SHREEMANNYAAYASUDHAASAARA

{Part [611}

(I*

Shri ViaiKzeshu Theertha Stsamiji Shri Pejamra Sfiiti, L'dupL

We are pleased to publish two volumes of the book online for the benefit of all Philosophical aspirants.We request, readers, to send token contribution of book cost (Rs 150/- or US $8/-) as a gesture of goodwill to

Shri Poornaprajna vidyapeetha

Kattariguppa road, Poornaprajna nagar

Bangalore-560 028, India

.Tatvavada.Org Team

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

PART -1

FIRST CHAPTER (WTTSJFT:)

•3F& ^T fa*ldH Wi UsWlPM I I

NarayaNamnikhilapuurNaguNaikadeham Nirdoshham appyatamamapi akhilaiH suvaakyaiH I Asyodbavaadidam ashesha visheshhatopi Vandyam sadaa priyatamam mama sannamaami II

Shree Madvacharya always has the direct knowledge and never encounters any obstacles in his endeavors. However, in the beginning of Anuvyakhyaana he has written Mangala Shloka in praise of ShreemannaraayaNa.* This is intended to teach his disciples that one should pray before one composes any text so that it can be completed without any obstruction. "ShreemanNarayana is the cause of creation, sustenance etc., of the world and is free from all defects. He is the embodiment of all infinite auspicious qualities. Unlike us, He does not have physical inanimate body. He is described in Vedaas and Shaastraas directly and is praised by all. I

* Itrans - To help the readers to identify and pronounce non-English words correctly 'A key note to the ITRANS' has been added in the page number 'xxiii'

2 Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

prostrate with special devotion to Him who is always my most beloved."

To praise any god in the beginning of the text, He should have three essential qualifications. 1) If God whom we prostrate should have distinguished glory, then only he can solve all the possible obstacles. It is obvious that Shree Narayana, who is the creator of this world and is full of infinite attributes and free from flaws, has this capacity. 2) If the God whom we pray is described by this text, He will bless us with spiritual inspiration needed to compose the text. Since Shree Narayana is the purport of all the Shaastraas He is capable of giving us this required knowledge. 3) To praise any God, we should have immense devotion for such God. Shree Narayana is the most beloved of the composer, Shree Madhvacharya. Shree Aacharya is extremely devoted to God. He is a great soul who loves Shree Narayana all the time without any selfishness. Thus this Mangala Shloka has clarified by describing all the qualities of the Lord which indicate that He is worthy to be praised.

This Mangala Shloka has described greatness of the Lord who is possessing all auspicious qualities and is absolutely free from defects. By this it is easy for us to know the Lord as different from us. It is convenient to identify a person different from others by describing His qualities. Hence this Mangala Shloka has described the Lord as possessing infinite auspicious qualities, etc., which

differentiate the Lord from the other animate and inanimate entities.

This Shloka has also clarified the means of knowledge to know the Lord. Only Vedaas are the PramaaNaas regarding the existence of God. The creation and other activities of the world are wonderful and systematic require a person who has wonderful knowledge and great powers. He must be the Lord. Thus is the logic. The Shloka has indicated two PramaaNaas by describing two qualities of the Lord such as 'akhila veda pratipaadya' (srfec? % TlfcTW) and 'jagajjanmaadi kaaraNa'C^'isi-HiR^K 11 !) that is the one who is described in all the Vedaas and the cause for the creation, sustenance, etc., of the world.

If the Lord is the creator of this world, a question arises whether He has a physical body like us. If He does not have physical body, He cannot create the world. If He has it, will he not have all the pains and defects related to the body? This objection has been resolved by the Shloka through an adjective of 'nikhila puurNa guNaika deham' (Pkso Wl >i u )^i) who is the embodiment of infinite and perfect attributes. He does not have inert physical body like us. Therefore there is no chance for any physical defects. He can create this world with his natural and transcendental body, which is the embodiment of infinite auspicious qualities.

All the glories of the Lord which are described in the Mangala Shloka of 'Anuvyaakhyaana'(^-^ii<o6| M ) are

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

embedded in the word 'Narayana'. 'ara' means defect, "naara' means quality. 'Narayana' means the one who is possessing all auspicious qualities and free from any defect*. The word naara means Veda, which are flawless since they are 'apourusheya'C^HW^), non-authored by any human. So Narayana means the one who is described in the Vedaas. 'naara' means creation, sustenance etc., relating to human beings. He is called Narayana because he is the cause for creation etc. Narayana also means who is worshiped by 'nara samuuha'O^R ^FpT), meaning all human beings. 'naaraOTR), means God of wind who is supreme among human beings. Because He is the most beloved of God of wind, He is called Narayana. Thus the Shloka indicates that the word Narayana for the Lord is meaningful.

This invocation Shloka is essence of the entire BrahmaSuutra. "The scripture declares that supreme Brahman is the creator of this world. Discussion of Brahman has to be conducted. When it is critically examined it will be proved that all the Vedaas describe Brahman as possessing infinite qualities." This is the essence of the first chapter of Brahmasuuutra. The same purport is briefed in the first Shloka by the adjectives 'nikhila puurna guNa'(PiUsi0 Hu'hui) (who is possessing infinite attributes), 'jagat kaaraNa'(^i'ir=M< u i) (creator of this world), 'akhila

Doshaara chidrashabdaanaam paryaayatvam yatastataH, gunaaH naaraaH iti JneyaaH tadvaan NarayanasmrataZ/ll

veda pratipaadya' (srfeR? ^ niciHi£i)(who is described in all the Vedaas ), 'vandya'(°F£T) (worshipped by all). 'vandana'(oF^T) means contemplation in the mind. Discussion is also a kind of contemplation. Hence vandana also means discussion. The adjective 'vandya'(«ra") in the Shloka indicates that enquiry into Brahman should be conducted.

In the second chapter the Lord is established as free from defects by solving all other objections. The meaning of the second chapter of BrahmaSuutra is briefed by an adjective 'nirdoshha'(f^fa) in the Shloka. The essence of third chapter is that one has to contemplate on Brahman through dispassion and devotion, and through contemplation one should realize Brahman. The words 'asheshha visheshatopi priyatamam'(3T?k felqdlfa liwd^H) 'aapyatamam' (sTMcWfT) have briefly explained the meaning of third chapter. The meaning of these words is that by giving up all worldly fancies one has to make efforts to see the Lord through devotion. Moksha means approaching the Lord in a special way, though He is all pervading. The forth chapter is the description of Moksha. The word 'aapyatama' (3ii<^cH)in the Shloka, by indicating attaining the Lord in a special way is Moksha, has briefed the meaning of the forth chapter. Thus the invocation Shloka has attempted to teach all the essence of this whole BrahmaSuutra.

Shree Madhvacharya has worshipped Shree Narayana in the first Shloka. In the second Shloka, he invokes the

6 Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

blessings of Veda Vyaasa who is the teacher of the entire universe and his special Guru. Though Shree Veda Vyaasa is the incarnation of Narayana, Shree Madhvacharya has prayers in two ways to the Lord as God and as Guru. The purpose of this is to teach his disciples to worship both their Guru and the Lord who are different for others.

The Validity of BrahmaSuutra

Shree Madhvacharya after the invocation Shloka and before interpreting the BrahmaSuutra, establishes its validity and describes its greatness. For any text to be valid, the author of the text should have thorough knowledge of the subject. Also he should have concern to teach that truth. He should also have perfect senses along with intellectual brilliance. Even if Guru knows the truth, he may not teach the disciples if they are not worthy. If the disciples are qualified to learn the teachings and if they are beloved of the Guru then there is no reason to hide the truth. Even if teacher and students have these qualifications, for the sake of fun, there are occasions where untruth is entertained. A teacher who knows the truth will not deceive worthy and beloved disciple on the occasion of serious discussion of the philosophical truth. That text which is preached in order to reveal the truth without any deception should be a valid PramaaNa. This beautiful combination of teacher, student and the occasion is called 'vaktRi-shrotRi prasakti aanukuulya.' (°T^ Sffif y^TtO There cannot be any chance for ignorance, illusion and deception. Such a text is called

Prathama Adhyaaya

' aaptavaakya' (3FTH3W). BrahmaSuutra is regarded as such a great' aaptavaaky a' (3TTH3W). The author of this text Shree Veda Vyaasa, is the incarnation of omniscient God. Shree Veda Vyaasa, who taught Vedaas to Brahma and other demigods and who wrote the great scriptures like Mahabhaarata etc., cannot have ignorance and doubt. He must have perfect philosophical knowledge. We can understand his concerns in preaching the truth since he has written all such great texts. Is there any possibility for defective senses for such a great soul? Brahma and other gods who were taught by Veda Vyaasa are themselves the teachers of the world. There cannot be any doubt of their qualifications as students. They are also popular as most beloved of God. When there was a chaos in the world due to lack of knowledge, Brahma and other gods prayed to the Lord because of their mercy of the virtuous people. As a result, the stream of teachings flowed from the Lord Veda Vyaasa. Therefore it is not an occasion for entertainment for the world. Is there any chance for a doubt in the validity of such great teachings of a perfect teacher of the world to the most deserving gods at the important occasion of blessing the world? A perfect teacher, qualified students and great occasion are joined together. Moreover this text explains the subjects dealt in Vedaas using logic. Hence it has the support of Veda and logic. Thus Brahmasutra can be regarded as supreme valid for three reasons; it is Aaptavaakya(^iHon^), and it has the support of Veda and logic.

8

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Even in the Upanishads this BrahmaSuutra is recognized as ParavidyaOrrferaT). All the Vedic statements, which are apparently dealing with karma when there is no connection to the logic that is mentioned in BrahmaSuutra, are categorized in the group Aparavidya(3TTTTfsrerr). Subsequently Upanishad has described paravidya as a means of knowledge of God. When all the scriptures other than BrahmaSuutra belong to the category of aparavidya, the one which is described as paravidya should be only BrahmaSuutra. The BrahmaSuutra alone which is determining the meaning of the Vedaas is called paravidya. Similarly Vedaas which are expounding reality of Brahman with the help of BrahmaSuutra are also considered as Paravidya. Thus BrahmaSuutra is regarded as paravidya because it is supporting Vedaas which are paravidya. Even Vedaas become aparavidya when there is no support of BrahmaSuutra. Paravidya means supreme PramaaNa since it deals with supreme Brahman. This is the characteristic of BrahmaSuutra. Thus we can establish validity of BrahmaSuutra on the basis of Upanishads and logic.

Invoaction Prayer in the Sutra: Ojjt) *

The wise perform invocation prayer in the beginning of any task for its successful completion. Sometimes even when invocation prayer is done, the task may not be completed. We have so many examples where the work is completed without the invocation. But it is not correct to decide that the invocation prayer is not necessary. There are several instances that even if we take medicines, the physical disease may not be cured due to some other defects in the body. Even when medicines are not taken a disease may be cured due to some reasons. By this can we decide that medicine does not cure the disease? Similarly even if many religious disciplinary actions such as vows and sacrifices which are mentioned in Vedaas and Puraanaa-s for gaining some worldly benefits, those results may not be achieved. Those who have not performed religious acts and live freely without following any religious discipline attain such benefits. By this example one should not come to conclusion that all the religious activities mentioned in scriptures are futile. As the medicine is not effective due to

A Suutra can be defined as it should have the minimum words without which the intended meaning cannot be revealed and should not give room for doubts (clear). It should be meaningful and capable to determine the meaning of several branches of Veda by covering all aspects of the points mentioned by it. It should be free from unnecessary words and faultless in all ways.

10

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

not following required diet our religious acts prescribed in the Vedaas may not give us the desired results due to our commissions and omissions in performing the acts. Some people, without performing such religious acts in this life, may be enjoying the benefits due to their virtuous acts in the past lives. By experience and experiments when it is proved that medicine cures diseases, successes and failures in specific cases should be accounted to other reasons. Similarly when the validity of Shaastraas is confirmed, if there are no results even after the acts are performed according to Vedaas, they should be accounted as due to other factors. Thus wise have been performing invocation prayers for the successful completion of their works even if the results are not obtained at times. Hence we should do invocation prayer for the successful completion of the work. The author of BrahmaSuutra does not have any fear of failure. But he has to do invocation prayer in order to follow the tradition. If that is so, why has he not done the invocation prayer in the beginning of BrahmaSuutra? But Shree Madhvacharya has revealed that in the beginning of BrahmaSuutra there is an invocation prayer.

This text has begun with 'Om'(3ita) and 'atha'(a^). These two highly auspicious words constitute the invocation prayer in the text. These words also describe the subject of the first sutra briefly. Thus 'Om'Csfa) and 'atha'(3W) are related to the first Suutra also. They are also in the form of invocation prayer for the successful completion of the entire

Prathama Adhyaaya

11

text.

When this 'Om'(3#r) is pronounced separately in the beginning of the Suutra without joining the next word, does it belong to the first Suutra? Such a question may arise. But we have to accept that it is part of the Suutra, since traditionally it has been pronounced in the beginning of the Suutra. Om-kaara has to be pronounced in the beginning and at the end of any paravidya. There is also proof that Brahmavidya will be protected when Om-kaara is pronounced in the beginning and in the end. Thus by rendering the meaning of the Suutra, Omkaara has become part of the first sutra. Therefore it should be pronounced along with Sutra. To indicate that Om-kaara should be pronounced in the beginning of all other Suutraas to protect 'Brahmavidyaa' it has been pronounced separately in the first sutra without joining it. The purpose of it is to indicate that Om-kaara should be added for all sutra-s of BrahmaSuutra.

The Four Requirements of Scriptural Text:

This text begins with the analysis of objections and establishment of truths

The first sutra explains 1) the subject of the text, 2) the purpose of the text, 3) qualification of the student and 4) the interrelationships among the subject, benefit and the

12

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

student. It is necessary to know all these before the commencement of the study of the text. Without knowing the subject and the purpose of the text no one will be interested to study the text. But only after starting the study one can learn the subject and purpose etc., from the first sutra. However a question will arise how one can start to study even the first sutra as he does not have the required knowledge. Without knowing the subject and the purpose etc. one cannot get involved in its study. Without studying the text one cannot know the subject and purpose. Is it not mutual dependence? Before answering this question one should know what 'PravRitti' (h°i Pri) is. Either the knowledge of an object or longing for happiness is not 'PravRitti' (mojFti). We don't require any knowledge of benefit to have experience or the desire for benefit. Whether there is benefit or not we perceive an object in front of us. We perceive even the undesired objects. Therefore to have experience, the knowledge of the benefit is not required. To get happiness, we desire for means such as fruits, milk, etc. But happiness is not desired to get some other benefit. That itself is Purushaartha(^^"). The desire for happiness arises in us naturally. Thus the knowledge and the desire for happiness arise in us without depending on any other benefits. These are not called PravRitti. PravRitti means desiring for instruments or means of happiness and making efforts to achieve them. For this type of PravRitti one should know the purpose. We desire for means of happiness only

Prathama Adhyaaya

13

out of the need for happiness. We make efforts for that. To make such efforts in the study of the text we should know the subject and purpose of the text. But there is a possibility to know them even without making any efforts. One can know the subject and the purpose which are indicated in the first sutra by accidentally hearing a lecture or discourse on philosophy. Subsequently he will develop deep interest and will make attempt to study the scripture properly. We have already explained that to derive knowledge from a statement one need not know the purpose. Therefore one can know the subject of the first sutra without having any knowledge of the purpose by hearing some discourse accidentally. Thus without having any mutual dependence, we can account for both the knowledge of the subject and the purpose of the text without PravRitti, and subsequently making serious efforts to study.

How does BrahmaSuutra teach us these subject and Purpose ?

Lord Veda Vyaasa, who is omniscient and compassionate, is supremely trustworthy. But BrahmaSuutra is regarded as NyaayaSuutra. It was not intended to convey us the subjects and the purpose, unlike pouraaNic statements which are just aaptavaakya-s. Shree Veda Vyaasa has written BrahmaSuutra to establish every 'prameya'CsP^T) (object of the knowledge) by using logic. By using logic his intention was to analyze critically to

14

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

give us clear and firm knowledge of every subject and the purpose etc., that are mentioned in Vedaas and PuraaNa-s. This is similar to gold using a polishing stone. Since Lord Veda Vyaasa is a great trustworthy teacher, his statements have much more value.

The objection with regard to subject, purpose and student as follows :

The discussion that is conducted in this text is unnecessary. It does not have any subject matter and no purpose at all. No one will be fascinated to this discussion. This text is not meant to examine inanimate objects which are perceivable. The self is always experienced by us. Hence the discussion of the self is not required. There is no supreme Brahman different from the self.

We are always experiencing the self with the attributes such as doership, enjoyership, happiness and unhappiness etc. Hence which new aspect remains to be known in the self? Therefore there is no need of this text to establish the self.

Though the self is always being experienced by us, He is entirely different than what we know him. We experience the following attributes such as Jnaana(?TR), knowledge, happiness, unhappiness and doer-ship etc. in the self. But He is pure existence without any such

Prathama Adhyaaya

15

attributes. This text is meant to explain such pure consciousness as the self. This is the subject of BrahmSuutra; thus some Vedantins contend. In that case the Shaastra will be contradictory to the experience. Experience recognizes the self with attributes and qualities. But Shaastra will be declaring that the self is devoid of such qualities. Can we accept the statement of the scripture which says against our experience. The Pratyaksha and that too experience of one's own self is superior to all other means of knowledge. How can we believe the scripture, which describes the self as attributeless against the experience? If Shaastra says that which is already experienced by Pratyaksha, then it is a waste. If it says something against Pratyaksha then also it becomes invalid. Therefore it is impossible for Shaastra to deal with the self, which is already experienced by Pratyaksha.

What is the purpose of the discussion of the self? To achieve Moksha contemplation and direct perception are not required. There is no necessity of knowledge to attain Moksha, since Shaastra has declared that it can be attained even by ritual acts such as sacrifice etc.

In addition, it is also difficult to believe one can attain Moksha by self realization. So far we have not attained Moksha though we have constant experience of the self. We have been experiencing SamsaaraC^RTTT) from the beginningless. Hence it is only a dream that in future one

16

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

will be liberated through self-realization. Thus no qualified student will be available to read this text since it has no subject and purpose. In the state of Moksha which is the benefit of this Shaastra there is no scope for any contact between physical body and the senses. There cannot be any experience of happiness where there are no body and senses. We are observing that to experience happiness body and senses are required. No one will desire for Moksha, which does not give any happiness. Giving up all the means of happiness which are available in this life, no balanced seeker will go after Moksha where there is no happiness. This is the essence of objections of the first sutra.

The first sutra begins as an answer to all these objections.

11 ark ! ar^rat a?ufa*iwi afar n

"Om! Athaato Brahmajijnaasaa Om!"

The word "Om"(3fta) and "Brahman"(sJ?R) describe the Lord possessing infinite qualities. It is neither Jeeva nor inanimate objects that are going to be discussed in the Shaastra. This text is meant to discuss about the supreme Brahman. An entity which is full of infinite attributes, is called supreme Brahman. Thus this Shaastra deals with Brahman who is unknown and is distinctively different from Jeevas.

Prathama Adhyaaya

17

Only if supreme Brahman is not different from the self, there may be some scope for previous objection that there is no object to be known from this Shaastra since we know the self always. But the Upanishads have emphasized that the knowable object from the Shaastra is only supreme Brahman who is full of infinite attributes. There is no room for any objection to accept that ever-new Paramaatmaa can be the subject of the Shaastra for two reasons : 1) He is entirely different from Jeevaas-s who are limited. And 2) the perfect knowledge of Paramaatmaa has not obtained so far. The objection that this Shaastra does not have a purpose is also incorrect. We can attain the great Purushhaartha that is Moksha through the knowledge of Brahman who is possessing infinite qualities. The seekers achieve Saakshaatkaara by knowledge of Brahman, through that they earn His Supreme Grace, which alone leads them to Moksha. The Lord who is the cause for Samsaara is also the cause for liberation, only through His blessings Jiivas will be liberated from Samsaara. After getting the knowledge of Brahman our devotion for Him increases substantially. When the devotion reaches its peak, Jiivaas will earn His complete grace. This leads them to Moksha. The realization of Brahman is essential to reach that level of devotion. When we directly perceive any object we will develop increased love for that. We cannot love any object, which is not experienced but just heard. Therefore to achieve real devotion direct perception of the Lord is

18

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

essential. To perceive the Lord directly one should constantly meditate on the form of the Lord. This meditation is possible only when the object is properly known through critical analysis and discussions. Thus discussions, meditation, direct perception, supreme devotion and grace are the sequential means for Moksha. Therefore to attain Moksha discussion and enquiry into, who is possessing all attributes is essential. Vedas repeatedly declare that Moksha is impossible without the grace of the Lord. Though it is stated in some passages of the Vedaas that one can get Moksha by ritualistic acts, they will not be direct means for Moksha. By ritualistic acts the purity of the mind is achieved which helps to acquire in turn knowledge, meditation, direct perception, grace and Moksha. Hence the discussion of Brahman is very essential to obtain liberation.

Need of Grace of God

Where is the need for grace to attain Moksha? Can we not attain that by knowledge alone? Having got into illusion that he is the body and without proper knowledge of the self one gets attachment and aversion for the object which are agreeable and non-agreeable to the body, respectively. We engage in the various activities of the world due to this attachment and hat-redness. This results in merits and demerits. Because of that we got into the cycle of birth and death, and sorrow and joy. We can get out of this

Prathama Adhyaaya

19

whirlpool of illusion by the real knowledge of the self. By the knowledge that one is not the body, he knows that he has no relation with the objects, which are agreeable and non-agreeable to the body. Hence after this realization, where is the room for attachments or aversion? He will not get engaged in any activities of the world once he is free from attachment and hat-redness. Therefore he will not commit any new merits or demerits. He exhausts the merits and demerits of the past by experiencing in this life itself. Devoid of merits and demerits, the self does not get into the new bondage of worldly life. He gets rid of the bondage of life, when his present body is totally deteriorated. Then will he not be liberated permanently from this sorrowful life? Why does one require the blessings of the Lord and need to pray God, possessed all attributes for this process that occurs naturally? There is an old saying, why does the river require anyone's permission to flow down the mountain? Why should we strive for the grace of God when it is possible for us to get Moksha by our own self-knowledge? Thus some philosophers raise objections. We get answer for this problem when we deeply analyze the real cause for our bondage of worldly life. Let us accept that we have got into this chain of troubles in life due to illusion that he is the body, which occurs because of absence of proper knowledge of the self. But we have to carefully examine how the ignorance, which is the cause for all these troubles, came into existence. We have to examine how the self "Aatmaa" (3TTcPTT) who is the embodiment of

20

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

knowledge from the beginningless time, got into delusion. Can the darkness cover the light? How did the self who is nothing but knowledge got entangled in the whirlpool of world of illusion? Therefore we have to accept some beginningless "Anaadi"(3T ; RTfc) entity which covers the divine light of the self "Aatma"(3TR^RT) as the lid conceals the light. That is called concealment of "PrakRiti" (M<^r<-i)Because of this "PrakRiti" the self is unable to experience his own consciousness and blissful form. The great power of God has an important role behind this concealment of this "PrkRiti" Without the support of conscious entity nothing can be done by insentient object alone. Hence we have to depend on the grace of the Lord who is the great power of consciousness to get rid of concealment of "PrakRiti" which is beyond our capacity.

Even if the child has an orange in its hand it cannot enjoy it. The child can enjoy that fruit only when its skin is removed by the mother. Similarly the Jeevas are conscious blissful forms. We cannot experience our own bliss, unless the concealment of PrakRiti is destroyed by God for that we have to depend on the mercy of God. Without the grace of God, we cannot realize our own self nor experience our own bliss. For that reason we have to depend on the grace of God.

How can even the grace of God destroy the bondage

Prathama Adhyaaya

21

of PrakRiti as it is beginningless? Such a question does arise. Space and souls are also beginningless. They do not have destruction at all. If the bondage of PrakRiti can be destroyed even though it is beginningless, why not space and souls, which are also beginningless get destroyed? Such an objection also does arise. But for an object to remain indestructible beginninglessness is not the only reason. All born objects need to be destroyed immediately. The cloths and pots remain for a longer period though they are born. But they get destroyed only when the cause of destruction is available. Pot will be broken when it is hit. Cloth gets burnt when we set fire to it. The grace of God and His knowledge, which are instruments of destruction, take place why not the beginningless objects be destroyed by them? It is a general rule that an object, which is either born or beginningless, gets destroyed when the cause of destruction exists. Darkness, though it is thousands of years old gets destroyed in a fraction of a second when light comes in. Similarly the bondage of PrakRit, which is beginningless can be destroyed by the direct perception and grace of God. There is absolutely no problem at all.

Only the theory of Shree Madhvacharya gives such a great importance for the grace of God. All other philosophers have established that Moksha is attainable only by the knowledge. The knowledge alone is not sufficient to get rid off the concealment of PrakRiti which is the root

22

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

cause for bondage. Shree Madhvacharya has established that it is only grace of God, which can destroy the bondage of PrakRit. If knowledge alone gives Moksha the Jiivan-Muktaas, the liberated souls, cannot be available in the world. All philosophers have accepted that some realized souls who have gained perfect knowledge are still guiding the world through their knowledge of truth. If Moksha is available only by knowledge, why not these Jiivan-Muktaas are liberated soon after they got realization? Why delay for their liberation?

Pumicchadheenata no cet vilambaH kim kRito bhaveth ?

Thus if realized souls are liberated soon after their direct perception of the Lord there will not be any link between the world and realized souls. They will not be available to share their experience after they perceive God directly. They will disappear from us immediately after they realize. We will have to get teachings only from the ignorant who have not realized Brahman. Thus all philosophical teachings become hollow. They may not have the basis of experience. Therefore the realization alone is not the cause for Moksha. It is only after the direct perception the real spiritual pursuits begin. A devotee who has perceived God directly will be engaged intensively in devotional acts. He will also give the message of the reality to the world. He will play the role of bridge between God and His devotees. He will attain Moksha when his spiritual pursuit is

Prathama Adhyaaya

23

completed and become a great blessed-soul of the Lord. Till then the Jiivanmuktas play the role of mediators for the devotees of God to make contact with the Lord. In this way the Moksha can be attained by the grace of God only, solves all philosophical problems.

Thus the word 'atah' in the Brahmasutra indicates that the discussion of Brahman should be conducted to attain Moksha through knowledge, meditation, direct perception and grace.

If bondage is real, the grace of God will be required to get rid of that. But the bondage itself is an illusion. Due to ignorance Jiiva has superimposed on himself all sorrows and joy. The knowledge alone is sufficient to destroy the illusion. Nobody's grace is required. By the knowledge alone the illusory world destroyed, just as the illusion of snake in rope gets destroyed when one recognizes the rope as a rope. Therefore to attain Moksha there is absolutely no need of grace of God. This objection is also resolved by the Lord Veda- Vyaasa by using the word 'atah'(3TcT:) in the first Brahmsutra. This bondage of Samsaara is not illusory. We may have many illusions in this world. But the body, mind senses, knowledge, sorrow, pleasure and PrakRiti, which are the cause for illusion by covering the self, are not unreal. The grace of God is required to get rid of this real bondage of life. This is what is implied by the word "atah" (3TcT:) meaning therefore. Hence we have to discuss, meditate and realize the Lord.

24

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Vedaas prove Brahman :

To conduct logical discussion of Brahman, some basic proof is required. No object can be determined by logic alone. The discussion of Brahman means to determine the meaning and purport of scriptures, which are valid, by using logic. A question arises as to which is the valid text to be used as a base for the discussions of Brahman? This is answered by the word "Om" (3n*r)in the sutra. Om-Kaara is the abridged form of all the Vedaas.

The interpretation of Om-Kaara which consists of three letters 'a, u, and m' (3T,:j *T)is called ' VyaahRiti which consists of three words. The words of 'VyaahRiti' (<*h$Ici)-bhuuH,(*T:) bhuvaH(*jcT:) and swaH("^r:) describe the Lord alone. The word bhuuH means perfect. The meaning of bhuvaH is creator. Another meaning of 'bhuvaH'C^:) is supreme entity endowed with richness (Bhuthi(^fcT) means glory and vara means supreme entity). The word 'swaH' C^FOsays that Brahman is full of bliss and joy. The 'Gayatri Mantra' ('imVi^Owhich consists of three words, is the interpretation of VyahRiti, describe the qualities of Brahman. There is a popular belief that "GayatriC'iN^) describes the Godess Devi or the Sun God". But the Gayatri Mantra also describes Shree Narayana only. The words such as 'Savitaa'OTfoTrTT) and 'BhargaH'Orrf:) in the 'Gayatri'('iN^I) describe the qualities of God. The word 'Bharga'CVJ") describe two qualities that are 'Bharana'( <c re T T) and 'Gamana'Cnrn"). Since He is the protector of the world He is called 'Bharan'C^H"). Also as he knows the whole

Prathama Adhyaaya

25

universe He is called 'Gamana'. Hence He is called 'Bharga'(spf). He is called 'Savitaa'fato) since He is the creator of the world. "We meditate on the divine and all pervading form of God, who is the God of Gods. Let him propel our noble thoughts". This is the meaning of Gayatri Mantra. Purushasuukta is the expansion of Gayatri. If Gayatri has three Paadaas, the Purushasuukta has three divisions. The 'Purusha'C^W) who is described in Purushasuukta is the Lord alone. Since He is full He is called "Purusha"03^0. The body, which is abode of Gods and Jiiva is called 'Pura'OjO since God is pervading in all the bodies He is called Purusha. He alone is the knowable object in the Purushasuukta. All the Vedaas are expansion of this 'Purushasuukta'(^q^rn). Three Vedaas are the interpretation of three divisions of Purushasuukta. Thus the supreme Brahman, who is described by Om-Kaara(3i)°N<), is only described by VyahRitK^TTffcO, Gayatri( J ll<M?fl), Purushasuukta and all the Vedaas which are interpretations of Om-Kaara(^]°hK). These Vedaas are supreme valid means of knowledge of God. BrahmaSuutraas are meant to interpret Vedaas logically. This is what is indicated by letter 'Om' (3if) in the BrahmaSuutra(sJFR£r).

26

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Analysis of Karyataavaada:*(«*)i4nicn<;)

Some Meemaamsakaas object that Brahman cannot be discussed by Vedaas. Their arguments are as follows: They accept that any sentence should communicate some action implying some doing or going. If the sentence does not involve any instruction, the sentence will not prompt the listener to act. We use the sentences only for the purpose of some instruction. Where action is not involved one need not make any directive statement. In the beginning children get the meaning of the words only when the sentence is of instructional nature. When the elderly people order the young using statements like "bring the book", "drink the water", etc., the young follows the instructions accordingly. A boy, observing all these actions, understands the meaning for such sentences. For example, when elderly people instruct the young., "eat this fruit", the young one eats the fruit. A boy who has observed this action understands the meaning of the word of fruit. Thus a child learns the meaning of the words by only observing the action. Therefore all the statements primarily instruct some action. But action alone cannot be instructed. We will have to instruct any action in relation to some definitive object. If there is no water, how can it be brought? Therefore, "tie up

* According to Meemaamsakaas there are two types of statements:

l.The statements of facts, which describe the objects as they

exist without implying any action. These are called

Siddhavaakyaas.

2.The statements of commandments which are injunctions

persuading the the listeners to act and involve imperative and

potential moods. These are called Kaaryaparavaakyaas.

Prathama Adhyaaya

27

the cow", "drink the water", such instructional statements have to point out objects also. Thus how can vedaas primarily expound Brahman independently, since Brahman is not action-oriented? Therefore Brahman cannot be discussed by Vedaas. This is the objection raised by Meemaamsakaas OfcrRT^>T:).

As an answer to this objection, Shree Veda Vyaasa used the word "Atah"(3Tff:). There is no such rule that any word should involve action. It can give the meaning of a definitive object. A child need not be taught the meaning of the words by instructing action alone. We can teach the meaning of the words, where the objects are in front of us, such as father, mother, sugar, fruits etc. This is the easiest method to teach the meaning of the words for the child in the primary stage. It is not practical for a child to remember the words of the elderly people till the young one does his job. Instead one can show the directly perceived objects and teach the meaning of the associated words. Therefore it is incorrect to say that the words should only be action oriented.

What does "Kaarya" (^pf)mean? Let us examine it. The object, which is involved in action, cannot be "Kaarya". Many people take alcohol. It is evident of action. But nobody says it is "Kaarya". Drinking alcohol is considered as "Akaarya"(3T^"pf). Therefore an object which is instrument for happiness is called "Kaarya". Because drinking of alcohol results in an undesirable effects it is considered as "Akaarya"(not to be done). In this view,

28

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

though God does not involve any action, He is most desirable and provider of benefits like Moksha. (He is Parameshta and ishTasaadhaka). Therefore He should be considered as "Kaarya". Even the instructive statements of Vedaas, which prescribe any object, declare only objects, which cause beneficial effects, "Do sandhyavandanaC'M^iN^-iH)" means doing sandhyavandana which is a cause for beneficial effects. Therefore there is no objection for Vedaas to describe God who is the cause for all benefits for humans.

If "isTassadhana"(^TT^), action that results in desired effects, is considered as "Kaarya"(^Ff), the impossible actions such as bringing moon to the earth and going to the heaven in the very same body can also be considered as "Kaarya". They are also isTasaadhana-sisTassadhana^^^rr^R). we make efforts only after knowing that some thing is "Kaarya". Let one make attempt in such impossible actions. Such objections may arise in this interpretation of "Kaarya".

But for anyone to make attempt to achieve the goal, the knowledge that it is "Kaarya" or means to achieve beneficial effects is not sufficient. Though we know so many things as "Kaarya" we will not make efforts in achieving it. The desire that we will get some benefit by doing some certain action is also required. Also we would not be interested in any action when we have a feeling that the object is impossible to achieve though it is a means of beneficial effects. "Do this" by this statement we will know

Prathama Adhyaaya

29

that "this is isTasaadhana"(WTT£FT). The statements "Do this" points out only that much. We should decide by using our discretion whether it is possible or impossible. One need not be taught separately whether it is achievable or not. Therefore all the instructional Vedic statements point out only isTasaadhana. But people make efforts after thorough examination whether it is possible to achieve it or not. God who is "Siddhavastu^fegoRcf) does not get involved in our action. But he is very much the means to achieve beneficial effects. He himself is the means of "Parameshhta"(wti:) because we get all the important object in life including Moksha which is supreme desirable goal of life. God himself is prime desirable object for 'Ekaanta Bhakta-s'(^°w-n *raT:). Pleasure is not desired by us for another benefit. That itself is desirable goal. Similarly 'Ekanta Bhakta-s' do not love God for the sake of Moksha. They desire Moksha for the sake of God. God alone is their prime desirable object. Moksha is meant for them to reach God and not God for attaining Moksha. Thus God Himself isTa (spJ) desirable for some devotees and "isTassadhana" for other devotees. We can enjoy complete joy by realising the Lord. We get engaged in spiritual pursuits for realization of God. The scriptures point out the Lord as prime knowable object. They instruct religious acts, which are helpful for realization of God. This alone is the real purport of Vedaas.

What is the purpose of the statements of facts which just reveal the objects as they are? By this neither 'pravRitti' nor 'nivRitti' takes place. This kind of objection is also not correct. The purpose of any statements is not only 'pravRitti

30

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

and nivRitti' (m^Ri, f^sffrT) that is 'making efforts to achieve some desirable objects and making efforts to avoid some undesirable objects, respectively.

The statement will be purposeful by describing an object, which is desirable. When the father is introduced to the son who got separated from his father, he feels extremely happy. Similarly all the virtuous seekers, having given up all the sensuous objects, are eagerly waiting to perceive the Lord desperately, who is the father of the world. As the trustworthy relative the Vedaas describe the Lord to the seekers. The seekers feel extremely happy as the son feeling very happy about the information of his father. Then they begin all spiritual pursuits to realize God. They get engaged in meditation. You cannot see the reflection of the sun in disturbed water. We can see the reflection only in pure and still water. Similarly God cannot be reflected in polluted mind. We can meditate on God only with a pure mind. Only for the purity of mind, Vedaas have prescribed religious acts. Thus Karma-s are meant for the knowledge of God. They are not the prime subject of the Vedaas. Vedaas disclose the Lord for 'Ekaantabhaktas' like the father to the child. And for the rest of the devotees God is described in the Vedaas to attain supreme bliss. The devotees, who are suffering in different ways in this worldly life and want to get rid of these troubles, desire for Moksha, which is nothing but experience of total bliss. Vedaas teach that God alone can give Moksha when He is pleased. They describe different religious acts to achieve realization and grace of God. Thus in the Vedaas God alone is described primarily

Prathama Adhyaaya

31

as the prime knowable object and the description of all Karma-s is secondary.

Even if we accept that Vedaas instruct only Kaaryaas and do not describe any other objects of 'siddha' (objects of fact) there is no problem for Vedaas to teach about the Lord. As we have already explained that Vedaas have to mention other objects while instructing "Kaarya" when Vedaas prescribe to pour ghee in the sacrificial fire, it has to mention about fire and ghee also. Or else the entire action becomes incomplete. Instead of ghee in the fire something else has to be offered somewhere. There it should be accepted that those Vedic statements explain other objects also along with the action. When Vedaas are instructing the Kriyaas such as discussion and meditation of Brahman, it has to explain what Brahman is. For meditation or contemplation the existence of the object is not necessary. It can even be done by imagining the object. Therefore even if Vedaas talk about Upaasanaas they need not have to explain Brahman. This is a baseless objection. In that case for Meemaamsakaa's the fire and 'havis' (??fo)(objects of offering to the fire) which are components of sacrifice, cannot be established. Can they not sacrifice imagining such objects? Thus there is no objection for Vedaas to describe Brahman either primarily or along with the action.

Validity of Vedaas:

Another doubt arises when it is instructed that the discussion of Brahman should be conducted on the basis of Vedaas. "Pratyaksha" (PFr^T^T)direct percption and

32

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

"Anumana(^^j-iM)"logic are the only two valid means of knowledge. "Shabda" (^T^)is not at all valid means of knowledge. Due to appropriate contact between objects and senses, knowledge is derived from sense-organs. There is no contact between objects and senses. If 'shabda' Cyt^") (sound) is present in the space objects exist somewhere. When there is no proper contact between them, how is it possible for the knowledge to be derived from the Shabda-s? Thus when 'Shabda'Orp^) itself is not 'PramaaNa' or source of knowledge, how can Veda which is the form of Shabda become PramaaNa? Therefore why should we discuss anything that is mentioned in the Vedaas? This doubt is also cleared by the word 'AtaH'(3TcT:) in the Suutra. Like Pratyaksha and Anumaana(Logic) 'Shabda' is also a PramaaNa i.e. valid. We have experienced of knowledge derived from 'Shabda-s'. We also experienced that the objects of that knowledge are real. Sometimes we may get illusion due to defects. We get erroneous knowledge even from Pratyaksha(Pc^T^T) and Logic. Yet if they are accepted as PramaaNaas( mh i u iiPi ), why not 'Shabda' be a PramaaNa?It is also incorrect to say that there is no contact between the words and objects they indicate. Even they can have link. We infer fire by perceiving the smoke in the space above the hill. We also deduce the occurrence of rain on the hill by perceiving the flood down the hill. This is what is called 'Yukti'C^fe). Therefore there need not be any contact between the smoke in the space above and the fire on the hill. But the invariable concomitance of fire with the smoke is established. Similarly shabda and its

Prathama Adhyaaya

33

objects do have some kind of natural relation. The Sanskrit words, which are beginningless, have such a natural contact with their objects. This is called 'Padashakti'(Hq*ifrtO, the intrinsic power of the word. Even in other languages the words have such power which are made. Hence like Pratyaksha and logic, Shabda is also a PramaaNa.

If words have natural power of describing the objects, then why don't we understand the objects after we hear the words? Why is that only those who have the prior knowledge of the objects of the words can understand when they hear them. Just as the fire burns even those who do not know its power, words should also give the meaning to those who do not have the knowledge of power of the words. Some may ask such questions. We can give many examples in this regard. Though we have eye and ear we need not get the knowledge of colour and sound always. The knowledge of fire need occure just because smoke exists. The knowledge occurs only when the appropriate contact between the sense organs and their objects takes place. To know the fire the presence of smoke is not is not sufficient. We should perceive the smoke. Also we should know the concomitant relationship between the smoke and fire. For any knowledge to take place different rules are there in different situations. Hence it is not correct to say that some one should get knowledge as soon as we hear the words, unlike in the case of fire burning without having its knowledge. Only when we know the 'Arthashakti' (3T?faliTT0(the capacity to give the meaning) in the words we will get knowledge of the objects. Any cause has a

34

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

natural power to produce the effects. As the worldly objects have different natural power we are able to see different variety of effects. Similarly words also have natural power. It will be proved later that Vedaas are 'Apourushheya'(3#^T) (not composed by any human). All the words in the Vedaas have such natural power. A person who knows that power, Vedaas disclose themselves to him. Similarly the Sanskrit language, which is beginningless has natural 'Arthashakti' subsequently different languages of the world that are born at different times indicate objects using word symbols, made by a man. The born languages are expressing their meanings by symbols whereas the beginningless Sankrit language gives the meaning of the objects by its own power. As the Vedaas are not composed either by any human or God, the 'arthashakti' in those words it also natural and is not symbol made by God. By knowing that power one should recognize the meaning of the Vedaas. It is not right to deny natural Power of the words only, when it is accepted that all the other physical objects have that natural power.

"PraamaaNyam SwataH" (Validity is Natural)

The question may arise even if Shabda is PrammaNa, how can we decide that Veda is Valid? The answer is very simple. To determine any PramaaNa as valid, one does not require any other base. "Saakshi"(^TT§#) alone when it compreh the knowledge also recognizes the validity of that knowledge. Every time to know the validity one need not

Prathama Adhyaaya

35

analyze or exercise any logic. While we are traveling, we do not get any doubt about the house, tree and plants that we perceive. When we buy a new cloth in the shop, we do not get any doubt whether it is cloth or not. We will not be able to recognize the validity of the knowledge only when there is a special feature that negates the knowledge. Otherwise we require some logic to determine the validity of the knowledge and some other logic to determine the validity of the first logic,- thus endless regression. Therefore it should be accepted that we can determine the validity of knowledge when it is recognized by Saakshi. Hence we need not search for any proof to determine the validity of the Vedaas. If this system is followed an objection may arise naturally that no knowledge in the world can be 'ApramaaNa'(3T5FTFT). Even illusory perception of smoke in the water or the delusion that there is no God, can also be 'PramaaNaas'. If 'saakshi' alone recognizes the validity of every knowledge, why not the illusory perceptions are not valid? But there is some method to separate pramaaNa from ApramaaNa( &\ mh i u i). The knowledge derived from defective sense organs, logic and vaakyaas is not valid, Saakshi does not recognize the validity of the knowledge derived from defective means because it can be negated by a contradictory knowledge. The illusory knowledge of snake in the rope occurs due to similarities between the rope and the snake. This is not 'PramaaNa'. It is only illusory knowledge. When proper examination is conducted the knowledge of the snake is negated by the contradictory knowledge that it is not snake. Therefore 'Saakshi' does

36

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

not recognize the validity of that knowledge. There is no room for any doubt regarding Vedaas. Vedaas are regarded as 'Apourushheyaa-s'(3#^T). If anything composed by human, there can be errors due to defects in his mind. There cannot be any chance for such defects in the Vedaas since they are not at all composed by any human. Hence there is no room for any doubt of invalidity of the Vedaas.

Non-Human Authorship of Vedas: (& am1*^rd)

We may get some doubt as to why we should accept that Vedaas are not composed by any human. The followers of Vedaas and even some philosophers who do not follow Vedaas, generally accept super sensuous entities such as 'dharma', 'adharma', heaven, hell etc. On what basis we should know these super sensuous entities? It is not possible to know 'dharma' and 'adharma' by only logic. Without arriving at any conclusion, in the disputes of arguments and counter-arguments one may only get confused with the help of logic, though we can prove the existence of dharma or adharma as cause for happiness and unhappiness and the differences in the personalities of the beings, we cannot get specific information only through logic. It can be known only through the scriptures and the words of the wise. But it is also impossible to believe who is realized and who is not. There are several different schools of thought and different religious traditions. Every follower of his school of thought believes that his profounder of his school of thought is only a realized soul. All the doctrines of these schools are not uniform and consistent. If that is

Prathama Adhyaaya

37

the case how can we know who the really realized souls are and who have genuine concerns to preach the truth to the seekers. How can we decide that these profounders of different doctrines are not having natural human weaknesses? Thus without any basis we have to imagine all the qualifications required to preach the truth on some person. Instead of this, is it not easy method to accept that Vedaas are Apourashheya-s? Can we not know the dharmas from the Vedaas accepting that they are written by Omniscient God? One may question why should we make a new concept for Vedaas that they are not composed by anyone? Is not God a new imagination? How is the presence of Omniscient God, who is the regulator of all the activities of the world without having any physical body, is proved? If one can believe such God, why should anyone hesitate to believe that Vedaas are not composed by anyone? In reality God is also established only by Vedaas just as the super sensuous entities like dharma and adharma. Hence only after Vedaas are established as PramaaNaas, we can prove the presence of God by Vedaas only. If that is the case, how can we know that Vedaas are PramaaNa because they are authored by the Lord, when the existence of Him itself is not proved before? Only when we accept that Vedaas are Apourushheyaas we can get answer to all questions.

Who has written Vedaas? and when were they written? No answer is available still now. Veda itself declares that Vedas- are beginningless. According to the tradition also it is believed that Vedaas are being recited which were already existing. If there is an author for such

38

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

a great text like Veda, is it possible for Vaidikaas or followers of Vedaas to forget him? It is not possible to believe that the followers of Vedaas, who have maintained meter, intonation and sequence without any error, have forgotten the author. Thus when it is impossible to know Dharma(^T) and Adharma(3T^4) through the advice of any founder of doctrine, there is no other way than to accept Vedaas as apourushheya and accept religious and spiritual truths discussed in the Vedaas.

The super-sensuous religious and spiritual truths themselves are imaginary. We do not accept entities, which are beyond our direct perception. The atheism may argue that there is no necessity of accepting 'Apourushheya PramaaNa'( 3\ hI ^ m WW\) to establish the super sensuous entities. But ancient philosophers such as Bouddhas, Jains, Sankhyaas, Meemaamsaka-s etc., though they have not accepted God, they have admitted Dharma, Adharma heaven and hell which are beyond sense perception. We will explain this in detail later when we will analize atheism, that social system is impossible without Dharma and Adharma.

Let us examine this from the another angle. How can we conclude that there are no Dharma or Adharma. By PratyakshaC^TST), it is not possible to prove or disprove an entity, which is beyond direct perception. We have to decide through nose only whether an entity has fragrance or not. Is it possible through an eye? Thus is it possible to determine that Dharma and Adharma, which have been accepted by

Prathama Adhyaaya

39

all philosophers as super sensuous entities, are not there just because they are not perceived? The senses can recognize the absence of the objects which are appropriate for perception by the respective senses. It is beyond the capacity of the Pratyaksha to prove or disprove the super sensuous entities such as God, righteousness etc. Hence it is not possible to know by Pratyaksha the absence of God, Dharma, etc., though they are not perceived. Attempts have to be made to disprove them only by logic. But logic alone cannot determine them. We cannot confirm that super sensuous entities are not at all there, just because they are not perceived by our senses for the following reasons:

1) Many Vedic and Avaidic(3rt?ft) philosophers are firmly

establishing the existence of super sensuous objects.

2) Several enlightened souls are saying that they have perceived them.

3) Objects are perceived by one sense that are not perceived

by the other.

In this situation one can get doubt whether Dharma is there or not. But he cannot determine that Dharma is not there. Ultimately to conclude this issue one has to depend on some valid proof. We have already explained that other than Apourushheya Veda no other means of knowledge can clear this doubt. This world is vast and wonderful. It is beyond our limited direct perception. To get the knowledge of super sensuous entities, we have to admit that Veda is "Apourushheya" and valid means of knowledge. The aim

40

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

of this Brahma-Suutra is to determine the meaning of the Vedaas.

The method of knowing the meaning of a statement:

There are also disputes in terms of the methods of how a statement convey the given meaning. In a sentence each word conveys specific meaning on an individual basis. How will we get the comprehensive knowledge combining meanings of all words? For example a sentence that 'beautiful flowers are blossomed in a creeper', has a few words. From each word we remember their specific meaning. Only when we comprehend the interrelation and the meanings of all words, we can derive comprehensive knowledge from the full sentence. The above sentence does not have such word, which indicates the interrelation between the meanings of all the words. If words in the sentence convey their respective meanings individually, how can we know their interrelation? This is a complicated question, which has to be answered by all philosophers.

Some argue that when words convey their meanings they convey their interrelationship also. When that relation is known by a single word, where is the need of other words in that sentence? How can we decide that among all words in a sentence, which specific word conveys the relations between the rest of the words? This objection will arise in this theory.

In reality, the word does not give the meaning of that object alone. When a word conveys the meaning of an

Prathama Adhyaaya

41

object, it indicates specific character of that object also. Along with that it also indicates the relation with other objects in a general manner. When that word is connected with the other words, the specific relation of the object will be revealed in detail. Thus we derive comprehensive knowledge form the sentence when those words convey,

a. the meaning of each word,

b. general relation between the meanings and

c. comprehensive relation among all the meanings.

Other philosophers argue that words convey only the meanings of the objects. When these objects are grasped through the use of the words and memory, they indicate their relationships also. This is also incorrect.

We regard the means of correct knowledge as 'PramaaNaas' PratyakshaOTcW), YuktiOjfw), and ShabdaC^T^) are regarded as PramaaNaas since we get proper knowledge from them. If relation of objects is conveyed by objects alone instead of Shabda, they should also be regarded as PramaaNaas. But no one accepts the objects, which are known by words, as PramaaNaas. It is everyone's experience that as soon as we hear a sentence we understand the contents and their relations at the same time. It is impossible that the contents alone convey their mutual relations.

Those who argue that it is only the objects that are indicating their relations give the following example. We

42

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

perceive vaguely some white object at a distance. We also hear the sounds of horse-steps. By these two, the hearing of sounds and seeing the vague image of an object, we derive the knowledge that a white horse is running at a distance. They give this as an example to prove their theory that it is only objects, which indicate their mutual relationships. As a matter of fact it is not only the objects which give the knowledge. As we infer fire by perceiving smoke, this also is a kind of logic. That an expression that 'a white horse is running' is nothing but an inference deduced by the combination of perception of the two, sound and vague form. According to this theory, either the mere objects or the objects that are grasped through the words, give comprehensive knowledge, which consists of the relation among the objects. But the above example, however, does not suite the theory.

According to above theory, memory of the objects through the words and the knowledge of their mutual relationship through the objects occur. Thus one has to accept different powers for words and for objects. Instead of accepting these two separate powers, is it not proper to accept a single power for the word by which it conveys the meaning of the objects as well as the interrelationship among them? We understand the meaning as soon as we hear the words. When we hear the word 'cloth' immediately we comprehend the object. We also understand that object not as a mere object. We comprehend the object with its related action and attributes. We will be eager to know that relationship. If the word 'cloth' is associated with another

Prathama Adhyaaya

43

word 'blue' then it conveys the comprehensive knowledge of an object along with its attributes due to association with the other word. Thus a word conveys the object and its general relationship. When we use another word the same first word conveys the specific relationship in detail. This is everyone's experience. Therefore as there is no problem to derive knowledge from the sentences, we can accept Veda, which is in the form of sentences, as Apourushheya PramaaNa (srqfcefcr wm) (valid source of knowledge).

On the basis of valid PramaaNaas such as Vedaas, we have to discuss supreme Brahman, who is full of infinite qualities for his realization and grace, to achieve Moksha(*fter).

Vishnu is Brahman:

The supreme Brahman is Vishnu only. Before this BrahmaSuutra(5TFTT5T), in the end part of 'Daiveemeemaamsa (M*faM), "Sa VishNuraha Hi" C*T reikis* %) is the Suutra(^) that indicates 'He is indeed Vishnu. The same VishNu(forwj) is referred by the word Brahman and discussion about Him is established. All the words such as VishNu, Brahma and Narayana(-iKN u i) are synonyms which convey the same object which is full of infinite qualities.

When the meaning of word "Brahman" (^?FT) is perfect, the word "Vishnu" also conveys the meaning that he is all pervading in all the three periods of time and all space. Hence both the words give same meaning. 'Ara'(3R)

44

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

means defects and 'Naara'C^TTCT:) means attributes. Hence 'Narayana' means one who is possessed all the qualities. Therefore the word 'Brahman' means Vishnu or Narayana. The enquiry into Vishnu only is instructed in BrahmaSuutra.

In the popular 'Narayanasuukta' (-ikki u i ^frfr) "tadeva Brahma Paramam Kaveenaam" (cT^ m WT =h4W) thus Narayana alone is called supreme Brahman. Where is the proof that it is Narayana who is referred as supreme Brahman? Such a question may arise. This 'Suutra' C*T5r) is popular as "Narayanasuukta" CRTWT ITtTO. Therefore to mention other than Narayana in this 'suukta' becomes irrelevant. In the beginning of this suukta C^pOalso "ambhasyapaare bhuvanasya madhye naakasya pRishhTe mahato mahiiyaan" (3qFH^Ml} ^oR^r W% hi^w vjk wf h^i-i) Narayana is referred as "samudrashaayii" (^Frsf^nfa) and is described as supreme Brahman. Narayana alone is popular as 'samudrashaayii' in the PuraaNaas. (h<i u ii^) 'AmbhraNisuukta'(3T^ u D^Th) also says "Yam Kaamaye tarn tamugram kRiNomi, tarn BrahmaNam", (4 <*>\hA ct HPJT chufliH) that is the Godess ambhraNi(3qF^ft ^sft), who is called Laxmi Devi and is the mother of the world, gives Brahma, Rudra (^) and other gods their respective status. But NaaryaNa is Her Lord who is described as ' Jalashaayi". Therefore if any God is described as 'Jalashaayi' in the Vedaas and Upanishads He should be regarded as Vishhnu only. Hence there is no doubt that it is VshhNu alone who is referred here as supreme Brahman. More over this suukta mentions some glories which are exclusive qualities of Vishhnu" which are not seen in other Gods. Hence Vishhnu

Prathama Adhyaaya

45

alone is regarded as Brahman.

The Four Meanings of 'Atah Shabda'(3TrT: ?!*?):

The first Suutra means that we should discuss about the supreme Brahman. The word 'ataH'(3fcT:) in the Suutra means the required qualifications and merits for a seeker to discuss about Brahman. After attaining the qualifications such as devotion, detachment and scholarship, one has to study deeply to understand the Lord and His related glories. The word 'ataHCsTcT:) in the Suutra conveys the benefit of discussions and answers the objections raised against it. 'AtaH'means "therefore". Its implied four meanings are :

1 .Moksha CrW) can be attained through the discussion of supreme Brahman 'Therefore' the discussions about the supreme Brahman should be conducted to achieve the benefit of Moksha. We should get perfect knowledge of God which helps to contemplate on Him. Through contemplation we can perceive the Lord directly. This perception leads to supreme devotion to the Lord, which in turn secures His supreme grace, by which Moksha can be attained.

2.The bondage of the life is real. 'Therefore' to get rid of this Samsaara O^R) one has to conduct the discussion of Brahman. If this Samsaara (cycle of births and deaths) is illusory it would have been negated by the real knowledge of the truth. For that no grace of God is required. Just as the mercy of officials is required to get released from a jail, God's grace is required for the redemption of jiiva-s(^ftsrr:)

46

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

from this Samsaara. For that, knowledge is essential. To get the knowledge, discussion of Brahman has to be conducted.

3.Any statement has the capacity to convey the meaning of object (siddha Vastu, (ftR* °R?[) without involving any action.) 'Therefore', discussion should be conducted on supreme Brahman on the basis of Vedaas. If all the 'PramaaNa Vakyaas' (WWJ °n^#T)convey the meaning of objects, which involve some action, then Vedaas cannot convey the meaning of Brahman. But there is no such rule that 'PramaaNa Vakyaas' should instruct only 'Kaarya'. Any ' Vaakya' faw) can become valid means of knowledge by declaring 'ishhTa' or 'ishhTa Saadhana' whether it is 'kaarya' or 'akkarya'. 'Therefore' on the basis of Vedaa-s, there is no objection to discuss about the Lord, who is the most beloved of seekers.

4.Veda is a valid means of knowledge. 'Therefore' we should discuss about supreme Brahman. It would be meaningless to discuss about Brahman, if Veda is invalid. But Veda is also valid just as Pratyaksha or Yukti. Words do not convey only their respective meanings. They become PramaaNa by conveying comprehensive knowledge, which involves the mutual relationships among the objects. To know the validity of 'Shabda' one does not require another 'PramaaNa' when it is not negated, and when there is no defect, one can easily determine the validity. As Veda is 'apourushheya' there is no room for any defects that can arise due to human authorship. There is no proof for any

Prathama Adhyaaya

47

contradictions. Thereore' Veda is valid. Hence we need to discuss the Veda. It is very necessary.

These are all the meanings for the word 'ataH'. How do we get all these meanings from the word 'ataH'? the Lord Narayana who wrote BrahmaSuutra in his incarnation of Veda-Vyaasa, also written 'Brahmatarka' which is an exhaustive 'tarkaShaastra'.(theory of Logic). This Brahmatarka being supreme PramaaNa is entirely different from the available 'tarkaShaastra'. Shri Veda-Vyaasa has abridged Brahmatarka before he wrote BrahmaSuutra. It is a supportive limb for BrahmaSuutra. All explanations discussed with reference to 'ataH' shabda are mentioned in Brahmatarka in more detail. What Shree Veda-Vyaasa has explained elaborately in Brahmatarka, He has condensed it by the word 'ataH' and established in the first Suutra that the discussion of Brahman is essential.

The World Is Not Unreal:

Some have interpreted the first Suutra 'Om! Athato Brahma Jijnaasaa Om" as it indicates that this worldly bondage and the external world are unreal (mithyaa). According to their view there is no Brahman different from the self 'Aatmaa'. The self, which is everlasting luminous entity itself is Brahman. When we have the self realization always, where is the need for the discussion of Brahman? Yet those who are in the state of 'Samsaara' have not realized the nature of the self. The real nature of the self is 'NirgunNa' and 'nirvisheshha' that is without attributes, qualities and undifferentiated entity. In this world of

48

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Samsaara, whatever we experience such as pleasure, pain, ignorance and knowledge, are not real. They are just illusory. The discussion of Vedanta is meant to realize the self without any such attributes. If this Samsaara that we are experiencing is real and since we have the knowledge of the real nature of the self, why do we need to discuss about Brahman? Such a question may arise. The 'aatmaa' self is absolutely different from what we experience at present. Only when our perception and experience are unreal, we get convinced that the discussion of the self 'aatmaa' is essential. Therefore for 'Brahmavicaara' to be justifiable, one has to accept that all the attributes in the self are not there and the entire 'Samsaara' is unreal.

The 'Shaastra'(YTT^r) scripture declares that the knowledge of Brahman destroys the Samsaara. If the Samsaara is real how can it be destroyed by the knowledge. We mistake the rope for the snake. When we get proper knowledge of the rope, the snake which disappears is not real. The dream-world, which disappears soon after we are awakened, is not real. It is only the illusory entities that get destroyed when real knowledge occurs. Along with the ignorance all its products also disappear. Therefore the Samsaara which is destroyed by the realization of Brahman is 'Mithyaa' (f^TT) or the product of the ignorance. Thus to account for both (1) the desolation of Samsaaraa which is the purpose of Shaastra and (2) the self (STTcRT) which is described in the scriptures, Samsaaraa should be accepted as unreal(ftw) only.

Prathama Adhyaaya

49

Those who argue that the world is unreal on the basis of Suutra give one more reason.

The goal of the scriptures is Advaitha (sffcT) only. The entire Shaastra is meant to teach the identity between jiivaOsfN") and Brahman. If this world is real, we have to accept a God who is omniscient and omnipotent as the creator of this world. We also know how weak and ignorant we are. Then we may recognize that Advaita is absolutely absurd when Jiiva and Brahman are having such very contradictory attributes. No one will be interested in such a Shaastra which is quite a contradictory to the experience. Then what is the purpose of the Shaastra to teach identity between jiiva and Brahman? The apparently contradicting attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, limited knowledge and power etc; are meaningless. It will be possible to establish Advaita when the world and the mutually contradictory attributes of jiiva and Brahman are unreal . Because of the above mentioned three reasons, some view that the world is indeed unreal and that is the only the essence of the first Suutra.

But this is not correct. The knowledge alone is not the direct cause for the destruction of Samsaara. For the destruction of Samsaara one has to gain the grace of God through His knowledge. This Samsaara cannot be unreal even if we accept that the entities, which disappear due to knowledge, are unreal, just as the dream world in the awakened state. The Samsaara from which we get released through knowledge due to grace of God, it can be real just

50

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

as the jail from which one gets released. Therefore just because Samsaara gets destroyed due to knowledge of Brahman, this worldly bondage need not be unreal. We have to examine one more aspect. There is no such rule that whichever is destroyed by knowledge is unreal. Visiting sacred places destroys the sin. Is this sin unreal? We suffer from poison due to snakebite. Meditation of GarudaC 7 ^) destroys this real poison. (Garuda, the bird which is used as vehicle of Lord Vishhnu) Meditation means the perception of a picture in the mind due to the impressions of an object. This is also a kind of knowledge. There are several examples to establish that even a real entity can be destroyed by knowledge. Therefore it is not correct to prove that the world is unreal using such weak arguments.

Just to establish that Advaita alone is the purport of the scriptures it is also incorrect (a) to deny all the attributes in the self, which are experienced, and (b) designating them as illusory and (c) discarding all the statements in the Vedaas and PuraaNaa- s (^< i u 11 ft) which declare that God alone, who is full of attributes, is knowable in all the scriptures. Holding the view that Advaita is supreme doctrine and is the essence of the Shaastraas(^n^r u i) and proving that the entire world is unreal in order to establish that all the contradictory qualities of jiiva and supreme Brahman are unreal, are similar to lying to support another lie. There is no proof to establish the identity of jiiva and Brahman. It has been explained in another part as it is contradicting all the pramaaNaas(MHi u nPi). Therefore to say that this world is unreal and to prove the identity of jiiva and Brahman is

Prathama Adhyaaya

51

similar to a house built on the sand which collapses easily. It will be described in detail later why it is not correct to say that this world is unreal.

"Om! Janmaadyasya YataH Om!"

it has been established in the first Suutra(^) that discussion of Shree Hari($fl" fir) who is the supreme Brahman has to be conducted. It is not possible to discuss about Brahman without knowing who He is among the infinite number of conscious entities. We can recognize any object through its specific qualities. We recognize a man by looking at his features such as hands, legs etc. These are called particular features (W^) of an object. This Suutra indicates Brahman as creator, sustainer, destroyer of the world and give of knowledge and liberation O^T) etc.

We have already explained that the word Brahman means full of attributes. Brahman could have been recognized by establishing the infiniteness as his quality, which is indicated by the word 'Brahman'. But to find out who possesses all attributes is also difficult just as identifying the Lord among all conscious entities in the world. We cannot identify that by direct perception. But it is not difficult to identify the Lord as creator and sustainer of the world. We can observe some creator behind every object that is born. This world with such a systematic state of order cannot be created accidentally. Therefore we can deduce that there is a creator of this world. In addition,

52

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

even the Vedaas have described the creator of the Universe. Thus on the basis of logic and Vedaas we can easily identify the creator of the world. Even though the Vedaas describe the Lord possessing all the qualities, a disturbing doubt may arise whether it is possible for the existence of such transcendental entity with full of qualities and which never has been seen? Based on common experience we can deduce that there must be a creator of this world just as there is a creator behind every creative object. Having established that there is a creator, one can deduce that He must be possessing infinite qualities and powers to insure that all the activities in the world are being performed systematically. Since we can easily understand the creator and sustainer of this world, on the basis of this, we can also know that He must be full of attributes to become the creator of the Universe. Therefore Shree Veda Vyaasa (w ^ ^TRT) has indicated the essential qualities (e^FT) of the Lord as creator, sustainer, etc., of the world.

The Suutra (^FRT?HPT W\:) has described the Brahman as the creator of this world to answer one more objection. The word 'Brahman' has another dictionary meaning as jiiva. Instead of accepting (a) that the meaning of the word Brahman as the one with full of qualities, and (b) that He is different from us, why should we not accept the meaning of jiiva for the word Brahman and therefore provide a meaning for the 'Suutra' that an enquiry of jiiva has to be conducted. Though jiiva is well known to us, we do not have absolute clear knowledge about him. Hence the discussion of jiiva is not irrelevant. Instead of accepting a

Prathama Adhyaaya

53

new conscious entity, which is full of qualities, and subscribing this meaning to the word Brahman, it is easier to accept that the word Brahman means Jiiva. Jiiva is self-evident. Even the dictionary meaning of jiiva for the word Brahman is popular. There is no need for any new imagination. Therefore the first Suutra does not indicate that inquiry of the Lord, possessing all the qualities has been answered by the second Suutra. When vedic statements 'tad Brahma' (cl\?n?r) 'tad vijijnaasaswa' (?1\ fafci*im<«i)instruct to conduct the inquire into Brahman, they include that the Brahman is the creator, sustainer etc of the world by stating "Yatova imaani bhuutaani jaayante, ena jaataani jiivanti." facfr °TT ^#T < *pft ^Rt I ^R ^Idlid ^itaf*ri) is it possible to account these qualifications to jiiva? It is very obvious that jiiva who has limited power is not the creator and sustainer of the world. Thus when we examine other statements of the Vedaas it is very clear that the Vedic statements do not instruct the inquire of jiiva. They only instruct us that we have to discuss about Brahman who is full of attributes and who is qualified to be the creator, sustainer, etc: of the world. To teach this the second Suutra has answered an objection of the Brahman.

Vishhnu Is The Meaning For All Vedic Words:

From Vedic statements we have to know that the Lord is the creator of this world with the help of logic. But we may get confused when we come across different Vedic statements. Some Vedic statements say that HiraNya Garbha (%T^T Vf) is the creator of this world. 'HiraNya GarbhaH

54

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Samavartataagre' (ffTWrtf: *m°lcidlO). Some say that liberation is through the meditation of Lord Shiva 'eko rudraH na dvitiiyaaya tasthe' O^t f%: R fedVlN rTC^"). 'Jnatvaa Shivam Shantim atyantameti'(WoTT %5PT ^iiP-I^ 3\ cq ti *\ Id).Therefore it will be difficult to decide on the basis of Veda that Vishhnu alone is the creator of this world. Veda itself has answered this objection. The Vedic Mantra, "Yo Devaanam Naamadha Eka Eva" (*ft ^HR "=TrR^rT t^t ^°0, declares that Vishhnu is one who is having names of all the other Gods. He is popular as 'Padmanaabha' (WPf:) i.e. who has the lotus that exists at His navel and that sustains the whole world. 'Naamaani SarvaaNi Yamaavishanti, tarn Vai Vishhnum

Paramamudaaharanthi'OrrfJT T^tfq wfayrf^T I tf of fosnj h<hjj5I$<Pti) clearly says that Vishhnu alone is primarily described by all words of Vedaas (%:)

By the above statement the Veda has resolved a great philosophical riddle. Lord Vishhnu is described as superior and worshipped by Brahmaa, Rudra, and other Gods in Vedaas, Upanishads, Mahaabhaarata,( T ffmR?l') GeethaOftoT) and other valid means of knowledge (WR). In some passages of scriptures, Brahma Rudra and other gods are also described as supreme entities. How can we accommodate these conflicting statements? This is the problem in the philosophical field. Both Brahma and Shiva have to be supreme beings. At the same time they have to be subordinate to the Lord Vishhnu. How can Veda become valid means of knowledge when it says conflicting statements? Such a doubt may be haunting the minds of

Prathama Adhyaaya

55

the seekers. Shree Maddvaachaarya(3lt ^T^rrai^") alone has shown a compromising path. Gods such as Brahma, Rudra and others are always subordinate to the Lord. Also the words such as Brahma, Rudra, etc., in the Vedaas and Upanishads describe primarily Vishhnu alone as a supreme being. Though there are so many demigods, there is only a single supreme entity which is referred by all the names of all the Gods. That entity is the Lord Sri Hari alone. When Brahma or Rudra is described as supreme being, one has to understand that it is the Lord Vishhnu who is indicated as the supreme entity. When Vedaas say that Brahma, Rudra and other Gods are born in the beginning of the creation then only these names refer demi-gods other than Vishhnu. Thus Shree Maddwaachaarya has accommodated all the apparent conflicting Vedic statements with the help of other Vedic and PouraaNic (Hkifuicfr) statements.

As it is already established on the basis of Vedaas that all the names of the Gods describe Lord Vishhnu alone, the same cannot be accounted using other Gods. Against this statement some scriptures may state that other Gods are the cause for creation and other activities of the world. The Veda is supreme valid means of knowledge since it is 'apourushheya'(Non authored by any human). Hence whatever is said against it in the other scriptures cannot be accepted. The 'PuraaNa-s that contradict Vedaas cannot be regarded as 'PramaaNaas' valid.

There are statements in the Vedaas which apparently state that even the Lord Vishhnu was born. How can the

56

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Lord Vishhnu who is subjected to the defects of birth, etc., be the cause for the creation and sustenance of the world? This objection is also not correct. Whatever is apparently said in the Vedaas cannot be regarded as their real meaning. Such statement should be interpreted in accordance with the knowledge of the purport of the Vedaas. The goal of the Vedaas is to give divine bliss to the all-virtuous seekers, by releasing them from this beginning-less bondage of life. Jiivas have to secure the grace of the Lord to get liberated from this sorrowful life. Hence Vedaas will be purposeful only when they teach the method to attain this grace. For that Vedaas teach the jiiva-s the infinite attributes of the Lord. By this jiiva-s will develop special devotion for the Lord and receive the blessings of the Lord which lead them to Moksha. If Vedaas indicate the defects in the Lord, it will have adverse effects to develop devotion. The Vedaas cannot describe anything, which will be against their goal. Therefore all the Vedaas are meant to praise the attributes of the Lord. The Vedaas cannot point out any flaw in the Lord. Such statements have to be interpreted in accordance with the purport of the Vedaas which is conducive to devotion. Therefore the doctrine of attribute-less God and His identity with jiiva-s is against the devotion and also against the goal of the Vedaas. Hence it can be determined that it is not acceptable to the Vedaas.

Prathama Adhyaaya

57

The Intrinsic Character of Brahman:

Are the auspicious attributes of Brahman, which are described as the intrinsic character of Brahman in the Vedaas, identical with Him or different from Him? This question has to be examined. If they are different from Brahman they become extrinsic (transient). But the attributes of Brahman cannot be extrinsic, because if they are different from conscious entity of God they should be inanimate. It is not correct to admit inanimate attributes in the conscious entity. Therefore we should accept that the attributes of the Lord being inseparable from Brahman are identical with Him. As we cannot separate sweetness from sugar and effulgence from light, we cannot separate the attributes of the Lord from Him. Therefore all these attributes being conscious entities are intrinsic qualities.

These are called intrinsic characters (Swaruupa LakshaNa) (w^h ^ft) by the philosophers. We recognize a house with its particular form and design. We can identify an individual with its color, form and movement. They are intrinsic and inseparable with the objects. When we recognize a house with its flag, trees and plants in front of the house and when we identify a person with his external dress and ornaments, these are regarded as indicative definition (tatastha lakshhaNa,) (?1Z^T ^FT) since they are external and are not intrinsic with the nature of the objects. The Lord's creator-ship and sustainer-ship of the world are the powers which are the cause for the modifications of the world such as creation, sustenance and destruction. These

58

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

powers are inseparable and intrinsic nature of the Lord. Hence all those attributes are the swaruupa lakshhaNaas

But some philosophers do not agree with this. The Lord does not have any intrinsic attributes or qualities. He is attribute-less. Therefore the creator-ship of the world is just illusory. It is not intrinsic quality of Brahman. However the author of BrahmaSuutra has also written the Bhagavata(>ii'i°ici) text which is acceptable to all as 'PramaaNa'. In that He has described the meditation which can be followed by us as a model. It clearly says "Brahmaakhyam asyodbhavaadi hetubhiH swalalkshane" (WFsq 3\ wltfol ft$i$q-3smm) that is the Lord's creator-ship of this world is 'swalakshhaNa'C^sr^FT) meaning 'swaruupalakshhaNa' intrinsic quality. Therefore it is incorrect to say that the Lord is attribute-less when it is established that all the qualities and attributes are intrinsic nature of the Lord.

In addition the identity of jiiva and Brahman is not at all acceptable to Suutra. We have to understand the purpose of describing the 'lakshhaNa' (^T c T)of an object. When a person is described by a lakshaNa as the one who has hands and legs but does not have a tail, it helps us to identify a man different from another animal. The purpose of lakshhaNa is to identify an object as different from others. By pointing out the power to create, sustain, etc., this world as the 'lakshhaNa' of the Lord, which is absent in sentient and insentient entities, it is proved that He is different from them. Even Shree Shankaraachaarya (sft vi°h<mi4) while

Prathama Adhyaaya

59

interpreting this Suutra, 'it is only omniscient and omnipotent Lord who could create this world. It is impossible even to think that such a creation is possible by inanimate PrakRiti (TT^fcT) or jiiva who has limited knowledge and power according to Saankhya (W^) school of thought." By this 'lakshhaNa' which is not applicable to jiiva and jaDa (^T5) (sentient and insentient entity) he has shown a method to identify the Lord as entirely different from them. Hence the Suutra is quite against the theory of nirguNa (f^T) and Advaita.

Some have tried to interpret this Suutra without affecting the doctrine of Advaita. The supreme Brahman is not the cause for the creation and sustenance of the world. It is 'maayaa (^TFTT) alone which is responsible for all activities of the world. Brahman is locus for this 'maayaa' which is inexplicable (3#r^Ffcr). Brahman does not have any doer-ship or any power or any attribute. These are all illusory due to 'maayaa'. The Suutra is interpreted as Brahman is the locus for maayaa which is primordial cause of this world. The subject whether this world or the attributes of Brahman are imaginary due to 'maayaa' or real will be discussed separately in this book. We will keep this topic aside for now. When Suutra clearly says that Brahman is the creator of this world, where is the need of interpreting by stretching the imagination to provide a difficult meaning? Instead of forcing the interpretation to suite their theory, why should we not accept sincerely the direct meaning of the Suutra? Thus the Suutra clearly establishes that Brahman is not attribute-less and is entirely

60

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

different from animate and inanimate world. II 3Tf VII-N-nTHrclW 3# II

"Om! Shaastrayonitvaat Om!"

That the Lord Vishhnu (f^J) alone is the creator, sustainer, etc., of the world is established by all the Vedaas. But it is also declared by the scriptures authored by the Lord Shiva, (fm) HiraNyagarbha (%*wrf) etc that Gods such as Shiva, HiraNyagarbha and others are the cause for all the activities of the world. The seekers have attained so many worldly benefits by performing ritualistic activities prescribed in those scriptures. Hence we cannot ignore these scriptures treating them as invalid since these scriptures have been established as PramaaNaas regarding perceptual aspects. On the same basis, they also have to be recognized as valid in relation to God who created this world, and other super sensual aspects like Dharma and Adharma etc. Therefore should we not accept other Gods as the creators of this world according to those scriptures? Hence how can we decide that the Lord Vishnu alone is the creator of this world and only His inquire has to be conducted? This third AdhikaraNa (3rfech<u|) answers such objections.

We have to surrender to the Vedaas only to determine as to who is the creator of this world? Other than Vedaas by no other means of knowledge we can know the creator of this world who is beyond our perception. We cannot know the creator of this world through other scriptures written by different great authors. When the validity of those

Prathama Adhyaaya

61

scriptures itself is questionable, how can we determine the creator of this world through them? It might be true that the social benefits are obtained by performing ritualistic acts prescribed by them. At the same time there are also some instances where desired benefits are not secured even when those religious acts are performed. Because at times the fruits of actions are obtained accidentally, even if one gains results from these rituals can that make those scriptures invalid? Furthermore because of omissions and commissions during the ritual acts, at times we cannot achieve the desired benefits. Therefore even if the results are not accomplished, still will those scriptures be 'PramaaNaas? Thus it is difficult to confirm their validity under this confused state. In addition to this these scriptures declare mutual conflicting statements. If some scripture establishes the supremacy of the Lord Shiva, some other scriptures declare the Lord Ganapati, ("WrfcT) the Sun God or Goddess Durgaa (^rf) as the supreme beings. Many a time we accomplish our desired results by following these scriptures. Hence we get confused which scripture should be accepted and which one should be rejected. Therefore we have to enquiry the truth only on the basis of Vedaas. We might not have attained the fruits prescribed in the Vedaas on several occasions. But we do not get any doubt about the validity of the Veda for the reasons already explained that it is 'apourushheya'C^HW^). Hence it is not subjected to any human errors. We will get doubt about the qualification of an unknown ordinary doctor when the disease is not cured. Even when the medicines are taken

62

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

according to the prescription of a doctor, who is well known as an expert, if disease is not cured then we will conclude that the patient has not followed the diet. Similarly when results are not got from the scriptures where the validity is not confirmed, we will not get confidence of its validity. But the validity of the Vedaas cannot be questioned even if the desired fruits of the actions are not obtained after performing the ritual acts as prescribed by the Vedaas, since they are beyond the defects as they are apourushheyas. We will have to attribute the non-achieving the fruits to the omissions and commissions of the performer also. Therefore as the other scriptures have not reached the status of the Vedaas we cannot decide the creator of the world through them.

Logic Alone Cannot Be The Proof:

Why should we know the creator of this world only from the Vedaas? Can we not know Him with the help of logic? Just as pot, cloth and other created objects are made by some human being, this Universe also is created by some conscious entity. We may feel that there is no need of the Vedaas to establish this. But we cannot decide the creator of this world, who is super sensuous, only on the basis of the logic. There is a scope in the 'tarka' (cT^) for different imaginations. We are observing in the world that for any creation of any object a physical body is essential. Therefore we can also argue that there cannot be a creator of this world since He does not have any physical body. As many people joining together can build the house, why this world

Prathama Adhyaaya

63

is not created by many? Why should we accept that there is only a single creator for this world. We can observe every human being is subject to ignorance and inefficiency in different ways. So we can also argue that the creator of this world not necessarily be an omniscient and omnipotent. Thus there is a scope for different types of logic. Hence it cannot be decided only on the basis of logic that there is a creator of this world and that He is omniscient. When the Veda which is 'apourushheya' establishes the existence of the Lord, the logic gives full support, but logic alone cannot prove anything. Therefore it is only through the Vedaas one has to know the Lord Vishhnu, who is the supreme Brahman, as the creator of the world. Hence an enquiry of Him has to be conducted. This is established by this Suutra 'shastraynoitvaat'(3Tf ^ii^liHcollcf 3#). This Suutra means Shaastra(?TR5r) alone is the proof regarding the creator of this world.

The meaning of the word 'Shaastrayoni'(VII'N^Pl):

There are different views about the meaning of this Suutra. Some philosophers have interpreted that supreme Brahman is the author of the scriptures (W®). All the Vedaas are born from Him. But there is no need of explaining that here. When it is said that supreme Brahman is the creator of this entire world, one need not explain separately that He is the author of the Shaastra, which is a part of the world. If the Lord has written all the Shaastraas, which deal with all the objects, He should be omniscient only. To explain His omniscience, it is said that He is the creator of

64

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

all the Shaastraas. This explanation also is not right. Even to create this world, He has to know everything in the world. Against this background of Aagama (^TFPT) why should we not assume from the Vedaas that instead of the Lord Vishhnu even the other Gods can be the creators of this world? As an answer to this objection, the next Suutra (aphorism) begins as:

II 3rf TTrj UM^-nid^arfii*

"Om tattu samanvayaat Om"

We should not confirm that the apparent meaning of the Veda is the real meaning. In addition, we should not confirm the meaning of the Veda on the basis of other scriptures written by different personalities. The real meaning of the Veda should be understood through the Veda only. After examining and analyzing the statements before and after we should conclude the meaning of the Veda. In order to understand the meaning of any Vedic statement one should also refer the contextual statements that are before and after. The words that are repeatedly used in that context have to be examined to determine what they

*Vedas and apparently contradicting statements their in and the important role of the Brahmasutra - 'Tattusamanvayaath' in solving the problems by interpreting them consistently, harmoniously and without any contradiction.

The Vedic philosophers are confronted with many contradicting statements in the Vedaas which are regarded as non-authored by any human. Who is the creator of the universe? In the Vedaas some statements declare that it is Lord Vishnu while regarding to some others it is Hiranyagarbha or Lord Shiva etc. There is again a fierce controversy with regard to Bheda and Abheda. There are statements

Prathama Adhyaaya

65

emphasize. This process is called in turn 'Upakrama'

OTs^) 'Upasamhara'(dM^K) and 'abhyaasa'(3P*TO). The

combination of all these processes is called 'taatparyalinga'

which signify the identity between Brahman and Jiivaas. That Brahman is distinctly different from the Jiivaas and the world, and He is the Lord of the universe, is the purport of some other Vedic statements. Here the confusion is thus further confounded.

In the Vedaas there are some statements which say that Brahman is Nirguna, Niraakaara etc; (attributless and formless) yet some others refute this meaning and say the quite opposite to that as He is Saguna, Saakaara (with full of qualities and form) etc. Some say world is unreal and just superimposed on Brahman. Again some Vedic texts declare that the world or Prapancha is as much real as the Brahman. Here again some philosophers are able to find some lines in the Vedaas which imply that Brahman is not knowable even through the scriptures, and this baffles our imagination as to why and what is accomplished in the ultimate analysis by the Vedaas and though it has been accepted as Apourushheya? I have herein cited only a few examples of conflicting Vedic texts & statements. There are many such contradictions and interpretations by some philosophers with regard to the nature of Moksha (Liberation from this miserable life and enjoyment of eternal bliss) and the means to achieve it. Such serious contradicting statements in the various parts of the Vedaas only add to confusion although the real objective of the Vedaas is far from such an import. One can say that there cannot be any scope for any human defect in the Vedaas since they are Apourushheya. By this one can dismiss all other views opposed to Veda. But now even Vaidikaas, follewers of Veda are divided regarding the important topics in the Vedaas.

This is a great defect which can be technically termed as Vaakyabheda-dosha i.e. inconsistency in the authentic text. This makes me recollect a joke. A person sends greeting cards to all his friends and relatives and in all the cards the expression "I love You only" is printed. The meaning of the word 'only' loses its sanctity!

What is the purpose and use if the Vedaas are Apourushheya since they can be read and understood only by human beings at all levels, who are ignorant, not infallible and hence are liable to making mistakes in learning and finally can arrive at wrong conclusions? Establishing non-human-authorship of the Vedaas with so much of logical and effective arguments and analysis is not going to be fruitful in finding a

66

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

(ni<^i4fe^-), since they are the methods to determine the

purport of the Veda. In addition to this there are three more

'taatparyalinga-s' (cIIc^4Iq6^-iTh) called'apuurvata'Car^cn"),

solution to this serious problem. Though Vedaas are conveyed through the word of the mouth uninterruptedly from time immemorial, they have been made to various conflicting interpretations and these have resulted in various disputes among the Vaidikaas (followers of Vedaas) themselves.

Shree Vedavyaasa the ultimate authority who is virtually responsible for the conveyance of the Vedaas to the humanity and who authored various scriptures tailored to make seekers understood the purport of the Vedaas for their well being in this world, has given us the Brahmasutra which dispels the doubts and confusions. Every earnest student of Vedantha should make it a point to study every scriptural statement, analytically and exhaustively, in depth following the recognized clues or marks of import called 'taatparya lingaas' which will help him to arrive at a clear understanding of the Vedic texts and statements. This has been pointed out very clearly and effectively in

the fourth Sutra, '# TfrJ TFRRTH # ' in Brahmasutra. If the entire Brahmasutra is resting on the first three Suutraas, the first chapter of Brahmasutra is developed on the basis of the fourth Suutra '# TTrJ

^FF^n?T 3ff' Hence this is the keystone for the whole of the first chapter of the Brahmasutra. The fourth sutra, the fourth Adhikarana (topic), the first part (paada) and the first chapter of Brahmasutra are named as Samanvaya sutra, Samanvaya Adhikarana, Samanvaya Paada and Samanvaya Adhyaaya respectively. The nearest translation word for Samanvaya is 'proper exegetical correlation of various scriptural texts. Whichever subject conformed to these 'taatparya lingaas' only enjoys importance. Those factos are called

Upakramopasamharau Abhyasopoorvatha Phalam I

Arthavadopapattishcha Lingam Thatparyanirnye II

Shree Vedavyaasa has pointed out that Brahman alone is the central theme of the Vedaas. Such a conclusion can be arrived after only by applying samanvaya of the Vedic literature through application of 'taatparya lingaas' on various Vedic texts.

Prathama Adhyaaya

67

'phala'(W) and 'upapatti'CwrfrT). We have to determine the meaning of the Vedaas by examining the following s:

1) The meaning should have a novelty (^n4di)

2) The meaning should be conducive to obtain the desired fruit discussed in the Vedaas (W).

3) It should be meaningful when it is critically examined by logic OrafrO.

We should find the inner meaning of the Vedaas

The proving factors are:

B Upakrama and Upasamhara :

Relevance and consistency should be there between postulate and conclusion (commencement and end)

B Abhyaasa :

Emphasis of the central topic in different word in and through the text, (repetaion)

B Apoorvatha : (Novelty) 'Pramaananthara Avedyathvam' :

Uniqueness of the subject is that it is not known through other means of knowledge and it can be authoritatively determined finally through Vedas only.

B Phalam:

The purpose or fruitfulness or benefit of the subject presented in the text.

B Arthavaada or Stuthi : Glorification: (appreciative or depreciative statements)

The words of praise in favour of the central theme and words of censure in favour of ideas opposed to the central topic.

B Upapatti (reason) : Essential meaning arrived at through logical illustrations and examples.

The first Suutra of Brahmasutra

1) II #R" ! S^m\ sl^f^mi 3TTJT II describes the Lord as

68

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

through contextual description through illustrative example

in terms of stories and criticisms of opposing views. This

is called 'arthavaada' (^fsiT^) which is an additional

'taatparyalinga'. We should try to get the meaning of the

Vedaas by using all these seven methods, but not by our

intellectual acrobatics of interpretation. One cannot taste

the sugar cane by licking it. We can enjoy the juice only

when it is chewed. Similarly when we just glance at the

Vedaas we cannot get its real essence. We may get it only

after proper examination and intense study. Thus when Veda

full of infinite qualities and He has to be enquired into throuthout the Shaastraas.

The second Suutra

2) I I 3TT ^FfTroTW^lrT: 3RT 11 explains the definitions of Brahman as He is the creator, sustainer, destroyer, etc; of the world.

The third Suutra

3) I I 3qf W^frpTroTRT 3ff I I The enquiry of Brahman has to be conducted because He can be known through the Shaastra alone.

The fourth Suutra

4) II 3TT tTrJ ^FRRTTH 3TTI I which means that Brahman is the central theme or topic of all Vedantha Shaastraas.

Without following these steps, how can one settle this great controversy when different schools of though claim different themes as central. Unfortunately no author is available to clear our doubts directly. In philosophical field there are works which are commented by the authors to emphasis the subject matter. Hence our traditional Achaaryaas have agreed upon to follow separate method to arrive at conclusion whenever one is confronted with contradicting views. One has to be faithful to these guiding factors to determine the correct meaning of the apparantly conflicting Vedic statements.

A reader can find this classical method used in Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara in and through the text and enjoy it.

Prathama Adhyaaya

69

is studied using all these 'taatparyalinga-s', it will be established that it is only the Lord Shree Hari (Su ffr), who is the supreme Brahman, that has been primarily described.

To establish that Brahman is the creator of this world, where is the need to justify that He is described in all the Vedaas? is it not sufficient to synthesize only some Vedic statements, which explain the creator of this world? Such a question may arise. The aim of the scriptures is not only to establish that the Lord is the creator of the entire universe but also to teach that He is full of infinite qualities. That is His major characteristic. If the creator of this world is arrived at by interpreting only a few Vedic statements, then only a few qualities will be established in Brahman that are mentioned in those statements. To have the clear knowledge of the infinite qualities in Brahman, it has to be accepted that all the Vedaas describe only the Lord. This is what is explained by the Suutra by the words 'Sam anvayaat' C*W SFoRTcT). Anvaya(3T^T) means the seven 'taatparya linga-s' starting from 'Upakrama'O^WT), as discussed above. 'Sam' (Wt) means when these are properly examined, 'Sum' meaning all the Vedaas, 'anvayaat' (SF^zfFT) related only to the Lord. That is only the Lord is primarily described in the Vedaas, 'Sam anvayaat'. C*W SF^fTcT) Hence the indicated meaning of the Suutra (^J5T) is that the Lord Shree Hari (Sn ff?) is the creator of this world, possessing infinite qualities.

We have to face a big challenge when we establish that the Lord is described in all the Vedaas.

70

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

"If a word has to indicate an object the attributes that are implied by the word should be there in that object." We can call an object as beautiful if the attribute such as beauty is there in it. If Brahman is without any quality and attribute, how can words describe Him? Veda has established by ' Yato Vaaco nivartante'C^frf)" W$t IhoicW). That the Brahman is indescribable 'avaacya' (3M^T). The primary meaning of the word is called 'vaachya'(°TF^T). We call this country where we live as 'Bharatha'(^nTrT). The country is vaachyaartha(oTPEsn"2.f), primary meaning of the word Bhaarata(*l"R?r). When we say that Bhaaratha,(*TR?r) (India) has defeated another country, then it means the people of this country. This meaning is 'amukhyaartha (^omi^) or lakshyaartha' (e5^TT^) of this word. 'He is living on the Gangaa' C^^T) means he lives on the bank of the river Gangaa. This is another example for 'lakshyaartha' (indicative meaning). Thus how can all the Vedaas describe Brahman when He cannot be primarily describable by any word? It is like pushing a tumbler idly (<a.£l) into the mouth of a patient who is unable to drink even water. To answer this question the next Suutra follows.

"Om iikshhaternaashabdam Om"

We have to accept that the Lord is descried in all the Vedaas. All the believers know the Lord in general and conduct worship and prayers. The seekers have gained the special knowledge of God. Even the Vedaas have said that jiiva-s get the knowledge of God. How can we know God?

Prathama Adhyaaya

71

We cannot see Him through our eyes. It has already been explained that the logic cannot establish the Lord independently since logic can be opposed by counter arguments. Among the three PramaaNaas such as Pratyaksha, anumaana and aagama, (direct perception, logic and scriptures) since the Lord cannot be known by 'prayaksha' and 'anumaana', only left is 'aagama pramaaNa' (3WT <hhi u i) . Even if the Vedaas cannot describe Him, how can we know Him? Vedaas have declared emphatically that the Lord is knowable indeed. Hence we have to accept that He can be known primarily only through Vedaas.

Brahman Is Not Indescribable (arar^T) :

Even though the Lord is knowable through the Vedaas, He need not be necessarily known primarily. When it is said that 'house is on the river', it is understood that 'it is on the bank of the river? Similarly the Lord can be an indicative meaning of the Vedic words. When we hear any word the meaning which is conveyed immediately is primary meaning. It is also called vaachyaartha (crr^TT^). After observing that the primary meaning is not relevant, and if another object is understood related to the first meaning that is called 'amukhaartha'C^noqi^f) or 'lakshyaartha'. To the Lord by shabda (71^), He need not be 'vaachyaartha' (primary meaning). We can know Him even if He is 'lakshyaartha' (indicative meaning). The embodied self due to Prakriti (^fcT)and who is possessing attributes is directly described by the words. Since Brahman

72

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

is beyond all the attributes can be known indirectly as Lakshyaartha through the Vedaas. Thus though the nirguNa Brahman (f*i J j U| ^IFT) is not knowable primarily, He can be indicated by the Vedaas. This argument is also not correct. To know any object implied by the word, one has to know the object at some place and time. A person who does not know either the river or the river-bank, he cannot understand any meaning from the word 'river'. Thus to know the meaning of the word, the prior knowledge of that object is essential. To know the Brahman through the words of the Vedaas in any manner, His prior knowledge is required. But we do not know the Brahman by direct perception. For a question what is the meaning of the words-book, jar and light-we can answer by pointing out the objects that are perceivable in front of us. But we cannot answer a question as to who is Brahman or what is the meaning of the word 'Brahman' by pointing out Brahman. He is beyond of the logic. Therefore we have to use some other words to explain the meaning of the word Brahman. Again to explain these words we may have to use some other words. Thus we have to use simply a chain of words. But still we do not get any meaning of the words and all this usage of words becomes a waste.

Therefore all philosophers have adopted some method to convey the meaning of the new object. It is not possible to convey the meaning of new objects using single words such as heaven and God, which are not perceivable by other PramaNa-s. By using different words which convey the meaning of familiar objects and indicating interrelation

Prathama Adhyaaya

73

among them and using a complete sentence one needs to instruct others about the new objects. A question that who is God can be answered by using a complete sentence as 'one who is the creator of this world'. Three words can indicate the popular entities, world, creation and cause. Then by indicating their interrelationship, the complete sentence that 'one who is the creator of this world is God; gives the meaning of the word 'God'. 'Heaven means the uninterrupted flow of happiness bereft of any sorrow'. All these bunch of words by interrelating their meaning indicate that a particular happiness is heaven. But 'nirguNa' (fa J | U| ) Brahman of Advaita (•3fi*"rT) who is devoid of any relationship of any object or attributes is not at all a particular object. Therefore how can a complete sentence describe Him primarily? We have already explained that a single word cannot describe an attribute-less entity in any manner. Hence we should accept that the Vedaas describe the supreme Brahman who is beyond any empirical attributes and full of transcendental qualities. Otherwise no 'pramaaNa' will be available to indicate the Brahman, and all that is said about the knowledge of Brahman becomes meaningless. Therefore the Brahman who is the subject of knowledge must be knowable from Vedaas and we have to accept that he is also primarily knowable through the words.

An object though it is secondary meaning 'amukhyaartha' (^ j-^i i4) for some word, it should be primary meaning 'mukhyaartha' (*jom4). In a sentence 'there is a house on the river', the word river, though it

74

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

indicates 'amukhyaartha', that is the bank of the river, it must be (mukhyaartha) primary meaning for the word 'bank of the river'. Every nominative word conveys the meaning of the object with the help of 'vaachya vRitti' (W^ crfrT). There are different degrees of sweetness in milk, honey and jaggaryC 7 ^). We may not have the words to explain them. Still the different words explaining the different degrees of sweetness, are there in our old 'Paaka Shaastra'OTr^ ?TM). Though we are not able to describe them with particular words, we have no problem to call them by a general word 'sweet'. Therefore it is a mere imagination that there is an entity which is attribute-less and indescribable primarily by any word and it is only indicated by Vedaas by way of 'lakshaNaavRitti' (e5^FIT crfrT).

It is a method that is acceptable to all to interpret Vedaas and Upanishads using their primary meaning only. Scholars hesitate to assign indirect meaning to any single word. Still they will have to accept indirect meaning with a choice, when the direct meaning is difficult to account. But Shree Madhvacharya (sft *T%cii-cii4) questions why there is no hesitation to say that all the words in the Vedaas only indicate the Brahman indirectly and not a single word describes the Brahman primarily. He also explains that it is not al all the method of interpretation of Vedaas giving up the primary meanings and assigning indirect meanings to all the words of the Vedaas.

There are Vedic statements such as 'yato vaacho nivartante'O^Trfi" W^t < Fffi$Fn), which say that Brahman is

Prathama Adhyaaya

75

indescribable and no word explains Brahman primarily (through vaachya Vritti) (W^ °rfrT). How can we account such statements? This question remains to be answered. But we need to examine on the basis of logic whether these statements indicate Brahman as primarily indescribable entity. The statements such as 'yato vaacho nivartante'C^Tcf)" W$t r-ioirf-ri) etc., indicate Brahman by a word in the statement. If an entity is indicated by a single word it has to be described by a word primarily at some place. Thus is it not contradictory that accepting Brahman as 'Vaachyaartha of a word, again denying at the same moment that He is not 'Vaachaartha'?. In that case what is the real meaning for these statements? The Lord is the most wonderful entity. We get stunned when we hear His greatness. We cannot describe His wonderful glories and attributes in full. He is indescribable. In this meaning only the Vedaas have stated that Brahman is indescribable. But it does not mean that He is absolutely not describable.

Those who do not accept the proposition that all the words of the Vedaas describe Brahman, who is not knowable through 'Pratyaksha' and Anumaana' with the 'vaachyavRitti', have attempted to deny this in some other form. Their argument is that Veda does not deal with the Brahman who is attribute-less. The supreme Brahman is not knowable by the Veda. Veda deals with conscious entity possessing empirical qualities. It is this conscious entity with empirical qualities is only the primarily knowable entity, by the Veda. But not the supreme Brahman. The knowable object is called by name 'aatmaaa'. In

76

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

philosophical terms 'aatmaa' means the Lord. Veda says that by the knowledge of the 'aatmaan' the seekers attain liberation, including the other names of the Lord such as Vishhnu, Hari, Narayana (f°r^, Fft, HKH u l) along with Brahman. By knowing the 'aatmaaa' possessing empirical qualities the 'Moksha' cannot be attained. Veda also says that ' tamaivekam jaanatha aatmaanam anyaa vaaco vimunchatha'. (?P^ ^R*T SfTrRFW W%\ W^ fo$8«0 Obtain the knowledge of the aatmaan, and give up all others. If Aatmaa possessing empirical qualities only knowable in the Veda, and when it is also said that all others have to be rejected, it implies that the supreme Brahman who is beyond the empirical qualities should also be rejected. Is it possible to say that the Lord who is the most desirable should be rejected? When this statement is analyzed from different angles we can understand that only the supreme Brahman is knowable. Only by His knowledge one can attain liberation. The real meaning of the Veda is that other than Brahman every thing has to be given up. Therefore we have to accept that all the words in the Veda describe Brahman primarily (by Vaachaya vRitti) (oTF^T ^irT), since it is impossible to know Him through other than the Veda.

When it is said that other than the Lord we have to give up all others, we get confused whether we have to give up even Chathurmukha Brahma, Rudra C^sO and other Gods, those who are superior and bless us. Should we not worship and meditate on them? We have to definitely worship other Gods also who are superior and regulate all the activities in the world being the presiding deities of the

Prathama Adhyaaya

77

objects of the world. But there is only one supreme Lord. He is called supreme Brahman. He is only called by the names Vishhnu Narayana (f^T, hkn u i) etc. We have to worship all other presiding Gods as they are belonging to His ministry and regulating the worldly activities under His command.

There are some more proofs to establish that the Veda describes the Lord primarily. The word 'nirguNa' (f^T) (attribute-less) is mentioned in some parts of the Veda. The word 'nirguNa' cannot indicate the conscious entity or jiiva who has empirical qualities. Therefore there is no other option than accepting that it is supreme Brahman alone who is beyond the empirical qualities is 'vaachyaartha' for the word 'nirguNa'. No dull headed will say that the word 'nirguNa' conveys the meaning of ' saguNa'C*FpT). In addition it is said in the Upanishads 'puurNameva avashishhyate' (^ u Moiicii*Nrl) which means that during 'pralaya' (SI^T) 'total desolation' onlypuuraNa entity remains and all others get desolved. 'saguNa' entity cannot have this 'puurNatva' (fullness). According to Advaita(3T|?T) terminology, 'saguNa' is limited entity due to 'maaya'Ow). Unlimited and attribute-less entity that is supreme Brahman alone is full. An object, which is related to 'prakRiti'(M^Pd) cannot exist even during 'pralaya'. Therefore it is very clear that the Upanishads have not described 'saguNa' entity as full or complete which is not dissolved anywhere during 'pralaya'. It is very obvious that it meant only supreme Brahman who is beyond even PrakRiti. Veda is describing the Lord by words 'nirguNa'

78

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

'PuurNa' etc., which cannot be accounted by any other conscious entity. Hence it is very clear that it is absolutely irrelevant to say that the Lord is not described anywhere in the Vedaas by 'vaachyavRitti'.

In reality it is not right to categorize Brahman as SaguNa and nirguNa. There is no base to say that basically pure Brahman becomes saguNa due to the contact of Maayaa. The pure and complete Brahman is only one who is beyond 'prakRiti' and who does not have any influence of 'Maayaa'. He is alone by nature omniscient, possessing all attributes and creator, sustainer etc., of the world. The BrahmaSuutra(si &*$ ) and the Upanishads have instructed to the enquiry of such Brahman alone. Only by His knowledge one can attain liberation. Saying that such supreme Brahman is not described in the Shaastraas and imagining the 'saguNa' Brahman who gets influenced by 'maayaa' as the one who is described in the 'Shaastraas' is a very strange and baseless imagination. It is not right to imagine baseless object by giving up natural meaning of the Vedaas and denying the object, which is proved by 'PramaaNaas'. Thus it will be established without any conflict that all the words of the Vedaas describe His qualities primarily since Brahman is full of infinite attributes.

Examination Of Other Interpretations:

Some interpret this AdhikaraNa(3rf^"RTT T T) in a different way. In contrast to the theory that Brahman is the creator, sustainer etc., Saankyaas (-Hig^ii:) have proposed

Prathama Adhyaaya

79

that it is 'prakRiti' alone that is the creator, sustainer etc., of the world. But Upanishads have described that primordial cause of this world saw and thought to create this world. The insentient PrakRiti cannot have the knowledge. Hence it cannot think and plan to create this world. The Upanishads have called this creator of the world as 'aatmaaa'. The Upanishads also described that by the knowledge of the creator of this world, liberation can be attained. The inanimate PrakRiti cannot be treated as 'aatmaaa'. And liberation is impossible by the knowledge of inanimate entity. For all these reasons, PrakRiti cannot be the creator of this world. This AdhikaraNa (3#1cRot) establishes that it is the supreme Brahman alone who is conscious entity, is the creator of this world. This is how some interpret this Suutra.

We have no objection regarding the reality of the theory, which is proposed here. There is no difference of opinion to say that it is Brahman alone who is conscious entity, is the creator of this world but not the insentient 'PrakRiti'. But it is difficult to say that these Suutraas mean to establish this aspect here. By indicating 'PrakRiti' for the word 'ashabda'(3T?K') in the Suutra, it is interpreted that 'PrakRiti' is not described in the Vedaas. All the philosophers have accepted that 'PrakRiti' is described in all the Vedaas and 'PuraaNaas'. If that is the case, how can it be proper to say that it is not described in the Vedaas?

More over it is not so appropriate to refute the 'prakRit' of Saankhya's school of thought in this part

80

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

(paada1 ^). The detailed examination of different schools of thought is conducted in the second part of the second chapter of BrahmaSuutra. In that part the Saankhyaa theory is also examined. It is not relevant to discuss it in this first-part. An important question arises in this context. It was said before that all the words of the Vedaas describe the Lord primarily since there is no scope for any relationship such as 'vaachya vaachaka bhaava' (w^ W^ *IR) between Brahman and the words of the Vedaas, Brahman cannot be described by any word primarily (vachya vRitti) (^T^T cffrT). Without answering this question how can we account for all the Vedaas describing the Lord? Therefore this question has to be answered at first. Then only we can answer different questions related to each statement of the Vedaas as to who is the creator of this world etc., Answering the objection related to the consistency of the entire Veda is only proper. In this back ground we can understand the specialty of the interpretation of Shree Madhvacharya.

Instead of saying that all the Vedaas describe the Lord as full of infinite qualities directly (by VaachyavRitti cn^iri), some say that Vedaas indicate nirguNa (fa J j U| ) Brahman indirectly through 'lakshhaNaa vRitti' (^m ^irT). This has been refuted very strongly by Shree Madhvachrya. There is absolutely no proof regarding this nirguNa Brahman(^r^T WF0. The 'nirguNa' entity cannot be an object of experience. Those who accept NirguNa Brahman have admitted that He is beyond the means of knowledge such as 'pratyakshha' and 'shabda'. Their theory is that 'nirguNa' Brahman is not knowable by any means of

Prathama Adhyaaya

81

knowledge. Why should we establish the relationship between Vedaas and 'nirguNa' Brahman which is baseless. The word 'samanvaya' in the Suutra conveys the relationship of primary meaning between the Vedaas and Brahman. If Brahman is the indirect meaning of the Vedaas how can we regard it as 'samanvaya'? it would not be a meaningful 'samanvaya'. That the Lord possessing infinite qualities is described in the Vedaas and it is only the real doctrine.

II 3Tf MfdUWMId arf II

"Om! Gati Saamaanyaat Om!"

Vishhnu is described when we examine the known Vedaas thoroughly, how can we know that the rest of the Vedaas which we have not come across, describe the same Lord Vishnu? The Vedaas are infinite. Studying all the Vedaas is equal to crossing the ocean of desolation. When that is the case, how can we decide that the Lord is described in all the Vedaas just after studying a few parts of the Vedaas and without knowing other parts of them? Such a question will arise. But there is no scope for such a doubt regarding the Vedaas. Veda is regarded as supreme means of knowledge and there is no possibility for any errors since it is 3-1 hW"^ (non authored by any human being). All parts of Vedaas are valid. Hence there cannot be conflicting descriptions among the different parts of the Vedaas. When both the parts are valid, there is no scope for any conflict or difference between them. All the Vedaas collectively and consistently describe in unison the supremacy of the

82

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Lord. It may be true that Vedaas are boundless like an ocean of desolation (P^T W$). But the entire ocean is just a speck in the Lord. Shree Veda Vyaasa is an incarnation of such a great Lord. He said, "There is unison and consistency among the Vedaas. We can understand the purport of the unknown Vedaas on the basis of known Vedaas that we have studied." Hence there is no doubt at all. The rest of the Vedaas also teach about the Lord similar to the part of the Vedaas that are known. He is knowable from all the Vedaas.

I I 3Tf ^H^Mi|1s«mTTrT 3?f I I

"Om! Aanandamayobhyaasaat Om!"

After solving all the objections against the theory that Brahman is describable in all the Vedas BrahmaSuutra in the entire chapter gives examples of different Vedic statements and establishes that it is only the Lord that is described in the Vedaas by critically analyzing from all aspects.

In the Bhruguvalli(*Fpl%)-section of the taittiriiya Upanishad (cI-ckI^]"-^^) the words such as Annamaya, (3}?ttft) PraaNamaya(mTTTTFT), Manomaya(TFThR^T), Vijnanamaya (Toi?iMJ-M)and Anandamaya (str^PT) are mentioned. When we observe those words we get the impression that they are describing some empirical objects. When we use the word 'gomaya'OiWi) it gives us the meaning of some empirical object such as cow-dung. Similarly the words 'annamaya' (3T?frt) etc., may describe

Prathama Adhyaaya

83

sheath (kosha-°ffcr) associated with body or jiiva (^fr?) who is living in the 'annamaya' shareera (3T5FRT ?RT?)-body which is nurtured and nourished by food) but it is not correct to say that all the statements of the Upanishads describe only the supreme Brahman.

This gives a satisfying answer to this objection. The annamaya, (aT?FPT) PraaNamaya, (TTWFFT) manomayaC^PTt^FT), vijnaanamaya (foTTTT-T^T^T) and aanandamaya(3TFF^R^T) that are described are not the sheaths of the body. They are all different forms of the Lord. While describing them the Upanishads called them Brahman. Other than the Lord no one can be regarded as Brahman. The word 'Brahman' means only the Lord. Since the Upanishad uses the word Brahman along with all those five words, they should be only the names of the Lord. Just because of the words such as annamaya (3T5PR^T) they need not be empirical entities. Like any golden ornament is recognized as 'suvarNamaya'(<i°i u iH<0 and the sun is full of effulgence as 'prakaashamaya' (mi^i^ij-n) the Lord who is full of bliss can be regarded as aanandamaya (^m^h<m). As the Lord is the embodiment of knowledge who knows the whole universe in every detail in general and in particular, He is called 'manomaya'C^PTt^T^T) and 'vijnanamaya'(ta?iHH^). He is also called 'praaNamaya' (WWT) since He is the cause for all activities of the world. We may be curious to know as to how He has become 'annamaya'(3T5FPT). As the beings depend on the food, which is 'anna' (3T5T), the world depends on the Lord hence He is called 'anna'. Like the food He alone nourishes every

84

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

being. The word 'anna' means one who swallows all which means he is the destroyer of the all. During 'maha pralaya' Ow ^e^T) He destroys every thing. Therefore He is called 'annamaya'.

Brahman Means Vishhnu:

So far we have explained that the words such as annamaya(3T?Fm"), aanandamaya, (^H-qj-N)etc, are used along with Brahmanshabda(slWr^), hence they refer to Brahman only .

'Ritam satyam Parm Brahma Purushham Krishna pingalam I uurdhvaretam viruupaakshham shankaram Neelalohitam II'.

In this Upanishad instead of the Lord Shree Hari, the Lord Shankara C?f^?)is described as the supreme Brahman. If that is so, how can we determine that Shree VishhNau alone is Brahman. Some raise this question. But in this 'verse' (*$&>) also Lord Vishhnu alone is referred to as supreme Brahman. In the first part of this 'Shloka' the word 'param Brahma' 07? ^FT) is used. In the second part the word Shankara is used. The first and second part of the Shloka do not refer to the same object. In the first part of the 'Shloka' the object is described as black and red colored by the word 'Krishna pingalam'(^^T ft^^T). If the same object is intended, in the second part of the same 'Shloka'

Prathama Adhyaaya

85

there is no need to repeat the same description using different words such as 'neelalohitam' ('ilewlfeci). Therefore the Shloka has described Shree Hari who is the supreme Brahman as 'Krishna pingalam', black and red in the first part, and in the next part Lord Shankara has been described as 'aparabrahma' (WR WT) who is meditating on the supreme Brahman. Only when the Shloka is interpreted in this style one can solve the problem of repetition. In addition, there is one more word 'BrahmaadhipatiH' (^TlftrafcT:)is used in this context. This means one who is the Lord of the Brahman. It also gives another meaning that Brahman is his Lord

In this context, we can refer an example mentioned in the Vedaas and 'puraNa-s'(^l u llin). Vishvaruup (fsran^T) had deceived deva-sO^TT:) acting as their priest. Then Lord Indra could not but destroy him. The enraged sage TvashTRi(r^r), father of Vishvaruupa, performed a sacrifice to have a son who could kill Indra. The sage called VRitraasura(^TCJT), who was born in the sacrificial fire as Tndrashatru' (ssw-j) having the meaning in his mind that he is the killer of Indra. When he pronounced this word in a hurry he pronounced it Tndrashatru' with 'swaritaswara' (wftcKcK) (medium intonation) at the end. According to grammatical rules the meaning got changed. Instead of he becoming the killer of Indra, Indra himself became his killer. The meaning of the word changes due to the difference in the intonation. Similarly in the word 'BrahmadhipatiH' there is the intonation of 'swarita' at the end of the word. Because of this the meaning of the word changes as

86

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Brahman is the Lord of the person who is described in the second part. If the Lord Shankara is described as the supreme Brahman in the second part, can He have another Lord? Hence the first part only refers to the supreme Brahman. The second part describes the Lord Shankara who is engaged in meditation of the supreme Brahman. Only when it is interpreted that supreme Brahman is the Lord of Shankara in the second part, all these statements can be accounted. Thus by this examination it is confirmed that the word Brahman refers only to the Lord Hari. On account of this 'annamaya, aanandamaya, (stsR^t. 3TR^T3") etc., should mean only supreme Brahman.

Some raise an objection against the above interpretation. It is said above that words 'annamya, aanandamaya, etc: describe the Lord. But the Upanishad describes the creation that space(3TR^P?T) is born from (aatmaa) (3n?RT) from space the wind, in this way fire, water, earth, herbals, food and the bodies, and at the end of this part by pointing directly at the human body, it indicates that 'savaa eshha purushhonnarasamayat', ('^ToTT t^T ^ql?K*W<4ld) this body is 'annarasamaya'(3H?K*W<iO. The essence of the objection is that instead of the Lord, it is perceivable human body that is indicated by annamaya. This objection is raised without knowing the subtler meaning of the Upanishad. One can understand the inner meaning of the Vedaas and the Upanishads, only when the subtler meaning is also understood along with the grosser meaning of the statements. In the Upanishads it is not only the empirical objects that are described starting from

Prathama Adhyaaya

87

'Aakaasha, Vaayu, agni'(3TT5Fr?r, W^, 3#) to the point of 'Anna' (3T?r)and 'purushha'Oj^T). The Upanishadic words describe not only the empirical objects such as space, earth, food, and bodies, they also describe the presiding deities of those objects who are regulating them along with their effulgent forms. In the process they also convey the meaning of the Lord who is presiding all these and independently governing them.

These entities such as the Lord, the presiding deities and the empirical objects are all referred earlier. Among all those entities, the Upanishad specifically indicating the Lord as 'Sa vaa eshha' C*T «n" tt^) and describing Him annara-samaya(3T?iT?Fra"). He is the one who is referred in the context from the beginning to the end. If this physical body is regarded only as annamaya, the Lord is considered as 'annarasamaya,' which means he is the essence in 'annamaya' (Physical body). The real meaning of the word 'annamaya, is supreme among all. It is absolutely applicable to the Lord. Though He is not perceivable He is described as if He is in front of us, since He is present in the body which is right there. Though our heart is covered by our shirt, pointing at our shirt we say that this is the heart. But shirt is not our heart. Everybody understands that heart is inside the body, which is covered by the shirt. Similarly words 'ayam' 'eshhaH'(3T5f, t^T:) indicate the body and describe it as annamaya. One should not misunderstand that body is 'annamaya. We should understand the inner meaning of the words that is the Lord alone who is 'annamaya,' who is present in all the physical bodies.

88

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

There is one more reason that we should know why the Lord is ' Anandamaya'. The Upanishad establishes that the creator of the world should be full of bliss. The Lord, who has engaged Himself in the activities, such as creation, protection, regulation etc., of the world, should be full of infinite bliss. There are four reasons for a person to get involved in action.

l.To get pleasure 2) to get rid of sorrows 3) out of ecstasy of pleasure and 4) out of intense pain. This is what we observe normally. People are engaged in worldly activities to gain pleasure through sense gratification. They take medicines to remove their pains. Out of ecstasy of pleasure people dance and laugh. They cry or weep out of intensive pain. Thus we can attribute any of the four reasons for people to act. The Lord who is omnipotent and perfect has every thing He needs. He is not troubled by any pains. Therefore He need not act either to get rid of pain or to gain pleasure. Since He has no pain, there is no scope even to imagine that He can act because of some intensive pain. Therefore the Lord has acted only out of ecstasy of total bliss but not for any other reason. The Upanishads have explained the relationship between the activities of the world and the bliss 'aanandamayatvaat (SFFF^Rc^TcT) by saying the Lord should be full of infinite bliss to have engaged Himself in such a marvelous and great creation of the world. Hence it is only the supreme Brahman who is the creator of this world to become 'Aanandamaya'(^n-qj-Ki) but not the physical bodies, which are modifications of Prakriti, the primordial cause.

Prathama Adhyaaya

89

There is one more reason to say that the words such as 'annamaya' etc, describe the Lord only. In the beginning of this section of Upanishad after referring the supreme Brahman as 'Brahma-vidaapnoti param (^pfcKTSftfcT W[) and describing His form first as 'satyam, jnaanam, anantham Brahma' etc., and then explaining the process of how the supreme Brahman has created this world, there is this description of 'annamaya; Praanamaya (3TWT, WWT) etc. Therefore we have to observe very carefully that the Lord who was referred in the beginning is the main subject in the context of the creation. There is relevance to describe other objects. We have to know the specific attributes of the Brahman to identify him as distinctively different from other objects. We identify the moon as different from the stars by the characteristic light that is not available in the stars. Similarly to know the Lord. Who is absolutely different from the other entities of the world, the Vedas have described the three special qualities of Brahman which exclusively belong to Him such as 'Satya , jnana, ananta' (WQ, W\, 3T^rt). Here the word 'satya' (M) does net mean only the existence of the entity, which is the cause for all existents. The real meaning of the word 'satya' is one who creates the objects and provides them existence. We assume that the creation of this world is through five primordial elements. In the beginning of this section the process of the creation of this world is described to establish that the Lord alone is the creator, having created these five primordial elements and entering them to activate them. The word 'satya' means one who gives life and takes it a

90

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

way, 'samhaaraka' (3N?R°h). In a statement that 'He is' in the sense that He is alive. According to Sanskrit dictionary of root words, this word 'satya' is used for an object, which can be destroyed. From the root 'shat' the word 'satya' is born. Thus if the word satya means which is cause for life and destruction, the word (annamaya) (sfWT) also means the same. We have already explained that the word 'annamaya' means that the Lord is destroyer of all and the entire world is depending on Him. Therefore the 'annamaya' section is the interpretation of the word 'satya'. For the root 'Shat', which is embedded in the word 'satya', there is a meaning of 'spandana'Cw^T) (vibration) and 'calana' C^eR) (movement). Hence the word 'satya' also means 'vishvaceshhTaka' (feRaF^E^) one who activates the world. The word 'praaNamaya' (WWT) is the description of the same word 'satya' as they mean the same.

As the Lord is the knower of all and is the embodiment of general and specific knowledge, the Upanishad has described Him as the form of knowledge which is His second particular character. Both the words, 'manomaya' OnfcraOand ' vijnanamaya' (I<=i$ihh«0 indicate that the Lord has full knowledge of every object. Thus the Manomaya and Vijnaanamaya sections are the interpretations of 'Jnaanam' (|FW). The third characteristic of the Lord is the infiniteness. The word 'aanandamaya' (3TFF^R^T) explains infiniteness. If there is anything lacking, He cannot have full bliss. If He does not have the required objects it results in decrement in His happiness. The Lord is 'aanandamaya' His bliss is full and absolute. Therefore

Prathama Adhyaaya

91

there is no scope for anything lacking in Him. There is no limited-ness in Him. He is infinite. The word 'aanandamaya' establishes that He is perfect and infinite. Thus the three intrinsic qualities of the supreme Brahman which are mentioned in the beginning of the Upanishad are described by the section of the creation as well as in the sections of 'annamaya, praaNamaya, vijnaanamaya and aanandamaya. In the light of this background, it is impossible to describe anything other than Brahman.

Teaching of Bhruguvalli (^»fpr%):

There is one more reason to say that the words 'annamaya' etc., describe the supreme Brahman. The next part called 'Bhruguvalli' of the 'taittireeya Upanishad' (cfark 3qftra?T), VaruNa (°R^) teaches his son sage "Bhrugu" (*PJ) that 'annamaya' etc., are different forms of the Brahman and instructs him to meditate on that aspect. In this case how can we say that 'annamaya' etc., are not Brahman? In Brahmavalli, which is the first part of this Upanishad, the words such as 'annamaya', 'praaNamaya' are used (without the may at pratyayaOT^r? ^Tr^T)). There is no relation between these two parts. These two parts are describing different entities independently. Thus some argue. This is also incorrect. In Bhruguvalli the final result of meditation is described as that Jiiva will go to the different forms of Brahman such as 'annamaya'. If someone meditates on 'anna' and 'PraaNa', jiiva cannot approach some other object different from them. All have accepted that the result of meditation is to reach the object of one's

92

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

meditation. Therefore though there is some slight difference in the words such as 'anna' 'PraNa' and 'annamaya' and 'praaNamaya' in the two parts, one has to accept that they describe the same object similar to the words Bala and Balaraama, Bheema and Bheemasena describe the same two objects respectively. All those Upanishadic words describe the supreme Brahman alone and not empirical objects in the both the parts of this Upanishad. It is described that the seekers approach the forms of Brahman, 'annamaya, aanandamaya etc., as a result of their meditations after their death. A seeker after leaving this empirical body, how can he approach the forms of Brahman such as annamaya etc? Can we say that this is the fruit of meditation? The seeker who has approached the forms of 'annamaya' etc., will attain Mokshha and enjoy bliss. This also is stated in the Upanishads. Jiiva who has got into this empirical body, cannot get such a status. "The seeker does not approach the forms such as 'annamaya' etc., He will go further giving up the empirical body." Thus some people have tried to interpret them while establishing their theory. But in both the parts of the Upanishad the words such as 'Upasankramya' 'Upasankramati' are used. They do not have the meaning of 'crossing them and going further', according to any grammatical rules. Leaving the natural meaning of the words and imagining such a different meaning out of compulsion is not correct. It becomes clear that the seeker has given up this body when it is said that he is dead and gone. So where is the need to say that he will cross the empirical bodies such as "annamaya' etc.,?

Prathama Adhyaaya

93

Hence in both the passages of the Upanishad we have to identify the entities such as 'annamaya', etc., as supreme Brahman.

Let us examine further that it is Brahman alone which is described in the subsequent parts of Bhruguvalli of the Upanishad. The sage Bhrugu approaches his father the god VaruNa and requests him to teach him the Brahman. VaruNa teaches him the 'anna, PraNa, etc., as Brahman. Bhrugu meditates on one of them and realizes that. He goes back to his father again, and explains his accomplishments, gets another form of Brahman. Thus the Upanishad has explained that Bhrugu realized all the forms of Brahman by meditations as instructed by VaruNa. When Bhrugu inquired about the supreme Brahman, VaruNa taught him 'Anna' 'PraNa' (sfiT, STFT) etc.,. Hence it is very clear that ' PraNa' etc., are different forms of supreme Brahman. Because he reaches annamaya, etc., as a result of his meditation, it is clear that 'anna' and 'annamaya' are not different. We can also confirm that they are not empirical objects since Bhrugu realized those entities after sever meditation. To know the empirical objects, one does not have to meditate on them.

A doubt may arise here. When Brahman was inquired about and answer was given in terms of 'anna' 'PraNa' etc., how can it be confirmed that they are the forms of the Brahman? When it is asked 'where is the moon in the sky ?', we point out at a branch of a tree. That means, if one looks in the direction of that branch, he can see the

94

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

moon. Just as an instrument to know the moon the branch of the tree is shown, with a view to know the supreme Brahman who is present in us in a subtler form, the inner entities such as 'anna' 'praaNa' etc., have been described. When it is answered in the format, why should it be only the supreme Brahman?

Instead of giving direct meaning to the Upanishad, why do we have to imagine such different interpretations? When Bhrugu inquired about Brahman why should VaruNa answer in a confusing manner instead of teaching the nature of Brahman directly? As we say that moon can be seen in the direction of the branch, could he not say clearly that through 'anna,praNa' etc., Brahman can be realised? When it is possible to give simple interpretation to the Upanishads it is not right to give round about meaning. When students ask questions about any object, one should answer them directly and explain them other methods of how to know that object. This is the traditional method to teach the truth. Violating such a rule it is not correct to imagine that VaruNa has answered Bhrugu in a confusing manner.

The Sage Bhrugu received teaching from his father VaruNa and meditated on each forms of Brahman, such as 'Anna' 'PraNa' etc., He returned back to VaruNa and requested him to teach him again. This indicates that Bhrugu was taught earlier 'Anna, PraNa' etc., are not Brahman. For example one asks for gold, and on receiving it he gets it examined. If he approaches the same person and asks for gold again, it is clear that what he got first was not real

Prathama Adhyaaya

95

gold. The same logic can be applied here also. Thus some argue. This argument also does not hold any water. It is said in the Upanishad that Bhrugu, after meditating on "Anna, PraaNa' etc; says "annam Brahmeti vyajaanaat' (315[JT staler o*h Hid) "PraaNamBhrahmeti vyajaanaat' (WFT 5i^fd cq^niq) thus he has declared that he realized supreme Brahman. Realizing that it was not Brahman, if he came back with the idea to get further teaching it could be said that he would have known that "Anna PraaNa etc; are not Brahman. But it is clearly said that he had realized on meditation that "anna praaNa are Brahman. Then what is the reason for him to come back to his father again after realization of Brahman? Bhrugu by the grace of his Guru meditated on the form of "Anna, "PraaNa; etc; of the supreme Brahman and realized the truth. With the sense of gratitude, he wanted to convey this to his Guru and to receive his permission to meditate on another form of Brahman. For this purpose he approved his Guru again and again. When Brahman was enquired, all the six entities such as "Anna(3T?r), PraaNa(PTFT), cacchushh(^^[:), shrotraCsffa), manasC^FT:), and vaak(oTT^) were mentioned. These six entities are different forms of the Lord as annamaya, praaNamaya, cacchurmaya, shrotramaya, monomay and vijnaanamaya respectively. We can learn from the Upanishad that Bhrugu has included "Vijnaanamaya' and "Anandamaya' along with the above six forms for his meditation. Thus the eight forms of the Lord such as "Annamaya' etc; have been instructed for meditation. We can also learn that in "Vaadhuula shaakha'

96

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

(^T^ ?nw) of veda that all the eight forms have been clearly mentioned at one place. The vedic words describe the Lord as one who can see, hear and speak of all. In this way, it is convincing by this analysis that in both the parts of the Upanishad only the different forms of the Lord are described, but not either empirical sheaths or Jiivaas.

To confirm that Brahman is "Aanandamaya' one more objection need to be resolved. It is said in the Upanishad that "Brahma puccham pratishtaa' (m W^ RfrlST) that Brahman is a part of "Anandamaya' if that is the case how is it possible that Brahman alone is "Anandamaya? This question remains to be answered. When we analyze this we have to carefully pay attention for the description of glories of the Lord in the "puraaNaas". When the Lord ShreemanNarayana ($J)h?ikn u i) incarnated as Shree Krishna (SHf^T), He sent to the earth a small part of black hair from his transcendental form. That has taken the incarnation of Krishna. But Lord Shree Krishna has revealed several times his infiniteness and universal form. He has shown to Yashodaa (^iki) the whole universe in his small mouth. To Arjuna, he has shown his universal form, which is the base for this world. Lord Narayana is also perfect. His small part Shree Krishna is also perfect. All these wonders are natural with the Lord. There is no difference between Him and His parts.

C\ C\ "s

"PuurNamadaH PuurNamidam..."

The Lord is full and His part is also full. Anandamaya and His part are not at all different. Both of them are perfect and they are totally identical with the nature of Brahman. Though the object is the same, due to its intrinsic power, all the empirical transactions as different entities are accountable. With this power of Visheshha(fofYfa) only, we can account for the identity between the object and its limbs, as well as the five forms such as "annamaya' etc; for a single Brahman.

Some have attempted to interpret these statements that they convey the meaning of identity of Jiiva and Brahman. Starting from "Annamaya' till the end of Aanandamaya-all that is mentioned earlier are called as ShaareerafaRk). Other than Jiiva no one can have relation with the body. Here some other aspects are also described such as relation between the body, limbs etc. The qualities of the Lord such as omniscient, omnipotent and giver of Mokshha (^fter) are described. How can we accommodate both of these descriptions? For that the only option is to accept the identity of Jiiva and Brahma. Then only we can accommodate the attributes of Jiiva and glories of Brahman in one entity. Hence they view that the essence of the Upanishad is the identity of Jiiva and Brahman. But the aphorism, bhedavyapadeshaat' (*k<*w<vifiici) refutes such a theory. The Upanishad also says "sayaschaayam purushhe, yaschasaavaaditye' fa *T&ra*T v$§, ^micnf^) that the

98

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

same Lord, being in the sun etc; who are superior conscious entities and in Jiivas who are embodied souls, is governing. By this it only says the difference between Jiiva-s and the Lord. Hence it is not correct to interpret to establish identity. Though the difference between Jiiva and Brahman is mentioned here it only means the empirical difference which exists only at the state of "Samsaara' (MR) After realizing the Brahman in that absolute state it will not remain - this is how Advaitins interpret. But Upanishad declares the separate existence of Jiiva and Brahman. Jiiva experiences his self bliss along with Brahman. "Saha BrahmaNaa Vipaschitaa' faF WT^TT fsprfkcTT) thus it is only difference^) of Jiiva and Brahman that is described here. It would not be illusory which exists even in the state of liberation. Hence the Upanishads declare the difference of Jiiva and Brahman without giving any room for any kind of doubt. Even when it is so clear, some have attempted to establish the identity of Jiiva and Brahman using baseless logic. Such super sensuous entities have to be established on the basis of experience and the Vedaas but not only on the basis of tarka (rl3») or logic. The baseless logic can mislead us in different directions. Therefore we have to be careful while using the logic.

Starting from Annamaya to Aanandamaya all the five forms are not of the Lord. They are all empirical entities. The supreme Brahman is different from all these. Such theory of Advaitins has been examined in detail. When the Lord Veda Vyaasa has clearly said in the Suutra that Aanandmaya, is Brahman, it is not correct to say against it

Prathama Adhyaaya

99

that Aanandamaya is not Brahman. Aanandamaya also has some locus and that is Brahman. This theory also is absolutely unacceptable to BrahmaSuutra.

According to VishishhTaAdvaita, (fsrfwTtrT) Aanandamaya is Brahman. But they do not accept annamaya, praaNamaya, manomaya and vijinaahamaya are Brahma. They are empirical objects. On the basis of Brahma Shabda (?P^), it has been established in the BrahmaSuutra that Aanandamaya is Brahman. The same Brahma Shabda has been used along with annamaya, praaNamaya, monomaya and vijnaanamaya. If Annamaya etc., are not accepted as Brahman even though Brahmashabda is used along with them, how can we establish that Aanandamaya is Brahman on account of Brahmashabda? Instead of applying the same rule to all the five words, it is not correct to change the rule according to one's convenience. Therefore it is only real siddhanta (fesTRT) (final judgement) that the Lord alone is described from the five words annamaya etc. and all the other words of the vedas. Similarly after examining different vedic statements thoroughly, it has been established in the first chapter that all the words in the Vedaas described the Lord alone.

100 Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

The Purpose of "Sarva Shabda Samanvaya"

What is the purpose in correlating all the words of the Vedaas in the Lord? How does it bring him greatness if He is described by all vedic words? The greatness of a person is due to greatness of His qualities but not because of number of words. Therefore where is the necessity for "Sarva Shabda Samanvaya" which is established in the first chapter? How does it become useful to enquire about the Lord?

Shree Madhvacharya (^t *T*oimi4) has explained its background. Mere identifying the Lord as the creator of this world is not the purpose of the BrahmaSuutra. If that is the only purpose, only a few vedic statements which describe the cause for the world would be sufficient. To teach that the Lord is possessing infinite qualities is the main purpose of this text. That possessing these infinite qualities in abundance is the main characteristic of the Lord. To establish that alone the Brahmasuurtra has declared Him as the creator of this world. It will be easy for us to know that Brahman, who is the cause for all the activities of the whole world, should be possessing infinite qualities. We can identify the Lord as different from the Jiiva-s and insentient objects with the two specific attributes such as creatorship of the world and fullness of the qualities. The BrahmaSuutra establishes "Sarva Shabda Samanvaya' ("^ ?1^ <hH'«n) in the Lord only to Prove that the Lord is full of infinite attributes. Once it is established that the Lord is

Prathama Adhyaaya

101

described by all vedic words primarily, it will be proved that the Lord is full of qualities.

In the vedas the words such as Indra, Agni, etc; are describing beings with the specific attributes and glory. We understand by the word Indra an entity possessing 'Aaishvarya' (J^fa) richness. Similarly each word conveys some entity possessing specific power and attributes. When we associate all the words with the Lord Brahman, He will be known as possessing infinite qualities. The power and the attributes indicated by those words are limited with the gods such as Indra, etc. In addition they depend on supreme Brahman. These gods have secured their status or glory by the grace of Brahman only. But these attributes and glories are infinite in abundance with the supreme Brahman. These are His intrinsic qualities. He has not secured them through the grace of anyone. Therefore though the words such as Indra, etc; are referred to some specific gods, they primarily mean the supreme Brahman alone. They are not used primarily for other gods. The iron may burn our hand if it is associated with the fire. When the water is boiled we call it hot water. The quality of hotness in these are due to fire only. Due to its association only the iron and water also got that quality of heat for the time being. Similarly all the vedic words describe the quality and glory mainly in the Lord only. The other gods secured some qualities with the Brahman. Hence the supreme Brahman is primarily described by all the vedic words. Other gods are indirectly mentioned but they are not as important as the Lord Vishhnu

102 Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

II 3?f 3T^R^fNh^TTrT 3Tf II

"Om! Antastaddarmopadeshaat Om!"

In the Upanishad an entity is described as "antaH pravishhTam' (3RT: hI^K-h) means "being inside of all'. He is also called Indra. Even other names of the gods are mentioned. He is also prayed by the glory and the quality of the sun. Who is this God being inside of all? Is He Indra or Sun or Vishhnu? Such a curiosity arises. If a word describes the object primarily that object should possess all the qualities and attributes meant by that word. All the qualities and glories mentioned by these statements can be full in all the gods, since they have extraordinary power. Therefore other gods can also be described primarily by these statements. Hence how can it be said that Vishhnu alone is describable primarily by all the words of the Vedaas? The above said aphorism (Suutra) answers this question as follows: This entity which is inside of all is described with all the qualities belonging to the Lord. Indra and other gods do not have such qualities. Even though the gods possess more power and glory compared to us, they are nothing in front of the Lord Vishnu. Even these limited power and quality depend on the Lord alone. If these gods also possess unlimited power like Brahman, we have to admit many gods as the Lords of the world. According to the vedic philosophy there is only one supreme God. Hence all the gods are not equal and cannot be the Lords of the world. The words such as Indra, Agni etc; describe the Lord only since other gods do not have attributes to the same

Prathama Adhyaaya

103

degree as in the Lord Vishnu. To resolve the confusion among the words, can we say that all the gods are not different from each other? Can we say that the supreme Lord and the other gods are one and the same? We may get such question. To answer this question the 'Suutra' begins

11 3?f *jfc otm^yiidM: arf 11

"Bheda vyapadeshaacha anyaH"

which says that there is a difference (3RJ?^) between the supreme Brahman and the other gods. Earlier it was established that Jiiva is not 'Aanandamaya' since there is difference between Jiiva and Brahman. Now it is established that the Lord, who is residing in all the objects and the gods cannot be one and the same since they are entirely different. The statement Tndrasya aatmaa' (^-wic+hi) means that like a human body. Indra is subordinate to the Lord who is residing in us. By saying that the supreme Brahman is the Lord even for Indra, means He is the Lord of all gods. All the other gods are governing all the empirical objects by presiding in them. The Lord vishnu is described as different from all these Gods. In the Vedaas the words such as Indra, (^0 Agni(3#"), vaayu(°lT^), varuna(oR^T), etc; describe the Lord Shree Hari 0?ft)as well as other Gods. But the Lord Shree Hari is described primarily and other Gods are indicated indirectly. In some parts of the Vedaas either Indra or VaruNa or Agni is described as the supreme. In some other parts Brahman is described as the governor of Indra, Agni and other Gods. For a novice it may sound absurd. But we can find consistency in such statements

104

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

when it is viewed in the background of two different interpretations made by Shree Madhvacharya. When they use words such as Indra and describe him as Supreme Being and omnipotent, then the word 'Indra' means the supreme Brahman Vishnu alone. When they are described as subordinate to the Lord Vishnu, then those words refer to subservient God Indra who is the Lord of Deva-s. Thus we have to follow the method shown by Shree Madhvacharya to make all the apparently conflicting Vedic statements as consistent.

II 3tf 3Uebl¥IWfe#ld 3# II

"Om! Aakaashastallingaat Om!"

Though the gods have enormous powers from our standpoint, they are very limited in comparison to the Lord. Therefore their power and richness and their different activities can be depending on the Lord. We can also say that the Lord alone gives them required knowledge, will power, inspiration and talent and through them He gets all the activities done. But the insentient objects have their intrinsic power and capacity. These qualities are there by nature without depending on anybody's grace. These qualities are independent. They do not depend on anything. If that is the case, how can we say that all the Vedic words describe the qualities and attributes in objects other than the Lord only indirectly? Hence the Vedic statement "asya Lokasy kaa gatiti aakaasha iti ho vacca". (sr^T e^Rzr ^rr ^TfcT: 3TT°F>T9T ffcT iferr^r) which means that space is the locus and refuge of the world, and thus describes the insentient

Prathama Adhyaaya

105

object 'space' by the word 'aakasha'(^iohi^i). The quality of the insentient object is there without depending on the Lord. The Lord is not devisable like the space. He does not have any attribute describable by a word. For a word to describe an object it should have two elementary requirements. The quality, that is described by the word, either it should be present in the object or it should depend on that. The quality such as 'aishvairya' O^ 5 ^) meant by the word Tndra' is originally present in the Brahman and the richness in all objects depends on the Brahman. The Brahman is not divisible meant by the word 'aakaasha' nor quality of insentient space. Hence though the words such as Indra etc; describe the Lord primarily, the word 'aakaasha' cannot convey the Lord. To solve this special doubt the Suutra (^0 begins "aakaashastallingaf (Siicum-wfoffiq). The Upanishadic statement that contains the word 'aakaasha' also says that 'aakaasha' is supreme Being and is the cause for all. Is it possible to attribute this to space, which is insentient? To do meaningless praise Veda is not a trash. Therefore this statement cannot convey anything that is an insentient object. It is only the supreme Brahman that is referred by the word 'aakaasha'. When we analyze this word by splitting it, that only says one who is spreading his light all over. Thus it conveys the quality of the supreme Brahman. Also it is incorrect to say that insentient object has the quality independently and it does not depend on the Lord. When empirical objects were born from the Lord, all these qualities and powers were born along with them. The Lord who is the cause for the creation

106

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

of the objects can be the cause for its nature and attributes also. Therefore just as the words Indra etc; the words referred to the insentient objects can describe their governing deity, since those objects and their attributes depend on the Lord. Hence there is absolutely no problem. If 'aakaasha' is giving us any space it is only due to the Lord.

Even the Bhaagavata (^i J i°in) text has repeatedly declared that it is only because of the rule of the Lord we get accommodation in the space and this power of the space depends on the Lord. For space being enormous accommodating entity, the Lord is the present in the space as "Bimba Ruupi"(fsF3" Wnt). This is the philosophical doctrine. Hence we can comprehend that some form of the Lord is like space which has accommodating quality. So there is no problem in interpreting the word " aaskaasha' as the supreme Brahman.

11 arf 3TrT T?cr Tfm: arf 11

"Om! ata eva praanah om!"

In the Upanishad 'Praana' (W*\) is described as 'tadvai tvam praanobhavah'(?ri W WTt ZV^:). Even if 'Aakaasha could be interpreted as the Lord, the 'Praana' here cannot be the Lord. Praana means one who is the cause for life. It is every body's experience that we can servive only when we have "Praanavaayu (TTFToTFJ) i.e.Oxygen. This "Praanavaayu' is considered as the body of God of wind. The qualities of body are attributed to the self. If the body

Prathama Adhyaaya

107

of the cow is white, don't we call the cow is white? Similarly if "Praanavaayu' is the cause of life of the world, the god of wind, the presiding deity of "Praanavaayu' which is his body, can also be the cause for our life. But we do not have experience that the Lord is the cause of our life. Though the Lord is always all pervading, the human beings are dying constantly. Therefore the Lord is not the cause for our life. For this new objection we can find an answer in this aphorism.

Even in this statement of the Upanishad the 'PraaNa' is not merely mentioned. Several particular qualities and attributes of the Lord are associated with 'PraaNa'. This Praana is also described as the Lord of Shreedevi and Laxmidevi. Is it impossible even to think that anyone other than the Lord Shree Hari as the Lord of the mother of the world? The Lord is also the cause for our life. If the empirical 'Praanavaayu' is the God of wind, he himself is considered as the body of shree Hari. When the God of wind, who is the cause of life of all, is the body of the Lord, who is governing even the God of wind, should be the cause of life of all. We observe that all our empirical activities are performed by mundane objects. But for our physical activities, the physical body is not the only instrument. The Jiva who is the presiding entity of the body is also the cause. For the activities, which are born out of five primordial elements, only the presiding deities who are using them as their bodies are the cause. If the five elements are the bodies of the presiding deities, these deities are the bodies of the Lord of the all other gods. As the

108

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Jiivaatmaaa (^TtoTlrRT) (soul) is the instrument for the physical activities, the Lord is the instrumental cause for all the activities of the gods. Hence the Lord alone is the governor of all characteristics of all beings. Though the Lord is always omnipresent, manifesting his particular forms becomes an instrumental cause for our lives. When He disappears in that form people die. Thus we should realize that in this way the Lord becomes instrumental cause for our lives.

TTPTjft artery

"Gaayatree AdhikaraNa"

It is said in the Upanishad 'gaayatreeivaa idam sarvam' Onr^clT'f^iET^JT) and the words such as 'gaayatree', etc; are mentioned. Unlike the other words, which indicate the insentient objects, these words cannot describe the Lord. 'Gaayatreei' is one of the metrical forms of Veda, which is 'apourushheya'(^Hl^ii). This is eternal. Since the attributes of the empirical objects are born along with their objects from the Lord, they all depend on the Lord. Therefore the words indicating these objects can describe the Lord, since He is the Lord of these objects as well as their attributes. But eternal objects are not born. Their attributes are also not born. They have been existent from the beginning-less without depending on anybody. The Lord has nothing to do with them. Thus the supreme Brahman is not the Lord of these intrinsic qualities of the eternal objects. Hence the words such as gaayatree, aakaasha, kaala, ('in^I, ^i°hm, ^lc?) etc; which describe those objects cannot describe the supreme Brahman like other words. This curiosity will arise

Prathama Adhyaaya

109

naturally. The power of the Lord is wonderful and boundless. Though the objects are eternal their existence depends on the Lord. Just as transient objects are born from the Lord, the born objects depend on the power of the Lord even for their existence for the time being. Similarly even the eternal objects depend on the Lord to remain for ever. Even though the objects exist if their power is unmanifested, they cannot be the cause for any action. To actuate that power and to produce different activities from that the action of the Lord is unavoidable. For the existence of all entities and for the manifestation of the power, which are hidden in them, the Lord alone is the governing entity. Hence all the objects that are either eternal or empirical and their attributes and qualities are all dependent on God. Therefore we have to accept that all the words of the Vedaas describe the Lord alone. But there is another problem to describe the Lord by the word 'Gaayatree'. In this context, 'gaayatreeivaa idam sarvam': gaayatree is called 'Jyoti' (^Mllri) or light. It is also described here that 'Jyothi' is beyond the senses, eye, ear, etc: Our eyes or ears are looking outward away from the Lord who is in the form of 'Jyoti' in our hearts. Even our minds are turned outwards away from Him. How can we know Him? How can we contemplate on Him? Thus it is described here the incapacity of a seeker to contemplate on the Lord who is beyond the senses and even the mind. Whereas 'Gaayatree is described in the Upanishad' tadetat Drishhtaanca shritanca' (H^rRT ^E ^T 2J?f ^) that is He can be perceived through our eyes and ears. How can the same object be

110

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

perceivable and non-perceivable? Therefore we have to say that 'Gaayatree' which is perceivable is different from the Lord who is in the form of "Jyoti' who is non-perceivable. Hence how can the word 'Gaayatree' canvey the supreme Brahman? This question can be answered easily. In this statement 'Gaayatree' is called as supreme Brahman. The whole Universe is insignificant in comparison with Brahman. The whole world is described as the foot of 'Gaayatree' Thus the glory of the Lord is described.

Therefore it is the Brahman alone who is described here. We cannot know Him through our senses and mind. It is true that He is not visible. But by perceiving this empirical world which is presided by Him, we can recognize Him who pervades this world. In this sense He is knowable through our senses. Thus we have to accommodate these two conflicting words with reference to the Lord.

"Om! Praanastathaanugamaat Om!"

It is already established that even the word 'Praana' describes the Lord who is the cause for lives of all. But in some other part of the Upanishad 'Praana' is referred as "he lives for hundred years'. This can be applicable to Jiiva but not to the Lord-who is eternal without any empirical body. There is also description that when 'Praana' leaves the body it will fall. Again when it enters the body, It gets up. By this description the supremacy of 'Praana' is demonstrated in competition with other demigods. This

Prathama Adhyaaya

111

episode is applicable to the Lord MukhyapraaNa (^<s*wi u i). If that is the case, the word 'Praana' here cannot describe the Lord Brahman in anyway. Such a strong doubt arises.

But one should not forget that the word "Brahman' which is applicable only to the Lord Narayana(-iKN u i) is mentioned here. How can we use the word Brahman for any other entity? Also there is a description about many qualities belonging to the Lord Brahman alone. Here it is very clear that neither Jiiva nor MukhyapraaNa' is described. The Lord Brahman who is presiding in Jiiva and MukhyapraaNa (^WPI) has their glories and powers. Therefore it is not right to dismiss the Lord ignoring other important factors just because of some qualities of Jiiva or Mukyapraana are described here. Hence in this context also the Lord Brahman alone is described.

Thus ends the first part of the first chapter.

112 Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

THE SECOND PART OF THE FIRST CHAPTER

II 3# ^cNr nfa^fa^TTrT 3Tf II

"OM! sarvatra prasiddhopadeshaat om!"

In the first part of the first chapter related to 'ruudha shabdaas' (¥G ^M) (basic words) that is, the nouns which are popularly known as the names of different objects such as Indra, aakaasha, Praana, etc; it was established that they convey only the Lord Brahman. The second part of the chapter establishes that the 'Yaugika' (mIPi*) words (derivative words) describe the Lord only. When we interpret the word by splitting it, extracting the meaning from the individual parts and then combining them to arrive at a special meaning indicated by the words, such words are called 'Yougika' C^uf^O for example the word 'antaryaami' (SRFlWt) can be split into 'antar' (3T^R) and 'yaami' (^nf^r) which individually means 'inside' and 'governing' respectively. When we combine both the meanings we arrive at the meaning as 'one who governs residing inside'. Therefore this word is classified as 'yuogika-shabda (4lfW ?K). The objection that such yogika shabdaas do not convey the Lord Brahman for different reasons, is resolved in this second part to show that even such words also convey the Lord alone. It is established that the words, which describe that the Lord is all pervading and present in all objects, do not convey other Gods or Jiivaas but they convey only the Lord Brahman. We may pose a question as to why should we establish the omnipresence of the Lord and how does it help to make the

Prathama Adhyaaya

113

Lord great? But the Lord does not merely pervades everything. He also stimulates the power of entities by being present in them. The purpose of 'sarvashabda samanvaya' (-h4*i«* -hH'^n) in the supreme Brahman is to declare that the Lord is present in all the entities as a governing factor, and that is His glory.

The one, who is residing in all hearts of all beings, cannot be the Lord. The all pervading Lord cannot stay in such a small place. Hence it is only Jiiva who is referred and not the Lord - this is the objection. But this all-pervading entity is called as Brahman. Therefore it only describes the Lord Brahman and not the Jiiva at all. The word Brahman cannot be used for any entity other than the Lord Vishnu. When omnipresent Lord is all Pervading, can he not exist in the tiny hearts of all? One who knows every object can be knower of all. Similarly to become omnipresent, should He not be present in tiny places? Hence there is absolutely no problem to say that Brahman alone is described here.

It is described here that Jiiva realizes an entity which is all pervading. In any action the subject and the object are different. For example, when we say the Lord blesses His devotees, in this action, the subject is the Lord and the object is 'his devotees' and the two are different. But there is an exception to this rule. In the action where one knows himself, the object and the subject are the one and the same. Thus except for some special cases, in any action subject and object are generally different. This has been accepted by all. When it is said that Jiiva realizes the object which is

114

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

omnipresent we can understand that it cannot be Jiiva who is all pervading. It will be very clear that it should be Brahman alone, who is different from Jiiva, is the all-pervading entity or object.

In the same way we should interpret even the other words, which apparently describe other qualities, as describing the supreme Brahman alone.

Vedaas describe the actions such as creation, destruction etc; by the Lord. All these attributes are the different forms of the Lord as explained earlier. But a doubt may arise that the transient action cannot be the intrinsic qualities of the eternal Brahman. However all the actions are existent in the Lord in the form of His power. This creative power is His intrinsic quality. When it is manifested we can see the actions such as creation etc. Hence all the actions of the Lord are eternal only in the form of His powers.

"Om! Guhaam pravishhtou atmaaanou hi tatddarshannat om!"

The Upanishads describe two forms in the cave of the hearts of the people. We may understand that the two entities Jiivaatmaa (^ilonrni) and 'Paramaatmaa' (m<hichi) are described here. How can we say that a single Lord alone is described here when it deals with two forms? Therefore the Lord alone is not described in all the Upanishads. Both Paramaatmaa and Jiivatmaa are equally described in all

Prathama Adhyaaya

115

the Upanishads. But earlier it was described as two and later the same thing is described as one. The single Lord can have infinite forms with His inexplicable power Hence He can be called by one or two or by any number. Hence it should be accepted that this is the description of two forms of the Lord alone.

"Om! antara upapatteH Om!"

We cannot accept any other God as the controller of us other than the Lord Shree Hari. Other gods are also Jiivaas like us. If that is the case how can they get that power which we do not have. They should also have another controller since they are also Jiivaas. These controllers should have another controller and this can become endless. To solve this problem an independent supreme Lord should be accepted. Then under His control all organization will be systematically formed as to who is the governor among all Jiivaas and who are the governed. If there is no government in a country there will be anarchy and chaos since there is no law and order. If there is a government, under its rule different levels of administration are formed to facilitate smooth running of the government. No such arrangement can be made if there is no government at all. Similarly only if the Lord Vishnu is accepted as the supreme controller of Devaas including Brahma etc; a smooth administrative system will be formed. If there is no supreme God, who is an independent administrator, either Agni, or Indra or any other God cannot govern anyone. Hence no

116

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

controlling entity can be present in our cave of heart. Once such a supreme entity has been accepted as the governing entity of all and His own qualities are described as amrita (spjcT) and abhaya (3PW), then why should we be stubborn to say that it is some other God is described here? Therefore it is only the supreme Lord who is described here in our heart. Being present in us, He is ruling us playfully without any pain or stress.

It will be difficult for us to believe that the Lord carries out all the activities of the world playfully without any mental strain. He will not get tension while He is propelling all His activities of the Universe? When we get confusion losing our control over the mind with regard to insignificant activities, is it possible for the Lord to transact with unperturbed and calm mind? We may get such a natural doubt. But it is very easy for the Lord. We do not have control over the persons and the instruments that we use. Therefore so many things happen without our control. Hence even in small matters we may get confused. But the Lord's independence is not halfway (incomplete). He is absolutely fully independent. He controls all internal and external activities of the world being present in them as presiding entity. Everything is fully under His control. He always has full direct knowledge of everything. For such a great Lord of the world, how can He have tension and confusion?

Prathama Adhyaaya

117

Brahman has even 'Abhaavadharma-s'! (arm^sm!:)

Brahman is neither perceivable nor knowable. He has no limitations. He does not have any empirical forms. Thus the Upanishads describe Him as not having many qualities that we do consider bad. The absence of these undesired qualities may be the cause for His greatness. But all the attributes of Brahman are one with His nature. No attribute is separable from Him.

All this has already been explained. If that is the case, it is as well admitted the absence of bad qualities in Brahman is also one with Brahman. A question will arise whether 'abhaava' (absence) can be one with Brahman? But from reality point of view there is absolutely no contradiction. The same object can be 'bhaava'(Tier) or 'abhaava' (srqra) from different angles. When an object is known in a negative way that is known to be absent (it is not there) or known to be not any other object (it is not that), then it can be considered as 'abhaava ruupa'(3^RT5r^T). If it is not known that it is considered as 'bhaava ruupa' (^ ^T) (To define this simply, Bhaava is that which is known positively and Abhaava is that which is known negatively). The same object can be bhaava and abhaava from different angles. For example he does not have defects or there is an absence of defects in him. Here the object is considered as 'abhaava'. In this example, if one refers that the absence of defects in him as great quality of Him, then it is 'bhaava ruupa'. Thus the same object due to difference in description can become 'bhaava ruupa' and 'abhaavaruupa' This is everyone's

118

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

experience. We do not want to say that there is absolutely no contradiction between 'bhaava' and 'abhaava'. When we say water is not fire, it means water is different from fire, (or water has difference from fire). This difference is one with the water. From the point of view that water is different from fire, the water which is positive, can be 'abhaava' also. This is well known example to establish that the same object can be both; 'bhaava ruupa' and 'abhaava ruupa'. But no object can become its own absence. Unlike water is different from fire; we cannot say water is not water and fire is not fire. The difference of an object (That is difference from fire in the example 'water is different from fire') cannot be that object (fire). Hence there is no inconsistency or contradiction in accepting that the 'abhaava dharma-s' of Brahman are one with Him.

We have to understand a subtler aspect in this regard. There are two types of 'abhaavaas' of. T am not God'. 'God is not unhappy'. 'Jar is not a cloth' - in these examples, these 'abhaava-s' are called 'bheda'(^t^) or 'anyonyaabhaava'C^^iWii^ToT). These are one with the object (they are dharmiswaruupa'^f^Ror^T^T). In the Lord this 'bheda' or difference from the objects which are defective and imperfect is one with the Lord. From this angle the Lord is both 'bhaava' and 'abhaava'.

There is another type of 'abhaava'. There is no unhappiness in the Lord. Pot is destroyed. Still he has not got proper knowledge. These 'abhaavaas' are called in technical terms as 'atyantaabhaava'(3TT?^P?TT*TToT),

Prathama Adhyaaya

119

'pradhvamsaabhaava' (TT^RTr^lTor) and 'praagabhaava' (WT^rrsr) respectively. These 'abhaavaas' are not one with the objects (atyantaabhaava means which never exists; pradhavamsaabaava means which was there and is no more; and praagabhaava means which was not there but now exists). There is absence of sorrow, defects, and bad qualities in the Brahman. These are neither the qualities of the Brahman nor His nature. We may hold a stick in our hand. We cannot call it as our attribute. It is neither our intrinsic nature. Similarly all the 'abhavaas' except 'bheda'; are not one with the Brahman either as His quality or His nature. The Lord does not have defects or bad qualities at any time. Their absence always is there in the Lord. But they are not His qualities. Just as we possess clothes and books these are there in Brahman being different from him. Though the absence of defects is not the attributes of the Lord, the relationship between this absence and the Lord is an intrinsic quality, which is always there. Hence there is nothing lacking for the perfection of the Lord as He has both types of 'abhaavaa'.

It is already said that in the second part of this chapter the 'Yougika shbdaas' (^Pi* ^T^) (derivative words) convey the meaning of Brahman. But in this part, the word 'vaishvaanara' (^TRT); which is a basic word, conveying the meaning of an individual is interpreted as describing Brahman. By interpreting this one word it will be as good as interpreting many other 'yougika shabdaas' without any effort. Hence a small change is followed here. Even in the

120

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

first part, which is meant to interpret only 'ruudha shabdaas' («*<o *i«0 basic words, a 'yougika shabda' such as 'antastha' (srrst) was interpreted as describing the Lord. The purpose of the interpreting the Yougika shabda in the first part is to avoid interpreting separately many 'ruudha shabdaas'. Such as Indra, Varuna, TvashhtRi(c5TgO, etc. The Lord is all pervading. He is the destroyer of the world, he has got entry to the hearts of all. Residing in our hearts, he is controlling us playing himself. Seven 'adhikaranaas' (3Tf*4°h< u i) of this part have described seven major principles as follows: The Lord is unknowable, unlimited, devoid of all empirical qualities, all pervading, destroyer of the world, got entry to the hearts of all beings and the controller of all. These seven descriptions of the Lord are the essence of this part.

Thus ends the second part of the first chapter.

Prathama Adhyaaya

121

THE THIRD PART OF THE FIRST CHAPTER

We have already explained that the words are of two types: 1) the basic words which convey the individuals or objects (nominative forms) and 2) Yougika (*ftfw) words or derivative words which convey the attributes of objects. These two types of words can be interpreted as describing the Lord. The nominative words which are 'anyatra prasiddha' (srtjt nf^<s) that is popularly describing the objects other than the Lord due to normal usage and other reasons. These words are interpreted as describing the Lord in the first part of the chapter. And the Yougik words, which are popularly known as describing other than Brahman, are interpreted as describing the Lord in the second part. In the third part the nominative and derivative words 'Ubhayatra prasiddha' Cs^R^ yf^°s) that is the words which are equally referred to the Lord as well as individuals due to popularity of their use in the Vedaas, are explained in terms of Brahman. The words such as 'dyubhvaadyaayatanatva' (^TraFTcRrsr) (support of the earth etc) 'bhuumatva' (^f^T) (full of infinite qualities) etc; are called 'lingatmaka shabdaas' (fo^-irH=h ^T^"). Nominative words such as 'akshara' (3T^R) (not subjected to any destruction) etc; are called 'naamatmaka shabdaas' (^mirH=h). These two are explained in terms of Brahman in this third part.

"3T*KTfsp?>7*T" "AakshharaadhikaraNa"

In the Upanishads the Lord is called by words 'asthuula'(3T^), 'anaNu' (3H^J); etc. These words may

122

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

imply that the Lord is neither gross nor subtle. No object can exist without both of these qualities. If you interpret these words by saying that the Lord is both 'anu'(3Fp and 'mahat'C^fFcT), how is it possible for both 'anutva' (^T 1 ^) and 'mahtva' C^F^r) which are contradictory be present in one object? Just as the same object cannot be cold and hot, same object cannot be subtle and gross. Such an objection needs to be answered. The mutually contradictory qualities at an empirical level, can be present in the Lord. That is the power of the Lord, which is wonderful and cannot be imagined. There is no scope for any doubt when Vedaas and Purannas are declaring that the Lord is possessing such wonderful qualities with full of variety. Shree Yoshodaa (aft <M*iki) who saw Shree Krishna as a child saw the whole universe in His tiny mouth. Why do we require any more proof than this to prove that the Lord is both subtle as well as gross? So many different qualities which are not existing at one place are seen as co-existent at some other place. Though our knowledge is transient and temporary, the supreme Brahman has eternal knowledge. Though we have empirical body, the Lord does not have the same. Similarly the combination of Anutva (3?°^) and MahatvaOT^), which is not perceived in us, why should it not be in the Lord?

The statement that the Lord is neither gross nor subtle can be interpreted that He does not have any empirical form and shape, but He has transcendental divine form. Both the statements that the Lord has attributes and He does not have attributes can be interpreted in this way.

Prathama Adhyaaya

123

Even Devaas have Right to study Vedaas:

Incidentally it has been discussed whether Devaas are qualified to study the Vedaas. What do the Deva-s, who acquired many desired powers, have to gain by meditating through the knowledge of the Vedaas? There is nothing to be known since they have already acquired total knowledge. Therefore some philosophers hold the view that Devaas are not qualified to study the Vedaas. They also quote the support from the saint Jaimini (^fafa) to strengthen their theory.

Shree Veda VyaasaOM^TRT), the author of the BrahmaSuutra, has established the doctrine that even Devaas are eligible to gain the knowledge of the Vedaas. We may get confused as to how the saint Jaimini who is the direct disciple of Veda Vyaasa has advocated some theory against His teacher. But Shree Madhvacharya has clarified that there is absolutely no mutual conflict between their doctrines. Devaas do not meditate as prescribed in the Vedaas to secure mundane fruits. Devaas who have realized the supreme Brahman and who are already enjoying self-bliss, to gain some speciality in that bliss, will get engaged in some special meditation. It is the opinion of Shree Veda Vyaasa that they can gain some more knowledge of the attributes of the Lord by the study of the Vedaas. They will not meditate in order to attain mundane benefits. This is the opinion of the saint Jaimini. Therefore there is no conflict at all in both the theories.

Thus ends the third part of the first chapter.

124 Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

THE FORTH PART OF THE FIRST CHAPTER

How Can We Correlate The Word Sorrow, etc., with Brahman?

The attributes and qualities described by every word are present in other objects to a smaller degree depending on the Lord. It is already explained that all these qualities are there in the Lord independently and abundantly. Hence He is knowable from all the words. Even though the Lord possesses all the auspicious qualities, but it is impossible for Him to have bad qualities.

Therefore it is not possible to correlate the words such as wicked, sorrowful, depressed, etc; which convey the negative meanings. When these defects are not present in Brahman even to a smaller degree, how can such words describe Him? Can we call the poorest person who does not have a single pie, is the richest one? Hence how is it possible for the Lord to be described by all words?

The Brahmasuutra has given an explanation even to this objection. Just as the words describe an object where the attributes are present indicated by those words, they can describe a person who is the Lord of those attributes and qualities. Though the king or the commander in chief does not participate personally in the war, when the solders win the war it is said that the king or the commander in chief is victorious. It is only because they are responsible for the success. Though the rich man does not carry the money in his hand, but if he is the owner of the money kept

Prathama Adhyaaya

125

in the treasure, then he alone is regarded as the rich. Similarly though the Lord does not possess any defects, he is the controller of all good and bad qualities. He can be described by those words. Though from our view they seem to be bad words, they can be converted as good words and they will convey His Lordship over all other objects and by that these words can describe only good qualities. The words which convey the great qualities not only describe the Lord as possessing enormous qualities but also as the controller of qualities which are present in other objects.

Just because the Lord is the controller of sorrow and bad qualities, describing Him by such words is similar to calling a king as unhappy, bound and killed when he imposes these punishments to his subjects. It is true that these words can be applicable to the king also since he is the controller of all sorrows and imprisonment. But these words may create some confusion if they are correlated with the king. When the king is called by these words, people may get two kinds of understandings. Should we use these words for the king because he is the cause for imprisonment and the death or because he is really imprisoned and unhappy? Such a doubt may arise. We have to be careful in using these words for ordinary people who are subjected to have bad qualities so that there is no misunderstanding. We can call the Lord by any word unhesitatingly since he is beyond all defects and weaknesses. No one will have any doubt whether the Lord has any defects since He is flawless. Even if bad words are used for Him, one can only understand that He is the Lord

126

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

of our defects. There is no fear of any misunderstanding. Hence the words which convey the bad qualities, when referred to the Lord, they convey only good qualities. There cannot be any doubt or misunderstanding. If we call a person 'bahubhojii'C^spfcft) it means a over eater. When such words are used for the Lord who is beyond any defects, we do not even think the above meaning for such words. For the Lord, we derive the meaning from this word as a great power, which destroys all by swallowing every thing during 'Pralaya'(^T). Hence there is no contradiction to say that Brahman alone is described primary by all words of the Vedaas.

Different Types of Words: (ST®? TT^T:)

There are different parts in the Vedaas which deal with ritualistic activities such as sacrifice etc. They can not describe the Lord. If all the words are describing only the Lord, the entire Veda should be regarded just like another 'sahasra nama stotra' (The thousand glorious names of Maha VishNu) ("?TF?r ^TFT ^cffr). They cannot convey any meaning other than Brahman. We cannot learn any ritualistic act from the Vedaas. A situation may arise that we cannot use any empirical words and all our religious activities will come to a stand still. A king asked for a boon from the Lord that every thing should become gold whatever he touches. He got excited when things such as table, chair, plate etc; turned into gold when he touched them. But he got frightened when it became impossible even to have his food since all dishes turned into gold when he touched them. In the end he was totally collapsed when his wife became

Prathama Adhyaaya

127

gold as he touched her. Similarly though we are happy to know that all the words describe the Lord only, but if so all our religious activities and empirical transactions will collapse. Hence an objection is raised that it is impractical to attribute all the words to the Lord.

This objection is due to lack of understanding of the meaning of 'sarva shabda samanvaya'(«H4*i«* ■mh^ki). Though all the words describe the Lord, Shree Veda Vyaasa does not mean that they do not deal with other objects at all. All the words describe Him primarily. They also indirectly describe all other gods, ritual activities like sacrifice (W) etc; and empirical objects also. 'Vasante Vasante Juotishha Yajeta'CeTCR)" ^W^ ^fldNI ^T^cT). This Vedic statement prescribes that one should perform the sacrifice by name' Jyotishhtoma' (^hci&Ih) during the spring time. Along with that, every word becomes the name of the Lord by describing His special qualities. All the words such as SwaahaaOFoiTFr), Vashhat (°R£) in 'Karma Kaanda' (^T cm u s) in the Vedaas describe the Lord. If these words describe the Lord primarily, they also describe other objects indirectly. For all the words, two different and important 'shabda shaktiis' (?K ^Tfe) such as 'Mahaayoga' CRFT%T) and 'Mahaa Yoga Roodhi' 0=[FT ^T "^fe) are there in the Brahman. If the attributes and qualities, which are supposed to be conveyed by the words, are abundantly and independently full in the Lord, and if Vedic scholars are using such words referring to the Brahman, we can consider those words conveying the Brahman by 'Mahaa Yoga Shakti' (Hs?wl J l ?!%)• The words such as Indra, Praana,

128

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Agni belong to this category.

The richness, which is the meaning of the word Tndra', and activating force of the world which is the meaning of the words 'Agni' and 'Praana' are present in Brahman in abundance. These words are referred to Brahman in several parts of the Vedaas. Therefore we should confirm that these words describe Brahman by 'Mahaayoga Shakti'.

The attributes and qualities, which are the meanings of the words such as Narayana, that are in abundance in the Brahman and these words, which are also popular in the Vedaas and Puraana-s and in common usage, describe the Brahman by 'shabda shakti' of 'Mahaayogaruudhi' (h^mI'i ^fe). The very popular words such as Vishhnu, Narayana, Hari etc. belong to this category.

The Mahaayoga and Mahayogaruudhi are called 'Mukhya VRitti' (^^ItI). This Mukhya VRitti is of three kinds, 'Yoga'Ofrl) 'ruudhi'(^fe) and 'Yogaruudhi'(^^fe). By decomposing the words and interpreting those parts individually and combining the two meanings together to arrive at some other meaning is called ' Yogavritti' (WJ ^frT). For example, for the word 'Kumbhakaara'C^pWR"), here kumbha (^T) means pot and Kaara (^R)means one who makes it, and together meaning 'Pot-maker'. 'Swarnakaar' (wfe>R) means one who makes ornaments out of gold. These words 'Kumbhakaara' and 'Swarnakaara' gives us the meaning by 'Yogavritti'. In the world, if an object is called 'Ruudha'. the words such as 'shareera' (wfc) (body)

Prathama Adhyaaya

129

'kalasha' (W3T) (Jar). 'Pushhpa'Opr) (flower), 'Pustaka' (^-woh) (book) etc; belong to the category of 'Ruudha shabda'C^ ?I^). The meaning of individual parts of the word and popular usage, when these two are there for a word, it becomes 'yogaruudha'. God Indra has wealth, which is the meaning of parts of the word Indra. He is also popularly called by name Indra. This is an example for 'Yogaruudha' (#T?^). The word 'Pankaja' (W^T) is "Yogaruudha' because it gives the meaning of lotus through its 'avayavaartha' (3T^M^) that is which is born in muddy water. It is also popularly known as lotus. Therefore the word 'Pankaja' is Yogaruudha and it conveys the meanings of lotus. The Lord alone is the Primary meaning for all the words. But the Vedic words can convey the meaning of Indra and other gods through 'Yogaruudhi'. Hence the ritualistic act and common transactions can also be accounted. If there is any statement which apparently means that Indra is the highest being, it should be interpreted as describing the Lord since Devendra (^fcsO does not have that attributes of highest beings which can be exclusively be applied to Vishhnu. If there is no contradiction to accept the attribute mentioned by that statement where Indra is referred, then the word Indra can refer to the king of devaas.

Without Mahaayoga(TTFFTfTT),

MahaayogaruudhiO^FTtw^), YogaruudhiOrtwfe), YogaC^frr) and Ruudhi (^fe)that were mentioned above, the words can convey the objects. These are called 'lakshhaNaavRitti' (^TOTPffrT). or 'GouNavRitti' ( J fl u l^ftl). When the word conveys some other object which is related

130

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

to its original meaning that is called 'lakshhaNaavRitti'. For example, when it is said there is a house in the River Gangaa (W). If the word gives the meaning which is similar to its original meaning it is called 'GouNavRitti'. If some one behaves like an animal or does a hard work like a donkey, he is called an 'animal'. It means he is equal to the animal. We regard a brave man as a tiger of the town. It means he is brave as a tiger. Both 'LakshhnaavRitti' and 'GouNavRitti' are by their nature 'AmukhyavRitti' (^^oti^iri). Thus there are seven types of Vrittiis (^frf) for words. Thus on the basic of these, words can describe the Lord directly as well as other objects indirectly. Hence there is no scope for any contradiction and objection.

There are different types of correlation (samanvaya) C^FF^T) for Vedic statements with Brahman. 1) Each word of the Vedaas describe indirectly religion, god, sacrifice and other objects related to them, but the Lord directly. Each word and each letter of the word describes Brahman. This 'Samanvaya' can be understood only by four-faced Brahma. This correlation is called 'Padasamanvaya'

(TT^TRPT).

2) Each word of the sentence such as Indra, Agni, Varuna, etc; of the sentence convey the Lord and describe His glory collectively through sentence. This correlation is called 'Vaakya samanvaya'(«TW ^FRPT).

Though the Vedic statements deal with the ritualistic activities and describe the gods who are associated with such activities, the purpose of all Vedic statements is not to

Prathama Adhyaaya

131

attain only heaven (swarga). The real objectives of the Vedic statements in Karma Kaanda are (a) to purify the mind by performing the ritualistic activities prescribed by Vedaas. (b) to make us understand the fruits of these activities are empirical and insignificant and (c) ultimately to motivate Jiivaas to meditate on the Lord with pure mind to realize Him. Hence ultimately the statements of KarmaKaaNda(°fr4cw u s) lead us in the direction of the Lord to gain His direct perceptual experience. This is another type of correlation of Vedaas with Brahman.

Not only the words in the Vedaas but all our empirical words point out only the Lord. There is nothing more to say than that all sounds; the chirping of the birds, roaring of the sea, rumblings of the leaves, and tinkling of the children's anklets are heard by Jnaaniis (*iifa»i:) (realized ones) as songs of His glory.

The fourth part of this chapter is correlating the words in a special way in comparison to the 'shabda samanvaya' C?T^ ^^FFoR") in the previous three parts. The words of KarmakaaNda which are popularly conveying empirical objects, and the words which convey bad qualities such as sorrow, bondage, heinous etc., are correlated here with supreme Brahman in such a way that they strengthen His glory. Even the words, which are considered as difficult to correlate with Brahman by common people, are correlated in a distinctive way. This is another specialty of this interpretation to accept empirical objects giving the meaning of supreme Brahman as the primary.

132 Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

"Om PrakRitisca pratijnaadRishhTaantaanuparodhaatOm!"

The Examination of Theory of Bhaskara (^H«M) :

This is the 'adhikaraNa' (3#i =m u i) which has created very important debate in the philosophical world. All the philosophers have accepted that the Brahman is the cause for the world. There are two types of causes for an object (that is created); 1) instrumental cause and 2) material cause. If the thread and other basic objects are material cause for the cloth, the person who weaves the cloth is the instrumental cause. They are observed as two different instruments. According to Shree Madhvacharya the primordial inanimate 'PrakRiti' which is the most subtler substance is the material cause of this word. The Lord who is distinctively different from the world is the instrumental cause for the creation of this world. Shree Bhaskaracharya and Shree Shankaracharya have established the different theories in contrast with this. Though at empirical state the instrumental or intelligent cause and the material cause are seen mutually different but the basic material cause and the instrumental cause of this world are not different. According to them the single supreme Brahman is both the material cause and the instrumental cause. Of them, the theory of Shree Bhaskaracharya is as follows:

In the Upanishads, in the context where Uddaalaka(^itf>°h) teaches ShvetaketuC^n^d), it is said that

Prathama Adhyaaya

133

if Brahman is known, the entire world is known. If this world is to be known when Brahman is known, it has to be accepted that both the world and Brahman are one and same. The creative object and its material substance are seen as one. The pot is another form of the mud (clay). All the gold ornaments are modification of the same gold. From the substance point of view, both are the same. Since it is said in the Upanishad that if Brahman is known the world is known the Brahman alone has transformed into this world just as the ornament is the transformation of the gold. Brahman is the basic substance for this world being as the material cause. He alone is the instrumental cause for this world since it is said that He thought and created this world. They have established that Brahman alone is the creator and the basic material for this world.

This theory is absolutely contradicting to the description of the Brahman made in the Vedaas and the Upanishads. There is no modification in Brahman. He is pure conscious entity. Hundreds of Vedic statements are declaring Brahman as the eternally embodiment of knowledge, bliss, and power. If that is the case, how can we say that Brahman has transformed himself into this world? There are different types of modifications of the objects in the world. One type of transformation involves where the object remains the same while its attributes change. For example, due to sunlight the colour and taste change in the fruits. The fruit remains without getting spoiled. But only its colour and taste have changed. The second type of modification is the object gets different forms

134

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

maintaining its original nature. We can make a golden chain from golden bangle. Again it can be made back into bangle. Whether it is a bangle or a chain, it remains as gold. When there is modification in the colour and taste of the fruit it would not go back to its original state. But the gold though it got modified can go back to its original state. The third type involves an object entirely changes along with its name, form and qualities and becomes a new object. For example when milk transforms into curd, this type of complete modification occurs.

All these modifications do not occur themselves. Milk becomes curd in time only after adding culture. There are some empirical reasons for the modifications of form and taste of the fruits. These modifications will not occur without any reason. What is the cause for Brahman to transform himself into this world? In the beginning of the creation He alone was there. What is that which caused some modification in the Brahman? He is not dependent entity to be influenced by some external force. Is it possible that the Brahman transformed into this world on its own will and wish without getting any pressure? This is also impossible. Shree Bhaskara has accepted Brahman as omniscient and omnipotent. Can such an intelligent Brahman desire to become the world, which is full of sorrows? No right thinking person invites difficulties on his own without any external pressure. If that is the case the Lord who is omniscient and total knowledge and bliss, why has he decided to become the world. These questions remain unanswered. Just as gold maintains its original

Prathama Adhyaaya

135

quality even when it transforms itself into different ornaments, if Brahman also maintains His original nature, even when He becomes the world, why don't we see in all the objects His blissful conscious form? When gold is considered as gold even when it is in the form of ornament, why don't we recognize this whole world as the transformation of bliss and knowledge? How has this gross inanimate form of the world come into being? If there is a total transformation in the nature of the Brahman, just as the milk becoming curd totally loosing its original form, it will be as good as denying the very existence of Brahman. Will there be milk once it becomes curd? If there is no Brahman whom can we worship? On whom we can meditate? All the spiritual pursuits prescribed in the Vedaas and Upanishads, such as meditation and realization, become meaningless.

When milk becomes curd we cannot see both of them separately. While curd is perceived can anyone see the milk separately from the curd? But we know that the Brahman and the world are different. Even Bhaskaraas have accepted the real difference between Brahman and the world. If Brahman transforms Himself into this world just as milk into the curd we cannot see at all the world and the Brahman separately at the same time.

The theory that Brahman has become the world is highly unscientific. An insentient object can not be transformed into a sentient entity. We have never seen any conscious entity becoming inanimate object. If that is the

136

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

case what a strange imagination it is to propose that this world is just a transformation of Brahman!

The Brahman has two parts. One part is always conscious and without any modification. This part is the creator of this world. Only the another part of Brahman is material cause for this transformed world. Since Brahman has two parts, we can recognize Brahman as well as the world, and we can do prayers and worship. Thus Bhaskaraas have attempted to answer the objections raised so far. But we need to ask them a question whether both the parts of Brahman are the same originally or they are two from the beginning. Both the parts, the one which got transformed, and the another one which is without transformation, can not be the same. If the both the parts are totally different those two will remain as two different entities. There is no meaning at all to call them as parts. It will be admitted that a conscious entity, which is without any modification is the creator of this world and another entity, which is totally different from this has only become this world. Finally Bhaskaraas have indirectly accepted the theory that the creator of this universe and its basic material cause are entirely different.

When it is said that a pot is made out of clay it is understood that the clay is material cause for that pot. Similarly the Upanishads have declared in several parts that the world is born out of Brahman. Therefore Brahman should be accepted as the material cause. The Bhaskaraas have established their theory that Brahman alone has

Prathama Adhyaaya

137

transformed into this world. This aspect has to be analyzed thoroughly. When a pot is made out of pile of clay, all the clay would not become a pot. Only a part of the clay becomes pot. The rest of the clay remains as it is. When a part of pile of the clay got separated from the whole, and became pot, then two types of statements can be made. 1) The entire clay has become a pot and 2) pot is made out of clay. Both the statements are correct. We say that clay has become pot bearing in our mind only transformed part of clay, which got separated from its pile. When milk is converted into curd, we say milk has become curd. But we don't say generally that from the clay that got separated from its pile becomes completely a pot. The remaining part of clay which is not transformed into pot becomes an ablative cause for the pot to be separated from it. This clay is material cause for the pot. When a fruit falls from a tree the tree is the ablative cause for the separation of the fruit. Similarly the remaining part of the clay is the ablative cause for the separation of a pot. A statement is made that pot is made out of clay in the sense a part of clay got separated from its pile and became completely a pot. Both of these statements are right keeping in mind different parts of the clay. Of them one part is the material cause for the pot, the other part is the ablative cause for the separation. These are called 'apaadaana'( srt^R) and 'upaadaana'(^Hiqn) kaaraNaC^nrtn") in Sanskrit grammatical language, respectively. These two entities, apaadaana, and upaadaana, are entirely different.

Similarly when the world is created from PrakRiti we

138

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

have two different parts in PrakRiti. In one case, if PrakRiti, which is based material cause for this world, has completely become the world, then there is no more left over PrakRiti. In the second case, a part of inanimate PrakRiti remains as it is, while the rest of the part becomes the world. The part of PrakRiti which has transformed into this world is considered as the basic material cause and the rest of the part is considered as the ablative cause for separation. The material cause has become the world. What is the role of the Lord in this creation? What is the meaning for vedic statements, which declare that the world is created by the Lord. Such questions arise. God, having created both the parts of the PrakRiti and made one of the parts transform into the world. Being different from PrakRiti, and being present in PrakRiti, He does this creation. He can be compared to the father in the action of creation. A small part separated from the father transformed as the child. Though the father is different from the child, he is instrumental cause for the birth of the child. The semon which is the part of the body of the father is the basic material cause for the body of the child. (In reality it is only partly the material cause!). The body of the father, from which this material cause is separated is considered as the ablative cause. The father who is the producer of the sermon, is considered as the creator of the child. The role of the Lord is similar regarding the creation of the world. A part separated from PrakRiti transforms into the world. The rest of the part is the ablative cause for this. The Lord is regarded as father or mother being the main cause for

Prathama Adhyaaya

139

the transformation of the world being the Lord of the PrakRiti. Just as spider creates its web from its own part of its body, the Lord has created this world from the part of the PrakRiti, which is considered as His body. The statements such as the world is created by the supreme Brahman, the world is born out of PrakRiti and the world is just transformation of part of PrakRiti are all correct.

In the Upanishad it is mentioned that 'saccatyaccaabhavat' (^cm^iTcRT) which appears to mean that Brahman alone transformed himself into this 'muurta' 0^) and 'amuurta' (zf$) world. But before that statement the creation was already explained by 'tat srishhTvaa' (cic^i) which says that the Lord has created this world after planning. Hence, is there any meaning to say that He has become the world? Then what is the inner meaning of this statement? It has to be analyzed. Even though the Lord has created this world, He has to be present in that to make it active and creative. Only when the Lord motivates by present in every object all the activities are possible in the world. 'Tat sRishhTvaa, tadevaanu praavishat' (cic^i, ci^olTjaiiolW) The Lord has created different objects of the world and enters them. Just as the water in the vessel, the Lord is present in every object in its shape and through His special qualities He motivates all the objects into action. Only the different forms of the Lord in different objects are described here. Hence it is not the meaning of the statements that the Lord Himself has become those objects. To sum it up the material cause of the world and its instrumental cause are not one and the same. They are

140

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

absolutely different. This is the essence of this analysis.

Examination of Advaitavaada (3^d=H<0:

Even according to Advaita, Brahman alone is the basic material cause for the world. But their theory is entirely different from Bhaskara's theory. They do not agree that the supreme Brahman who is conscious entity without any modification transformed himself into this world. In that case, what is the meaning for the Vedic statements such as 'Brahman becomes the world, and if Brahman is known the entire world is known. Unlike Bhaskaraas, according to Advaita the world is not real. This world is just an imagination. A locus is required for superimposition. Without a substance superimposition is impossible. Only when there is a rope we can project a snake and get scared. We will mistake a shining object such as a shell for silver only when a shell exists in front. Similarly to superimpose the world, a locus is required. That is Brahman. Due to ignorance, the Brahman is mistaken for the world. If He is realized correctly, the world will be known fully in its true nature. This is how they have explained their doctrine.

Let us examine this theory a little. Who has this ignorance which is the basic cause for this illusion? If this ignorance is for Brahman, then what is the meaning for the description given in the Vedaas for Brahman that He is unlimited, absolutely pure, full of consciousness, omniscient, etc.? If this ignorance is for Jiiva who is different from Brahman the entire Advaita theory will collapse. If ignorance is accepted for Jiiva, will it not be

Prathama Adhyaaya

141

accepted that Jiiva and Brahman are basically different?

We have to consider one more aspect in this regard. To have any kind of illusion, we need body and other sense organs essentially. No one gets illusion during deep sleep where there is no awareness of the body. Body and senses are very much required for the illusion of the world to occur. For the sake of body one has to accept so many other things existing as real. These include the five basic elements, which are material cause for the body and other empirical objects needed to nourish the body, and their causes. Thus to establish that the world is unreal, another great world has to be accepted as real. The 'maayaavaada' (hnioii<0 has to face this ridiculous situation.

On the basis of Vedic statement that the world is known if Brahman is known, one should not arrive at the meaning that Brahman Himself has become the world or there is no real world different from Brahman. Brahman is the highest entity of the world. If such supreme Brahman is known, this world is as good as known. This is the only correct meaning for this statement. After having seen some important worth seeing places of the town, we say we have seen the entire town. But in reality we have not seen many other places including slum areas. If the Lord who is the supreme and essential entity of the world is known, the entire world is known. This is similar to saying that after seeing some important place, the entire town is seen, or after enjoying only the juicy part and rejecting the skin, that the whole fruit is eaten. This is the purport of the

142

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Upanishads. Therefore it will be a great disgrace to the truth to consider that the world is the transformation or just imagination of Brahman.

The detailed analysis that the world is not an illusion and is absolutely real like Brahman, is conducted thoroughly in the second part.

According to Shree Ramanujacharya (sit <mM^iNi4), Brahman is both the instrumental and the material cause for this world as proposed by Shree Shankaracharya and Bhaskaracharya. But he does not agree that the world is superimposed in Brahman or Brahman has become the world. The primordial cause, PrakRiti, is the body of Brahman. He has established that Brahman is considered symbolically as the material cause for this world, since PrakRiti, which is considered as His body, has transformed into this world. From philosophical truth point there is no difference of opinion. But why this obstinacy to say that Brahman is material cause for this world? Because nowhere in the world the soul, which is in the body, is considered as material cause or basic material substance, just because the body is the material cause. It is common practice to call Jiiva who is embodied as the instrumental cause. Similarly the Lord who has PrakRiti as His body should be regarded as the instrumental cause of this world, but not the material cause. Arguing that He is the material cause of the world is useless task.

Prathama Adhyaaya

143

The Examination of Other Interpretation:

This 'AdhikaraNa' is meant to refute the theory of saankhya (^i<sM) who propose that PrakRiti is primordial cause for the word. If other than Brahman is established as the cause for the world, (o)R°h fes[RT) the doctrine based on Vedas which declares that Brahman is the cause for the world will crumble. Therefore it is unavoidable to condemn the PrakRiti of Saankhya. Thus it has been interpreted in 'Shankar Bhaashhya'. But we can see that PrakRiti is referred as the primordial cause of the world in several parts of the Vedaas and PuraNa-s. Even Advaita Vedanta has admitted that an insentient object as the cause of the world. According to Advaita the cause for the body is insentient object and is called 'avyakta' (3T°qxF0. No philosopher cannot but accept a primordial object, which is different from Brahman and is the cause for this world, just as a clay for the pot. Brahman alone is an independent cause for this world. Other than Him there is no independent cause for this world. This is the main issue to be discussed in this 'AdhikaraNa'. Saankhya-s have denied the existence of Brahman and established an independent PrakRiti. It is this, independent PrakRiti which has to be opposed by all philosophers. But there is no necessity to deny the very substance of PrakRiti. Therefore the other commentators having denied the very nature of the PrakRiti, have taken much strain in interpreting the Vedic statements which refer to the PrakRiti. This effort is absolutely unnecessary. By accepting insentient PrakRiti, which is referred in the

144

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Vedaas and Upanishads, it is intelligent enough to consider that it is the material cause but not an independent one. Absolute denial of the PrakRiti is irrelevant and it is against the valid means of knowledge.

In this way the first chapter has correlated all the words with the supreme Brahman and established that He is full of infinite qualities.

Thus ends the fourth part of the first chapter.

This is the end of the first chapter.

X-

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

145

THE SECOND CHAPTER

The essence of the first chapter is that all the statements, words, and letters and their intonations declare primarily that Shree NaraayaNa (aft -ikn u i) alone is full of infinite qualities such as omniscience, omnipotence, with all wealth and glory, and without any defects such as ignorance, dependence etc., and should be known as the highest principal object of knowledge. The second chapter of BrahmaSuutra is meant to resolve the possible objection against the subject of the first chapter, which establishes that all the words of the Vedaas correlate ('sarvashabda samanvaya') ("^^T^"?FRRT) with the Lord. If this objection is not resolved we cannot have determined knowledge, devoid of any doubts, of 'sarvashabda samanvaya' or the resulting fullness with infinite qualities. When we try to establish 'sarvashabda samanvaya' on the basis of logic, some objections may arise. In addition some heated controversy can arise from different schools of thoughts such as Nyaaya(^TFT), Saankhya(Trt^T), Bouddha(^te), Jaina(%T), etc. Even when we analyze Vedic statements they appear to oppose each other. In the first part of the second chapter, objections based on logic are resolved. In the second part, objections from different schools of thought are answered. In the third and fourth parts the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in Vedic statements are resolved. In particular the third part answers the objections arising from simple Vedic statements, whereas the fourth part deals with the objections arising from the strong Vedic statements which enjoy the support of the logic. In this

146

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

way the four types of objections have been resolved in four parts of the second chapter in BrahmaSuutra.

In addition, in the first few adhikaraNa-s of the first part, the objections arising from 'aagamaas'(^IFFIT:), which are based on different traditions such as 'paashupata' (hrjhci) etc., are resolved. Though this part is meant to answer the objections raised on the basis of logic, it is not irrelevant to solve the objections raised by 'aagamaas'. Because these aagamaas defend their position quoting the Vedic statements along with logical deductions and using theories based on their doctrines. Therefore the objections from aagamaas involve all the three aspects: logic, doctrine and Vedic statements. The objections from aagamaas are related to all the four parts. Hence, because of its relevance, it has been dealt with in the beginning of the chapter.

SmRityadhikaraNa:

We cannot accept glories such as fullness of the infinite qualities for VishNu, who is the supreme Brahman, as described in the Vedaas. The aagamaas, such as 'Paashupata(MI^Md), Skaanda(T^F^), Soura(^T), etc., declare these glories for different gods. When there is an objection from those aagamaas, how can we accept what is said in the Vedaas. It may be argued that those aagamaas authored by different personalities cannot oppose Vedaas since Veda is 'apourushheya' (•stcw^Nt) (non-human authored). But the omniscient gods such as Shiva, Skanda

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

147

C*3^), Surya (5$) etc., have realized the truth and written the texts popularly known as 'paashupata', 'skaanda' and soura' etc. These texts are written by the most trustworthy gods. But there is no such great human authorship for Vedaas. It is not the text written with the background of any perceptible knowledge. We cannot develop any faith or trust in the Vedaas which are not written by anyone with any experience or knowledge. Vedaas are formed just as letters that are formed accidentally by a row of ants without preconceived design. How can we decide that the aagamaas such as Paashupata, which are written by gods are invalid just because they are opposed by such weak Vedaas? Hence when there is conflict between Veda and aagama, we should uphold only aagamaas.

In this view when we analyze we will have to accept the text Pancharaatra (h-^kuO also as valid pramaaNa(WFr), which declares the supremacy of the Lord VishNu against the aagamaas such as Paashupata etc. If the aagamaas such as Paashupata etc., are written by Shiva and other gods, the text 'Pancharaatra' is written by Lord VishNu. This text Pancaraatra like Vedaas also declares VishNu as the highest principle. When these two scriptures are equally valid, how can we accept only Paashupata scripture by discarding the Pancaraatra text. When the validity of both the scriptures is analyzed Pancaraatra should be considered as more valid. The text Pancaraatra enjoys the experience of the Lord Vishnu who is omniscient. It has consonance with the Vedic statements. Among all contradicting aagamaas such as Pancaraatra, Paashupata, Skanda etc.,

148

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

we have to give more importance to Pancaraatra, which is supported by Vedaas. Hence we have to determine the truth only on the basis of Vedaas and Pancaraatra.

To reject Vedaas on the basis of aagamaas such as Pashhupata etc., the validity for those aagamaas has to be determined at first. It is not possible to prove that they are valid source of knowledge just because the authors who are gods realized the truth and wrote them. The aagamaas such as Shaiva, Pancaraatra, Soura etc., are not expounding the objects uniformly. One aagama describes the object quite opposite to that of the other aagama. If Shaivaagama (*|c||'h) establishes that Lord Shiva is the highest, other aagamaas declare that Lord Ganesha or Lord Skanda is the highest. These mutually conflicting aagamaas cannot be valid. Among them only one aagama can be regarded as valid. How can we decide the other aagamaas are invalid which contradict the particular aagama which is accepted as valid. The respective followers of these scriptures justify that the gods Shiva, VishNu, Ganesha, Skanda, Surya, four-faced Brahma etc., have realized the truth and wrote these puraaNa-s. In this situation how can we determine that a particular God is omniscient and trust-worthy and the text written by him is only valid, while the other scriptures are invalid since those authors do not have omniscience and trustworthiness? How can the rest of the people accept the stories and glories about the profounder-aacharyas described by their respective followers? Thus when all the smRiti-sC^gfcO and aagamaas are enjoying equal status, which one should be taken as valid one? Which one should

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

149

be rejected as invalid? This is difficult to determine. We will have to determine one of them is valid only on the basis of 'apourushheya' Vedaas. In this view the Pancaraatra aagama alone is more valid than the rest, since it is supported by Vedaas and is in consonant with Vedaas. No other aagamaas can negate the doctrine determined by both the PramaaNaas, namely 'apourushheya' Veda and pancaraatra aagama, which is written by omniscient NaraayaNa. In addition even if the ritualistic actions are performed as prescribed by those aagamaas the results are accomplished very rarely. We observe that many times these rituals are futile. A doubt will arise whether the result is not secured because of our commissions or omissions, or the founder aachaarya-s of these scriptures have deceived us by telling a lie. Because we cannot determine the validity of those scriptures. Even if rituals are performed according to Vedaas and pancaraatra aagama, we may not be successful in getting the result. So a question may arise as to why should we accept Vedaas and Pancaraatra aagama are valid one. But the qualifications prescribed in the Vedaas to perform the rituals are very rigid and strict. The result can be accomplished only if the following conditions and qualifications are fulfilled, a) the purity of the family starting from great-great grandfather, b) all the necessary rites of purification from child-hood, c) performance of the rituals without any commissions and omissions. It is difficult to determine the all-round perfection in the Vedic rituals. Therefore the results might not be acquired in spite of performing Vedic rituals that involve very rigid rules

150

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

and restrictions. Hence based on this, Vedaas cannot be treated as invalid. But no such rigid restrictions exist in aagamaas. Also they do not prescribe compulsory rigid qualifications for the performer. All the restrictions are very simple and easy. When it is so, if one does not get the result, their validity becomes questionable. In this way it is impossible to determine the validity for the scriptures such as Pashupata etc., for a) inconsistencies and mutually conflicting concepts and b) failures of their prescribed ritual acts.

There is one more reason to say that there is no problem to establish the validity of the Vedaas even though the Vedic rituals have been unsuccessful. The mental defects such as ignorance, illusion and deception of the author are the cause for any text to become invalid. Any text can become invalid by giving wrong meaning when one or all of these following reasons are present: a) when the objects are not understood properly, b) when they are comprehended wrongly, c) when it is written with the intention to deceive by creating illusion and d) when it is not properly pronounced. This validity for any text is possible when it written by a human because of his mental defects. But Vedaas are beyond and above any such mental weaknesses and defects since they are not written by any human. They are 'apourushheya'as. In this case how can Veda become invalid when it is free from any possible defects for any text?

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

151

Vedas Are Non-Human Authored:

A question may arise as to how can we believe that Vedaas are not written by anybody. Generally we can know the author either when he is mentioned as the author in that text or through the writings of the other authors who write about this author in their texts. No one unnecessarily doubts about the authenticity of the authors mentioned in their texts. But Vedaas are not authored by anybody. It is an eternal message. It is mentioned in the Vedaas very clearly that Vedaas have been continuously there from time immemorial. It is beginning-less just as the supreme Brahman. Even in the PuraaNa-s there are several statements, which declare that Vedaas are beginning-less and eternal. Thus when it is declared in the Vedaas and in other scriptures that Vedaas are 'apourushheya'C^nl^^) there is no scope for any unnecessary doubt. If Vedaas were written by anyone, at least their names would have been popular. There can be so many proverbs by unknown authors. But Vedaas are not like proverbs. It is impossible to accept that the society, believing the Vedaas as supreme source of knowledge for thousands of years and studying, reciting and protecting it through traditional way of learning called 'padapaaTha(nqHici), kramapaaThaC^HHid) and ghanapaaTha'(^R W), has forgotten the author of these Vedaas. Hence we have to determine that Vedaas are not written by any human author.

There is one more important reason to justify that Vedaas are 'apourushheya'. Generally all the philosophers

152

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

have accepted number of objects which are beyond our perception. Even the philosophers who do not accept the existence of the Lord accept entities which are supersensory such as merit, sin, heaven, soul etc. Vedaas are essential to know these supersensory entities. It is not possible to know them by direct perception. Also we cannot know them on the basis of the Logic. For every logic there can be always some counter logic* One can prove or disprove anything on the basis of logic with his intellectual power. We cannot establish anything on the basis of logic since it creates only confusion. Even though one can believe merits and sins, which are the basis for the varieties and inequalities seen in the world, it is impossible to know special characteristic of super sensory entities only on the basis of logic and imaginations. Is it possible to determine on the basis of logic as to which is sinful act, which is a meritorious act, what are the undesirable results of those acts, and what are their source of knowledge?

Let us examine whether it is possible to know the supersensory entities such as dharma(^), adharma(3T^4) etc., through the scriptures written by knowledgeable and trustworthy authors.

Normally we see human beings having ignorance, illusion, doubts and deceits. The text written by them cannot be valid. We can accept the text as valid only if it is written by a person who does not have any defects, and who has clear perception of the subtler objects such as dharma, adharma etc., which are beyond our direct perception. It is

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

153

difficult for us to believe that such a person who is the most trustworthy and never influenced by such defects is living among us. Those who cannot accept any text non-authored by a human, how can they accept a man who is free from defects and having absolute knowledge? We will have to believe some person without proof as having all knowledge and we should also imagine that he does not have any possible human defects such as deceit etc. We also have to believe he is the one who wrote this particular book among so many different books available, without any proof. Instead of imagining so many baseless things it is easier to believe Veda as 'apourushheya' where the author has never been identified yet. Here one need not imagine unnecessary things. If one can believe a person who is all knower and free from defects, why can he not accept some text, which is 'apourushheya'.

Is it possible for any sentence to be without having any composer? There must be an intelligence behind any formation of a sentence. An individual by systematically placing the letters in some order composes the word and sentences. In this case it will clearly concluded that without an intelligent person the composition of such sentences are impossible. However there is scope for such objections because there is no clear concept of the non-human authorship for Vedaas. That the Vedaas are 'apourushheya' does not mean it is stable like the space (3n°FT?r) from the beginning-less time. We pronounce the Vedaas by using our intelligence and by joining the words. But we are not thinking independently to join these words together. We

154

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

think depending on our earlier thought pattern and then we compose the sentence. The Vedic statements, which have been pronounced by us and by our ancestors, and the thought process behind these Vedic statements have been there continuously from time immemorial. Veda is called 'apourushheya' for a) it is being pronounced in the same style from the beginning-less time, and b) nobody has independently repeated Vedaas without depending on the previous composition. It does not mean that some text exists without any human intelligence behind it. The infinite Vedaas are constantly reverberating in the mind of the Lord who is the eternally embodiment of infinite knowledge. Therefore it is not impossible for Vedaas to be beginningless and eternal as it is based on the knowledge of Brahman who is also beginningless and eternal. If the Lord who is omniscient can be accepted, the 'apourushheya' Veda can also be accepted in a similar way. Hence there is nothing unscientific from any angle with regard to the non-human authorship of the Vedaas.

A question is raised in this connection. If Veda, which is not a personal composition can be a source of knowledge, why not the letter patterns formed by a row of ants be a valid means of knowledge? To become a valid source of knowledge, intellectual motivation is not enough. Just because a text is written by an intellect with an intention to communicate something, that by itself need not become a valid means of knowledge. In the Mahaabhaarata (WlRcT) there is an incident that involved Aswatthaama(3T??eTFn") attacking unexpectedly the army of PaanDavaas during the

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

155

night while they were sleeping. He did the heinous act of murder. He got this idea because he saw a owl attacking the crows during the night. When owl attacked the crows it did not intend to teach Aswatthaama to do the similar act. But from this omen Aswatthaama made a master plan and executed it. All have accepted these omens as 'pramaaNa' indicating the future results. But these occurrences do not happen to convey any specific message. The five sense organs are considered as valid, since they give us real knowledge, even though it is not intentional. Similarly there is no problem at all to accept Veda as 'pramaaNa', even if it does not have any human intelligence behind it. We can derive the real knowledge even from the letter patterns formed by the row of ants. If a row of ants forms a pattern of the word "Raama", it can give correct knowledge. To determine the knowledge whether it is correct or not, all we need to know is whether it is negated by experience or any other valid PramaaNa. Other aspects are not very important. Hence though it is not a personal composition, Veda is still valid like Pratyaksha for two reasons i.e. a) it is free from any defects and b) it is not negated by any other means of knowledge. Even SmRitiis such as Pancharaatra, etc., can be PramaaNaas since they are supported by Vedaas and are in consonant with Vedaas. Any statements, which is against Shruti($rfcT) and SmRitiOFPffcT), can not be valid. It will be considered as valid only if it is not against any PramaaNa.

156

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Position of Logic in knowing the Truth:

Some may question the validity of Vedaas since it can be opposed by logic. But there is no problem for the validity of the Vedaas even if they are contradicted by logic. Nothing can be treated as invalid just on the strength of the logic. For every logic there can be counter logic. Also logic can mislead us. The truth cannot be established just by demonstrating intellectual acrobatics. Therefore Vedaas should not be rejected just because it is opposed by logic. Any statements should be treated as invalid only when there is a contradiction from direct perception, experience and valid verbal testimony (shabda pramaaNa). When Veda is opposed by such powerful PramaaNaas it should be interpreted in consonance with those PramaaNaas. We should not interpret Veda in such a manner that it contradicts experience and any other PramaaNa. Then what is the position of the logic in finding the truth? If logic is flexible and hence it is useless in knowing the truth, then why should we conduct any discussion and contemplation on the basis of logic? Yes, mere logic by itself without the support of Pratyaksha and other valid means of knowledge could mislead us. But logic, which has the support of Pratyaksha (^T§T) and shabda 0?I^), can guide us in the right direction. We may get illusion that this is silver after seeing the shining object such as shell. After proper examination of its real attributes and qualities we get correct perception that after all it is shell and not silver. We will be able to identify valid perception with the help of logic. When Vedic statements are mutually conflicting and indicating different

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

157

meanings we can determine the real meaning of the Vedaas only by thorough analysis by using logic. We can get correct knowledge from direct perception and valid scriptures only on critical examination by using logic. Thus logic is helpful as a collateral support in finding the truth. It cannot determine the truth independently. To determine anything on the basis of logic, we need to follow some rules. Only due to concomitance relationship between fire and smoke such as, "where there is smoke there is fire", we will be able to deduce the presence of fire on the hill by perceiving smoke. Only because we know the general rule from the valid means of knowledge that one should not cause violence to the animals, we are able to determine that different violent acts on different occasions are prohibited. To gain valid knowledge from logic, we should first learn the general rule applicable to logic for which we have to depend on Pratyaksha and other valid means of knowledge. Without the help of other means of knowledge, logic alone cannot establish the truth. Thus how can logic negate Pratyaksha and shabda pramaaNa when that itself depends totally on them? Hence in determining the truth self-experience and direct perception have greater importance than any other means of knowledge. Even Vedaas and other means of knowledge also depend on Pratyaksha and direct experience. Even Vedaas should not be interpreted against them. Since logic is depending on Pratyaksha and shabda pramaaNa it enjoys the third position. Thus strengths and weaknesses of the valid means of knowledge are analyzed.

158

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

We should not consider Vedaas as apramaaNa even when rituals performed as per instructions of the Vedaas are unsuccessful. There is no scope for any human defect, which can invalidate Vedaas, since Vedaas are 'apourushheya'. Failures in obtaining the results for rituals could be due to commissions and omissions during the performance. It is only because of our defects that the rituals prescribed in the Vedaas are unsuccessful, but not because of any defects in the Vedaas. Even when the medicine is taken sometimes the disease will not be cured. But no one will blame the medicines for this failure. It is assumed that the patient has not taken medicine properly or has not followed the required diet. Since Vedaas are 'apourushheya' and free from defects, it is confirmed that we must have committed errors, while performing the rituals prescribed by Vedaas, when they are unsuccessful in securing the results. For this reason the validity of the Vedaas should not be questioned. This is the essence of the section.

Thus it is impossible for Vedaas to become invalid since there is no scope for human intellectual faults in them. Hence there is no reason to have any doubt regarding the validity of the Vedaas.

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

159

3TftlMMfsjeHU|

AbhimaanyadhikaraNa:

Though the oppositions from the scriptures such as Paashupata, etc., and logic are resolved, some more objections arise to question the validity of Vedaas. In the Vedaas there are some statements 'mRidabraviit' (^s41 cT) meaning 'mud spoke', 'aapaH aikshanta' (3TFT: t^^RT) meaning 'waters saw', 'oshhadhayaH samvadante' (3nWT: ^ciq-ri) meaning 'herbs conversed', etc. It is impossible for inanimate objects to talk or to see. We can find some other reason for our ritual performance to be unsuccessful. But the actions involving talking and seeing by inanimate objects cannot be possible. How can Vedaas become pramaaNa which consist of absurd and impractical statements.

This adhikaraNa resolves the above objection. Veda cannot be apramaaNa since it is 'apourushheya'. But we cannot reject the logic that insentient object cannot talk or

see.

By reconciling Vedic statements and logic we need to find the meaning which will not contradict the logic. The words 'mRit'(^rT) and 'aapaH' (3TFT:) in these statements do not mean mud and water. They indicate the presiding deities which are controlling those objects being present in them. In the first chapter it has been explained that instead of external objects, it is the internal entities that are primarily implied by the words. Therefore those words describe primarily the presiding deities rather than

160

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

the inanimate objects. These presiding deities can motivate all the activities by their divine forms. Thus there cannot be any inconsistencies in the Vedic statements. Shree Veda Vyaasa has shown a method in this Suutra as to how we should get the purport of the Vedaas without contradicting the logic. Conscious entities such as demigods have to be present and motivate in order to account for different actions and modifications from insentient, immovable objects. These gods are called presiding deities, who execute different specific actions and are subordinate to the Lord who is the great conscious and potential power of the Universe. These presiding deities pervading their respective inanimate obj ects activate every part of their obj ects. These deities who are having subtle forms can have conversations and discussions. They are not visible to us since they have divine and supersensory forms. But there are some great souls who have realized such deities through their meditation and penance. Unlike the Lord VishNu, though they don't have unlimited and boundless powers they have some divine powers that humans don't have. These deities execute extraordinary acts by their unique divine power being invisible to us. How can we know such unique entities? They are not directly perceivable. We cannot understand them who are never seen so far even through the shabda-s. How can we know those devaas? But Shree Madhvacharya has explained that these entities can be known through Shaastraas. As we infer the Lord through the creation, sustenance and destruction of this world, the Shaastra reveals the demi gods to us by explaining the

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

161

features of the gods and their activities in the universe such as rain, wind, etc. We should not consider Vedaas as the bundle of absurd stories, which deal with such presiding deities.

World is not Created by Shuunya: (^T - Nothingness):

It is not correct to state that the world is created by the Lord. The world will be created again after complete diluge (pralaya) (^T). During pralaya nothing can exist. No positive entity, either the Lord or prakRiti, can exist during pralaya. Only 'abhaava', negation can exist. When Lord himself was not there during pralaya how could He create the world in the beginning? Before the creation of any object its 'abhaava' or its absence should exist. Let us accept that 'negation' (void) as the cause of this universe.

There are Vedic statements that support this doctrine, "asat eva idam agra asiit, tasmaat asataH sat ajaayata" (3ra"^=ri^nT 3TRTtrf cFRncT 3TOtT: W 3HWd) "Beforecreation of the world only nothingness existed. From that, positive objects were created. Thus on the basis of Vedic statement and logic, shuunya(^RT) or abhaava(3T*Tra") is considered as the cause for the creation of the world. This objection has been discussed in this 'asat adhikaraNa' (3TO^ft°h< u i ).

The world cannot be created from void. A creator is essential to create any object. For any creation the following are the essential qualities: a) knowledge of the object of creation and of the other associated entities, b) desire for

162

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

creation and c) efforts required for creation. The creation, such as pot, house etc., is possible only when a creator is there with knowledge, desire and efforts. The nothingness which is devoid of knowledge and efforts cannot be a creator. If before the creation of the world nothingness alone remains, the creation of the world is impossible, since there is no creator. Though we are observing the birth and death constantly, no one has seen the world which is without any body. If this is the case, how can we guess that there could be no conscious entity during pralaya?

We cannot prove that the variety and specialties of the creation are accidental. The righteousness and the unrighteousness of the jiivaas, which are from time immemorial, are the base for these varieties of the creation. The jiivaas are experiencing pleasure and pain according to dharma and adharma at different level of degrees. Some jiivaas are enjoying the riches, and all comforts and abundance of pleasure, where as some other people are suffering with poverty, disease and endless pain and sorrow. These two varieties cannot be attributed to 'nothingness' without any valid cause. The cause for the variety in the world should preexist. If dharma and adharma are not existing before the creation, how can this divergent world come into being from nothing? Since we accept the presence of merits and demerits, we should also accept their presence before the creation. Hence if the entities dharma and adharma are accepted, then jiivaas as the locus for righteousness and unrighteousness, and paramaatma (h<hic+hi) as the controller and governor of all, have to be

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

163

accepted. How can one argue that during pralaya only 'abhaava' existed?

We are observing all the creations around us, which can only be the result of efforts and plans of some intelligence. Hence it is impossible to accept creation of the world which is systematically in order by nothingness which is of the nature of unconsciousness. The argument that nothingness is the cause for the creation of this world based on logic is supported by only a part of Vedic sentence 'asat eva idam' (3TO^°r ^i). However it cannot deny the Lord's creator-ship of the world, which is established on the basis of valid logic and innumerable Vedic statements. Any theory established on the basis of logic can be refuted easily by counter logic. But the logic supported by the Vedaas are very strong like a knife and an axe with a handle to refute the baseless theories and thus can be used in determining the truths.

In the Vedaas there are different statements which describe the creation in different ways. 1) 'jiivaat bhavanti bhuutani'(*il°ii■&°iPri\niPi) meaning all the objects are created by jiivaas, 2) 'pradhaanaat idam utpannam' (SfaMiR^cMJiH) meaning the world is produced by prakRiti, and 3) 'akasmaathi idam aviraasiit' (sp^nfe 1<t 3#RT#T) meaning the world is born without a cause. We observe many objects being produced by conscious entity. Milk becomes curd due to natural process. We don't see any cause for different colors of leaves, flowers and fruits. Based on these examples why not we consider that the world

164

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

is created by prakRiti? Why should we accept God as the cause for the creation of this world? Why should we not accept that the world is created accidentally?

We can imagine the answer for these questions based on what was discussed above. The Vedaas which are treated as the supreme valid means of knowledge cannot provide mutually conflicting concepts by declaring at different places that each one of these, the Lord, jiiva or prakRiti is the creator of the world. And again it cannot state that world is created without a cause. We have to attempt to give a self-consistent meaning for all these Vedic statements. All the Vedic statements, which are describing the Lord as the primordial cause for this world using different words, should be understood as explained already in the first chapter, samanvayadhyaaya'C^PT^CTW^T). It should not be determined on the basis of weak logical arguments that jiiva is the cause for the world or the world is created on its own accidentally.

Identity (3T^fc) of Jiiva and Brahman is impossible:

The Vedic statement 'pare avyaye sarve ekiibhavanti'O^ 3}o^ ^ #1^) has declared that the jiivaas who are different at the level of SamsaaraC^RTR") become one in MokshaCRt^T) in the state of liberation. How can the Brahman be the creator of this world if he is one with jiiva with limited power? This doubt arose due to lack of proper understanding of Vedic statement. Two different objects can join together but two different principles cannot become one losing their individuality. We

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

165

should note the difference in the meaning of 'abheda' (spfc) (oneness or identity) and 'milana' (Ihcm) (mixing together). When milk and water are mixed together we say that they became one or they got merged. But milk and water don't lose their identity and become one. Actually milk only gets mixed with water. This is called 'aikya' (W) or identity. We should give the same meaning for the statement that jiiva becomes Brahman. Vedaas intend to say that jiivaas are joining the Lord by the statement 'ekiibhavanti' O^pHh°iPi ). In this worldly life jiivaas and the Lord, do not think alike (bouddhika aikyamatya (^fe^ ^WW) i.e oneness in thought). We stumble over in our life, thinking and acting much different from that of the Lord. But in Moksha jiiva and the Lord don't think differently. Our thoughts will be in tune with the thoughts of the Lord. We will have total intellectual consonance with the Lord and we will always be with Him. Veda has meant by 'ekiibhavanti' only this get-togetherness with harmonious relationship with the Lord. Hence the Lord who is full of infinite powers is entirely different from us in Samsaara as well as in Moksha.

Creation requires other Causes also:

Is the Lord alone independent cause for the creation of this world? Are other instruments also independent causes for this world? The pot maker uses many objects, which have independent existence such as mud, wheel, stick etc., when he makes a pot. Similarly we can imagine that the Lord also created this world depending on so many

166

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

independent entities. To support this view there is a description in puraaNa-s and Upanishads that the world is created by prakRiti and five other basic elements. Hence it is not the correct doctrine that the Lord alone is the independent cause for this creation. This argument is discussed here.

As there are Vedic statements which declare that the Lord has used many other inanimate objects to create this world, there are some other statements also like "kim svidaasiit adhishhTaanam aarambhaNam vaa" (1%f*°r^ 3TPFfcr arfeFPT 3TRT^rt eft), which says that the Lord alone created this world in the beginning without depending on any other instruments. We have to make efforts to derive the real meaning by reconciling these statements which are apparently contradicting each other. The Lord uses inanimate objects for the creation. But their existence and activities are depending on the Lord. The Lord creates this world with the instruments, which are totally depending on Him. Though this creation involves other causes, the Lord alone is the independent cause. This is the harmonious meaning of these two statements. The Vedic statements which say that other than Brahman no entity existed before creation does not reject the existence of other objects. Their inner meaning is other than Brahman no entity in the world is independent, 'tasmaat haanyat na paraH kincana aasa'CcFFTRT ?FM ^T TT: few^ 3TRT), thus another Vedic statement has vividly explained that there is no independent entity different from Brahman.

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

167

Why does the Lord who is an independent entity use other instruments to create this world? Could He not create this world without them? When He invariably uses all the other objects to create this world, will it not affect his independence? There is no scope for such questions. Though the Lord is independent and all-powerful, on His own will He uses other instruments in this creation. This is also one of his glories. A young leader though he can walk freely on his own, carries a walking stick just for show-off. The Lord also is engaged in the same playful act, 'leelaa vyaapaara' (^ter ostptr). By this his glory will only increase but will not decrease.

Is Jiiva a Doer?

Jiiva does not have limbs (niravayava) (fa<oNoi). Unlike cloth, which is made out of hundreds of threads has its parts, jiiva does not have parts. But it is our experience that jiiva does not use his power equally in small as well as big acts. How does this divergent power manifest when he does not have parts? From this can we conclude that he does not have any doer-ship and he does not act. Many spiritual pursuits have been prescribed in the Shaastraas. If jiiva is not the doer, he should not be affected by merits and demerits, happiness and unhappi-ness. But it is not possible to deny the doer-ship for jiivaas, which is commonly experienced, 'vihaara Upadeshaat' ([ciskIh^iki) - thus after SamsaaraC^RTR) even in Moksha many activities are prescribed for jiivaas. Hence this doer-ship of jiiva cannot be illusory. Therefore it is difficult to solve this

168

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

riddle, whether he is a doer or a non-doer.

If jiiva is doing anything independently then there is a scope for all these objections. Does he do every act with his full power? Or does he use only part of his power? Does he have parts or not? Such questions may be difficult to answer. But behind every action of the jiiva there is inexplicable and wonderful power of the Lord. With His unimaginable power He can reduce or increase the power of jiiva. Unlike inanimate objects have different parts jiiva does not have parts. Therefore Vedaas declare that jiiva is 'akhanDa'(3TisPT) (indivisible) and niramsha (f^RTT) (without parts). Hence there is a possibility for increase and decrease in the manifestation of jiiva's power of doer-ship. This function in his power is due to the power of the object and the great power of the Lord who controls it. The bliss that jiiva experiences in the Moksha is due to his intrinsic nature. It is not different from the self. Though we know ourselves even right now, why don't we experience this bliss which is quite our nature? All the philosophers have to untie this knot. This riddle can be answered only when we accept the special nature of the jiiva and wonderful divine power of the Lord. Even the Lord is indivisible. But He can manage the different actions of the jiivaas as well as his different activities by His own transcendental power.

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

The purpose of the Creation:

169

Is there any purpose for the Lord to create the world? Without any purpose if the Lord created this world He cannot be considered as intelligent. Not only that, nobody gets normally engaged in any act expecting some benefit or other. If there is no desire for benefit no one can act. If the Lord also created this world expecting some benefit, how can He be considered as perfect if He is gaining some benefit that He lacks? When the Lord himself is imperfect, how could He create this world? Hence God cannot be creator of this world. These are the common questions raised by ordinary people.

There is no such rule that to act, a purpose is needed. There are some natural activities. We don't observe any purpose when wind blows and river flows. These are natural occurrences. Similarly why cannot the Lord create the world by His intrinsic nature without any desire for benefit? Though unintentional action is possible for an inanimate object, how it is possible for a conscious entity to act without any purpose? Actually there need not be any purpose behind the action of conscious entities. Mad people are engaged in activities without any purpose. But how can we believe that the intelligent God acts like a mad person without thinking? Hence the creation of this world remains as a riddle to be answered.

Shree Madhvacharya has explained this very clearly in his Anuvyaakhyaana( &\ 'j,'*-! Rs^FF). There are several natural activities even by wise people without any purpose.

170

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Our eyes often blink. While giving discourses and speaking we shake our hands and fingers. These actions which are happening without efforts and strain do not have any purpose. The creation of this universe is natural and easy job for God like blinking of our eyes. It does not have any purpose. We perform many actions without purpose. Out of ecstasy of bliss, we jump, laugh and clap our hands. We do not derive any benefit from these. It is an expression of our pleasure. This creation is His play. Some people say that the Lord has created this world for His play. But the Lord has not created this world for his enjoyment or play. He does not derive any benefit from this. This creation is His play, but not for play.

We have to observe one more aspect. The Lord is perfect. He need not to do anything for His own benefit. He does not derive any benefit from any action. But He also acts for the benefit of the world and upliftment of the people. The creation of this world by the Lord is not for His benefit but for the benefit of the world. There is no scope for any imperfection in the Lord who is engaged in the activities of the world. Only out of compassion that is not prompted by selfishness.

Some argue that the Lord does not have any desire. He does not have desire to uplift the beings. But He does everything through His eternal knowledge without having any desire. That is not correct. One who is acting for the benefit of the others is only considered as compassionate. He cannot be benevolent if He does not have any desire.

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

171

In addition the Upanishads state, "icchaamaatram prbhoH sRishhTiH iti sRishhTou vinischitaaH" (^IHN* wtit: ^E: #T ^sff fsrftfgRTl":). The Upanishad has described different theories with regard to the creation. Some state that the Lord alone has transformed Himself as the Universe. Some others argue that this world is just imagination just like a dream. Another theory is that this world is meant for the joy and play of the Lord. The Upanishads have mentioned all these different theories and finally determined that this world is not the transformation of the Brahman. It is neither imaginary. The Lord has created this world by His own will - This is the final conclusion of the wise. By this it is clear that the Lord has desire. The Upanishad statements ' sokaamayata' ( -h! °h m n ci ) has clearly declared that the Lord has the desire.

The liberation from this bondage is not possible by our own power. One can be liberated only through the grace of the Lord. Even in the world no one can be released from the Jail by His own will. It is possible only with the orders of an officer. Similarly even Vedaas declare that the release from the Samsaara, bondage, is possible only through the grace of the Lord. If the Lord does not have any desire, from whose grace can we get liberated? The Vedaas describe the qualities and glories of the Lord and the nature of the Lord so that jiivaas can get the blessings of the Lord to attain the liberation from this bondage. Hence how can the Vedaas, which are meant to promote the devotion for the Lord, reach their goal if the Lord does not have any desire? How can the Vedaas which have failed in

172

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

accomplishing their goal, be valid? The Vedaas which are meant for some specific goal can be valid only when they achieve their goal. Even the Vedaas have repeatedly declared that the Lord is compassionate and benevolent. Even He desires for the sake of others though not for His sake. Hence we have to accept that even the Lord has desire and all the activities of the world such creation, sustenance, destruction, liberation, etc., are done only through the desire and willpower of the Lord.

Lord does not have partiality:

The experiences of jiivaas in life are not uniform in this world. If some are enjoying extreme comforts and pleasure in the life, some are suffering from sorrows and agony. If Lord alone is the cause for our happiness and unhappiness then will he not become partial giving extreme pleasures to some and extreme pain to others?

Why should the perfect Lord become partial instead of creating all the jiivaas alike? If the Lord is giving different degrees of pain and pleasure depending on the actions of the Jiivaas, why not the omnipotent Lord make all the people do only good deeds. Is it just by making some people do good deeds and give them pleasure and making some people do bad deeds and give them pain? Why does the Lord who is embodiment of compassion behave in such a cruel manner? This is a nagging question in the philosophical field. In Brahmasuutra and in Anuvyaakhyaana this has been explained easily. Though our good and bad deeds are only responsible for the variety of happiness, sorrow,

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

173

disease, poverty, richness, etc., it is intrinsic nature of the soul which is the basic cause for the variety of good and bad deeds. Lord alone is not the cause for our different actions. Our personality or individuality and different tendencies and instincts of thejiivaas are also the cause for our different actions. We call this intrinsic competence of the soul as 'swaruupayogyataa' C?3?^RfcffiT). This is not created by the Lord. This is our inseparable aspect of our nature. Our natural individuality is inseparable from us just as effulgence from the light, fragrance from the flower and sweetness from the sugar. This personality differs from jiiva to jiiva. Jiivaas experience different degrees of happiness and unhappiness because of their different acts due to the differences in their intrinsic nature and tendencies. Why is the difference in the taste of fruits from different plants though Gardener provides water equally from irrigation and rain as well as manure are the same for all plants? It is only due to the differences in the nature of the respective seeds and not for any other reason. Similarly though the Lord uses His power in all jiivaas equally they are enjoying different degrees of sorrow, happiness, pain, etc. We cannot blame the Lord and hold Him as responsible for all this. But a natural question may arise if it will be limiting the freedom of the Lord since He is depending on the personality of the Jiivaas. Why cannot the Lord make all the people equally happy by His own independent will, discarding the personality and the nature of the jiivaas? Many people raise this question. Though the personality or the nature of the jiivaas is beginningless, they depend

174

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

on the Lord alone. Thus finally the Lord alone is the responsible for these differences in the pain and pleasure according to jiivaas actions which are in tune with their intrinsic nature, and which again are in the control of the Lord. Hence the Lord cannot escape from this defect of partiality.

From reality point of view this partiality, which appears to be true, is not a defect. The Lord has followed His own special constitution of rules without rejecting the doer-ship and due responsibility of jiivaas as stated in the Vedaas. Based on that constitution if the Lord protects and punishes the Jiivaas according to their natural behavior, it cannot be considered as partiality. Even though an administrator has full power, if he executes his duty following the rules of the constitution, his credibility will only increase but not decrease. The personalities of jiiva's are beginningless. They are identical with Jiivaas implying that the jiivaas and their nature are one and hence inseparable. Changing the nature of the jiiva means changing the jiiva itself. Is it possible to change jiivaas who are beginningless and eternal? Creating something from nothing is not creation. Instead manifestation of subtler forms into gross forms is creation. There cannot be any creation for an object, which never exits. The Lord can only manifest the natural personality of the jiivaas. There is no question of changing the personality of the jiivaas and create a new one. Such questions arise when one does not know the real meaning of creation. Manifesting from subtler into grosser forms is exactly what

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

175

is considered as omnipotence of the Lord, but not creating which never exists. When this is understood properly there is no scope for any objection. For the Lord to become omniscient He need not know which does not exist. Similarly for Him to become creator of all, He need not create which never existed in subtler form. The Lord motivates all the jiivaas to do different acts according to their nature and personality. Although they are beginningless, they are not involved in the creation but are under His complete control. He gives different results according to their actions. In all these processes His independence is never affected. He is not having any partiality. The doer-ship and the responsibilities of the jiivaas mentioned in the Shaastraas will also not be affected. This difficult riddle can be resolved when the real meaning of creation, independence and the personality of jiivaas is understood.

"Om! sarvadharmopapattescha Om!"

Having observed defects in the human beings with that yardstick we should not measure the Lord to find out if He has any defects. There is no scope for such silly questions when the highest personality of the Lord, which is immeasurable, is understood. Let us examine whether there is any possibility of decreasing His qualities, which can give chance for defects.

When the Lord is accepted we regard Him as an

176

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

independent and all powerful. Even the Vedaas describe the Lord in the same manner. Can such an all-powerful independent Lord be cautious not to be affected by defects? Can He not insure that He is always full of infinite qualities? Does anyone who is having enormous power give any room for shortcomings? When He is the Lord He cannot lack anything. How is it possible to imagine the defects in the Lord who has the power to project even the apparent defects in the eyes of the ordinary people as non-defects? Hence it is indisputable that the Lord is full of infinite auspicious qualities and free from all defects.

Thus ends first part of the second chapter.

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

111

SECOND PART OF THE SECOND CHAPTER

In the first part of this chapter a logical objection (yukti virodha) (^frfr foRfa) about the fullness of the infinite qualities of Brahman is resolved. The second part examines the contradiction from different schools of thought. The other schools of thought have been in practice without any interruption continuously from the time immemorial. If Vedaas, which are not authored by any human and are beginningless, are authentic source of knowledge with regard to philosophical truths, why not the other schools of thought also be an authentic means of knowledge? These scriptures also are there since time immemorial like Vedaas. Still they are available. Hence why should we not consider them as valid means of knowledge similar to Vedaas? Such question may arise. Therefore all these schools of thought have been comparatively examined with the help of logic and other PramaaNaas in this part.

Examination of Sankhya school of thought:

"Om! rachanaanupapattescha naanumaanam Om!"

At first the Sankhya school of thought has been taken up for analysis. Sankhya-s have categorized all the objects into two as sentient and insentient. They do not accept the existence of the omniscient Lord. All the activities of the world take place only by the insentient prakRiti. The sentient soul (purusha) is without any action. He is not involved in any transaction. All the attributes and qualities

178

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

such as desire, efforts, knowledge etc., are the modifications of the mind. These are the attributes of the soul who is action-less. He is indifferent and not a doer. PrakRiti alone does everything. Also the purusha or chetanaC^Tff") is not enjoyer of any pain and pleasure of the life. Their argument is that jiiva does not have any modification or transformation. Hence he cannot be enjoyer. The knowledge, happiness and unhappiness are born in prakRiti only. According to Saankhyaas, since jiiva does not know the difference between him and prakRiti, he assumes himself to be doer and enjoyer of happiness and unhappiness. In reality jiiva is beyond any enjoyment. The Samsaara is nothing but ignorance of the difference between prakRiti and purusha. According to them, Moksha means realization of this difference between prakRiti and purusha. Some Sankhya-s accept that jiiva is experiencing pain and pleasure with his natural power of consciousness. Because of lack of knowledge of the difference between purusha and prakRiti, the conscious entities get the experience of happiness and unhappiness. According to a branch of Saankhyaas, jiiva gets liberated from all these modifications when he realizes the difference between purusha and prakRiti. There are twenty-four categories of insentient objects such as prakRiti, mahattatvaC^TFrTroT), ahankaaratatva(3^cM< cTr^r) etc. They get transformed and become many objects, basically prakRiti tatva OjfsfrT clr^r) alone remains. Though the insentient world is now spread around in unlimited number of forms, at the end of pralaya they all merge into one to regain their original status.

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

179

However the insentient objects fundamentally are one, the saankhyaas have accepted the natural differences among manyjiivaas.

The main defect of this school of thought is to reject the all-powerful Lord. The theory that the insentient prakRiti alone creates this universe is highly inappropriate. An object, which is devoid of knowledge, desire etc., is regarded as insentient. No right thinking person can accept that unlike a pot-maker making the pot, the insentient prakRiti thinks and plans and creates this world. It is everyone's experience that knowledge and desire are the attributes of conscious entities, which are expressed as "I see" and " I want". Against this experience, attributing knowledge and desire for an insentient object is not correct.

The knowledge and desire are born in antahkaraNaCsT^rT: ^T 1 ^) (mind) alone which is the transformation of prakRiti. Because of lack of knowledge of difference between him and antahkaraNa, the knowledge and desire that belong to prakRiti are attributed to jiiva. This is also inappropriate. How can we superimpose in us the attributes of insentient objects when we have clear knowledge of difference between us and the objects in front of us such as the table, chair, etc. Similarly we have experienced that mind is different from us which is expressed as 'my mind' just as 'my body'. In this case we cannot superimpose the attributes of the mind in us. We can superimpose the attributes of one object on the other only when those objects are not perceived as different. Only

180

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

when a rope and a snake are not perceived differently we superimpose the attributes of the snake on the rope and get scared. When jiiva and his mind are experienced as different, how can jiiva has illusion that the knowledge and desire that belong to his mind are his own. Knowledge, desire and efforts are all the modifications of the mind. It is true that they are the qualities of the mind. By the statement 'kaamaH sankalpaH'^TH": TRTrT:), the Upanishads have mentioned that all our activities and declared that 'sarvam mana eva' (^ *FT t^ot) that is, they are all the modifications of the mind. We should not forget that jiiva alone is the experiencer of happiness and unhappiness, and that he is the controller of all these modifications of the mind with partial control over the sense organs and the mind, and by knowing all the activities of the mind through his natural power. More over, even jiiva has natural knowledge and desire and activities. We can see natural desire, knowledge, and efforts in the soul which are different from knowledge, desire etc. They are the modifications of the mind. To do some bad act we think several times. At the same time our inner mind cautions us not to do that since it is unjust. While taking a bribe, one's inner mind repeatedly tells him that it is not correct. But we engage ourselves in bad acts brushing aside this inner voice. Jiiva experiences at the same time two different conflicting ideas that are good and bad, respectively. Between these two ideas the inner voice that prompts him to do good is his natural desire from the self, and the other desire that prompts him to do bad deeds is the modification

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

181

of the mind. Jiiva is the owners of these desires. Therefore even though the desire and knowledge are born in the mind it is expressed as "he wants" and "he sees". Though the money is kept in the box, it is only the owner of the money who is called rich, but not the box. Hence entities such as desire and knowledge belong to the self and not to the mind. The prakRiti which is primordial material cause of all objects is not having any thinking or planning. If that is the case it is funny to say that prakRiti alone has created this divergent world in a systematic order.

It has been observed that behind every creation of an object there should be knowledge or desire of some conscious entity. When we see a house, which is well planned with bathroom, master bed room, kitchen etc., we infer that there must be some architect behind this construction. In this case it is not correct to say that the creation of this human body which has even a better design is created on its own by prakRiti. We recognize that some scientist has created a watch or a timepiece, which works systematically. Similarly when you look at the vast universe as a timepiece which is functioning in a systematic way, does it not require an omniscient and most intelligent person?

What is the proof to say that this world is created independently by an insentient prakRiti? We cannot know the creator who is the primordial cause by direct perception. The Vedaas and puraaNa-s declare that the Lord alone has created this world using the instruments such as prakRiti

182

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

etc. But they don't approve the theory of Saankhya's that the insentient prakRiti alone created this world. The text written by Sankhya-s is the only proof for this theory. But how can we determine the validity of that scripture? Even the author of this text must be a human being. How can we determine that the author is free from human defects such as ignorance, etc.? When different contradictory schools of thoughts are there, it is impossible to decide that a particular founder aacharya (^i^i4) is a realized and bonofied soul and the rest of the aacharyaas are not. It will not be correct to assume that among different achaaryaas from contradictory schools only a particular achaarya is a supersoul being who is beyond any human defects. Therefore it is impossible to determine the primordial cause of the world on the basis of Sankhya scriptures. In addition we can observe some irrelevant and inappropriate theories in school of Sankhya. We are getting the knowledge of hundreds of objects in front of us every second through our sense organs. But we don't get any doubt whether these objects exist or not, without any reason. The knowledge occurs along with its validity. Shree Madhvacharya has established that only when there is a specific reason, the knowledge becomes invalid. According to Sankhya, no reason is required to determine whether knowledge is valid or invalid. This is determined naturally. The sense organs have natural power to determine the validity and invalidity of the knowledge. But if this is not accepted we will get confused in every knowledge whether it is valid or invalid and as a result nothing can be

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

183

established. Why should we accept such power to the senses which is contradictory to our experience? We cannot determine the fundamental cause of this world on the basis of Sankhya school of thought, which deals with several aspects which are contradictory to our experience and logic.

Sankhya-s have attempted to establish on the basis of logic that the prakRiti alone is an independent cause of this world, though it is not possible to prove through their scriptural pramaaNa or Pratyaksha pramaaNa. This has already been analyzed. The insentient object cannot do anything on its own. We have already explained that it is beyond any imagination for prakRiti to have created this systematic world. Hence the Sankhya school of thought is not acceptable which rejects the Lord as the creator of this universe.

There are different branches in Saankhya's school of thought. Some argue that though the world cannot be created by insentient prakRiti alone, it can create this world with the help of conscious entities without depending on the Lord. But even this theory cannot solve the fundamental objection raised against Saankhya's school. The insentient object, which does not have knowledge and desire, cannot become the creator of the Universe even though it is associated with the conscious entity. Conscious entity can act using the inanimate objects as instruments, but it is nowhere seen insentient objects act using conscious entity as instrument. Though the inanimate object can vibrate due to association of a conscious entity, it can never have

184

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

knowledge and desire. Insentient objects can act due to association of conscious entity, but it will never loose its inanimate nature and become conscious entity. Hence it is highly unnatural that prakRiti can create the world with the help of conscious entity. It is very strange that the inanimate object, which is instrument of conscious entity, dominates conscious entity itself. Because of this only some Sankhyaas have accepted conscious entity as the prime cause and prakRiti as an instrumental cause. All our activities of life are carried on due to association of jiiva with jaDa (^T§), conscious and unconscious entities. Though jiiva has prime role in this creation the all-powerful God has nothing to do with it. This is an argument of some branches of Sankhya school. According to them jiiva cannot do anything without the association of inanimate object. It is very obvious that the soul cannot act without having any contact with the body. Similarly even inanimate object does not have independent action. It needs the association of some other conscious entity. Is it not necessary that an independent third conscious entity to join the dependent and limited jiiva and jaDa which can not act independently? Therefore though the conscious entity is having a prime role in the actions at the body level, we have to accept some other independent conscious entity. It is impossible to execute enormous physical activities of the universe without the Lord. The Sankhyaas accepted that it is conscious entity which has a major role in all the actions. Who is that conscious entity among jiivaas who is having prime role in all the activities of the world such as flowing

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

185

of the water, blowing of the wind, moving the stars and other planets? Is there any way out other than accepting the Lord who is the fundamental cause for all this creation?

Being unable to face such objections, a branch of Sankhya school of thought finally has accepted the existence of the Lord. They are recognized as 'seswara sankhyaas'C^SR" SriW:). Though the actions take place due to the natural fundamental powers of jiiva and prakRiti, the Lord is accepted as the guiding factor through His blessings and motivation. The grains and the soil have natural power for sprouting the seeds. If seeds have germinating power, the soil has nourishing power as material cause. Only when it rains from the clouds, the seeds sprout with the association of the soil. Similarly for the world to be created from the powers of jiiva and prakRiti, the power of the grace of the Lord who is remote is also required. Thus this branch of Sankhya school has accepted the existence of the Lord and has given more importance to His worship and meditation.

However the Lord, accepted by them has limited power. They have not accepted the Lord as described in the Vedaas as the cause for all existence, knowledge and actions of all objects by existing in all beings, and the unlimited all-pervading conscious entity, which is full of infinite qualities. Other than Vedaas there is no source of knowledge to know the Lord who is transcendental and supersensory entity. Hence it is not correct to define the personality of the Lord in a form opposite to that described

186

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

in Vedaas, like a cloud which rains from a distance or like a king sitting on a thrown located in a corner in his palace. The Vedaas have described the nature of the Lord, who is greater than the greatest, as all-pervading in the universe similar to the sky, existing in and out of every object, propelling their natural imbedded powers, controlling every movement of every object, and as the great conscious entity. The Lord controls the eternal entities such as space, prakRiti, jiiva, etc., with His eternal power. Just as the Lord is the cause for the existence of the impermanent objects, even for eternal objeendcts to be from beginning-less time, the eternal power of the Lord alone is the cause. Thus BrahmaSuutra has established the transcendental and boundless personality of the Lord who is the governing factor of all eternal and ephemeral objects and their intrinsic power and nature.

The Examination of Caarvaaka School of Thought

The Caarvaaka school of thought accepts only Pratyaksha or direct perception as the valid means of knowledge and rejects the Vedaas. It has ignored righteousness and the Moksha giving importance only to acquiring wealth and enjoying. It does not accept the Lord who is not perceivable as the creator of this world. There is no conscious entity different from the body. The physical body itself has consciousness. All the activities take place only by the physical body. There is no need of the Lord or jiiva other than the physical bodies. Thus they argue. We have to examine to where this school of thought will lead

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

187

us, which denies the existence of the Lord and righteousness. If supersensory entities such as merits and demerits (punya Oj 0 ^) and papa (WT)) are not accepted the entire system of the society may collapse without having any base for justice, rules and restrictions which are the foundation for the order of the society. The society is built on the foundation of rules such as 'one should speak the truth', 'one should not cheat, deceive or steal',' one should help others', 'one should not hurt others', etc. These moral values become meaningless from the view of caarvaaka doctrine, which does not accept dharma or adharma. One can behave without any restraint discarding all the social rules to achieve his selfish ends, without any fear of spiritual consequences or from his own conscience. Thus the entire social system may collapse due to the influence of the caarvaaka theory, where righteousness does not have any place. The people who are enjoying money and power can exploit the weaker section of the society without any fear and hesitation. The clever people cheat the innocent people and exploit them. No fear of spiritualism or pressure of conscience can prevent them from doing wrong things. We are able to maintain the social system to some extent on the basis of strong cultural and moral background of the people due to righteousness for thousands of years. How can we protect the social system if the core of morality is destroyed? Hence at least for the sake of peace and protection of the society the sense of morality is essential. The righteousness or dharma is not meant only to attain Moksha when the cycle of birth is over. Even to live in this

188

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

world peacefully and happily, God, righteousness etc. are required.

Examination of the Doctrine of Vaisheshhika:

Vaisheshhikaas expounded a theory regarding the nature of the Lord and the world, which is created by Him, which differs from that described by BrahmaSuutra. They don't accept infinite qualities in the Lord. They accept three special qualities, which are eternal such as knowledge, desire and efforts along with five other general qualities such as sankhyaa, (Tf^TT) parimaaNaC^TfTTTroT), samyogaC^frr), vibhaaga(f^M), pRithaktvaOT^T^r), which are common for other elements. They recognize one sixth of the very minute particle, which can be seen in the sunlight coming through the window, is paramaaNu ( h < h i "J). According to Vaisheshhikaas this is the most minute part possible. By assembling these paramaaNus the world is created. This is the description of creation according to Vaisheshhika. They do not accept the world as transformation or modification of any object such as prakRiti etc.

The grosser form of an object is produced by the mixing of subtler objects. This is called creation. Due to the desire of the Lord, there will be movement in the paramaaNus and they get joined together. When two paramaaNus joined together it is called dwyaNuka(^°J^). When three dwyaNukaas are joined together one tryaNukaC^Fpr) is born. This is what is seen in the sunlight coming through the window. This is minutest particle that

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

189

is perceivable. The smaller particles, dwyaNuka and paramaaNu, are not visible to the eye. From the assembling of these tryaNuka particles larger particles and finally in turn the objects such as jar, clothes etc. are formed. In addition the object itself becomes a cause for the creation of its qualities and actions. If an object itself is not there how can qualities and actions be manifested. Thus the object being the cause for qualities and actions, is called as 'samavaayi kaaraNa'(*w°iifci °m< u i). For the fragrance in a flower, flower is the cause. Water is 'samavaayi kaaraNa' for its 'cold-touch'. When gross form is created by joining the parts, those parts are called 'samavaayi kaaraNa' by taarkikaas(cii \k> °h). For example when threads are joined together the cloth is formed. The threads are 'samavaayi kaaraNa' for the cloth. Similarly by the joining of the two objects a single object is created. By joining threads cloth is formed. When two paramaaNus are joined, 'dwyaNuka' is born. This contact between two parts, which is called 'samyoga', is also cause for an object. This cause is called 'asamavaayi kaaraNa' (3H*wc||fa wrvj).

For an object to be born, the mutual contact between two parts of that object is the cause for that object. But for the qualities of the object such as parimaaNa, taste, color, etc., qualities of the parts that make up the object are responsible. The smell and the color of the clay are the cause for the smell and the color of the pot. If the clay making the pot is black then pot is also black. The qualities of the parts and the action of the object together determine the qualities of the object. The qualities such as contact,

190

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

separation, speed, etc. are produced from the action of the object only. For the action to be born in the object, the temporary qualities of the object such as, intensive contact or pressure are the cause. Thus because of the contact of the parts an object is born and because of qualities and actions of the parts, the qualities and actions of the object are produced. All these causes are regarded as 'asamavaayi kaaraNa'.

There is another cause, which is different from 'samavaayi' and 'asamavaayi' kaaraNaas. That cause is called 'nimittakaaraNa'(WHTiohK u i) or efficient or intelligent cause. The weaver and other instruments required for weaving the cloths are considered as instrumental cause or nimittakaaraNa. The Lord is the instrumental cause for this world, which is born of series of joining process starting from paramaaNu-s. Because of His will only the paramaaNus start moving and joining together and gradually form the world. This is the theory of creation of tarkikaas.

There is a vast difference between theories of tarkikaas and other philosophers (°kiPn:). According to Vedantins the fundamental elements of the universe such as prakRiti, mahattattvaCRFrTTcr) and ahankaara tattva(^^Kdx«i) and the five basic elements, etc., are all together transformed themselves into this gross forms. Thus gross objects are produced. The cotton or clay themselves transform into objects and become clothes and pot etc. The object and its modification are not different. The clay alone become a pot when it is transformed. The identity between these

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

191

cause and effects is everyone's experience. Thus Vedantins explain their theory. But according to taarkikaas the pot and cloth which are made from clay and cotton are entirely different from their basic objects. An object is not born because of transformation or modification of another object. According to taarkikaas the cause and effect are entirely different from each other. They explain that the world is created only because of the mutual joining of paramaaNus but not from the basic elements of the world such as prakRiti, mahattattva etc.

Also the taarkikaas, unlike Vedantins, do not accept the Lord possessing infinite qualities but reduced the great glory of the Lord by accepting only a few qualities of the Lord. Thus there is extreme different opinion which is irreconcilable between taarkikaas and Vedantins regarding the nature of the Lord and the creation of the world.

The BrahmaSuutra has highlighted some contradictions, commissions and omissions in the theory of taarkikaas.

It is commonly accepted that the dimension (size) (hRhi u i) of an object depend on the dimension of the parts. When cloth is made of threads, the dimension of the cloth depends on the dimension of the threads. The dimension of dwyaNuka, which is made of two paramaaNu-s, does not depend on the dimension of paramaaNu-s. Also the dimension of thryaNuka, which is made of three dwyaNuka-s, does not depend on the dimension of dwyaNuka-s. The common rule does not apply here. They give following

192

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

explanation for this: Transformation is of different types. ParamaaNu and dwyaNuka, which are subtler entities, have 'aNuparimaaNa'(^ujMf<H|u|). But from thryaNuka on wards all grosser entities have 'mahatparimaaNa' (hs<ih1Vii u i). 'aNuparimaaNa' and mahatparimaaNa belong to different categories. Though the dimension of paramaaNu and dwyaNuka belong to the same category of aNuparimaaNa, the dimension of dwyaNuka does not depend on dimension of paramaaNu. It is observed that the dimension of the object is greater than the dimension of the cause. The parimaaNa of the cloth, which is born of the dimension of the thread, is more than the parimaaNa of the thread. But the dimension of dwyaNuka is not more than the dimension of paramaaNu. The paramaaNu is the most superior to all other aNu-s. Therefore the inferior parimaaNa of dwyaNuka is not born out of the superior parimaaNa of paramaaNu. Thus taarkikaas explained that the common rule that the dimension of an object depends on the dimension of its parts does not apply to the parimaaNa of paramaaNu, dwyaNuka and thryaNuka.

The BrahmaSuutra establishes that it is inappropriate to make exceptions to the rule that is generally applicable in all places. When it is accepted that the dimension of cloth and pot depend on the dimension of their parts, what is the reason to claim that this rule does not apply only to paramaaNu and dwyaNuka? It is also not correct to categorize that 'aNuparimaaNa' and 'mahatparimaaNa' are two different entities. The difference as big and small is accepted in the same parimaaNa of plants, trees, mountains,

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

193

etc. Similarly starting from 'paramaaNu' till 'mahat'CRIRT), though there is the same 'parimaaNa' in all the objects we can account the difference as 'aNu'(3rnj) and 'mahat' on the basis of their dimension. Therefore there is no need for the fundamental division as aNu and mahat in 'parimaaNa'. The same object can be 'aNu' from the angle of one object and it can also become 'mahat' from some other object. Therefore all the objects can be regarded both 'aNu' and 'mahat'. It is not correct to divide some objects only as 'aNu' and some other objects only as 'mahat'. The 'mahat' is not absolute but is relative. There is the same quality of 'parimaaNa' to a different degree in all the objects starting from 'paramaaNu' and 'dwyaNuka' all the way to pot, cloth, mountain, space, etc. Hence we can apply the general rule to all the objects that the dimension of the object depends on the dimension of the parts. It is unnecessary division as aNuparimaaNa and mahat parimaaNa, rejecting the truth, which is experienced by all, and assuming that mahat parimaaNa cannot be born out of aNuparimaaNa by imposing one rule for aNu and another rule for mahat. All this imagination of taarkikaas is inappropriate and baseless.

ANu (subtler) and mahat ( J W[) (gross) are relative terms. Taarkikaas don't accept the theory that all the objects can become aNu from one angle and can become mahat from another angle. The space is regarded as paramamahat ("TW J W[) (all-pervading or vibhu(f^j)). There is no other object, which can be bigger than the 'space'. The highest of mahatparimaaNa is the 'space'. House is bigger than a

194

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

pot and a mountain is bigger than the house and the space is bigger than the mountain. Thus we can see the space as the final mahat parimaaNa. That is called 'parama mahat'. There is nothing bigger than that. Similarly there should be a limit for the chain of smaller entities. That should be called paramaaNu. There should not be smaller entity than that. Thus if the space is the highest among the mahat parimaaNa, paramaaNu the smallest among aNuparimaaNa. If this is the case, according to taarkikaas it is not correct to accept all objects both as aNu and mahat from different angles of the objects.

This has been analyzed in Anuvyaakhyaana. The Lord, space etc., are unlimited entities. Pointing out at any particular object, can we say that the space is so many times bigger than this? What we normally perceive is only a limited space. The total space is far beyond all the space that we can perceive. Thus there is no boundary for the expanding space. The more you go further, the space appears to expand further. The Lord is also unlimited and all pervading like the space. There is no end or limitation for the infiniteness of the Lord or the space. The saakshi (W§ft) can comprehend the boundless pervasiveness of the space. The space does not end however far you go. Even a small boy knows that space does not have an end. As mahat parimaaNa such as space, does not have end for its parimaaNa, in the same way aNuparimaaNa does not have an end. It is impossible to say that the sixth part of an object or the tenth part of an object is the smallest particle. One cannot say that the so-called smallest part is not further

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

195

divisible. As the chain of mahat parimaaNa is endless, the chain of aNuparimaaNa is also endless. The self-consciousness (saakshi) reveals to us that every object has parts. Even the object that is considered as paramaaNu (so-called smallest particle) also has parts. Even those parts of paramaaNu have further parts. Thus in the same object there are infinite number of levels of divisions. Within a fraction of a second, we can make a hole with a sharp needle into hundreds of leaves of lotus piled one above the other. In that fraction of second, hundreds of actions took place that resulted in hundreds of holes. For this sequential action, we can understand that every moment consists of hundreds of micro-moments. As we understand the subtlety and infiniteness of time, we can also understand that an object can have millions of minutest particles. Finally what we can say is the secrets of aNu and mahat are deep and mysterious. Shree Madhvacharya has established that it is unscientific to declare that a particular particle is the smallest and there is nothing smaller than that, and also a particular entity is mahat and there is nothing greater than that. We can observe the above concepts, which were conceived much before the modern scientific experiments have established these. Even the modern scientists may be amazed and stunned to know these ancient unique concepts.

There is no end for the chain of objects of aNu as well as mahat. It has been established that one after another the objects are subtler than the subtlest and grosser than the grossest in an endless manner. Then we have to accept that the Lord who is presiding in all these objects is always

196

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

infinite in all directions. As the chain of objects of aNu and mahat is endless the Lord who is present in those objects in their form is eternally infinite. The chain of infinite forms of the Lord are present in the same form as in all objects, which are subtler than the subtlest and grosser than the grossest. In this meaning only the Vedaas have described the Lord as 'aNoraNiiayan mahato mahiiyan..." (3TffJt^lWR ^T^cfi' H^hi-i) (subtler than subtle and grosser than gross).

If Lord has such small forms will He not be limited to some extent? Does it not affect His infiniteness? If it is accepted that He is present in the smallest and hence He is specially limited, then why not we accept that He is limited by time since He is present in transitory objects. Why should we not accept that He is having limited qualities? Such questions may arise. But just because Lord is present in a the smallest place, He cannot be limited from any aspect. If He is present in a smaller place without being in other places then only He will be specially limited. Since He is all-pervading His existence in smallest objects is unavoidable. From this the Lord cannot be regarded as limited. Since He is present in all the objects which are subtler and gross, He is also considered as aNu and mahat. This does not affect His unlimited-ness. When He possess infinite qualities, invariably He should have limited qualities also. One who exists forever should exist for the moments, hours and days also. Similarly the all-pervading Lord exists in small objects also. He has taken the form and dimension of the respective objects. In this view He is considered as 'subtler than the subtler and grosser than the grosser'.

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

197

The taarkikaas, who accept the paramaaNu as the most subtler entity and there is no other smaller particle than this and the object cannot be divided further, have to face a question. According to taarkikaas the 'samyoga' (conjunction) between two objects does not pervade them all over. This joining between two objects, samyoga, takes place only on one side of each object. For example, when you touch the wall with a stick the 'samyoga' of the stick to the wall is only at that particular point of contact and not all over the wall. This is everyone's experience. Therefore they call 'samyoga' as 'avyaapyavRitti' (^c^m crfrT) which means that 'samyoga' is only at a particular point in place and not all over the object. All philosophers have accepted this concept. They have accepted 'samyoga' between an object and 'paramaaNu' which is the minutest particle. As in the above example, this 'samyoga' also can only be at a particular point where contact occurs. If paramaaNu does not have any parts or sides how can this 'samyoga' takes place on the part of 'paramaaNu?' As the grosser object is born out of contact between paramaaNus one cannot deny that there is no 'samyoga' between two paramaaNu-s. Thus on the basis of rule accepted by taarkikaas they will have to accept multi-sided or parts for every object including paramaaNu.

There is another strange concept proposed by taarkikaas, which will be discussed here. According to them dwyaNuka is born only when two paramaaNus are joined together. No object can be born when three or four paramaaNus are joined together. There are four types of

198

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

paramaaNus such as 'paarthivaOnfsjor), jaliiya(*itf»Ui), taijasa(rM'H), vaayaviiya'(°i n°iUi) that is belonging to categories of earth, water, energy, and air, respectively. DwyaNuka is born only when there is contact of two paramaaNus of the same kind. When two paramaaNus belonging to different categories no object is born. Similarly three dwyaNuka-s belonging to the same category join together to form tryaNuka. Such rules are accepted by taarkikaas. What is the basis for such rules? The question was raised by Shree Madhvacarya. There is no rigid rule that there should be some particular number of parts for an object to be born. For a cloth to be made there is no rule that it requires a particular number of threads. There can be difference in some dimension of the objects depending on the number of parts. But there is no such rule that a particular number of parts are needed for any object to be formed. If that is the case why is this impractical rule only with regard to dwyaNuka and tryaNuka. As the physical body is created by different elements together such as earth, water, energy etc; then why not an object be born due to contact between two paramaaNus belonging to different categories? Thus taarkikaas have built up their theory on the basis of meaningless imaginary concepts.

According to taarkikaas two paramaaNus joined together form dwyaNuka and tryaNuka is formed by joining of three dwyaNuka-s. Their concept is that the sixth part of the tryaNuka is paramaaNu. Why should they not accept tryaNuka or dwyaNuka as the final minutest object? Why are they obstinate to consider the sixth part of tryaNuka as

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

the subtlest particle? The final subtle object should not be perceivable. Since tryaNuka is perceived through the sunlight coming through the window, it is impossible to accept tryaNuka as minutest particle. But we can accept dwyaNuka as the minutest particle instead of imagining further divisions. What is the proof to determine that only the sixth part tryaNuka is the minutest particle? These questions cannot be easily answered by the taarkikaas.

Taarkikaas have accepted many aspects only on the basis of logic without any support of Pratyaksha, Veda or scriptures authored by trustworthy. Only logic may mislead us. If we decide the existence of an object on the basis of general rule and by many other examples we will have to accept an absurd logic that even hare has horns since it belongs to animal categories which have horns. We will also have to accept that the world is created not by a single Lord but by the collective efforts of thousands of jiivaas because of an example that a house is built by hundreds of people. Hence an independent logic can mislead us. Therefore logic has to be used only within the limits of Pratyaksha and other valid means of knowledge.

Samavaaya (*WdM):

Taarkikaas have also accepted a new entity such as 'samavaaya' or inherence which is not accepted by any other philosophers. It is normally accepted that it is only the parts of an object become an object as a result of some modification of these parts. As per this rule, mud is converted into a pot or threads are converted into cloth.

200

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

But taarkikaas do not accept this. According to them an object (effect) and its parts (cause) are entirely different. Instead a new object is born out of mutual contact of parts. When threads are joined together a clothe is produced and it exists in threads. They have conceived a link between avayava(3T5PT5T) (parts) and avayavi (object) which is called 'samavaaya' (*h<=in). Also between objects and its qualities, actions, and jaati(^nfrT)* 'samavaaya' is the link. For example between the cloth and all its actions and attributes such as form, color, touch, vastratva(°ioir=i) (cloth-ness), etc. 'samavaaya' is the link. According to them the samavaaya in different objects is a single entity. Even though objects are different, samavaaya remains the same. Even though the objects are destroyed this samavaaya does not get destroyed. This samavaaya between the flower and its fragrance, the fruit and its taste, and water and its qualities is the same and eternal. This concept of samavaaya of taarkikaas is very peculiar. That the 'samavaaya sambandha' is one and the same for all objects and it still remains though the objects are destroyed is a highly questionable concept.

Let us analyze this 'samavaaya'. If entity like 'samavaaya' is conceived to account that qualities and attributes are in the objects, then another 'samavaaya' has to be accepted to account that the previous samavaaya and the qualities and the objects. This in turn requires another 'samavaaya' like that a chain of samavaaya leading to an infinite regress (anavasta doshha) (3T^or^T^fa). If another 'samavaaya' is not required to account between the first

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

201

samavaaya and objects, then why cannot objects and qualities themselves manage without accepting a new entity like 'samavaaya'? Does anyone experience 'samavaaya' as a relationship when he experiences sweetness in the sugar, fragrance in flower and effulgence in the light?

When we say there is no pot on the spot then should we imagine another relationship between the absence of the pot and the pot. Even taarkikaas don't accept separate ' sambandha'C*f#£r) or relationship here. Other than that object, they don't accept separate sambandha. It is unnecessary to imagine a new samavaaya as sambandha or link between substance or objects and their qualities such as color, taste, etc., whether they are identical with the object or different. In reality the qualities and the actions of the objects are identical with the objects. No one experiences distinction between the thread and the cloth and the sweetness and sugar. Mud alone has become pot. Cotton itself becomes threads and finally cloth. This is everyone's experience. If threads make the cloth that is separate from them, then it should weigh a combined weight of threads and cloth, which is more than the weight of the thread alone. As the books on the table, fruits in the vessel are separately perceived, one should see, threads separate from the cloth, pot separate from the mud, qualities separate from their objects. The object is combination of its color, taste, form, and its parts. Still we express as there is sweetness in the sugar, thread in the cloth. To account such expressions the entities should be different. As table and books are different we state that the books are on the table. One cannot exist

202

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

on top of oneself. If flower and fragrance are one it would be incorrect to say that flower has fragrance. If objects and its parts (avayava and avayavi(3T5RT3- & 3-ioncJI)), and objects and their attributes and qualities (dharma and dharmi) (^FT & w), are one and the same, how do you account such expressions? This question has to be answered by those who accept identity between objects and their qualities.

Shree Madhvacharya has answered these questions in his Anuvyaakhyaana. Objects have intrinsic nature. That is called 'visheshha shakti' (w)^ ^rfrfO. Though the object is the one and the same entity and it is expressed as different entities due to this 'visheshha shakti'. Just as we express that the floor has a cot, we can express that flower has the fragrance, though the flower and its fragrance are one and the same due to 'visheshha shakti'. Due to 'visheshha shakti' only the two separate words, flower and fragrance, are used to imply one and the same entity. Though the Lord is identical with infinite qualities, we express that the Lord has infinite qualities. But all infinite qualities are one and the same with Brahman. For all these differences in expressions, the visheshha (wfa), which is the intrinsic nature of the objects, is alone accountable.

The cloth and its threads are one and the same. Everyone recognizes thread is cotton and cloth is thread. We also say that mud alone has transformed into pot. Even when the cloth is disassembled, the threads remain. Mud can exist without being a pot. If mud and pot, threads and

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

203

cloth are one and the same, how can one exist without the other? Such a question arises. Therefore due to'visheshha shakti' alone, it is possible to account for all transactions, which involve difference when entities are one and the same. The qualities, which are existent as long as the objects exist, are absolutely identical with the objects. For example the infinite qualities of the Brahman, the qualities of water and fire, the fragrance of flower, these exist as long as the locus or object exits without any interruption. Still the expressions which involve differences such as the Lord has qualities and fire has hotness, etc., are accounted only because of 'visheshha'. If qualities are changing in the object, while object remains unchanged, those objects and qualities have to be accepted as both different and one. For example the color of the fruit keeps on changing. Therefore the qualities of the fruit such as color and taste are one and different with the fruit. These qualities of the fruit are one with the fruit also different from it. Due to the power of 'visheshha' only we are able to experience this variety. Though the cloth is disassembled the remnant threads are one with the cloth and also different from it. Thus in some places abheda (sptfc) and in some other places bheda-abheda (^T^) are accepted.

Taarkikaas have accepted that the objects and their qualities are different, and have also accepted 'samavaaya' to account the relation between objects and their qualities. According to them even the entities such as 'samavaaya' (■mhoin) 'abhaava' (st^tr) etc., have different attributes. They don't accept that those entities are different

204

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

from their qualities and attributes. According to them there are only seven divisions of entities such as dravya -substance (^T), guNa - quality Ol^O, karma - action or activity (^4), saamaanya - jaati or generality C^PTRT), visheshha - particularity (f°T#r), samavaaya - inherence (■hhcin), and abhaava - absence or non-existence (sr^rra"). They don't accept any new object other than these seven. If they accept that the qualities of samavaaya, saamaanya jaati, abhaava, etc., are different from their objects, they will have to accept one more category that is not included in the above seven. Thus the classification of the objects made by the taarkikaas gets modified. Supposing taarkikaas give up their divisions of the seven entities, they will have to conceive different attributes in samavaaya and in turn additional attributes for those attributes - thus a chain of attributes. Hence they will have to admit that the attributes of samavaaya are not different from it. Though the samavaaya and its attributes are one and the same, it is unavoidable for them to accept some intrinsic quality which accounts dharma-dharmi vyavahaaraC^-^tfR" <*-ic|$k). Thus, if attributes of samavaaya and other entities are one and the same and their dhama-dharmi vyavahaara is accounted, then why should they accept a) the attributes of clothes etc., are different from their objects and b) samavaaya, which is not experienced by anyone, to account for guNa-guNi vyavahaara? C'PHpft ^ToTfR) ? Can we not follow the same rule in both places? Hence it is only appropriate to accept that which is compatible with experience a) the identity between attributes and their objects which exist as

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

205

long as their locus exists, and b) 'bhedaabheda'(^Pfc) (difference and identity) between the objects and their attributes that keep changing as well as which come and go (aagantuka (3fFRJ3>)- ayaavatdravyabhaavi (3-^iciqs;<*i*rNt)-do not exist all the time even if their locus exists) and c) the natural intrinsic quality of an object which solves all problem by accounting all 'bhedavyavahaaraas'(^^T5ffRT:).

It is explained in a different place of this text that it is not only taarkikaas but all other philosophers also have to accept this vishesha shakti.

A question may arise when identity is accepted between objects and their attributes since attributes are not separately perceived, 'samyoga' (joining) takes place between two objects. But 'samyoga' is one for both joined objects. If there is identity between samyoga and object, since there are two objects, should there not be two samyoga-s? Similarly there will be common qualities in all similar objects. Though there are crores of human beings, the humanity, which is common quality for all humans, is the same for all. Among pots and clothes also there will be such common qualities such as 'pot-ness and cloth-ness'. This common quality is called as jaati or saamaanya by taarkikaas. Though the objects are many this quality is one and the same. They have established that though the object gets destroyed this dharma (generality) still remains. According to them though the quality is one, the objects are many. If there is an identity between objects and quality how can we account this

206

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

difference in numbers, 'sankhyaabheda'? CSTWh^)

Shree Madhvacharya does not accept the essential aspect in these questions. This objection is made on the basis that the same quality or jaati is there in many objects. But in reality same dharma or quality does not exist in many objects. No one experiences the existence of the same dharma in all objects. Though there are hundreds of fruits does any one experience that the taste, color or form are the same in all fruits. The qualities and attributes of a particular object are limited with that particular object. That object is formed with the combination of its shape, color, taste, form etc. None of its attributes or qualities can be present in other objects. However there can be similar attributes and qualities in other objects. But the same qualities of a particular object cannot be present in another object. Though we express that samyoga (conjunction) takes place in two objects, in reality those samyogaas are different in both the objects. When we say thousands of people have taken food it does not mean they took the same food from the plate. It sounds as the number of people increases so is the number of meals. When samyoga takes place between a bird and a tree, then one should accept that there are two samyogaas, one is that of the bird and the other is that of the tree. Those two different samyogaas are one with their respective objects.

Similarly the qualities such as 'manushhyatvaC^FJs^), pashutva' (^RJcoT) (human-hood and animal-hood) are different in every object. When a single human body is

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

207

burnt, all its attributes and qualities are destroyed along with that. When a cloth is destroyed its quality alone cannot remain. If quality is one and the same in different objects, then when some body is destroyed then the qualities such as manushhyatva etc., should also be destroyed. It cannot be seen in other objects. Hence it is experienced concept that every object has different qualities that are similar to other qualities in different objects. If same qualities are accepted in different and distant objects, that qualities should also pervade in between the distance of the two objects. If there is an another object in between those two objects then it should pervade that object too. When the quality like manushhyatva is pervading in all human bodies, it should pervade in vessels, cots, pots etc; that are present in between. If it is present only in human bodies without touching the other objects in between, they should be considered as different divisible qualities in every object. If common character (jaati (^TTfcT) or saamaanya dharma(^Hi"M ^A)) is accepted in all objects as one and the same, then it should remain even if some object is destroyed. So we can observe that the theory of taarkikaas that common attributes or quality is one and the same in all similar objects is highly contradictory of our experience.

If 'saamaanya dharma', general character, which exists in all objects, is not accepted taarkikaas raise many objections. For example we use some words for many objects. We indicate all the lights in the world by the word 'light'. One should know the relationship such as 'vaacya-vaacaka bhaava'(oTF^T ^T^ ^rrsr) between the word and

208

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

the object before one uses the word to indicate a particular object. Once this relationship of word and object is known one can understand the light if he comes across any light in any corner of the world. It is possible only because of the knowledge of 'vaacya-vaachaka' relationship between the word and the object. When one sees a fire in any place, he expresses that it is fire. When we see a cow we use the word 'cow', since we already know the 'vaacya-vaachaka' relation between the object and the word 'cow'. But how can this knowledge occur? The knowledge of the 'vaacya-vaacaka' relationship between the word 'cow' and the object (all the cows) is possible only when one knows all the cows in the world. But it is not possible to know all the cows in the world in our life span. Then how is it possible to know different objects from different words since it is impossible to know the 'vaacya-vaachaka bhaava sambandha'C^T^T oiN°h *M "*T£^0 between words and their respective objects in total? Therefore one should accept 'saamaanya dharma or jaati' such as 'gotva' Oitw) (cow-ness) which exists in all the cows. Similarly one has to accept characters such as 'deepatva' (qVicoi) (light-ness) in all the lights and 'rasatva'(T^r) in all the rasaas (T^TT:) (juices). Thus we have to accept 'saamaanya dharma or jaati' which exists eternally in all the objects. When one sees an object he will learn its general character or jaati and at a time he will be able to deal with all the objects with that word due to its general character or jaati. After one realizes the general character of a 'cow' as 'cowness', he will be able to understand the relationship of the word 'cow' and the

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

209

objects cows because of the 'cowness' which is existing in all the cows. Thus it is essential to know the general character by which we can learn the relationship of words and their objects and have all verbal communications.

We can infer the presence of a fire by perceiving the smoke in any place knowing the general rule that where there is a smoke there is a fire. One cannot know this general rule unless he knows smoke and fire in all the places. Similarly after observing the clouds and rains at different places, he knows that wherever there is a rain there are clouds, and from this he concludes the cause and effect relationship (^l^T =hK u i ^TR <w^'*r) between the rains and clouds. To know the general rule that wherever there is rain it is due to clouds, one should know all the rains and the clouds of the world. It is possible to know the entire object through the general character of cloud, rain, fire and smoke. One cannot know all the objects separately in his lifetime. Therefore one can learn the general rule or cause and effect relationship by knowing all the objects through their general character which exists in all objects. There is no other way out. Hence the general character (saamaanya dharma or jaati) in all the objects has to be accepted to account all the empirical transactions. Thus taarkikaas argue.

There is no stuff in this argument. It is our experience that some similarity in all objects belonging to the same category. Even to know that there is a similarity in all cows and as well as in trees. On the basis of this similarity

210

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

only we will know all other trees by knowing a tree in front of us. When a tree is recognized as having leaves and branches he will recognize all such similar objects as tree. Once it is explained that after describing the features of a cow, all other animals with these features should be called 'cow'. Then he will know all other unseen cows also by the word 'cow' due to this similarity of the features. He will also know the relationship between vaacya-vaacaka, i.e., word and its object. Based on this similarity only one can know all the fires and smokes in the world and conclude their cause and effect relationship. Therefore it is unnecessary to imagine a general character, which exists in all similar objects and remains even when objects are destroyed, and is considered as eternal and it is far from one's experience.

Those who are obstinate that one should accept general character, which exists in all similar objects to account all transactions such as dharma-dharmi bhaava (^FT-*#T *m), kaarya-kaaraNa bhaava (=FJrf ^R^T «M), etc., have to face a question. They call this general character by words such as jaati or saamaanya. To apply all the varieties of general characters by words, jaati or saamaanya, one has to accept a general character in all those general characters. But taarkikaas don't accept another general character in all general characters, because that leads to anavasTa doshha(^-|o|^.TT Tfa) and there cannot be an end for imagining series of general characters. Thus if without a general character, which can exist in all the general characters, which are individually different, one can learn

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

211

the relation of vaacya-vaachaka bhaava, between the words 'saamanya' or 'jaati' and their objects, then why cannot we follow the same method in knowing other objects from other words also? Taarkikaas don't have an answer for this question. Also we use many words such as individual or nature etc., referring many objects. But taarkikaas don't accept individuality as a general character in all individuals or 'swaruupatva'O^cR^Tccr) as a general character in all 'swaruupaas'('M'^Hi). Though the individuality differs from individual to individual, and the personality differs from person to person, taarkikaas don't accept them as general character. Though the individuality or personality is different in different objects we use the word person or individual for many objects. Therefore it is not essential that there should be some common character (jaati) in all the objects to account verbal communication. Though the objects are different and their characters are different we can use the same word for many objects based on their mutual similarity of the objects. Based on this general rule of similarity we can use single word for many objects. Though humans are different from each other and they have different characters such as manushhyatva, we call all people as manushhya-s due to their similarities. The right thinkers cannot accept absurd concept that a single character such as manushhyatva, pashutva, ghaTatva, pustakatva, etc., exists in many objects.

As taarkikaas have accepted one single general character exists in many objects, they present another

212

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

inappropriate theory that there is a single mutual relationship among objects though they are many. Flower, fruits, milk etc. are different objects. The flower has fragrance, the fruit has sweet juice and milk has white color. There is a mutual relationship between these objects and their attributes. This link between attributes and objects is called samavaaya. An object with its qualities and attributes is different from another object with its qualities and its attributes. This is accepted by all. But taarkikaas expound that the link which is samavaaya between the objects and their attributes is one and the same. The link between the flower and its fragrance is not different from the link between the fruit and its sweet juice. Though the objects are entirely different the samavaaya, which is the link between the objects and their attributes, as the same. This is highly an inappropriate concept of the taarkikaas. If this theory is accepted we cannot learn any new ideas from any word. What does the statement that cloth is white mean? Let us analyze this. We have seen the cloth in some other place. We have also seen the color separately. But the statement 'this cloth is white' indicates a relationship between the cloth and its white color. This is the meaning of the statement. If the link that we have seen in other objects and the link that is seen between the white and the cloth is the same, we cannot derive any new meaning from the statement since it is already known? Therefore all our communications will be a waste since they imply what is already known. Hence as the objects are different their links or relationships are also different. That there is a

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

213

single link or sambandha, which is universal, is highly inconceivable theory that is far from one's experience.

It is a great blunder on the part of Naiyaayikaas O^hifacw:) to have denied the infiniteness of the Lord. When Vedaas declare that the Lord is full of infinite qualities, Naiyyaayikaas have belittled the glory of the Lord accepting only eight qualities for the Lord. According to them the eight qualities of the Lord include three special qualities such as knowledge, desire, and efforts and five other common qualities such as Sankhya C*TW), parimaaNa (h1Vii u i) etc., which are there in other elements. These ideas should be rejected since they are against the Vedic statement 'mayyanantaguNe anante' (h^ti^Is^') which means 'He is full of infinite qualities'.

Some taarkikaas propound that the knowledge of the Lord is 'nirvisheshha'(fafci*)q). He does not have any qualities. If that is the case how can the Lord become omniscient? If His knowledge is attribute-less, how can he comprehend any object? Why should we accept such an incongruent knowledge for Him.

Some other taarkikaas accept that the knowledge of the Lord comprehends all the objects except His own nature. They argue that it is not self-luminous. This theory also is inappropriate since the Lord cannot be regarded as omniscient, if His knowledge comprehends everything except Himself.

Taarkikaas who accept only eight qualities for the Lord

214

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

don't attribute the happiness to the Lord. Their fear is if Lord has happiness then there is a scope for unhappiness also. It is observed in the human life that whoever has happiness gets some kind of unhappiness also. Therefore if we accept the Lord possessing happiness, then He should also have unhappiness. Therefore they argue that the Lord has neither happiness nor unhappiness. This theory is also incorrect. Though it is observed wherever there is happiness there is unhappiness, there is no such rigid rule that one should have unhappiness just because of happiness.

Human beings have two kinds of knowledge. 1) It comprehends an object as it is (yathaartha) (^TT«h) and 2) it comprehends an object other than what it is (ayathaartha) (SRcTT^:). The second is called illusion or braanti(¥li%). Thus just as human beings get two types of knowledge, 'yathaartha' and 'ayathaartha', we cannot imagine that the Lord should also have 'ayathaartha Jnaana'C^rsrraT^ W$) since He has 'yathaartha Jnaana'CwsfcrTR). Because of this can we deny the knowledge itself for the Lord? Though we have two types of knowledge, the omnipotent Lord can have only one type, that is, yathaartha jnaana. Similarly though we have happiness and unhappiness, why cannot we accept only happiness for the Lord? The Vedaas have declared that 'anandam brahmano vidvaan'(3TFR' si$j u i) f°n*FT) meaning that the Lord has bliss. Ignoring such Vedic statements and denying the happiness for the Lord only on the basis of illogical conclusions is incorrect.

We may observe unhappiness in life where there is

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

215

happiness. But we also know that happiness alone is not the cause for unhappiness. The cause for unhappiness is entirely different. For our worldly happiness and unhappiness the merits and demerits alone are entirely responsible. Even the will of the Lord is also cause for our happiness and unhappiness. But Lord is never associated with paapa(WT) or punyamOj^) or merits and demerits. For the Lord who is always experiencing His natural total bliss, where is the scope for worldly happiness and unhappiness, which are born out of merits and demerits. The Lord will never desire for unhappiness. How can He get unhappiness when there is no cause for it? Without analyzing the proper cause for unhappiness it is not correct to conclude on the basis of weak and useless reasons that the Lord cannot have pleasure just because He cannot have pain.

The doctrine of taarkikaas has to face another great challenge. Why this world is created at a particular time? Why is total deluge (pralaya) at a particular time? For the objects to be born the entities such as will of the lord, time, space, merits and demerits are all the cause. Even during the pralaya the soul is having punya and paapa or merits and demerits. If merits and demerits are absent during pralaya they cannot be created after pralaya. The space, time and the desire of the Lord are all eternal. Therefore why creation did not occur earlier than the time it has occurred? Similarly why not the 'pralaya' and other objects take place earlier than it is expected? Why not all the causes for pralaya etc., exist earlier by the desire of the Lord?

216

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Taarkikaas do not have answers for these questions.

Shree Madvacharya has answered all such questions effortlessly. Without the will of the Lord, the creation cannot take place continuously. The time consists of infinite moments. The continuous flow of infinite number of moments is only kaala (^\&) or time. The God, having particular moments in his mind, has desired that particular objects should be created at specific moments. All the moments cannot be at the same time since each moment is born after the other in a continuous sequence. The Lord's desire is associated with this infinite number of chain of moments. Hence the objects are born following the sequence of moments. Therefore there is no room for any question that all the objects be created all the time. The taarkikaas, who accepted the eternal aspect of the time without accepting the sequence of moments comprising the time, got confused.

We should know one more subtler aspect here. The Lord has infinite number of desires. Though all the desires are one with the Lord, the same Lord can have many desires. Due to intrinsic qualities of the entities we can account both unity in diversity. Though the Lord has the desire for creation and desire for destruction always, the creations need not take place all the time. Creation takes place only when the desire gets manifested and becomes active. Other times the desire will be in the form of latent power. Therefore one cannot question that all the objects and creations should occur all the time by the desire of the Lord.

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

217

Without knowing these subtler aspects taarkikaas are in a total confusion. Instead of the Lord possessing only eight guNa-s as described by the taarkikaas, Shaastraas have revealed that the Lord is an ocean of bliss and source of infinite qualities.

Examination of Buddhism:

There are four branches in the Buddhism namely 1) Vaibhaashikaas(#HlfclN|cbl:), 2) Soutrantikaas (^suFrl+l:), 3) Maadhyamikaas (*rT«=rffcra>T:) and 4) VynaanavaadinsCfolW-wf^T:). Let us analyze at first the theories of Vaibhaashika and Soutrantika who argue that the world is momentary, 'kshanika'(§rftw). According to them the world is formed by mixing up of all paramaaNus but not in any sequential order as proposed by Naiyyayikaas('taifacM:) and Vaisheshhikaas (<^lfa=M:). The objects are nothing but a particular systematic groups of paramaaNu-s. The minute paramaaNus only are all pervading. All of them are momentary. Every moment these subtler entities get destroyed and new ones are formed. Due to the influence of kaala or time, the fate of the beings and an intensive contact, paramaaNus are born which together as a group subsequently join together becoming a pot or a cloth. There is no separate entity or object other than a group of paramaaNus which are momentary.

There is no need of the Lord to create them. As the groups of paramaaNus being destroyed every moment, they create the objects in an identical manner in such way that we can constantly see the objects in the same form. Similarly

218

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

the self which is conscious entity is also momentary. The continuous flow of momentary knowledge is called aatma (STIrRT). When this flow of knowledge gets contact with the objects it is called Samsaara (worldly life). To get rid of this contact is itself liberation for the soul. This is the theory of Vaibhaashhika and Soutrantika.

Shree Madhvacharya has analyzed this theory also. We have to examine how this creation which is nothing but group of paramaaNus occurs. It is not possible from a single minute object. It is also not possible from separate minute objects. The paramaaNus are always all pervading in the universe. But we are not able to see always the cloth, pot etc., which are the creation of group of paramaaNu-s. We are able to see the products only because of efforts and actions of different people. If we observe the objects which are nothing but group of minute paramaaNus why don't we see those objects always without any actions of anyone? They may try to answer that the paramaaNus become the objects only when they are born in their close contact and then grouped together. But a question remains how other paramaaNus which are at a distance come together to generate new paramaaNu-s. Their theory is that all objects get destroyed every moment and they create exactly identical forms that was existing before. According to them though the house, pot and mansions, are destroyed every moment, we are able to see them continuously since they are continuously being created by previous objects. Therefore a question will arise how a different object which is the group of separate paramaaNus is created. Though

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

219

the momentary existent paramaaNus that create the identical objects are born, due to a strange fate of jiivaas these transient paramaaNus create intensive paramaaNus which form different objects when they join together. Thus the jiivaas enjoy experience, happiness and unhappiness and different kind of objects are seen in the world. Thus they tried to correct their theory. But they have stumbled even here. How the fate of jiivaas got this special power to create intensive paramaaNus from the original paramaaNus that can be grouped together to form new objects, violating their fundamental rule that momentary paramaaNus or objects create similar new objects. The fates in the chain are also identical. The previous fate creates similar fate. How this new fate which is similar to the old fate got this new power to bring the change in the objects? Thus according to this theory there cannot be any change or modification and only similar objects can keep on get created replacing the old ones. Hence it is highly impossible for the creation of this mysterious divergent world which consists of changing objects and their shape.

According to this school of thought the cause and effect system is defective. The basic elements such as mud, cotton etc., exists before which themselves convert into pot, cloth etc. Thus we can establish the system of cause and effect like mud is the cause for pot and cotton is the cause for cloth. But how can we decide the cause and effect when objects are totally destroyed and new objects are born without any contact with the earlier objects? Nothing of the earlier object remains to continue in the

220

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

newborn object. Everything is absolutely new. Hence in this doctrine the entire system of cause and effect collapses.

There is one more problem to establish the system of cause and effect. After observing in several places that where there is smoke there is fire and where there is the absence of fire there is absence of smoke, we come to conclusion that fire is the cause for the smoke. This is the general method, which is convenient for determination of cause and effect relationship. This method is called 'anvaya'(3T^PT) and 'vyatireka'(^rfcl^O by philosophers. For example, where there is smoke there is fire is 'anvaya vyaapti'(3F^T ^riffl"). Where there is no fire there is no smoke is 'vyatireka vyaapti'. But in the theory of kshaNika such an examination is impossible. Since the self which is conscious entity is also destroyed every moment who can observe this 'anvaya' and 'vyatireka'. To determine where there is smoke there is fire, one has to observe the coexistence of fire and smoke in different places. The person who has observed at one place is not there to observe at another place. The person is also getting destroyed every moment. Thus in this theory it is impossible to observe the states of objects in different places and time, and therefore cannot conclude any cause-effect relationships.

In addition to this, how is it possible to derive knowledge either from Pratyaksha("Sr^T§T) or logic or shabda? There is no answer for this question. After having contact between the sense organs and the objects, the knowledge occurs. But in this kshaNika vaada(^T^ ^K), the object,

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

221

which got linked with the sense organs, is destroyed at that moment itself. When knowledge occurs that object does not exist. A new object is born in that place. But the new object did not have the contact of sense organs. In such a case, which object can we perceive?

The method to derive the knowledge from the logic is as follows: A person who has seen the presence of smoke on the hill remembers the concomitant relationship that wherever there is smoke there is fire and then infers the presence of fire on the hill. For a person it takes four or five moments to get the knowledge of the fire through this sequence. But the soul can exist only for a moment. If jiivaas are dying and being born every moment, they cannot conclude any rule since they do not have continuity. A person who remembers the concomitant rule is entirely different from a person who perceives the smoke on the hill, and it is the another person who infers the fire. How can all this be possible?

To comprehend a meaning of a sentence, one has to hear the words first, then remember the meaning of the words, then join all the meanings of all the words and finally comprehend the total meaning of the sentence. If individuals are being changed every moment, one cannot derive the meaning from a sentence since there is no continuity of him. Thus all the empirical transactions come to stand still in this theory.

The kshaNika vaadins have attempted to answer all these questions. Though the objects are being destroyed

222

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

every moment, the objects which are born the next moment carry the impressions from the earlier objects. The earlier objects transfer their impressions in the future objects born from them. Therefore the objects and the individuals are different from moment to moment, the process of knowledge in the individuals and the objects can be continuous since new objects carry the impressions of the earlier objects. Hence all the empirical business can continue without interruption. This is how they explain.

Let us analyze critically even this aspect. For an object to inculcate its impressions into another object they should have mutual contact. The fragrance of a flower spreads in the water only when the flower is kept in the water. How is it possible for an impression to be born from one object to another when they are far apart and without any contact? There is absolutely no link between the previous and the next object according to kshaNika vaada. A new object is born when a previous object is destroyed totally. If that is the case, how is it possible for the impression of an earlier object to be transferred to the new one. Therefore when critical examination is conducted this new theory of KshaNika vaadins cannot sustain.

What is the proof to say that every object is momentary? We need to ask this question. We are perceiving the objects in front of us existing now. Does anybody observe that these objects are destroyed every moment? Does anyone have such an experience? Why should we imagine without any basis that all the objects

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

223

get destroyed every moment and are newly born. Objects can undergo transformation or modification at some particular time. We observe the change in the color and taste of a fruit with time. There can be some small changes in all the empirical objects. But we observe some continuous entity in all the objects from the beginning to the end. Though our bodies undergo several changes from the child-hood to old age that include, growth, crippling, etc., but no one says that our old body is entirely different from body in the child-hood. We experience the oneness in the body which exists in different times and express that this is the same body. Though there are some differences in the previous and the present body, one cannot deny the oneness in those bodies. I am wearing the same dress, which I wore yesterday. I have been watching the rock for several days. Thus everyone experiences the permanency in many objects. Hence rejecting all our such experiences and arguing that all the objects are momentary is not correct.

The KshaNika vaadins establish their theory by presenting their logic in the following way. The light is destroyed every moment. Giving this as an example they say that all objects are momentary. We don't need to break our head to understand the hollowness of this logic. If one can argue that all the objects are momentary by taking an example of one momentary object, why cannot one argue that objects are permanent by showing the example of a space? But Bouddha-s say that space is not a positive entity. One cannot give it as a example to prove the permanency of other objects. There is an easy method to know as which

224

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

is positive or negative entity. This object is not there. Its absence is there. Thus behind the absence, invariably an object is indicated. That entity is called pratiyogi (yfd^il)* of abhaava (srt^) or absence. When the absence of a pot is expressed (that there is no pot), the pratiyogi (pot) is indicated. Along with that the locus for the absence of the object is also indicated. Without the knowledge of the locus and the pratiyogi, the mere absence of an object can't be perceived. The knowledge of an absence occurs only when it is expressed as that 'there is no book here'. But no one can understand if it is merely said 'not there'. Hence an object has to be known before its absence is experienced. But the objects such as pot, book, cloth etc., are perceived directly without depending on any prior knowledge. Similarly even the space is perceived without depending on any other knowledge. Hence the space has to be accepted as positive entity. Also the objects such as crystal, rock etc. are solid entities. By giving them as an example, why can we not establish that the objects are not momentary? Therefore showing some impermanent objects and arguing that all the objects are momentary is irrelevant. Such empty logic is inappropriate in front of experience and direct perception. Is someone uses such logic one can also establish even the shape of the space goes on changing from time to time. We can give the example of fruit which keeps on changing. The only remedy is that nothing can be established only on the basis of logic against Pratyaksha. Hence when permanency of the objects is established on the basis of experience, it is not correct to argue that all the

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

225

objects are momentary by using only logic.

Every object exists only for the moment but it is destroyed when it creates another object. Thus every object exists only for the moment and create another momentary object. Thus a chain of momentary objects continues. This is the theory of kshaNika vaadins. This is also against the experience of the world. When an object is created the cause should invariably exist at that moment. When cloth is being made the weaver and his instruments are still existing. But according to this doctrine of Bouddha-s the object is born only when the cause is destroyed. The cause does not exist when the object is born. There is no relationship between the cause and its effect. They never co-exist at the same time. Therefore how can previous object become the cause for the next object. Thus we can observe several absurdities in this theory.

The Examination of Vaibhaashhika Siddhanta : (chtiftaftMHI):

Among the kshaNikatva vaadins the Vaibhaashhika-s accept that the world is perceivable. But Soutrantika-s do not accept that. According to them the entire external world is known only from aunumaana (sr^TR). We derive knowledge from the contact of the objects. This external knowledge only is perceived in different figures. The color and shape that are perceived belong to the knowledge only. From this color and shape of the knowledge we infer external figures and colors. We cannot recognize the external objects also. After recognizing the internal

226

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

knowledge we start inferring the external objects. Thus Soutrantika-s conceived a theory which is nothing but imaginations.

This is also totally contradictory to our experience. It is everyone's experience that the knowledge that occurs in us and the figures that we perceive out side are entirely different. No body experiences that he perceives the different figures of the knowledge. Therefore after the knowledge takes place we run after the external objects. The internal knowledge is having some kind of color and shape. From that the external object get different color and shape. Such baseless imaginations are meaningless. The appropriate and easy method is that we run after the objects after getting the direct perception due to direct contact between sense organs and the objects.

The Examination of Maadhyamika Siddhanta :

From now on the doctrines of Shuunya vaadins(^RT qiiVi:) who are popularly known as Maadhyamikaas will be examined. According to them the entire world is superimposed on the absolute reality which is devoid of all attributes and qualities and is called Shuunya. When the realization of Shuunya is achieved through meditation the world which is superimposed on it disappears. Till the realization all the empirical activities take place due to the imagination of the world. Hence this is considered as SaamvRita SatyaC^ci W%) - the empirical reality. This alone is called as 'vyaavahaarika'(<*-n°ieNT^O by the

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

227

Advaitins. The Shuunyam alone is the absolute reality. Due to contact with the beginningless 'SamvRiti'C^forfcO, Shuunyam is responsible for the superimposition of the world. Ultimately Shuunyam, which is action-less, alone remains when this 'SamvRiti' is destroyed. This state is regarded as liberation. This is the essence of the doctrine of the 'Shuunyavaadins'.

There is absolutely no proof with regard to attribute-less and quality-less Shuunya. So far no one has realized it. No one has seen it. How can such unreal and baseless Shuunya be the cause of this world? We observe the divergence in the world. We utilize particular objects for specific purpose. To make a cloth we require the cotton. To prepare a pot we choose the suitable clay soil only. To grow the wheat the black soil is essential. Thus we see the particular process or rule in this specific creation. An object cannot be created when there is some defiance in the instruments. If the world is just superimposed on 'Shuunya' why this rigid processe of cause and effect. No instrument is required just for superimposition. Let every creation takes place without any cause. Such question remains to be answered by 'Shuunyavaadin'C^cnql).

The creation of different objects occurs based on their divergent nature and capacity as well as due to the power of the omniscient Lord. We have to accept a systematic empirical world behind the consistent and divergent knowledge. Because of this divergent world, a continuous flow of divergent knowledge in our mind also takes place.

228

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

There is no other way than accepting this. There is no authentic proof regarding the entity of Shuunya, which is accepted as the cause of this world. It does not have any attributes or qualities. The created world is just imagination. If that is the case, our different experiences and empirical transactions are meaningless.

What is the proof to say that this world is unreal? How can we prove that this world is unreal against our actual real experience? We perceive many unreal things in illusion. We perceive the snake in the rope. We also get many illusions in dreams. Similarly why not the perception of this world be an illusion? Such a question may arise. But there is a lot of difference between such illusions and the perception of this world. As soon as we are awake from sleep we realize that the things perceived in the dream are unreal. So also we mistake the rope for a snake. Immediately after the examination we realize that is not a snake. But has any body got the experience that the world, which is perceived, is unreal? It is not correct to conclude our direct perception as false knowledge without any basis. Though the perception of the world appears to be real now, it is imagined without any basis that it will be negated in future and will be determined as false. But even the knowledge of the unreality of the world can itself be negated, then why not that knowledge itself be treated as false? Such question may arise. If doubts are raised without any basis nothing can be proved. We can also question why not Shuunyam itself, which is considered as the highest truth, be considered as false. Shuunya cannot be an object

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

229

of knowledge. Hence it cannot be negated by any knowledge. There is a possibility for the world which is an object of knowledge to be negated and be false. Such arguments are very strange. While arguing that the world which is perceivable by the five sense organs is unreal, will it be correct to state that Shuunyam, which is not an object of any means of knowledge and experience of any one, is real? Will it not be like arguing that the horn of the cow, which is perceivable, is unreal and the horn of hare which is not perceptible is real? Further discussion and the analysis of the subject of unreality of the world will be done in the second part.

There is a lot of similarity between Shuunyavaada and Maayaavaada of Shree Shankaracharya. Shree Madhvacharya has proved that there is no difference in principle between the two. According to Shuunyavaada the world is superimposed on Shuunya. 'SamvRiti' is the cause for this superimposition. Shuunya alone is absolute truth. The empirical transaction takes place because this world is real because of 'samvRiti'. This is the theory of 'Shuunyavaada'. According to Advaita, Brahman alone is the absolute reality. The world, which is superimposed on Brahman, has an empirical reality. The avidya is the root cause for this superimposition. Between these two theories the differences are only in names. But essentially there is no difference. Even Bouddhas described Shuunya as nirguNa(Pi'| u i) and nirvishesha(ftf°T?fa) just as the Brahman of the Advaitin-s. Thus Shree Madhvacharya has comparatively analyzed these two schools of thoughts and

230

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

declared that it is impossible to find any difference between the two.

The theory of the Vijnaanavaadins(i<=i*iHciift'i:) who are recognized as YogaacaaryaasC^il'imni:) is also not very much different from Shuunyavaada. According to Vijnaanavaadins, Vijnaana alone is the absolute truth. The world is superimposed on 'Vijnaana tatva'. This has already been examined since it is very much similar to Shuunyavaada.

According to Vijnaanavaadins objects are perceived along with the knowledge. Since knowledge and objects are perceived simultaneously the object is superimposed on knowledge. It has already been proved that it is impossible for the world to be superimposed since a) the world follows a systematic order and b) its existence is proved by direct perception. That the knowledge itself transformed into this world is also impossible. When there is an experience that the knowledge, which is internal and the world, which is external are different, it cannot be said that they are one and the same. We observe that knowledge is born and gets destroyed every moment. But this external world remains permanent. If that is the case, how can it be said that both of them are one and the same, and there is nothing other than the knowledge? Hence the explanation of the Vijnaanavaadins is also inappropriate.

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

231

Jainism :

The Jaina school of thought has presented the description of this world in a very different style. The different schools of thought of this world have explained the objects in a divergent manner. If some philosophers have stated that this world is real, some others have stated that it is unreal. And some others have established that this world is neither real nor unreal but is inexplicable and different from sat (W) and asat(3TORT). The followers of Jainism have accepted all these theories. According to them it is not correct to reject those different theories when those philosophers have proved them on the basis of PramaaNaas. Therefore this school of thought has established a concept of accommodation of all the schools of thoughts accepting all the imaginable divergent qualities in an object. The Jainaas are also popularly known as 'syaadvaadinsCwirrf^T:)' for they have attempted to compromise with all different schools of thoughts, accepting all the divergent qualities in an object. This theory may appear to be very fascinating. But this theory is highly unscientific and contradicts the reality resulting in a mere declaration with no substance. If they accept all different schools of thoughts just because they have been established on the basis of proofs, they have to face some other challenge. Using different types of proofs, all those philosophers have forcefully condemned other philosophies, which contradict their theories. If we accept all the philosophies because of the respect of the each of the founder aacaaryaas(^mi<qi:), we should equally reject

232

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

all other philosophies for the same reason. Thus when it is accepted that all the schools of thought are correct it should also be accepted at the same time that all of them are incorrect. Just as the idol made of clay gets completely disappears due to 'abhishheka' (3#r^) (pouring of water, etc.), in trying to compromise with all the schools of thoughts, it may end up as rejecting all the philosophies. Therefore it is not correct to accept all contradictory aspects of different philosophies on the same theme in the name of compromise. We can say an object may exist here and now and we can also say that it did not exist yesterday. But an object cannot be both existent and non-existent at the same place and time. A philosopher proposes a description for jiivaO^ffa), world and iiswaraCfw)., quite opposite to the one described by other philosopher. An attempt to accommodate both these theories as 'praamaaNika' (mh \? u i°h) (authentic) will be a self-deceit. Politicians may be prepared for any kind of compromise to achieve their selfish ends. But a philosopher, a genuine seeker of the truth, may not be ready for any compromise with regard to reality and unreality. Therefore the concept of compromization of all philosophies in the Jaina(^T) school of thought, may not be scientific. Accepting the principal differences in all philosophies and extending mutual co-operation in common aspects are only practical way of approach for the benefit of a society. But open discussions conducted in a cordial environment without any inhibitions with the sole intention of inquiry of the truth will not be harmful in terms of a social harmony.

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

233

Let us examine the concept of the self (^ftor)in the philosophy of Jaina. The Self will be in the form of respective physical body. According to Jainism the self will be of exact size of the physical body. They also have accepted rebirth. When the self which is of the size of an ant in its body gets the body of an elephant, how can that self pervade the entire elephant body? Does jiiva not become sensitive in all parts of that big body? Similarly the self, which is of elephant size in its body when it is born as an ant, will it be outside the ant's body? The light can pervade all over the big room as it pervades in a small room. The water changes its shape according the size and shape of its container vessel. Similarly when the self gets different bodies it occupies that size and shape of that new body. This is how they answer the above questions. But if it is accepted that the self can change according to the body it occupies, does it mean that the self undergoes modifications? An entity, which undergoes modification, is subjected to destruction and it cannot be eternal. According to Jainaas, jiivaas are eternal. If that is the case, how can they justify the modification of the self according to physical bodies it occupies? They have attempted to answer this question. All changes cannot be treated as modifications. We fold our clothes and mats and again we spread them on the floor. Do we say the mat or cloth is destroyed because of this change? When we pour water into the vessels of different size, though the water gets the size and shape of those containers, water does not get destroyed. Similarly the eternity of the self cannot be

234

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

affected with these modifications of the self. Thus they argue. This explanation appears to be correct. But this contradicts their own system. They don't accept the self in the plants and trees. A tree grows very tall. Then the self also has to grow to the same height. They have explained that the self cannot be eternal if this change is accepted in the self. If jiiva cannot be eternal just because of his growth to the size of the tree, will the eternity of jiiva not be affected when jiiva in the child's body transforms as the body grows to adult size? Why is there different rule for plants and trees, and for animals and humans? Why cannot we follow the same method or rule for all cases?

There are many proofs to say that even the plants and trees have the self C^ffa). The growth of the trees, the production of flowers and fruits, and changes that occur before and after the water is provided for the plants, etc., are all the manifestations of their self. Even modern science has proved that there is life in the plants and trees.

We can see many such inconsistencies and contradictions in Jainism. Another big short fall is they do not accept the Lord as the creator of this world just as Saankhya school of thought.

The school of Paashupata (mvjMd ^fa):

According to Paashupata school of thought the Lord Shiva is recognized as the creator of this world, omniscient and Supreme Being. The followers of this school have accepted the existence of the world. They have accepted

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

235

omnipotent Lord who is different from jiivaas. But according to them the Lord Shiva is the Supreme Being and Vishnu and Brahma are his subordinates. They have established their theory on the basis of logic, and Paashupata aagamaCwjHd 3WT) without taking the support of the Vedaas. It is already established that Vedaas are 'apourushheya'C^HW^) and they are valid PramaaNaas. In the Vedaas there are a number of statements to prove that Vishnu alone is the Supreme Being and the Lord Shiva and other Gods are His subordinates.

When there is a mutual contradiction among puraNa-s and aagamaas we have to follow the Vedaas only. When the supremacy of the Lord Vishnu is declared in the Vedaas we should not accept any other concept against it. All the names of the Gods indicate the Lord Vishnu alone. When Vedaas and puraaNaas clearly state that if Supreme Being is called by any name, it implies Vishnu alone and there is no scope for any doubt. The supreme entity called by whatever name it implies the one and only highest principle, the Lord Shree Vishnu. Thus we have to accommodate all seemingly conflicting Vedaas and puraaNaas but we should not accept supremacy for any other god, which contradicts Vedaas. Without any support from the Vedaas and only on the basis of logic and paashupata aagama, those who propose that the Lord Shiva is the creator of this world cannot establish their argument logically in consonance with the Vedaas. Does the Lord Shiva have physical body or not? If he has a physical body, there is a chance for him to have pain, illusion, and such weaknesses. Hence he cannot

236

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

be the creator of this world. If he does not have a physical body, then also he cannot be the creator of this world. It is nowhere seen in the world that anything is created without a physical body. Even small work or creation requires hands and legs, how can the Lord Shiva create such a big universe without the body. For knowledge to occur, the physical body (TRfc) and the sense organs are required. If Lord Shiva does not have body and sense organs he cannot get any knowledge. When there is no knowledge there is no creation. The knowledge of Lord Shiva is not born from body and sense organs. That is eternal one. That does not require any physical body. This is also inappropriate. Nobody has seen the eternal knowledge in the world. They feel it is difficult to establish their theory against this logic. One can face the force of such logic only when he has the strong support of the Vedaas. When there are different aagamaas written by different personalities no validity is yet established for any one particular scripture. Hence it cannot be established that the Lord Shiva is the creator of this world against such number of objections. Therefore only on the basis of 'apourushheya' Vedaas it should be determined that all the activities of the world are due to the Lord Shree Hari who is the embodiment of eternal knowledge, though He does not have an empirical body. The scriptures which are against the Vedaas need not be honored.

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

237

The doctrines of Shaakta (?TTtT> ^R):

Om! utpatyasambhavaat Om!

In the same way the Shaakta (Wft) school of thought proposes that the Lord Shiva and other gods are created by goddess and she is alone supreme entity. This school of thought need not be separately examined since all the objections raised against Shiva DarshaNa (%°T ^R) are applicable to shaakta school of thought also. This doctrine is not acceptable since it contradicts Vedaas. The mother alone cannot produce children without the help of the father of the World. Without accepting the father of the world, saying that the world is created only by the mother of the world, is not accepted by the world.

The PancharaatraCM^M) Scripture Is Not Invalid !

Some philosophers interpret this Suutra to reject the validity of the 'Pancaraatra aagama'. There are conflicting ideas in 'pancaraatra aagama'. It describes the creation of the jiivaas while Vedaas declare that jiivaas are eternal and beginning-less. One can also see some criticism of the Vedaas in pancharaatra.

There are some statements in pancaraatra such as 'though the Vedaas are studied the doubts are not cleared', 'no satisfactory answer is available in the Vedaas', 'the path for success is revealed only after the study of pancaraatra'. Are these not criticisms of the Vedaas?

238

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Therefore 'pancaraatra' is not valid. This is how they argue. But it is not correct to say that 'pancaraatra' is invalid. There are so many statements from PramaaNaas that the Lord Narayana alone has written the scripture 'pancaraatra'. The Bhagavadgeetaa( <t T T ToT^?TT) is the essence of 'pancaraatra'. The same knowledge has flown in two parts -'one in Vedaas and one in pacaraatra'. Thus the validity of 'pancaraatra' is estabished by many PramaaNaas. As we can see some statements in 'pancaraatra' which describe the creation of jiivaas even Vedaas consist such statements. There are so many sentences in Vedaas which state the beginning-less of the Samsaara and the eternity of the jiivaas. We should accommodate such statements in such a way so that they do not mutually contradict. Therefore we should interpret Vedic statement that beginning-less jiiva gets manifested due to contact of the physical body. In the pancaraatra also there are clear statements which declare that jiiva is beginning-less. Can we not interpret pancaraatra according to such statements as we interpret Vedaas? The statement in pancaraatra 'vaasudevaat sankarshhano naama jiivaH jaayate'(oTRT^oTRT -H^uil ^TFT ^ftor: W^) should be interpreted in the following manner. The Lord aadhisheshha(3nf^Er) who is the presiding deity of jiiva is born from the Vaasudeava(°n^°i), which is the form of Lord Vishnu, and the Lord pradyumna(^¥) who is the presiding deity of mind is born from the Lord aadhisheshha(^i[q^]q). The word 'born' popularly means obtaining a physical body. There cannot be a meaning in pancaraatra, which contradicts any 'pramaaNa'. There is

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

239

no stuff in saying that pacaraatra criticizes Vedaas. It is said in the puraaNaas that even if one studies all the four Vedaas, he cannot full knowledge unless he studies puraaNaas. Is it also a criticism of the Vedaas? That statement means the puraaNaas are supportive to the Vedaas. Therefore to understand Vedaas clearly one should study the PuraaNa-s. But it does not mean puraaNaas are greater than Vedaas. Similarly the intention of the statements which praise pancaraatra text is only to indicate that the text is useful to determine the meaning of the Vedaas. Without the comprehending the inner meaning of the statements one should not create confusion just on the basis of the words. Therefore statement that pancaraatra is invalid is only out of obstinacy.

Thus in this part all the different schools of thoughts have been examined and it is established that the Lord is the supreme personality possessing infinite qualities as described by Vedaas and Upanishads and that this is the supreme doctrine. A doubt still remains that why other aagamaas which have been existing from the time immemorial like Vedaas, are invalid? Though the scriptures have been existing from the beginning-less time they are not regarded as 'apourushheya'. They were written by different authors on their own at different times. Though the same thought continued from the time immemorial these scriptures are based on intelligence of those authors. But Vedaas are not authored by anyone. However they are existing from time immemorial being evident to the knowledge of the Lord and unauthored by any human being.

240

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Whereas other scriptures are not like this. Though they are beginning-less they are not 'apourushheya'. They are influenced by their own thoughts, prejudices, notions, impressions etc. Therefore these scriptures are conflicting on different subjects. This is the main reason why they are different from Vedaas in several aspects. Therefore we should walk always in the right path based on valid means of knowledge established by Vedaas without getting confused by other scriptures.

Our ignorance is beginning-less. Along with that the bad impressions are also deep rooted. How can the knowledge of the truth which is just dawned after the study of the Shaastraas destroy our strong ignorance. The knowledge born in the mind through the studies and contemplation of the truth alone does not destroy this ignorance. Behind that knowledge the power of our self-knowledge is also included. In the intrinsic nature of the good souls there is in-born and pure knowledge. When the scriptural knowledge in our mind is combined together with our in-born knowledge, it destroys the beginningless ignorance along with its impressions. We should not forget that behind this destruction of the beginningless ignorance the grace of the Lord is also required. The combination of the three such as grace of the Lord, in-born self-knowledge and external efforts together can only uproot the beginningless, strongly deep-rooted ignorance.

Thus ends second part of the second chapter.

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

241

THIRD AND FOURTH PARTS OF THE SECOND CHAPTER

The Lord is Creator of all:

The Lord is creator of all. It is declared in many parts of the Vedaas that the Lord has created all. But there are some eternal entities such as space, time, etc. They are not born. The Lord cannot create them. There are Vedic statements also which declare that space and time are eternal. There are also some Vedic statements which declare that the Lord has created all including the space. How can we resolve this contradiction among the Vedic statements?

The two apparently contradictory statements declare the truth alone. The space is not created. If space is also created, was this world all parvading before that? Aakaashha(3TT^TT?T) which is also called avakaashha(3ic|cM^i\ space or place is experienced by our consciousness. Even a small child knows that space is all pervading and eternal. We recognize the place closing our eyes. We communicate the concept of place as 'there'. Thus the space is identified by our consciousness as all-pervading all the time. But there is another subtler entity of aakaashha which is one of the five fundamental substances and which is created and which is different from the above explained space. This is neither all pervading nor eternal. This space is called 'bhuutaakaashha'(\ciw*i). This bhuutaakaashha is created like other elements such as earth, water, cloth, and pots. The Lord has created this 'bhuutaakaashha' in the beginning. The other aakaashha which is identified by saakshiCwO as all pervading is called

242

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

'avyaakRita aakaashha' (3Tsn^rrr^r?r). This is eternal and uncreated. Then a doubt may arise that the statement that the Lord has created all does not apply to this aakaasha. Even this eternal 'aakaasha' or space can have a kind of creation. There are different types of creations. When an object gets a new form it is generally described as creation. When the mud gets the shape of a pot it is called creation. There is another type of creation. That is if objects remain unchanged but get new association depending on another object.

When the jiivaas which are independent and are beginningless get the contact of the physical body, they are regarded as born. Similarly though the space is eternal when it gets contact with the objects in the beginning because of the Lord, it is also considered as creation. The Lord Vinaayaka(Tci-i n =h), who is the presiding deity of aakaasha or space gets physical body by the Lord, is also considered as created by the Lord. Since all the eternal and ephemeral entities are subject to creation in one form or the other, there is no problem to say that the Lord is creator of all. The Upanishad says the space or aakaashha is eternal by nature and is subjected to a kind of creation because of the Lord, it is included among earth, water, and fire. However, among them praaNaCPM) alone is declared as eternal in the Upanishads. By this can we deduce praaNa is more eternal than the space? This may imply the praaNa is not subjected to any kind of creation of the Lord. Does this not affect the concept that the Lord is the creator of all? Though PraaNa is regarded as more eternal than the

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

243

space, it is not eternal like space because even praaNa got special qualities from the Lord. The Lord PraaNa who is regarded as mukhyapraaNaCwWFT) whose knowledge is in tact even during pralaya. But other presiding deities of space etc., do not have the knowledge born in mind during pralaya. The Lord MukhyapraaNa knows all in his mind even during pralaya. Even during pralaya his memory remains sharp. He knows all the objects belonging to all the categories. Since the Lord MukhyapraNa has these specialties, he is described as the greater eternal entity. But Shree MakhyapraaNa is included in the creation as the son of the Lord from whom he obtained his physical body.

When some kind of creation is explained for eternal and beginningless entities such as space etc., as well as their presiding deities, a doubt may arise whether it is applicable to the eternal and beginningless supreme Brahman also. But the Lord does not have birth at all. Only dependent entities are subjected to some kind of creation due to their association with the dependent objects. An independent Lord does not require anything from anybody else. He has everything that He needs by His own will. Therefore the Lord does not have any type of modification such as birth etc. It is His great power that without being born from anyone He is the creator of all eternal and ephemeral objects of the world. We can give an example for His great power. Jiiva is an indivisible entity. He does not have any parts. Still some saints undergo the results of their actions in several physical bodies at a time to complete their prarabdhakarma (W^T ^A) due to

244

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

their eagerness to attain Moksha as early as possible. How does jiiva who is indivisible and infinitesimal experience pain and pleasures in several bodies at the same time? Other than the mysterious power of the Lord, there is no way out for an indivisible jiiva becoming many parts experiencing pain and pleasure for his actions and again becoming one. There is nothing impossible for the Lord who is all-powerful. Under His control even an eternal object get a body. Hence the Lord is an independent entity from every angle.

But some philosophers have made efforts to establish the identity between the Lord who is all-powerful and jiiva who has limited power. Where is the Lord who is full of infinite qualities and unlimited power and where is the Jiiva who is limited and undergoes suffering from defects, pain and vices? How dare one can identify these two, jiiva and the Lord, who's differences are intensely experienced by Pratyaksha? They also argue that all these differences perceived in this world are illusory. This illusion exists as long as Samsaara is there. All this vanishes when one attains liberation. In that absolute state where there is no scope for ignorance the identity alone will remain.

We can find hundreds of statements in Vedaas, Upanishads, and scriptures, which declare bheda(^) or difference very clearly even in the state of Moksha (liberation).

"In Moksha jiiva experiences all pleasures along with Brahman" - If it is said along with the Brahman, is it not

Dwitheeya Adhyaaya

245

clear that jiiva and Brahman are different. Jiiva does not become Brahman. He becomes only somewhat similar to Brahman. Jiiva does not become Brahman after attaining Him. He will regain his own original nature or form. Such several statements have declared the separate existence of jiiva and Brahman even in Moksha. The difference of jiiva and Brahman, which exists even in Moksha where there is no scope for aJNaana(3WFT) or ignorance, cannot be illusory at all. It will be proved as absolutely real. Further discussions regarding the difference of jiiva and Brahman will be explained in the second part of Nyaayasudhaasaara, Hi^siriit).

Jiiva is described as the part of the Lord in the puraaNaas and Upanishads. At the level of Samsaara there is a difference between jiiva and Paramaatma. We have already established on the basis of PramaaNaas that jiiva and Brahman are different even in the Moksha. If that is the case what is the meaning of the statement that jiiva is part of the Lord? Though jiivaas are absolutely different from the Lord, they are described as parts of Him since they are similar to Him in terms of consciousness and bliss but they are insignificant and highly dependent on them. We say that a rupee in our hand is part of rupees of one crore in the hands of a rich man. But a rupee in our hand is not actually a part of that rupees of one crore. Though this money is different from that money, as a money they are the same and hence it is called a part of that money. Water in the well is a part of the water in the ocean. Though this water is similar to the water of the ocean it is called a part

246

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

of that water since it is insignificant compared to the water ocean. Similarly we have to understand the inner meaning of the statement that the jiivaas are parts of the Lord. There are two types of parts (amshaas). It is popular that the incarnations such as Rama (TW), Krishna etc are part of the Lord. Shree Rama and Shree Krishna are the Lord only. There is absolutely no difference between the Lord and His incarnations. This 'amsha'(3T?T) is called as 'swaruupa amsha'C^R^Tfar). The presiding deity of the Meru Mountain( T T 1 '^ t T°f?T) is part of the goddess Bhuudevi(^nHl') who is the presiding deity of the entire earth. There is no difference between them at all. This is example for 'swaruupa amsha'. The presiding deity of trash is entirely different from Bhuudevi and also she is recognized as part of her i.e. bhinnaamsha (). Similarly the jiivaas that are absolutely different from the Lord are parts of the Lord. There are statements in Vedaas and Upanishad-s, which declare the difference between 'jiivaatma' and 'paramaatma'. There are statements, which apparently indicate the identity of jiiva and Brahman. Also there are statements, which say that jiiva-s, are parts of the Brahman. Only when we have in our mind the understanding of the relation between jiiva and Brahman we can accommodate all seemingly conflicting statements of the Vedaas and understand the difference between jiiva and Brahman, as well as the glory of the Lord.

Thus ends the second chapter of BrahmaSuutra.

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

247

THIRD CHAPTER

Bhakti paada (^frf> *tt5):

The earlier two chapters of Brahmasuutra have resolved all the possible contradictions or objections for the infiniteness of Brahman and confirmed that there is no scope for any defect in the Lord and have described the nature of the Lord as possessing all auspicious qualities and He is free from all defects. The aim of seekers is to reach the supreme Brahman freeing themselves from all defects and impurities and becoming pure conscious and blissful entities. To reach this goal there are four important steps. These are 1) viaraagya (%FT) - detachment 2) Bhakti (*rfrfO K devotion towards the Lord 3) upaasana (^hi^hi) -meditation and 4) saakshaatkaara OFTRTR^R) - realization. To reach our goal these four pursuits are very essential. They have been described in the third chapter of Brahmasuutra. Therefore the third chapter is called 'saadhanaadhyaaya'O^^T^WT). The first part of this chapter deals with the subjects such as 'the traveling of the souls after their death, going to other worlds, pain of returning back to this world, life in the hell, etc. Picturing all these different miserable states of jiivaas it induces dispassion in us for the world. Shree Madhvacharya has not explained them in his Anuvyaakhyaana (st^ostr^tfO since he has already described all these in detail in his commentary to Brahmasuutra, Brahmasuutra Bhaashhya (^FRW ^TT^T). The soul or jiiva comes down from the heaven and enters grains and then to the father's body via food

248

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

then grows in the womb of the mother and finally is born on the earth. When we know these different states up to the birth, we get disgusted in our life. Therefore the Upanishad has prepared the ground for detachment for jiivaas by explaining his different states of descent from heaven to the earth. Brahmasuutra has indicated a special aspect in this matter. Though it is generally understood that jiiva enters the mother's womb through the father, some jiivaas who have accomplished superior knowledge and attained special power through tapas (rfT:), penance, do not undergo such pains but enters mother's womb directly. The scriptures have explained both of these methods for jiiva entering the mother's womb. We need not imagine any mutual conflicts in these statements. If some statement describe some general method applicable to all the jiivaas, some other statement of the scripture explain very rare incidents applicable to only distinguished personalities.

The second part of the third chapter stimulates devotion, which is an instrument to attain liberation, for virtuous people. Devotion means the extreme love in the Lord combined with the knowledge of glory and qualities of the Lord. The more one knows the glory of the Lord, the greater is the devotion that grows towards the Lord. Whether we are in the state of deep sleep or in awakened state, by providing energy the Lord is the controller, motivator of all the activities. The Lord is the object of reflection for jiivaas. Just as all the beauty and activities of the reflection depend on the object of reflection the jiivaas gain everything from the Lord. Thus this part has explained

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

249

the glory of the Lord in many topics AdhikaraNaas (3#jcm u i) and it induces in us a greater devotion for the Lord.

The Objects of Dream are Real:

There are three states for jiivaas such as waking, dreaming, and deep sleeping states. In the beginning of this part of the Suutraas it is described that is it is the glory of the Lord who controls all the three states. The unimaginable power of the Lord is experienced which creates varieties of objects in dream, taking us to a different world. There are intensive discussions and arguments among the philosophers on this subject. There is no role of the Lord in dream world. No object seen in the dream is real. Objects are only imagined in dream state. If real objects of dream are created we can attribute them to the power of the Lord. But there is no possibility of such creation in such dream. Without basic substance no object can be created. Without mud a pot cannot be created. Is there any material cause like mud for the objects in a dream to be created? If material cause really exists the objects of the dream should be perceived even in a waking state. Just as the remains of broken pot are seen, even after the dream is over, the remains of the dream objects should be perceived. Hence it cannot be real creation in the dream since there is no material cause and no objects remain after the dream. In a dream state jiiva cannot go out and see those objects. Therefore he has to see all those objects as physical perception. In dream we see the objects which

250

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

are vast such as forests, mountains, oceans etc. Can we accommodate all such big objects in side our frail body. Therefore the objects which are perceived in dream are not real. We have to admit they are all only imaginary. There cannot be a creator for such imaginary objects. Therefore many philosophers have stated that creation of the objects of the dream is not the glory of the Lord.

The author of Brahmasuutra, however, has repeatedly declared that the Lord alone is the creator of the objects of dream, "sandhye sRishhTiH" (wit ^fe), "nirmaataaram ca" (PihIck ^r). These Suutraas have clarified the subjects. We paint different pictures with colors using brush. We paint different animals such as elephant, tiger etc. Are these animals seen in the pictures real? From some angle they are real. From another angle they are imaginary. The lines drawn in the picture are only real. But if you identify those pictures with real animals of the forest, it becomes unreal. The dream is also similar to this. The impressions of hundreds of objects that we have perceived are present in the mind. It is only due to this impression that the different varieties of forms appear in our mind during the dream. If an artist draws strange forms on the screen with his brush using colors, the Lord creates different mysterious forms in our mind using these impressions as colors. This picture which is the modification of our impressions is only real. But when he identifies those pictures with the objects of the outside world they will be illusory. The combination of real and unreal aspects is the dream. Thus Shree Madhvacharya has explained the dream aspect in a highly

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

251

scientific manner. As we can see the vast mountains, ground and other objects in a white screen through a small film, in our small mind we can see big objects that are created by subtler impressions. However though there is a scope for illusions in dream, the objects that are perceived in dream are real only. This AdhikaraNa explains that it is the unimaginable skill of the Lord to create subtler objects in dream. It is the great glory of the Lord in the creation of this dream world.

Though the first two Suutraas of this AdhikaraNa clearly say that the Lord creates the dream world the third suutra causes confusion in this aspect. In that third suutra the dream is described as 'maayaamaatram'CHNHi;*). This description that svapnaC^oUT) or dream is maayaOw) is entirely against the description of the first two Suutraas. But the word 'maayaamaatram' in this suutra does not mean 'maaya' or illusion. In Vedaas and puraaNa-s the knowledge and the will of the Lord are called by the name 'maaya'. The impression or samskaaraC^V^K), which is born out of the jiivaas, is also called 'maaya'. The subtler objects of dream are created out of impressions of the jiiva and the knowledge of the Lord. Also the objects of a dream have got existence from the Lord only. This is the only meaning for the word 'maayaamaatram'. All that have been perceived in illusion cannot be unreal. In illusion the shining white object in front of us may appear to be silver. After examination it is only that which is negated is unreal. But why should we say that all that is perceived unreal. Mistaking the shining object for silver, we come to know

252

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

that it is not silver after we examine. The silver, which is perceived, is unreal. But the shining object, which is perceived in front, is not unreal. When no knowledge takes place to negate it why should we say it is unreal. Similarly the objects that are seen in the awakened state are only seen in the Dream State. This is called illusion. Once we are awakened we examine the things. The objects that we have seen in the dream are not external. It becomes very clear that the objects of dream do not have any power of utility or grosser form that the external objects have. From this angle we can consider dream as illusion. But where is the proof to say that the subtler pictures, which are projected due to impressions in the mind, are unreal? Should it not be real just as a picture of an animal on the wall? The summary of this discussion is that without any negation we should not consider anything that is perceived is unreal.

There is no difference in forms due to difference in place. The Lord creates the objects out of our impressions for us to see and all of a sudden He makes them disappear also. Deep sleep, waking state or dream are not under our control. Sometimes even if we desire for them we are not able to achieve them. We get these states unexpectedly. Thus every moment we experience the independence of the Lord as well as our dependence on Him. We should not think that the one who is ruling us now is different entity from the one who will be ruling us in future at a different time and place. We should not imagine any limitations for the Supreme Lordship of paramaatma. The presidents and the Prime ministers of the country may change. But the

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

253

Lord who that is controlling this entire world is one and the same at all times.

Though the Lord controls different objects being present in them, He is the same in all the objects. He does not have any limitations and shortcomings. The Vedaas are meant for jiivaas to attain Moksha through the grace of the Lord by developing devotion in Him. Instead of pointing out any defects or shortcomings in the Lord, the Vedaas proclaim the glory and greatness of Him which can be helpful for jiiva to develop devotion towards Him. Knowing the real purport of the Vedaas one should interpret Vedaas correctly rather than interpret to suit one's convenience. Therefore the Vedaas describe the Lord who is full of infinite qualities and free from any defects and who is one and the same at all times and places.

II 3?f 3TrT T?cr -Vfrm *j4*lfecM 3Tf II

"Om! atha eva copamaa suuryakaadivat Om!"

Bimba-pratibimba (fa^ ufdf^H) relation between paramaatma and jiivaatma:

It is stated in different parts of the scriptures that jiivaas are parts of the Lord. Based on that there is a theory which proposes Abheda and Bheda between jiiva and paramaatma. According to this theory both identity and difference are real. But identity, which is natural, continues even in Moksha. The difference or Bheda is unnatural and temporal entity, which is due to the equipment such as mind etc. When the body and the inner equipment are destroyed the

254

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Bheda also gets destroyed and the identity alone remains. The Supreme Brahman is omniscient and is full of qualities. All the jiivaas are parts of the Brahman like sparkles of the fire and like the drops of water in the ocean. As the ocean is nothing but collection of water, Brahman is assemblage of all conscious entities. Just as sparkles from the fire jiivaas are separated tiny parts of Brahman. They become one with Brahman just as drops of water join the ocean. Just as there is difference and identity (Bheda-Abheda) between drops of water and oceanic waters, there is difference and identity between jiivaas, which are parts of Brahman, and Brahman who is ocean of consciousness.

This AdhikaraNa has examined this theory. It is not appropriate to say identity (sn=fc) between jiiva and Brahman. It is said in Vedaas and other scriptures that jiiva is the reflection of Brahman. Even goddess LakshmiCwf!" w) is the reflection of the Lord. The four-faced Brahmaa is the reflection of goddess Lakshmi. Thus in a sequential way after different Devaas and jiivaas are reflections of the Lord. Therefore there cannot be identity between jiiva and Brahman. This is the subject of this AdhikaraNa. In this regard we may get several doubts. How can jiiva become reflection of Brahman? Reflection is born out of equipment. Our face is reflected as an image in a mirror. If there is no mirror there cannot be a reflection. If mirror is broken the reflected image is also lost. If mirror is totally destroyed the reflection or image disappears. If jiiva is an image of Brahman which is the equipment for that? Is it born out of equipment? Does He get destroyed

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

255

when the equipment is destroyed? How can jiiva be born or destroyed when Vedaas and scriptures declare Him as eternal. Therefore it is not proper to say that jiiva is the image of the Lord. Jiiva should be considered only as a part of the Lord. Just as there is a difference and identity between the cloth and the threads, both Bheda and Abheda should be accepted even for jiiva and Brahman. It is not correct to say there is difference between jiiva and Brahman because jiiva is reflection of Brahman. Even if we assume that jiiva is reflection of Brahman why should he be different from Brahman.

The reflection of the object in the mirror is identical to the object. There is no difference in the image and the corresponding object. The light from our face is reflected in the mirror to form a image, the light from which is seen through the eyes. In this process we see only the image of the object. But that image is not a separate real object. Therefore though jiiva is reflection of Brahman he does not have separate existence. Hence Brahman alone is real and a ocean of consciousness. Such confusions may arise. This confusion arises because of lack of correct knowledge of 'pratibimba'(PicrfsFor). If jiiva is described as the 'pratibimba' (mIci fa«0 of Brahman it is not like a reflection in a water or mirror. If it is a reflection, then the destruction of jiiva is unavoidable along with the equipment. The reflection always depends on the object. It also has similarity of the object in some aspects. Jiiva is totally depending on the Lord for all his activities. The jiiva who is conscious and blissful entity in nature has similarity of

256

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

the Lord in these respects. It is in this context only the jiiva is described as the pratibimba of God. But it should not be mistaken as jiiva as the reflection of the Lord like reflection in a mirror. The real meaning of the statement that jiiva is the pratibimba of the Lord is only because he is similar to the Lord in some aspects and also depends on Him.

The reflection or the image is always different from the object. The reflection of the sun in the mirror or the water is not recognized as the sun. The reflection is some kind of process that occurs when we stand in front of a mirror. It is not our face that is seen in the reflection only its image. We are not our photos. It is our picture that is different from us. The picture is result of some process that occurs in our presence. From all these examples it is confirmed that bimba (f^F^) and pratibimba are entirely different. If that is the case it is not correct to say that jiiva who is like the pratibimba of Brahman is one with the Brahman.

The philosophy of Bhaaskara which accepts both Bheda and Abheda between jiivaatma and paramaatma also accepts the Lord as omnipotent, omniscient and possessing infinite qualities. The Brahmasuutra says "sarvopetaa ca tatdarshanaat" (-HdlQdl "^ d^HId) that is Brahman is all-powerful. An all-powerful entity cannot have any defects. But jiivaas have many defects. So it is impossible to have identity between jiiva and Brahman. Even if jiiva is one with Brahman, he gets separated from Him due to

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

257

equipments such as mind etc. and can have the defects such as pain etc. Even this concept is not correct. The Lord is absolutely independent entity. Separating the Lord on account of equipments such as mind or ignorance and accommodating defects in His part who is jiiva is not possible. The insentient objects do not have power to influence the all-powerful Lord. Then one has to say that the Lord alone divided Himself on His own will and caused pain and agony or tragedy to His parts. This is highly laughable explanation. Does any right thinking person prick his body with the thorns without any benefit? Does he get himself bitten by scorpion or snake? If jiiva is part of all-powerful Lord, he cannot have such tragedies. The Brahman does not experience pain or agony that occurs to jiiva though he is His part. It is highly inappropriate to say that Brahman does not experience it. If conscious entity is the same they should have mutual experience of pain and pleasure though the equipments are different. In our body the conscious entity is the same from head to toe. But the equipments such as hands or legs are many. But still jiiva experiences pain or pleasure through any part. If conscious entity is the same he should undergo all the feelings of pain and pleasure happening at any part of the body. In spite of this if there is no mutual experience it is meaningless to say that there is identity between jiiva and Brahman. It is impossible to be identical if their experiences are not the same.

The Lord is omniscient. All the followers of Vedaas have accepted that Lord Shree Krishna is the incarnation

258

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

of God. Lord Krishna has explained himself in the Geeta OftcU) that "dwaavimou purushou loke" Ulfawl ^^T c5t%) that is He is the Supreme Being and is entirely different from sentient and insentient entities. When the omniscient Lord himself does not experience the identity of Jiiva how can the jiiva become a part of Brahman?

Arjuna (3T^T) who is Amsha (3T3T) or part of Indra, does not experience all the grandeur and pleasures of Indra. Such mysterious incidents take place in the world due to inexplicable power of the Lord. If such extra ordinary incidents take place in one part of the Lord due to the influence of ignorance, it will reduce the unimaginable power of the Lord. How can the Lord have unimaginable power, when pain and tragedies are occurring in one of His part due to the influence of equipments, which cannot be prevented making him helpless? The Lord with his extraordinary power can prevent mutual feelings among jiivaas on particular circumstances. But when he cannot prevent the pain in His own small part and become helpless, that affects His own unimaginable power. How can such imperfect and inefficient become omnipotent? Can he have this wonderful power who is one with jiivaas who are weak and helpless? When we observe two different qualities such as the pain and helplessness of the jiivaas and bliss and the infiniteness of the Lord the concept that jiivaas are the parts of Brahman and they are different as well as one with Brahman (Bheda-Abheda) is not logical.

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

259

|| 3?f ^^Md^d % TTrT TTMHrclld 3Tf II

"Om! aruupavadeva hi tat pradhaanatvaat Om!"

There are Vedic statements that Lord does not have body and form. But there are descriptions of His form and body. But there is no conflict between these two types of statements. He is formless since He does not have material body. His form is of transcendental consciousness. Unlike us He does not undergo births and deaths since He does not have material body. If the body of the Lord is not material can we use the words 'form' or 'body' for a transcendental entity? Can we use these words for the transcendental form of the Lord since these words are used only for material objects? Such questions may arise. In the Upanishads the lord is called by the name 'jyoti'(^lici), light. He is not material light. The light of knowledge of the Lord is not like the effulgence of fire or the sun in the world. Still the words, which are used in wordily objects, are used for the Lord. Similarly the divine form or image of the Lord can be described or called by words, which are associated with the material objects.

The Hierarchy of Devotion and Bliss of Jiiva:

All the jiivaas are the images of the Lord. They have some similarity with regard to knowledge and Bliss etc., fully depending on the Lord. This has been explained already. The qualities such as knowledge and bliss of the devas, Brahma etc who are the images of the Lord are not always of the same kind. There is lot of difference among

260

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

them. When the object of reflection that is the Lord is only one with a constant form, how come images are different? Such a question may arise. When the rays of the sun are reflected in sun-crystal (suryakanta stone) fire occurs, but not in a water. Just as there are differences in the images due to differences in the nature of the reflecting media even when the object of reflection is the same, though the Lord who is the bimba remains always the same, due to differences in the spiritual pursuits such as devotion etc., there can be hierarchy even among the devas. The stone of 'suuryakaanta'(^4=hi-d) produces fire only when the sun's rays fall in it. But this reaction does not happen when other light is reflected in it. The sun is responsible for the fire to be produced in the suryakaanta stone. Similarly for the differences in the bliss of the jiivaas the Lord who is bimba is also responsible. The power of the bimba and the nature of jiiva together cause the difference in the bliss of the jiivaas. The spiritual pursuits of the devotees and their results are not proportionate. There is inequality and variety in both of them. But the Lord who is 'bimba ruupi'Cf^' ^tft) exists as the same without undergoing any modification.

Governing Power of the Lord:

Why should we praise the Lord as the protector of the whole world? There is no need to accept such a special glory for the Lord. The objects, which are born, should exist naturally till they are destroyed. The Lord creates as well as destroys the objects. The objects remain on their

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

261

own during the period of creation and destruction. There is no role for the Lord other than creation and destruction of the world. But Brahmasuutra does not accept anything that limits Lordship of the God. The nature of all the objects are under the control of the Lord. The existence of the objects between creation and destruction is not independent. The natural sustenance of the objects depends on the power of the Lord. After creating the objects the Lord does not keep quiet till they are destroyed. The existence, the growth and modifications of the objects after creation depends on the Lord alone. The Lord is protector of all just as He is the creator and destroyer. The Lord is un-manifested by nature. We cannot perceive Him with our power and efforts. But the Lord reveals Himself by His own power out of benevolence to the seekers.

AhikunDalaAdhikaraNa:

It is already explained that all the qualities of the Lord are one with Him. Hence these qualities are not temporary and unnatural. We can never separate them from the Lord. According to VishishhTaadvaita (IM^ISlicT), though the Lord is possessing infinite qualities, the qualities are not one with the Lord. If attributes are not identical with the conscious entity of the Lord it will be resulting in admitting that the attributes are insentient. Shree Madhvacharya has showed the absolute conscious personality of the Lord without giving any scope for insentient attributes to His personality. If the Lord and His attributes are not different

262

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

and all of them are one and the same conscious entity, how can there be that expression or statement that the Lord has infinite qualities? Can an object exist in itself? Such a question may arise. This is applicable to all material objects. We cannot separate the fragrance of the flower. Though the fragrance and flower are one and the same we express that flower has fragrance. Objects and its attributes are one and the same. It has already been explained that the special intrinsic power of the object which is called visheshha shakti (fa*h ?lfrfO is responsible for expressions such as flower has fragrance (guna-guni bhaava vyavahaara) (tjttt Tjfq" vm oqcffR). Though the infinite qualities of the Lord are one with Him, the expression that the Lord has the qualities is accounted by this 'visheshha shakti' only. When a snake wraps itself into a ring form when it sleeps, the form that is perceived is not different from the snake. Though the form and snake are one and the same still we express the snake has such form. The effulgence of the sun is not different from the Sun. The sun is of the form of effulgence. Still we say that the sun as effulgence. Time exists now. Time existed earlier. Thus we express existence of time in time. We account these expressions due to the intrinsic power of the objects. Hence the Lord is form of infinite qualities as well as He is possessing infinite attributes. Further discussions about this 'visheshha' (t°P?fa) will be made in the second part of this Nyaayasudhaasaara.

Thus end the first and second parts of the third chapter.

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

263

THIRD PART OF THE THIRD CHAPTER

We can say that the two chapters and two parts of the third chapter can be considered as first part of Brahmasuutra. A seeker understanding all the topics described so far and gaining the devotion and dispassion is qualified to contemplate on Brahman.

An in-depth study of the Shaastraas and meditation are two types of contemplation or saadhana (WFT). By this a seeker realizes the Brahman which leads to liberation. Shree Madhvacharya summarizes the subjects of two chapters and two parts of the third chapter. It should be known that all the Vedaas describe the glory of the Lord. Examining the logic and other philosophies, which oppose the above theory, one should know their defects. The apparent contradictions in the Veda vaakyaas(% ciwiPi) should also be resolved. In addition to solving the contradiction of the Veda vaakyaas with regard to external objects, the opposition from Veda vaakyaas regarding to our internal entities such as sense organs and praaNa(PT°T) should also be resolved. Some parts of the Vedaas appear to oppose the subject described so far by using logic. Solving this contradiction and getting clear knowledge of 'Mukhyaprana tatva' (^^micit^i) we should become eligible to receive His blessings. We should also know that the Lord is the creator of our body as well as the father of the whole universe. When we know that due to the Lord alone we have derived our bodies, the individual relationship between the Lord and jiiva becomes strong. We will develop

264

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

increased love for Him as He is our father. His power is not limited to create only our bodies. We will develop special devotion and respect for Him since He is not only our creator but also of the whole universe. We must observe the pain and the agony in all objects or places, must develop dispassion for the world, realize the glory of the Lord who controls all our activities in every state, develop special divine devotion for Him, and get engaged in contemplating on the Brahman. We should try to more about Brahman and meditate on Him. Except this Supreme Brahman who is the cause for all our activities from birth to liberation and who grants us liberation which is our ultimate goal, whom else should we know in our lives?

We must intensify our devotion for the Lord by

(a) knowing of His infinite qualities,

(b) realizing that all our possible tragedies if we go far away from Him,

(c) knowing from the Shaastraas that the Lord is full of infinite qualities, and

(d) interpreting all types of words and statements of Vedaas and Upanishads in consonance with the Lord.

Contemplation means thought process involving concentration in the Lord. As meditation involves this concentration, one can get this even while discussing and analyzing the nature of the Lord. Therefore the constant study of the scriptures is also a kind of contemplation.

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

265

For those who are studying and analyzing the Vedaas, is it sufficient if they study only their respective branches? The Brahmasuutra says it is not sufficient. There is no limitations or restrictions that they should study their respective branches or some specific parts of the Vedaas only. Shree Veda Vyaasa has instructed that one should study as many Vedaas as possible in his life. The Brahmasuutra says that one should study Vedaas as much as possible according to one's capacity and qualifications. Hence the Devaas are still studying more Vedaas. The study and reflection should continue life long. The study should continue even after the realization of the Lord. As the study and discussions of the Shaastraas are helpful for meditation and realization, for a realized soul the listening and reflection of the Shaastraas will be the cause for increased ecstasy of bliss. Therefore this should continue even before and after the realization of God.

If we are not able to find proper Guru for studies, we should study the text written by him with the help of some teacher. If we are not able to find such distinguished knowledgeable teachers we need to take the help of a teacher who knows more than us. If we are not able to find any teacher, we have to contact different Guru-s and try to get knowledge from them. Sometimes we may not find such guru-s in a town where we live. In these days people are facing a lot of problems since they have migrated to different places for the sake of a job. In that case they have to study on their own. They should teach others what they have learnt. Some mistakes may happen when we teach with

266

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

our own self-studies. But it does not matter if small grammatical or other mistakes occur. One should be careful so as to ensure that teaching does not contradict to the fundamental subject of the Shaastraas. One need not stop studies even if other mistakes happen. Listening and contemplation of the Shaastraas should be conducted constantly in our life. One should not stop fearing for small mistakes. Sometimes the study may be affected due to physical ailments, sleep or strain. When such unavoidable problems occur one can stop the study for a while and continue later.

-Hfdl^M (Satsiddhanta):

It is already said that studies and discourses should be conducted without contradicting the fundamental principles of the scriptures. This 'satsiddhanta' is explained as follows: Shree Narayana is full of infinite qualities, free from defects, and the Lord of the whole Universe. The prime principle of all Shaastraas is the supremacy of the Lord. That the Lord is independent, and different from both sentient and insentient entities is supportive to the prime principle of supremacy of the Lord. If the Lord is not different from the sentient and insentient objects, He will be tainted by the defects of jiivaas and jaDa-s, and thereby His personality of supremacy, which is defect-free and infinite, will be affected. Similarly if He does not have independence He cannot be controller of all. The godess Lakshmi who is the mother of world occupies the position next to the Lord. That supremacy of MukhyapaaNa

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

267

among jiivaas, hierarchy among the Devaas, and the reality of the world are principles supportive to the prime siddhanta(ftr^RT). Our studies should be conducted without contradicting these principles. We get determined knowledge from the discourses, contemplation and listening of the authentic and reliable texts such as Vedaas and Bhaagavata (*ITWT), Mahaabhaarata OwnTcT) etc., which are in consonance with the Vedaas. But to realize Brahman uninterrupted meditation is essential.

But it is impossible to meditate with full concentration if mind is wavering due to lack of correct knowledge about the object to be meditated upon. If we get confirmed and determined knowledge about the object from listening and contemplation, then we can achieve uninterrupted meditation. In the final stage of the meditation, we accomplish the realization. In the third part of this chapter it is said that we should study and reflect on the subjects of the scriptures to our maximum capacity without neglecting it and meditate on the Supreme Brahman by knowing as many qualities of the Lord as possible.

As the studies and reflections are essential for meditation the 'yama'C^rr?) and 'niyama' (f^P-FT) are also essential. If ritual acts, which are prescribed at different times, are called 'niyama', while the qualities, which we should possess always, are called 'yama'. The 'japaanushhTana'C^TFjOTT) which should be conducted at 'sandhya'C^FW) times and fasting once in fifteen days etc are regarded as 'niyama-s'. We can call the virtues that we

268

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

should have all the time such as devotion for Lord, detachment for the World, etc., as 'yama-s'. Only when the two, that is, the devotion for the Lord and dispassion for the worldly objects are there, one can give up all the worldly things and meditate on the Lord with full concentration. Some say that like devotion, hatred-ness is also helpful. As we always think of a person whom we love the most, we also think of the person whom we hate intensively always. But to meditate with pure mind it is only devotion, which is essential. The Lord who is pleased without meditation awards liberation. We may perhaps attain concentration through constant hatred. But the Lord will not be pleased with the person who goes on hating and violating all the rules, which are meant for sustenance and maintenance of the world, and living a unrestrained life. Without the Lord's blessings liberation is impossible. For that reason only the Vedaas have declared that meditation which is combined with devotion alone is the cause for Moksha. Therefore we should strive hard to possess virtues such as devotion, dispassion etc. We love ourselves naturally. But we should love the Lord hundreds of times more than we love ourselves. If liberation can be obtained by achieving concentration through hatred why did our saints and seers follow the path of devotion not hatred, which is very easy since it does not involve any rules and regulations? Why did they follow the difficult methods of penance and fasting? There are different stories in the PuraaNa-s which describe many incidents as to how the wicked faced tragedies due to them hatred for the Lord.

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

269

The Bhagavad Geeta has declared 'mam apraapyaiva kounteya tato yantyadhamaam gatim' (hhhi^Ioi ^\^\m rTrft ^R^WTf TlirT), that is those who hate and criticize the Lord will be punished severely. Therefore we should become eligible for the blessings of the Lord by constant contemplating on Him with devotion and concentration.

II 3Tf ft^cirj faqfannrT ^ M

"Om! vidhyaivatu nirdhaaraNaat Om!"

There are differences of opinion with regard to the means for liberation. Carvaakaas (^nW) do not accept Moksha at all. According to them enjoyment of life till death is only 'Purushartha' (^q $) or Moksha. There is nothing like Moksha after the death. Even those who accept Moksha do not say that it can be experienced now. All the philosophers who accept Moksha agree that the realized souls giving up this material body experience the bliss of Moksha. We cannot determine by pratyaksha whether or not these realized souls have attained the bliss of Moksha. By pratyaksha we cannot know whether a person in front of us has pleasure or not. If that is the case, how can we disprove by pratyaksha the bliss of Moksha for a realized souls after the death? But Carvaakaas do not accept any pramaaNa other than pratyaksha. Thus they do not have any valid means of knowledge to prove that there is no Moksha. Is it possible to say that their founder Aacharyaas have realized that there is no Moksha by pratyaksha with their extraordinary powers? Is it possible for Charvaakaas, who admit only that which is perceivable, to accept such

270

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

super sensory power, which is not found in any other human being, for their specific founder aacharya? According to Theism, there are some souls with extra ordinary powers, since they accept supersensory yogic (<m1Im*) power. It is possible to say that the saints who have gained extraordinary powers through their spiritual powers, have seen God, righteousness and liberation.

For an atheist, who denies such supersensory power, is it possible to perceive that there is no pleasure of Moksha? When so many great souls who have realized God through their intensive spiritual pursuits, have declared with authority the existence of God, liberation, righteousness etc., we cannot dismiss them. The boons that they give and the miracles that they show are the instances of their extra ordinary power. It is not correct to deny the supersensory entities just because they are not perceivable with our physical eyes when there are so many examples for that in scriptures. We can give examples where Shree Madhvacharya has shown such extraordinary powers during his life. It has already been explained when theory of atheism was reviewed earlier, which holds the view that gratifying the sense organs is the only goal of life, the kind of damage it may cause for a social system by deterioration of the entire moral values.

Veda alone is the highest authority regarding the Moksha and its means. We must know the nature of Moksha and the methods to achieve it that is prescribed by Vedaas. While all the people are suffering from endless pains and

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

111

agonies, it cannot be decided only on the basis of logic that some people are redeemed from the endless pain. Logic determines depending on pratyaksha and authentic PramaaNaas. Without the support of pratyaksha and shabda, we cannot know Moksha and its means by mere logic.

The problem has already been explained why it cannot be decided by statement of philosophers. Whom can we follow when different philosophers declare mutually conflicting theories? Therefore it is very clear from our previous analysis that it should be determined only on the basis of Vedaas which are apourushheya. Hence the explanation of Moksha and its means either through the logic or from the words of founder Aachaarya of Jaina, Bhouddha etc. is not acceptable.

The Examination of Mokshasaadhana of Jainism :

According to the philosophy of Jaina, the self knowledge alone is the means of Moksha. It is not possible only by the self knowledge of jiiva who are bound by Samsaara, but it is possible only by the Lord who is free from endless pains of Samsaara. The omnipotent Lord, pleased by our devotion, can remove this beginningless bondage out of mercy on us by blessing us. The knowledge in us, who are bound by Samsaara and being helpless cannot be useful to remove this bondage. The self knowledge is against Samsaara. Just as the darkness disappears when the light comes, why is the Samsaara not destroyed when

272

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

self-knowledge occurs? Such a question may arise. All have accepted that the realized great souls live with us and lead an accomplished life till they go to Moksha. As the darkness is destroyed soon after light comes this Samsaara should be destroyed immediately after the self-knowledge. If that is the case, how can jiivanMuktaas (^°ta-HTW:) live with us? If liberation is by the grace of God, one has to wait for His grace to achieve Moksha even after realization. Hence the delay to get Moksha is natural when the grace of God is involved. Why this delay if Moksha is attainable through knowledge without depending on the grace? This question cannot be answered. The Bouddha-s who say that mukti Ojfe) is attainable through Shuunya Jnaana or knowledge of 'ViJnaanatatva'Cfo^iHd^), and Adaitins who accept Moksha only through knowledge of Brahman, have to face this question. All of them may answer that though the knowledge occurs one cannot get Moksha immediately since there is a hindrance of strong prarabdha karma(W^T ^4). When knowledge is so powerful that it can destroy even the beginningless Samsaara, it should be insignificant to destroy the karma which is insentient. Can darkness prevent the light? According to Bhouddha and Advaita, the karma is the product of ignorance. When ignorance, which is the cause for the world, is destroyed by knowledge, how can karma, which is the product of ignorance remain? How can realized souls who are regarded as jiivanMuktaas live among us? The philosophers who do not accept the grace of God for Moksha cannot answer the above questions.

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

273

Asatyopaasana(3i'Hrijlm*Hl) is not acceptable to Shaastraas:

The Advaita philosophy has divided Moksha into two types. One is 'SaguNa Moksha' {W^\ jfaar) and the other is 'NirguNa Moksha' (ft^T tt^T). SaguNa Moksha means reaching the world of VaikunTa (ot^"03 ) etc; by contemplating and meditating on the image as the Lord. In reality the Brahman is not an insentient image. Still one can accomplish the benefits by such upaasanaC^TPFFT). Though Brahman is attribute-less by contemplating on Him as possessing qualities one can get results. There is no relation between the reality and upaasana. One can attain saguNa Moksha by contemplating on the forms which are not real Brahman. The second type of Moksha is called 'nirguNa mukti'. This is only the prime Moksha. It is the state of 'Advaita sthiti' which is attributeless. The knowledge of Advaita is alone the cause for this liberation.

The 'asatyopaasana' is condemned in the Upanishads and Bhagavata. To reach the reality the means should be free from defects. We cannot reach the reality by unreal means. The Vedaas have repeatedly declared that the false knowledge leads to disaster. Hence by the false knowledge that 'the image is the Lord' one cannot progress. As already established from different angles that the Lord alone is the Supreme Being, the 'advaita Jnaana' (sffrT ^TFT) involving the identity of jiiva and the Lord, is also treated as false knowledge. Therefore it cannot be the means for liberation.

274 Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

The Examination of Tarkikamata (dlf*<*> TrT):

The Tarkikaas, and Seshvara sankhya-s (#SRlTn^0 accept that the grace of God is essential for liberation. But they have not understood the important role of grace of God in providing Moksha. Some of them say that grace of God is helpful to attain Moksha through righteousness. Some others say that meditation and righteousness are the means of Moksha along with the grace of God. But the grace of God alone is main cause for liberation. The other spiritual pursuits are secondary cause for Moksha. The Vedaas that declare this aspect are not fully understood by Tarkikaas.

Tarkikaas have stumbled in another aspect also. There are so many statements in PuraaNa-s and Upanishads that the one who has realized the Lord would be free from all the karmaas by the grace of Lord. But Tarkikaas have ignored such statements and declared that a jiiva cannot be free from karmaas unless he experiences them. There is a very clear statement that 'ksheeyante caasya karmani tasmin dRishhTe paraavare' (MM" "^n^T ^#T crf^H & W^") which means that by the vision of the Lord all karmaas will be destroyed. Hence why is this obstinacy that karmaas will be destroyed only by enjoyment? There are two types of statements:

a) karma gets destroyed only after its effects are experienced

b) karma gets destroyed only by knowledge without the need for the experience of its effects.

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

275

Shree Madhvacharya has shown as to how to accommodate both these statements. Karma is of two types. The first one is called 'praabdha karma' which means that out of the total collected karmaas, the part which one has started enjoying. This package of karma has to be fully experienced. Even realized souls do not have exception in this regard. They have to get freed from these prarabda karmaas only by experiencing or undergoing their effects. The disease such as cancer etc; can be cured by medicine if they are in the beginning stage. But if they are fully manifested the patients have to experience them. If praarabdakarma can be compared with fully-grown disease, the karma which is not yet started for enjoyment can be compared with the unmanifested disease. The two statements 'the enjoyment of karma is unavoidable' and 'from the vision of the Lord the karma gets destroyed' have been accommodated by Shree Madhvacharya in this way. It is the specialty of Shree achaarya to accommodate pramaNa vaakya-s whenever the contradiction appears between PramaaNaas. We can see this method of samanvaya in every stage of philosophy of Shree Madhvacharya.

If it is admitted that karma gets destroyed only enjoying it, it will be an endless process. Even when karma is being enjoyed, new karmaas are being produced. When those karmaas are being enjoyed, again some other new karama-s appear. Thus where is the end for this chain of karma? Just as the endless chain of 'Raktabiijaasura-s' (TOTNRfO is produced from every drop of Raktabiijaasura

276

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

when he was killed by the Godess Durgadevi (fl^t), the chain of karmaas will only increase rather than decrease by enjoying them. Therefore it should be accepted that other than 'praarabdhakarma' all karmaas get destroyed by the realization and the grace of the Lord.

Several philosophers are declaring that Moksha will be attained by the grace of different gods such as Lord Shiva, Ganesha, Skanda, Durga, etc. The Purusha suukta Or^sr ^TtIt) declares that Moksha is possible only by the knowledge and grace of the Lord but not by any other means. The Purusha who is described in Purusha suukta is Narayana alone. In 'Narayana anuvaaka' (-ikn u i 3T^orr^r) NaraayaNa is called Purusha. 'utaamritasya iishaanaH'C^cii^d^iM:) thus Purusha suukta says that Purusha is the controller of even Muktaas. It is clear from this statement 'muktaanaam pramaagatiH' ( *$<x> Rf WTFlfcT:) that Vishnu alone is that Purusha. The Purusha suukta cannot refer to any other as Purusha than Shree Hari who is popular as purushhottama(^1 ti m ) in the fifteenth chapter of Bhagavad Geeta. Moksha cannot be attained from any god other than through the blessings of Lord Vishnu who is Parama Purusha ( t R T T T p^T).

xpj^ tt^ ^ 'Purusha evedam sarvam'

When we study Purusha suukta we may get a doubt. "Purusha eva idam sarvam' thus the Purusha suukta says that the entire world is Purusha only. How can this suukta say that the Lord is controller of Muktaas when it declared identity of Purusha and the world? Is there no contradiction

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

277

between the statements before and later?

The statement that Purusha alone is this world does not mean the identity of Purusha and the world. The real meaning of this statement is that the world is under the control of the Lord. In the flow of the praising the kings or politicians it is said that 'The country is Him'. Since it is used in the sense that the entire country is under his control, the statement that the whole world is the Lord also implies Lordship of God over the world. The earlier statement cannot mean that the world is the Lord, against its own later statement that the Lord is the controller of the Muktaas, the liberated souls and He excels all the beings. While praising His glory that 'etaavaanasya mahimaa', (WTSTFPFT hI^hi) this suukta cannot make another statement which affects His glory. In this way when Purushasuukta is properly understood, it will be very clear that Moksha is possible only by the grace of Shree Narayana who is the Lord of Muktaas CgrfiT:) and aMuktaas (3TJTtR:).

According to the Bhaatta (*Tlf) theory performing sacrifices continuously will result in Moksha. Some philosophers say that knowledge and karma both are equal means for liberation. But such ideas are not honorable when there are Vedic statements which clearly declare that Moksha is possible only through knowledge by the grace of the Lord. These ritualistic acts performed as prescribed by the Shaastraas purify the mind so that one can get correct knowledge. By that knowledge only Moksha can be attained. Even after getting this knowledge the seekers

278

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

will still be engaged 'nishhkaama karma' (fa<*=hm ^4), desireless actions, as the service of the Lord. This will help jiivaas to experience overwhelming bliss in Moksha. This is an important aspect that should be known.

From the discussions so far it is very clear that knowledge and the grace of Lord Vishnu, who is knowable by all the Vedaas, of possessing infinite qualities and Supreme Being, are the only means for liberation. But the ways shown by other philosophers cannot lead to Moksha.

Blessings of Guru are essential:

The knowledge that the Lord Mukhyaprana is superior to all jiivaas is very essential along with the knowledge that Lord Shree Hari is the Supreme Being. Starting from PushhkaraOT^T) till GaruDaOr^), Sheshha(^T), RudraO^sO, Bharati(*TKcft), Saraswati(*KWdl), Vayu(^), Caturmukha BrahmaC^lcj^I W?T), the knowledge of their hierarchy is essential. Blessing of Guru-s along with our efforts in terms of listening, contemplation, meditation, etc., are also essential to gain liberation. Searching for such great Guru-s and obtaining knowledge from them one should make efforts to be eligible to get their blessings. All those who are superior to us are our Guru-s. The four-faced Brahma is the Supreme Guru among all. Before reaching Moksha everybody has to get teaching from the Lord Brahma. Thus different aspects of 'saadhana-s' are described here.

Though we get Moksha only by the grace of the Lord,

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

279

the devotion to Lord is the prime among all our spiritual pursuits. This devotion to the Lord and to the Superior Beings should continue to progress. This flow of devotion should continue till we get liberated. Ultimately we become the embodiment of bhakti. Now if devotion is external only at the level of the mind, it becomes an inseparable attribute of jiivas in Mukti. We should remain as the devotees of the Lord for ever. We should never give scope for a feeling that we are equal to the Lord or we are the Supreme Brahman.

Thus ends the third part of the third chapter.

280

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

THE FORTH PART OF THE THIRD CHAPTER

The Result for Bad Acts of Realized Souls:

The realization of the Lord does not give us only Moksha. The 'siddhaPurusha-s'(fesHJW:) or the realized people will get all the other Purushaartha-sOlwqf:) by the power of knowledge. No bad acts will be perpetrated by the realized souls. Even if such acts are committed they do not get punishments such as going to hell etc. The Lord Brahma never commits any bad act. Most probably no prohibited act will be committed even by other gods. Some times they may insult their superiors out of demoniac forces. But they do not go to hell on account of this. An occasion arises where they become eligible to enjoy more than their natural self-bliss because of their special spiritual pursuits. But how is it possible for them even in Moksha to gain more bliss than what they can sustain? In Moksha there is no scope for external pleasure. Devaas will loose that extra bliss, which they would have got but cannot get it since it is not in their self, by committing bad acts. The realized do not loose what already bliss they have. The bad acts committed by them prevent them from enjoying extra-bliss. This system is to maintain the balance in the personalities of the jiivaas. Thus the realized Devaas do not get any trouble by their occasional sinful acts. This is the distinguished feature of the realization.

For the rest of jiivaas the bad acts prevent them to enjoy their self bliss to some extent for some time. But the realized souls never get disasters such as hell. Whatever

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

281

bad acts are committed by realized souls do not hinder their getting liberation. They will get Moksha without fail. But they will have to wait till they get freed from their Praarabdha karmaas which will be exhausted only by their enjoying. Till then they will be engaged in the spiritual pursuits by teaching the seekers and setting an example for them by being mediators between the Lord and the seekers. Some philosophers say that even Praarabdha karmaas get destroyed along with other karmaas on account of inexplicable power of the knowledge of Brahman. If that is the case there cannot be mediator between the Lord and 'Samsaariies' (the embodied souls) without a realized souls available. Therefore till Praarabdhakarma is over even the realized souls do not attain Moksha. Still the realized souls do not experience the pain to the degree of what ignorant souls experience. Though the experiencing of the Praarabdhakarma for the realized souls is unavoidable, their pain will be considerably reduced due to their power of knowledge. Just as the pain will be less due to medicine, the realized souls can reduce their pain on account of knowledge. This is called in Brahmasuutra as 'upamarda'C^HH^) of Praarabdhakarma. Thus the different glories of direct knowledge of the Lord is explained here.

The Hierarchy in Bliss:

Herein an important subject is discussed that is whether the bliss that is experienced by souls is uniformly the same or has different degrees. Shree Ramanujacharya ($ft <Hi-^imi4) says that there is no hierarchy in the bliss

282

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

that is experienced in Moksha. All the Muktaas experience uniformly the same degree of bliss. But in Upanishads, tittiriiya (cki<Vi) and bruhadaaranyaka(®n^lT ir5 T^), the different degrees of bliss of Devaas is explained in detail. The bliss of some God is hundred times more than the bliss of another God. Thus a different degrees of bliss have been explained in the Upanishads. One may argue that this is applicable to Devaas who are still in Samsaara. One statement of the Upanishads declares the hierarchy of the Devaas and some other statement establishes the same hierarchy remains among jiivaas in a state where there is no trouble of any desire. The statement that he is free from all desires means all his desires are totally fulfilled. Other than Moksha no where such state is possible. The jiivaas who have different degrees of bliss are described as 'avrajinaH'(^af^H:) which means free from sins. The Samsaariis who are bound by ignorance and sins cannot be regarded as 'paapaMuktaas', free from sins. Thus many words such as 'akaamahata'(3TWI???T), 'avrajina' etc., are available in the sections of the Upanishads which describe the differences in the bliss. Therefore this is not a mere description of Samsaarii-s. Having explained the differences in the pleasure of jiivaas in the state of Samsaara, those statements say that it will continue even in liberated state. Thus from both statements of the Upanishads it is very clear that there will be differences in the degree of bliss in Moksha.

The efforts and the spiritual acts of all jiivaas are not uniformly the same in achieving Moksha. If some undertake

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

283

very difficult pursuits some others do not take so much of strain. Even the spiritual pursuits of the Devaas are not uniformly the same. The scriptures have described the different methods of austerities of the Devaas. Can the result be the same when efforts are different? The difference in the bliss of the Muktaas have to be accepted due to varieties of the pursuits. If the Lord awards the same benefit to all jiivaas who are performing different degrees of saadhana-s, then His Jurisprudence will be questioned. Awarding the fruits in accordance with efforts is a socially accepted justice. If the Lord violates this and gives the same benefits to all the Muktaas, will the Lord not be accused of partiality?

We have to examine one more aspect. The Jnaani-s perform intensive spiritual pursuits even after realization and before liberation. The liberation is definite for the realized souls. If bliss is the same for all the Muktaas why should Jnaani-s engage themselves in intensive pursuits when the liberation is confirmed for them? It is already decided that they will attain Moksha. If they don't get special bliss on account of their extra efforts, why should they not stop pursuits and keep quiet after obtaining knowledge? Why should they engage themselves in efforts unnecessarily? From this it is quite obvious that the bliss of the Muktaas is not uniformly the same.

All are not equal in Mukti. Shree Madhvacharya has quoted hundreds of Vedic statements, which declare difference in the degree of knowledge and bliss. Thus we

284

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

have to accept the gradation of the knowledge and bliss of Muktaas on the basis of logic and PramaaNaas. What is the difference between Mukti and Samsaara if this difference persists even in Moksha? The conflict and fighting in the world are happening daily because of such differences. The jealousy is predominant everywhere. If the same state persists even in Moksha all the problems of Samsaara will continue in Moksha. All the beautiful ideas of Moksha will be shattered into pieces. Thus many philosophers object to the theory of hierarchy in Moksha.

Those who are concerned that even in Moksha hatred and jealousy may occur should analyze the cause for them. Even if all are equal do they not become jealous and hate each other? Are there not many people who get jealous when they look at their equals? Is there no scope for hatred when the same benefit is given to those who put different efforts? In reality the real cause for hatred and fighting is the defective mind. Where is the scope for jealousy and hatred among the liberated souls who are free from defects? Does a sincere student hate his Guru's scholarship? Does he feel jealous of him? A liberated soul looks at his superiors, who had put in more efforts and hence enjoy greater bliss, with a sense of reverence and devotion. But he does not behave with them with hatred and dissatisfaction. The Muktaas, who are beyond mental defects such as jealousy, hatred etc., and who have crossed the limits of ignorance, cannot have any such bad thoughts at all. It is not correct to evaluate the personality of the Muktaas at our lower level of mind. Just as all the vessels

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

285

are full with water though the quantity of water in different size of vessels is different, the Muktaas are full of bliss even though there is difference in the extent of their bliss. The beauty and the dignity of Moksha is not reduced or affected on account of differences in the bliss. In a similar way the hierarchy of the nature of the wicked Asura-s should be understood. We observe the variety and divergence in jiivaas at the level of Samsaara. If some are utterly poor some enjoy the richness of life. Some are victims of ignorance and stupidity. Some are honored on account of their erudition and their wisdom. If some are extremely cruel and arrogant, some are noble with their virtues. If the attitude of Brahma is of one type, quite opposite is the attitude of Kali (=F>fo). What is the cause for this difference? Why this difference exists in our actual life if the nature and individuality of all the jiivaas are fundamentally uniform or equal? We cannot answer this question just by saying that it is the fate of those individuals which is the cause for this difference. Why all the jiivaas are not of the same fate? If previous fate is responsible for this divergent fate of jiivaas, why not that chain of fate of all jiivaas not equal? Hence only when intrinsic difference in the individuality of jiivaas is accepted, the varieties of their lives can be accounted. There is no other way out than accepting intrinsic difference in the nature of the jiivaas, which is the cause for the variety in our gross lives. This intrinsic individuality of jiivaas is called 'yogyata'(4l'<4di). This beginningless 'yogyata' is the cause for all the activities of jiivaas. All the jiivaas experience this different degrees

286

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

of pain and pleasure having involved themselves in different activities in the world in accordance with their fundamental nature. They attain their natural state at the final stage of accomplishment of their lives. There are three interrelated realities of their lives: (1) the natural and fundamentally different personalities of jiivaas (2) the differences in gross life as the reflection of different personalities (3) the consequent differences in the bliss of the Muktaas.

The Incarnations of Rama, Krishna, etc., are Free from Flaws:

It has already been explained that starting from Moksha all the goals in life, 'Purushaartha-s', can be accomplished through the vision of the defectless form of the Lord. But how can we say that the Lord is flawless? When the people have directly seen many human defects and weaknesses in the incarnations of Rama, Krishna etc. how can we trust the statements that the Lord is free from defects? Thus some people challenge on the basis of Pratyaksha as to how the Lord can be free from defects? But every Pratyaksha cannot be valid. Brahma and other gods, saints and accomplished souls have confirmed and declared through their divine perception that the Lord is defectless. We cannot decide that the Lord is also defective like us without any proper analysis but only on the basis of weak general perception. Only after identifying Shree Rama and Shree Krishna as the Lord one can prove the defects for them such as pain and agony etc., on the basis of perception. How can we know that Rama and Krishna are

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

287

the forms of the Lord? If it is not proved then Rama and Krishna are regarded as ordinary humans only. If they have defects how does it affect the glory of the Lord? Therefore to establish the defects for the Lord, it has to be proved that Rama and Krishna are only the incarnation of the Lord. This has to be known only through the Vedaas and other scriptures. Having identified the forms of Rama, KrishNa etc., as the incarnations of the Lord on the basis of Vedaas and puraaNa-s, on the same basis one has to prove the defects which were seen in them by their contemporaries. How can we prove defects for them through pratyaksha against those fundamental sources of knowledge, which deny vehemently any defects for them? The general perception of defects of the Lord is opposed by the perception of realized souls as well as the Vedaas and PuraaNa-s on which all those perceptions are based. The perception about the defects in the Lord is opposed by both jnaani prathyaksha and shabda pramaaNa. Hence it can be determined as weak and invalid.

No Liberation Through Hatred:

We have already explained that knowledge is the cause for liberation. Along with the knowledge the devotion for the Lord is essential. The combination of knowledge and love for the Lord is called 'Bhakti'. There are two aspects of devotion: (1) the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, (2) an unshakable and deep love for the Lord. Though the concentration for meditation can be achieved through hatred, devotion alone is the cause for liberation. The

288

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Lord cannot be pleased by meditation which is based on hatred. The purpose of Vedaas is to inculcate the devotion in jiivaas towards the Lord, by describing His qualities to enable them to cross the ocean of Samsaara by the grace of the Lord. If liberation can be accomplished even by hatred then instead of promoting devotion towards Lord by describing His qualities, why not the Vedaas describe the defects of the Lord and induce hatred? But the entire Veda is only in praise of the Lord. The aim of the Vedaas is only to praise Him. The Vedaas are meant to promote devotion for the Lord. By this it becomes obvious that the liberation is possible only through devotion. There are statements in scriptures, which say that the Lord has given Moksha to ShishupaalaCR'i^Hicri) etc., who hated Him to a great extent. Good personality is hidden even in wicked persons such as Shishupaala. It is only due to the great mercy and the generosity that the Lord has identified a natural devotion in the heart of Shishupaala etc., though they hated Him because of influence of evil forces and association with the wicked. Just as the water which is cold by nature can be heated by its contact with the fire, though Shishipaala was wicked due to association of evil of forces, he must have been a devotee and virtuous person by nature. Therefore the Lord has blessed him. But the hatred, which spoils the mind and take us away from the Lord, can never lead us to liberation.

Devotion for the Lord becomes complete only when it is directed towards the Lord and His devotees. The Lord will not be pleased however much He is worshipped, if

Thritheeya Adhyaaya

289

His devotees are hated. Though the wicked had devotion for Brahma, Rudra etc along with hatred for Devaas such as Indra etc., they did not accomplish good results. These gods are motivators of good and bad being present in us. The Devaas get major part of our merits since we perform good actions only because of power provided by them. The Devaas have greater control over our body and senses than we have. Therefore the Devaas share greater merits of good deeds performed by us. If that is the case will Devaas share greater part of our sins accrued by bad actions? Such a question may arise. The Devaas will not be tainted by our sins because they motivate us in bad actions without any attachment or aversion without any partiality but only in accordance with our other bad acts as per the order of the Lord. The devils are the source of wicked ideas which are the base for bad actions. The greater portion of our sins belongs to them since they motivate us with great desire to do bad acts. Though the Devaas are the root cause for our good and bad actions, the motivating force for bad actions is only the devils. Therefore the devils share greater portion of our sins which are the results of bad acts. The Devaas who are the source of our power are also the source for our actions. Their interest and the blessings are behind our good actions. Therefore they deserve greater share of our merits of good acts. When we have special devotion for the Lord along with the support of such gods it will become complete and successful. Thus all the aspects of spiritual pursuits are described in this part.

Thus ends the Third Chapter.

290

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

FOURTH CHAPTER

In the first chapter of Brahmasuutra it has been established with examples that all the Vedaas describe the Lord as possessing infinite qualities. In the second chapter the contradictions from different schools of thoughts and logic against the 'samanvaya'C^FSRT) or conclusions of the first chapter, have been resolved. Both chapters together have established the nature of Brahman who is free from defects and full of infinite qualities. The descriptions of four spiritual pursuits such as dispassion, deep devotion, contemplation, and realization, which are essential to approach such Lord, are made in third chapter. Now it is natural for us to be curious to know the result of these pursuits. Therefore the fourth chapter has began to describe the four different stages of Moksha as a result of our spiritual pursuits. The four different stages of Moksha are as follows: 1) releasing from all unfavorable karma-s, 2) exit of the soul from the body through 'sushhumnaanaaDi, 3) the route towards the abode of the Lord crossing different worlds which are presided by different gods, and 4) enjoy meant of divine self-bliss. These four stages are briefly called karmakshaya, utkraanti, maarga, and bhoga, (^fePT, dcvwPri, *rpf, WJ) respectively. These four sequential stages of Moksha are described in four parts of this chapter, respectively. Though this chapter is intended to describe the fruits of Moksha, it describes some spiritual pursuits in the beginning. Though all the 'saadhana-s' are described in the third chapter, some of them are very essential. Their description is reiterated here only to emphasize the need to

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

291

practice them constantly.

I I 3Tf 3TTffrT: 3TOfrT <W^lld 3?f I I

"Om! aavRittiH asakRit upadeshaat Om!"

Listening, contemplation and meditation are specifically emphasized among all saadhana-s to be performed endlessly. We may reach heaven if a great sacrifice is performed once. But disease will not be cured if medicine is taken only once. It will be cured only when medicine is taken several times according to the prescription of the doctor. Similarly it is not one time performance of listening, contemplation etc. It should be practiced repeatedly. One can find many examples in our old texts which describe how the gods who are enjoying the status of Rudra, GaruDa, Indra etc., engaged themselves in spiritual pursuits such as knowledge of Brahman, contemplation, meditation, etc., for YugasC^^:) and Kalpaas(^TT:). Therefore studies and contemplation should be conducted by seekers endlessly.

II 3Tf 3H<^MM:dfo ui*<nfci ^ art II

"Om! aatmeti tuupagacchanti graahayanti ca Om!"

This Suutra states that the contemplation on the Lordship of the God, like the 'Lord is our ruler, He is the owner of everything, He is the controller of all our activities', should continue. This Suutra says that the Lord should be known as Aatmaa. Some philosophers interpreted this Suutra that jiiva should be known as the Lord. But the

292

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

word 'Aatmaa' is one of the names of Shree Hari such as Vishnu, Narayana, etc. In Bhaagavatam(^Hi'i°ici) in the context where three muurthiisCf^FRfer:) are referred, Shiva is called Iiswara (tw), and Caturmukha (■qq4' !s 0 was called Brahma, the third one is called by the name Aatmaa instead of Vishnu. From this it will be clear that the words Vishnu and Aatmaa (stTtTT) are synonyms. There are several PramaaNaas to establish that the word Aatmaa is one of the different names of Vishnu. In some places of Brahmasuutra in the discussion as to who is the support of all these worlds, it is concluded that it is Supreme Brahman. Why is not the jiiva support of the world? For this the Brahmasuutra answers as follows: In the Upanishads the supporter of the world is called by Aatmaa. The word Aatmaa is the name of Supreme Brahman. Jiiva cannot be the supporter of this world, since there is a reference to Aatmaa shabdaCsncR" ?T^). Thus the Suutra 'dyubhvaadyaayatanam swashhabdaat' (^=iitiNcH -wi^ic^ ) establishes on the basis of Aatmaa shabda that the Lord is support of the world by rejecting Jiiva. To prove that a specific sentence does not refer a specific person one has to show a word or name which never refers to that person. There is no such tradition to say that person is not referred by that statement on the basis of the name by which he is popularly known. If Suutra is establishing that jiiva is not the support of the world due to reference of Aatma shabda it becomes very clear that Aatmaa is not the name of jiiva. By this is clearly proved that Aatmaa shabda is one of the names of the Lord and not jiiva. In this case it will not be

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

293

appropriate to interpret Suutra as jiiva is the Lord. Jiiva is called Aatmaa since he is the controller of the Body. But the Lord is recognized as Aatmaa since He is the controller of the entire universe. The meaning of the Suutra is that one should constantly remember God as He is the Lord, even at the time of suffering from disease and depression without forgetting Him.

"Om Na pratiike nahi saha Om!"

There is a statement in Upanishads that 'mano brahmetyupaasiita'C c Ffi' s^hi-hIci). This says that one has to meditate on mind as Brahman. But this Suutra refutes this meaning very strongly. Either the insentient mind or external image of stone is not God. They are all just symbols of the Lord. One has to meditate on God having identified His presence in them. But one should not identify god with the external images and also should not meditate considering them as god.

One need not meditate on an actual object or entity. There is no relationship between meditation and reality. Meditation is meant only for the introversion of the mind. Thus some people argue. But Shree Vedavyaasa opposes this view. Shree Madhvacharya has also established this by quoting many PramaaNaas. It is a great harm if one meditates on the Lord on a form which is different from this real form. It results in some kind of denial of the Lord. It a way this results in damaging the personality of the Lord.

294

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Without identifying any insentient idols or gods as the Lord, one has to identify them as the images of the Lord and consider the presence of the Lord in them. One should understand this essential difference viz. the idol itself is not God but God is present in idol. There should not be any compromise with unreality at any stage of spiritual pursuits. Therefore it is highly inappropriate to give any scope for false meditation particularly when meditation becomes very an important factor for the higher level of spiritual pursuits.

Idol is not God:

Some argue that identifying the idol as the Lord is not harmful but only helpful. We get things done by praising an ordinary servant of the king as the king. Though we know he is not the king, but things are done by praising him as the king. Similarly by worshiping the image as Brahman we will be highly benefited. This is the essence of their arguments. When a servant is praised he may be pleased and get carried away and help us in the process. But what benefit do we get by praising an insentient idol as the Lord. That insentient object cannot be pleased or puffed-up by any of our praise. Will not the king take it as an insult if he comes to know that his servant is honored which is due to the king. Even if we meditate on an insentient object it is only the Lord who has to award us but not the insentient thing. From the view of the world it may be natural that instead of God becoming pleased he may get annoyed or displeased when we worship bringing

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

295

him down to the level of insentient object. How can the Lord be pleased and bless a person who reduces his glory and worships him with the false knowledge that the idol is god. Thus neither the insentient object which is worshiped can help him in anyway nor can the Lord bless him. Why this habit of distorted meditation which only invites the displeasure and anger of the Lord?

Those, who say that even the insentient idols can be regarded as the Lord, for the purpose of meditation, though it is against the reality, argue that one should not meditate on the idols regarding them as jiivaas. They interpret the Suutra 'na pratiike na hi saH', as one should not meditate on idols identifying them as jiivaas. They also give a reason to say that 'anyathopaasana'(3T : ^#q"PFFrr) is inappropriate since idol is not jiiva, which is indicated in the Suutra by 'na hi saH'OR" % W.). If jiivopaasanaC^lhVlWHl) in the idol is considered as 'anyathopaasana'(3T^fiWFn') and hence it is inappropriate, for the same reason will not the Brahmopaasana (s$i)hi*hi) in the idol also be prohibited? As the idol is not jiiva it is also not Brahman. If distorted meditation is prohibited both of them should be given up. Accepting the Brahmopaasana in the insentient idol, rejecting the jiivopaasana(* j i°hVii*Hi) in it is meaningless. Just like the praised servant of the king, if the idol is regarded as Brahman and receives some kind of sacredness and gives fruits, why not for the same reason the idol which is worshipped as jiiva, gives fruit, receive some sacredness since he is superior to insentient entity. Therefore accepting the Brahmopaasana in the idol and rejecting only the

296

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Jiivopaasana in it is highly unjustifiable.

Therefore the Suutra 'BrahmadRishhTiH utakarshhaat'(si^fe.: ^c^qid) does not declare that idol should be regarded as Brahman. The real meaning of the Suutra is that we should worship the Lord constantly as He is possessing infinite qualities. Thus in this chapter the Brahmasuutra has laid much emphasis on meditation on the God who is Lord perfect.

The Destruction of Prarabdakarma (TTR^l^):

If the Lord is contemplated as controller of all and full of infinite auspicious qualities one can realize Him and get all his sinful acts destroyed except his praarabdakarma(W^>4). Even merits which are the cause for Samsaara as well as hindrance for liberation will be destroyed after realization. But the merits which are born out of nishkaamakarma(Pi<*=h h =h4) or desire-less action and meditation and are helpful for liberation, are not destroyed. They are the cause for the increase of bliss in the liberated state. The realization alone is not sufficient cause for the destruction of merits and demerits which are the cause for our bondage. Only the power and blessings of the pleased Lord will destroy them.

Also when the bad acts of the wicked souls who constantly hate the Lord reach the peak, their merits will also be destroyed. Their future merits also become useless.

Thus in the end, the realized souls and enemies of the Lord loose all their actions which are hindrance for Moksha

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

297

except their Prarabdakarma. Praarabdakarmaas can be exhausted only by enjoying their results. The realized souls continue their spiritual pursuits till their Praarabdakarma is over and remain as jiivanMuktaas in this world. They will also enjoy increased bliss such as heavenly bliss, etc., by their good acts performed after realization. Similarly their bliss of Moksha will also be increased due to their desireless action performed in their state of 'j iivanmukti' (^ffopjfe).

When will the effects of Praarabhdakaramaas end? The Devaas enjoy their Praarabdhakarama-s for several 'kalpa-s' along with their spiritual pursuits. If Lord Brahma experiences this Praarabdhakarma in the period of hundred kalpa-s, the other gods finish their Praarabdhakarma in the period of fifty, twenty, or ten kalpa-s. The rest of the jiivaas finish their Praarabdhakarma within one Brahmakalpa(si$jch<rH) and attain Moksha. Thus this first part of the fourth chapter has explained the process of release from the Karma-s which are obstructive to get Moksha has been elaborated.

The Path to Liberation (*TteTOFf):

Having realized the Lord and getting freed from all the karma-s, jiivaas go out of this body through 'sushhumnaa naaDi'C^ypT ^wi\) and reach the Lord by crossing different worlds such as 'arccirloka'(3#R^) etc., which are ruled by different gods. These are the second and the third stages towards Moksha which are called 'utkranti'(-ic?hiPi) and 'arcciraadi' routes. But these two

298

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

stages are not applicable to Devaas. The Devaas, the presiding deities of the insentient objects of the world and controlling responsible entities cannot reach VaikunTa(^ u <i) giving up this body before Pralaya. During Pralaya the worlds such as arccir(3#T:) do not exist. Hence there is no question for Devaas to reach Moksha crossing such worlds. During Pralaya the insentient objects get dissolved in their subtler material cause. At that time the presiding deities of created products enter the presiding deities of material cause. Their bodies also get dissolved in the bodies of presiding deities of the causal materials. When this modification takes place in grosser forms such invisible incidents takes place among the divine powers who are present in the external objects. Behind every action of every object there is influence of some divine power. We regard this divine power as presiding entities. They are different gods such as Brahma, Rudra, the sun, the moon, Indra, agni, Varuna etc. Since during Pralaya the wonderful incidence such as the divine powers merge with their superiors along with their divine body and the insentient objects controlled by them, there is no chance for them coming out of the physical body and reaching the Moksha crossing different worlds. Therefore the Devaas have three processes such as destruction of their karma, merging in their superiors and experiencing their natural bliss. Unlike others they do not have four stages. But when Devaas are incarnated as humans on the earth, then they have to get out of their physical body and reach their original place by crossing different worlds. However to reach Moksha they

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

299

do not have other methods.

Though the rest of the realized souls enter the Lord through the routes of Utkraanti etc before pralaya, the final state of Moksha that is enjoyment of self bliss after the destruction of subtler body that is 'linga deha'Cf^T ^F) occurs only along with Lord Brahma after Pralaya. After having the direct vision of the Lord, they will be waiting in the world of Brahma. We can summarize the nature of the Moksha in the following way. Having been rid of all undesirable things through the realization of Brahman, exhausting the rest by experiencing them, getting freed from all unpleasant actions, some directly get merged with their superiors while some get out this body through 'Brahma naadi' (WRTfe) crossing the world such as arccir, etc., approaching the Lord in the VaikunTa along with the Lord Brahman, discarding their linga shariira (fcFfTTTT?), absolutely freed from insentient premedical cause, prakriti, constantly enjoy self divine bliss consistent with their intrinsic personality, which is the free from even an iota of pain, getting the divine vision in close proximity of the Lord, remaining there for ever. This is the real nature of Moksha.

The difference of Opinion on Moksha:

Regarding this Moksha there are differences of opinion among different philosophers. The different philosophies in the world describe the state of Moksha in different ways. What is the cause for these different opinions? In case there are means for valid knowledge

300

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

regarding Moksha why all the philosophers have not got the same and correct knowledge according to those PramaaNaas? If different philosophies are born due to confusion and illusion regarding the Moksha on account of some invalid source of knowledge coupled with illogic. Why did others not have this illusion? If some philosophers identified the defects in those invalid sources of knowledge and got correct knowledge why not the others realize those defects? Such questions may arise. The root cause for this different philosophical thoughts is good and bad qualities of the jiivaas. The different knowledge occurs due to different degrees of qualities such as satva(*Hc=i*i), rajasC^T:) and tamas(rfr?:). But these praakRita guNa-sC 1 ^), qualities born out of prakRiti, do not have any influence on the Lord, Godess Lakshmi, and the liberated souls. They are all beyond and above all these qualities. Their knowledge is absolutely pure consciousness. Their knowledge, which is defect-less, can never be illusory. Still there is a difference in their knowledge according to their intrinsic nature and personalities. All the objects of the world are very clearly known by the Lord, just as the sunlight illumining all the objects. But the Godess Lakshmi, the Lord Brahma and the rest of the souls have knowledge where there are different degrees of comprehension of the objects. Also if the self knowledge of the liberated souls is like lightening like the light of the sun, the knowledge in the minds of jiivaas in Samsaara which is not natural is like sparks. The later is born in different ways due to the influence of triguNa-s (f^pT). Hence we can find different philosophies

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

301

in the world.

According to Jaina-s, jiivaas are the embodiment of knowledge, valour and pleasure. In Moksha this nature gets manifested. In this regard, there is no difference of opinion between the theories of Dvaita and Jaina. But Jaina-s accept 'santata Urdhvagamana'OFFcTcT 37%4'ij-h) meaning that the liberated souls cross this lookaakaasha(^l°hi°hRi) and go on flying higher and higher in 'aloulokaakaasha'(^^]ohi°hRi) like a bird. Where is the proof for this type of Moksha? A new concept that jiiva constantly travels upwards in Moksha is baseless. It is formed only by imagination. There is no limit for such logic and fabrications. When we run or fly we experience pain and tiredness. By this example can we not prove on the basis of logic that this continuous travelling upwards is not the form of self-bliss, since it is tiresome and painful? We observe that even birds are getting tired when they fly high and high. Similarly if jiivaas continuously fly upwards, they should also be tired.

Our action is not the cause for our pain. The association with the physical body and 'loukikaakaasha'CtflfWi^m) is the only root cause of pain. Though the jiiva is flying up and up continuously in 'aloukikaakaasha' he cannot get tired since he is free from any physical body. This justification is also incorrect. In all the actions of jiivaas in 'loukikaakaasha' are happening only with the association of the body, it is beyond our imagination that Muktaas act without any body in

302

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

'aloukikaakaasha'. How can we establish this theory without having any support of valid means of knowledge? The imagination of horse without reins of pramaaNa can lead us to any direction. Therefore it is not proper to imagine the nature of the Moksha merely the basis of logic.

Let us analyze the theory of Bouddha regarding the Moksha. It has already been explained earlier that there are four divisions in Buddhism such as Shuunyavaada(TF£ToTTC), Vijnaanavaada(f°r?TFToFTC), SoutraantikaC^tfh I Prl <*>), and Vaibhaashhika(ot^nf^). According to Shuunyavaada, there is no existence of jiivaas at all in Moksha. The principle of Shuunya, which is attribute-less remains in Moksha. The world is the imagination of a jiiva. Therefore if some jiiva attains Moksha having experienced shuunyatatva, then nothing remains in this world. Liberation is nothing but reaching the state of shuunya loosing one's individuality, just like the light. When two principles such as 'Shuunya and Mukti' are real, how can it be said that Shuunya alone remains? Their answer to this question is as follows: The same Shuunyatatva is called Samsaara and Moksha at different levels. The Shuunya, which is subjected to ignorance(samvRiti) , is called Samsaara, and the same Shuunya, which is free from 'aJnaana' is called Moksha. Therefore even in Moksha nothing remains other than Shuunya. Even in Buddhism there are some who accept that jiivaas are many. According to them though some seeker gets released from this ignorance (samvRiti) on account of realization of Shuunya and gets merged with

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

303

Mahaashuunya( h 61 ? m ), the other jiivaas who are still bound by ignorance continue to struggle in this Samsaara by undergoing several pains. Even those jiivaas gradually loose their existence because of their contemplation of Shuunya and finally attain the state of Shuunya. The Maaya of Advaita is called SamvRiti by Bhouddha-s.

Shree Madhvacharya has established that there is absolute similarity in theory between Advaita of Shree Shankaracharya and Shuunyavaada of Bouddha-s, though there is difference only in words. Both the philosophers have accepted Brahma and Shuunya as attributeless and characterless. The attributes and qualities of objects are the only means to differentiate objects. From different qualities, such as heat and cold of fire and water, we identify them as different objects. When the entities such as Shuunya and Brahman are absolutely not possessing any attributes or qualities how can we differentiate them? Therefore we will have to admit that the absolute entity is the same which is called by different words such as Shuunya or Brahman. Just as Shuunya is described in Buddhism, the Brahman is similarly described in Advaita philosophy. Though the Advaita-philosophy describes Brahman as Satya, Jnaana and Ananta, it does not accept the qualities such as existence, consciousness, infiniteness. The Brhaman is not unreal and insentient. He does not have limitations. Therefore He is called Satya, Jnaana and Ananta. The words do not describe Brahman based on any quality. These words are used on Him to negate the qualities which are not in Him. If, according to Advaita, the Brahman

304

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

is described as 'neti, neti'C^fcT 3fcT), Shuunyavaadin-s who are popular as 'apohavaadin-s'(3T<TtF[f^T:) have said the same thing. They have negated every attribute in the entity of Shuunya. Thus in the description of the highest reality there is absolutely no difference between these two philosophies.

The Advaita philosophy has accepted the validity of Vedaas. Whereas the Shuunyavaada has not accepted it. Though this difference is obvious, when you examine it very deeply one can find the similarity even in this aspect. According to Advaita philosophy some parts in Vedaas and Upanishads which deal with 'nirguNa tatva' are valid. But rest of the Vedaas and the Upanishads which describe the qualities and attributes of Brahma and which deal with rituals are invalid. Though it is not directly said that Vedaas are invalid, it is indirectly implied. Whether you call it ' apraamaaNa' ( 3\ fl h i u i ), or 'atatvaavedaka' does it not have identical meaning?

Though the Vedaas say that objects are imaginary and material and they exist for a long period till the realization of Brahman, they should be considered as valid. The illusions that occur in this life disappear by the correct knowledge here itself before the realization of Brahman. Though we mistake the rope for snake very soon after examination it will be realized that it is not a snake. We need not wait till the realization of Brahman to confirm that snake perception is illusion. But the knowledge of the world, merits and demerits, heaven and saguNa Brahman

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

305

etc., remains till the realization of Brahman. The Vedaas, though they describe the unreal aspect called 'atatvaavedaka-s' are still valid. Thus it is argued. We need to examine even this aspect. Whether illusion last for a shorter period or for a longer period, no change can happen it its nature. The moon at a distance looks small in our whole life. Can this illusion be valid since it exists for a longer period? The illusion remains as a illusion whether it exists for a second or for a long time. It cannot be regarded as valid. If Vedaas are dealing with unreal objects just because that knowledge exists till the realization of Brahman, it cannot be regarded as valid. In addition, the Vedaas would cause greater disaster by being instrumental for creating a long time illusion than the material illusion which exists for a shorter period. How can Vedaas become valid when they cause greater damage? In summery since Vedaas are teaching unreal things it will result in admitting indirectly that they are invalid. Shree Madhvacharya has explained that as one goes on analyzing deeply the theoretical similarities will be confirmed for both philosophies. This is explained only from the point of view of objective analysis but not out of mere opposition. It should not be misunderst when objective investigative analysis is made.

Let us examine the pros and cons of description of Moksha by Bouddha-s. According to Buddhism Moksha means loosing one's individuality and getting merged with Shuunya just as the light is extinguished. This is very much disappointing. No one will desire for such Moksha. We

306

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

love ourselves more than anything else. We love ourselves the most. If Aatmaa ceases to exist who will get that Mukti? Who will desire for such Moksha where he looses himself? We do not go for such things where we loose the things that we like the most. If that is the case are we prepared to loose ourselves which is the basic source of love? How can such Moksha be the ultimate goal of life?

In Adviata theory there is no indication of destruction of the self. But the entity which we experience as 'aham'(37F), which possesses attributes and qualities, is the most lovable of all. But right now an attributeless entity (niraakaara vastu) (ftn^R «TC<p, which is quite different from 'aham' is not experienced. The most lovable 'saakaara' entity itself is jiiva. When we attain Brahma bhaava(^M^) loosing this jiiva bhaavaO^ftsr *lT5r) does it not result in loosing our most beloved entity? This is also another form of destruction of the self.

It may be argued that jiivaas become embodiment of bliss when they attain Brahma bhaava since Brahman is the embodiment of bliss. Hence it is desirable. But mere becoming 'ananda swaruupi'(3TFRT *oi^mI) cannot be desirable. We desire to experience the bliss. One desires to enjoy the sugar but not becoming the sugar. There is no experience of bliss in the Moksha. Who will desire for such 'anandaswaruupa' or becoming ananda(3TR^)?

We may get excited to know that we will become Brahman in Moksha. But once it is realized that Brahman is not having any attributes such as knowledge, bliss etc.

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

307

don't we feel instead of getting such state it is better to remain as we are. Thus either Brahma bhaava or Shuunya bhaava may not be attractive from any angle.

What is the proof about such Moksha described by Shuunyavaadins? They do not accept Vedaas at all. Their philosophies may not be acceptable to all. They will have to establish that the destruction of Aatmaa is desirable only on the basis of logic. Our material body, which is the cause for pain will not remain in Moksha. Similarly they argue that the self which is the cause for the pain gets destroyed in Moksha. But logic alone is not able to reveal the truth. We have already explained that anything can be proved on the basis of logic by giving some example. No one desires this material body to be destroyed. Therefore if there is no material body even in Moksha it is not a desirable situation. In this way one can argue that the material body should be there even in Moksha. Hence we cannot determine the nature of the Moksha only on the basis of logic. The Vedaas which are 'apourushheya', are only the source of knowledge which is accepted by all regarding the supersensory entities such as 'dharma-adharma' etc. When we examine those Vedaas we cannot find any proof for such a Moksha, 'nirvisheshasthiti'(f^#T?fa fMcT) quality-less state, where there is no knowledge, bliss etc. There are vedic statement 'paramam jyotiH upasampadya swena ruupena abhinishpadyate, satatra jakshan kreedan, ramamaaNaH' ' soshnute sarvaan kaamaan saha Brahmanaa'Oqt ^lid^^tJ ^T ^dj 3#rf^qir^, "*T cT5T ^RH 9ffe% WTFT:, #s^ #T WTR ^ sf^TT fsrqf&cTT).

308

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

All such Veda vaakya-s describe that the seeker approaches Supreme Brahman and gets His manifested original form, and enjoys divine pleasures along with Brahman. Thus it is explained that the self maintaining his existence and remaining different from Brahman and enjoys his self-bliss through his transcendental divine body.

Is it not sufficient if material body is destroyed to end the sorrows? Why should the self be destroyed along with the body? The relationship between the self and the body is the cause for pain. To get rid of this relationship it is sufficient if either of them is destroyed. When pain can be ended if body alone is destroyed maintaining the existence of the self, why is this obstinacy that the destruction of both is Moksha.

Vijnaanavaadin-s describe the Moksha as self loosing its individuality and achieving the embodiment of knowledge. In reality there is no difference between Vijnaanavaadins and Shuunyavaadins. The difference is only in the words such as Vijnaana and Shuunya. There is no essential difference. According to Vijnaanavaadin-s the Vijnaana is also bereft quality like Shuunya and all the attributes perceived on Vijnaana are just illusory. Therefore all the objections raised against Shuunyavaada are applicable to Vijnaanavaada also.

Those who say that Vijnaanavaada or Shuunyavaada is Moksha should accept 'kaala' or time in the state of Moksha. When it is questioned that when Moksha occurs, the answer will be that it occurs after realization. The time

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

309

is accepted even after realization. If that is the case it will be contradictory to say that nothing other than Shuunya or Vijnaana exists during Moksha.

When it is argued only on the basis of logic that the 'nirvisheshhaavasthaa' (ftfom^TT^IT) the state which is actionless and qualityless is Moksha using the same logic one can prove that even in Moksha all the objects exist like in the worldly state. We observe all the time the existence of many objects. In that case how can we accept that during Moksha only a single entity exists? Such question can be made on the basis of logic. On the whole the Moksha described by Vijnaaanavaada, Shuunyavaada and Maayaavaada is neither having support of PramaaNaas nor is it desirable.

The Soutrantika-s and Vaibhaashika-s who are different branches of Buddhism accept the self as the embodiment of knowledge. But this knowledge is momentary. This knowledge is destroyed every moment and new knowledge is born. The continuous flow of momentary knowledge is called Aatmaa. When this flow of knowledge gets associated with the objects of the world, it is called Samsaara. After the impressions of the mind are destroyed, the continuous chain of pure knowledge, which is free from any contact of worldly objects, is only the Moksha. Such imaginations of Moksha without any basis will collapse when proper examination is conducted. We experience that knowledge is born only when objects are perceived. When examination is made the concept that

310

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

a chain of knowledge is there in Moksha without objects being perceived, will be considered as inappropriate. The state of 'nirvishaya'(ftfoTSRT) where knowledge does not comprehend or experience anything cannot be desirable.

Let us examine the Moksha, which is described by the philosophies of Sankhya and Nayyayika. These two philosophies do not say that jiivaas loose their individuality and get merged with some other entity. But according to these theories the jiivaas neither have knowledge nor happiness in Moksha. When there is a contact between objects and the six sense organs such as mind, eyes, nose, ears, tongue and sense of touch, we derive knowledge, happiness, and pain. All these attributes are regarded as pain according to these philosophers. They have divided the sorrow into twenty one types consisting of six sense organs, and their corresponding six sense objects, six types of knowledge derived by their mutual contact, pain, happiness and physical body base for all these. All these sorrows get destroyed in the state of Moksha. In future the jiivaas will never get in contact with them. These philosophies establish that the total destruction of all these sorrows is itself liberation. Though the release from the sorrows is acceptable to us we are curious to know why they deny the desirable knowledge and happiness in Moksha. The physical body, senses and objects are the cause for knowledge and happiness. The body, senses and the objects, which are the cause for sorrows cannot be accepted in the Moksha. If they continue to exist even in Moksha there will be scope for the chain of sorrows.

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

311

Therefore there should not be a chance for the presence of body, senses and objects in Moksha. Then how can knowledge or happiness be in Moksha because they are instruments for them. They do not accept the eternal knowledge or bliss which are possible without body or senses. If such eternal knowledge or joy are there, why are they not experienced in the state of Samsaara where body, senses and all other objects are available. Why are they experienced only in Moksha where no instrument is available? Therefore there cannot be any knowledge or joy in the state of Moksha. If they are accepted even in Moksha, then their instruments such as body and senses should also be present in Moksha. Then there will be scope for sorrow. According to them we should loose knowledge and joy to get rid of sorrow completely. They justify this Moksha as desirable since it is absolutely free from any trouble or sorrow, though there is no joy or knowledge.

Even this description of Moksha is not appropriate. No body will desire for such liberation. Though the sorrow is absolutely destroyed in Moksha since there is no bliss or knowledge, no body will desire for it. Who will like a state of ignorance like a rock, where there is no experience of bliss or knowledge? Who will not think that remaining in this Samsaara state is better, where there is a little bit of joy, though it is mixed with pain? In fact the joy is most desired and attractive for the people. We observe that people are ready to struggle a lot for the sake of a little bit of happiness. We see the people sitting and suffering in the scorching sun for hours together to enjoy the cricket match,

312

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

etc. Even sages like NaaradaOTR^), etc., used to be spectators inducing the great pain due to Brahmaastra, etc., just for the sake of enjoyment of skill of fighting in those days. Similarly though there is sorrow in Samsaara people are not ready to give up a little bit of happiness or joy available here. When we are ready for a semblance of happiness at the cost of lot of pain, how can we give up the joy, which is equal or greater than the pain we suffer? Hence this concept of Moksha is very much against our commonsense.

Those who argue that there is neither knowledge nor joy in Moksha also try to establish their view on the basis of Vedaas. 'ashariiram vaava santam priyaapriye na spRishataH' (3T?rU ^w ^RT ftraift^" ^T ^RTcT:) - this statement is quoted which says jiiva does not have 'priyaa' (fsTCT) or 'apriyaa' (3qiw) meaning happiness or sorrow in Moksha, since he does not have shariira(?Rfc). But the apparent meaning of this statement should not be accepted. There are number of statements in the Vedaas which declare bliss for the Muktaas, liberated souls. Ignoring all those statements hanging only on a single statement is not correct to determine that there is no joy in Moksha. Also as it has already been explained that the Moksha, which is devoid of any joy cannot be desirable since it is worse than this worldly life. Therefore the statement which apparently says that there is no joy in Moksha should be interpreted in such a way so that all the other statements are not contradicted. Its real meaning is that there is no impermanent and worldly joy in Moksha. But there can be a joy which is conscious

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

313

self-bliss and is of transcendental nature. Then a question may arise whether the Vedic statement which says there is no sorrow in Moksha should be interpreted as there is no worldly sorrow in Moksha but some kind of sorrow is there which is 'apraakRita' (3TOfxT). The sorrow is absolutely undesirable to us. Whether it is praakRita(TTTfuT) or apraakRita no one will look forward for sorrow. There cannot be any kind of sorrow in the most desirable Moksha. Therefore the statement which says that 'there is no sorrow in Moksha' need not be interpreted in a such a way that would give a scope for any kind of sorrow in there. But the Vedic statement which says that there is no joy in Moksha cannot be accepted fully in that meaning. As we refuse to take milk mixed with poison, we may give up the external momentary pleasures mixed with sorrow. But we cannot accept a state where there is no joy at all. Therefore it is unavoidable to give different meaning to the statement which states there is no joy. Hence such statements have to be accommodated by properly interpreting them as consistent with other Vedic statements.

Meaning of 'na pretya samjnaasti' fa J^T -H^llfd):

Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad (s^qKu^cfrlHPiq^) while Yaajnavalkya faWcT^FT) was teaching Maitreyi O^ft) says ' na pretya samJnaa asti' fa ^T WT srf^T) - there is no knowledge in Moksha. We may get a doubt that why we should not determine that there is no knowledge in Moksha on the basis of the above statement. Let us examine the statements which are before and after this statement.

314

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

Jiiva, who is eternally the embodiment mass of Vijnaana, is considered as born due to his association with the material body. But he does not have birth at all. When his material body is destroyed then he is dead. He gets rid of all these gross and subtler bodies and finally attains liberation. This statement says that there is no knowledge at that time. This statement can be interpreted in two different ways. When jiiva attains Moksha we do not have any knowledge of him. As the salt dissolved into the water is not perceivable the liberated souls are not perceivable to the 'Samsaariis' (-h-hiRui:). This is one meaning. The another meaning may be that mukta fapr) does not have any knowledge. Let us examine as to which meaning is more appropriate between them. The meaning that the liberated souls do not have knowledge is not appropriate. In the beginning of this context Yaajnavalakya says that jiiva is 'Vijnaana Ghana' (f^HTFF^R), embodiment of knowledge, etc. When it was commonly said that there is no knowledge in Moksha, Maitreyi objects 'your statement is confusing, it gives a wrong meaning'. How can we understand the mutual conflicting statements such as ' Aatmaa is the embodiment of knowledge' and 'in Moksha jiiva does not have knowledge' ? Is Moksha desirable where jiiva exists like a rock without any feelings? This is the intention behind the question made by Maitreyi. As an anwer to this question Yaajnavalkya says "na vaa are moham braviimi, avinaashii, vaa are ayam Aatmaa anucchittidharmaa" fa °U sft t# Woftft", 3#RT?fl °rr sft SFTOTcRl ^-ifeipdqTTT), T am not preaching something which

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

315

confuses you. The Aatmaa is indestructible and its attributes are also indestructible'. Now what is the meaning of these statements? If Aatmaa who is embodiment of knowledge is indestructible how can the knowledge which is one with jiiva be destroyed? If Bouddhaas said that jiivaas are destroyed in Moksha while Taarkikaas have said that jiivaas are not destroyed in Moksha. They are eternal. But the attributes of jiiva such as knowledge, joy etc are destroyed. The saint Yaajnavalkya has rejected both the concepts of Bhouddha-s and Taarkikaas. There is no destruction either for the self or for its attributes. Both of them are eternal. Both the theories that the Aatmaa does not exist in Moksha or he does not have knowledge or bliss in Moksha are incorrect. This is the view of Yaajnavalkya. How do they interpret the statements of Yaajnavalkya when they say that there is no knowledge or joy in Moksha? How can they find the answer to Maitreyi's questions in the context of Yaajnavalkya's teaching? Therefore when the question of Maitreyi and answer of Yaajnavalkya are examined thoroughly, the meaning of the vague statement that 'na pretya samJnaa asti' will be clear, that the liberated souls are not perceivable by samsaari-s. It does not mean that jiivaas do not have knowledge in Moksha. The meaning should be that we do not have any kind of knowledge of Muktaas. Or it should be interpreted that though Muktaas have self-knowledge which is transcendental, they do not have knowledge which occurs due to modification of the prakRiti.

316

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

When we examine another statement that follows the previous statement it will be confirmed that the previous statement does not say that mukta does not have knowledge, 'yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavatiC^ % ^nP-i01 «nfrT) - such following statement has raised objection that if the self alone exists in Moksha without any second object, then in Moksha there cannot be scope for any knowledge. Its indirect meaning is that there is knowledge in Moksha. It is well known fact to those who know the rules of PramaaNaas that when any objection about an object is raised in the form of 'tarka', it implies the negation of the objection. Everybody knows the ultimate result of the following objection, 'if there is no fire on the hill there cannot be smoke also'. Hence it negates the absence of fire. We arrive at the conclusion that there is fire on the hill since smoke is perceived. If there is no God, the world would not have come into existence. If there is no creator, how can there be a product. These are the examples for 'tarka' which establishes an object through objection. Since the conclusive statement is that since this creative world is perceived the creator of this world exists. Similarly if other than 'Aatmaa' nothing exists in Moksha there can not be any knowledge. For knowledge to occur in this world the existence of many objects is essential. If there is no world of differences there cannot be knowledge. Such objection also concludes that knowledge exists in Moksha. Thus when objection in the next section is examined the intention of Yaajnavalkya is very clear to justify the knowledge in Moksha.

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

317

This section is not meant for any objection. It is meant for indication of actual facts that there is no knowledge in Moksha since Aatmaa alone exists there. A question may arise why we should not interpret it like this. But three aspects have been explained here.

1 .In Moksha which is devoid of the world of differences other than the existence of the self there cannot be knowledge

2. There cannot be self-knowledge.

3.There cannot be the knowledge of the Lord which makes us know everything.

It cannot be actual fact that there is neither self-knowledge nor the knowledge of the Lord in Moksha. In deep sleep state we do not have either our full knowledge or knowledge about others, 'turyam tat sarvadRik sadaa' (cpf rRT ■ycJ'cch 7KT) - hundreds of such statements declare that in Moksha which is Turya state or final state, jiiva knows himself, others and the Lord. Thus it is established that in Moksha jiiva has knowledge of self, the Lord and all other entities, and also he experiences bliss. Therefore it will not be factual to say that there is no knowledge in Moksha. The intention of this section in the Upanishads is to establish by objecting the absence of knowledge, which contradicts PramaaNaas and absolutely undesirable, and arriving at the conclusion that (a) knowledge of jiivaas, (b) the world of transcendental bodies, and (c) the Lord, are present in Moksha.

'param jyotiH upasampatya swenaruupena abhinishhpadyate' 'satatra paryeti jakshan, kRiidan,

318

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

ramamaaNaH' - such Vedic statements are quoted to establish that the realized souls having reached the supreme Brahman enjoys the self-bliss extremely, 'soshnute sarvaan kaamaan saha brahmanaa vipascitaa' (^"s^" ^^T^FFT^F 5i^ u n ioiH^if^ai) which says that jiiva enjoys all pleasures along with Brahman in Moksha. Here in the statement the word 'along with Brahman' is very significant. If there is no difference between jiiva and Brahman in Moksha the word 'together' becomes meaningless. Shree Madhvacharya has quoted hundreds of such Vedic and pauraanic Offtrftw) statements in this context.

The Saankhyaas and Taarkikaas have raised objection as to how it is possible to have experience of bliss in Moksha where there is no physical body. There are clear PramaaNaas which establish that the Muktaas have transcendental divine beautiful body just like the Lord. There is a statement in Bhagavatam which says that the Lord has shown to Brahma, how the Muktaas are playing with their divine forms in His world, where there is no scope for qualities of prakRiti(^icT) such as satva(^Tr^), rajasOrsT:) and tamasCcFT:) etc., and which is beyond maayaOTFTT).

Thus it will be established on the basis of many such PramaaNaas that Muktaas have the body of knowledge and bliss without any relationship with insentient entities. Therefore the description of Moksha by Sankhyaa-s and Nayyayika-s is not appropriate when it is examined in the light of experience and valid means of knowledge.

Though jiivaas are different from the Lord at this

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

319

Samsaara level they become totally one with the Lord in the state of Moksha. This is the description of Moksha by some. This is a highly unscientific concept. If the two objects are different now, they will remain different for ever. They can never become one loosing their identity and loosing the difference between them. But two objects can get mixed and can remain inseparable. But still they will maintain their identity till the end though they get merged. Similarly though jiivaas attain the Lord and get merged with Him they will never loose their identity. It is not appropriate to have an unscientific concept which is not experienced in the world to be applicable in Moksha.

Some philosophers propose both Bheda and Abheda which is intrinsic between jiiva and Brahman during in Samsaara as well as in Moksha. According to them the unmanifested identity at Samsaara level will be manifested in Moksha. We observe bheda and abheda among the insentient objects. The threads and the clothes are identical. But the threads remain without cloth. Hence we have to accept bheda and abheda for cloth and threads. Similarly for other insentient objects there is bheda and abheda with their attributes and qualities which go on changing. (For example fruits with its color and taste.) But we have never seen difference and identity between two sentient entities. Hence it is inappropriate to accept Bheda and Abheda between jiiva and Brahman.

Therefore the Muktaas experience their self bliss without loosing their natural qualities and attributes such as knowledge and power and maintaining their separate

320

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

identity from Brahman even in the state of Moksha. This is the actual description of liberation. This Moksha is desirable to all and it is supported by PramaaNaas.

11 -HfaH <^i<4dl % 11 "naikasmin darshayato hi"

When the merging of gods in the gods who are presiding dieties of 'pancabhuuta-s'(W£[?T) is explained as Riju devasC^J ^T:) in the PRithivii devata(^t ^RT), Aswini gods in Varuna(oR^T), agnidevatagaNsC^Titr^rriT T FTT:) in pradhaana agni devata(^TR 3# ^cRTT), Indra(^), chandraC^FT), SuryaC^T), BrihaspatiC^qfcT) in Vaayudevata and Saadhya devata-s(wzr ^?TT:) in Akaasha Devata(3Mrr?r ^oRTT), etc. Gods such as Indra, Chandra, Suurya and Brihaspati are said to be merged with VaayudevataC^F^cIT). Who is this Vaayudevata? Here is a doubt whether that Vayu(^"Fj) is 'apradhaana'(3^RR) who is the presiding deity of wind which is one of five elements and who is one of the eight securities of the eight directions, or he is 'pradhaana' who is regarded as supreme among jiivaas? There is a scope for understanding that it is Bhutavaayu (^TrToTFT) (apradhaana) who is presiding deity of 'vayutatva'(oiN cic°i) since it is described by the word 'Vaayu' along with five other elements, such as pRithivi, apC^PT), etc. But according to hierarchy of Devaas the god indra is superior to 'bhutavaayu' If that is the case it is impossible for Indra to get merged with Bhutavayu, against the role that 'inferior entities get merged with superior entities' Shree Mukhyaprana who is supreme among Jiivaas

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

321

is superior to even to Gods such as Indra. Shree Mukhyaprana who is the presiding deity of all objects is also the presiding deity of Vaayutatva which is one of the five elements. This statement says that Indra and other gods get merged with that Pradhaanavaayu.

Sheshha Marga (Tfa wf) & Garuda Marga (M-MMMf)

All the gods get merged with the Lord through Brahma during Moksha. There are two ways to merge even with Brahma. The first one involves merging with Sheshha to reach Brahma. This is called Sheshha marga. Another path is called GaruDa maarga where one merges with GaruDa and enters Brahma. The Sheshha maarga and GaruDa marga by which gods enter the Lord through Brahma is as follows:

Sheshha Marga

ParamAatmaa (M-WMII)

Brahma - caturmukha Brahma (-cjrj^o !X%X[)

Saraswati (W-Wdl)

Sheshha (7N")

I a

Vaarunii (dl^uR)

I Pradyumna (T^JF)

Aniruddha - Sanakaadi (arf^r-HHeblfe:)

Chandra - Vishhwakseena (^RT (cc*(er^i)

Varuna - Kubera (cRHTT-epfr)

Gandharvaas (TFsrat:)

322

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

GaruDa Marga ("H^ TFf) ParamAatmaa (M-WMII)

Caturmukha Brahma (^^W ^3T)

Saraswati (W-Wdl)

GaruDa (*T^)

1 _*__* Souparni (-HIMUII)

Indra (f^)

Brhaspati - MarudgaNa - Daksha - Swayambhuva Manu

Suurya - Aakaasha - PRithivii Devas

Brugu (^) etc.

Yama - Vaivaswata Manu etc., - Kings such as PriyavRita

I

Nirruti - PitRiDevaas

Agni (srftr)

Other Gods

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

323

All the Gandharva-s (TRT^t:) enter KuberaOffc). Kubera and Varuna enter Chandra C^). Chandra enters Vishhvaksena who is the senadhipati(lfrlfaqfcD (commander in chief). Vishhvaksena enter aniruddha (3rf^R^sT). Aniruddha, Sanaka (*-m<*0, Sanandana (^FF^T) and Sanaatana C^HTcH) enter Pradyumna CfT^E"). Pradyumna merges with Varuni (Wife of Sheshha). She merges with Sheshha. God Sheshha merges with Brahma deva.

Agni merges with Suurya. Suurya merges with Aakaasha. Aakaasha and pRitivi Devaas merge with Brihaspati. The sages such as Brigu etc merge with Daksha(^T). Nirruti merges with Yama. Yama, god of death, Vaivaswata manu etc., also kings such as PriyavRata etc merge with Swayambhuva manu. Swayambhuva Manu, Brihaspati, Daksha, and MarutGaNa-s (h<>s u ii:) merge with Lord Indra. Indra merges with Souparni (wife of GaruDa). She merges with Garuda. Garuda merges with Brahman. Brahma merges with the Lord along with all those gods. During this time Muktaas experience divine self-bliss. Retaining their identity, and getting together with the Lord and with superior Gods, experiencing this divine bliss, is called Saayujyamukti C^TT^pi ?$W).

So far it is described that all the Devaas merge with the Lord Vayu either directly or through their superiors and the Lord Vayu merges with Supreme God. But there is a Vedic statement 'praaNaH tejasi, tejaH parasyaam

324

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

devataayaam'(WT: ?Mrr, #?r: tpr^qf ^°ldl<Mi) which says Mukhyaprana merges with tejas(cfa":) and tejas merges with the Supreme Brahman. In this statement tejaH should be understood as Godess LakshmiCe^-" 1 ?!' ^"©ft) who is the presiding deity of prakRiti. This statement declares that Shree Mukhyaprana merges with Godess Lakshmi. One who merges with prakRiti remains as a Samsaari. He does not get liberated. Then a question may arise when we examine a statement 'viliinaH hi prakRitou Samsaarameti' (fsr^T: % tffufi" ^nFTR^Icf) whether the Lord Vayu is not liberated. According to PramaaNaas the Lord Vayu does not attain Moksha directly. The Lord Vayu will be born as Lord Brahma as a son of Godess Lakshmi after getting merged with her. Then he gets merged with the Lord along with all the gods who merge with him and experience vivid self-bliss. Even Lord Brahma enters Supreme God through Lakshmi without getting merged with her.

The seekers who meditate on Supreme God in the idol such as mind etc., reach Lord Brahma and obtain special knowledge from him till time of Pralaya and get merged with the Lord once Pralaya starts. The great seekers who meditate the all pervading form of the Lord without any medium such as idol etc., reach the Lord directly, return to the Lord Brahma and attain liberation along with Brahma when Pralaya starts.

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

325

Hierarchy in Moksha:

Even in Moksha jiivaas will be dependent on the Lord as well as on their superiors. In Purushhasuukta the Lord is described as controller of Muktaas by 'amrutatvasya iishaanaH'CsRcTc^telR:). Therefore we will always remain under his rule without becoming totally equal to the Lord. Our relationship with the Lord as Swami and Bhakta(^rfT) is not meant only during the state of Samsaara. It continues eternally even after liberation. We will continue to remain as His devotees and worshipers. We will enjoy increased satisfaction, joy and honor by this. One should not give scope for imagination that at same time we will become Supreme God or we will be equal to Him in every respect.

In Vedaas Mukta is described as 'ananyaadhipati' (3TT : 5Tlf^qirf). It does not mean that like God, jiiva also does not have another ruler. In this statement instead of expressing ananyadhipati, which can mean Mukta does not have Adhipati, it is said ananyaadhipati which carries some significant meaning. Other than the Lord and Mukta jiivaas who are superior to them, are only the controllers of the Muktaas but not others. This is the direct meaning of this statement. During Samsaara there is a chance of being dependent on inferior jiivaas. But there is no such scope for a pathetic situation in Moksha. Only the Lord and the gods who are superiors to Muktaas are their Masters there. There is no scope for any sorrow. In Moksha all the Muktaas will be enjoying self-bliss according to their spiritual

326

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

pursuits in tune with their intrinsic capacity under the ruler-ship of the Lord as well as their superiors without any complex but with the mutual love, devotion and respect.

There are some clear Vedic statements which declare that the superior Muktaas are the governors of the Muktaas. 'atha ya evam vidvaan saH amuniaiva echa amushhmaat paraancaH lokaaH'(3T?T *r V<i faSR TT: W^ %T 3^Hld h<i-^i: c^fan":) - such statements indicate that the realized souls achieve the rulership of entire world due to grace of the Lord, 'udeti ha va sarvebhyaH paapebhyaH' Cs^fcf F off W^^: TTP^:)- this states that Mukta is free from any inauspeciousness. From the above statement one can understand that starting from Lord Brahma to JnaanK^rFft) who is still Samsaarii, is described as 'sarvalokaadhipati' ( ■h 4^1 °hifarter) since they have still the influence of PrakRiti. But only the liberated Brahma etc are described as rulers of the entire world. It is not right to interpret that Muktaas are described as 'sarvalokaadhipati' since they have become one with the Lord. When you examine the words in these statements you cannot find any such word which indicates 'abheda'. How can the realized soul who got identified with 'nirguNa' Brahman become 'saguNa' and the ruler of the entire world? Therefore the only correct meaning of this sentence is that the liberated soul becomes 'sarvalokaadhipati' because of the grace of the Lord. But once one is liberated he does not have any contact with the world. He does not exercise any of his powers on this world. If that is the case how can Mukta become the ruler of the entire world? The Lord Brahma

Chathurtha Adhyaaya

327

who is liberated can become the 'adhipati' of all 'Muktaas' who got liberated along with him. The rest of the souls become the rulers of their inferiors according to their intrinsic capacity. This is how we have to comprehend the meaning of those statements. Though there is no rulership of this world during Samsaara the world loka(e^) in this sentence indicates only the Mukta who was Samsaarii and lokavaasi(tf>) 353M) earlier. It is very popular in the language of Sanskrit as well as other regional languages to call the people as 'loka' who live in the loka. The word loka in Sanskrit also means light or effulgence. The word loka implies Muktaas who are the forms of the knowledge. Since Muktaas have their superiors as rulers, they are called Muktaadhipati Oj^frlfarfrT). This can be another meaning for this sentence. According to Sanskrit grammar the word 'paraanco lokaaH' (W3t e^T:) can be divided as 'paraancaH alokaaH'. Aloka(3Tc?faO means liberated souls who are beyond this world (lokaatiitaaH(ci) °m dl ni:)). The superior Muktaas have rulership on other liberated souls. This can be the explanation of that Vedic statement. However when this Vedic mantra is interpreted from any angle it can be understood that essentially means the mutual hierarchy among jiivaas, the supremacy of the Lord Brahma among all Muktaas, and the Lordship of Supreme Brahman.

Therefore we should not assume that in Moksha all the jiivaas become fully equal to the Lord or they become one with Him. The jiivaas having approached the Lord who is full of infinite qualities enjoy their divine self bless. According to their Yogyatha this bliss is not the one which

328

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara

we experience through our gross senses. Also bliss is due to the sensuous objects. The Muktaas enjoy their eternal conscious bliss which is inherent quality of their nature. The jiivaas losing their identity due to bondage of PrakRiti and who are trapped in the shackles of different types of happiness and unhappiness which are the modification of antahkaraNa (sFrn^TnT), realize the Lord through dispassion, devotion and contemplation, giving up their distorted form which is aupaadhika(3#qnfw), due to the grace of the Lord, and finally regain their own natural blissful personality, is Moksha. During this state they attain the highest state of their self which is the embodiment of knowledge and bliss. Even at this stage without forgetting the Lord who is the cause for their elevation, and also the great souls who helped them, being with them with devotion and the sense of gratitude, they shine with their nature. Just as the knowledge and bliss the virtues such as devotion etc., are also his inherent qualities. If devotion is one of the spiritual pursuits during Samsaara, in Moksha jiiva is embodiment of devotion. This is the beautiful picture of liberation. This alone is the ultimate goal of our spiritual pursuits.

aft cbwmjuw^ Thus ends the fourth chapter of Brahmasuutra

DDDDD