All Rights Reserved

Copies can be had of

Sri B S PRANESA RAO

Secretary

Committee of Management

47, Second Street, Model House Block

Bangalore -4.

Price Rs. 3/-

Printed at PRABHA PRINTING HOUSE

NAGASANDRA ROAJD, BASAVANAOTOr

BANGALORE - 4.

FOREWORD

BY

HIS HOLINESS SRI VIDYAPRASANNA

TIRTHA SRIPADANGALAVARU,

HEAD OF SRI VYASARAJA MUTT

When we were camping at Bangalore a few months back Sacchastrapravacana-Ratna, Rao Bahadur, Professor B. Venkatesachar placed in our hands an advance copy of Tattvasankhyana with the commentary of Sri Jayatlrtha and glosses by eminent men together with an English Translation of the original and the Tika by him which the Managing Committee of Sri Ramakrsnappa Dvaita Vedanta Pathagala are bringing out. After going through the work with the care that it demands we have much pleasure in writing this foreword.

The knowledge of the Supreme Being as the efficient cause of the universe is absolutely necessary for qualified souls to attain liberation from worldly bondage. This knowledge requires the knowledge of the world with all its manifold differences. Sri Madhva-carya in the monograph Tattvasankhyana enumerates in a scientific way the various categories, the main and < auxiliary from material contained in sacred texts of admitted authority. The present publication embodies the original of Sri Madhva, the Tika on it by Jayatlrtha, the glosses on the Tika by Raghavendra Swamin and Srinivasa Tirtha in full and relevant extracts from the

glosses on the Tika by Vijaymdra Swamin, Satya-dharma Swamin, Kasi Acarya and Rotti Venkata-bhattopadhyaya. The selections have been made with great discrimination by the learned Pandit, Vidwan Sri Magadi Ranganathacarya, Professor of Dvaita Vedanta in the Sri Chamarajendra Government Sanskrit College, Bangalore.

The English equivalents of the highly technical words in the original are correctly coined so as to bring out the import of the original Sanskrit words. The English translation is true to the original. All the available commentaries in Sanskrit are fully made use of and useful references are throughout indicated to make the study easy. Useful notes are appended wherever necessary. We pray to Sri Krsna that Professor Venkatesachar may be spared for many more years so that he may contribute to the Dvaita philosophy many more useful works. We are sure that earnest students of Dvaita philosophy will diligently study this book and greatly benefit thereby. The Managing Committee of the Ramakrsnappa Dvaita Vedanta Patha^ala are to be highly congratulated for bringing out such a useful edition of Tattvasankhyana. It is our considered opinion that this edition is a model of how a Sanskrit work should be brought out.

NARATANA SMARANA

SRI VIDYAPRASANNA TlRTHA BANGALORE, ) SRlPADAftGALAVARU

22-6-1964. J VYASARAjA MUTT.

INTRODUCTION

Tattvasankhyana is one of the ten monographs (prakaranas) which the Acarya has written. It is concerned with the enumeration of the categories (tattvas) accepted in Dvaita Vedanta. There is also another work on the same subject known as Tattva-viveka by the Acarya. It is a collection of extracts from a work of the same name by Bhagavan Vedavyasa in support of what has been stated in Tattvasankhyana.

The present work starts by classifying the categories under two main heads, the Independent and the dependent. There is only one Independent Tattva and that is Bhagavan Visnu and all else being in every way dependent on Him comes under the second head.

At the outset Jayatirtha raises a question. Why has not the author performed some mangala at the commencement of the work? Mangala is an act performed in the beginning to remove obstacles and successfully complete the work undertaken. It is generally in the form of prayer to a favourite Deity. The commentator answers the objection he has himself posed by pointing out that the mere fact of there being no mangala recorded in the work, is no indication that it has not been performed. It is possible to" do it in other ways as for instance mentally. It may be asked ' How is one to know that it has been so performed ? 5 We have to presume that the venerable Acarya, a firm believer in the efficacy of Vedic practice has not

omitted to follow this rule. Moreover the word c Swatantra, the Independent' implies all the eminent qualities of the Supreme Being and its mention at the beginning of the work though for the purpose of classification, has all the efficacy of a mangala and serves its purpose. In raising this question and answering it in this manner Jayatirtha has two objects in view. He wants to show, in the first place, that the work of the Acarya is in no respect defective and in the second place (this incidentally) that the sacred name of the Supreme Being when uttered with devotion in any context is capable of bringing every good and of preventing every evil.

Tattva is defined as that which is not superimposed, thus excluding the silver apprehended when nacre is mistaken for it in illusion. Various are the views held by Indian thinkers regarding the nature of illusion. The Prabhakara school of Mimamsakas deny illusory cognitions, for them all cognitions are valid. This clearly is opposed to the subsequent experience in the form c Till now I mistook nacre itself for silver '. The Vaisesikas say that the apprehended silver is real but exists in another place. The Yogacara school of Buddhists think that the cognised silver is of the essence of knowledge itself. The Bhaskara school of vedantins assert that the silver seen is real and is produced at the particular place and exists so long as it is seen! Mayavadins on the other hand say that the silver is neither real nor unreal but is inexpressible that is, indefinable. There is the subsequent sublating experience in the form c There was no silver at all% hence nacre itself due to defects appeared as the

absolutely non-existent silver all the time the false silver was apprehended. This is the view of the Acarya. The correctness of this view is established by Jayatirtha in Nyayasudha, Jijnasadhikarana, after an exhaustive critical examination of all other views.

In other systems of Indian Philosophy the practice almost invariably is first to name all the categories and then take them in order for consideration. For instance in the Nyaya Sutras of Gautama the first sutra enumerates all the sixteen categories admitted by the school. Then each of them is taken up for the purpose of definition and examination. The method followed in the present work is different. After dividing the categories into two main divisions as the Independent (Self-dependent) and the dependent, the dependent tattva is divided into ' being' (bhava) and c non-being' (abhava). Then again c non-being 9 is grouped under three heads as ' prior-nonbeing J (pragabhava), e future-non-being' (pradhvamsabhava), and ' eternal -nonbeing ' (sadabhava ), and e being' (bhava) is grouped under two heads, the conscious (cetana) and the unconscious (acetana). This method of subdividing is continued further on. As Jayatirtha himself points out one difficulty arises at the very outset in such a classification. If you divide the tattvas into two broad divisions, the Independent and the dependent and then divide the dependent categories into ' bhava' (being) and c abhava' (non-being) it would mean that the Single Independent Tattva, Visnu is not a 'bhava 5 tattva. The commentator removes the difficulty by stating that the intention of the author is not to exclude the Inde-

pendent tattva from the ' bhava 's but to show that the dependent tattva is only of two sorts, not of one sort or of three sorts. It may be asked why a classification is not adopted in which the Independent Category comes under existents, * bhava's. The answer is that though such a classification is possible, it has no particular merit in as much as similar difficulties arise in respect of other categories though not in respect of the Independent Category. Then it may be again asked why the classification adopted is preferred ? Because by mentioning the Swatantra Tattva first the prominence of Visnu, the Independent Tattva over everything else is brought out. Here the commentator focuses the attention of the reader on the fact that the central topic of all sacred literature is to proclaim the exalted nature of the Supreme Being pervading and controlling the world of sentient and insentient 'tattvas' so that the qualified person may acquire that exalted loving devotion to the Lord which secures for him His supreme grace, the immediate cause of salvation. Otherwise the enumeration of categories would be as vain as the counting of grains of sand on the seashore. This view has the support of Lord Krsna Himself as is evident from the following words of His in the Gita addressed to His intimate friend and disciple, Arjuna,

1. ' I am the origin of all things, impelled by me everything acts ' thus knowing me the wise serve me with loving devotion.

2. With their minds fixed on me and their actions centred in me they instruct one another, speak of my holy deeds and attributes and thus satisfied (with senses not directed towards objects of worldly pleasure) enjoy supreme bliss

3. To such as these who are ever devoted to

me and serve me lovingly I grant that

supreme knowledge by which they reach

me.

In the world of experience we find two kinds of

things one c cetana 5 , the sentient or the knowing and

the other ' acetana 5 the insentient or the not-knowing.

What is not a knower is c jada '. Each one of us is a

self-conscious being who knows that he exists and that

he is in a world of self-conscious beings and insentient

objects. The existence of other self-conscious beings

is inferred though certain, while the knowledge of one's

own being is immediate and undoubted. According

to Madhva any philosophy that denies the reality of

this experienced world of men and things cannot stand

the test of critical inquiry.

Again these entities are contingent that is, are not independent both in respect of their being and their activity. To avoid the defect of infinite regress we have to postulate the existence of a self-sufficient

Absolute Being that is not dependent on anything but itself for all that It is and all that It does. The concept of such a Being implies that all else, the world of the knowing and the not-knowing ('cetana' and f acetana 5 ), is dependent in every way on It. Though this line of thought suggests the existence of such an Absolute Self-conscious Reality, we, human beings cannot be certain unless it is supported by evidence that admits of no doubt. Such evidence is supplied by the faultless Veda and the Gita which embodies its essence. This cardinal truth of Vedanta as envisaged by Sri Madhva is taught by Sri Krsna in the following words.

' By Me of invisible form is pervaded all this world (of sentient and insentient beings). All these beings rest in me but I do not rest in them \

c That Supreme Purusa' O! Partha, 'in whom rest all living beings and by whom all this (universe) is pervaded can be gained only by unique loving devotion'.

Continuing, Jay atlrtha devotes considerable space to the treatment of 'abhava' (non-being), a category not admitted by the Prabhakara school of Purva-mimamsa. It is not necessary to repeat here the arguments advanced by the commentator for the admission

of non-being as a separate tattva. The translation of this section with the explanatory notes going with it is, it is believed, sufficiently clear. This does not however mean that it is easy reading for a beginner. The abstract nature of the subject necessitates attentive reading. There is no Royal Road to Geometry. The same remark applies more or less to the rest of the work, both the original and the commentary.

Next bhavas (existents) are divided into two classes, the sentient (cetana) and the insentient (acetana). To be a knower is to be a cetana. What is not a knower is acetana.

^cWfSR 1^444 ~~ Tattvodyota

6 To be a jada (acetana) is verily not to be a knower.' From this it follows that Visnu is Cetana and non-being (abhava) is acetana. Of sentient beings only Rama, the presiding deity over primordial matter and the beloved of Visnu is a class by herself and is never subject to sorrow. The rest of sentient beings are liable to suffer from sorrow. Visnu being independent is ipso facto ever free from all sorrow.

The division of souls (cetanas) into those that are fit for salvation and those that are not and further division and gradation in them, an important tenet in the system of Sri Madhva has been the target of adverse criticism. It is relevant here to make the following remarks in justification of the stand taken by Madhva. This is a matter in which there can be no appeal to perception and reasoning (pratyaksa and

anumana). Is there scriptural authority or not for such a division ? The answer to this question is in the affirmative. Clear and abundant authority for the position taken by him has been cited and discussed by Madhva in several works of his. Gita, which is universally considered to be the essence of the Upanisads and an infalliable authority on all matters connected with Vedanta has this so say here :—

c In this world there are two classes of created beings, one of divine nature and the other of demoniac nature. Possession of a divine nature leads to salvation while having an asuric nature results in bondage. Grieve not, son of Pandu, you are born endowed with a divine nature (and so are destined for a divine end).'

There is a full fledged discussion of this controversial question in chapter three, pada four of Anuvya-khyana, a commentary on the Brahma Sutras by Sri Madhva. The discussion is too elaborate to find a place here.

Next the unconscious (acetana) categories are subdivided under three heads, the eternal-noneternal, the eternal and the non-eternal. Here there is nothing that need be said in addition to what is to be found in the commentary of Jayatlrtha and its English translation. One remark however may be made. The Veda is eternal and remains unchanged for all time

both in respect of its structure and content. Hence it enjoys undisputable validity being free from the defects of a work by a sentient being arising out of his shortcomings such as ignorance.

We conclude this introduction by the following quotation from the Bhagavata Purana which puts in a concise and clear manner Madhva's concept of the dependence of the whole universe of sentient and insentient beings on the Supreme Independent Being, Narayana.

* He by whose grace alone primordial matter and the rest, merit and demerit, time, the nature of things and souls exist, by whom neglected they have no being (is Narayana, the Creator).

To His Holiness, Sri Vidyaprasanna Tlrtha Sripadangalavaru who is adorning the Vidya Pltha of Sri Vyasaraja in a manner worthy of His Holiness's illustrious and learned predecessors the Committee of Mangement are deeply grateful and tender their most respectful thanks for the gracious foreword which His Holiness has written for this work.

B Zt£T B " Venkatesacha*.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Committee has much pleasure in giving expression to its appreciation of the great pains taken by Pandit Sri Ranganathachar in perparing the manuscript for the press. He has done this task in a manner worthy of his reputation as a sound scholar. The Vice-President, Mr. B. S. Narasinga Rao and other members of the Managing Committee have evinced great interest in bringing out this work. Mr. B. S. Pranesa Rao, the enthusiastic Secretary of the Committee has taken active interest in getting the work through the press. Our sincere thanks are due to Mr. D. S. Krishnachar, m.sc, Proprietor, Prabha Printing House, for the excellent manner in which he has done the printing.

B.V.

v&§m f^ftpiar |ti(^n # fb*r i

§j*3Rfc?n ife^^r aprta! $f * fssr nan

*T3T?W3*#l dflflmu spftte ll ^ II

taufrflfciA*! ft%i%?ri *raq. n van

fen %^u g^ran *mi siwf^r ^ i Si^*t:*iTPr *Rr mm ^n#r ^ ^ 11 ^ n

CONTENTS FOR ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Subject Pages

I ^^r?rercr*w =ar t%I%^ cTt^fir^ i 3-9

11 ^rcr^rt *r w* fk*w i 9-10

III wrrorlt fs^rc^ n \ ii 10-16

IV sTT5F5T^^Fr^rr%5?r Br^iwra %^ \ 16-18 V %^?Tf%cn?Tr%57 TOtefr t%£n*t *ra? iu li 18-19

VI &>mi1[ ^5^ t«Nr %?TO£ i 19-20

VII R<?nf ;*srr *ht?%3 ^iifi^rt srarersn H ^ H20-21

VIII ^5^;isrr %xEnsr 3:*$rer^n skt rgm 1 21

IX 3;*srcterr gl^Nr mfrn %m ^ %srr nan 21 -22

X %Hrfif^T?rcr sf?r g^rcg q^wr 1 22

XI <rt regRp^rtom 1 23

XII <=nfrrm ^i^fercTTJ hhii s% ferr g^gr^^r? j i 23

XIII f<?rc^: T%rf^rr: 1 *rafa*rr«rg%r OTterNrr* srafrf^grr: II \ ll 24

XIV I- xr srnErr?«r?nT^T: ^rensw sr %**? i 24-25 XV f£r^TR^f%wto t%lhrr%?H arth IIN3H 25 -26

XVI ft<st ^tJ I 26 XVII goorraT* m& sr^f^r ^ I fw^r^qr

firsrrsrtajsU 26-28

XVIII vtfam %f%^ *r<n£ 11 <i n s^nt^r ws*£ 28 XIX a^t^i TTfRH^i f flciw^Fr ^r srrar

^rr^ T3i ^ 1 29

XX ^OT*t cf^ wres ^sr^rf^cr^ II ^ II 29-30 XXI ^%; ferfgr? ^£t%s* ft^^*R*ta^ 1

The transliteration scheme is as follows :—

sra, srra, %h fi, su, gju, 5R r, m r, «t e, ^t o, ^ ai, gft au, — m, : h, % k, ^r kh, *T& ^C n , ^c, ^ch, ^j, ^jh, qrfi, art, S? h ? fd, <?;dh, i^n, 3 t, ^th, ^ d, ^dh,

* l , \v, 3*A <*?, ^s, *h.

fe—f^Toft—(T)

5TJ—MkMltfl^dfoft:—R.T.

fir—Mfrrfi*Rfcs<ft*rT:—V.T. ^T—«ft?r^T^r4^ft:—Sa. T.

*1

% J

Tr. —Translator

HARIH OM TATTVASANKHYANAJvI

( Enumeration of Categories ) -: My obeisance to the Gurus :-

Introduction (1-6)

The commentator Sri Jayatlrtha, introduces Ins work by a mangala wherein he offers obeisance to the Supreme Being* Ramakanla and the preceptor.

After bowing down (with reverence ) to both the lotus-feet of the Lord of Laksmi, as also to those of the preceptor, I shall write a commentary, not too elaborate 1 , on Tattvasankhyana.

Next the commentator shows the need for this work.

It is verily the settled purport of all sacred texts

that the (qualified) person desirous of obtaining release

from bondage must necessarily know the Supreme-Self

as the efficient cause 2 of the birth and the like of the

1. nativistaram = free from abundance of words and having abundance of meaning. (r.t.)

2. jagadudayadmimittatMM =» as the agent of the creation, preservation, dissolution and the like of the world of conscious and unconscious (categories,), (r.t.)

world. And as this requires a knowledge of the world, with all its manifold internal difference, the world also must be so known. 1 The revered Acarya begins this monograph with the object of collecting together and expounding for the benefit of the pupil this twofold reality, the main with the auxiliary, treated scatteredly in sacred literature.

Jayatiitha now raises the objection, 'Why has not the author performed some form of mangala p ' and answers it

Now at the beginning of the monograph, why is not some form of mangala performed by the author ? In the first place, it cannot be said that this practice is useless, for it has been observed by the wise. Neither can it be said that this observance has any fruit other than the successful completion of the work and the like, for invariably this is practised in the beginning.

We answer thus:— Mangala has indeed been performed by the revered Acarya as such performance is possible in other ways, for instance mentally. We infer this because the Acarya is a supreme believer in the efficacy of Vedic practice. And verily in the beginning alone his devout praise of Visnu, possessed of auspicious attributes such as self-dependence and the like is itself a mangala. What else is there beyond such adoration which goes by the name of mangala ? Though performed with a different aim, this utterance with devotion by its very nature brings in all the good accruing from a mangala.

1. tathavagantavyam = must be known as consisting of manifold internal variety, (r.t.)

I (6-21)

Here, to start with, the author by a broad division, 1 enunciates category {tattva).

THE SELF-DEPENDENT AND THE DEPENDENT (THUS), CATEGORY IS KNOWN (TO THE PROOF-GUIDED) TO BE OF TWO KINDS

Category, tattva, is that which is not superimposed. This means, category is that which is the object of valid knowledge. In this definition of tattva, there is no room for such objections as are advanced against definitions like thatness is tattva.

[The subject matter of the monograph, as its name 'TATTVASAlsTKHYANA' implies, is the classified enumeration of the categories. In the text tattva is used for category and is defined as 'the non-superimposed'. When a rope is mistaken for a snake, the superimposed snake appearing in illusion is not a tattva as it is sublated by a subsequent cognition of the form 'this is not a snake but a rope\ By thus defining tattva the objection raised against such definition as tasyabhava-stattvam (thatness is tattva) is avoided. It is also a definition which the Mayavadins have to accept. So in dialectical discussions with them the Tattvavadin has a definition of category acceptable to both. Tr. ]

1. Category is of two kinds. This is'broad division 5 {samanyfl,-tovibhagah). The self-dependent and the dependent. This is 'broad enunciation' (samanyatah uddesah) .

Objection :—Now why is conchshell-silver ( sukti-rajata) with similar ones (appearing in illusion) not tattva ? It cannot be said that the thing (dharmi) 1 or silverness (rajatatva) is not an object of valid knowledge. The same may be said of the connection between them. If it be said that in the entity, conchshell, there is not this connection of silverness we say e may not be'. Merely because Devadatta is not in the house he does not cease to be an object of valid knowledge.

Answer :—This objection may be advanced against those who hold that the superimposed silver exists elsewhere. In the view that the absolutely unreal silver, owing to defect, is superimposed on the conch-shell there is not this fault [of admitting the superimposed silver to be an object of valid knowledge, r.t. ] [ The faulty organ (of sense) in contact with conch-shell produces the cognition which objectifies the same conchshell as the absolutely non-existent silver. n.s. } p. 48, line 10. ]

By this the following is also refuted. The pot which becomes red after the application of heat cognised as a red pot before heating when it is black, by one who has a peculiar eye-disease, may be tattva.'

Reply :—Though being an object of valid knowledge pertains to the pot in the future state, it does not pertain to it in the prior state. [ This is the meaning :— Though the pot after becoming red by heating will be an object of valid knowledge when apprehended then as a red pot, it is not an object of correct knowledge before for then the person with the eye disease has the apprehension

'This is a red pot' while it is actually black. Tr.] The pot (considered apart from its colour) is admitted to be a tattva (vide s.t.)

It {tattva) is of two kinds. The sentence must be construed by understanding c iti' thus

Otherwise there may be the impression that each of the two categories separately is of two sorts.

The Self-dependent is that which (i) for its nature (swarupa) (ii) for being an object of valid knowledge {pramdvisqyatva) 1 and (hi) for its activity (pravrtti ) does not depend on another. What depends (in these respects) on another is dependent tattva. To expound this isyate (has been used). Pramanikaih (by the proof -minded) is to be understood after isyate. Finally we have :—'The Self-dependent and the dependent, thus, tattva is admitted by the proof-minded, to be of two kinds.

[The word ' Self-dependent' (swatantram) is used in an absolute sense. Every wish of the Self-dependent Being must be realised and in every activity of His He must be absolutely unhindered. As it is the primary wish of every conscious being to be happy and free from misery, the Self-dependent Being must by implication be supremely happy and completely devoid of misery. Again every thing that He thinks of doing He must be able to do. These requisites are possible only if all else is under His control. Obviously there cannot be two self-dependent beings, vide n.s. p 2 312. ] 1. Vide n.s. p x 330.

The -commentator now makes plain the implication of isyate.

It is thus:— (taihahi) If one were to say there is no tattva at all, then such an utterance would contradict perception and the like. One cannot say that it is illusion, because of the absence of contradicting evidence. Surely there can be no illusion in the absence of a (real) substrate, nor is contradiction endless.

[When one mistakes a rope for a snake, the rope is the substrate. The sublating experience is of the form c this is not a snake, it is a rope'. In the end there must be the recognition of some tattva, in this case, the rope, which is not sublated. To take another instance, a person sees at a distance a fairly tall object and takes it for a man. On going nearer to the object he thinks it is not a man but a wooden post. On coming quite close to the object and feeling it, he realises that it is an irregular tapering rock. When illusion disappears there must remain something in the field of awareness which was the basis of the illusion and of which in the end the percipient can say this is not a man nor a wooden post but an irregular tapering rock. Without this subsisting tattva at the end, there can be neither illusion nor disappearance of illusion. The concept of illusion implies the existence of tattvas. ( vide r. t.) Even by one who believes in illusion and sublation some tattva must be accepted as the basis of illusion and as the seat of contradiction in the form 'This is not thus 5 as in cases like conchshell-silver, where the two successive judgements are of the form 'This is silver' during illusion and 'This is not silver but conch-shell' after sublation. Tr. ]

Moreover of the validity and invalidity of the statement, 'there is no tattva at all 5 there is contradiction. [ This is the meaning:—If it be said there is no tattva at all then the fact 'there is no tattva at all* being itself a tattva would be contradicted by the statement, c there is no tattva at all', r.t. ]

If tattva were one only then there would be the opposition (to such a view) of experienced variety (in the form 'this is a pot', 'this is a man' and so on). This experience cannot be discarded as illusory without some contradicting experience. This view (that there is only one tattva) is refuted (in detail) elsewhere (in Tattvanirnaya and other places).

Again it cannot be said that every category is self-dependent for this is opposed to known dependence. This view also implies eternal happiness (and eternal freedom from misery) for all (and this is not found to be the case). It cannot be said that tattva is dependent only for this would land us in infinite regress and impossibility with the result that there can be no being (satta) and the like, for anything. Also there will be disagreement with scripture.

[All ordinary conscious beings, every moment of their existence, experience a sense of dependence; their desires more often than not are unrealised, their attempts frustrated. On whom do they ultimately depend ? He cannot be a dependent being; for that dependent being must depend on another, that on another and so on, ad infinitum. So it is impossible that the limit of this dependence is a dependent being. To account for the world of beings who exist, act and become known,

we have to postulate an absolutely Independent Being who Himself independent in every way, supports all others in all aspects of their being. This Infinite Independent Being is Bhagavan Visnu.

f m mm vm*% *rf g«rr mmuw*m'-11 (Gita 10-8)

I am the generator of all; impelled by me everything acts. Having known me thus the wise imbued with loving devotion, adore me. Tr.]

It is possible however to classify category under two heads thus (i) being and non-being or (ii) the sentient and the insentient or (iii) the eternal and the non-eternal. But as any such division would be useless this classification alone is proper. Verily, dependent category understood as depending on the Independent (Lord Vishnu), will conduce to release (mukti). So says the author at the end of the work.

[This is implied in the last verse of this monograph and plainly stated at the conclusion of Tattvaviveka, another monograph dealing with the same subject.

<45rfirc%«f 3irf% ^nwg^r^ ft ^ 11 (t.v.)

He alone who knows that all this dependent category is always under the control of Hari obtains release from bondage. Tr.]

Otherwise like counting the grains of sand on the banks of the Ganga this work Tattvasankhyana would be benefitless. Thus on account of the prominence of the Self-dependent category, It alone apart from others was

mentioned first (in the statement) e the Self-dependent and the dependent, thus iattva is of two distinct kinds'. By naming alone the definition also is secured (the etymology of the word, swatantram defines the Self-dependent tattva).

11(21-24)

For this very reason, the author mentions It first. (Because of its prominence the Acarya mentions the name of the Independent Category first. Tr.)

[ WF^t *FRR[ fi^J ]

THE SELF-DEPENDENT (TATTVA IS) BHAGAVAN

VISNU.

Here the word, Bhagavdn, establishes the Self-dependence of Visnu.

Bhagavdn is one who possesses six all-embracing eminent qualities, such as complete sovereignty. The possessor of these qualities is Visnu alone according to Visnu Purina and other sacred works.

^ftirr?r'Tt^Nr *rmf *nr f^tewr ll (v.p. 6-5-74) c Complete sovereignty, valour, renown, lustre, general and intimate knowledge of all things, the aggregate of these six goes by the name of bhaga \ He who possesses bhaga is Bhagavan.

qrimir^r^T gr^^^r m**rm » (v.p. 6-5-76) Thus this glorious name Bhagavdn, O ! Maitreya,

belongs to the Supreme Brahman, Vasudeva and to no other, (v.p. 6-5-76) Tr.]

'All else is dependent tattva' must be added. The commentator next draws attention to other implications of the statement, c Thc Self-dependent tattva is Bhagavan Visnu.'

Or, if we start by saying that there are two categories it may be understood that, like the Self-dependent category, the dependent tattva also is one only. Evidence contradicts such an understanding. Moreover it disagrees with the subsequent classification. So it is said that category is of two kinds. By this it may be understood that the Self-dependent tattva also is of many kinds. Hence the present statement, ' The Self-dependent tattva is Bhagavan Visnu. *

Or, the Sarlkhyas and others who, accepting two distinct kinds of category, the independent and the dependent, consider pradhana (primordial matter) and the like to be independent tattva. To refute all such views, this statement is made.

Ill (24-36)

liys'aying (it is of) 'two kinds', it has been indicated that dependent category has internal diversity. In answer to the question, 'How ?' the author says,

THE OTHER IS OF TWO KINDS AS 'BEING' AND « NON-BEING 5 .

Itarat, the other, i.e. tattva other than the Self-dependent.

Dependent category is of two kinds. How ? As ' being' and ' non-being \

The cognition of ' non-being' invariably depends on that of e being'. On account of this prominence * being' is named first. That which, when first known is cognised as (it) ' is ', is ' being ' (bhava). That which when first cognised is known as ' is not' is ' non-being \ Why so ? In their nature, ' being ' and ' non-being ' are verily of the nature of affirmation and negation (respectively). Whereas in another form they take the shape of negation and affirmation. Here in the primary cognition, only the nature (of the entity) appears; in subsequent cognitions other aspects appear. From the effect has to be understood difference in the (antecedent) means. So is experience. For instance (we say) 'the pot is here, it is not white'. Again, ' the pot is not here, the non-being of the pot is (here)'.

Now, is the Self-dependent tattva, 'being' (bhava) or non-being (abhava) or something else ? Not the first and second, because 'being' and 'non-being' are subdivisions of dependent category. Not also the third because of contradiction. (If it be said that it is not 'being', it follows that it is 'non-being'. If again it be said that it is not ' non-being', there will be contradiction, r.t.)

Reply: —Not so because it is pervaded by the definition of 'being 5 .

[ ' Brahma is', thus It is first apprehended as ' this is'. ' asti Bramha '=Bramha is; Narayanovd id omagra *ls#=Narayana indeed, was at the beginning (of the

world); Brahma va idamagra <M2= Brahma only existed at the beginning of this (world), thus when Visnu is first known, He is known by an affirmation in the form, ' He is'. The definition of bhava is ' to be known first by an affirmation 5 . So on the strength of scripture He is verily the most important Bhava Tattva. r.t. BhutakrU Bhutabhrt, Bhavah (Sahasranama). idamagre^ asydgre (Acarya). Tr.]

(Also) by the statement ' dependent category is of two kinds as 'being' and 'non-being 5 , is meant that it is only of two kinds, not of one kind, nor of three kinds, and not that only dependent category is of the nature of'being 5 and c non-being'.

It may be suggested 'Let classification be made so that Independent Category enters the group of 'beings 5 (bhdvas). But this is not possible. It, the Self-dependent Tattva, being most prominent must be known as uniquely distinct from everything else. Otherwise (the classification has to be made, say, thus). Gategory is of two kinds, 'being 3 and 'non-being 5 ; 'being 5 also is of two kinds, the eternal and the non-eternal, the eternal is of two sorts, the conscious and the unconscious and the conscious also is of two kinds the Independent and the dependent. If so, the Independent Tattva is not made known to be prominent. Also it is not made evident that everything other than Bhagavan is dependent.

Objection :—In this case (i.e. in the classification adopted by the Acarya) the Independent Gategory is not known as 'Being' or the bhavatva of the Independent category is not shown. Thus the two classifications stand on the same footing.

Answer :—This is not so (that is the two methods of division do not stand on the same level). There is the distinction between them of one being conducive to liberation (moksha) and the other of not being conducive to it. Non-affirmation of the everlastingness and so on of 'non-being' and the like is common to both (classifications). 1 Therefore let the classification adopted by the Acarya stand (as it brings out the supremacy of Bhagavan and the dependence of everything else on Him).

Then let the dependent category itself be divided as the conscious and the unconscious, (thus dependent category is of two kinds, the conscious and the unconscious, and onwards).

Reply :—After dividing the dependent tattva into the conscious and the unconscious, is division to be continued by further classification into 'being 5 {bhava) and 'non-being' {abhdva) or not ? Not the first as there is no particular merit in such a division. If it be said that in the division adopted by the Acarya the insentiency of c non-being 9 is not brought out; then we reply in the classification suggested the beingness of the sentient is not made out. So here both classifications are alike.

Question :—If so for what advantage is the present^ division adopted ?

Reply :—There is this difference that, as regards the conscious and the unconscious there is no difference of view among theorists while there is one in regard to being and non-being (By refuting the view which denies

1. Vide r.t.

non-being, the division into being and non-being becomes important, r.t.) For the same reason, not the second also. [The second alternative is that the division into being and non-being need not be made. As there is difference of opinion in regard to non-being the true position, viz., the existence of non-being has to be established, s.t.]

Some say that there is no 'non-being 3 (abhdva) at all. This is false, as it is not possible to ignore the experience in the form (the pot) Hs no? (on the ground). If it be said that the object of the cognition, 'the pot is not 5 is the ground only, (We ask) :-by e only 5 is the ground alone meant or something else ? In the first case (we object thus) let there be the experience e there is no pot on the ground ' even in the case of the ground with the pot on it. If something else is meant by 'only' and that something is the pot there will be the same defect. If it is some other thing, (say, the colour of the pot there will be the following unacceptable implication), viz., that one may have the experience in respect of a pot having colour, ' there is no odour in the pot 5 . [If the object of the cognition, 'there is no pot on the ground s is neither the locus, the ground, nor the counter-positive (pratiyogi), the pot, but something else, say, the colour of the pot, then let there be the experience e there is no odour in the pot' the object of which is neither the counter-positive, odour (pratiyogi), not the locus, the pot, but the colour possessed by the pot. s.t. ] [This position obviously no one can accept. All possible alternatives being ruled out, one has to accept a separate tattva (category), abhdva which is the object of the cognition * is not 5 (nasti). Tr.]

[Objection raised by one who does not admit the existence of non-being against its existence.]

Now, does the non-existence of the pot become connected with the ground containing the non-existence or with the ground having the pot ? Not the first on account of defects such as self-dependence and so on [as in the assertion, to 'A' having the son 'B', 'B' was born as a son]. Not the second because of contradiction. So it has to be said (that the connection of 'non-being') is with the ground only. Let that alone be the object of the experience '(the pot) is not (on the ground)'.

Reply :—Let the question itself be analysed. What does the question mean ? Does it mean (i) of what sort is the ground before connection with ' non-being 5 or (ii) of what sort is it at the time of connection (with non-being) or (iii) if it be considered apart from 'non-being' then of what sort may it be said to be ?

To the first the answer is, simply ' the ground with the pot'. To the second, 'the ground with the non-being' of the pot. To the third, if being apart is a fact, non-existence having disappeared, 'the ground with the pot' is the answer. If the distinction is mental, then ' the ground connected with the pot conceived by the mind' is the answer.

Otherwise a similar objection may be advanced in respect of 'being' (bhdva, an existent). [In the case of a pot on the ground one,might ask :-'Does the pot become connected with the ground containing the pot or with the ground without the pot ? Not the first because of the defect of self-dependence and the like nor the

second because of contradiction. Therefore it has to be said that the connection is with the ground only. Let therefore the object of the cognition in the case of a pot on the ground be the ground only, r.t.]

IV (37-46)

By saying * of two kinds' it was indicated that being and non-being have internal variety. Here the treatment of non-being being small in comparison with that of being, on the maxim of e the needle and the boiler n the author names first non-being with subdivision though e non-being 5 was mentioned after c being '.

NON-BEING IS ADMITTED (BY THE PROOF-MINDED) TO BE OF THREE KINDS DEFINED AS THE ANTECEDENT, THE SUBSEQUENT AND THE ETERNAL.

'Defined, £ as prior', 'as future', and c asi eternal 5 non-being is admitted to be of three kinds. 'By the proof-minded 3 should be understood at the end.

Antecedent non-being exists only before the counter-positive (pratiyogi) is born. After the counter-positive is born, the non-being ceases to be.

The non-being which has a prior limit only, is future or destruction non-being. Only after the

I. * Suclkatahanyaya ' = £ The maxim of the needle and the frying pan'. When two things have to be done, one requiring much less effort than the other, the former is to be done first and disposed of before beginning the latter, for instance when one has to make a needle and a frying pan one makes the needle first before starting work on the frying pan.

counter-positive is destroyed does future non-being exist. It does not exist prior to the destruction of the counter-positive.

Objection :—If so, the destruction of prior non-being, 1 the prior non-being of destruction, 2 thus there would result two continuous currents.

Answer :—This is not so, as it is admitted that the counter-positive (the pratiyogi, say the pot) is the same as the destruction of its prior non-being and the prior non-being of destruction. 3

In that case the destruction of the pot would mean the disappearance of the disappearance of prior non-being, thus prior non-being would raise its head. No, we say, for like the pot, the destruction of the pot is also opposed to it (namely prior non-being).

The non-being which has no limit is eternal non-being. In so defining, the object is (to make known) that eternal non-being exists always.

Now, avoiding the commonly used name, * absolute non-being', what is the point in inventing another name (viz., eternal non-being) ? The answer is that the definition also may be indicated by the name itself. By some it is said that absolute non-being is that which has conjunction as its counter-positive {pratiyogi) thus 'the non-being of the conjunction between this pot and this ground 3 . The definition of absolute non-being adopted (viz., eternal non-being) is to refute this also (viz., the definition adopted by the opponent). Not

1. Destruction having for its counter-positive prior non-being.

2. Prior non-being having destruction for its counter-positive.

3. Vide s.t. p 42

3

being limitless, it is not valid. Then let the non-being mentioned be the fourth kind of non-being. 'No 5 , we say, as it may be included suitably in antecedent non-being and the rest.

[If contact with the pot is future, the non-being of the contact is antecedent non-being; if past, it is destruction non-being, if never, it is absolute non-being. R.T.]

Some say that non-being is of two kinds only, conjunction non-being and reciprocal non-being. Others again say that non-being is of four kinds, viz., antecedent, destruction, absolute and reciprocal. To refute both of them c isyate' (is recognised) is used. Reciprocal non-being is only bheda (difference) and that this is (an entity's) own nature is expounded elsewhere. The conjunction of the effect and cause has been refuted in another place ; also antecedent non-being and destruction non-being cannot be of the nature of conjunction non-being. (So the two views are inadmissible).

V (47-48^

By subdivision the author now presents i being ' (bhdva).

'BEING 5 ALSO IS KNOWN TO BE OF TWO KINDS AS THE CONSCIOUS AND THE UNCONSCIOUS.

Not only non-being but being also has (internal) difference; to bring out this api (also) is used. Cetayati means knows, hence the word Cetana. To be a Cetana is to be a knower (a conscious entity).

[To have the faculty of knowing is to be a conscious entity. Not to have this faculty is to be an unconscious entity. Tr.]

(A cetana is a knower). What is not of this nature is acetana. By this it has to be understood that Visnu is cetana (Conscious Entity) and non-being is acetana (insentient).

Ail insentient things are for the sake of the sentient, to bring out this prominence of the sentient, it is named first (see r.t. & R.s.).

On the basis of vedic statements like 'earth spoke' the view is held (by some) that every thing is sentient [i.e. there is nothing that is not cetana] . To refute this position matah has been used. This view is refuted in abhimdnyadhikarana^ the presiding deity section (of Brahma-Sutras). Division into the sentient {cetana) and the like being more prominent than division into the eternal and the like, the former division alone was mentioned first (see k.t.)

VI \49-50)

Now following the order of mention the author (now) gives the division of cetana^ (the sentient).

THE SORROW-TOUGHED AND THE SORROW-UNTOUCHED, THUS, THE SENTIENT IS ONLY OF TWO KINDS.

The sorrow-touched is that (sentient being) which is connected with sorrow sometime or other. The

sorrow-untouched is that which at no time is connected with sorrow.

Some say that, as sorrow and the like (such as agency) being only imaginary (that is illusory), there is no one that is (really) sorrow-touched. Others think that beings other than the Lord are all sorrow-touched. To refute both these views eva (only) is used. The former is untenable being contrary to perception and the latter to scripture ( Tattvaviveka ). That the Supi erne Lord is untouched by sorrow is established by His self-dependence itself.

Of these two, the Conscious Being untouched by sorrow is no doubt prominent, yet as non-existence has to be understood through existence the sorrow-touched is named first. (In order to know what it is not to possess a house one must know before what it is to possess one. Tr.). Yet the order based on prominence being important the two are specified in that order (thus).

VII (51-52)

[ftsnpm Tm sr% 3 m&w. mm** i]

Anye cetandh^other conscious beings.

RAMA IS ETERNALLY UNTOUCHED BY SORROW WHILE ALL OTHERS ARE TOUCHED BY SORROW.

Some on the other hand inventing a division of souls into vyasti (released) and samasti (unreleased) declare that even the unreleased souls, Garuda, Ananta, Visvaksena and the like are eternally free from sorrow. To refute this samastasah is used. Scripture

is the evidence here. Therefore there being no subdivision of the sorrow-untouched it must be understood that the dhd suffix used before (in dvedhd) refers only to the sorrow-touched. For this very reason (i.e. as there is no subdivision in the sorrow-untouched) the author (now) gives the subdivision of the sorrow-touched.

VIII (53)

Vimuktah duhkhdt= released from sorrow. Duhkha-samsthdh= Vartamana duhkhdh=tho$e who are in sorrow. The word ca must be read after dukhasamsthdh.

THE RELEASED (FROM SORROW) AND THOSE REMAINING IN SORROW, THUS THE SORROW-TOUCHED ARE OF TWO KINDS.

Here the order of mention is determined by the prominence (of the category).

IX (53-55)

The Acarya (now) gives the subdivision of those in sorrow (samsdra).

THOSE IN SORROW ARE OF TWO SORTS VIZ., THE ELIGIBLE FOR SALVATION AND THE INELIGIBLE.

ayogydh=tht ineligible (for salvation).

The word ca is to be taken after ayogyah. Here also the reason for the order of naming is the same (as before, i.e. prominence of the category).

Objection :—Being prominent the division of the released must have been stated first

Answer : —True. As the distinction, the eligible and the ineligible, exists only among those in sorrow (samsdra) the order (of prominence) is transgressed for the convenience of subdividing those fit for salvation after subdividing those in sorrow.

X (55-56)

Now the author gives the subdivision of the released.

THE GODS, THE SAGES, THE MANES, THE MONARCHS AND THE BEST AMONG MEN, THUS THE RELEASED ARE VERILY FIVE-FOLD.

The monarchs are called pah because they protect (the country), nardh, the best among men.

The word Hu" is used for emphasis. By emphasising the subdivision the author refutes *he doctrine of those who do not accept gradation in the emancipated. As some Gandharvas and others may be included in these alone and as there is no intention of mentioning some others here, the present subdivision does not conflict with the division found in other works.

XI (58)

It was said that the sorrow-touched are of two kinds, those eligible for salvation and those not. Of these two the author extends the subdivision of the liberated to the eligible (who are still in samsdra).

The word ca is u=>ed to show that 'devarsyddibhedena-pancadhdh&s to be supplied from the previous sentence.

THUS THE ELIGIBLE FOR SALVATION ARE ALSO (FIVE-FOLD, THE GODS, THE SAGES, THE MANES, THE MONARCHS AND THE BEST AMONG MEN).

XII (58)

Now the division of the unfit for salvation is given.

thamogdh= (This means) ' those fit for the dark region 5 and not c those who have reached it'. Otherwise there will be disagreement with the classification given further on.

srtisamsthitdli = nityasamsdrinah = those who ever remain in bondage. The order of mention follows the degree of unfitness for liberation (those who are more unfit being mentioned first).

THOSE FIT FOR THE DARK REGION (AND) THOSE WHO EVER REMAIN IN BONDAGE (I.E.) IN SAMSARA THUS, THE UNFIT FOR SALVATION ARE OF TWO SORTS.

The Acarya now gives the subdivision of the fit for the dark region.

After 'tmrtyddhamati 1 the word HtV must be understood. This difference not being generally known, the word 'eve? is used to remove lack of confidence in it. c eva'~ verily.

By 'prakirtitdh* the support of scripture is indicated. For this support quotations in other works must be looked for.

IT IS VERILY DECLARED IN SCRIPTURES THAT THE UNFIT FOR SALVATION ARE OF FOUR KINDS AS DAITYAS, RAKSASAS, PISACAS AND LOW MEN.

XIV (59)

C AU these four again are separately of two kinds' says the author.

te az«and all the four. $rtisam$tdh=sath$are vartamandh nadhundpitamahprdptah=wh.o are now in samsara and have not yet reached the dark region.

l. f Those who appear to be incurable from the enormity of their sins are hurled down to Tartarus whence they never come forth again.' Plato

THEY AGAIN ARE E\CH OF TWO KINDS, THOSE WHO HAVE REACHED THE DARK REGION AND THOSE WHO HAVE NOT YET REACHED IT.

As fitness is the nature of a conscious being the present division of the unfit for salvation is not inadmissible.

XV (60-61)

Thus after giving in detail the classification of the conscious categories the appropriate occasion having arisen the revered Acarya gives the subdivision of the unconscious categories-

Here also as it is not meant that only unconscious categories have this subdivision, to accept the categories previously mentioned as the eternal and the like on the strength of other testimony, does not contradict (what has been said here), nityanityavibhdgena must be understood thus nitydnityatvena, tadvibhdgenaca. So the statement means:

THE ETERNAL-NONETERNAL, THE ETERNAL AND THE NONETERNAL, THUS THE UNCONSCIOUS IS OF THREE KINDS.

Some believing that everything is momentary do not admit the eternal. While others who hold that the effect exists in the cause do not admit the non-eternal. All do not concede the eternal-noneternal (as the eternal and non-eternal) being opposed to each other (cannot belong to the same entity). To refute (all these views) eva (verily, certainly) is used. Since mere assertion does not establish a fact, to indicate that the

division given has the support of valid testimony, matam, (proof-supported) is used. This, we are going to indicate briefly.

It is no doubt true that the order of naming according to importance should be, the eternal, the eternal-noneternal and the noneternaL Yet this order is ignored for brevity of expression.

XVI (62-65)

To set forth the three in order, the author first indicates the eternal.

[ ft^n: ^r: ]

The Vedas are eternal.

Here 'eternality 5 means being an immutable entity with no beginning and no end. This is established by testimony such as c The Vedas in entirety are eternal....' and so on. Here the word ' Vedah y is representative of a class, because the fifty-six c varnas ' (letters) and absolute space are also of this nature (i.e. they also are eternal).

XVII (66-72)

(The author) mentions by division the eternal-noneternaL

Pttr^<2#j;<2A=compositions by persons are of one kind, time is of another kind and primal matter, (prakrti ) of a third kind.

PURAfrTAS WITH SIMILAR WORKS, TIME, PRIMORDIAL MATTER, THUS, THE ETERNAL-NON-ETERNAL IS SAID TO BE OF THREE SORTS.

Objection :—Now by Hridha? three kinds were mentioned, but not any kind was explained but (three) things were simply named.

Answer :—This is no defect. That which is not absolutely immutable nor merely non-eternal is said to be eternal-noneternal. Of this, three kinds are possible (1) one, having birth and no destruction (2) another, having birth and destruction for one part and not having these for another part (3) and another sort which though in its essential nature devoid of birth and destruction is subject to changing states. As in the triad of things mentioned these three modes exist, the triad alone was taken into account.

Objection :—If this be the case it is possible to put forward another conjectured method with internal division different from the one given. To answer this 'eva' is used. To meet the desire for elucidation by giving proof 'proktam' is used. The inclusion of the kinds supported by c sastra ' is only in what has been mentioned here (by us) and therefore other imagined varieties should be ignored.

(The commentator now upholds the division adopted, by explaining the word 'proktam ' in another way with the support of three quotations from sacred works.)

Or, 'proktam 3 is used for the inclusion of the following corroboratory statements from sacred works. (1) Pur anas are composed afresh at the time of every

creation with their purport being the same (2) all moments were born of the Luminous Purusa; (3) the birth of avyakta is verily its modification (in the form of mahat and so forth). Again the contradiction in ' eternal-noneternal 5 is also removed (for, the existence of such a category has the support of scripture).

Objection: —Now (it has been said) that only which has birth and the rest is non-eternal. (Hence) what has not birth and so on is verily eternal. Where is there a category like the eternal-noneternal ?

Answer :—Not so. This might have been so if between the part and the whole or between modification and the modified there were absolute difference. That it is not so has been expounded elsewhere.

XVIII 172}

The Acarya shows by division the non-eternal.

[#ra* fi^nt *ra stop ^ %$&]

samsrstam=the well-created or wholly created.

asam$rstam=wha,t is not of this nature (i.e the not-well-created or the not-wholly-created).

THE NON-ETERNAL IS KNOWN TO BE OP TWO KINDS, AS THE NOT-WHOLLY-CREATED AND THE WHOLLY CREATED.

To do anything well has no fixed degree (therefore) why not the non-eternal be of, three or more kinds? This we will answer further an*

XIX (72-73)

Of these two the author now names the not-well-created (or not-wholly-created).

ffi: *rj sift m mm *pft <H ^n]

MAHAT, AHAM, INTELLECT, MIND, THE TEN ORGANS, THE FIVE SUBTLE ELEMENTS AND THE FIVE ELEMENTS ARE THE <NOT-WELL-CREATED\

XX (73-75)

The Acarya now mentions the wholly-created (or well-created).

THE COSMIC EGG WITH ALL IN IT IS TRULY DESCRIBED (IN SCRIPTURE) AS THE WHOLLY-CREATED.

Of these twenty-four categories if * not-being-wholly-created' is 'to be bom in part', then there being nothing unborn, category is the born only and that is simply the well-created only, there is no duality and there is no other alternative.

Answer :—Not so. As mahat and the rest, eternal in their subtle forfns, are made to grow by admixture of parts of primal matter (prakrti) and the like, they are the not-well-created (the not-wholly-created). This is not so in the case of the cosmic egg (Brahmdnda) and

what is inside it, hence these are the well-created (or the wholly-created). It cannot be said that the original form of even these is eternal (and so the objection has not been answered), because the immediate original is meant (and not the remote original in the definition of the not-wholly-created). If this be the case why may not mahat and the rest be classed under the eternal-noneternal ? They may have been so classed if in their subtle form these categories were called mahat and so on. But they are called simply prakrti (primordial matter), (vide s.t.)

Some do not admit the very nature of mahat and the rest, still less the said distinction. Samprakirtitam is used to point out the opposition to them of very many scriptural texts and these scriptural authorities should be looked for elsewhere. They are not quoted here for fear of too much elaboration.

XXI (75-82)

If this world other than Visnu, manifold with distinctions such as being and non-being and the like, is not self-dependent, on whom does it depend and in what particulars ? To satisfy this expectation the Acarya says as follows:

niyamah - impelling in action. bandhah « being bound by prakrti. moksah^xekzst from bondage dvrtttrjyotisi^outside darkness and light. The word eva

is to be taken after Visnuna. 6 3TST ^an^a^T aWOTra ST^fe' this has to be supplied at the end.

FOR ALL THIS (WORLD OF DEPENDENT CATEGORIES), CREATION, PROTECTION, DISSOLUTION, IMPELLING IN ACTION, IGNORANCE, KNOWLEDGE, BEING BOUND BY PRAKRTI (PRIMAL MATTER), LIBERATION, HAPPINESS, SORROW, OUTSIDE DARKNESS AND LIGHT, (ALL THESE) ABRIDGED AND EXTENDED (ACCORDING TO THE TATTVA) ORIGINATE FROM VISNU ONLY.

Objection: —Now this is contradictory to what has been said before. To speak of birth and death for everything is opposed to saying (that some categories are) eternal, and to talk of knowledge for the unconscious is self contradictory and the like.

Answer :— samdsavydsayogatah is added to answer the objection. samdsah = samksepah = abridgement. vya$ah= expansion.

Abridgement and expansion are the means of making possible what has been said. (i.e. the introduction of these two words removes any contradiction that may appear to exist). What is meant is this. Of the attributes (birth etc.), when only a few are applicable to a tattva, these few must be taken to be under the control of Visnu. (This is abridgement). In the case in which many are applicable, those many are under His control. (This is expansion). The essence and nature of one and all are absolutely under His control. Of these protection and impelling apply to all; birth and destruction to the eternal-noneternal and to the non-eternal; positive ignorance to the

sorrow-touched; absence of knowledge for all, knowledge for the conscious, happiness to all except those who have entered the dark region; sorrow to all except to the One, untouched by sorrow and the like must be understood. (In sacred texts sometimes) birth and the rest appear to be caused by others also (such as Brahma and so on). So eva (only) is used. The existence and the rest of all being dependent on Him the entity itself in any particular context is nominal only Because of self-dependence Visnu alone is the Lord of (all) (thus when it is said that Brahma creates, it is Visnu in Brahma who is the Independent Creator and Brahma is the vehicle only).

[At the close of the work the supremely gifted Sri Jayatirtha prays that the Lord of Sri be graciously pleased with him.]

c May He, the Divine Lord of Sri, by whose wish this world of Padma, Padmasana (Brahma), Ananta and the rest derives its being and so forth, be pleased with me'

ferffcrfter arsfrwrasrofesrt forfeitqferm^ i m zv^

5r%5T *rff «ih,i ^rferarsrf v&nfc, ***** <Ttewi »rra?&n£, 55M 1 si8iforfaff3?nm£ ^^t^s^Tgmfft^^sr^r'CJTf^srfw-

wfwrart^**! ^<re Turret 1 ott%— ?rw snfeftg ^tar-<re*flftsrawi^ 1 sfotW* 4tapr$h[T irn^ftr^i^g CRper^-

^R^rr^m §«rannrRf <rcrewinfrrf trow i

*WHI "35*w JT?srarc?i jR^rct g^wft l %*ro «nircrer wq^ satfefasiTORRi smRifajfcrorfiRir." ffo

%rsc cR^fir«q% " ^fir totow^ ^^wrararflr Brff^r

sr«s»Tirrf*r ^awfwerf cmimf^nfar f?rafa ^fe^fircroRg" ?Nf *rs£f 3f^qrft^iTTriT3Ercng[3ra scorer ^fr^^T^nw-

m^t^fq%ssrft^n^nnfa Jnsrrfq * 5$?"*% i *mfir-

ft«prn, sT^s^r^crfirt^rt 3?i% f^Rrrarqsrapnsr^fferin ^^TOTiwswfwrr: ^topp% 1 ^FfHtaqsrgfs^i^fq

fhwrenpfc^il Tcr^ iNr* ^^qcT f % 5r qrtgf srwsrqftsftqR-

^tfiraTJ i srforenraT a^r^ft^ fir%i??ft$ f%%fer^ *ren-

snrornrf TOimrai g^ws^src sprtcr, ssirftfir ffmnrar-sp&r%crftm ^f^Hf^sfam^wf%si srsrfi' infer srf (3) ^sra^^^^rf*5T^**f*?f^# feqtJT,

?srwg«r«T^* fwi^jsr fe^cr?% era "srarrctfaacwfirfe" trfkr^^rt srsrf§r 1 tot " cresrsFf* OTrarorawr: " %fh <ra arfeqrra[?r?rT §"#3 *fa$or "wrasr a^icr firq^ta%f$Trcn"

f^oTg^rrfw 1 erf fir £< ara?<n*r%sr*:3ra ^g^ri^ gf^Krat-

(0 ^enl??|pl^Ef%5ff *Tcf95T W915RTP

cRT fe%£ff fWhraw sratfteirf^i? p«Tf§iffq^T3<l-

srnmTiftata^Tsri m 'mrciCT ?rrc<ftfcr %fer^' *snjyr

sf^qOTar' ^mwfe^rg" i f*5rc;n%foKsr prefer %^r srararfes^ i itocrf ^j ' %fer^^rer grfMS *fwrt :

^^ggcrr?r arsftf?rsrr«M7 ^Tsr^i^raRraw^w^fim star-

w% srffs i ft firerropn. storaft fir. Sf&Hreraf: m »n£ «nf^rarr ^R swim* i

TCrcronkritffcri sft ft, ^ snotarcramc israrraf art %rcf

srarctaft Hfta: ^?5^rf|^T vptoto %fe tow

II. sF^^isi^^

2. ^J^^^dtrrfir

(a) %gn: qr2d^m-%r*, ww, fen::, w>, *kv. \

(b) shtowM*) ffcratar; qrsdW*—^, mw,

fere;, grj, ?rcn i

(ii) g^sifan; fifsrw—

41

si^ifpp: (1) fami W*

(2) f^TTR^T^—JpMR, 3TO*, 3§{&

(3) arftwt-fitfein

(i) WETC[Bflj--

ap^i", crp^ <$r*r^ i (1) sprwra*

(2) S^^WT^

(3) 'Sf^Wff J faSWWWO

^^^ H ^utH

1°

Sf^dWN^ 4H'«fWW f% #^ra^% ROT3T-

sr^k^ .... *\

^TcT^fr WTTf^wj: *im»^fl^R^ II * II

sfwsrgtffercPj %^5tTftr«RtPT»r: ll R11

cRTOipnfnn

qpnfr ****** 1

for—

8Spr m warn m^f^^^wt^-

^ifoifcflws sprat %pnrtwr ?% 3115ft otct-sr*? ffir ^ *J«?fiflraftrarflfirawtf s^rafr: «rw * srgfo i

srfom Bt srfet it ^ *W 5^

Sgtrai&l SffWTfagtf ^^reiT3^TT^I JfTr^fir wit

TT^rfsrfe ^rfT^i^oTR sreterwif || ii^pfftf II ssrfHr wft «rfr fro «n* ii I5#fir II ^^nftftfirt^ifir II sprit ftcrcr c^rrf^RTT jy&WRrercsi Br^T^g^fii^TE^i

atraw f^np&k *rw gfoshnwrat n (m. fa.)

WK9W5BWJOTtftft II

3Ffi^nrcrarcfo «rn* <wcrwi. i

fiprfowtei |?5^m aw$* to: foftrera 3?Tf || 3$$fo II vmaph «nroro *ot* i a^r %i*g *ft«iRf vRvregnfoRqj

fRif^f A^r^i g^Rf hNt^r^i sralroref ftr«arr-arorts srrmnsrsi srrcr^R^i ^ra"^r gRura^i 1tarf$n»r-

¥Rf^4t^r3nr|^ni^"f5rfirgr%^ tohciwr artercrTSRfireifa

II %Wf^t 5ft II swrar Qram% sqp*mf^fM**w*w^ <rortri?iTt vrgtrcpRanfcfa wn || ^n^PRFVf^f II

II affoftflr || !RRI1Fg#ft II swiw^r iqr^SErfs I II ftfWft II *** to #srm%rt: || s^lifa II

dhflftm ^"lifcuS: I TOT <* OT*5**I 3tSrfTOTO SITCffl-

cr^83pn*n^

w^^ <?Rirfir 11 3fNc*?if^fI 11 awrensitewS* i mi-II ift^HI^T^ffir II *wr anf^OTPf* I (*Tff5W3%3^-&* an*) II *?HSl^ftl% II 5ft^fir*W3f^*«ics(uiiin%-

ftrcr& i (fe^r nipengpnrcro* w* ft^jinrarcatanc n) II q[%fg || fe%fir^ron qcsscWtaaraJi anfipifcr **re-

^t^rt snc || spwwftft II a^fif II 33S*niP%n*c ^rrcrs^^ amA are** ^r^% ^rcftfar wt $rrafeRTfcrr

ftrer srcftfir err ^nTT^ft$t*fwr^[rTf^ *i^ ffir m$* i firt^fgrenrnff: qr»Tf%fcr arc^s^; I era %%rf*rf& srrm-

?*T3t fipjn*tt I ^FSTJT^cFWiiFfe ^TJTFTcT 31[$r % fit firiN?* I

f^*n*t%fir %^t 3#n i

fo^l^r jtw^c^ iteififter <?ftf*;fir 11 otw %fo ti

fw^C^W H$&r3!Tf¥W34l$ II WT*lftrfir II

m% ^bft&tra<jgTttraft 3^^3^ntJT^irw^T3S , R^T sta-srou fe^-as&srcat^ II *rarcf*rfir 11

qi«[r%h sEfen) srraridr ^t^s^^tc<jt^i

3rfi33*rf Sift II sratefSfSrrq^iT JTsfoSRWfe^tlT I

3rTO$pntT^

sritft ssssr: i erg s&si sr^tt ^f^^f^rac^^ 1 sr^ fifopmrrew ^^rcr§CcSFTi%reF %r ?rff sr?% fifep#w

*ro li wrai^ftfif II fl^ws?retew: 1 5?i ^T^^T

wgftwt H?«rrf%cfc%sfqr ^fe^r^TOtorroraTf^^ am: 11

I W%ft11 mTOri%?r^^K^q?i^[ir^^: 1cnsifatftfe 34**

t^nrcra^sr <rrc$t a?ror fir^q^r «k&Jt an^ arosrrawA

«fir tqsriteRr ww || ;R*Rlftfaftft II ?tot <* g^fe^s-

*n%?n?rrctfq| ^fora^^sf^rcfo^ w% || 5rf*rfif-%*T # II *3 f&lmf^* *m %m*n\ * %wr%^Tfirj i

cTt^T|p|R^ Kl

fir^r^r m* *mmr%fa&w i ere* ^cFsrrercFsrJt^fr fgrfsra-R—srg 3Rrctft?r srrctarfi* w OTifecrc % fe *tr<^ i

qirf^mmSc^, tr^fti%^^T^t '3mrctfc$% ^fegrf^Rt a^TTCTHtsft ITRfsRStf^T *nR?<n^3t cRtrfK^Tr^B^ S^ftec^

fir$R3R crfsrcrer ffir srfTfincrert ll%%firil *ftr^r^^r^^r irt? i 3?*sr*OT^rT*3<T*TOi^Ri *tr: i

^3 Sfarcsrarft* *4 h ^ I * ft wff *n tor* m 3 %*m% I ^nft tratapspi: I sfapqRF It ^fpppt a 5iR?fiffir ^Rns^ I * ft ft ^K# 3i##

ftsftroro 115i^ilft"fl II fri fa **&& It *ffif^ II II 5Rtftfif II 'csrorararita^ssra* wrmOTJ ^rerfowtar

a<ft9I^WTT^fe *TW I Slfft || gftftfif || a # || *FRTO

«flf—s»3 ft wafcft wri^nra («*) srsfer *$?

a—II 3|1# || ft *arafirf?r scft^ ^smfftw^ «nff gfe^Tft 1 1 »wc^5 ^?Tft ot^* CTrarar: I ?TT?T^rrclrc<i^ «nifc!pror i sprh^ isra^i *twf** 3***» waj smf gfe-

Own) wiprnfrfRTftfir l ___

SnqaF&t ^5f^ *5Vc!r9riU ^Tc^TT^fe *OT* J ST STOW*: || 3 ff

3? {ft II fWw wroirfe&fiiw «&&& t H§[c5rfr^ftf?r

*I—1| SIFT ^fa |fe II 3??^fcra sr3TOsreff$ralr-%wh i 3??^fc ctctM ftrtTf || i^%ft II srewRra' «^^

WF& WRT^gqi^^: ||^^flf^I%|| cT5T tPTOTflasTCI

srcsrrf^r *ra* || snPIFftrf^ft II areFarcRita mi sunfaro-{ft II

q$ srriWfcsira^TO || ^f^ftft II ansppnssat mfkzn-*n*:i ^ftrfi-refa ^fiafer^n I Sftsrih || 3t%lf?ft II

mwcWJr^t^Rrs^fH^fe^TrsrTf II sjf*k ?ft II sr^rc-

aiqft sff^i s^t irawid^rTf II ^$^lf? II %%y~ II HT Hlfcrftfo II fe*n*srai ^fewtfe: i TO*re;qs^

*n%mc || 3%fo II *WHPS#ft II TOmrown^sifiw*

II *?f^fo II td^^T II *n* *«n 3?% &* (*nft«ftiir

\% ^T^ipn^

II fi[f<tafqft II swat^fafirarih i 'aspsfcro m^j \ h^t-^fo || WPWft^TTf^n 1! 3?^ ^f^qs^roref'OTrt ^xrfefir-

II TO^ffefa H sratfrfcw* # w% It ^WFpn^ft II *r# wrorerawrffar firfesrftRrjjassr g^rertaqi^?n , il3i& 1

JW(ffrfcra?TO ^Rtfl*Ji cTgqWT^fo || W^ff^f? l| SSJT

^TTff^J H Mt% II ^R:^: f^flff (SRTT%) cRStrf^IST-^fifll ST^ftr: STOW: SOTriftfirfW^rei aiTOHfcaWR^I

srisr^terf fccr^ si&iotsh. i srras* jsftaf ?r *r*reftrar err

wTc^^r wi%^rrqaf«rT wit wv&& \ *r<ra <ifa.H<4*^ <cre^rT

II snft fosrfNNre # 11 fiftsrfsr€t fiR^rsTR: 1 arsrmfar?K-srrcfterftaft srorcrcin* IRR^ftt 11 ^ m^TSJrcrer

zf—qfc m *$*m m^i m%K\ m^m$$$t$i-

#r: I sig ^n frrfer ^ i %ep f% irf^qt rarsft err s?fir^t err iwrfireft srr i srrar: srtefa *ft ftrsr (cttctctri^i * farffer. I

fitefara cc^fe TOrftfWIin^TOr arr^ || g%r% l| ^r

3ra%r jjwn ^i^r^tsfqr 3#srr^T?ri^ir^ fr5r% ftrcra&-fiRsrfs l cR^^rr%^srfJKt|;sf^ ^a^^rnrcsrcr^tita ^refei **&-

l^sr^sirffsrf: || ft^qg^fir II '^Tff^^%*ra& TOfcr3&3rg$ * *%■*/ iq^ftfir top i snftqfc s**-faffo* II aR#i^ftfiril to^^tt^^^w timm*

fircwrf^TT ^d^ftrcwrf^j q^$q«*3TOmrta-

«ft—II IRSF^fir II W^ ; WfPT^f^crOT: pT^

jRfe Shot 1 ^jrarraron* || £Rqg*sn$fa II 3fT%q%fT 'prt-ffertf^^a^Jtefe imp* I tr*rr *r sHteirfa ^rcr?3rc% firsr-qrc?i5s% q^r^Frc^rfe%^nr^rR Bprnras: ?re*n«N ci^ri^r^

Sffeawfffo wt¥gft || 3Rf%I^F^!#ft II srf-^nft qroFsSfr qs^rrfq qrca^n 1 «wiTwfttfl«wfei J -

RrnmscfT 3*#tetrsr i are: asnfa ^rafii* * wwfiira%5r i *ror *rot* 3P9CT 1 'an^f^^mRTV Stew ' (*-v-*vs) s%i

r%m *rcitfW!OTr£ta& ||f^?Tf^f|| mmqis^Rftar 3Ttf ||gpn %ftll sroteAw srsRfcr ^ * ^ftf^fssr * forf^rr

TOsfte«-r*n stmt m^^mm? tfk srr i cr«n mror fin&w-

srata«mmrf^3Rr ski: || q^gsspftafaft l| srnrTr^T arefta-

^3 jarrr^r ^cT55rcrT% fcfferiH cTcsrsj^i sftls g^urgwrr fortes* *mm\ mt ^^T^sTJn^^jjrar f^er arcs II st%-

■^S&tow* || m VRlf^ftft II ^ffi^qw^fo II

fesirS sir' %&$*&& fe^^m% «n srarareinfarct CTgtnc

%ft H s^f^af^sr sraqpfawronf^ ?si& || 3R[ |f<r II ai^^^%?^m^*b || ^psfirff II areT^Fftr-

crarfir f^> si^r fc5cf am l|^f^ft|| ^ra^Fsa^a&csnli I

erarfofer fcrft^l i am sm[ |l aprf^ft II srawft qr^rf^rwj Rfer^fT^TfiTSTrwcr^Tf || swtfir II $3j<ff # II ftcftw-feqg^fett^ IIW*rf^T# II ^rf?%crcrcf skot-

$—'TOi«iwi^sn' u tcj 3?w-sra!3 «rc* 3^ a*n \ " spI smr% f*recT?l 15^" f fir fir«n i " ar** sreu% fearer"

vr&rami i

lif^FWnW^ II '^F^mrllfl[%<R^'f%q?:c!^rf^^TiT^Jt^-m*r$® q^Fsrsv^^ di[*ta:«n{^3r& 11 fl^focpgr-

^r?r?5^WT^^TT«i^T«TmT^crf writer af|fo *ra: i

SSlpRrftfl II ^r^t *rro* fa^U q% ? g^ f *K3& I

sr^rftoT^grr?^^^gT^r, %?r * fscfe* 'forger ^fsfsit-w^TCRS^s^trfs^rorat I ra?§ antral s^t^^t-

qjwfif—TOT 'WWWI^ ft$TO^ %m%\ Qrfe3 9m$

A—3PRT ^^l^F«f^ ^q|^^#pfin ijPra^ i ?Rwftfir tow II

qftfoi I

II WJpWpr ?% II ^t«i^l?cwwRSsnp«rs I sr«rmT%^sc«rR-

*sr gr^r& m " ^nfer sroire** 4t3rai iron Run i fw-vtmti maiew&limi%% era* *reRft% mm i srremmt

srfrrr l ^o l«rtl* ftrafcv ?r^r ft<gftflr ^Rragr: CTtPsqfo-wff% srsfrft ?ft^ri l f^^r^^qs^rfqcgT^ I

eresrcrgsrren R^

Im crr^«rm% asm rrsr'^^^rfir vm* umt^t foftmm II qw^mftfoMi II ftliftfir II

ll^P^rftn sn^n?*? per sn%^r TTgTOlr^^n^r^ inter- i s^Tf^ftrenf^sr fitrarcmnf^R jtitol II fef«Nh ftRg^fir II feferfes??** ^cr^^n^cr^cTt^fiwT^qT-

qr€t^r%: crterff TOrcjroEiSm team s^l ^^r srasTforf

wk gftg^ai^ife^TOiTOHfc 3cTO ffcr aw^rr^T s?g-g^Rswfq VRrarat i snrarer srang^t stop* firfarrni

f?R^fil II 5r ^ «nwrwps*rsrtWf: srft^Pn^-

^^s#^i#f|[#^f#^m:i p^i ^sfar ft totto! ffi*fttaE*n^ 15^ a ftfaftftsft 1

atf^^nrafe^jrwf awmft firmer 5% i

^T—'aOTsfcrqfogi fii%rfqrfaw# «rranroicenrafc'

\\ ^^^ffg || Phftfif || 3*TOfe^q^%qwfe^«h i sfiKT f^ra 3iTi || ^"fif || ;T?$rT<ira3rrcf ^f^^crft^rwtsr^ srmift$& m5rr*n*nf|3Er «n* \\ VF$*FR3nftft|| srcftfs^r-

arTO^HRU RVS

^iwg^^ro*?J$r^f?r en i worrit rarajreftrasrmift

BraNh i ^ ^ srrrnft cropro 3rar%;r m^wr^fiwr^qpaft-firsrwrcsrr^, amrli CTrwAsft sr^r ste^r tow-

*r?t ^ra ^nra% a^r cffT ^rf^ra^ sgrRscwrfer i strata^ f^nfer^fra i snq w>sr«<iftfa^%^^sr«riTc^R%fqcrsrat%^*^-srnssrr I * * % f% sfr crrg^rfir^q#r: i areatsnra&Tf^KT sreftfa-

?r ^Tsr snn^TnTT^* i ^nrsrai^rrarrc^iT arfer ^cifirfe $rt-*Fat iwra ^ccrcrcatfcr ^tr vsrraftr^i«rtf«rar3^^qr arsr jtr-

irreate*m^tna^R^ a^orfegg* serial

$t—sraftflr I) feftratar s«wsr^fafsr<TOc# strcs^i

ft&r * gqfcfct 11ft firft^ft^ qft form: * p:

aftsfir sraftfe fe^Mr WT^5FJfarap& i aroro || ?3^T-^RTTfan II w?crbT «rofaftar l| ft^ffg II *n*ftsfa ft^r-

\\ —^ftsnfescfirarar ®\% II qqftft || ^iv^anfer

II eOTRTlf^ft II *n«ift<gj% arare f% am grorat sfcf& smvm* I <rar sranft ifcg% m^ ffcr arm 3*2 *mft Sfcgsfe s^rrsrrcr: jot?* [I STR^Stf^ || a?fer a§n srrcravit err sf*ra

*« iTl^fo 5Rft*& Jgitam pgW?; I WWftt *feg%ft SKlta*

***♦ II srfo *remre # |l TOnro9*?jrofii5i* i siwsr-f^ta*reE ^narrf^w* 9R&T3J f^rfir 9ft * snurarfe i f^aRTOTraw ik amwT^ fft *rro i *rr% srsr src $fo

9ft§ STCWISTCq" f^a^H^ ?TC9t9CT 3T3FROT^T^^ fap*

srewrete^ftfe ^T^TT^5r^?T ^T^ ^gygmT%sm%sfe^TTfer

aeftrgriws^r avfeti&itfft: J am <re sre* JrosStfa sm*m^ asmfcr ^r^dt 9 ifek 9w frn' s^^^g^^roi^Tfts?nfHR{gr itrami ^3—«m^ TOi*rfae9Tf&: II <r$nfc~--$ft %

^3*t t^t *m ;mr srt ai:" $fei * ^ srsrotora^ srsrfsr-

sraternrfq snfe s mi&R& sn^mi sron&sr ^rwrRren *rl~ fsragnnx^r ^R?ftei#?ro3j snfe m —" awn &$frfoftim <*^^q ^r?t " fft i <r*n ^ *K*i *c(foo^f*rfi:f?r i &*—

^J %—'# ftTN: ^^JT lft?ft % H*g t

^35^ 13F?^f f&M <Rq; 1 ^t%s^t? 1 ?n%(fa)

ffaisita^ ||5^nqrai^|| srrsrfirsnar arorecrcrT groarsr-fa^erc^ f fa srrf 3r 3mrcor as^rorciir f^Asr m*&

*I—srf& || *$% II #% II sw*rorffc»* 11 II 3F$fl I) «a*srcraror wra^i^flrwrsRoig ffar ^fer-Br^?^r: 1 m&k ar«rifqr ^Bf frfirferer a?Tf l| q3$riftfr 11

s^llnl'PTT^fiHI ^fwr*t *m^f^%cWirni^grT^T?r55ii-

$ft—qrsrfqr err^re? srrawra'crsrr %ik&i ?&*& ^g^ t tr^toj^qr %q*arf g[?rifo f^rpft ^tfst frg^frgsj^R^ci^r^r

flT^f^f II ^ft II ^'srererftsra; || ^frftfcPflfa II *m?rfcr-1 1 Wf^f^Plfif I I srarfq' mwt 'mtfkw vwmt-

^x \\ 3F$f3 U ^fftfro^rBrr l^^w^ *mi%&«m

*Rrc*% H ^ g^ftfr II srorsroro II WfRft II a^ftll ^fgwT^cmftrq^q%cr^^r^i H 3RroF*$fir II sw-n*m %Rsr^^r^rf^ (ft «rw) w&: II srf^FT^T ^ || ?f^ fa$k% ?grcr?% »TOF5rSI TCF9 fkfira sot* swra^ft

?mm% fcro: || gqiftft || <rarit sru% *OTROTiftN

11 S^^ft II wrorcpsrW* ardsfir^qrirTTOT fltagftwrfrr-

sot: i ^ arorfa ;r m$^&3T TOftwft gr&? i <rorf| i

illl^^Mcqi^l <TSn ^cRMtcIW SOTcW «?H> ^IT^ I *OT^T-

•grosrimi ffTmOT^nf^Rngfe: sri^r^r sots^w-^<HSHHM«ti({^% w®**K II swtfif II mi Wm *ot: 3|*ot«i i sOTtefo %fin*; I finsr: asfijsra i fsteitsfo flefros i

tit— wsrapSr %Wrf if^tw fas*rai^ i fl %w-

|| spffif || area** ^EnrfaSEnwRr fidron i 3?%^sr

ww* || f%%%% || pqi^iiq^FTc^fffmim^i^RTf^^j i RrtmnEifsr OTRnrc II 3WppfH& |) *$ ssfirfir II wran-

ipRRlftfe || area** %f£ra %cnltiiScr5f^ pi>* firo3*rerc^i to* aprercrflr fern forero farf: II f% %3HR3lfi$ft ||

f^iBww *si* || fi&WTRnftfir H ^^r 5 * fe&** to: TOiro3fcr mi&% $wm wmm ^t^^cRcI* fwnro^

fgwm sn^F^feqr* llsr^lf^Hfif^nTr^T^^s^r^-II 5R#fif II ^*^r a^r ^MT^cr^^rfffw ww i

uiviifffBtftr sraFsr* 113^ ^ft II ^nwiwfeRnpft * sRch*

it—^ ?m$i ^nrwfir ^ frr*ft ^r *rs# I

i\ I fNft qsraraftft l 3#ft *ft f^$> *RfP* TO wfft ss^ng; wswflra » if? ffep* to 3*Hr

%rf?rcf% s&rfSr || 3WR q^ft II %fe^5fhTfew || *$3$-*nifir II tr«rr ^r srRnsCTrf^n^ ^r^tfir *ro: \\ W£3rT-<ftfif II *H5ft% srfftr: ^jrenTOfimSl TOrafa *js% vit wtgfo «A&* sit^i srreatfs sKftfafiraror ^srar tooti-

sreg fife sf fi ftftftqjft vz m ^cr srf^ftfw TOPdi&ftr I

srcrsf to*: i fofrwrang ftfcrflr || ^IRR^ftfir || afir qftftfinrtart'* || $f^fif II *r*sft *rc&fir srftth arft^fir-

fH&B

\% <R3^jpnsp^

m0mi 1 3r*^sOTf*a^f^* II spr^W |$f$ II ftraw || g^rf ll ww ?r a^fefw. amratoftfo *tw 1

II to wraftftr II wnww «c?tei4 II wiwrppt |% II

WSWHTH^WTO W& » W ^^ II ^^fti% II 3PT

sHbr srssis^ sra:*te*Tf fW^%cr: 1 TC^cnifcrroi m**-mor^f^ || otmk{^ II ^^r ^ ;?reftf«r ^%fg^t^f#-

w^: *ra*p<srRq$, ^^srtji^ 9#v?«nsrerc err *f$vzi~

II STT^WRn#f T%T%fte¥TTW %^ II ft^f i qjfcwfir* awn: srt«ww: i $f^%%R*n-

m% &am^mx ^i^raterasrlsrr^t tot ^snw^^#rf 1% *n^ 1 aspr *tetf *p6 ffir swrf (ft mro l|TC«(f^ftl|

u

m%^gox*m^

t^T^ i %m ^ srrafej^ ^ro& ^ cr^nsreratfar i tot* 1 srocsnfffe wen 11 qi^rfgtqf p% II srraro^wfaOT? fsra:1

gste* ^ 1 3r**raff% met s^TOare corottai* 3%ctt amfbit am^r* firfira pi*$; 1 siSrsr stresrei^w-

d^wtuw^

*

«nwr^fe% ftrafti q^hRr ^terrat «re|cq%: imtarfer *r

3 ^taOTcftWtNi !

** wra fq wqt

smtarfer *r; scm^r f fer <sfeate& i srar f?4 s^rroiwr^-*r$r3r<s a*$ sroqmrfo || Jlfir^^q^nfe II stswrt

vfaffoq^ttsftmt ^ (*rfa firenn^fe) m% arfiiarcfir: mfofcfk *rf wpfr&i i ^ %m$ sew snwrTOfessrcnw-

w$k fir srfWtfn<i^» ssqfaropg OTmnq^^foT^Rmg* *i£rcri eraser ^dsfe^nfe^rfe^i^WT^cKifiif^firfe ^i

ffiiwU are ^marra^r sfi* %ri urearcr srrarcnrm^-

ottt^Rt || 5ff^Rt*ftRf II 3TWwr^^^T3^rTfT% srfcftftrareT-Sfcgrar sPSTCura qa fersroft srrc^ atfcr^rfi-n m%\ arepS-

irecssr sf^rt^fM^ *sl% *re*T ?o# II 3%f*rfa II a*n*r it qmi: sr^?%& *w5;» zw ^ sraracaftsfa vrnm

wreitera:! 5TFrapftftj ftlftMfir 11 wmrowfoifir-

^mwre^Tqfo*OTf^r *rra; I || q^Tf^ft II *tot a;g stew wrafa"«£TiRf Ptwf it toto m% arsrar^sTref «r

tf—f*r ^ pros <tffcn*n* || ^Rpcrite^ftfir f^rff II ^PRfafa \\ ^«RP*^«n*^snrowi

& —arawRfwrc ift 5r%4^'^*^ y i s^w^ ffir fiRafiPFWTRR[ i aft s^ipw^iRfir ^ I ^nft

II s$fo || 3ttwi; || ^prenqtra ll ^rc3??s^mres%

^ftmdwsnStaTfr ararsrcr f^ttaig[ sjssrfcr ^r srfefrrcr-Hrlsf^ srsnt*^^^3tdttt(^ [ n^Rc^rT^r ^r ^r^rtfir sift-

w

q*wtm«wi

m®m II *WF$fonfan II ^fafaftf*$$r II aF*w-

a*TO^n*n^

h<W4 ^tc^tt^ i ^f^rfw ^Tt% *«rcn sriflrcit sn^wr?^ ^f**-

w*mt tost mm^ sreremvrc «a^r I w^ft^^ smrorafcr-

fcrcsri^ i a^r ^r% srct -zmmv *rca?ctoq«n%.sft frreft-TOftagro^i tost s^?nfe t 'is^sr^jrreatejsr

wifarast sr^rf m final II $F?% II argrarcfe ^srrcrfe-sftfrra: srrtfa: sfFrorc: 3*ftefcr: tosh ssrisrfa srstI^hit-

r%?r qw^*fcqwrsP3T qTOfft^gqmf^sn* II spft^f-

«ti^c# en i step i srfafi: ^n^Pfrn^rit: st^rS 3rm^T%

TO*«teCTcftsnfc 1 fe*r hjtct fsrat ***arac, «*ra *it-jBtrt ^?<tt^ %*?f ip«ta& aTtTT^r Sfcfrotfe fnTssfa ^raftfe

# gfeqT#r^irf^:% '^sreft^ 3?Tqtsg^ cHfcr ^M^^^*«f^^?^H{Rr gfem^^^r^-f% mt fir-

$r—%33#fir |i srreratera: i ^raft ?$zm %arar-wr^rf^r <8rnn»wraH w q a jw i q kuiccu j%<jH i te r *^ I

$^%^3&T 5«TCR^I ^ft fflSBSN* SPfSSS^

sft—%rarer < i< § i^ t fefi^wi^ II #N%RMr H qgrara ro^M fr^ |l%;tT«ifirf3l| %cw^^6ra&i

^rT' ^TT%^n%mJ II qfiffik II qWEFrft-3HR9Rt-

tot *roft* sri ^hwftwfc l| 3%ft II **fipnft*ratai^ f^rsrasnfcr n^m ftudfite ri '* i *3 firewfiranf^ftsr se^RraTTf H^pn^r II ^Frfonroi anfoifcr ^asntir-

if& araranft«i& l| 3?tp |fe II gpw %fe#r:l

Ho

drJ^t^H^

*s&ift 5*wi*iii^^ l sjwf^^TOroii mow ^?3^ot s^firsgr <rc*ra sr^mf fiRsgrit' f^nsnTO^sJ* I

3r o& ?R^fe%% ^fdgRiRr ssr^nsrfrrfir %ww^ 11 HWftfilH asrr ^ **trt scfa g:^$irsr$%fer itarofirsrw || srrgR^ft ||

Rt!>^i -H^^nf^i ^^r^ir^fir% t^i <f t*i fii<§l Ws^i rcrafoik-

cMmUHH

^

&—<re$^g $&fi3£&4 sra^fa f§ra$[ I *ra-

km%m Wl% *SS$OT* *W««: II ill

sfircrarc MMjgOR I *wiWMi' srnipwi^ i ^ra

f^TW ' 3I^S5?T^tS ' c Sffat «^5 ^*fesr» * $41131 hittrt awi'4 ^«TTg^|;i§^|l^g^ d ^ci ^4l*N^«

&— snwrMiftft ||

:<g:*srer 4rt*r<rk *ft*n^ ^sc^taf r^fts«wr:' 11

5!—3NWMiftft II

firf J^rtfe ^IcR^i sftsTFit j :^wt£r: * H

fRRTJ I

%^^^m<^^®^fmfc%TW*m. || q#§R$f<r II w-

sratar: %&*&—* f-i^rR— ?rf*tfT|£r% ^rf^r ^cr?5r^i^i *rt ^^i*j< * H<*su % \ c *n?sft;n gonH^r *tan aim f| sHkn i

l ^^d^ M ^fc fr || srercfoft II a*rra a** s*mg^-

fsrer *TO II S^nft 5fRF^?r#% 11 ir«%# smnwTsiOTSi gwcsn^ sr«rFrg^^sn trite 3rOT5r$<r ffcr %sr 1 srfe^frr-^nr# fsr*n sr^rar ^i^t^i^t ^rrgJisFWt^T^ 1 *r 'Mr Rf sftsfa

^la fi nMiftfe m ^ « i 1 *rt II ftlfcftft II ^%m%-iot ^^<5Wi*b 1 %f*fT wiwi%R.vbn 1 ^c% ^rrgsTT: | |s*ng 3PPrfe^%% II s**i*ft grur; 1 oti: ctanfton 1 wrt: tto 1 II sri%fo || sfteftaf?r**ri sf% sftar* 3**stc$st f^sr c *ftaT «c^i f ;%*:' tt^iwMMHi' ararafii&r *ra%^& 1 srafe-

|j^#^rt sRftmt it awNi: s#: i mtm ^^mm ^^ f \^m \ ^f$

11 %mm sfir 11

*rg g&f^fc srra* \ ^tmm&K ^m%^& g^q-fq glrtv^V***-

H»

<M**gf*IW^

spreroi^ ii sf&rrci&n ifirii ^ ^ wrWN* *

1% II %TOf **§rendfe *Hr fa* II 3TWH*ftfitRt II

^«rfercrafn: || mtm $mt <T#fl II awten*Mtei& i

**m qanft firftsT ?«s«b || 3g%% II ^fsi^r fag^ra* ^♦^ra^n&fir srrar«m$or ftggjRf a^gf^r^r^ggr^iir

ftwfc II 3#^WRTCf*rf3 II i^tfwprf *WiW*?-««raimR&3i& i m xms i ^ fcwff^ifcr <j2f sit ftg^-

aRfcnjrRftfif II 3** gfe^Wf gfg^^ss**^^ wm\\ m&m nfeftik hn$m m g^iwtwwftrRr

f^^viM^cqra^ $«$«? ffo 3JOTT STffOTTgamr ff?T 3OT«rr~

iter f asrsmraisr <£* fire%s ssifta fgrans* 1

??Rf Ip&Rf sr^ni II <inira& II %*nfef?f<f II «5^*^<ft s nfr) u Nfowk

K*

tf-^WgrMM^

qT |% II cr«rr ^<*n?r<s?r f% srrefc <n: qT^^ra^f&ir ssro; II 3T^TT^ # II f^f«r ?n*sr^rarctiT fsw || §%fir ||

Stem: |l ^ II ^nrrgsrp i srg «Fwfs{kmfir s^t^t 53%-34^13, %^m §r?rt stem: 1 amt fiwm^jRteRr ami || iFW^^iftfir It 3?r%q^fr^H^^ftnrTiTftr^orii mpfa-wrf^firil ^-sBfafq^grfts c *r?^^i«i^*crc:t 3 f fir ^^-

$1—&%ftll q^rfo q^faM^^refer g^sr i l^itfte-

+jtRhucii£«?iIstW f fir ft^rfStift?^ g^tgrEarorr^gqrTO^ i

<g% **«if^<?TT%i^§r^ if«£G4j ccrif^ arrfirf%f%nTrrT*te cnrcrRft-*#: i g^ ^ ?ff*ircrr%fir m ?r sr%*m 1 gr&rcrirfa n^^r-?*rft*ffe£i&i i &% ^<rprtaq%fi:fir 1 sre ^T^=?r%rRta-

q—fsRr^g ^ 11 *rafa ^reforf^n*i% fmm *m srcfta% " %fiircrr jrg^Hietwf %wrsr fifarcfisrctJ 1

4M«*<IMH. ^

3n ! «rf ! cRftr^t^atf9r *?r; I sra ^ 3^fg%% ir cs an?<rr *TR* ^WIN^^M^I ^iwh<$4% ft^T^t vt*pm [ *

( mff«4%i <M€ntti^i srownferfsrar *rt: i

ST^RfT: II % if

H^wt^pt gg^i 1

^^qi^=%5infK, fu^, erfi^r 5 *, ^nrsffa:, wsymfo' ^fr»gRrrJ^s^«r % f a*u4 fr an ^ftmm m gar %qf q***;fe>-

II 3 ^ mUI«*|d*Ki: ^f^T ^TT fRf f§[WT II

II grcHt^n |f^ II *3 cmfTT fsres ?wfe ferarr; ara airer ffcr *nsr^3[t3tar& ^rsrwrf^-r 8?tf II q§ sn^RFRC ?Rf II §*r ^qfrr sin: II sf^n%{g II tsiw : ferret wtf^i

^n^^rr wftstowrrawsiH* HffcrrWTf II 3f%**?ftifft-f$ |% II ri^rr ^ awtefrrcrr: $SK$rsftarcw i K«ifmudftr

3Pfftl«<cfcmfUKHt sr^fScTT ^thI^I d^ftlMKUtl* II SitAratl'l

|fijf II ^ TOt^itaRnW ^r§f§^ i

\o

cR«i**ir4W^

fcwm i^refe *refitfe I <m ifoft gpSfowrart i

II ^^raPIl |fir II fe§CF% 4tF»<idnaf*3sr ^cRrensiftsr \

firer<# smwR^r ariSreitg s?«r^tw^^^?nnf^:^r fro-$% iF^Fcf f^t* || llftfcf II 31%* f^ni* IRSjfqRW |fa||

$t —^RSfTflftftll ^RRnftarotfr^ %3TOrc**rftcr-%arcRf fir sj?% ;fte& ^n^ i *rcn%*Rsiit3TO<qi5. i nm •mm-

firwtar qrehF*re^tiT i tot <* fkmkmfais8i?&m& \ tot t*j* *rsrf?r || qrtptRR Iter* I gflft Sliptt U ^W^lf^f

^33 it^rar Rr<ar^i ^cr§[*nw*r^*r% fe^i il^«K$it*{2f strong ^T—5^fif || fcT^nfro f^r srf^TSlsNW ^tipR-

m fawn mn sgapwn 3tpreptc^ I w ^raf

wf^rf* II sfoSPftAft II first f&srws siRsrfa^tr BPrftwnfc i fiterc* spwii || srsr ft?^f 3I*rffl II fitenr-

t—3toi$PW$jl II Gtaift<*wi sotJ%% % forar-®n^ || a^ ft<S<fl ^flftfl I)

Sr^spntfl^ ^

sus^r iTsrf5*roTfe%?r ^WkweriS^rol^ qmfrf tow jra^^srerp^i sra <*sr ^%^Tmftra^en3<T<if% wrfer

firff n?r f^ic^ firfsr ^r^r an* II 3?w ^t $cf7gRpftftll

^^aRta^mpSnxfd araimcir sfsnitoftfo sire: 1

w

gt^^rgsiftfn

fed**: dauq feMfogregra foq^atsrrfsrfo ^rp^ i *m era tn^r^^fe^Krferar^iif iwfeq-TRrcrat *r $£43c3' ssgrw-

iOfcSrr^ $£4?9k«i R3"%£t gra f^TOGTWRf^lf^ STOSFOTr-

ctalUgtIMH,

V\

c f^ir fees. s?ftiT ^Rk!4i!3j ^'^il' i^rfir^rrfTf^ \ 333^ c^Tt^ %^rT^ ^wrero^ ^ssr B^jc^ finf?[F i^rt sin: 11 <%%

fsr^H %s[t ffar 1$^, asar i^Riftife €l*rai, ^f£i3<? ffir flrsr-

pro?: qMraspwi %e® f&n I $#sto i 5ffRPF*n i

*3 ^ ft%ft S^tf^f^ I Wm %fk^ 5^1% *#<r: i

f$n$ w^jfSftsr ^ggj I ^ $tm i ^ *rt«n fs$ 3M-

fffiw^r Tsgn^fSLorfrri (lir^Tbt«i i^ i *ttr^^sn5>ntsrfan^ i era* ***** uraqRiT prei snRFror sro q Mw r s*n*s*rra?%ir gr*r??ri

*»

^rrhBH || 3^r II tCcr^rimBCT^^r ftsn&tereter& I few ' ^mm^i ^ c^RKt fasfo ^5 ft&TOH.' f^^ : * 3ato ******

\c

am ^ stow ^rfosrfen^r i^frr^or^T^ftRT fegt ^ ng^sftsET 's^ritg* ctt^rw ^rapf sg5q% a^OTEfscwl' a^far-

?<ji &*rf w&7M<f «i i^rorarcT^ i fow45P!i<Jifafe%^ jpsur-^^qnRf^: jprre^t ipr ^fir srf t 3 "gvuwmtg^Kft? *gcwt"

dr4-H^4WiC s

V

H^Rmrr^Tf^ra^^r^i i ssnfq sftRfcr %&m awifesRrc: i

^Wr3^sT«*Tf^t$3^sfar: i «?ij ^raRW^TgcqfeferreRcifr ^!T«n i «r ssrj i ^pJT^if%w>T^R*RRf ^iwsmHr^f firfeii-

sffaqSR f R I *T*J *$% *?>$* *l$kfefi^b^«i ?JiR3nfcJ?SERT-

mgqg rf iimrai wt^rrt ^*ifaji w $ik yam snspjrfW ^a^ i M wi& y st^fe: fi J *wtm i « heps ^r wu^<fl

^i^f^|9iT^iTrOT%^^^^qfeTf%^Tt^T aw* fern

SR K mmM &3tsft qERfafflT SWc^R ^^^T^OT^R^qt

?ror^i eisfa snMt fctanfetttfNr * *r?3F<r f%<7# fool It 3RT ^fo II amrarf^r^r^^: i

sft—sfqror^sraKfcr s^rcft || $fl#*rft || mi

«i<w$lNi spew H ft$H ?% II Jr^mtcwr <rft*rw iwfe » liaraftftll s^n^^w^pn^ tift||an*mAta*i II ft^ihxftft I

awta^fnwusgf "ai»mt*rrat l^w^feif%r ^n^N^nqFd:"

dv4*^%4W*i

^l

% fir n sr^5stffHc% <m&«>k<jii<*hi i TOffwiRsrHt m$-set^^fot" ftfe tftmai^srtf^^ item i ^3 <*ftfera

^tes^writo cr^TTOJ 1 >sf^s^*«^5 ^c^Frror h£kk3I9 J%HrRjriin^r^ $fir €t^rm

ygfef$(%mvi$l t 3T&%i ftRT *TK f^TT VvM'Rf^l &$*'

f^w i are ^sats^ter^i gr^rfir%% s^r^rar wt^n «fcsrf^%i W i tfi * swnfi Stei^r Brs srro ftsr-

VSR cfcTOipiffi^

^r#?n%ftra I ®rf^ f^r ^$*# 11

sft—^r^a^^if^r^m%qfe II ?F#fil II 3fsr

«*gr ^Rfer^n; ffa, ar^Hn^Rlrfw fr srsrcf $fa ^ri«iif%i<isiA%-^nsrat ftilfcwi gpamrft ffesft^rrTOETKr craracftfo *

f^fer* \ 3T3T *f %3%5%^ W W^*M^fe«li SlltfOCT «rf$TO-t^cf(%J J %R «C*Pt fifcm: I 1(?%c^ qNfrqwftHW ft

ff^T: Wlfk %% WI5TT ^fT^ <I3Fr I

jTprti 5r*^rsn> fiterar pro* i

sft— ij^fa*m<j^£ fafefa^g OT w ftfa i i lfa^ -

VStt

dT4^t^H*i

%qf HvjrM ^ff^n% ^j«yi^i<itfri^r HFTO^rsTfo I 5i%r mw%% i $$«^u|^if^j| 15Tf3n^ft% I m^m-

sft—^ 3#f3 II IT^T^Tt ^Jreftar fsmrn-

fiifo *rr*rs t crfl crt%* sn^r ^rs*rf«fa t 5 ^ || ft£ftft || s rerorrf || srgfiR^fl II ^afc^gTO^wifiraw 44$j*ii?i II %fafi[f3 II ^ ^M^ap n ^sfiragftfr i *r *&*** f^ffecT-

q^ragferfir^ *rw siranSr* fag* 11' pqrrsir *wifiMvwfo^FEngpnn wwidKigiitdi seism fa* II fifisaWPnftfir II lapgrft^wnf^S: I

II *flFS#l<f l|

«him4I ship* i s^ftfosrs^r «nn5rareft inn *sr& i

V —f^n^fir II *^w wwN^is««ro5ri^r ^4tAt«i^H«n5|: ||3RraH^I|ainf^Wirar^j IHrag&Hftll

st^r 1 gfe^r Cteufite w srPresw ^ 1 m& ircstf %tw$g&t 1 fremra^ hI^t 1 %^r %r^t i ?p sith-3*rat ft^ 1 |:^ "g^st Riteufe 5[S^ 1 q^mfat

feir^tferft^raf: «tri^3i& 1 «r^wk ^^ firai ^rfir 1 || OTW # II SW^FCTrqiftfir II <=iW*WMsgfa«rq*-^ I Wlfow tamfaff Wd«tWlfiW4& II 33 ?& II diHMWKI-

wf II ??if3 *R#RT II %f^L <rer f^s^J ¥ra*r§rsR^

^*ifii II 3f3*rof^fo II s?IR KMtuftft II wraw-*r—II *R?fteR^ftfif II cr^^r^rr^ ft^^Wt^rat.1

v§<s

cM*i»*4W^

3IN<*c*l3|ftfN¥4 51 ^f^|cK*c3T^sn^<4<4<!flT TOT W^'

q^r^R^TTv^rr ^f^^rjref^irf'jft ftHfe^snctei* ft^^r-

w^ jpnfci H gf wwwfen i ' surfer ftrer^T 5* *ifar sifffS gout' fRi *n*rarcn%* I

c auriR4>4mt greet site: thrown I

*^r ^racr? fft stem wttcii»iwilfa >'» ffij^TKr i

*M^MM*i

^

% fif 5WHJTt%5 I

^%9«TfiT 5^ *to |3rf*r4ta& 1

3?%«t ;p*Jt 331^ s^f^ ftgs^r' f^irf^ wraAik: 11

^irrsnftr ^*^i H ^ tI rg*f *3*P I

3T5T S#?T$F%r ^pHTSSrf^Tf^TT ^M^il^felw few-

do

d*wt*rw»t

f^f arfwsnfir^t ^a* fe? ^ i aa: «k4 A^tfTrrr^ <r«r*iT-g^m; i ari^ng fafiramwn \ aatefgrarrarf fr^Timqft ^Wckfe* % fa i ^j^^f 'fcirapsrflraipnjjj 'srcfi&sr sftsr^^iT-

fawj$*to shFsr: Vl^ifrbi I a^firsrrejrff II 'RNHlftfg 1 II TOf% II f^RN^^Ilft It

< PVff^l mi _*\_y _. J- CV.. mi hum ^fllim \ i *V 1

aw aw fefA fi^3? tfrMMfc whflRt i

snrf&OTts^irfl^g: fern ^rwgrsr^ i ftl^ ^W^tCT' qwiffrfW lf fcfrc; ftwf fgrar-

1) sft&wirtqnra^y 11 *t—are* srcre^fcr ^s^^^nSr fei^^^Ti<TT-

w^r || q%fit II snpffcqjraaroferifcrat^ I tot nft-3—n4 wnrom^ wgifftirarc «wcu*Ruwfd-

H itft II W~fa** l ^^ 9 ^ ra; «i*rt»i mww4 ^km^ ?ra«rr I srg wi«^<ft<A<ifcE l l «4wit feci <i *i4m i»i«ci«^«ih > i Nr ?praf s^* ^n^i «r srrssr "*rci%f?r I am

<tt

drW^STf*^

«**& I sn^(teTT%^T srftrfcrsri;sfofeur^ i mzs\m mm*. #^5^1 star* sffafe «ft?ft: i qferofT dW^^fipsrm^i

ffcr sforer <j tojto4 *jjr*i <7T^T^cr^r%5T sW^n^ fiftfe^r

ifTOgft i ?WcrJTcr%?r: TO^gpH^fcr smfrowrar^i aft^fg^qf "^TORift^fSsrr^^" |fir writer um

aRSTCT: tR*STO ffo fe^TTOI qd^RRTM It snpt TOT W TO l tf$*?tf^WWUt^; "WTOTO^ TOT ?$t£*i

to" fwwMmr iwni a*fcn*aR $fo ^k^^i

Glossary of terms occurring in the work with English Equivalents

3Tnwfwf?ri

ajwftwrrsrre:

3feft

(the) insentient, (the) unconscious (the) supersensuous, (the) supersensible, beyond the senses.

absolute non-being,

absolute non-being

substratum, substrate, seat, basis

supplying an ellipsis

infinite regress.

the non-superimposed, what is not superimposed.

the non-eternal.

topic, benefit, fit person and connection. Every Sastra must have a subject for treatment, some specific benefit to be derived from it, a person fit for its study and connection between these.

mutual non-being, mutual non-existence, reciprocal non-being, reciprocal non-existence.

non-being, non-existence, negation, absence.

limit.

settled matter, undisputed meaning*

the (unchanging) absolute space.

part.

that which has parts.

rapq^rq 1 ; one not fit for release.

one who desires release from

bondage. jjj=rjj objects of sense.

fgSSiJTCT distinguishing quality or mark,

definition.

f^fn*r: classification, division.

oq'en^ff settlement, conclusion.

^W(* the released, (Vi§istadvaita.)

S^rrHtcT* contradiction.

o^TTU* expansion.

^.g-^., wrong knowledge.

f^fSJ^T^r* opposition (as of opinions)

divergence of opinion fir^fsrWCT attribute, quality.

fiffj^csf scatteredly.

m ^t ff a treatise on a definite subject such

as grammar, logic etc. ■Hr^ l 4^ fci the view that the effect exists in the

cause even before its production. fd ' j f gfl ? the unreleased. (S. T.) (visjstadvaita)

<gqTO; abridgement, contraction.

^T^ff: Omniscient.

R j^ r d* conclusion arrived at after enquiry.

^iiSrcre one * n bondage.

^jfq; creation.

^3Tf: epitome.

4«t^<4r4| the essence of a thing.

^j%: protection.

^filMl well-created or wholly-created*

^fjgTC: destruction.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Price Rs. P.

1- sftipr^fersr* --• 6 00

Sri Sumadhva Vijaya with Chalari commentary.

SrI VlSlSfUTATTVAVINIRNAYA

with the Tiki, of Jayatfrtha

3. ^^rorcatfirOTQ': »» 1 50

•twi&ctflSqTOtAa: I

Saras ABHARATIVILASA

of Sri Vadirajatirtha

with Kannada Translation and Notes

sr«r*ftsn*n (=^^:) 0 50

fe<ft4t *m* (3J##^0 0 50

MADHVA VaIS^AVATRIKALASANDHYA-

vandanavidhi I Part (Rgvediya)

II Part (Yajurvediya)

SrTmadbhagavatakathasara

(Kannada)

6. fagrnfo^imn • 0 10

Vi§esanir#pai£a (Kannada) Copies can b& had of

Sri B. S. Pranesa Rao

Secretary, Committee of Management

4, Model House Second Street

Bangalore-4.