Brahmasutras cannot be treated on par. The Srautasutras describe the procedure of the performance of sacrifice. The practice of sacrifice differs from Shakha to Shakha. Therefore, separte Srautasutra for different Shakhas may be necessary. In the case of Brahmasutras no such contengency arises. Brahmasvarupa cannot differ from Sakha to Sakha. Further, the Visaya Vakyas for the very first and second adhikaranas are from the Taittiriya Upanisad. The subject matter of Anandamayadhikarana is from Taittiriya upanisad. If these are delected or treated as later additions, then, the very foundation of the Brahmasutras is lost. A close study of the Brahmasutras will reveal that the Visayavakhyas are drawn from all important Upanisads. The key words of these passages are incorporated into the Sutras. Therefore, 'the contention that these Sutras belonged to Chandogya only' cannot be accepted. It may be noted that Sri Madhvacharya shows that the visayavakyas of some adhikaranas are drawn even from Rksamhita. As regads the second pada of second adhyaya containing the refutation of Buddhist views, and the views of the Vaisesika etc. the basic doctrines of these systems are much older than the available texts. Therefore, a mention of these cannot be utilised for chronological purposes.

Another interesting point raised by the modem scholars is the mention of some names of Vedanta thinker in Brahmasutras, who are supposed to be earlier to Badarayana. According to the modern scholars these hold different views on some vedanta issues and therefore, they must also have composed Vedantasutras or some other form of Vedanta treatises.

tftftv mzft, 3T#T, 3m*TC% sfR^rft", *l$l$rM *|W|lfaPl are the sages quoted in Brahmasutras. A close examination of the Sutras wherein these names occure will reveal that these have not said any thing that is against Badarayana's view. The point made in the context is presented by these sages in different ways within the frame work of Badarayana's view. Badarayana himself could have put in these ways and given his broader perspective without men-

VI

tioning these names. He mentions these names only to compliment them. This is made clear in the following quotations given in Sri Madhvacharya's Bhasya under the Sutras wherein the names of these sages occure.

3F^ oqoi^^dl^l^rM J^lRol^ II (sT.^J. 1-2-28)

II

Sri Madhvacharya explains the circumstances under which the Brahmasutras were composed as under :

wk *nfo fi% 3n^j^ dfaufqN si^resrf^rcf^ft wn^

H\m"U ^Wr^H 3MddK I 3T»telA«MlfaqfWV^i <HJ>wGMMdi d^imi4 ^grH*j ^TSPT^-

Wm %^T %T r#5f ^ *iwjt I fWt '5\ZWfl %T ^r\¥\ I*IR|t^ I

At the close of Dvapara age the knowledge of sacred literature was distorted. Hence the Supreme God Narayana himself took the incarnation of Vedavyasa and grouped the Vedas into four, twentyfour, hundred and one and one thousand etc. Then he composed the Brahmasutras for the clear understanding of the import of this sacred literature.

From this the following points are clear:

1. Brahmasutras were composed at the close of Dvapara age.

2. Composing these was a part of a large literatry renaissance undertaken by Sir Vedavyasa by way of systematising the vast

vedic literature, Puncharatra and Itihasa-purana. This is the earliest known literary renaissance in India.

3. Brahmasutras cull out the Vedanta Philosophy from the entire veda and allied sacred literature.

Though this information is given in mythological language which is the traditional Indian way of giving historical information, it helps us to have an idea of the date, the author, and the background of the composition of Brahmasutras. Modern scholars, naturally will not agree for such an antiquity since they want to compress the development of the entire Vedic literature and its auxiliaries within the time span of 1500 B.C. to 200-300 A.D. This approach of modern scholars is contested by good many modern scholars only. Therefore, we will be more on uncertain ground if we go by the dates suggested by the modem scholars.

The modern scholars suggest the date as 200 A.D.

Ill

Sri Madhva quotes a compact definition of Sutras while introducing the Brahmasutras.

3|<Ml»W»H«i ^ *J5T ^R|<| fsp|: II

A Sutra should have minimum required syllables, it should not give room for any doubt, it should make some special point, it should cover the point concerned noting its occurances in all branches of Veda, it should not contain meaningless syllables, and should not have curropt expressions.

(?) sn^TCrri f^RT f^f^MiqfRlfe: rR^TWr5Tfl[ I O) ^j" ^T ^^ftrq^HwRrq?^ | (3) RlRlKl^rTT *IK°It°|4^ I (V) 5[pi?srT-A<Mfa+r°i f^dl^r^ I (\) sq^KlRilf^W^r^ | (^) 3ji|$KlR^4*H°l<l|r°l^ I (cT.JT.)

Brahmasutras satisfy all these requirements of a Sutra. There-

VII

fore, the expression 'Sutra' primerily refers to Brahmasutras. These Brahmasutras help to ditermine the purport of the entire sacred literature.

SK^MfM *T#T qrETRFPsr f^Ffa: I (*L*TT.)

In view of this the Brahmasutras are designated as m.f°i«4i. The Atharvana upanisad states that there are two levels of knowledge I M %RcT^ W %TIW ^ I rPTIW iRT^t q^ : flW^<|s*p^:

fwr ^wt ^mm ftw ^t ^ftf^rfaft i m w w ^sptttw^ i

(3TF#Tl-5)

Here it is stated that the same body of literature **««k etc is amf°Ni when it is comprehended in the ritualistic sense and it is m^Ri^ii when 3W i.e. sHR^i.e. f^J is comprehended as its import. This is made more clear in the verse.

Brahmasutras not only help to comprehend this f^pTCrsr of veda but directly also convey Brahman i.e., Visnu. Therefore, these are designated as Hifa^i.

Sri Madhvacharya makes it clear in his Brahma sutranuvyakhyana as

The scope of •ufa^H is not confined to upanisads. The entire veda when its import is comprehended as teaching Brahman i.e. Visnu, and Brahmasutras that enable to comprehend such import are designated as m^Ri^ii. Between the two the Vedas are PHm and Brahmasutras are f^nfa^>. This position of Brahmasutra makes it s^tw i.e. Superior.

The fact of entire Veda conveying Brahman is stated quite fre-

quently in Sri Madhvacharya's works. Even such expressions that ordinarily convey rituals and the procedure etc. connected with the rituals convey Brahman. There are two levels of verbal communication viz *|<?m^1ti and WTg^TffrT. The words ^TtfrT: etc. convey the rituals by y^Ri and convey Brahman i.e., Visnu by wnj^^frr.

^T: *# ^T: ^f sffaT: ^T sqiffo JFIT V$ JJFT ^T: |r^T RNld^ (^.3TT. WO

ii) q%rra^n^T: ^i^j; jr^% *Hl£| I

The central object of Brahmasutras is to describe ^ihR^I sRSPJ. This is done by demostrating his H^T^rr^Trsr. The whole of first chapter is devoted to this task.

After stating >kR*iic=i of Brahmasutras Sri Madhvacharya explains the JTTRF^ of these on three grounds, viz i) 34IH=ll+4dl ii) «jfrT-tHiRdi and iii) ^Rh^di. These are composed by a WTRT i.e «k°mti. These are in agreement with Sruti and these interpret the Sruti utilising w$>*{, 3W^R etc. criteria of ditermining the purport. The ^TTHr^r is to be ditermined on the ground of qtiijftrM, Mfal^^l and awi^^ ie - compentence of the teacher, capacity of the desciple and the suitability of the occasion.

%fif ilH|uq frf^JH^I

3) HTW2TFT: V. ^IM4K:

The Brahmasutras are arranged in four Adhyayas. These are named as ?) SW^TC ^) 3#fr«T 3)*TrsR"V) W.

Each adhyaya is also arranged in four padas. i.e., sections. These are also given suitable names. The following chart will give a complete picture of the arrangement.

?) WH«H1: 3) 3u%ftWT«TFT:

V) "fcdlwjN:

Within each pada i.e. section, the sutras are arranged into certain adhikaranas i.e., topics. An adhikarana is defined as,

fimt f^R^r ^rw^ftrT^ i jpffcR ^ q#rrr^awtsfq^Tit ftj n

These are not explicitly stated in the Bhasya. However, Sri Jayateertha in his Tatvaprakasika clearly states these steps under each adhikarana. He also states wft.

An adhikarana consists of one or more Sutras. The first Sutra reads as £*> srawTsi^Ri^wi £*>. In the Dvaita tradition adding & before and after every Sutra is strictly followed on the authority-

i) I^^K^rra^M^r sn%<ft ^ft: yr i

?pi fvfrSTT f%#Rfcft rIWFWf^FJ*ft II ii) *4«lrm1^d W® M<WN Rl$fl4c) II

Each of Brahmasutra represents a a^R^i. It is a holy practice that while a statement of sfi?n%rr is made ^^R is recited before and after it. It is stated that if this practice is not followed, then, that sr^rf^n will slip away. Therefore, the recitation of & before and

after each Sutra is strictly followed in Dvaita tradition. At the commencement of first Sutra ^^K is recited twice. One of them is treated as a part of the Sutra. & means ^il^I. The central expression of the Sutra viz. sfi*F^also means 3°rj^t. It is &5>K recited as a part of the Sutra that indicates that the expression SH?^ should not be taken in its ¥3 sense here but it should be taken in the sense of 3°!^. Further, &, ¥®, M, °M\ifo, *TFT=ft r ^*t* and ^ develop the theme of J^TJ^rSTof sT^step by step. This development is also indicated by the recitation of this & as a part of Sutra. Sri Madhvacharya states this special role played by & as follows:

3[)dr°Nhn ft I^^Kt ^rfWt

IV

Before a Bhasya or a commentary is written on a work it is customary to raise the question whether it is worthwhile to undertake an invistigation i.e. f^TRTT into that subject. Whether it has s^g^q; ^jJg*T viz. arftRlR^f^PT, w^t, and JPTfcFT. Providing an answer to this question by stating the STJ^T^JCT is technically known as 3ii<-iK*-Hti^4'iH s - This question is raised in the case of Brahmasutras also and answered. In the very first Sutra & Wfttl sHRfN^TRT &, Wf which means ^Tf^lWRrTFrRi^ makes room for the statement of adhikara. 3T?T: notifies SPTfaFT and sl^T^ indicates

XII

Three requirements are laid down for Adhikara i.e. eligibility. These are ?) ^w^) ^HK^iR^Ri 3) tfrfi- fawj,M&h<H«ranS|^l The first requirement viz. the study is meant to aquire knowledge. The second is moral discipline, while the third is the deep love with the realisation of the supremacy of the God JTRprR^rFFJ^g?^ %f>. Since only the ^ft?* are eligible to study the Vedas, the provision of aquiring the knowledge through Tantra i.e. Itihasa Purana, and by ^TflFRW is made for others. The important point to be noted here is that no one is denied the opportunity of spiritual development.

The expression 3TcT: states the reason for undertaking the investigation by indicating the goal and its means. Attaining the God, attaining salvation, is the goal and the grace of the God is means for it. In other words the God is the means and God is the goal.

.... 3JW: Jfl^tr^y^ftd: I

WT sI^FTt f^Wf: MUKlRfd m *l^ I

*T f| ^ofa^frlik*: ^<M: II (T.^TT. 1-1-1)

The expression sfi*T^in Sutra provides the subject matter of investigation. Sambandha i.e. the relevance of these three for each other could easily be made out. In this way the wording of the very first Sutra provides ^i^q^njgq- and justifies SII'MKWT. A consepectus of the topics discussed in Brahmasutras is given below.

Conspectus of the topics of Brahmasutra Bhasya

Chapter 1 section I-II

fa^lWlfw<J|^

^3T«TTrft:

In this adhikarana the necessity of undertaking an investigation into the nature of Brahman is established. Purvapaksin takes the stand that ther is no such entity as Brahman apart from the Jiva. The

Jiva is known to everyone through the experience 'aham' i.e. 1 am' as there is no doubt about Jiva, there is no need to undertake any investigation about him. Nor any perpose is served by an investigation into the nature of Jiva. His knowledge does not lead to the Salvation. Thus, there is no subject for investigation, nor any purpose. Hence there is no adhikarin i.e. a seeker. Therefore, there is no need to undertake an investigation into the nature of Brahman- sfijlf^TRTT

d^MHJrHWMN ftWT ^M^Mr) II (^.5T.)

Siddhantin points out that the expression 'Brahman' refers to an entity that is infinit in respect of space, time and the attributes. It has infinit attributes, it is perfect and it is supreme. This is distinct from Jivas. The jivas obtain salvation by the grace of this Supreme being. Therefore, an investigation into the nature of Brahman is necessary. Brahman is the subject matter, obtaining his grace is prayojana (JRt^H). He who seeks to obtain his grace is adhikarin. Therefore, an investigation into the nature of Brahman be undertaken- sT^rfWRTT ^fsqT.

In this Sutra the expression Wf serves two purpose viz. i)1W<5 the very uttarance of W^is auspecious. ii) It means after one aquires eligibility i.e. arfq^rc- ST^^t ^W^'. aTf*HKM»riqM«r. (^•^•)

The expression STcT: conveys ^J i.e., the purpose to be achieved. The means to achieve the goal.

By sfijlf^TRIT the salvation has to be obtained. The salvation is obtained by the grace of the God. God's grace is obtained by ^rifrg^TR" and qfrfi. This is obtained by WT r *FR i.e. f^RK i.e. f^uHT. Therefore f^TRTr i.e. fa^K has to be undertaken. This is beautifully summed up- fa^w'lc^I'MidMrtWKhH 5^1% I (aTJ.^TT.)

The import of & and its being a part of the Sutra is already explained.

XIV

vd'-*llfM*< u l*l s

p> ^«4Hi|f4| SlrT: p>

In this adhikarana the definition of Brahman is given. In the previous adhikarana Brahman was stated to be gunapurna in order to consider it as the subject matter of jijnasa i.e. investigation. This was done by taking the etemological meaning of the word Brahman. One of its rudha meaning is Jivas. This was rejected and the etemological meaning i.e. J j, u it^ was taken. To reject the rudha meaning some objection to take it so is necessary that is stated in this adhikarana by giving the definition of Brahman.

Brahman is defined as that which is the cause of the creation, sustainance, destruction, regulation, providing knowledge, ignorance, bondage and release. Such a defenition can be the definition of Brahman only when its sense is taken as gunapurna i.e. Visnu but not as jiva. Therefore the purvapaksin's plea that the rudha meaning of this word viz. jiva be taken cannot be accepted. Therefore, the purvapaksa of this adhikarana viz. the word Brahman means jiva is rejected and the siddhanta that this word means gunapurna i.e, Visnu who is the cause of creation etc. is established. The glory of Brahman as the cause of creation etc. is fully explained by quoting the relevant passages from Rgveda in the Bhasya.

confq<M , j|^

& *IK*WlPHld &

In this adhikarana it is stated that Sastra only is the authority in respect of the cause of the world. The inference is not the means to ascertain the cause.

In the previous adhikarana, Brahman is described as the cause of the creation, sustainance etc of the world. This was supported by quoting the relevant Sruti passages. However, purvapaksin argues that Rudra etc. others also can be considered as

the cause by inference. This claim is rejected by Siddhantin by pointing out that the Sastra only is authority to ascertain the cause of the world. Bhasyakara explains this point by quoting the relevant authority and makes it clear that the inference that has no support of Sruti can establish nothing. The reasoning can be utilised only to resolve the apparent conflict among the Sruti passages and to arrive at a consistant import. It cannot be an independent means of knowledge.

Bhasyakara further states that the object that cannot be comprehended by pratyaksa cannot be altogether denied. He gives a number of instances to establish that there are the objects that are beyond perception. Therefore, the very existence of Isvara cannot be denied.

The scope of the Sastra is also not to be confined to Upanisads only. The entire Veda, Pancharatra, Ithihasa-Purana and all such works that are not in conflict with these consitute Sastra.

In the previous adhikarana it is stated that Sastra only is the authority in respect of the cause of the world. Now, the Purvapaksin argues that Rudra is stated as the cause in Pasupata Sastra. He is also stated as the cause at some places in Vedas. Therefore, Visnu alone cannot be considered as the cause.

This contention of Purvapaksin is rejected and the Siddhanta view is stated in the Sutra here. The purport of Sastra has to be ditermined by upakrama, upasamhara etc. guidelines. These are called anvaya in Sutra. This term is explained as 3i«fhni ^ilrhnirs4-

jfH^i *^psq^ wirrq^^qi^siwift ^^r^rMTMi. These

guidelines help to comprehend the meanings of the words and sentence by duly indicating their syntactical and semantical relations. Therefore, these are called anvaya. These guidelines are as under:

XVI

One should not go by the superficial meaning. One should get the correct import by applying these guidelines,

In the previous adhikarana it is stated that Brahman i.e. Visnu is conveyed as the cause of the world by Sastra. This import is obtained by the application of Upakrama, upasamhara etc. guidelines. But the purvapaksin claims that the Sruits 'Yato vacho nivartante' etc. inform us that Brahman is beyond the words. He is not conveyed by any word. Therefore, how can he be conveyed as the cause by Sastra.

This claim is rejected by siddhantin by pointing out that the Srutis "Purusam Dcsate" 'Atmanam pasyati' etc. inform us that Brahman becomes known. He cannot be known by any other authority than Sruti. Therefore, Sruti does convey him. The Srutis 'yato vacho' etc. do not totally deny the fact that he is conveyed by the words. These only say that he is not fully comprehended as he is infinit. Bhasyakara quotes a number of Sruti passages to show that he is conveyed by the entire veda. He is called ^m, SRT^T, 3Ri^ etc. only to indicate that he cannot be completely comprehended.

WFfftsfq- ^ H$qR ^ff ^t fsPU%T: I 3W%£: WTFSJ rl^^rM" *N?J|4lRhd: I

The contention that 'the Atman who is stated as comprehended is not Suddha brahman i.e. Nriguna brahman. He is the Atman who has satva, rajas etc. gunas, in other words, he is Jiva. So far as nirguna brahman is concerned he is ajneya and consequently avachya" is rejected by Sutrakara himself. The term Atman primarily refers to Brahman only. Therefore, Gauna Atma i.e. jiva is not intended by Sruti Nirguna i.e. satvadiguna rahita, is known and hence he is vachya. («fr Tn^T^i'H irH*i«y q^)

It is stated in the Sruti that he who is devoted to Atman will attain liberation. Devotion to Gauna Atma does not lead to liberation. Therefore, the expression Atman does not refer to Gauna Atman. (£*> rifauv* jfafi'Asilq^)

It is clearly stated in Sruti "you know Atman only and reject others'. (rT^t% «rm 3TTrJTH 3T*TT W*t farpPT) Therefore, Atman refers to Nirguna Atman i.e Paramatma only. («fr «*<ic5ii<sr«ww &)

It is also stated in the Sruti that the incarnations of the Atman get back to mularupa. Such getting back cannot be envisaged for Gauna Atman i.e. jiva. Therefore, it is clear that the Nirguna Brahman is conveyed by this Shruti. (& *m«wmjfr)

It cannot also be claimed that in some other branch of Veda a different postion is likely to have been stated since all the branches of Vedas state the same and these never cantradict each other. (3& J|ft<HWMI<i &)

Sruti ^»°irtl Pi^ u i^T directly declares that the Atman comprehended is Nirguna Atman. (£*>^ir=(N &)

In understanding the points made here it should be kept in mind that the Nirguna Atman refered to here is not nirguna in the advaita sense. It is nirguna in the sense of Satvadi gunarahita. The expressions Gauna and Nirguna refer to jiva and Paramatma in these Sutras and the bhasya there on. These do not refer to Saguna and nirguna Brahman of Advaita.

XVIII

Lastly, advaitin's claim that "let Brahma be conveyed by Laksana, not by Vachyavrtti' is rejected by pointing out that an entity that is not conveyed by Vachyavrtti by any word cannot be conveyed by Laksanavrtti by any word.

In this way vachyatva of Brahman is established on the ground of jneyatva in this adhikarana.

Other Bhasyakaras interpret this adhikarana as a refutation of the Samkhya doctrine viz. Prakrti is the cause of the world. However, such an interpretation cannot be admitted since the refutation of other systems has to be made only in the second chapter.

Samanvaya commences from this adhikarana. The earlier five adhikaranas are introductory. The words are of four types, i) The words that convey Brahman i.e Visnu ii) The words that convey other than Brahman i.e Visnu iii) The words that convery both Brahman and some other also iv) The words that convey others only. Under each category there are again two types: i) The words that are merely names ii) The words that refer to the characteristic of the object conveyed and convey the object through it.

There is no need of Samanvaya of the first category of words since these clearly convey the Brahman. The Samanvaya of the second category of words is explained in the first and second padas. The Samanvaya of such words which are merely denotative i.e. name, is expalined in the first pada the samanvaya of the words that convey the object through its characteristic i.e., connotative words, is explained in second pada. The Samanvaya of the words that convey Brahman and also other is explained in the third pada while the samanvaya of such words that convey other than Brahman only is explained in the fourth pada.

In the present adhikarana the samanvaya of the word

XX

anandamaya is explained. While explaining this, the samanvaya of annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya and vijnanamaya is also explained. In its wider implication this adhikarana explains all gunivachaka and gunavachaka words.

Here, the question whether the expression anandamaya refers to Brahman i.e. Visnu or chaturmukha brahma, Rudra, Prakrti, jiva etc., is raised. Purvapaksin quotes the relevant references to chaturmukha brahma etc., and claims that one of these is anandamaya. He also puts forword the argument that since the word anandamaya contains "mayaf suffix which conveys modification, it cannot refer to Brahman i.e. Visnu who does not undergo any modification.

This claim of Purvapaksin is rejected. The expression Brahman frequently accures in the context of the discourse on anandamaya. This clearly shows that anandamaya refered to here is Brahman. This applies to annamaya etc also. The 'mayat' suffix has the meaning 'full' also. Therefore, anandamaya means full of ananda but not the modification of ananda. (&> R)-=hK$KI<t/M% %T Ml^id^ #>)

There is not difference between avayava and avayavin in case of Brahman i.e. Visnu. The reference to Brahman as puccha does not come in the way of equating anandamaya with Brahman. The Sutrakara adds the following grounds also to consider anandamaya as Brahman.

i) In the hymn that is given at the commencement of this discourse viz. "satyam, jnanam, anantam brahma' Brahman is diseribed. The some Brahman is ferrered to in Anandamaya context. Hence anandamaya is Brahman i.e. Vishnu. (&

ii) The fact of Brahman being anandamaya is stated as the ground for the activities of all others in the Sruti 'w f| ^T 3Fqi^ : Miuqid^ etc. (&> d^^lN &>)

iii) Chaturmukha brahma etc. cannot be refered to as anandamaya since these cannot provide salvation to the seekers. (& %rRtsgqq%: &)

iv) It is clearly stated in this context that Chaturmukha brahma etc. are distinct from Anandamaya. (^ *k°q4^iN ^)

v) The inference is not a reliable means (^ ^wm »ii^mi^^T

vi) The liberated jivas are stated to enjoy the benefit of the liberation with the Brahman retatining their separate identities. This establishes that Jivas are distinct form Brahman even at liberated state. (^ ^rf^i^a^T^rr^n'^niw^)

For these reasons, the anandamaya refers to Brahman i.e. Visnu only. Annamaya etc. also refer to him only. These refer to Aniruddha, Pradyumna etc. five forms of Visnu.

This adhikarana consists of two Sutras. Here, the attribute antasthatva is established to be the attribute of Visnu. Thorugh this it is established that the names of the deities Indra, Surya, Varuna etc are the names of Visnu.

In the previous adhikarana it is stated that adrsyatva i.e. not being fully comprehended, is an attribute of anandamaya. This attribute is stated as the attribute of him who is within, in the Taittiriya aranyaka '^F^rfti *dk*A*i .... *#r*RT^ RmhQ ^nV. He who is stated as within is Indra. This means that Indra is anandamaya but not Brahman i.e. Visnu. This objection on the conclusion of the previous adhikarana viz anandamaya is Brahman i.e., Visnu, is answered in this adhikarana.

The attribute antahpravishtatva is not the attribute of Indra etc deities, though their names occure in this context. A number of other

10

XXII

attributes such as brahmandaviryatva, jivasrayatva, samudrantasthatva that are clearly the attributes of Visnu are stated here. These cannot be considered as the attributes of Indra etc deities. The names Indra etc. can be considered as the names of Visnu since the qualities conveyed by these names are primarily found in Visnu. Since the names Indra etc can be used with reference to Visnu these are Savakasa while the attributes brahmandaviryatva samudrantasthatva etc. can not be applied to any other. Hence these are Niravakasha. Therefore, antasthatva is an attributed of Visnu. Consequently adrsyatva is also an attribute of Visnu as already stated in anandamayadhikarana, and anandamaya is Visnu. By the establishment of the fact that antasthatva is an attribute of Visnu, it follows that the names Indra etc. are the names of Visnu only. Its wider implication is that all adhidaiva words convey Vishnu only. To achieve this wider purpose the Samanvaya of a linga i.e. an attribute is presented in this adhikarana though the theme of this pada is

A suggestion is made that even if antasthatva is an attribute of Visnu, the names Indra etc. can be taken as the names of Indra etc. deities only. The difficulty that the attribute antasthatva belongs to Visnu and names Indra etc. belong to some other deities can be solved by considering Visnu and the other deities identical. This suggestion cannot be accepted. Indra etc. are stated as distinct in the statements "Indrasya atma' 'Devanam hrdayam brahma' etc. in this very context. This points is made in the second sutra of this adhikarana. (&> ^r^HWRT: 3*>)

^l<*>l$llfa<M<J|^

In this adhikarana the question 'whether akasa etc. adhibhuta words convey Visnu or the respective jada objects only' is raised. The purvapaksin claims that since the word akasa is popularly used in the sense of bhutaakasa it conveys that only but not Visnu. The word akasa cannot be taken as conveying Visnu even on the ground

that it is under the control of Visnu. Since it is a jada object. Tadadhinatvanyaya is not applicable to jada objects. This contention of Purvapaksa is rejected by siddhantin. The akasa described here is stated as possessing the attributes of sarvottamatva and ananthatva. These are the attributes of Visnu. Hence the word akasa conveys Visnu only. The word akasa conveys Visnu both by Vidvad rudi and Mahayoga. The fact of akasa being under the control of Visnu is also stated in Sruti. The wider implication of this adhikarana is that all adhibhuta words convey Visnu. n^KiRr-

JFTTte^T^

& SRT^rjTFT:^

In this adhikarana the question 'whether the word Prana conveys Visnu or Vayu' is raised. The Purvapaksin argues that this word is popularly known as conveying Vayu. Therefore, it conveys him only but not Visnu. The siddhanta points out that the prana is stated here with the attributes Sripatitva and Lakshmipatitva. These attributes are not at all applicable to Vayu. Hence this word conveys Visnu. Its wider implication is that all adhyatmika words convey Visnu only. ^lf^*l^l«^Mri$l*M|u|*K<'H-<4l I^T II

& ^fu^siwffrHHIM &

In this adhikarana the question 'whether the word Jyoti in the Sruti 'vrqjft^ srrftrP^ etc. (^. \-\-\) conveys Visnu or Agni' is raised. Purvapaksin argues that since this word is popularly known to convey Agni only, it conveys him only. Further, it occures in Agni Sukta. Therefore, it must convey Agni only, Siddhantin points out that the attribute Karnadividuratva given here is an attribute of Visnu only. Therefore, he is conveyed by the word Jyoti here. This word can convey Visnu by vidvad rudhi and Mahayoga.

11

XXIV

T|m>i|fM<+><u|^

This adhikarana consists of three Sutras. The question 'whether the word Gayatri conveys Visnu or the metre Gayatri' is raised here. In the earlier adhikarana it was concluded that the word Jyoti conveys Visnu. This Jyoti is stated as Gayatri. If the word Gayatri conveys something other than Visnu, then, the word Jyoti also will have to convey that. This will adversly affect the conclustion of the previous adhikarana. Therefore, the meaning of the word Gayatri has to be settled. Purvapaksin argues that the word Gayatri conveys the metre only as it is popularly known to convey that sense. This word cannot convey Visnu on the ground that Gayatri is under the control of Visnu since the Gayatri is a part of Veda and the Vedas are eternal. Eternal objects are never under the control of others. Siddhantin points out that the two features i.e. ganakartrtva and tranakartrtva conveyed by the word Gayatri are the attributes of Visnu only. Therefore, this word conveys Visnu only. Even the eternal objects are under the control of Visnu. Therefore, this word primarily conveys him only. He is conveyed by this word for meditating upon him by this word.

The word Gayatri conveys Visnu on another ground also. It is described as having bhutadi pada i.e. the world, as its pada. The Visnu is also described in Purusasukta as bhutadi pada. Therefore, the two are one. Here the word pada should not be taken in the sense of a portion. It should be taken as amsa. That too as bhinnamsa. This is stated in the second sutra of this adhikarana. (&

In this context of the description of the padas of Visnu a clarification is necessary. In one place it is stated that the three padas are in Dyuloka, in another place it is stated that these are beyond Dyuloka. This looks like a contradiction. It also makes room to say

that the two refered to are different. Therefore, it is clarified that one statement is from the point of view of three worlds and the other statement is from the point of view of the seven worlds. This clarification is given in the third sutra of this adhikarana. (£*> ^^r^I%f^

MKMyi u nRi<M u m s

In this adhikarana the question whether the word Prana conveys Visnu or something else is again raised quoting a passage wherin the word Prana occurs in the context of Indriyas. Purvapaksin argues that in the Sruti passage "ta va etah' etc. the word Prana cannot convey Visnu since it is a context of describing Indriyas. Siddhantin points out that a number of attributes of Visnu such as "this Prana is to be meditated upon by the deities' "all vedas, all words declare this Prana' etc. are described here. Therefore, the word Prana conveys here Visnu only. Further, the word Brahman also occures frequently here.

It cannot be urged that the speaker Indra declares here that "I am prana' therefore, the word Prana conveys Indra here. But Indra also uses the expression prana with reference to many others as "pranah tvam pranah sarvani bhutai etc. Therefore, he cannot be taken as conveyed by the word prana. (£*> ^ MT^ic+TlH^iiRfa

The mention of certain attributes of Jivas and Mukhya prana also does not come in the way of the word prana conveying Visnu. Here three types meditations viz. Visnu as present everywhere, as present at the heart and as present outside are described.

12

XVI

Those who are engaged in the sacrifice worship the Visnu in Agni, the Yogin meditate upon him at the heart and ordinary persons in the Icons.

In the previous Pada i.e. section, the samanvaya of the names i.e. denotative words that popularly convey other than Visnu was explained as conveying Visnu. In the second pada the samanvaya of the lingas i.e. connotative words that popularly convey other than Visnu will be explained as conveying Visnu. This Samanvaya of anyatra prasiddha linga will be made with the help of the lingas that are prasiddha as the lingas of Visnu.

3T*PT ilRKHi fotflrH+Mi $KHJ f^ft SPffri" ^#u% 3TpT^TI^

JPTF^T (*TT.)

i) This first adhikarana consists of eight Sutras. In this ahikarana the question whether Brahman i.e. Visnu, is Sarvagata i.e. present everywhere or Aditya etc some one else? is raised. In Aitareya the expression Brahmatatamam is used. In this context the word Aditya is frequently mentioned. Therefore, the question arises whether the Sarvagatatva conveyed by the expression Brahmatatamam conveys the Sarvagatatva of Brahman or Aditya. The purvapaksin argues that it conveys Sarvagatatva of Aditya since he is frequently mentioned in this context. This is rejected on the ground that Brahma shabda stated in the context is a patent word of Visnu only.

ii) Further many other attributes are stated in this eontext.

These are asruta, adrsta, avijnata etc. These cannot be the attributes of aditya. Therefore, the attribute Sarvagatatva should also be taken as the attribute of Visnu. (^ f^rf^lrpyjftw^r &)

Moreover, Sarvagatatva is mentioned as the attribute of Visnu in several other contexts.

iii) The Jiva cannot be taken as Sarvagata since he remain in the limited body. (£> ^im^^jfli^T: &)

iv) Further, the jiva is stated as the agent and sarvagata as the object in this context. Therefore, jiva is not sarvagata (£*>

v) The word Brahman has got emphetical marker i.e. h°i<*k in theShruti 'w^Ts^rqNSflrf (|/>^-R|$Jmd^|/>)

vi) In Bhagavadgita it is explicitiy stated that Visnu is present everywhere 34^-MlrHI ^l^$l ^^Iwql^rT: (^ **pt«T &>).

vii) The presence of Visnu in small places is stated for the sake of meditation. He can remain every where and also in small places like the sky (&> ^Hi^hi^i' <4|*h=e| 3*>).

viii) Brahman i.e. Visnu will not be affected by the pleasure and the pain of body even when he is present in the jiva's body as he is Hd«l and «4$lRh*U^I (&*FK|J|!4liMfd %r^$Mld^l*>).

In this adhikarana the question 'whether the sr^fsr i.e. ti§K=h<jr=i is an attribute of Visnu or Aditi' is raised. Purvapaksin argues that in the Sruti ^ m 3rfrT d<RckRftr°lH^ a^r i.e. ^T^rsr is stated as the attribute of Aditi. Since the name of Aditi is directly

13

XXVIII

refered here, it cannot be the attribute of any other. This means that Visnu is not sraT i.e. «$k«mi. This violates the very definition of Brahman i.e. Visnu, given in the second Sutra as "creator, sustainen, destroyer' etc.

Siddhantin rejects this contention of purvapaksa. In the said Sruti the Aditi is described as destroyer of all i.e. the entire sentient and non sentient beings. This is possible only for Visnu. Therefore the very word Aditi has to be taken as refering to Visnu and sr^r i.e. ti$K"=hcJc=i as the attribute of Visnu.

ii) The context also supports this interpretation since the creation of water, samvatsara i.e. chaturmukhabrahma etc is also stated here. (&>!H><u|N&)

&W ]

3. JJ£lfw<J|^

This adhikarana consists of two Sutras. In this adhikarana the question whether wFwW^ir^ is an attribute of only Jiva or it is also an attribute of Brahman i.e. Visnu is raised. In the Sruti ^RcT R^^fl ^-j.flf-4 ^t%' etc. Two are stated as reaping the fruits of the deeds. Purvapaksin argues that since Visnu has no Karmaphalabhoga only Jiva has to be taken as Karmaphalabhokta applying chatrinyaya. Hence, the conclusion drawn in the previous adhikarana viz Visnu is sarvatta cannot stand.

The siddhantin points out that the two refered to in the Sruti ^EttR«<*tiV etc. are not Jiva and Brahman. Here, the two forms of Brahman viz Atma and Antaratma are stated. The Brahman i.e. Visnu who is present in these two forms does enjoy the fruits of the good deeds of the Jiva in order to bless him. Therefore, his Sarvattrtva i.e. enjoying every thing is not affected.

ii) Moreover, in the context of this Sruti Brahman is stated as

an adjective. There is an adjective "setuh in singular also. Therefore, there is no reference to the two viz Jiva and Brahman here but only to one i.e. Brahman i.e. Visnu in his two forms. (£*> R^"H u u^ £*>)

This adhikarana consists of five Sutras. In this adhikarana the question whether in the Sruti ^^T3^ts?rR%f^r' etc. Agni is stated as present in the eye or Visnu, is raised. Purvapaksin argues that Agni is stated as present in Aditya and Aditya is stated as present in the eye. He who is present in Aditya is stated as anandamaya. This means that Agni is anandamaya. This voilates the conclusion of anandamayadhikarana.

Siddhantin draws the attention to the attributes amitatva, abhayatva etc. of his who is present in the eye and points out that these are the attributes of Visnu only. Hence, he who is present in the eye is Visnu but not Agni.

ii) Further, a special power of the eye viz the drops of the water or ghee not sticking to the eye is stated. This power is due to the presence of Visnu in the eye. The epithets Vamani and bhamani given here also apply to Visnu only (^ FiMiR<*n^iN «fr)

in) He is described as possessing infinit bliss. This is the nature of Visnu only (&> g*#rf?HTf*RHl^r &)

iv) Finally the upasana taught here is not Agnividya. It is Paramatmavidya since it is stated that this Vidya leads to Brahman.

v) He who is present in the eye is described as a regulator. Agni cannot be the regulator. Agni himself is a Jiva and requires another regulator. If his regulator is another jiva, then, he also requires another. Therefore, the regulator present in the eye is Visnu only. (£*>

14

XXX

In this adhikarana the question 'whether SRPTfforST is an attribute of Visnu or it is an attribute of Prakrti, Jiva etc.' is raised.

Purvapaksin argues that the attribute ^tiqli+irM stated in the Sruti % 'jf^rifrre^jf^qT 3FrRt' etc. is an attribute of Prakriti. The Prakrti is the material cause of Prthivi etc and therefore, these contain it. Hence, it is antaryamin of these. The jivas of Prthivi etc. also can be considered as their antaryamin. In any case Brahman i.e. Visnu is not antaryamin.

Siddhantin points out that it is stated in the very Sruti that the Prthivi etc do not comprehend this antaryamin. Here, by Prthivi etc, the abhimani deities Prthivi etc. are meant. These are not able to fully comprehend him who is within and who regulates. Such a regulator cannot be the jada prakrti or Jiva. He is Visnu only. The attribute amrtatva also confirms this. A number of attributes of Visnu viz asruta, amata, adrsta etc are stated here. Therefore, Visnu is antaryamin.

iii) The attributes of Prakrti such as satva, rajas, tamas are not stated here. Therefore, Prakrti is not antaryamin (£*> ^T ^ WOT-

iv) Sarira i.e Jiva also cannot be antaryamin since, both in Kanva and Madhyandina Sakhas Jiva is stated as distinct from the antaryami Brahman. (3*> 3nffc£T3*i%fq"ft^^vi]qc) &)

This adhikarana consists of three Sutras. In this adhikarana

the question whether the attributes adrsyatva etc. are the attributes of Visnu or that of Prakrti is raised. Purvapaksin argues that in the Sruti 'mi^M+inisi*^ etc. the attributes adrsyatva etc are stated as the attributes of aksara. This aksara is not Visnu since he is described as greater than aksara in the Sruti 'aksarat paratah parah'. Therefore, the adresya etc are not the attributes of Visnu. In the anandamayadhikarana it was stated that adrsyatva etc. are the attributes of anandamaya. Now that adresyatva etc are not the attributes of Visnu and hence anandamaya is also not Visnu.

Siddhantin rejects this contention. The aksara described here is stated to be the object of Paravidya. Prakrti or Chaturmukha brahma are not the objects of Paravidya. Visnu is the object of paravidya. Hence, he is aksara.

ii) The aksara is described as omniscient and omnipotent. This confirms that he is Visnu. Chaturmukha brahma is stated as distinct from aksara. (£*> Rl^l^ <^>A$IN ^rct). There are three levels of aksara viz jadaprakrti. Sri and Visnu. These are designated as aksara, para aksara and paratahpara aksara.

«fh W JFfrfrT: JtrfiT %RT f^JtfW I rtTRW Vi JT§: W: WWj[ I

iii) Moreover he who has the attributes of adrsyatva etc is described as having a form in the Sruti "rukmavarnam Kartaram etc. This also confirms that he is Visnu. (^^iHWN^)

vs. %^RTTfM*< u l*i s

This adhikarana consists of nine Sutras. In ths adhikarana the question whether the name 'Vaisvanara' is the name of Visnu or that'

15

XXXII

of Agni is raised. Purvapaksin argues that it is the name of the deity Agni as it is well-known in that sense. If it is not taken in that sense, then, there will be no deity for the entire ritual programme. The siddhantin points out that the adjective 'atmanam' given to Agni in this Sruti clearly indicates that it refers to Visnu. The expression 'atma' primarily conveys Visnu only.

ii) Further, the Gita also states that Vaisvanara is Krsna i.e Visnu. (& ¥\4HmH^H\H «-m^l*>)

iii) Purvapaksin further argues that the name Vaisvanara is used with reference to Agni also in the Sruti in many places. The Attributes of Agni such as homadharatva and pachakatva are also mentioned. These claims of purvapaksin are also rejected by siddhantin. The mention of the name Agni and certain attributes of Agni with reference to Vaisvanara are intended to instruct that he should be meditated upon in that way. (& ^KlR^T: 3^rT:Aifdti{Hl^ft

iv) In any case the word Vaisvanara cannot refer to the deity Agni or the fire. (& STrT^r^^RrlT^JrN)

In this adhikarana an interesting discussion is raised in respect of the use of the words Agni etc. with reference to the deity Agni, fire etc. These words primarily mean Visnu however these are also used with reference to the deity Agni etc. also. This point is explained in different ways by different sages as under.

1 (a) Jaimini holds that the learned men know that these words convey Visnu but still for practical purposes they employ these words for the deity Agni etc. The ordinary people use these words with reference to the deity Agni etc due to the ignorance of the real primary meaning. (& ^K^Ril^faPl: l*>)

(b) The above explanation of Jaimini seems in good general. However, if all words Agni etc. occuring in vedic hymns are said to have refered to Visnu; then the naming vedic hymns like Agnisukta'

etc. would be incorrect. Here Jaimini answers that the naming the Sukta is meant to convey this that the upasakas seek to attain Agni' etc. This is, of course, without forgetting the primary meaning Visnu.

c) When it is stated that these seek to attain the deities, it is meant that they seek to atain the antaryamin Visnu in them. (^

2) Asmarathya holds that since the Visnu manifests in Agni etc therefore, these hymns are designated as Agni hymns etc. (^

3) Badari holds that since the Visnu has to be meditated upon as present in Agni etc. these are called by Agni Sukta etc. names.

In third and fourth padas the WF°PT of ^PT5T mRi\S13I«* and SF^N" mRi\£$i~3. is established. In the fourteen adhikarana of III

pada. (?) ^rfqnrsrf^ O) ^rr^TFr(^) sw^w (v) %^f ^w (\)

IrqUFIrsrf^T (<0 3Tig^%T ^TRFl^rf^ <» fw ^TR (<0 ^TFTT ^kfaillfq^TC: (\) ^|U|i ^<(^lft*KWM: (?o) ^Z ^TR" (??)

'vFjfnV ^tft (?3) 3tfw^tr" (?3) 55Pnfe5^n%w (?v) sti^ft^w

are discussed and it is established that the respective ^W and f^W-'s belong to Visnu only. ^°MlRH< u l and aWi£lRH<u| are MW&*. Those do not deal with WF=FT.

Under °IHHlfW% dr»lM*lRl*l discusses ^fdfrf^l+4M<=b<u| etc. canons for determining the purport of a discourse, and a passage in detail.

In the fourth pada, in seven adhikaranas, the following topics are discussed:

(?) ^oq-tfi, J:^t r «ra etc. words convey Visnu

(3) ^fn%StT etc. sNtai^"* words convey Visnu

16

XXXIV

(3) W^H etc words in plural convey Visnu

(V) 3u*i3i etc words that are known to be conveying as 3RTnR3>n?l also convey Visnu.

(\) All words convey Visnu by WTg^J^frT and the respective other objects by ys^Ri.

(\) Words like JTfrfrT that are in sflltf* also convey f^aj.

(^) f^rg^%Tr5RTf%" words like SRT^ 3JfT etc also convey Visnu.

In this way the ^TO^PT of all si^ta JrfiM words is established in the fourth pada.

Under wn^tffq^T the views of %f*rft r 3Tre*Rsq" r afl^dlfil and "=hi^i"j>ry are quoted. These relate to the procedure of words conveying the respective other meanings related to Karma by 5^TffrT. As regards the words conveying God by 4^*j<5M<jfri there is an agreement among all. Therefore, the opinion of some modern scholars, that these were earlier ^iQ'js is not sound. The views of these are quoted only when some thing connected with ^ is discussed and it is explained that their views could be accommodated within the framework of Badarayana's view. This question is already discussed in the introduction to the first volume refering to the occurance of these names earlier.

Under vr4ifd^4sh^lfq^^T r dr°l!44>lRl4>l discusses ^fe f *u"T etc. seven types of ffrT with which words convey their word meanings and which play a vital role in the interpretation of the Sruti text.

A de-railed consepectus of the adhikaranas of these two padas is given below.

Third Pada

In the previous two padas, The words that superficially convey other than Visnu, were explained to convey Visnu. This is tech-

nically known as anayatraprasiddha sabdasamanvaya. In this third pada the words that superficially convey both Visnu and other than Visnu will be explained to convey Visnu only. This is technically known as ubhayatra prasiddha sabdasamanvaya. In the previous two padas the words that are the names of Visnu i.e. Namatmaka words, and the words that convey the attribute of Visnu i.e Lingatmaka words were considered separately in the first and the second pada respectively. However, in this third pada both types of words are considered in the same pada. The nature of the word concerned whether it is name or attribute is made clear in the respective adhikarana.

In this adhikarana the question whether Brahman i.e. Visnu, is the locus, and the support of Dyu, bhu, antariksa, manas, prana etc. or someone else is raised. Some one is stated as the abode of Dyu, bhu etc. in the Mundaka upanisat 'qftJn^: ^Wt ^Mft§rRfa*H: ¥^ JTFt:' etc. and it is further stated that he should be known and none else 'rl^% *TH*T anrHM^ .

Purvapaksin argues that Visnu is not the abode of all these. One of the following viz. ^, SPIM, ^fN", ^TIJ may have to be taken as the abode of these. In support of the claim of these, he gives the following grounds.

On these grounds the Purvapaksin claims that one of these may be considered as the abode of ^, >Jetc but not Visnu.

17

XXXVI

The above Sutra states the siddhanta by pointing out that the word STRTT^occures with reference to that which is the abode of these. This word exclusively applies to Brahman i.e. Visnu only. It is ^TCM for Brahman. Therefore, ^£ r JJW etc others cannot have any claim to the abode of Dyu, bhu etc. Bhasyakara makes it very clear by quoting the following authority.

The expression 3uc+^means J^TJ^t. Rudra etc are not ^i^i. Therefore, these cannot be referred to by the word STTrJFf. That which is the abode of Dyu, bhu etc is stated to be ^i[rn% Therefore, Visnu who is conveyed by the word sflrR^is the abode of Dyu, bhu etc.

In this Sutra a clear ground to take Visnu only as the abode of Dyu, bhu etc is given. That which is the abode of Dyu, bhu etc is stated to be the goal of the liberated. 'spjrR^r^c];:' Visnu is declared to be the goal of the liberated in several srutis passages, (i) s^RKWlfrl W^ (ii) yrhHi WTmfrT: (iii) HrW H^HMH Ir-HHfW£W(d. Therefore, he is the abode of dyu, bhu etc.

& dl^H*ld^«<ld^ II ?-3-3 II

None of the attributes of Rudra viz. *IWTC r 35T etc are stated here. Therefore, he cannot be considered to be the abode of Dyu, bhu etc. This is brought out by the expression SRrsgs^rn this Sutra. In fact even the names of Rudra viz. f^TFT, Rmi-^I, <j>Rimini etc. are primarily the names of Visnu. These convey Rudra only secondarily.

f^RI^T %TRT Ht,\\<*\ ^T°ld: II

Similarly, the names Virincha, Brahma, Indra etc also primarilly convey Visnu and secondarily, the other respective deities. However, the names *ikn u i etc that exclusively convey Visnu will not convey other deities even secondarily.

(i) ftftap* Rl^HId^ I

4$ u H<tsl$MWlstft ^qlR-sl W^ II

t^T dHlR|^: iH^^ ^T RlRlsh-M: I

^5 ^5^3 'ffa^ jwtrHT: ii ffcr sr^iFi

(ii) ^ J HKI A l u M4lHI ^TIWRJW *F*R: I

34-mitli M(dR<^+ ^T M-£lRd: II jfrt ^TTR%

Vayu and Jiva are not the abode of Dyu, bhu etc. for the reasons already stated viz. it is a goal of the liberated, it is refered to by the word atman, and the words Rudra, Prana etc are primarily the names of Vinsu. Vayu and Jiva are not the goal of the liberated, nor they are refered to by the word atman.

It cannot be argued that Jiva also can be taken as abode of Dyu etc. on the ground that Jiva and Brahman are identical. Because, the distinction between the Jiva and Brahman is clearly stated

3* M+<u|ld^v>

Moreover the fact of someone being the abode of Dyu, bhu etc is stated in the context of obtaining the knowledge of Brahman i.e. Visnu, as a subject ofK^NJI I 'tft^RdoV ^frtf| JRtfT^I

The difference between Jiva and Brahman is clearly brought out by the Sruti ^^Flf *PpTTtHslNl' etc by stating that Jiva reaps the results of its deeds while God watches it.

18

XXXVIII

In this adhikarana, the question whether the word ^TT conveys Visnu or Vayu is raised. The Purvapaksin argues that this word conveys Vayu i.e. Prana only. He supports his contention by pointing out that ^"RT, °Rf>, JRR^etc, are stated in graded way upto 3TRTT. Then, it is stated that JTFfT 3T 3TRJRR ?gn% After this nothing else is stated. This means that JTFTis the highest. Therefore JTFT is stated as ^•^4 here compared with all others such as ^TT r ^Tf> etc. This contention of Purvapaksin is rejected by siddhantin on the ground that the ^3" mentioned here is >J*R i.e. 4^1^. Visnu only is 4^1^. Therefore, the expression ^TT conveys Visnu only. The expression *R5RTR(Rj4n the Sutra conveys the sense 'Jor-^^Mroiiq. More over JTFT is stated as highest in the context. This is stated in the Sutra by the expression 3R^4<v*n<l.

& m4!4Mt)«T &

In this context the attribute «4 J i<ir=i is given by the statement % W*^n^34^1R^T WR^ etc. This can be the attribute of Visnu only.

3T$JTTfM<M u IH i

In this adhikarana the question whether the word Aksara conveys Brahman i.e. Visnu or Prakrti i.e chetanaprakrti i.e. Rama is raised.

Purvapaksin argues that the attribute aksaratva i.e non-destructability is found in prakrti also. The Aksara is stated to be the abode of Chandra, Surya etc. This is also found in Prakrti as per the

Sruti^-

if. The attributes adrsyatva etc. also are the at-

tributes of Prakrti i.e. Rama, as per the statement '% rsrwrft^Tfl^Trfr M^siflrl'. Therefore, the word Aksara conveys Prakrti i.e. chetanaprakrti i.e. Rama.

This contention of Purvapaksin is rejected in this Sutra and the Siddhanta view viz the word Aksara conveys Visnu is established. The Sutra gives the ground for the siddhanta view as SR^TRtPJ^:. The Aksara is stated to be the abode of ambara i.e. akasa i.e prakrti also Hdft+I^N *sR£ ^ Tlffi 3TFW: 3TRRKT jft?psr (f. V£-33). Therefore, akasa i.e prakrti itself cannot be Aksara. This Aksara has to be taken as Brahman i.e. Visnu. He is the abode of all including Prakrti i.e. chit-prakrti i.e Rama. The fact of Visnu being the abode of all is stated in the Sruti.

i) ^sf^i^^Rfoj^iii*! 3rqrc^°HiPi f^rr Or. ?-?^v-v) iii) ^i^iRy^rq-d ■>jrr v*i wm ^ i

Visnu being the abode and the supporter of all is confirmed by the fact that all others function under his orders Hd<-q °R 3\W$*f WR# *jqfsF£*rcft f^ft frRRT:. This is also made clear in Mahabharata as '<*£: W^U ^ feft%R% w^'.

& 3Fq>TRrsqTf%^T ^

The fact that the ordinary attributes of other entities such as FJ^r^r, SPF^T etc are dimaid in it. This also confirms that it is a unique object 'sR^JpRRj' ^rMlR^I *Hdl l MI<{Mw»^Ht<|Hm«IMi ^TFJ%^T. In this context it may be noted that the attributes that apparantly look contradictory to each other such as SR^ and SRRJ are present in him by his 3Tf^Rr*nwretf%.

19

In this adhikarana, the question whether the word *l\in the Sruti '*#T tfl«kRil 3TRft^' etc conveys Visnu or Pradhana i.e Jadaprakrti, is raised. This leads to the further question whether Visnu is the cause of the world or pradhana. If the word ^conveys Visnu, then, he will be the cause, on the other hand if H^conveys pradhana, then that will be the cause. Therefore, this question has to be settled.

Purvapaksin argues that the word ^in the above Sruti has to be taken to mean pradhana i.e. jadaprakrti only, since it is stated to undergo modification and become many. '<H§<-m M^iW ffrT I Visnu does not undergo any modification.

This contention of purvapaksin is rejected by ths Sutra by pointing out that the cause is stated to have "thought about creation'. The jadaprakrti is not capable of thinking while commencing the creation. Therefore Visnu has to be taken as the cause stated here, and conveyed by the word ^ This is stated in Sutra as fssrfrR^-"*m*nq. Though Visnu does not undergo any modification or change, he assumes many forms. This is stated by '^QWi jwiW. Though prakruti is material cause, it is not a creator. In this Sruti the creator is mentioned but not in material cause, since, thinking on the part of the casue is stated.

^TfM<M u Hi s

In this adhikarana, the question 'whether the attribute frquFTr^r is an attribute of Visnu or that of akasa or jiva' is raised. The purvapaksin argues that it is an attribute of akasa. The Sruti states '^tsft+MTTU 3TT^RT:'. The word akasa here cannot be taken

xl

to convey Visnu since it is stated that ^^m^^ftr^R^. No Susira can be thought of for Visnu. Jiva also may be taken as present in Dahara pundarika since he is anu and can remain in hrtpadma. He is also refered to in the concluding section as ^^ir+lft £hiV.

This contention of purvapaksin is rejected by this Sutra and the siddhanta viz hrtpadmasha is Visnu is established. The ground for this siddhanta is stated in the Sutra as 3r^>"q":. In this section a number of attributes of One who is in hrtpadma are stated later. These are 3TWTTF*n 3^ f^RJr^: ft#E: etc. These cannot be attributes of akasa or jiva. Therefore, Visnu only has to be taken as present in Dahara pundarika and hrtpadmasthatva is his attribute

Two more grounds are given here in support of siddhanta view that Visnu is present in dahara pundarika. In the Sruti sn^: ifsgrfq W si5Mrfl4> ^ f^# I (W. *>-3-3) it is stated that during the deep sleep jivas go to him, and dahara pundarika is brahmaloka. Jivas going to him and the use of the word brahma clearly show that he who is in hrdayapundarika is Brahman i.e Visnu. These two grounds are stated in the Sutra as '*ilrUi»<u*4i*i\

Two attributes of Visnu <h<hImk<-°( and *pNrf^ are stated as the attributes of frquw. Therefore, He is IpTJIW. These attributes are also stated in the Sruti < Hdf£l't^ 3T^ RTPt 3W%m: sftrT^r jhrT^r' and 'WT ^ 3T3TCFT WR# ITfif. These provide P1W for the point made.

& jf^T^ II ?-^-?vs II

Visnu's presence at hrdaya is well-known in Srutis such as (i) 'rpnfq- 35 wi %n% rrifir^ q^dH^iiRH^H! (t.'tt.s. ?«.«) (ii)

20

The contention of the purvapaksin that the jiva is mentioned as hrtpadmastha is rejected here. ^R means jiva m.w4 means reference. Though jiva is mentioned here, he cannot be taken as hrtpadmastha, since, snwnWr^T etc. attributes are not possible in his case.

The purvapaksin again argues that jiva is stated as ■Hcq*m in the Sruti % <TR" q^ft ^^r^jfite^ etc. later. This means he also has sPTfcTTFRrsr etc. later. Therefore, he can be taken as present in hrtpadma. This argument is not acceptable since it refers to jiva's liberated state and hrtpadmasthatva question is raised when he still has his body. Therefore, hrtpadmastha stated here is Visnu only.

The reference as %^ 3TlrflT' is not a reference to Jiva, it is a reference to Paramatma only.

Purvapaksin further argues that dahara i.e hrdaya guha is a small place . How can Brahman be present in such a place. Therefore, jiva has to be taken as present in hrtpadma. It is answered by Sutrakara by stating that it is already stated in the sutra 'PHi<-mc=h<^i 5*n*R^ that he can be thought of as present at the small heart for the purpose of meditation.

In this adhikarana the question 'whether the attribute au^f^*! ^TRFlrsr indicated by the statement <m 3 wf^rrifaTR^ is an attribute of Visnu or jnanisukha' is raised. The purvapaksin contends

xlii

that it is an attribute of Jnanisukha, since, it is the context of describing Jnanisukha and the expression V+i <j<s*^ makes it clear that it is this that is inteded to be sn^^F^T ^PjWFT. This contention is rejected by this Sutra. It is stated here that in the light of the statement 'cl^r ^TFrTR^nf^" wfr^ etc Visnu is stated here as 3Tl«J§c%T *jWTFT but not Jnanisukha.

The fact stated by the Sruti '^T ^M^^Hlfa' etc. is also stated by Smrti '^KlRrM^M ^ft' etc. and ^TdisU^ri <J*|T etc.

In this adhikarana whether the word ^TR in the Sruti 'ajjpnsT: 3WT WQ 3TIrJrft fagfa I i?m\ ^jp*&m' conveys Vayu or Visnu is raised. The purvapaksin argues that this word conveys Vayu only. This Isana is stated to be JfFP^F'm^, W^H and *4=R°Tl4l^. These are the attributes of Vayu only. This contention is rejected in this Sutra. Since the name °TRR occures in this Sruti. Isana conveys Visnu only. It is well known that the name Vamana is the name of Visnu. Between ^niR^frr and JFI^IFnwsr etc. f&W, ^fcT has to be prefered. In this context Bhasya states ^frt etc. ^T'ff^nfeSRFT and points out the earlier has priority over the later in the order in which these are stated here. However, the *i+u<?mi has to be taken as last.

^ ^ 3efcT: FU%rRFTRf^k: II # ^T^ I These are explained in dT=i>4<*iRi<*i as under : (?) ^TWT^T ft^T: $frT: (■R) 3|<HNKU|>ffl? f&W\ (3) ftwj ^ft ^W^l (V)

21

fr ^Aw 3 ^wnft*Kroii^£

3/>

3*

Though Visnu is all pervasive, he is stated as sn^OTW here, taking into account the size of the heart of men at which he has to be meditated.

In this adhikarana the question 'whether the deities have ^fa«jiRi*K or not' is raised. Purvapaksin argues that they have no ^fasjiRi*K. He gives two reasons in support of his contention. (?) ^f^^ifM*K is restricted to h$*h only. (3) The deities are either eternal or temporary. If these are eternal, then, no purpose will be served by the study of Vedavidya. If these are not eternal, then, during the period of their absence, no sacrifices could be performed since there are no deities to receive the offerings. In either case the question of ^fa«iiR<*K for the deities does not arise.

Sutrakara rejects this contention in this Sutra and states that the deserving men after attaining the position of a deity do have «kP>is4iRi«hK. The expression ci^mR in the Sutra is explained as fjg^TFTi Wf\ ^hRhmih^R. The Sutrakara states it as his view by quoting his name i.e. «h<w<i u i as he is going to state the views of others later.

The objection that "If the men become the deities, then, there would be no deities before these men became deities. This means that there was no perforemance of sacrifices as there were no deities', is answered in this Sutra.

It is not only one set of men who become deities, but it is a series of them. At no time there is a position when there are no deities. This is clear from the Sruti % 5 ^ *rft*TR: *T^rT q^r ^ HT^TT;

xliv

*rf%^T:'. Therefore, there is no difficulty for the performance of sacrifices. There is no time, when there are no deities at all.

"The Vedas are eternal. If the deities mentioned in them are not eternal, during the absence of these deities the Vedas will be conveying something that is not there. This will affect the very validity of Vedas" is another objection. This is answered here. It is already stated that the deities will always be present. It may not be the same persons but there are deities. This is clear from the Sruti 'sfFTT *RT "i^*i*<r4Mq^ Sages of high attainments actually see them. The presence of the deities in furture may also be inferred.

H> 31rTTJ5r^P|rqr^l*'

Since the Vedas are eternal the presence of the deities also in a series has to be accepted as eternal. *i«**m PirMrm^

The names and the forms of the deities in the past, present, and future are the same. Therefore, the absence of the deities that are liberated does not affect the series of deities.

Jaimini is of the opinion that the deities do not have adhikara for Madhuvidya etc. since the result to be obtained from these is already obtained by them.

These deities will not have any adhikara to obtain the knowledge for liberation, since, they have already such knowledge and are not required to obtain it again.

However, Badarayana i.e. Sutrakara, makes it clear that there

22

xlvi

is a special result for special knowledge and therefore, the deities have 3rfSj^K for *rgf%rr etc.

It has to be noted here that there is no conflict between the views of Jaimini and Badarayana. Jaimini states that the deities are not required to undertake Madhuvidya etc. for the routine results while Badarayana states that in order to aquire special knowledge they are required to undertake these Vidyas.

i) W^nTRT^ wh'khwA ^trt w^nfe^ ^rffonr «u«mufi tf^ i srf^r ft sren^nfa: i

ii) >iTh"+>rtMRl*K-HN tfaftw^ I STcfr ^ rF^mf^T: I

In this adhikarana the question "whether the Sudras have Vedavidyadhikara or not' is raised. Purvapaksin argues that since, men are stated to have Vedavidyadhikara if they have Visistabudhyadi the Sudras who have Visistabudhyadi can also have Vedavidyadhikara. In fact there is an instance of a Sudra receiving Brahmavidya in Chandogya Upanisat. Pautrayana a Sudra is stated to have received Vedavidya from Raikva. He is addressed as Sudra.

This contention of purvapaksin is rejected in this Sutra. Pautrayana was not a Sudra. He is addressed as Sudra in the sense of a sorrowful person. He felt sorry because, he was downgraded by the birds flying over his house. *fteHlsM"i ^mM^frlAGwH. I

^jur^fq ifisimuifq ^ ( <[. jr.)

Moreover, Pautrayana is stated to have a chariot drawn by horses, this indicates that he was a khsatriya.

Further, for Vedavidyadhikara upanayana sanskrara is required. Sudras do not have this sanskara. However, the case of women of higher quality is an exception. In a way these also have sanskara, since, marriage itself is a sanskara equivalent to upanayana for them. *#niiKM+fl°l *T*ftwM rT^frT^: I

3*> cK'.HMpNk'Jl ^ 5Tf%: &

In the instance of Satyakama Jabala, it was found that he was a ^mPI"* as he was an honest person. Therefore, he was administered upanayana sanskara.

Learning Vedas is prohibitted to Sudras.

3* <+>4-mid^3*

In this adhikarana the question "whether the word °ra" occuring in the Shruti-

jt^-^ra^m" *t w%^jrm%*T5rf% 11 (^.^. *-$-*)

conveys ^su^T or Visnu. Purvapaksin argues that the word Vajra is well-known in the sense of the weapon of Indra. It is stated also here that it is raised. A weapon only may be raised not a person like Visnu. This contention of purvapaksin is rejected and the siddhanta view viz Visnu is conveyed by this word, is established.

In this Sruti the Vajra is described as the regulator of the entire world. This is not possible for Indra's weapon. Visnu only is the regulator of all. Therefore, the word Vajra conveys Visnu.

23

xlviii

In this adhikarana the question 'whether the word Jyothi in the Sruti W^RT: ^ffl: J^ : (?-V3-^) conveys Visnu or jiva' is raised. Purvapaksin argues that it conveys jiva only as it is stated to move in the two worlds according to its deeds. Siddhanta rejects this contention and establishes that this word conveys Visnu. He moves over the two worlds in his Prajna form taking the jiva with him.

In this adhikarana the question "whether the word akasa in the Sruti 'aTFirait t«1WW{l: A4Rdl' conveys Visnu or akasa" is raised. Purvapaksin argues that this word convey akasa only since it is well-known in that sense. However, the siddhantin points out that since, the akasa refered to here is stated to be without the name and the form, it cannot be the element akasa. It has to be taken in the sense of Visnu only. This Siddhanta is established in this sutra.

In this adhikarana the question "whether the attribute *=wiR-s^rsr stated in the sruti %*TfT=r*rf?%f^wn%' etc. (f. V3-?<0 is an attribute of Visnu or that of Jiva" is raised. Purvapaksin argues that seeing the dream is very natural for jiva and therefore, it is an attribute of jiva. This contention of purvapaksa is rejected in this Sutra. The CUTSET refered to here is described as asanga. This asangatva is an attribute of Visnu. He is H% therefore, he can see everthing. Jiva also cannot be considered as asanga on the ground

that he is identical with Brahman, since, the two are clearly stated to be different during the deep sleep and lebarational state, in the Sruti '5T#T 3TTr*HT ^HIVS: 3rR^m%' etc.

9ll£l u llfM<M u IH s

>"T: S*>

In this adhikarana the question "whether the word sffijFT in the Sruti *v$ ftr?ft Jriw sJWTPT' Of. VV-^V) conveys Visnu or Virincha" is raised. Purvapaksin argues that the word spjf also occures here. This word stjt conveys Virincha. Therefore, the word Brahmana also must convey Virincha only. This contention of purvapaksa is rejected in this sutra. This sffi*FT is described here as '^nfcnftPTfa: ^E%TR:'. He is stated as Plr*wf^l. Therefore, this word srfijTT conveys Visnu only.

Fourth Pada

In this pada the words that superficially convey other than Visnu onlyb are explained as conveying Visnu (SR^sr s<Ri>swi«W+i«n:). Here, Bhasyakra explains the distinction between SRfsT iifa\Si and ^^^M yRi\S. before he proceeds to explain the Samanvaya of the latter. He remarks %irmRfa: 3i^^°i Hfti^Mwfi

The import of this statement is clearly stated in ciT=m>iRi*i as under

i) rfRyfa\!Mi 3pqw ^(SMiRi'-sdR^isui ^faf^-iR^i^ f^jfr

24

xl

In the first pada, the words Indra etc. that superficially conveying other than Visnu by <frf%^ft are explained to convey Visnu with the support of Sruti, linga etc. In this Pada the words that appear to convey other than Visnu with the support of Sruti, linga etc. are explained to convey Visnu with stronger Sruti. Keeping this in mind a distinction is made as SFWJrfirf^ and SFq^JTRrf^.

ii) There is one more ground on which this Pada is differentiated from other Padas. ^ •H^lRjJuilftvN+Mi drHsHMJ ^ WF^-.

m^^Th4^| ^TFR^ft I (rT.JT.)

Earlier, the words that convey the attributes and such other words were explained as conveying Visnu. In this Pada the accents the syllables, etc. also are explained to convey Visnu. This is indicated in the Bhasya by the expression «i*i*wi.

In the first Adhikarana the question 'whether the words SRIrfr, ^fW etc. convey Visnu or the respective others' is raised. Purvapaksin argues that spjrfr [$ stated to be less than Purusa in the Sruti '^Thld^jW: W (3J.3. ?-3-??)> the Jiva is <|:# and W£. Therefore, these words cannot convey Visnu. These are well-known in the sense of Prakrti i.e. Pradhana of the Samkhya, and jiva. This purvapaksa is stated in the Sutra as 'au^lA+^Vllfafo'. The Samkhyas establish Prakrti by the inference. Therefore, it is called

The Siddhanta portion of the sutra ^{Uv^Rmw^cI: states that the primary meaning of the word SRirfr is Visnu only. However, prakrti is also called s^rfr since it is controlled by Visnu like body.

dsM°KKM>l: I 5PTRT^ WTTrJR: RMHdm drHH-^T <mfif

^KJ|%: I (rT.5T.) (ii) W *rfft 3^rF5T W Wnr*IcF5|r^T $|A<*^ JPTHT^ f^FT

(rT.JT.) rTC%T WTTflH: ^ 3^qrRl^T *[^T:. (>TTW) The fact of s^-Hir-Hi being present in Jl^>frr is stated in the Sruti ^^IHRRd Mi\^ (^.*r ^o-m-3). The word srsqrR is used with reference to Visnu in the Sruti 'awrtm-'ms ^iim*^ and in Gita

The subtle entity is called SMrfi. Visnu is most subtle. Therefore, he is called si^Tfr.

The attributes 3^Ttic°i r SRTfsr etc. found in Prakri are under the control of Visnu. Therefore, the word $i °MTh r srt can convey Him. The words convey certain entity on two grounds viz. 3^jm$ki*IPM'tM and cRtWum. The word 3^qrfi conveys Visnu on both the grounds while 3Wi conveys on the first ground.

wfrft g°n" q^T rTg^ft *n"sfa#l?t |

W sffa: •Klcilfd W TMT ^ftfqfq" II - # ^^ (W*l)

JPTFT i.e. Mffci, is not stated to be known for the liberation. Therefore, Prakrti cannot be taken as the meaning of SRTrfr.

It cannot be argued that in the Sruti '*r^cT: ^p'PHMWijg-jj<5H<3[iH|"oqV it is stated that JTOHbe known for the liberation, since, the expression '*r^T: T w£ refers to JTIf i.e. Visnu but not W.

25

3* il*<u||d^

The question whether 't^cT: Wj' refers to JPTR or to Visnu can also be settled here by the context i.e. m*vi. From the Sruti '^ftsecR: "TKWff^ wf^ft: WT q^' it is clear that it is a context of Visnu.

In the Katha Upanisat Nachiketa asked only three questions and Yama answered them. sRFTT^l f4<i<H*l*H<W<W^?Gl , H*llriHi W%: ^RTRT^T (^TFT). There is no question about JRR. Therefore, there is no ground to take JRR by the expression SRTrfr here.

Just as the word *n^is taken to convey Visnu because he only has the attribute qWHTrsr the words SRTrfr etc. also have to be taken to mean Visnu since the attributes conveyed by these words belong to him only.

The word ^*RT is well-known to convey a sacrificial vessel. But still in the sruti ^ wt%T: ^rf| 3T5ri\f^W*T:' it is taken to mean f^TOf. Similarly the word 3^-^ should be taken to mean Visnu.

In this adhikarana the question 'whether the word ^Ttf^":' etc. that ordinarily convey the sacrifices, its procedure, time etc., convey Visnu or not' is raised. Purvapaksin argues that these words are well-known to convey the sacrifices, procedure etc. If these are also taken to convey Visnu, then, there will be no scope of the sacrifices etc. Therefore, these words do not convey Visnu.

This contention of purvapaksin is rejected in this Sutra. The words ^TtfrT: etc. convey Visnu only. The Sruti ^ ft «4l**l*m4<JL' etc. explains etemology of the names of the sages 3mRJ etc. and states that these names convey Visnu only. This is stated at the commencement i.e. ^4jmi. Continuing, it is further stated that cTT^r W: *RT: ^: }# ^T: ^f *fau": ^%^T ^Jl^fd: JfFT ^r. From this it is clear that all Vedic words including the ^w* words convey Visnu.

The objection "If these words also convey Visnu, there will be no words to convey ^T, ^M, 3>*T etc. Then, the performance of these will not be possible' is answered in this Sutra. Just as the words Wg etc. in JTjf^n convey the God and also the honey etc. here also the words W\fk: etc. convey Visnu and also the sacrifices etc. The expression ^T^n&ITf^ is explained as i) «i«M: ^flT dTl4lR<r=wPNl4iH TfRm^: 3^RFTT: <^rMK^ I ii) ^T^n^Tr^T +rmNI: ^lld^ I (rT-5T.)

The words ^fn%: etc. convey Visnu by Mahayogavrtti and convey Karma etc. by ordinary Vrtti. Tatvaprakasika explains all these Vrttis as under:

^. y^RiftfiiTi^N^^q-ffTr: qtr: i w qf^nf^Hi ^rfr i 3. ii^friAfiw im>mi^' ^ Minute: i w qf^r%i^Hi q^ i v. Jpqrsfar ^i^y^RiPifiiTiifdRTh^iql^ ffrr: sq^nr: i r^r ^

In this adhikarana the question "whether the words WjR and 3ii*i3i occuring in the Sruti '^rfw^WWJRT:' etc. convey Visnu or any other" is raised. Purvapaksim argues that since the word W*R": is in plural it cannot convey Visnu who is one. Further WjR and 311*131 are stated as STFR and wnrRT as srrqK since the pronoun h^h*^ refers to wnw. One and the same cannot be both SIWTC and STP^T Hence also W*H does not refer to Visnu Siddhantin rejects this contention of Purvapaksin. He points out that since Visnu can assume many forms the plural does not come in the way for taking WjR: as referring the Visnu. A regards the sn^K-STT^T difficulty, his M|u|lR4*l*HAqw+ forms are 3u% and *lA<Aqw+ form is SU^IK. Hence the words W^R" and 3TR>W can be taken as conveying Visnu without any difficulty.

The W^H are stated as giving JJI u l$lfrh to JIFT, ^j^etc, in the following statement. Such a power is the power of Visnu only. Therefore, also the word WjR conveys Visnu.

liv

In this Sutra a clarification is given in respect of the five constituents of W5R. There is a slight variation in respect of one of the constituents. As per the Madhyandina version sp^is a constituent and as per kanva version ^fu%: is a constituent. The other four viz. JfFT, "^pi? STfr and JR^are common to both. This difference is reconciled in two ways: (1) H*V4r^(^) 3TfM=hlRi)<ld^3j-Hi<^^u| ^ VPR^W^% TTT«Tf%TRf*r: ^\¥\^ I ^ftftrn^^Vr ^ -=hl>MlRfa-

In this adhikarana the question 'whether the word akasa in the Sruti STTrTFT ^ 1*131: HRR: etc. conveys Visnu or bhutakasa' is raised. Purvapaksin argues that since the akasa is stated here as effect, it cannot convey Visnu. He is not the effect of any. Further, it is also stated to be the cause i.e. 3hkk*k u i. This also does not suit Visnu. This contention of purvapaksa is rejected in this Sutra. In the Sruti *T3uehi3l fcTg^etc. Visnu is stated as present in akasa etc. and he causes the next step. Therefore, the word akasa conveys him only as 3HM<+KU|. He is H^*K"I also as per ^TlrTFT 3TTW: ^TRR: and 3HM<*KU| as per 341*1^11^^:

In this adhikarana the doctrine of all words conveying Visnu is affirmed by removing the objection that "If all the words convey Visnu by mukhyavrtti, then, no word will be available to convey other objects. This means, no communication in respect of other objects is possible' '^KMi p*PffTl WTR#?^n%r| ^Rsq^R-ril4NMI<iJ (rT.JT.)

27

Ivi

The above objection is removed by pointing out that "though all words convey WTTrfTT by y^Ri, these very words also convey respective other objects. This does not mean that one and the same word has two meanings independently like ^THF? words. The two meanings are not SRTfcTwW, since, the other meaning is under the control of the God who is the first meaning. This process of employing the words that convey God also to convey the respective other object is known as «*ii«t>4. It is a different process than laksana.

^r rT^TiHroHr^ tt (rT-5T.)

This is neatly stated in the Bhasya as 'wfTrJRTf^R: 3P3T:

^Rl%q^% mt riR^Kl^Kd: II jfo Tit I

Though the words convey God only by WTg^TffrT, these convey the respective other objects also in so far as tfl-*°q°i$K is concerned. This accounts for their y^Ri in tfl*°<H$K. This is designated as ^Twrjprffrr in ^tMH

& 41=|^M|U|^|Rfd %?;dsNU?4M^£>

In this Sutra an objection is raised against the ^^i^m^MrH of Visnu and answered. In the Sruti ^fM ^=hi $IK<li 4l4l ^rfrr' etc. all are stated to depend on Jiva. Similarly in the Sruti < °h^»h f| <7fa>T •Mm^' all are stated to depend on Vayu. This means that as per rT^fNrSRTFT all words should convey one of these. Hence, Visnu is

not «^K«IM. This Sutra states this objection as ^fN^WFTf^T^ |fcf %^and answers by dsNH?4H^I

It is already explained that it is the SRPjfffT God on whom these are ultimately dependent but not on Jiva or Vayu. Therefore, God alone is <h4*K°IM. 'df^lform^frTT cK-d^fa-*|J|o|r^Hf^rPn oqi^Mr^ I (rT.JT.)

Another objection against <WR3i«*°H-°qre( of Visnu and ^wwf of words to convey the respective other entities, particularly, the sacrifices, their time, procedure etc. is that since the goal of the Vedic lore is to get the knowledge of the God, no purpose will be served by the knowledge of sacrifices etc. hence, to get the ritual meaning by way of HflT^is unnecessary. However, the vedic expressions have these meanings. Therefore, the better course is to accept these very meanings as the genuine meaning and give up the very theory of jyotistomadi sabdavachyatva for God to sustain his

*KMJ ^Rf^ Wm$ SR^RmRT^ I ^ ^ ?tfffl£fr JPTfcR^ I *PT5|^n^RT^JT 3WI^T# d^^jfd^ I 3Trfr %R^RT SKHFRR Wmfi !j4ivH^mNl^g^rT l)o|Mo|hHr°lfarqi$lti MR^^I^^^ sqT ^ "

An answer to this objection is given in this Sutra as Jaimini's view. 3Fq^t WTIcWHF? <=h*{?R<=h*liM «K<0ft tfaft: I In the Sruti % M %RfT^"' etc. and also in the Sruti ; m 3 WT: ¥ 3u%fr Wtfrl' etc. it is stated that «n^R^m is a means to SFRjfff. Therefore, «m%m is not superfluous. As it is required, its knowledge is communicated by Wf[3$ by the words that convey ^, OT etc. -HHI=h^ u l ^:

H^T I (rT.JT.)

28

Ivii

3/- olhHJMMId^

To justify ti+u<*4 one more argument is given here. Without m=mi«iM there will not be V<m^M for the ordinary seekers <4l«WI«m is explained as o||«wi«l4l mH ^ ^Fl% «IN+dm fpjcHI+M^ 3Ffmt wrrqTr^. This is possible only when other meanings are comprehended. Therefore, conveying other meanings by <H'Hi"=h4 is necessary.

One more reason to support n*i 1*4 is given here. In the Sruti '^TFT: ^RTT: WFm f^Rt' it is stated that fR alone is the means for the salvation. This necessitates the knowledge of karma to realise that it is not the means. To have this knowledge *WR^ is necessary. ^l^ftrq^^d^rTFJn^^TRT: 'T^JT: # OrFT). This is the view of 3UTRT^.

3u^rtift justifies getting the ritual meaning by HflT^ on the ground that the seekers of liberation by the knowledge do need karma as a means for it. Therefore, "=h4^M is necessary. Hence, ^R meaning has to be obtained.

He who seeks liberation has to know that everything is supported and controlled by God. This includes sacrifices etc also. Therefore, one has to know this. He can know it by «*H«t>4.

flrsiii^iRi"*! neatly sums up the purpose of the above discussion. 3TrfT ^M^IHKl4 3R*lR*KMW^5| tWI+^l o^kI^t): Jrfi ^: ^^rf^l^q^^i^^ | (rf.JT.)

It may be noted here that Badarayana does not record his own view here separately. These views are not contradictory to

each other nor to the main view. Each one gives a sound argument. Each one is capable of looking at the issue from one point of view while Badarayana sees from all angles. Therefore, he has recorded all these views that ultimately support his view.

In this adhikarana it is established that the words Prakrti etc. that are in feminine gender also convey Visnu. Purvapaksin argues that in view of the statement '^T^T^Tf^Tg^. Visnu is not a female, hence the words like JIf>fit cannot convey him. This contention is rejected in this Sutra. In the Sruti '^cT W^T JW ^rfR HI-HlPl

3ifwf% w ^r: ^gs?rf*r^n% ^rfcr wft hi-hiPi ^iff^r

^«>H^[*m^Q both jfrlfT and ^SFcT clearly say that all words convey God. Therefore, there is no rason to exclude sflfofi- words like Jtffo".

In the statement 'jJffosjfa^f^si ^grs^FcT^^'. It is stated that the ^T of God is called SPfrfcT. The ^T is the very FR^T of God. Therefore, he is called JTftfcT. The word srf^T means J^l. In the Sruti '#sf*p*n" *T ^: ¥ 3TFF^:' it is clearly stated that arffpan is

He is stated to be both ^ff and JW in the Sruti Vr ^t ^T JW: ^afftf: ^T Wrm' Here, it is directly stated that he is both ^t andJW.

29

Ix

The God enters into Prakrti, evolves it, and himself assumes many forms. Therefore, he is called afrfct. 'sr^r ft sn^TT

jn£ftRgsn%q" stttrh ^n ^*m i riwi^ jjffik ^m^ jiffo' ^

W^T^fcf: I

^i«i*K rejects the Advaita interpretation of this adhikaraana with the remark ^T ^T SRJr^r'-M^ As per Advaita interpretation Samkhya's Prakrti Karanavada is rejected here, and Brahmakarana vada is established. However, since, this chapter is devoted for ■h+i«h it will be irrelevant to raise this issue here. Moreover there is no JPTFT to establish ^m<M*KU|r°l of Brahman.

jmrnmRi^i (cr.sr.) ii) f%9^r 3w wm-. qRuiifiiroHRh: ara^r q^rfrr i w^tfift ^t^-miv\ mfin tw«mMfom<ww M^rm^i (?r.jr.)

3*> *fi#r«r ft *ffa?t £>

In the Sruti ^vW^iPi qR^qR #T: l' (3. ?-V<0 it is clearly stated that the God gives birth to all beings. This is a role of a female. Therefore, the words Prakrti etc. that are in feminine gender can convey him.

*i[rk°*Hm^H Al$fdr°lf}|frl #^frT : | ^qir^=MipMU*l^l: TO 3*Tl^ I

SRT^ ^Tetc. words also convey Visnu on the same grounds

that are stated earlier. Though these words ordinarily convey f¥fa-5^%?H^ r certain attributes are conveyed by these words with appropriate etymological explanation.

^ft =^T: ^rft Wf 3^: ^rft ^r s^tr:' # *i{lqPmR 1

The Purvapaksa and Siddhanta views briefly given above are fully developed in Tatvaprakasika of Sri Jayatirtha. The commentators on Tatvaprakasika further elaborate each point. The two commentators earlier to Jayatirtha have elaborated the points briefly made in the Bhasya. All these have enriched the Vedanta thought enshrined in the Brahmasutras.

Prof. K.T.Pandurangi

30