by the individual agents of know- ledge, like the skin etc., is believed to be of a general nature, like that in the case of Prana alone, where the power of activity is spoken of as a general one.

वावभासत्वांन्न २ A ज्ञानशक्तीनां A ... ज्ञानवृत्तानां

वैदान्तकल्पलतिका १५९

शब्दादिभोगसिद्ध्यर्थं श्रोत्राद्या ज्ञानशक्तयः । तद्वत्कर्मोपभोगार्थ वागाद्याः कर्मशक्तयः ॥' इति (बृह. वा. २.४. ३६४-३६८) 'यावद्रुधिरसंव्याप्तिः शरीरे तावदेव तु। बुद्धेः सामान्यवृत्तेस्तव्व्याप्तिरादेहसंक्षयात् । योग्येन्द्रियस्य वा यस्य ततोऽन्यत्रापि लक्षिता। वृत्तिस्तस्येव सा ज्ञेया न स्वभावविपर्यय; । (बृह. २. ४. ३४५-३४६) इत्यादि च । अत्र मनोबुद्ध्योः, इति, एकस्यैव संकल्पाध्यवसायलक्षणवृत्ति- भेदाद् द्वैविध्याभिधानम्। चक्षुःश्रवसां चक्षुषा श्रवणदर्शनात् पूर्वोक्तव्याप्ति-

The powers of knowledge - the ear and others are, for the sake of the attainment of the enjoyment of words etc., likewise the powers of action - speech etc., are for the sake of the enjoyment of Karmans.' (Brha. Vā. II. 4. 364-68 ). And also the following - ' As long as there is the pervasion by blood in the body; so long alone is the pervasion by the understanding, func- tioning generally, till the destruction of the body. What functioning is noticed in the case of an appropri- ate sense-organ or even elsewhere than that, that is to be known belonging to itself and it is not the change in its nature.' ( Brha. Vā. II. 4. 345-346) etc. Here, though one and the same, the mind and the understanding are mentioned as two, on account of the difference of functioning characterised by thought and deci- sion. In the case of the eye and the sound, it might be feared that there would be the violation of the invariable concomitance mentioned before, if the eye were to perceive

9 A सामान्यवृत्तेस्तद्व्याप्ति ... A सामान्यवृत्तेश्च व्याप्ति ...

वेदान्तकल्पळतिकां

भङ्गमाशङ्क्य उक्त्तं 'योग्या' इति। तत्र, एकस्मिन्नपि गोलके खख- कार्यसमर्थम्, इन्द्रियद्वयम्, अङ्गीक्रियते, इत्यर्थः। ज्ञानेन्द्रियकर्मेन्द्रिययोश्च ज्ञानक्रियाशक्तिमेदेन वैलक्षण्यमुक्तम्। तथा चैकादशखनुगतं किंलक्षण- मिन्द्रियं व्यवहारोपपादकम् १ सात्त्विकाहंकारोपादानत्वलक्षणत्वस्य भवद्धि- रनङ्गीकारात्, इति। [ ६३ ] उच्यते-प्राणेतरत्वे सति, अपश्चीकृतभूतोपादानकत्वमेव सामान्यत इन्द्रियलक्षणम्। 'अन्यत्र श्रेष्ठात्' (ब्र. सू. २.४. १७ )

the 'hearing' - so the expression Yogya ( appropriate ) has been put in. There, in one and the same ball-like object are admitted two sense-organs competent to perform the respective functions-this is the sense. And the difference between the organs of knowledge and the organs of action is stated in conformity with the difference between the powers of knowledge and action. That being the case, persevering in the eleven ( sense-organs ), possessed of what characteristic is a sense-organ concerned with practical deal- ings? Because by your honour, verily, is not admitted the Sattvika Ahamkara as having the characteristic of the constituent cause. [ 63 ] ( To the above objection ) it is stated by us in reply ) - The definition of the sense-organ in general is - * being other than Prana, being the state of the constituent cause of the elements not mixed up five-fold'. The first qualifying attribute is there because Prana is not admitted as a sense-organ, in accordance with the Sutra ' Elsewhere, because of its being the most important'. ( Bra. Sū. II. 4. 17)

₹ Â drops

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १६१

इति सूत्रेण प्राणस्ेन्द्रियत्वानङ्गीकारात्, आद्यविशेषणेम्। शब्दस्पर्शरूप- रसगन्धानां च पश्चीकृतभूतस्वरूपत्वादेव न तदुपादानकत्वम्। तत्र सच्चांश- प्रधानापश्चीकृतपञ्चमहाभूतकार्यम्, अन्तःकरणम्। तद् वृत्तिमेदाद् द्विघा, आख्यायते, बुद्धिर्मनश्रेति। रजोंशप्रधानापञ्चीकृतपञ्चमहाभूतकार्य प्राणः। स च वृत्तिभेदात्पश्चधा आख्यायते, प्राणोऽपानो व्यान उदानः समान: इति। प्राणमनसोरेकात्मर्केत्वाङ्गीकरणपक्षेऽरपि, न, एतादृशविभागे विवाद:, ज्ञानशक्तिक्रियाशक्तिशब्दाभ्यां सच्चरजसोरेवाभिधानात। एवं स्त्वप्रधाना- पश्चीकृताकाशकार्य श्रोत्रं तदपि चक्षुरोदिवद् गत्वैव ग्राहकं 'दूरे शब्द:'

As for sound, touch, form, taste, smell, they are not the constituent cause because they have their very nature of the five-fold compounded elements. There, the inner sense- organ is the effect of the five great elements not compound- ed in its form, with the Sattva-portion prominent. And that is known as two-fold, understanding and mind, on account of the difference in functioning. There, the Prana is the effect of the five great elements not compounded, with the Rajas-portion prominent in it. And that is known as five-fold, Prāņa, Apāna, Vyāna, Udāna and Samāna, on account of the difference in functioning. Even according to the view which admits Prana and the mind to be one, there is no dispute regarding such a division of that; because by the words Jñana-sakti and Kriya-sakti, only the qualities Sattva and Rajas are denoted. Thus, the ear is the product of the Akaśa not compounded five-fold, with Sattva promi- nent in it; that too, like the eye and others, comprehends, verily, by going out, on account of the actual perception in the form ' the sound is at a distance'. The Akāsa, however,

१ A adds इति after ... नङ्गीकारात् २ A आद्य विशेषणम् A अपब्रक्ित ४ A drops क ५ A adds दूर after चक्षुरादिवत् २१

वैदान्तकल्पलतिका

इत्यादिप्रत्ययात् , न तु तार्किकवत् नित्यमाकार्शम् अस्माकम्। एवं तादश- वायुकार्य त्वकू। तादशतेजःकार्य चक्षुः। तादृशाप्कार्य रसनम्। तादृश- पृथिवीकार्य ध्राणम्, सत्त्वस्य प्रकाशकत्वात् कार्याणां ज्ञानेन्द्रियत्वम्। एवं किश्चिद्रजोमिश्रितसत्त्वप्रधानादपश्चीकृताकाशात्, उत्पन्नम्, इन्द्रियं वाकू। एतस्याँश्र शब्दव्यञ्जकेन्द्रियत्वेन श्रोत्रवत्, आकाशजत्वमेव । केचित् 'तेजोमयी वाक् ' (छा. ६. ५. ४) इत्यादिश्रुतिदर्शनेन वाचस्तैजसत्वमाहुः। तत्, न । तत्र तेज:शब्दसय

'तेजोऽशितं त्रेधा विधीयते' (छा. ६. ५. ४)

in our view is not eternal as in the view of the Logicians. Thus the skin is the product of that kind of Vayu. The eye is the product of that kind of Tejas. The tongue is the product of that kind of water. The nose is the product of that kind of earth. The products are the organs of know- ledge on account of the Sattva possessing the illumining nature. Thus, Vak is the sense-organ produced from the Akasa not compounded five-fold, with the Sat-quality, mixed up slightly with the Rajas, being prominent. Moreover, in respect of this ( Vak ) it is the product of the Akasa like the ear, because it is the sense-organ manifesting the sound. Some talk of the Vak as possessed of the Tejas-element on the strength of the Sruti passage ' Vāk is constituted of Tejas.' ( Chã. VI. 5.4) - That is not so. There the word Tejas denotes an oily earthly substance like ghee etc., because there is the intro- ductory statement 'Tejas ( food ) is enjoyed in three ways' (Cha. VI.5.3)

A adds शोत्रं after आकाशम् २ A तत्तत्कार्याणाम् A तत्कार्याणाम् ३ A एतस्यांच आकाशजन्यत्वमेव ५ A केचित्तु

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १६३

इत्युपक्रमात्, 'तेजो वै घृतम्' इति श्रुत्यन्तरान्, तेजोभूतस्य अशितुमशक्यत्वाच्च, 'अन्नमयं हि सोम्य मनः' (छा. ६. ५. ४) इति, अत्रापि मनसः केवलपार्थिवत्वाङ्गीकारापाताच्च। तस्मात्, अस्मदुक्तमेव साधु। एवं तादृशवायुकार्यं हस्तेन्द्रियम्, आदानादिक्रियाया वाय्वात्मकत्वात्। 'त्रयं वा इदं नामरूपं कर्म ' (बृह. १. ६. १) इति श्रुतौ प्राणस्य कर्मात्मकत्वाभिधानात् प्राणवाय्वोश्र संवर्गविद्यादिषु तादात्म्योपदेशात्। तादृशतेजःकार्य पादेन्द्रियं पादचिकित्सायाश्चक्षुरा- and another Śruti ' Tejas, verily, is ghee because it is imposible to eat what is Tejas; otherwise, even in the case of the Sruti-passage 'O dear, mind is constituted of food' ( Chā. VI. 5.4) the mind will have to be admitted as having only an earthly nature. Therefore, what has been stated by us is correct. Simi- larly the sense-organ - the hand - is the product of that kind of Vayu, because the function, grasping etc., is consti- tuted of Vāyu; because in the Sruti-passage ' This triad is the Name, Form and Karman' (Brha. I. 6.1) the Prana is mentioned as being constituted of Karman, and Prāna and Vayu are described as one in the Samvarga- Vidya etc .. The sense-organ- the foot- is the product of that kind of Tejas, it being known that the treatment meted out to the foot contributes to the health of the eye,

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १६५

इति। तत्, एवमवान्तरभेदेऽपि, अपश्चीकृतभूतोपादानकत्वस्य सामान्य- लक्षणसंभवान्नास्माकं मते काचिदनुपपत्तिः, इत्यास्तां तावद्। तस्मात्, न, अपरोक्षज्ञानकारणत्वेन शब्देऽपि, इन्द्रियव्यवहारापत्तिः। [ ६४ ] न च, एंवं शाब्दत्वस्य परोक्षत्वापरोक्षत्वाभ्यां साङ्कर्यप्रसङ्ग:, इति वाच्यम्, उपाधिसाङ्कर्यवद् जातिसाङ्कर्यस्यापि, अदूषकत्वात्, परोक्ष- त्वापरोक्षत्वयोरेकज्ञानवृत्तित्वेन प्रमात्वाप्रमात्ववत्, जातित्वासंभवाच्च,

अपि जात्यङ्गीकारेऽतिप्रसङ्गाच्च। न च, इन्द्रियजन्यतावच्छेदकत्वेन परोक्ष- Therefore, there might be subsidiary divisions, but as the general characteristic of being the constituent cause of the elements not compounded five-fold is possible, there is noth- ing untenable in our view. -Let that go as it is. Therefore, there would not be the unwanted practical dealing associat- ed with the sense-organs even in the case of the Werd on the strength of its being the cause of direct knowledge. [ 64 ] Further, it should not be argued that in this way there would be an undesirable mixing up, if the nature of the Word possesses direct as well as indirect nature, because the mixing up of the generalities also, like the mixing up of the limiting adjuncts, is no flaw ; and also there is no possi- bility of the nature of generality, because the direct nature and the indirect nature are the functions of only one know- ledge, as in the case of the nature of right knowledge and the nature of wrong knowledge; and if generality were to be admitted there would be just anarchy, on account of the absence also of a continuing experience impossible to be proved otherwise, characterised by the nature of the effect. Further, it should not be argued by you that the १ A सामान्यलक्षणस्य संभवात् २ A adds सति after एवं ३ A adds अस्मन्मत after ... वृत्तित्वेन ४ A ... सिद्धानुगत

१६६ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

त्वैजाति: सेत्स्यति, इति वाच्यम्, तस्य त्वन्मते नित्येश्वरज्ञानवृत्तित्वेन, अस्मन्मते सुखादिभास कनित्यसाक्षिचैतन्यवृत्तित्वेन कार्यतानवच्छेदकत्वात्। मीमांसकमते गुणगतजात्यनङ्गीकारात् ईश्वरज्ञानस्य च, अपरोक्षत्वानङ्गी- कारे तत्सिद्धिरेव न स्यात्, क्षित्याद्युपादानगोचरापरोक्षज्ञानवत्वेनैव तद- नुमानात् । न च जन्यप्रत्यक्षत्वं जातिरस्तु, तत्र बाधकाभावात्, इति वाच्यम्। अस्तु वा मा, अस्तु तत्र का नो हानिः१ प्रत्यक्षत्वं तु नित्यज्ञान- साधारणं न जातिः, इत्युक्तम्। [ ६५ ] ननु, तवापि, अर्थनिष्ठं, अपरोक्षत्वं दुर्निरूपम्। तथा हि-

genus, being indirect, would be established by the limiting adjunct, viz. being produced by the sense-organs, because that is not the limiting adjunct of the nature of effect owing to its being the function of the knowledge of the eternal Iśvara according to your view; according to our view it is the function of the eternal Witness, Senti- ency, manifesting pleasure etc. According to the view of the Mimamsakas, on account of the generality associated with the Gunas not being admitted, if the knowledge of Isvara is not admitted to be direct, there would not be the establishment itself of that, because that is inferred on account of his being possessed of direct knowledge as being the material cause of the earth etc. Further, you should not say - Let then the direct perception produced be the generality, there being no contradiction. - Let it be there or let it not be there. What loss is there for us? It has been ( already ) stated that direct perception being common to eternal knowledge is not generality. [ 65 ] Surely, for you also it is difficult to point out to the direct perception referring to an object. To explain the same - Not for the matter of that can there be the

१ A परोक्षत्वं जाति: २ A तन्मते ३ A कार्यतावच्छेदकत्वात् ४ A मीमांसकैश्व

वेदांन्तकल्पलतिका

ने तावदपरोक्षज्ञानविषयत्वम्, अन्योन्याश्रयात्, ज्ञानापरोक्षत्वस्, अद्यापि, असिद्धत्वाच्च। नापि

'यत्साक्षादपरोक्षादू ब्रह्म' (बृह. ३.४.१) इति श्रुतिप्रतिपादितं स्वप्रकाशचैतन्यरूपत्वम् । वस्तुगत्या तद्रूपविवक्षा- याम्, सर्वेषामेव पदार्थानां वस्तुतस्तद्रूपतया, अपरोक्षताप्रसङ्गात्, वास्त- वापरोक्षताथाश्च व्यवहारेऽप्रयोजकत्वात्, अकल्पिततादृशस्वरूपत्वाभ्युपगमे च 'दशमस्त्वमसि' इत्यादौ तदभावात्। नापि संविदभिन्नत्वेन भास- मानत्वम्, घटादौ तदभावेन परोक्षताप्रसङ्गात्। न च चैतन्यसत्तयैव

nature of the object of direct perception on account of there being mutual inter-dependence and because, that the know- ledge is direct has yet to be proved. There cannot be also the nature of the self-illumining Sentiency propounded in the Śruti-passage, ' What is Brahman, from definite direct perception.' (Brha. III. 4.1) If it is intended to point out that nature in the nature of things, - all the objects, verily, being possessed of that form as a matter of fact would be associated with direct perception -( that would be ) an undesirable contingency ! And further, a real direct perception cannot produce any- thing in respect of practical dealings. And if we admit that kind of nature not super-imposed, that is absent in (the statements like ) ' You are the tenth'. Nor again could there be the manifestation as not different from Samvit; ( if that be the case ) that being absent in jar and others, there would be indirect perception ( in respect of them ) - an undesirable contingency ! Further. you cannot say that the direct perception also belongs to jar and others, because it is direct for sentiency like Sattā by the Satta itself of

१६८ वेदॉन्तंकल्पलतिका

सत्तेव चैतन्यापरोक्षतयैवापरोक्षता, अपि घटादीनाम्, इति वाच्यम्, चैतन्यां- परोक्षताया एव स्वरूपातिरिक्ताया अनिरूपणात् । स्वरूपमात्रेण तदङ्गीकारे च, सर्वत्र सत्ताव्यवहारवत्, अपेरोक्षव्यवहारोपि स्याद्। [ ६६ ] ननु निवृत्ताज्ञानत्वमेव चैतन्यस्यापरोक्षत्वम्, तन्न क्वचि- रसत एव सुखादिसाक्षात्कारे, क्वचिच्च मानजन्यवृत्तिविशेषेण, यथा घटादि- साक्षात्कार:, इति नातिप्रसङ्ग:, इति चेत्,-एतावता हि, निवृत्तिताज्ञान- चैतन्यसरूपाभिन्नत्वेन भासमानो विषयः स्वगोचरज्ञाने, अपरोक्षमादधाति, इति फलितोऽर्थः। तथा सति, तद्रोचरज्ञानस्य वैयर्थ्यमेव तत्फलस्य पूर्व- मेव जातत्वात्। आवृतविषयस्य वा मानजज्ञानमन्तरेण कथं निवृत्ताज्ञान- Sentiency. Because the direct perception itself associated with Caitanya cannot be described as apart from its nature. And if that is admitted as its mere nature, as there is everywhere the functioning of the Satta, there would be the functioning of direct perception also. [ 66 ] If it is argued that the removal of the nature of Ajñana itself is the direct perception of the Caitanya, and that again is in some places by the direct realisation of pleasure etc., of its own accord, and in some places by virtue of the particular functioning due to the means of proof like the realisation of the jar and others so there would not be over-encroachment -( our reply is ) - even so, the object manifested as not different from the nature of the Caitanya with the Ajñana removed does partake of the direct percep- tion in respect of the knowledge concerning it - that would be the ultimate meaning got at; if that be the case, the knowledge concerning it is definitely useless because the result of that ( knowledge ) has been already produced. In the case of the object screened, how can there be the

१ A चैतन्यापरोक्षतवापरोक्षता २ A अपरोक्षता व्यवहारोऽपि ₹ A adds फलम् after तत्फलस्य

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका त्वम्१ मानं स्वयम्, अपरोक्षतारहितम्, उत्पन्नविषयस्याज्ञानं निवर्त्य पश्चा- त्तादृशस्वरूपविषयत्वेन, अपरोक्षतां लभते, इत्यपूर्व पाण्डित्यं प्रकटयन्, अनुमानादिकं कथमेवं न भवतीति पृष्टः किं व्याचष्टाम्१ आस्तिकः सन् स्वभाव एवायम्, इति कथं ब्रूयात्१ तस्मात्, वृत्तीनां यद् अज्ञाननिवर्तता वॅच्छेदकं रूपं तदेवापरोक्षत्वम्, इह प्रस्तुतम्। तच्च न चैतन्यस्य वास्तवा- परोक्षत्वलभ्यम्, इति तत्र हेत्वन्तरं वाच्यमेव। अत एव, अपरोक्षपदार्था- भेदपॅरशब्दत्वेन, अपरोक्षज्ञानजनकत्वम्, इत्यपास्तम्, वास्तवापरोक्षस्वरूप- विषयत्वस्य 'तत्त्वमसि' इत्यादिवाक्ये संभवेऽपि 'दशमस्त्वमसि' इत्यादाव- removal of the Ajnana, without the knowledge produced by the means of proof? That the means of proof itself without any direct perception after removing the Ajnana in respect of an object that is produced afterwards becomes possessed of the direct perception, being the object of that special nature - thus disclosing your wonderful scholarship, if you are asked how in that case do not come in Inference and others, what reply can you give ? Being one who agrees to the orthodox doctrine ( of Vedaprāmānya ) -how can you say that it is the very nature ? Therefore, it is put forth here that the nature of the functioning characterised by the removal of Ajnana - that itself is the direct nature. And that cannot be had through the real direct perception of the Caitanya and so some other cause has got to be stated in that connection. The view that direct knowledge is produced by the words directly referring to the oneness of the objects is thus brushed aside, because though being the object of real direct nature is possible in passages like ' That thou art,' it is impossible in ( passages ) like ' You are the tenth', and because the removal of Ajñana is absent prior

१ A इत्यपूर्वपाण्डित्यम् २ A drops न भवतीति ३ A व्याचष्टे A निवर्तकतावच्छे ... ५ A drops पर २२

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

संभवात्, निवृत्ताज्ञानस्य च शाब्दबोधात्पूर्वमभावात्, यदा कदाचित्, निवृत्ताज्ञानत्वविवक्षायां च 'पर्वतो वह्निमान्' इत्यादिवाक्यानामेपि, अपरोक्षस्वरूपविषयतया, अपरोक्षज्ञानजनकत्वपातात्। 'यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते' (तैत्ति. ३ . १) 'सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तम् ' (तैत्ति. २. १) इत्यादिवाक्यानामपि, अपरोक्षस्वरूपविषयतया, अपरोक्षज्ञानजनकत्वेन महा- वाक्यवैयर्थ्यापाताच्च। न च प्रमात्रभेदविषयत्वेनापरोक्षज्ञानजनकत्वं 'सर्व- जञत्वविशिष्टोऽसि' इत्यादिवाक्यादपि तथा प्रसङ्गात्। 'ईश्वरो मदभिन्नः, to the knowledge from the Word - if the removal of Ajñana is expected to be achieved sometime, then sentences like ' the mountain is possessed of fire', would perforce have to be admitted to produce the direct knowledge, because the object possesses the nature of direct perception. And even pas- sages like 'From whom, verily, these beings are produced' (Taitti. III. 1) ' Truth, Knowledge, Infinite' ( Taitti. II. 1) etc., producing the direct knowledge being the object of the nature of direct perception, there would perforce be useless- ness of the great passages; nor can it be said that they produce the direct knowledge because they are objects not different from the knower; otherwise, that will perforce have to be admitted even in the case of a sentence like ' You are endowed with omniscient nature' and likewise the same will have to be admitted from the Inference ( as ) - Iśvara is not different from me, Because of being possessed of sentiency, Like myself.

9 A निवृत्ताज्ञानत्वस्य २ A drops अपि ३A ज्ञानजननापातात् ४ A drops अपि ५ A सर्वज्ञत्वादिविशि ...

बेदान्तकल्पलतिका १७१ चेतनत्वात् मद्त्' इत्यनुमानादपि तथा प्रसङ्गाच्च। तस्मात्, अस्मदुक्तमेव साधु, योग्यपदार्थनिरूपित'त्वं'पदार्थाभेदपरशब्दत्वेन, अपरोक्षज्ञानजन- कता, इति। [६७ ] न च, एवं सति विचारात्पूर्वमपि शब्दस्य, अपरोक्षज्ञान- जनकत्वसंभवे तेनैव, अज्ञानतत्कार्यनिवृत्युपपत्तौ किं विचारणा? इति वाच्यम्, तस्यासंभावनादिप्रतिबद्धत्वे तदानीं स्वकार्याजनकत्वात्। विचा- रेण तु प्रतिबन्धनिवृत्तौ शब्दजन्यस्य निर्विकल्पापरोक्षज्ञानस्याप्रतिबद्धत्वेन स्वकार्यजनकत्वात् । तत्रायं क्रमः-फलपर्यन्तव्रह्मविद्योद्देशेन विहित- यज्ञाद्यनुष्ठानात्, नित्यानित्यविवेकप्रतिबन्धकश्चित्तदोषः प्रतिहन्यते। ततो Therefore, what has been stated by us alone is correct - there is the productive capacity for the direct knowledge on account of the words pointing out to the identity with the object (denoted by the word) ' You' referred to by the appropriate sense of the word. [ 67 ] This being the case, nor again should it be argued by you - when it is possible for a word to produce direct knowledge even prior to the pondering, and the removal of Ajnana and its products capable of being removed by that itself, what is the use of any pondering further? - Because, at that time it ( pondering ) would not be competent to produce its effect, because it is obstruc- ted by ( the circumstances like ) the impossibility of the same. But when the obstruction is removed by proper pondering, the direct indeterminate knowledge produced by the word, being unhindered would produce its own effect. There, this is the order in which it functions. - From the performance of the prescribed sacrifices etc., aiming at the knowledge of Brahman right upto the fruit, the wrong tendency of the mind acting as an impediment in the way of 3 Ã drops ₹4 २ A फलपर्यन्तं ३ 4 .. प्रतिबन्धकचित्तदोपः

१७२ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

नित्यानित्यविवेकेन, ऐहिकामुष्मिकवैतृष्ण्यप्रतिबन्धकथ्चित्तदोषोऽपसार्यते। ततो विषयवैतृष्णेन शमदमादिप्रतिबन्धकश्चित्तदोषः। ततः शमदमादिभिर्वि-

निश्चयफलकेन श्रवणाख्यतर्केण क्रियार्थत्वादिभिर्हेत्वाभासैवा, अद्वितीय- ब्रह्मात्मैक्ये वेदान्तानां प्रामाण्यासंभवरूपश्चित्तदोषः । एवं वेदान्तानां

the discrimination between permanent and non-permanent is warded off. Thereupon, by the discrimination between permanent and impermanent the wrong tendency of the mind, which obstruets the absence of the greed ( for enjoy- ment of objects ) here and hereafter is brushed aside; - then the wrong tendency of the mind obstructing the control and restraint by the absence of greed for the objects of senses; -then, by control, restraint and others, the wrong tendency of the mind which is the cause of perverse activity; - then ( is removed ) the wrong tendency of the mind entertaining the unauthoritative nature of the Vedān- ta-passages pointing out to the identity of Atman and Brahman without a second, by logical reasoning involved in ' hearing', culminating in concluding the purport and deno- tation of the Vedanta concerning the oneness of Brahman without a second, or by ( understanding ) the Hetus ( the Vedānta-passages ) for the sake of sacrificial activity to be fallacious reasonings; and thus, in the case of Vedanta, the wrong tendency of the mind, obstructing the concentra- tion of the mind, which is the cause of the piling up of the unauthoritative concepts by the reasoning known as think- ing', which results in the proper perspective of ( the Brahman ) to-be-known. Then is brushed away the wrong

2 A शमादिभि R A drops 3 IO and Ā drop 'प्रामाण्यासंभावना'

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका १७३

नाफलकेन मननार्येन तर्केण। ततोऽन्यानुपरक्तब्रह्मात्मैक्यविषयसंस्कार- प्रचयेन हेतुज्ञानवृत्तिफलकेन प्रयत्नेन निदिध्यासनार्येन, अनादिप्रवृत्त- देहात्मज्ञानजनितसंस्कारप्रचयः, चित्तदोषोऽपेसार्यते। ततोऽशेषदोषशून्ये स्त्रभावस्वच्छचित्तदर्पणे पूर्ववदेव वेदान्तवाक्येन जनिता, अखण्डवाक्यार्थ- विषया वृत्तिः सर्वदोषरहितत्वात्, अप्रतिबद्धांत् स्वतःप्रामाण्यादेव कृत्स्म् अज्ञानतत्कार्य निवर्तयति, ततः परं न शङ्का, न चोत्तरम्। तदुक्तम्- 'पुरुषापराधमलिना घिषणा निरवद्यचक्षुरुदयापि यथा। न फलाय भ्त्सुविषया भवति श्रुतिसंभवापि तु तथात्मनि घीः ॥

tendency of the mind - the massing together of the impre- ssions produced by the knowledge of the body as Atman, which is going on continuously without any beginning, - by the mental effort known as 'meditating' which results in the functioning of knowledge which is the mass of impres- sions concerning the oneness of Brahman and Atman un- affected by anything else. Then in the mind-mirror, naturally clear, void of all the blemishes, the tendency already produced by the Vedanta-passages pointing out to ( the Brahman as a ) complete whole, turns away the entire Ajñāna and its effects, verily, by virtue of its self-autho- ritative nature which is without blemishes and obstructions. And after that there can be neither any doubt, nor ( any scope for ) reply. Thus has been said - 'The understanding ( of a king ) soiled by his personal faults although prompted by the blameless eye, does not produce the proper fruit, concerning Bhartsu ( his minister ) So (is the case of) the idea in respect of the Atman, although arising from the Sruti passage.

१ A ... प्रचयहेतृज्ञानवृत्तिफलकेन २ A ... संस्कारप्रचयचित्तदोषो ...

३ A adds स्थिरे after ... दोषशून्ये ४ A adds या after ... र्थविषया A. अप्रतिबद्धा 1 भर्छुंविषया

१७४ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

पुरुषापराधविगमे तु पुनः प्रतिबन्धकव्युदसनात्सफला। मणिमन्त्रयोरपगमे तु यथा सति पावकाद्गवति धूमलता ॥ पुरुषापराधनिवृत्तिफल: सकलो विचार इति वेदविदः । अनपेक्षतामनुपरुध्य गिरः फलवद्भवेत्प्रकरणं तदतः ॥' (सं. शा. १. १४) [ ६८ ] तस्मात्, अद्वितीयब्रह्मात्मैक्यबोधस्य, अपरोक्षस्य स्वतः प्रमाणस्यापि बलवद्धिदोषिः परोक्षतामिव, अप्रामाण्यमिवापाद्य, अविद्या- निवर्तकत्वम्, अभिभूतम् । विचारेण तु दोषापगम एव केवलं क्रिकियते, न किश्चिदाधीयते, तेन न स्वतःप्रामाण्यभङ्गप्रसङ्ग:। तस्मात्, शमादिसंपन्नेन परिव्राजकेन मुमुक्षुणा गुरुम्ुपाश्रित्य चतुर्लक्षणमीमांसया विचार एवा-

But when the faults of a person are removed, it becomes fruitful again, owing to the driving out of the impediments, as the column of smoke comes out of the fire when the ( antidotes ) jewel and charm are not there. The Veda-knowers say that all pondering has for its fruit the removal of the faults in a person. And, for this reason, not marring the independent nature of the words, this section would lead to the desired fruit.' ( Samksepa. I. 14) [ 68 ] Therefore, in the case of the direct realisation of the knowledge of the one-ness of Atman and Brahman with- out a second, although self-authoritative, having produced as though an unauthoritative nature, like the indirect percep- tion due to strong blemishes - its being the remover of Ajñana is thwarted. By the pondering is effected only the removal of blemishes; nothing is imposed (by it ) - so, there is no fear of its self-authoritative nature being given up. Therefore, who has gained control etc., who is an ascetic, desirous of salvation, resorting to a teacher, should 9 A drops तु २ A ... पराधविनिवृत्तिफल: ३ A अनपेक्षतामनुरुध्य

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका ₹04

नुष्ठेयः फलपर्यन्तम्, इति विचारमेव विभज्य प्रदर्शयामः । तत्सिद्धम्, आत्मैव, अविद्यानिवृत्युपलक्षितो मोक्षः । तत्साधनं च वेदान्तवाक्य- करणकः, अन्यानुपरक्तब्रह्मात्मैक्यसाक्षात्कार एव श्रवणाद्यपनीतप्रतिबन्धः सन्, इति सर्व समञ्जसम्। न्यायैनिर्धूय दुष्टानिह कपिलकणादाक्षपादादिवादा- नादायादुष्टमेकं श्रुतिमितममृतद्वारमद्वैतवादम्। वेदान्तैकप्रमेयं परमसुखमयं ज्ञानमज्ञानशून्यं मोक्षं व्याचक्षते यं कमपि सुकृतिनः सोऽहमेवास्मि पूर्णः ॥।

go on with the pondering in accordance with ( the study of ) the Mīmamsa Sastra containing four parts, right upto the attainment of the fruit. -Dividing ( into suitable sections ) the consideration thus, we shall propound the same. There- fore, it is established that Atman himself as characterised by the removal of Avidya is Salvation. And its means is the realization itself of the oneness of Atman and Brahman untinged by anything else, produced by the Vedanta-passa- ges, with impediments removed by 'hearing' etc., - thus everything is quite reasonable.

Accepting the doctrines of Kapila, Kaņāda, Akșapāda etc., with the blemishes therein smashed down by various reasonings, and resorting to the one Advaita-doctrine, con- forming with the Sruti, without any blemish, the door to immortality -(.I say ) he whom the meritorious ones des- cribe as Salvation, known only from the Vedantas, consti- tuted of the highest Bliss, knowledge (itself) void of Ajñana, - he is the very Self of me, all-perfect.

१ A न्यायैविद्धत्वदुष्टा ...

१७६ वेदान्तकल्पलतिका

इति श्रीवेदान्तकल्पलतिकायां पेरमहंसपैरिव्राजकेमधुसूदनसरस्वती कृतायां ससाधनापवर्गनिरूपणं नाम स्तबक:।

वेदान्तकल्पलतिका समाप्रा

Here ends the ' Bunch' named ' Scrutiny of Moksa along with the means thereof' of the ' Sri Vedantakalpalatika' the composition of Paramahamsa-Parivrajaka-Madhusūdanasarasvati

Here ends the Vedantakalpalatikā.

१ श्री dropped in A २ A श्रीपरमहंस ... A श्रीमत्परम ... ३ A adds श्रीविश्वेश्वरसरस्वतीशिष्यश्री after ... जकाचार्य ४ A adds आचार्य after परिव्राजक

APPENDIX I

Authors and Works mentioned by name

Page Para

अविरोधलक्षण-चतुर्थपाद 152 60 (ब्र. सू. २1४) चतुर्लक्षणीमीमांसा 134, 174 53,68 न्यायभाष्यकृत: 26 9 पञ्चदशी 164 63 पश्चपादिकाकार 35, 119, 145 13, 50, 56 पञ्चाध्यायी 25 8

पारमर्षसूत्रम् (न्यायसूत्रम्) 19,67 6,26 पुराण 92 39

बादरायण-शारीरकमीमांसा 12 2

ब्रह्मसिद्धिकारा: 23 7 भट्टाचार्या: 27,44 10, 19 भाष्यकाराः (शंकराचार्याः) 91 39

महाभाष्यकारा: 80 32

मीमांसाभाष्यकृतः 129 52

वार्तिक (बृहदारण्यक) 23, 48-49, 158-59 7, 21, 62

वार्तिककारा: 34,52 12, 22 वार्तिककाराः (मीमांसाभाष्य) 130 52

संक्षेपशारीरककाराः 94 40

APPENDIX 1I

Quotations from the Upanisads etc.

अभिं वागप्येति १५६ बृह. ३.२.१३ अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं १२३ भ. गी. ५. १५ अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा १२ ब्. सू. १. १. १ अनृतेन हि प्रत्यूढा: १२२ छा. ८. ३.२ भन्नमयं हि सोम्य १५६ छा. ६. ५.४ अन्यत्र श्रेष्ठात् १६० ब्र. सू. २. ४. १७ अभिधेयाविनाभूत ७५ कुमारिल अभिमानोऽहंकारः १५२ सा. का. २४-२६ अविद्याया अविद्यात्वे १२७ बृह. वा. का. १८१ अविद्याया: परं पारं १२२ प्रश्नो. ६.८ अविनाशी वा २० बृह. ४. ५. १४ अशरीरं वाव २४ छा. ८. १२.१ अस्थूलमनणु ९० बृह. ३.८.८ आकाशवत्सर्व० २१ आत्मा कर्त्रादि० २३ बृह. वा. का. ५५-५६ आनन्दो विषयानुभव० १२० पञ्ञ. इच्छाद्वेषप्रयत्न० २० न्या. सू. १. १. १० ३४ बृह. वा. का. २३६ औत्पत्तिकस्तु ६८ मी. सू. १. १. ५ काम: संकल्पो विचिकि० १३८ बृह. १.५. ३ किं च मानादविज्ञाता० ४६ वृह. वा. का. २८९ कृतं कृत्यं प्राप्तं ५५ क्षीयन्ते चास्य ४२ मुण्ड. २. २.८ आमादि किञ्ञिदप्रासं ४९ बृह. सं. वा. ८८५-८6 चतुष्टयी शब्दानां ८० म. १. १.२ त इन्द्रियाणि १५२ ब्र. सू. २. ४. १७ तं त्वौपनिषदम् ११० बृह. ३.९.२६ तदेतद् ब्रह्म ८९ बृह. २.५.१९ तद्यथेह कर्मजित: ३७ छा. ८. १. ६

१७९

तमेव विदित्वा ३८ वा. सं. ३. १. १८ श्वेता. ३. ८. ६. १५ तमेव विदित्वा० १२१ वा. सं. ३. १. १८ श्वेता. ३.८.६.१५ तरति शोकं १२२ छा. ७. १. ३ तरत्यविद्यां १२२ प्रश्नो. ६.८ तस्माद् बोधात्मकत्वेन १३० मी. वा. चो. सू. का. ५३ तीर्णो हि तदा १३९ बृह. ४. ३.२२ तेजोमयी वाक् १६२ छा. ६. ५. ४ तेजो वै घृतम् १६३ तेजोऽशितं १६२ छा. ६. ५. ४ त्रयं वा इदं १६३ बृह. १. ६.१ दशेमे पुरुषे० १५२ बृह. ३.९.४ दुःखजन्मप्रवृत्ति० २२ न्या. सू. १.१.२ दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी १२१ भ. गी. ७. १४ न चक्षुषा गृह्यते १११, १३६ मुण्ड. ३. १.८ न युक्तं कामनामुक्तौ ४८ बृह. सं. वा. २९० न स पुनरावर्तते ३६ निरा. ३३, ना. प. ९.२२ ५२ बृह. वा. ३.८.१२२ नाभावनिष्ठो ५४ बृह. वा. ३.८.७४ नावेदविन्मनुते ५९, १११, १३६ तै. ब्रा. ३.१२. ९.७ नासतो विद्यते ३० गीता २. १६ नीहारेण प्रावृताः १२२ ऋ. सं. १. ८२. ७ परागर्थप्रमेयेषु ११३ पञ्च. ८.११

पुरुषापराधमलिना १७३ सं. शा. १. १४ प्रकृतेर्महांस्ततो १५३ सा. का. २१ प्रदीपवच्चार्थतो १५५ सा. का. १३ बुद्धेर्गुणेनात्मगुणेन १४० श्वेता. ५. ८

बृहतेर्धातो ९१ ब्र. सू. १. १. १ ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति तैति. २.१

ब्रह्म वेद १२१ मुण्ड. ३.२. ९ भूयश्चान्ते १२१ श्वेता. १. १०

मनसा ह्येव पश्यति १४० बृह. १.५. ३

मनसवानु० १३७, १३९ बृह. ४. ४. १९

१८०

मृत्यो: स मृत्युमाप्नोति ४० कठो. ४. १० य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते ४० कठो. ६.९

यतो ज्ञान० ३५ पञ्च.

यतो वा इमानि ९०, १७० तैत्ति. ३. १

यतो वाचो ९०, १११, १३६ तैत्ति. २. ४. ५ यत्राप्यतिशयो ४४ मी.श्लो.वा.चो.सू.का. ११४ यत्साक्षादपरोक्षा० १६७ बृह. ३. ४. १ यदान्या ओषधयो ८७

यदा सर्वे प्रमुच्यन्ते १३९ कठो. २. ३

यद्वाचानभ्युदितम् १३६ केनो. १.४

यन्मनसा न ६३ केनो. १.५ यस्य च दुष्ट करणं १२२ मी. भा. १.१.६ यौगिको योगरूढश्च ७७

वराहं गावो ८७

विज्ञानं यज्ञं तनुते १४० तैत्ति. २.५ विज्ञानादिविशेष २३ ब्र. सि. वियत्पवनतेजोऽम्बु० १६४ पञ्ञ. १. १८-२२ वियद्वस्तुस्वभावा बृह. वा. का ५४३-४४ वेदेनैव यद्वेदि० १११, १३६ बृह. ५.१ शान्त: खल्वयं २६ न्या. भा. ९.१.२ शान्तो दान्त १२ बृह ४. ४. २३ सत्यं ज्ञान० ५९, १७० तैत्ति. २.१

सत्वं लघु १५५ सा. का. १३ सधी: खवप्नो भूत्वा १४० बृह. ४. ३.७ स मानसीन: १३७ चितत्यु. १.१.२ सर्वे वेदा यत्रैके १३७ चित्यु. ११.१ स समान: सन्नुभौ १४० बृह. ४. ३. ७ साक्षी चेता १३८ श्वेता. ६.११ सामान्यकरणवृत्ति: १५६ सा. का. २९ स्थूलाहुतिरत्र ५३ बृह. वा. ३.८७४ स्वग्राह्याथे १५८ बृह. वा. २.४. ३६४-६८

ERRATA

Page Line Incorrct Correct XXVI 11 thongh though 1 3 भीमांसया मीमांसया 15 3 मोक्ष- मोक्षा- 21 19 Śruti-passage Śruti-passages 38 4 क्षणिकभावना क्षणिकत्वभावना 39 11 parapharnelia paraphernalia 39 14 unauthritative unauthoritative 41 26 arged argued 47 1 आत्ममिन्ना आत्मभिन्ना 79 20 adandoned abandoned 85 10 Follw- Follow- 103 27 parapharnelia paraphernalia 111 24 pervaded the pervaded by the 125 19 ( Śveta. ( Śvetā. 131 6 मवम्, मैवम्, 139 7 तीणा हि तीर्णा हि 140 26 Maitra. VI. 30. ) Maitrā. VI. 30 ) 142 11 that (it) that ( is ) 14 18 remebrance remembrance

146 6 अपरोक्षम, अपरोक्षम्, 148 16 fwise wise

148 16 discarding o discarding of

158 1 सर्वंदेहव्यापित्वेनव सर्वंदेहव्यापित्वेनैव

162 9 (छा. ६. ५. ४) (छा. ६. ५.३) 61