brahmasutrabhasya of ramanuja

7/21/2019 Brahmasutrabhasya of Ramanuja

1/597

The Center for Research Librariesscansto provide digital delivery of its holdings. Insomecasesproblems with the quality of the original document ormicrofilmreproductionmay result in a lower quality scan, but itw i llbe legible. In somecases pagesmay bedamaged ormissing. FilesincludeO C R(machine searchable text)when the quality ofthe scan and the language or format of the text allows.Ifpreferred,you may requestaloanbycontactingCenterfor Research LibrariesthroughyourInterlibraryLoan Office.

Rightsand usageMaterialsdigitizedby the Center for Research Libraries are intended for the personaleducational and research use ofstudents,scholars, and otherresearchersof the C R Lmember community. Copyrighted images andtextsare not to be reproduced, displayed,distributed, broadcast, or downloaded for otherpurposeswithout the expressed, writtenpermission of the copyright owner.

CenterforResearch LibrariesScanDate:September22, 2010Identifier:m-b-000808


2/597

BRAHMA-SUTRAS

W i t h T e x t , E n g l i s h R e n d e r i n g , C o m m e n t sA c c o r d i n g t o Srl-bhasya of Sr i R a m a n u j a ,

a n d i n d e x

ADVAITA A S H R A M ACalcu t ta 700014


3/597

Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras are theaphorisms whichsystematizetheteachingsof the Upanisads.S riRamanuja,takingtheseSutras to be 544 in number,elucidated them in his famous commentary,Sri-Bhasya,from atheisticstandpoint. ThepresentcompendiuminEnglish of theSri-Bhasya,issimilarto an earlier one of SriSankara'scommentary on the Brahma-Sutras bySwami Vireswarananda. The forewordpresentsa scholarlyresumeof theSri-Bhasya.The Introductioncontainsanilluminatingcomparative studyofthe commentaries bySarikara,Ramanuja,Vallabha,Nimbarka,andMadhva.Itconcludeswith asectiondrawingattentionto the harmonyunderlyingthesedifferent commentaries.


4/597

B R A H M A - S O T R A S

SRt-BHASYA


5/597

B R A H M A - S U T R A SSRi-BHISYA

W I T H T E X T A N D E N G L I S H R E N D E R I N G O FT H ES U T R A S , C O M M E N T S , A N D E S T D E X

P A R T IChaptersI, H, and HI (Sections 1&2)

B Y S W AM I V I R E S W A R A N A N D A

P A R TIIChapterIII (Sections 3 &4) andChapterIV

B Y S WA MI A D I D E V A N A N D A

A D V A I T A A S H R A M A5 D B H I E N T A L D Y RO AD

C A L C U T T A 700014


6/597

PUBLISHED BYSwAMi TADRUPANANDAPRESIDENT, ADVAITA ASHRAMA

MAYAVATI, PrraoRAGARH, HIMALAYAS

ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDFIRST EDITION, MARCH 1978

3M8C

PRINTED IN INDIAIN 10 PT. ON 12 PT. TIMES ROMAN TYPE

BY H. K . GHOSH AT SREEBHUMI MUDRANIKA77 LENIN SARANI, CALCOTTA 700013


7/597

P R E F A C EIn 1936 was published my earlier work on theBrahma-Sutras according to Sankara's commentary, containingtext,

word-for-word literal rendering, running translation of thetextmade as literal as possible consistentwitheasyreading,andnotesbased on the main Bhasya of Sankara, andalsoon the Tikas on his Bhasya by his followers. The presentvolume is a similar edition of theBrahma-Sutras accordingto the Srl-Bhdsya ofRamanuja, with the exception that itdoesnot contain the word-for-word translation of theSutrasas in the earlier volimie based on Sankara's commentary.The notes are based on the main Bhasya of Ramanuja,namely Srl-Bhdsya, andalsoon his other two short commentariesVeddnta-Sdra and Vedanta-Dlpa.The notesarealsobased on the various Tikas onSrl-Bhdsyaby laterscholiasts of the Sri Ramanuja school. Upanisadic textoccurringin theSri-Bhdsyaquoted in thenotesare renderedinto English according to Dr. Thibaut's edition of theSrl-Bhdsya(Sacred Books of the East Series) with slightadaptations.

Chapter I, II, and Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter IIIappeared in Prabuddha Bharatain serial form earlierduringthe years 1938, 1954, and 1957 to 1960. Owing topressure of work and laterbecauseof weakening of myeyesightit was not possible for me to complete the remainingportion of the Srl-Bhdsya, namely, Sections 3 and 4 ofChapterIII, and Chapter IV, which hasbeencompleted bySwamiAdidevananda. I am happy he could complete it.

Ihave included inthisvolume a comparative study of the


8/597

vi Prefacevarious commentaries on theBrahma-Sutras, pointing othe differences in the interpretation of someof the mainSutrasby difierent commentators. Thisalsoappeared seriallyinPrabuddhaBharata, 1953,fromJanuarytoJuly.

Iam thankful to Prof. S. S. Raghavachar for his learnedForewordand for havinggonethrough the manuscript.

It is hoped that the present volume will be a fittingcompanion to my earlier work on theBrahma-Sutrasbaseon Sankara's commentary, as also other Sanskrit workspublished by the Ramakrishna Order.BelurMathDt. Howrah1 August 1977

S. V.


9/597

C O N T E N T SPage

F O R E W O R D . . . . . . xiINTRODUCTION . . . . xxvii

C H A P T E R ISection i . . . . . . 1Sectionn . . . . . . 119Section ra . . . . . 148Sectioniv . . . . . 180

C H A P T E R IISection iSection nSection mSection iv

. . 208

. . 241

. . 272. . 303

C H A P T E R IIISectioniSection nSection inSection iv

. . 314

. . 330

. . 357. . 405


10/597

ContentsCHAPTER IV

SectioniSectioniiSectioninSectioniv

BIBLIOGRAPHYINDEX

. . 436.. 450. . 465. . 478. . 497. . 499


11/597

LIST OFABBREVIATIONSAi. Aitareya UpanisadA i.AT. Aitareya AranyakaA i.Bra. Aitareya BrahmanaB.S. Brahma-SutrasBr. Brhadaranyaka UpanisadBr.Ma. Brhadaranyaka MadhyandinaCha. Chandogya UpanisadGau. Gautama Dharma-SiitrasGita Bhagavad-Gitaisa. isavasyaUpanisadKa. KathaUpanisadKau. Kausitaki UpanisadKe. KenaUpanisadMa. Mahanarayana UpanisadM a.Br. MaitreyiBrahmanaManu. ManuSmrtiMu. MundakaUpanisadMud. Mudgala UpanisadPra. Prasna UpanisadPu. Mi. Su. Piirva-Mimamsa-SutraR.V. RgVedaga. SatapathaBrahmanaSu. Subala UpanisadSve. SvetasvataraUpanisadTai. Taittiriya UpanisadTai. AI. TaittiriyaAranyakaTai.Bra. TaittiriyaBrahmanaTai.Sam. Taittiriya SaiiihitaVi. VisnuPurana


12/597

K E Y TO TRANSLITERATION ANDPRONUNCIATIONSoundslike

^ aoinsonsrr a ainmaster^ i iinifI 1eeinfeel3 u uinfwllg; u00inboot^ rsomewhatbetween

rand ri1 eainevade^ aiyinmysfrooh

auowinnowkk

'a khckhinbloc/cfteadn g g(hard)H ghgbinXog-hvA nngcch(notk)

chchhinoatc/zMmJ Jjhdgehinhedgehogn n(somewhat)t t5 th thin an/-/iill

Soundslike? d d5 dh dhingot/Aood01n ninunderg tFrenchtSI th thinthnmh? dthinthenq dhthehinhxeatheAere^ anq ppKph phinloop- ole^ bb^ bh bhinaMorJT mmT yT r rs 11^ vinavert^ ssh^ sshins/ 0w^ s sf hh mng: hhalfh


13/597

F O R E W O R DI am glad to be associated with this significant publica

tion by way of this Foreword. Its valueliesin the fact thatit satisfies a genuine and long-felt need for a substantialcompendiumof theSn-Bhdsya. riRamanujahimself wroteVedanta-Sara andVeddnta-Dlpato help the comprehensionof Sn-Bhdsya. Thiswork, I may put it,comesinbetweenVeddnta-Dipa and Sri-Bhasya in point of bulk and themeasure of elaboration of detaUs. The medimn of presentationinvestsit with value from the stand-point of themodernization of Vedanta.

1. Brahma-SutraThetextattributed to Badarayana designated Brahma-Sutra orSdruaka-Sutra occupies the foremost position of

authorityin the systemof Vedanta.That therewerecommentaries on itevenbefore Sri Sankara we learn explicitlyfromSri Sankara himself,whosecommentary is the earliestavailable now. Its central status in Vedanta is thus verywell established. This is understandable as it explicitlyendeavours to formulate, elaborate, and defend the philosophy of the Upanisads in the full-fledgeddarsanastyle. TheBhagavad-Gitdseemsto accord to it this pivotalstatusin theone significant reference we have in it. All the commentators seem to identify the author Badarayana with Veda-Vyasa.The Advaitic tradition handed down both by Vacas-1. |I?J, qiq^ |3qf i r^ : (XIII. 4)


14/597

xii Srl-Bhdsyapati andPrakasatmanis unanimous on the point.TheSutrasfallinto a magnificent pattern. Thefirstchapter brings outthe coherent import of the Upanisads by elucidating theapparently doubtful import of certain pronouncements. Thesecond chapter works out a philosophicaldefence of theVedantic standpoint in the contextof adverse systemsofthought. Thethirdchapteroutlinesthe spiritual pathway tothe supremeGoalof life, while the fourth chapterdiscussesthe nature of that goalitself.

2. Pre-RdmdnujaPositionInspiteof thegreatnessof the design, theSutras offer

insuperable difiiculties. Except a few, theSutras in generaldo not indicate thethemeof discussion or theparticularlineofthought adopted.Theydefinitely require an interpretativetraditionto convey their import. Hence authoritative commentaries utihzing such tradition or traditionsweresuppliedfromtime to time. ri Sankara refers to avrttikdra in thecontextand Sri Ramanuja refers to anextensivevrtti byBodhayana.Sri Sankara's commentary is the earliest anda very substantial work of elucidation. He propounds aspecific school of philosophy as sponsored by the Sutras.Its distinctivefeaturesare that itassertsthesolereality ofthe Absolute Spirit, named Brahman in the Upanisads,regards the external world as only phenomenally real,andidentifies the essentialSelf in man withBrahman.Man'ssupreme perfection hes in apprehension of this identitythroughthe realization of the import of the fundamentalpropositions of the Upanisads. It appears, as is evident inthenextsignificant commentary ofBhaskara,thatthisformulationof the philosophy of theSutras was found to be-


15/597

Foreword xiiiunacceptable to a considerable section of Vedantic philosophers. Theyseemto havefeltthat theBrahma-Sutra,whileaffirmingBrahman,doesnotnegatethe reality of the world,noridentify theindividualspirit with the absolute so wholly,andthe way toblessednessis knowledge that springs fromKarma-yogaand matures intoupdsandor devotional meditation.There was a strong current of the mysticism of love orbhakti, standardized by the greater Puranas, theBhagavad-Gltd, the Agamas, and the experience of high-ranking andGod-intoxicated saints. Sri Yamunacaryaseems to haveyearned for a competent and adequate commentary on theSutras integrating allthesedoctrinal and spiritual points ofview. He was convinced that the truth promulgated byBadarayanalay in this direction but could not himselfproduce the much needed work of interpretation.

3. SrT-BhdsyaTheprayers of the saintlyYamunawereto be fulfilled

by his grand-disciple, Sri Ramanuja. Providence destuiedSri Ramanuja to accomplish the great task of elucidatingthe Sutras in a theistic style, asserting the metaphysicaleminence ofBrahman, without the supplementary thesisofworld-denialand the denial of the individuality of the finiteselves,and promulgating knowledge of Brahman as arisingfrom Karma-yoga and maturing inbhakti. Sri Ramanujahas bequeathed three works on the Brahma-Sutra: theVeddnta-Sdra, Vedanta-Dlpa,and the Sri-Bhdsya. The firstwork merely enunciates the meaning of the Sutras. Thesecondgoesbeyond this summary of conclusions andindicatesthe dialectical framework. Thethirdis the fullest andall-sufficient commentary. Pious tradition records that the


16/597

xiv Sri-BhasyaGoddess Sarasvati was so charmed by it that sheblesseditwith the prefix'Sri'.SriRamanujalived a long andfulllife.Heseemsto havespentnearly half of it in equippmg him-seKfor the creation of this masterpiece. He did advance hisspecial philosophical point of view in his early work, theVedartha-samgraha in a brilliant and spkited manner. Bhe acquired devoutly all that Sri Yamuna's tradition couldgivehim on theSutras, studied ancient doctmients on theSutras such as the works of Bodhayana,Tanka, and Dra-mida,mastered the currentschoolsof philosophy to perfection,soaked himself in the Vedic literature, particularly theUpanisads,acquned an authentic understanding of the commentaries of SriSarikara,Bhaskara, and Yadava-prakasa,got the core of theAdvaiticclassics, of the masters such asMandana,Padmapada, Suresvara, Vacaspati-misra,Vimuk-tatman,Prakasatmanand shaped his own vision of Vedantaandan appropriatestylebefore he addressed himself to theliterarymission of his life. No wonder theSri-Bhasya is astupendous and masterly work, its stylematching its substance.SriRamanujachoosesthehardway on everyissue,that of thoroughness, and he is massive in thestatementofprima facie viewsandalso in his vindication of his ownfindings.Thelanguage of exposition islucidas well as grand,Vedanta-desika,himseKa great master of style, acknowledgesthat his ownstyleacquked grace through a devout application to the writings of Sri Ramanuja. In the compass ofvision,fullness of execution, and splendour ofstyletheSrl-Bhdsya reachesheightsofexcellence.

4. TheSequelThegreat commentary evoked a great many sub-com

mentaries in its turn. It is a pity that Vedanta-desika's


17/597

Foreword XVTattva-tlkdis available only in its introductoryportion.Hisverse condensation of the Sri-Bkasya, the Adhikarana-sdrdvali, is happily available completely. But Vedanta-desika's greatestservice to theSrl-Bhdsya is his preservation, under hard circmnstances, of the Srutaprakdsika ofSudarsana-svxri,and elder contemporary of his, and hispropagation of it. This work is a momunent of devotion,thoroughelucidation andbrilliant amplification. As a sub-commentary it set standards xmsurpassed in Vedantic literature.

The Ramanuja tradition of Vedanta thus consolidatedhas influenced all subsequent writmgs on theBrahma-Sutra,not excluding the commentaries adverse to Sri Ramanuja'sschool of Vedanta. TheVaisnava schools of Vedanta ingeneral have utilizedkindredelementsprofusely. It is in thefitnessofthings thatJivaGosvamin,the celebratedVedantinof the Caitanya school says of Sri Ramanuja, 'Pramita-mahimndm', 'as onewhoseglory is established'. The greatAppayya-diksita used the Srl-Bhdsya considerably in hisSivdrka-Mani-dipikd and also wrote a condensation of itcalled Naya-mayukha-mdlikd.2. See Candrikd which is a commentary of Vydsa-tirthaon Tattvaprakdsikd of Jayatirtha on Sri Madhva'sSutra-Bhdsya wherein the Srl-Bhdsyais criticised.Andalso seeSiddhdntasiddhanjanaofKrsnananda-yationSri Sankara'sSutra-bhdsyawherein theSrl-Bhdsyais criticised. In the sameSivdrka-manidipikdalso contains considerable criticism of theSrl-Bhdsya.3. Tativa-sandarhha: Sffqaqf g-f ssftsigfcRT:

(3T 3aq?si*iT5rr- T?rfejT:,Page74-75)'


18/597

xvi Srl-BhdsyaThustheSrl-Bhdsya is a major work in the history of

Vedanta,propounding a powerful theistic version of it, andisalsogreat in its subsequent influence.

5. Architectonicsoj the WorkTheSrl-Bhdsya expounds the philosophy of SriRama

nujainaUitsessentials.The structure of tiie work followmgthe structure of theSutras islaiddown weU. ThefirstfourSutras concernthemselveswith four considerations of anintroductorycharacter.Therest of thefirstchapter elucidatesthe crucialpassagesof the Upanisads that appear to beambiguous, and the result is a formulation of the philosophyof the Upanisads in a coherent and decisive manner. Thesecond chapterdealswith the possibleexegeticaland philosophicalobjections to the standpoint. It incidentally examines rival philosophical systems. These two chapterspresent the metaphysics of Vedanta. Thethirdchapterpropounds thesddhandor the pathway to the attainment of thesupremeGoalof life.Thefourth chapterdehneatesthat goalwith all its implications. Thelasttwo chapters, thus relateto the ideals to be achieved. In traditional language the firsttwo chapters formulate theTattva or the nature of Reahtyandthethirddealswith theHitaorsddhand,and the fourthbrings out thePurusditha or the supreme ideal of life.

6. Introductory MatterThefirstaphorismof theBrahma-Sutrais very importantas it initiates the inquiry intoBrahman. It lays down the

preconditioninto theinquiryandalsothe reason for it. Thepreconditionis theinquiryinto the nature, limitations, andvalue of karma as elucidated in the Karma-Mimamsa.of


19/597

Foreword xviijaimini. Inquiry into karma and Bralunan constitutes oneorganic unity of Vedic philosophy. In the earlier inquuintokarma,the purport of the earlier portion of the Vedascentred in rehgious activity is discussed. Being dissatisfiedwith the objectives of karma, the inquky into Brahman isundertaken as the knowledge of Brahman is said tobringabout the eternal and infinite good of man in the later portion of the Vedas, namely, the Upanisads. In thiscontextthe Srl-Bhdsya discusses elaborately the role of karma, asit leads to minor objectives when performed in anegocentric way andalsoas it conduces to the understanding ofBrahmanwhen performed in a disinterested spkit of worshipand dedication. Such a discrimination is the antecedenttothe inquiry intoBrahman.

Thereason for the inquiry is the unsatisfactory characterof theendsprocured by religious life devoid of knowledge.The inquiry is for piurposes of gaining knowledge ofBrahman;which knowledge is said tobringabout the summumhonum.Theknowledge that could accomplish such a supremeconsummation is no mere intellectual and mediate understanding, but a devout andintensemeditation onBrahman.It is, in short,bhakti. In thiscontexttheSrl-Bhdsyaundertakes a complete examination of Advaita in its longestdiscussion, opposing the concept of nirguna Brahman andthe supplementary postulate of Avidya orMaya.Brahmanis significantly described : 'The term"Brahman"signifies thesupreme Person (Purusottama) who transcends all imperfectionsand abounds m infiniteclassesof auspicious qualitiesof unsurpassed excellence.'* The Purva-Mimairisa writers

ii-l


20/597

xviii Sn-Bhdsyaattempted to interpret the whole of the Vedas as just inculcating imperatives and denounced the metaphysicalpurportofBrahman. Thatposition is rejected after considerable-discussion.

Thesecond aphorism offers a definition ofBrahmantofocus further elucidation and Sri Ramanuja defends thedefinition as perfectly legitimate. The definition accordingto him means :'Thatsupreme Person who is the ruler of all;whosenature is antagonistic toaUevil;whosepurposes cometrue;whopossessesinfinite auspicious quaUties such:as knowledge, bhss and so on; who is omniscient,omnipotent, supremelymerciful;from whom the creation, subsistence, and re-absorption of this worldswith its manifold wonderful arrangements, not to becomprehended by thought, and comprismg within itselftheaggregateofsoulsfromBrahmadown to blades ofgrass, all of which experience the fruits (of theu: previous deeds) m definite pomts of spaceand timeproceed is Brahman: Such is the meaning of theSutra:^

Thethkd aphorism concerns itself with the somrce ofourknowledge ofBrahman.It declares the 'Sastra' is ouronly source of knowledge. This involves the entireepiste-mology of Visistadvaita. The school recognizes the vaUdityofperception and inference in then: respective spheres. It


21/597

Foreword xixdoesnot subscribe to thethesisthat they are infected withanerrorornescienceat their very root. In the matter ofproving the existence of the supreme Being, it does notaccept the efficacy of mference, as was done in theNyaya-Vaisesikasystem. It discoversflawsm that theistic argumentsomewhat on the lines of Purva-Mimariisa writers. But itdoes not agree with the latter in interpreting the Vedicscriptures as bereft of metaphysical import. Nor does itquestion the veridical character of the Sastra which is ouronlysource of knowledge concerning the transcendentultimate, Brahman. The supreme Sastra in the context is theconcludingportion of the Vedas, the Upanisads. riRamanujadescribesBrahmanas'Sruti-sirasividipte\meaning that,that supreme Reality is specifically and pre-eminently revealed in the Upanisads.Inthe interpretation ofthesetextsand in the defence oftheirphilosophy, reason is to be fullyutilized.HenceVedantais no mere cult based on mere faith, but a philosophicalinquiryemploying methods of logical investigation. Reasonis also of value in the examination of schools of thoughtopposed to the philosophy of the Upanisads. Theprimaryscriptureof Vedanta is to be supplemented and augmentedbythe secondary scriptures such as theRdmayana and theMahdhhdrata, the Puranas such as the Visnupurdna, theAgamassuch as thePanca-rdtra,andSmrtitextssuch as thatofManu.The principle of this supplementation is stated bySriRamanujaclearly :

'Bythis "supplementation" we have to understand theelucidation of the sense of the Vedic texts studiedby.us through the words of men who had mastered theentke Veda and its contents, and by the strength ofthen: devotion had gained full realization of Vedic


22/597

XX Sn-Bhdsyatruth.Thisneedsto be done,smcethe import of theentireVedawith all itssdkhdscannot be fathomed byone who has studied a smallpartonly, andsmcewithoutknowingthatpurportwecannotarriveat certitude.'

It is to be understood thatSriRamanujaincludedin thecategory of secondary scriptures, the body ofinspiredmystical poetry, collectively named'Divya-prabandha\ composedand sung by theAlvars,but hedoesnot use this soiurce intheSn-Bhdsya by directstatementfor the understandablereason that it was not acknowledged as authoritative by theotherschoolsof Vedanta.Thiswas acaseof personal inspirationand not probative evidence.

The fomthaphorismattemptsto demonstrate the supremevalue of the knowledge of Brahman. The ignorance ofBrahmanis theveryessenceofhumanbondageand to knowBrahmaneven mediately is a source of joy. Impelled by thisjoy, theseekerpursues further knowledge by way of directapprehensionthroughthe comprehensive discipline ofbhakti.In the end his effort is crowned through the grace of Godwiththe joyoustriumphof thefullattamment.

Thusthe fourSutras establish thenecessityand possibilityof theinquiryintoBrahman,the definition of It, thesources of knowledge concerning It, and the supreme valueof the pursuit of the knowledge in question. An old versesums up the work of the fourSutras:

'The fourSutras eliminate any objection to the commencement of theinquiryintoBrahmanon fourprima

6. gqi^' ] fr 5s% ?i #rt 5^1-iq1i:igT8sncii?i-

^ JTrat ragq#Tft5i4^r ll (IAdhikarana)


23/597

Foreword xxijaciesuppositions : (a) theVedicwords cannot signifyBrahman (an accomplished reality),{b) theBrahmancannot be defined, (c) It is revealed by other meansofknowledge, and (d) theinqukyis of no value.'''

7. TattvaBrahmanis the supremeTattvaor Reality. The function

of Vedanta is the discernment of its nature. Itdoesit inhundredsofwaysbut there is a fundamental concordrunningthrough aU of them. TheSutras review almost all thecentral Upanisads and discuss thek import. The one persistentmisunderstanding they succeed in removing is, thatthe Upanisads, in thek major metaphysical dialogues, raiseto ultimacy either the category of Prakrti (nature) or theindividualself. They allaffirm the transcendentBrahman,of the nature ofabsolutenessofBeing, Consciousness, andBliss, and that nature and the finite self come in as itsvehicles of seK-manifestation. TheSrl-Bhdsya regards theSutras as a single dociunent with no internal stratfficationinterms of authenticity.Thereis no lower and higherBrahman,and there is no lower and higher knowledge. It is thesamelogic of indivisibletruththat is discerned in theUpanisads.When Brahmanis spoken of as attributeless, the motiveis to deny of It imperfections characteristic of the finiteexistents. When attributes like omniscience are ascribed,they are to be taken in metaphysical seriousness. WhenBrahmanis exhibited as other than matter andfinitespkits,7. sgc ^msr:sffeqfe ^w 3T? jrf f sraiTtB^q. i

(Tattva-tlkd,KaiichiEdition,p. 9)


24/597

xxii Sri-Bhdsyathetruthof transcendence is bemgproclauned.WhenBrahman is spoken of as one without a second, the significanceis thatBrahmanis the central substantive reality to whichthefiniterealities belong in the relation of predicates orsubsidiaryassociates. The fuUtruthis conveyed without anychance of misconception whenBrahmanis described as theAtman, and theworldof matter andmdividualselvesaresaidto constitute its'Body'.Thisis a monism thatdoesnotinvolveany ifiusionism. SriRamanujaopposes illusionisticmonism,the grosser forms ofBhedabhedaand alsodualism.He says:

'Apartfromthe consideration ofBrahmanas theSoulof all, the meditation ofBrahmanas theJivaor theJiva asBrahmancannot be true. On the theory ofdifference-cum-identity, as the limiting adjuncts condition Brahman itself, all the consequent flawswillcontaminate It itself. Onthe theory of absolute differencebetweenBrahmanand theJiva, the teaching ofBrahman as the Atman of all would be impossibleand thus the entire Vedantagets rejected.'

The externalworld of msentient existence and the finiteselvesisreal,however much they may be subject to mutation.Theyhaveexistencein all then:statesas permeated

(Sri-BhdsyaIII. iii. 37)

^^V-mft Wl: (Sn-Bhdsya : Maha-Siddhdn


25/597

Foreword xxiiiandsustained by the supremeSpirit.In this concept of thelotaHty of existences as constituted of Bralunan and therealmoffinites,we have the justification of the designationof Visistadvaita that has come to be applied to SriRamanuja's school of Vedanta. He himselfdoesnot use the terml)ut his authoritative commentators, Sudarsana-suri andVedanta-desika employ it. (VideTdtparya-dipikd, p. 48,Tirupati edition ; and Pancardtra-raksd, p. 121, Kaiichiedition). It signifies that Reality is one, in so far as therethe one central substantive principle. Brahman, and thetotality offinitescharacterizes It as inseparable qualifications.

8. Hita or MeansThequestion ofsddhana naturally pertains to the indi

vidualsoul orJiva.TheSrl-Bhdsyaexpounds the nature oftheJivain the course of the second chapter. It is uncreated,is of the nature of a conscious principle, and enjoys powersof free volition conferred by God. The plurality of theindividuals is real and eternal. Uniqueness and self-consciousnessare fundamental in its nature. TheJivais neitherseparate from God nor wholly identical with Him. It is an'Arnsa' or part in thesenseof forming an adjectival mode.The thirdchapter reviews the life of theJivaandcomestothe conclusion that in all its mundanestates it is infectedwith evU of the nature of suffering brought about by ignorance and evil-doing. Hence a spirit of renunciation is calledfor. When it looks to its inward Soul, the Paramatman, itseesin Him infinite perfections inspiteof His unmanence.SeekingHunis the road to its own perfection. He is its finalgoal andalsothe power that couldeffectuateitsfinalblessedness.Thethurdquarter of the thurdchapter determmes the


26/597

xxiv Sn-Bhdsyaexactnature of tlie varioustypesof 'Vidyd' or meditationto be practised in order to win the grace of the supremeBeing.The fourthquarterelucidates the supremacy of knowledgeand the pathway to perfection and determmes theaccessories of this knowledge. This knowledge is of thenatureofbhakti or loving meditation, cultivated in ever-increasingintensity.

9. PurusdrthaThe fourth chapter is devoted to workmg out the notion,

of Moksa.TheSn-Bhdsya statesthe nature of Moksa inthefirstchapter itself andthefinalchapter is an elaborationthereof :'But thosewho are established in theVedanta holding (as they do) that the supremeBrahmanis thesolecauseof the entke universe, and of the nature of infinite bliss antagonistic to all evU, an ocean of countless auspicious qualities of natmal and unsurpassedexcellence, transcending allelseand constituting theSelf of all; and also that the Jiva, of the nature ofboundless knowledge, is of the nature of a mode ofBrahman,bemg It's body, and of such a nature thatitcanget joyinthe experience ofBrahman,this natiure,.however, being concealed by beginningless ignoranceof the nature of karma,affirm that Moksa is thedkect experience ofBrahman,in accordance with its.fundamentalnature after the destruction of its ignorance.'

9. ^?:jr;cjftDirai55 f5i%^5riiS[ oi5if aRt rlJisfcq^^raJct-


27/597

Foreword XXVThethree implications ofMoksaare that it is areleasefrom*allthe bindingkarmaof the past, it is areleaseof the soulinto the abundance of its iimate nature, and the fulfilmentofthis natiu-e in the blissfid experience ofBrahman,its owninmost soul.Thisunimpeded joy ofexistenceis the eternal,destiny of theJiva.

10. ConclusionThesubstance of theSrl-Bhdsyamay bestatedin foursynoptic propositions.(1) It is a reasoned andcritical reconstruction of the

philosophyof the Upanisads with dueappropriationof othersources of knowledge such as perception and inference andthe supplementary scriptures.(2) The reconstructionpresentsultimate Reality,Brahman, the supremeSpurit,as the transcendent repository ofallperfections and as holding as it's own embodiment thetotality of finiteexistence, sentientand insentient.

(3) The pathway to thefinalgood of life is the blissfulcommunion with Brahman by way of devout and lovingcontemplation namedbhakti, facilitated by a life of virtueand founded on assured philosophical understandmg.

(4) The end attained through that means is the eternalexperience ofBrahman,with all the plenitude and eternitywhichonly that experience canbringto theindividualpersonality. It is the supremeecstasyoflife in God.

irre nSfl qt r- ^ l (Sn-Bhusya, I. ii. 12)


28/597

xxvi Sri-BhasyaThe importance of theSri-Bhdsyaliesin the amplitude

of its substantiation ofthesefundamentals.The workexecutedwith meticulous and reverential careconstitutesa landmark in the presentation to the modern

worldof thegreatestwork in Visistadvaita. I am glad tohave read thewholeof it and derived pleasure and instruction from it.

Mysore14 July 1977 S. S. RAGHAVACHAR


29/597

INTRODUCTIONA ComparativeStudyof theCommentaries on the

Brahma-SutrasA ll philosophicalideas in India 'can be traced to their

source in the Vedas. These ideaswere there even in theSamhitas, andwere later on developed in the Aranyakasand the Upanisads. Yet the Upanisadic thought did notconstitute anyconsistentsystembut was merely a record ofthe spiritual experiences of theAryanrace, which developedlater on into varioussystemsof philosophy. These differentsystemsgrewsidebysidein the variouscentresof learninginthe country,tillthey became very unwieldy and requiredregularsystematization. Thus systematictreatiseswerewrittenwhichwerein the form of short aphorisms calledSutras orcluesto long discussions onparticulartopics. The maxunumof thought was compressed into as few words as possible,andthis desire for brevity was carried to suchextremesthattheSutra literature now is unintelligible, and the Veddnta-Sutras, too, are no exception to this.

Badarayana, to whom the authorship of the Brahma-Sutras is ascribed, was not the oidy one who had tried tosystematizethe philosophy of the Upanisads. In theBrahma-Sutras itself wefindthe names of Audulomi, Kasakrsna,Badari,and others,whose viewshave been either acceptedorrejected by the author.Thisshowsthat therewereotherschoolsof VedantabesidesBadarayana's, though probablyhis was the latestandbest, and so has siurvived tune. Allthe Vedanticsectsin India today hold his work to be thegreat authority and the various Acaryas who have founded


30/597

xxviii Sri-Bhasyaasecthave commented ontheseSutras. The oldest extantcommentary on it is bySankara,the exponent ofMonism.Sankarawas followed by ahostof commentators, all ofwhom have raised thek voice against the monistic explanationofSarikaraand his doctrme ofMaya,and have givena theistic interpretation oftheseSutras,but there are variousshadesof difference amongst themselves. Madhvarefers totwenty-one commentaries ontheseSutrasextant in hisdayEachofthesecommentators tries tomamtainthat his systemis the one thatBadarayanapropoundedthrough theSutras.

It has akeady been stated that theSutraliterature, owmgto its extreme brevity of thought, is unmtelligible. This,difficulty becomesgreatly enhanced in the absence of anunbroken tradition.Whilethere is an accepted tradition asregards the division intoChapters(Adhyayas) and Sections(Padas), there is no such tradition as regards the divisioninto topics (Adhikaranas), nor as regards thetextsof theScriptures (Sruti) that are discussed therein. Agaui, thesameSutra sometimesyields just the opposite meanmg bya mere shifting of the stops, e.g., Sankara's and Ramanuja'scommentaries on III. ii. 11.ThetotalnumberofSutras,too,differs in the various commentaries, andsometimesa singleSutrais split kito two, or twoSutrasaxecombined into one,oraSutra isdropped,or a new one added. The readkigsol:theSutras also differ in the various commentaries andthe addition of a single letter like g (but), = iand), or3T (thenegative)makes the meaning completely different.Some of the words, too, used in theSutrasare very ambiguous, for m the Upanisadsthemselvesthey convey differentmeanings in different places. Allthisgivesthe commentatorsfreedomto interpret theSutras according to thek predilections.


31/597

Introduction xxixIt is not possible to do justice to a vast subject like this,

viz.a comparative study of the various Bhasyas m so shortanintroduction as this. So we shall consider only a few ofthe Bhasyas, viz. thoseof Sankara, Bhaskara, Ramanuja,Nimbarka, Madhva, andVallabha, and that too on a fewsalient topics, takingsomesignificantSutrasonly into consideration.'

Preliminaries to anInquiry into BrahmanSutra I. i. 1 says: 'Now, therefore, an inquiry into

Brahman'. The words 'now' and 'therefore' in this Sutraare mterpreted differently by different commentators, whichfromthe very beginning indicates to a greatextentthe lines


32/597

XXX Srl-BhdsyaUpasana.Hence a knowledge of the Purva-Mimamsa orthe performance ofworkisuselessto an aspkant afterBrahman,and therefore cannot be taken as antecedent to aainquirymtoBrahman(I. i. 1). Nevertheless allworksprescribedby the Scriptures{Br.IV. iv. 22) mayserveas anindirectmeans to knowledge by way of the purification ofthemind,but they have no part m producing the result ofknowledge, viz.release (III. iv. 26).

The word 'therefore', according to Sarikaraexpressesa reason and is interpreted by him to mean, 'As the resultsobtained by sacrifices etc. are ephemeral,whereasthe resultof the knowledge ofBrahmanis eternal,' the inquiry mtoBrahmanshould be taken up.

Bhaskara,Ramanuja,andNimbarkaalsotake the word,'now' in thesenseof 'immediatesequence',but the antecedentreferred to is the knowledge of thePurva-Mimaiiisa.Bhaskaraprescribes the combination of works with knowledge (Jnana-Karma Samuccaya). The works prescribedforalltheAsramasare to be performed throughout life forthe Scripture (Br. IV. iv. 22) enjoins them as auxiliary toknowledge for attaimngrelease (III. iv. 26). Mereknowledgecaimoteffectrelease.So works are not to be givenupevenby an aspkant after knowledge. Combmed withknowledge, they yieldeternalresults,viz.finalrelease.Therefore a knowledge of the Piirva-Mimaihsa is a necessarypre-requisite for an inquky into Brahman (I. i. 1 and IV.i. 16).

Rdmdnuja alsoprescribes a combination of works andknowledge, for Scriptures prescribe it (Isa. 11). Thoughheholds that the knowledge ofBrahmanaloneleadstoreleasehe understands by knowledge Upasana or devout meditation.Meditation,again, is constantremembranceof the object


33/597

Introduction xxxLofmeditation for which another name isBhaktior devotion.Scripturesintextslike, 'Whomsoever the Selfchooses,untoMmIt revealsItself'(Mu.III. ii. 3 ;Ka.II. 23) showthatmere hearmg etc. lead nowhere, but it is only devotion aloneto theLordthatleadstorelease,since he who is devoted tx>the Self is dear to the Self, and is therefore chosen. For thepractice of this devotion allworks as are prescribed byScriptures (Br. IV. iv. 22) are necessary, for the Lordpleased with the performance of such works vouchsafes suchdevout meditation to thedevoteeout of grace (III. iv. 26).Theyare thus helpful to the origination of knowledge andsince knowledge is to be practised all through life to attainrelease (IV. i. 12), works alsohave to be performed allthrough life. Worksperformed without desures, as worshipof the Lord, and combmed with knowledge yield eternalresult, viz. finalrelease.Hence a knowledge of thePiirva-Mimaiiisais necessary (I. i. 1 and IV. i. 16).

Nimbarka alsoholds that aU works prescribed by theScriptures (Br.IV. iv. 22) are not to be renounced by anaspuant after knowledge, but should beperformedallthroughlife, fortheseare not antagonistic to knowledge but helpfulinits origination (III. iv. 26 and IV. i. 16). Hence a knowledgeof thePurva-Mimariisa is essential.

Madhva coimects the word 'now' with the qualificationof the aspkant whom heclassifiesasordinary,middling, andthebest.One who is devoted to and has taken refuge in theLord,has studied the Vedas, is dispassionate, and has renouncedaUwork, is thebestaspirant and fit for the knowledgeof Brahman (I. i. 1). Knowledgedoesnot stand inneed of works for securingrelease,but prescribed works arehelpful in the origination of knowledge. After knowledge,,however, works are to be given up (III. iv. 26).


34/597

xxxii Sn-BhasyaVallabha takes the word 'now' as introducmg a newsubject, anddoes not think a knowledge of the Purva-

Mimariisaor thespiritualrequisites ofSankaraas necessarypre-requisites for aninquiryintoBrahman.Yet he also prescribes a combination of works and knowledge. Sutra III.iv.26 hedoesnot interpret as, 'Allworks are necessary', oras,'InallAsramasworks are necessary',butas 'All,viz.work,knowledge, and devotion, are necessary', for the originationofknowledge,andcitesBrhadaranyakaIV.iv.5asauthority.Thistextrefers to a person who performs work with deskeandsaysthat he transmigrates. But one who performs workwithout desire, and who thus bemg free from alldeskes,attains theLordandhasallhis desires fulfilled inHim,doesnot transmigrate (Br. IV. iv. 6). So works are necessary.This,however, appUes to one whowants releaseand not tothe extremely devoted viz. the followers of PustiMarga (thepathof divine grace), for whom there is no need of any-thing.

The word 'therefore', is interpreted by all the abovecommentators more orlesslikeSafikara, thoughsomeofthem, as Ramanuja andBhaskara, would add the word'mere' and say, 'As the result of mere works, i.e. works notcombinedwith knowledge, is transitory', etc. AccordkigtoMadhva, the word 'therefore' expresses a reason for theinqukymtoBrahman.Without the knowledge ofBrahmanthere is no grace of the Lord, and without it there is norelease. Therefore anmquirymtoBrahmanshould be madeforattaining this knowledge.

BrahmanItsNatureandCausalitySankaraholds thatBrahmanis the ultimate reality, and


35/597

Introduction xxxuias such It is not aneffectbut eternal, being birthless (Br.IV. iv. 25). It is mereexistence (Sat) without any distinction,existencein general, and as such It cannot be theeffectof any particular thing;for we see in the world that onlyparticularthings are produced from the general, as, for example, pots from clay, and never vice versa (II. iii. 9).This Brahman,which is the object of the inquuy (I. i. l)iis defined as the 'origin, etc. of the world' (I. i. 2). TheSrutitextreferred to isTaittiriya III. 1. Itseemsfrom thisdefinition that Brahman is differentiated and has attributes(Saguna). But Sankarasaysthat this definition aims at anon-differentiated, attributeless Brahman (Nirguna). itdefines Brahmanperaccidens, evenas, when we say thatwhichis the snake is the rope, the snake indicates the ropeowing to the illusory connectionbetweenthe two. Sankarasaysthat thesenseof thispassage,viz.Taittiriya III. 1, isto be determined fromTaittiriyaIII. 6, where Bliss is saidto be the origin, etc. of the world (I. i. 2). ThisBliss, whichadmits of no difference is the Infinite (CM. VII. xxiii. 1andVII. xxiv. 1), theBrahmandefined m Its pureessenceas 'Existence, Knowledge, Infinity isBrahman' (Tai.II. 1),andit is from thisBrahmanthat the world is produced, sounderstoodVaruni.These three words. Existence, etc. thoughthey have different meanings in ordinary parlance, yet referto one indivisibleBrahman,evenas the words, father, son,husband,etc. refer to one and thesameperson according tohis relationship with different individuals,r But the Scriptures describeBrahnianas being bothqualified and unqualified, differentiated and non-differentiated(Saguna and Nirguna). So both must be true accordingas It is or is not connected with Upadhis (adjuncts). Sankararefutes this andsaysthat such contradictory descrip-.

iii-1


36/597

xxxiv Srl-Bhdsyations of one and the same entity cannot be true, norcmIts nature be changed by connection with another;for suchachange would mean its destruction.Brahmanis withoutattributes, for theScripturesthroughout describe It as such,to the exclusion of Its otheraspects(III. ii. 11). Theydonot inculcate the connection ofBrahmanwith forms, forwherever they describe aformofBrahman, the Scripturesexplainat every instance that theformis not true and thatbehind the Upadhis there is one formless principle (Br.II. V .1) (12).ScripturescondemnthosewhoseeadifferenceinKathaII. iv. 11 (13). Brahmanis only formless ; formsaredue to Upadhis and are meant for Upasana (meditation), and are not intended to establish It (14-15).Brahmanis pure intelUgence, homogeneous, and formless ; thevariousforms are like reflections of the one sim in water,andas such are notreal(III. ii.11-18).In BrhadaranyakaII.iii. 6 the words 'Not this, not this' deny the two forms ofBrahmangiven inBr.II. iii. 1.Brahmancan be describedonlyas 'Not this, not this', i.e. It is something differentfromallthis manifestedworldthat we experience.. It is 'theTruthoftruth',the onlyrealitythatexistsbehmdthisworld,whicbis illusory. But this negationdoesnotlaunchus mto a nonentity (gunya), denying evenBrahmanItself, for withoutIt we could not comprehend even this nonentity.Thoughunmanifest. Itexists,for It is realized m perfect meditation(Samadhi)when the self attains identity with It, the Infinity(III. ii.22-24,26).

Brahmanis theoriginand also the place of dissolutiono[ theworld(I. i. 2), and so It is both the efacientandthematerialcauseof theworld.It is the eflicientcausebecausebesidesIt there was nothingelseat the beginning of thecreation{Chd. VI. ii. 1). It is also the material cause, for


37/597

Introduction XXXVinthatcaseonly can the enunciation that by the knowledgeofthe One (Brahman) ever5 hingelseis known hold true,evenas by the knowledge of one lump of clay all thingsmade of clay are known{ibid. VI. i. 3-4). Moreover, theScriptures, intextslikeTaittiriya II. 7, say that It createdItself by undergoing modifications (I. iv. 23, 26). ThoughBrahmanand the world are of different natures, yet theycanbe related as causeandeffect; for, to establish sucha relation, they need not be sunilar in all respects, in whichcasethey would be identical and not subjects of differentdesignations. What is necessary is thatsomeof the qualitiesofthecausemust be found in theeffectalso, and we dofindtwo qualities ofBrahman,viz.existenceand intelligence inthe world also, for everythingexistsand is lighted by mtel-ligence (II. i. 4-6). At the time of cosmic absorption ordissolution Brahman is not affected by the defects of theworld; for absorption means that all the qualities of theeffectdo not continue toexist,evenas whenapot is absorbedin its cause, the clay, its shape doesnot continue toexist.It is theeffectthat is of the nature of thecauseand notviceversa (II. i. 9). This non-difference of the cause and theeffect, of Brahman and the world,doesnot obliterate thedifference betweenthe experiencer and thmgs experienced ;forsuch difference in non-different things is possible owingto name andform. For example, thoughwavesand foamare non-different assea-water,yet, aswavesand foam theyare different from each other (13). Thus far Sankarathinks the author of theSutras acceptsthe Parinamavada(the doctrine of actual modification) of the Samkhyas as aworkable basis, but refutes their theory ofPradhana,an independent entity, as thecauseof the world, andestablishesBrahman as the First Cause. But in II. i. 14 the author


38/597

xxxvi Sri-Bhasyaestablishesthe true nature of this causahty according to hisown view.

The difference due to name and form referred to inSiltra 13 is not possible in a non-dualBrahman.Differenceandnon-difference, being contradictory, cannotexistin oneandthesamething. The ultimate reality is only non-duality,andSutras 14-20 declare the true significance of this non-difference ofcauseandeffect.Non-differencedoesnot meanidentity, for that is not possiblebetweenBrahmanand theworld. It only means that there is no essential differencebetweenthem, i.e. theeffect, the world, has noexistenceapartfromBrahman,the cause; in other words, it is notreal. The denial of identity does not establish differencebetweenthe two butestablishesthe apparent identity or theillusorynature of the world. The modification, pot, is onlya name arising out ofspeechbut the truth is : all is clay{Cha. VI. i. 4). The pot, etc. are not different from clay,but are mere modifications or different conditions of the clay(14). They are not experienced without clay and so areunreal(15). But clay is realizedevenapart from name andformand is therefore real. Hence Brahman is non-dual.BrahmantogetherwithMaya is thecauseof this world ;the former throughVivarta (apparent modification), thelatterthroughParinama(actual modification), and thequalitiesof both are found in theworld.There arefiveelementsinthe make-up of everything in this world, viz.asti (existence),bhdti (intelligence),priya (bliss),nama(name), andrupa (form): thefirstthree haveBrahmanfor then: materialcausecorresponding to Its three factors. Existence,Knowledge,and Bliss, and thelasttwo are due toMayaand areunreal.Theeffectexistsin thecauseas one with it and isonly manifested at creation. Otherwise everything could have


39/597

Introduction xxxviibeen produced from all things (18). It is like a piece ofcloth folded and spread out (19). The five Pranas (vitalforces) when controlled get merged in the chief vital forcein the mouth, and are manifested agam when the controlis released whichshowstheeffectis non-different from thecause. Hence the world is non-different from Brahman andthe above-mentioned enunciation holds good (20). Brahmanthough without extraneous aids yetcreatesthis world,evenasmilkturns into cind (24). ThroughIts infinite inherentpower It produces the worldevenas godscreate throughmere volition (25). ThusBrahman,though immutable, yetundergoes change and produces this diverse universe, forthe Scriptures say this and therefore it has to be accepted,since they are the only authority with respect to It. Nor isthis against reason, for ui the dreamstatewe dofindin thesoul diverse creation, whichexistswithoutmarringitsindivisibility. So also the world springs from Brahman whichyet remains unchanged, and therefore like the dream worldthis world isalsoumeal from the transcendental standpoint(26-28).

Bhaskara interpretsSutra II. iii. 9 differently from Sankara.Brahman is eternal and never created, for theScriptures declare it intextslikeSvetasvatara VI. 9. Thereforea doubt as to whether Brahman is created or not cannotarise. So hefindsa different topic in thisSutra,viz. whetherthe qualities of the elements which are created are alsocreated or not and concludes that when it is declared thattheelementsare created, it is taken for granted that theirqualities arealsocreated. InSutrasIII. ii. 11-21 Bhaskaradoesnot deal with the question whether Brahman is differentiated or non-differentiated ; for Brahman is both, as isknownfrom the Scriptures, though the latter aspect is Its


40/597

xxxviii Sn-Bhdsyatrue natureandtheformeris only a manifestation and therefore adventitiouswhichis again absorbed in Its trueessence.Thequestion therefore is whichaspectis to be meditateduponandhesaysthat it is only the non-differentiated,formlessBrahmanin the causalstatewhich is mere Existenceandpure Consciousness that is to be meditated upon.Thusthough he interpretstheseSutras like Sankara, it is withreference to the above topic and not toshowthatBrahmanis attributeless only, and that Its otheraspectis unreal orillusory(11-14).Brahmanis mere Existence and pureConsciousness. Even as a piece of salt is salty through andthrough,so isBrahmannothing butconsciousness(16). ThisBrahman,which is one, appears different in different bodiesowing toUpadhis,as the one stm reflected in differentsheetsofwater appears to be many (18).

Sutras22-30,accordmg to him, do not deny the worldofforms as unreal and establish thatBrahmanalone isreal.Accordingto him thefirst'Not this' ofBrhadaranyaka II.iii.6deniesthegrossand subtle forms ofBrahmandeclaredinII. iii. 1,andthe second 'Not this'deniesthe subtle bodyof the soul consistmg of the impressions (Vasanas) ofobjects. Thusby the double denial the self is cleansed ofaUmaterialform,the non-self, and its pure nature as identicalwithBrahman is taught by the Scriptures.Sutra 22,therefore, teachesthe pure nature of Brahman, which isExistence, Knowledge, and Infinity. These are qualities ofBrahmanand so do not refer to different entities, for athingdoesnot become different on account of its qualities.BeingquaUties they are non-different from Brahman,andneither canexistwithout the other (22). The rest of theSutrashe interprets likeSankara,but as connected with theabove topic.


41/597

Introduction xxxixBhaskaraagreeswithSankarain so far as hesaysthat

Brahmanis both the efiBcient and the material cause of theworld and the effect, the world, is non-different from itscause.Brahman;but he differsfromSankarawhen hesaystliat theworldfor that reason isunreal.He interpretsChandogya VI. i. 4 differently as follows : Speech is based ontwo things, the object (form) and name, which serve ourpracticalpurposes, as when we say'Bringwater in the pot'.Butif theeffectis meant to serve apracticalpurpose, thenthe cause and effect, the clay and the pot, would be different.That is why the Sruti says, 'The clay alone is real.'Thecause aloneexistsas the effect, the pot, which is alsoseento be made of clay. At all tunes theeffectis dependent onthe cause and is never experienced as differentfromit. It isonlyastateof the cause both different and non-differentfromit, and as it comes andgoes,it is said to be transientandnot true, while the cause is permanent and remains thesame, the basis of all modifications;therefore it is said, 'Theclayalone isreal.'Whentheeffect isseenfromthe standpointof the cause, it is not experienced as anything different,foritgetsmerged in it. Buteffects,for this reason, are notunreal (Mithya) or illusory, for the Sruti afiBrms theurreality inBr.II. iii. 6. 'Thereis no difference whatsoeverhere (m Brahman)' (Ka. II. iv. 11) denies differenceinthe cause, and not that theeffectsare umeal (Mithya).Theworldis astateor mode ofBrahmanand is alsoreal(II. i. 14). Brahman,which is omniscient and omnipotent,ofIts own wni transforms Itself into thisworldof diversitythrough Its powers (Sakti) which are nmnerous, just asmilk turns into curd. The fact of having parts is not anessential cause of the modifications ; for in thatcasewater,too, could be tiurned intocurd,but this is not possible. So


42/597

xl Sri-Bhdsyathe modificationofthemilkintocurddependsonits inherentpower and notonits having parts. SoalsoBrahman,whichis without parts, transforms Itself at will into the worldthroughItsvariousinherentpowers(Sve.VI.8), and at thesametimeremainsunchanged in Itsessence(II. i. 24 andI, iv .26J,Byoneofthesepowers Itbecomesthe world ofenjoyables andby another Itbecomesthe enjoyer. As thesunsendsout its rays and again withdraws them, soalsoBrahmanthroughItspowers manifests thisworldof diversityandagainabsorbs it (II. i .27). It is nothing to be wonderedat thata thing without parts should be modified uitoeffectswithout losing its essential nature:for in the dreamstatethereappearsdiversity in the indivisible soul (II. i. 28).

Ramanuja refutes Sankara's view of an attributeless,non-differentiated Brahman. Brahman, according to hkn,cannot be non-differentiated for want of proof, as all omrexperiences are only of qualified objects. It is the invariablecharacteristic found in an object but nowhereelsethat distinguishes it from others. So when Brahman is defined as'Existence, Knowledge, and Infinity'{Tai. II. 1), it means,thatthesethree are qualities ofBrahmanwhich distinguishIt from others. The words 'one only without a second' in.Chdndogya VI. ii. 1 do not mean that Brahman has nosecondevenby way of quality, butfromthecontextwefindthey mean thatbesidesBrahman there was nothingelsewhichcould be the efficient causeof the world.ThatBrahmanhasauspicious qualities isknownfromthetextslikeCha.VI.ii. 2-3. Texts dehneating the attributelessBrahmandenyonly evil qualities m It. Brahman has not only knowledgeas Its essential nature, but is a knoweralso:'Bywhat shouldthe knower be known?'(Br.II. iv. 14). Itpossessesotherauspicious qualities also. Texts likeBr.II. iv. 14 and IV.


43/597

Introduction xiiiv . 19donotnegatethediversity established by ChandogyaV I . i i .3 andother similartexts. They only deny pluralityinso far as itcontradicts theunityof theworldwhichis aneffect ofBrahmanand has It for itsself (I.i.1).

Brahman is eternal and souncreated. If it is also aaeffect, then theenunciation thatby theknowledgeofBrahman everythingisknown wouldnotholdtrue (II. i i i .9).

In Sutras III.i i .11-26, which according tohim formone topic, the question discussed is whether Brahman ispolluted by imperfections dueto Its having for Itsbodythe sentient and insentient world, evenas thesoulissubjecttotheunperfections statedinSutras 1-10, owingto itsbeing-embodied. Ramanuja saysthatBrahmanis notpolluted,noteven from places such as earth, by being inside them,forthe Scriptures everjT 'here describe It as being free fromimperfections andpossessing aU blessed qualities (11).Atevery steptheScripture denies imperfectionsin Itby saying:that It is immortal andtherefore free from imperfections(Br.III.vii.3 etseqq.). Theimperfections ofthesoul,,which alsohasthese tMo characteristics, are due nottoitshavingabody,buttoitsKarma(pastwork), andsoBrahman, which is not subject to Karma, is free from such-imperfections (12).Brahman, though connected with forms,is in Itstreenature formless, and assuchis notsubject toany Karma(14).The differentiated formofBrahman isnotumeal,fortextswhich describe It assuchare as authoritativeastexts like 'Existence, ICnowIedge, Infinitjr is Brahman'(15). This text only teaches that Brahman hasknowledgefor Its essential nature, butdoesnotdeny other attributeslike omnisciencein It (16). This twofold characteristic isever thereand Brahmanis notpollutedbybeing inside thisdiverse world, just as thesun reflected indifferent sheets of


44/597

xiii Sn-Bhdsyadirtywater is notpoUutedthereby (18). The 'Not this, notthis'inBrhadaranyakaII.iii.6doesnot deny the two formsmentioned in II. iii. 1, butdeniesthat Its nature is confinedonlytothesetwo forms.Theydo not exhaust Its qualities,forthetextmentionsfurtherquahties after that (22).ThoughBrahmanisunmanifest, yet this differentiatedformisreahzed,just as Its bemg of the nature of intelligence is reahzed inperfect meditation (Samadhi) (23-25).ForaUthesereasonsBrahmanis regarded as Infinite, i.e. aspossessinguifiniteattributes, for thus holds good the twofold characteristicreferredto inSutra22(III. ii. 26).

Brahman is not only the efiBcient causebut also thematerialcauseof theworld,for otherwise the enunciationthat by the knowledge of one thing the knowledge of everythingis gainedwillnot hold good. Thetext 'AUthis has itsseff inThat' (Cha. VI.viii. 7) showsthat Brahmanhasfor Its body this world of sentient and insentient beingsin all Its condition, i.e. both in the causal and effectedstates. When the souls and matter are in a subtle condition, and therefore designated as one with Brahman,then It is said to be in the causal state. Brahman inthis statedesires to be many and It evolves names andforms;so the worldthe effected statecomesintoexistence.When Brahmanundergoes this changefromthe causalto the effectedstate,imperfections and sufferings are limitedto the souls, andaUchange to matter, i.e. Its body undergoesa change, whileBrahmancontinues to be the Self andinnerRulerand as such is not affected by the imperfections,etc. even as childhood, youth, etc. do not affect a personbutare restricted to his body (I. iv.23-27).Brahmanandtheworld, though of different natures, can yet be relatedas thecauseandeffect,for it is not absolutely necessary that


45/597

Introduction xliiithe qualities of the causewhich distinguish it from othersshould be found in theeffect.Though we dofindit in suchcasesas the clay and its effect,the pot, etc. yet we do notfindit when worms are produced from honey. But then, theeffectis not altogether different from thecause; for thoughthere is difference in character, there isonenessof substance(II. i. 4, 6-7). Theeffect is non-different from thecause;for the cause is recognized in the effect also. ChdndogyaVI. i. 4 means that claytakesa new condition and a name,andthereby servesa practical purpose. The new mode ofthe substance claygivesrise to a new idea and name whileit remains clay. Similarly, when Brahman takesa new conditionas the world. It remains the samein substance andthere is only a difference of stateand therefore the worldandBrahmanare non-different (14-15).Threads,when theyare arranged in a new set-up, produce a cloth andserveapurpose. Thesamevital breath functionmg differentlygivesrise to different names. Thus theeffect is seento be non-different from thecause (19-20).Scriptrures say thatBrahmanis without parts and yetcreatesthis world of diversityandas Scriptures alone are authority with respect toBrahmanwe have to accept it. Ordinary experience isuselesshere (27). The difference in the essential nature of thingsgivesrise to different quahties, soBrahmanwhich is uniquecanhave quahties beyond our experience (28).

Nimbarka too holds that Brahman is not created; forsuch a view would contradict Scriptures which say that Itis eternalandbirthless.Moreover,itwouldlead to aregressusadinfinitum regarding the Fust Cause (II. iii. 9). It is theorigin,etc. of the world (I. i. 2). ThoughBrahmanresidesinthesamebody as the soul and rules it in all its conditions,viz. waking, dream, andsleep, yet It is not soiled by its


46/597

xliv Sri-Bhasyaimperfections;for the Scriptures declare that in all conditions It is freefromunperfections andpossessesauspiciousquahties(11-12).Moreover,textsdkectly say so,viz.the soulsuffers whileBrahmanis atpeaceas a merewitness,thoughboth reside in the same body M M . III. i.1) ( 1 3 ) .Brahmanis formless, for It is beyond name andform, being thekrevealer, and bemg formless It is freefromall unperfectionsdue to such lunitations ( 1 4 ) . It manifests the worldandyet is beyond darkness, i.e. is not affected by its knperfec-tions even as light reveals objects covered by darkness andyet is not affected by this darkness ( 1 5 ) . The Scripturesteach only that which is the subject-matter of anytextandnotliingmore, and so noSrutitextis purportless ( 1 6 ) .Andas theSrutiandSmrtisayasinChandogyaVIII.i.3and5, andGltd X V . 18respectivelythat Brahman has theabove twofold character, it must be accepted. Hence thecomparison(ofBrahmanand soul) to the sun and its reflection insheets of water is appropriate : Brahman is notpolluted by the imperfections of the world, though It isbiside it, even as the sun is not polluted by being reflectedinsheetsof dkty water (III. ii. 18).InSutras 22-24 NimbarkafoUowsRamanujaandsaysthatBrhadaranyaka H .iii. 6doesnot deny theworld;it onlystatesthat the twoformsdescribed inBrhadaranyakaII. iii.1are not the onlyattributes ofBrahman,for theSrutigivesmore of Itsattributeslater on.

Brahmanis both the efficient and the materialcauseoftheworld,as otherwise the enunciation about the knowledgeofaUfromthat of one thingwillnot hold true. TheScriptures directly declare It as such,andalso that It created Itselfbyundergoing modifications (I. iv. 23-26). Brahmanandthe world,though of different natures, can yet be related


47/597

Introduction xlvas cause and effect, for we do have such examples m theworld, as when scorpions are producedfrom cow-drmg, orhair and nails from a person. It is not necessary that thecause and the effect should besimilarin all respects (II. i.6-7). At cosmic absorption. Brahmanis notpoUutedby thequahties of the insentient world, for we see in theworldthat the cause in not affected by the qualities of the effectat absorption, e.g. when a pot is absorbed in clay, the claydoesnot become the pot, but it is in just the other way thatabsorptiontakes place (8-9). ThoughBrahman, being thecause,existsas the soul and is thus non-differentfromit, yetthe former is therulerand the other theruled,for they arealso different like the sea and its waves ; and so the relationoftherulerand theruledcan exist between them (13). Theeffect, theworld,is non-differentfromthe cause.Brahman,i.e. it is not absolutely different from Brahman. In Sutras4-7 it has been shown that theworldis of a different natinefrom Brahman, andSutra13 says that between the soulandBrahmanthere is difference;thisSutra alsosaysthatthe soulandtheworldare both non-differentfromBrahman,i.e. they cannot exist apartfrom Brahman. From this itfollows that the relation betweenBrahmanand the sentientandinsentientworldis one of difference and non-difference,andconsequently theworld is notunreal or illusory.Theeffect, theworld,existsinBrahman,the cause, even beforecreation and is manifested at creation like a cloth in afolded and unfolded condition, or as the various Pranas(vital forces) are absorbed in the chief Prana whenthey are controlled, and when the control is relaxed,the various Pranas agam manifest themselves ; so is theworld manifested from Brahman, in which it existsevenbefore creation. Thus the world is non-different from It


48/597

xlvi Sri-Bhasya(14-20).Brahmanmanifests Itself as this world by Its inherent powers, even asmilkturns intocurdwithout externalaids. Itcreatesfliis world by Its merewill, Uke thegodscreatingby their mere vohtion.ThoughBrahmanundergoes-modificationand produces thisworld,yet It remainsunmu-table, since Itpossessesextraordmarypowers. TheSrutisays-thus, and we have to accept it, for the Sruti is thesoleauthority with regard to Brahman. Smce even the soul,whether endowed withsupernaturalpowers or not, and thegodsowmg to their powers areseento create without anychange in themselves, where is the objection to Brahman'shavmgsuch extraordinary powers(24-28)?

Madhva also holds thatBrahman (i.e. Visnu) has noorigin,for It is eternallyexistent.It is omniscient, Its powersare mfinite, and they are not distmctfromIts being, thoughthey are spoken of as distmct for the sake of understanding(II. iii. 9). A llcontrary attributes like being neither big norsmall,having qualities and being attributeless, are possibleinBrahmanowmg to Its extraordinary powers (I. iii. 12).It is theorigm,etc. of this universe. It is the supporter ofmatter and soul, both of which depend on It. It is incomprehensible and therefore said to be indefinable (I. i. 5). Itis without an equal and superexcellent, and hence It is saidto be 'one without a second', i.e. there is no oneelseequaltoBrahman.Its various manifestations, ui spite of differenceof place and position, are not different asbetweenthemselves,orfromBrahman,for It is ofidenticalessenceinallofthem and theSrutiat eachstepdeclares the identity (III. ii.11-13). Brahman is formless, for It rules Prakrti and istherefore beyondPrakrti,whichevolvescolour andform.ThoughIt has no material colour andform,yet It has suchcolomr and form as consist of Its spiritualessence,viz;


49/597

Introduction xlviiKnowledgeand Bliss. TheSrutiandSmrtideclare it(14-17).Though souls are simUar to the Lord, yet they are notidenticalwithHim. Theyare mere reflections of the Lord,just as we have reflections of the one sun in differentsheetsof water.Theyare therefore separate fromHim, dependenton Himand of His likeness (18).

Brahmanis not merely the creator and destroyer of theuniverse but also its preserver, for theSrutideniesthelimitationof Its powers to creationanddestruction only{Rg-Veda,.X .xxxi. 8). It is unmanifest and is not made manifest evenbyintensedevotion, but direct vision resultsthroughIts graceand not from the soul's efforts (22-26). Brahman is notmerely bhss but also bhssful, for the Sruti declares It assuch,even as the serpent is coils and has coUs, or as thegem is lustre and lustrous. These attributes of bhss, etc. arenot of the samekindas wefindin this world, though thesame terms are used for them(27-28).

InI. iv.Madhvashowshow the various words referring,to the gods, ritualistic acts, etc. ultimately refer to theLord,thereby showing theexcellenceof theLord.In keeping withthis trend he interprets Sutras 23-27. Unlike other commentators hedoesnotfindthe topic of the material causahtyoftheLorddiscussed m them. Hedoesnot regard theLordas the materialcausealso of theworld;He is only its effircient cause.

In SutrasII. i. 4-6 Madhvadiscussesthe authoritative*nessof the Sruti,and of Smrtiwhich do not contradict it,as distmguished from Smrtis rejected inSutras 1-3. Thushe finds m them quite a different topic from what othersfind,viz. the possibihty of the relation ofcauseandeffectinspite of difference m characteristicsbetweenthe two; for


50/597

xlviii Sn-Bhdsya.sucha possibilitydoesnot concern him, inasmuch as hisBrahmanis not thematerialcause of theworld.

SometextslikeChdndogya VI. ii. 1 declare thatAsator non-existence alone was there at the beginning, whichshowsthat non-existenceandnotBrahmanis theFirstCause.Madhvasaysthat this view iswrong,for it is mere negation.Ifthat were the cause, then after cosmicabsorptionnothingwouldbe left, which, however, is not a fact, for there areinstances of thmgs existmg even then, and it is alsocorroboratedby our experience in thisworld,when wefindthata thing comes out of somethmg, and when it is destroyed,something is left behind(7-9). Thoughthetextssay thatonrealizationthe soul becomes one withBrahman,i.e. non-differentfromIt, it cannot mean absolute identity, for thereexistattributes inBrahmanlike independence and wisdomwhichdistinguish Itfromthe soul even in thatstate;thereforeBrahmanis the creator (13). The cause is noneelsebut Brahman, i.e. It doesnot stand in need of anythingindependent of It for Itpossessespowers to create mdepen-dently. It there were such means, the Vedas would havementionedthem.Nomeansindependent ofBrahmanexisted,but means dependent on and owing theirexistenceto Itexisted (14-16). Non-existence before creation doesnotmeanthat there was nothing whatsoever but that there washothmg that was manifest and independent (17). Theacceptance of dependent means adds to the glory of theLord.He creates with other things as means ofwhichHe isthe master. In theworldalso we see that an agent createssomething with means other than himself, e.g. a clothfromthreads.But they are not independent of the Lord.Thematerialwith which He creates isunbuedwith His presenceas theruler,even as the body,vitalforces, etc. are so im-


51/597

Introduction xlixbuedand guided byHim(18-20).InSutras21-26Madhvarefutes the view that the soul is the creator. He thus findsanaltogether different topic intheseSutrasfromother commentators. InSutras27-28hesaysthat the objections mentionedinSutra26against the view that the soul is the creatordo not apply in the caseof Brahman, for the Scripturesdeclarethat contradictions are possible in It because in Italoneexistsuch powers, as make things unpossible for thesoulpossible forHim.

Vallabha also holds thatBrahmanhas noorigin,for Itis eternal (II. iii. 9). It is theorigin,etc. of theworld(I. i.2), and the Scriptines are the only authority with respectto It. InSutra III. ii. 11-21 the topic discussed is whetherthe attributes of the soul and theworldthat aresometimesaffirmedofBrahman(Cha.III. xiv. 2) andsometimesdeniedofIt(Br.III.viii.8)reallybelong to It or not.Sutras16-18give aprimafacie view saying thatBrahmanis pure intelligence alone and nothing more, and that the attributes ofthe soul and theworldare metaphorically apphed to It andnot really found in It for theSrutideniessuch attributes inIt by saying 'Not this, not this'.Sutras19-21 refute this viewandsay that bothviewsare true, i.e. It has and has not theattributes of the soul and theworld, for all contradictionsareresolved in It. It is only thus that allscripturalstatements can have a meaning. The negation of attributes inBrahmanrefers only to the material attributes, and not tosupernaturalattributes.Chdndogya VIII.i. 5, whichdeniessuchattributes, later mentions attributes ofBrahman.Brahmanhas all auspicious qualities and is of a different categoryfromtheworld (22). ,

Brahman is essentially unmanifest but through worshipandservice it is possible to see It. TheSrutiandSmrtialso

iv-1


52/597

1 Srl-Bhdsyadeclare It as having a form andpossessmgall auspiciousquaUties. The&utialone is authority with respect toBrahman,and from it we learn that through Its extraordmarypowersBrahman,which is formless,alsotakesinfinite forms-at thedesheof Itsdevotees.Bothaspectsare true.Brahmanhasandhas not attributes, as a serpent has coils and iswithout them. The relationbetweenBrahmanand its attributesis like thatbetweenthe orb and its lustre, i.e. theyare both difierent and non-difierent (23, 24, 27, 28).

Brahmanis both the efQcient and the materialcauseofthe world (I. iv.23-27).Brahman and the world, thoughdifierent m natture, can be related ascauseandeffect,forwe see scorpions generated from cow-dung. The objectionto an insentientworldbemgproducedfromasentientBrahmanholds good only in respect of sentiency and not inrespect ofexistence,which is common to both. While Sankaraholds that Existence, Knowledge, and BUss are foundinthe world asAsti,Bhati,andPriya,Vallabhaholds thatonlyexistenceis found, for accordmg to him the other twoquaUties are not manifest or are withdrawn (II. i. 4-6). The-mention of Asat as thecauseis intended only to refute it,asChdndogyaVI. ii.1 declares (7).Brahmanis not pollutebythe imperfections of the world m Pralaya (dissolution)evenas the characteristics of a pot do not affect clay whenthe former is merged in the latter(8-9).Sutra 13 he mter-prets likeSankara,i.e.intheeffectsthere can be differenceasbetween enjoyers and enjoyables, though both are non-different from the causeBrahman (13). FromChandogyaVI. i. 4 it appears that the modification is due merely tospeechand not m reality. In thatcase,of what isBrahmanthe cause?Therefore, we have to understand this textasshowing only the non-difference of the effect,,the world',.


53/597

Introduction lifromthecause,Brahman,and not its unreality (Mithyatva),for such a conclusion would contradict the enunciation(regarding the knowledge of everythmg through that of onething) asalsothe subject-matter of the Scriptures (1). Theeffect,the pot etc. is experienced only if itexistsand is real,andnot otherwise. The worldexistsand at alltunes,andhence its Brahman-ness or Brahmatva(15-16). The nonexistenceof theeffectbefore creation refers only to its unmanifest condition, meaning that itexists in a subtle condition,and not that it did notexistat all. It is like a clothfolded and unfolded, or like the Pranas controlled and uncontrolled. In the former casethey exist absorbed in thechief Prana and in the lattercasethe different Pranas aremanifested and function differently (17, 19, 20). Brahmancf Itself becomesthisworld, just as milk turns intocurdwithout anyextraneousagency. Even asgodscreateby merevohtion, so does Brahmancreate this world (24-25). IfBrahmanwere its materialcause, then either It would getexhausted in creation or we have to accept parts in It,which would contradict the Scriptures. Vallabhasaysthatboth are truesincetheSrutisaysso, and it alone is authoritywithrespecttoBrahmanand Its causality. InBrahmanwhichhas extraordinary powers to accomplish everything, aU contradictions get resolved (26-28).

TheSoulItsNatureSankarasaysthat the individual soul is eternal and uncreated. It is the oneBrahmanwithout a second thatenters

the intellect and appears as the soul (Jiva) but in realitytheyare identical, and soAi.I. 1 is not contradicted. Thecreation ofsouls,spoken of intextslikeBrhadaranyakaII.


54/597

Iii Sn-Bhdsyai. 20, is only in a secondarysense, fortextslikeKathaI. ii. 18 andBrhaddranyaka IV. iv. 25 deny suchbirthtothe soul (11. iii. 17). Birth,death, etc. are spoken of thebodyand not of the soul (16). Whatorigmates is its connection with its adjuncts, gross and subtle which is umeal.Thesoul is pure intelUgence, which is neverlostunder anycondition(18). Sutras19-32 deal with thesizeof the soul.Sutras 19-28 give the primajadeview that the soul isatomic.Thisview is refuted hiSutras 29-32, where it isstated that this atomicity is due to its connection with theadjuncts (Upadhis) intellect, etc. and that this connectionlastsso long as the soulexistsin its relative aspect {sain-sdrin). Evenindeepsleep(susupti) this connectionexistina potentialformand it is manifested on awakerung, asvirility does in youth. It is an agent, for the Scripturesdeclare it; but this agencylastsso long as its connectionwith the Upadhis lasts. In itsrealnature it is active, evenas a carpenter is active with histoolsin hand and mactivewithout them(33-40).Thisagency is ultimately dependentontheLord,who makes the soul act according to its ownpast works(41-42).It is a part ofBrahmanandalso otherwise,i.e. identical with It. It is a part ofBrahman,for theScripturesdeclare a difference betweenthem mtextslikeBrhadaranyakaII. iv. 5 and IV. iv. 22. But this differenceis onlyfrom the emphical standpomt: from the absolutestandpoint they are identical (43). Thesoul is a mere reflectionof Brahmanm the Upadhi, the mner organ {antdh-karana), and Brahmanis not affected by the sufferings ofthe soul, just as the sun is not affected by the tremblings ofits imagesmruffledwater.Nordothe experiences of one soulaffect another even as thetremblmgof one unage of the sundoesnot affect other unagesm differentsheets of water


55/597

Introduction liii(50). The soul realizes its identity withBrahnianin perfectmeditation. So the relation is one of identity and not one ofdifference and non-difference, which is supported by thefact that the Srutidenieseverythingelsebesides Brahman(HI. ii.26-30).

Sutra2deffnesBrahmanas the origin, etc. of this worldofsentientand insentient bemgs, referring toTaittiriya III.1. From this we have apparently to understand thatsoulsare created, but in II. in. 17 the authordeniessuch originof souls. Thereby he contradicts his definition andalsotheenunciation that 'by the knowledge of one thing everythingelseis known'. So we have to reconcile this contradictionwhich drives us to the conclusion that the soul as such (i.e.assamsdrin), is aneffect, atomic, anagent,and a part ofBrahman,but in its real nature it is eternal and identical\vithBrahman.Sarikarahas taken this standpomt and mterpreted consistently aUtheSutrasfrom II. in. 16 to 50. Theenunciation also is not contradicted thereby.

Bhaskara,too, holds that the soul is eternal and birthlessandso is imcreated.Birth,death, etc. are spoken of the bodyandnot of the soul. SoBrhaddranyakaII. i. 20 (Madhyan-dina), which describes souls as springing from Brahmanlike sparks from fire, means only differentiation due toUpadhis.The soul is a knower,becauseit is so seenfromthe Scriptures, andalso becauseit is a part ofBrahman.Inits natural condition it is identical withBrahman,its otherl:ormis due to Upadhis (II. iu.16-18).It is atomic insize,Corthe Scriptmes declare it to be such (19, 22). It pervadesthe body byconsciousness(25). Thus in thestateof bondage it is atomic, but this is not its true nature; for it isdeclared as identical withBrahmanintextslike,'Thatthouart'.Its atomicity is due to its identification with Upadhis,
http://vith/http://vith/http://vith/


56/597

liv Sri-Bhdsyawliichare limited, and this connectionlastsso long as thesoulsees diversity and transmigrates. Even insusupti itexistsm a latent condition and is manifest on awakenmg,likevirility ui youth(29-31).The soul is anagent,thoughthis is due to its Upadhis, for if agencywereits real nature,then there would always be activity resulting in happinessandmisery, and there would be noreleasefor it. Moreover,hideepsleepthe soul is mactive, and such a change ofnature is not possible. Therefore, its agency is due toUpadhis but it is not for that reasontmreal.So long as the soulis connected with its Upadhis this agencyalsois real in allaspects,evenas a carpenter is anagentwhen busy with hisinstruments and not so without them (33, 40). Even thisagency ultunately is from theLord (41-42).The soul is apartofBrahman,not in the physicalsenseas threads areparts of the cloth, but as sparks are parts of fire, or theAkasa (space) m avessel is a part of the aU-pervadingAkasa,or the different Pranas are parts of the chiefPrana,orthe various mentalstatesare parts of themind.Thus itis non-different yet different from Brahman, the formerbemg its true nature and the latter dtie to Upadhis. Differenceis declaredbetweenthem by the Scriptures intextslikeBrhadaranyakaIV.iv. 22, andalsonon-difference is taughmtextslikeSvetdsvataraIV. 3, and mtextslike, 'Brahmisfishermen.Brahmanisslaves',etc. (43). The soul bemgatomic its activity is limited to its body, and so there is noconfusion of results.Thisholds true m itsstateof bondage ;andin thestateofrelease,when it is one withBrahman,thequestion of confusion of resultsdoesnot arise at aU (49).Theview that souls are many and aU-pervadmg is fallacious (50).

Ramanujaalsoholds thatsoulsare not created. They ar


57/597

Introduction Ivbirthless and eternal. But thiswillnot contradict the above-mentioned enunciation, forsoulsareeffectsofBrahman,andhaveexistedin Itfromah eternity as a mode (prakdra) ofBrahman.Soalsohave theelements.At the time of creationtheelementsimdergo a change in their essential nature, andtherefore they are said to be originated, but thesoulsundergono such change.Thereis only an expansion of theirinteUi-gence,making themfitto enjoy thefruitof thekKarma,andso they are said to be uncreated. Hencetextswhich speak ofthek creation mean only the expansion of thek intelUgence,Ukesparks emanatmgfroma fire (II. in. 17). The soul is aknower both in bondage andrelease,for it is so declared intextslike Chdndogya VIII. xii. 4-5 (18). It is atomicinsize. It pervades the body with its quahty, mteUigence. Itis not knowledge, but has this for its quality;for knowledgeis different from the knower, the soul, like earthfrom itsquahty, smeU. Texts likeBrhaddranyakaIV. in. 30 declarethe dijfferencebetweenthem. It is caUed knowledge,becauseit has that for its essential quahty, and as this quahty isalways present, the designation is not objectionable. Itexistsevenindeepsleepin a potential condition and is manifestedonawakening, likevirUityin youth. It has this qualityevenin the stateofrelease.Brhaddranyaka II. iv. 12doesnotdeny its presence but only means that it has no knowledgeofsuffering, etc. which it experiences in thestateof bondage(19-31). The soul is anagent as otherwise Scripturalm-junctions wUl be meaningless. Scripturesalsodeclare it intextslikeTaittiriyaII. 5. IfPrakrtiweretheagent,it bemgcommon to aU souls, there would be confusion of results,andSamadhi or realization of the kmd T am differentfromPrakrti'would be impossible. Therefore the soul is theagentanditactsatwiU,as a carpenterpossessinginstrumentsacts


58/597

Ivi Sri-Bhasyaoris inactive at his will (33-40).Thisagency alsoisultimatelyfromtheLordwho directs it according to its previousefforts (41-42).

Thesoul is a part ofBrahman,for the Scriptures declareboth difference and non-difference betweenthem. Thoughit is a part of Brahman, yet the latter is not of thesamenature as the soul, but is always free from imperfections andpossessedof auspicious qualities. The soul is a part in thesensethat hght is a part of the orb, or the body that of an:embodied bemg. Though an attribute is a part of the substanceand inheres in it, yet a difference in theh natures isnot impossible. Brahman is of a different nature from thesoul. Texts which declare non-difference are based on thefact that attributes are not experienced apart from the substanceand have no separateexistence.Thoughsoulsare ofa similar nature, being part ofBrahman,yet, being atomicandresiding in separate bodies they are different, andhenceinjunctions which imply a difference have a meaning. Forthis very reason there is no confusion of results.Thisexplanation would be impossible if the soulwereBrahmanunderignorance or limited by the Upadhis. The arguments putforwardby the Advaitins are fallacious (43-50).

Nimbarka accepts the view that the soul is eternal,atomic insizeand a knower, and interpretsSutras 18-28.likeRamanuja. ButSutras29-32he interprets differently..Thesoul, though atomic, is called all-pervadingbecauseofits all-pervading quality, knowledge, which is itsessence,,andthus quaUty is always present, thoughsometimeslatentandsometunesmanifest, as virility latent in childhood becomesmanifest in youth. If the soul itselfwereall-pervadingvits bondage andreleasewould be either unpossible or eternal(29-32).The soul is anagent,for thus only canScriptural


59/597

Introduction Iviiinjunctions liave meaning.Tliesubsequent Sutras up to 42he interprets more orlesslike Ramanuja.

Thesoul is a part ofBrahman,for the Scriptures declarediSerencebetweenthem intextslikeSvetdsvatara I. 9 andalsonon-diiference uitextslike, 'Thatthou art' ( C M .VI.viii.7), and'ThisSelf isBrahman'(Br. II. v. 19). But forthis reasonBrahmanis not affected by the imperfections ofsoulsevenas the sun is not affected by its parts, the rays,EaUingonfilthythings. On account of their connection withdifferent kinds of bodies,soulsare different and injunctionsregarding them have a meanuig. Souls being atomic andlimited to their respective bodies there is no confusion ofresuhs of thek works. The view that the soul is ah-pervadingis faUacious (43-50).

MadhvainterpretsSutrasII. in. 11-50 in a very differentway though in conclusion he too holds the view that the soulis atomic, anagent,etc.SutrasII. iii. 14-16 discuss the orderinwhich theelementsare withdrawn at absorption (Pralaya).Sutra 17 raises the question whetherBrahmanalsois withdrawn,and declares that It is not withdrawn for Scriptinesdeclare that It is eternal, etc (17). The soul is eternal andthetextswhich refer to itsbkth,etc. are with respect to itsUpadhis,the body, etc. (18-19).The soul is atomic and itpervades the body withitsquality, inteUigence (21-25).Itis different from Brahman (28) but on account of similarquahties like knowledge, bliss, etc. in the soul andBrahman,,the soul is said to be one wkhBrahmanintextslike,'Thatthou art' and 'I amBrahman',evenas the world is said tobe identical withBrahmanintextslike, 'AUthis isBrahman'{Chd. III. xiv. 1) inasmuch as Itpossessesthe quahties ofthe world (29). AU the quahties of the soul are latent init, and are manifested through theLord'sgrace on its attain-


60/597

Iviii Sri-Bhasyaingrelease, likevirilityin youth;otherwisesome(thegods)wouldexperience bliss eternally, others (theAsuras)misery,and still others (men) both(31-32).The soul is an agent.TheScriptures describe its attributes, and it is alsoseentoadopt means to attain its ends. The Scriptures prescribe forit meditation. But its activity is controlled by God, and soit is not a freeagentlikeGod,who is all-powerful. The soulalsofeelsit is not a free agent. As a carpenter is anagentbyhunself, but controlled by his master, even so is the soulanagentunder theLord'scontrol, who directs it in accordance with its past actions and efforts (33-42).The soul isapart of theLord,for the Scriptures declare it to bevariously related to theLord, as son, father,friend, etc. It isalso declared to be otherwise, i.e. umelated and quite differentfromtheLord.As it is thus declared to be different andnon-differentfromtheLord,it is said to be a part ofHim.Its being separate and non-separate fromthe Lordshouldbe taken in a secondarysenseandnotliterally(43).Thoughthesoulsand the manifestations (Incarnations) of theLordare both His parts, yet the latter are essential parts, whilethesoulsare distinct parts, and so the Incarnations are otthe same nature as the Lord and are all-powerful, whilethesoulsare limited in power, though they resemble theLordin an extremely smaU degree. Thesoul'sactivity andrelease, being connected with a body, depend on theLord,butthis is not thecasewith the manifestations of theLord,Betweenordinarysoulsand theLord'smanifestations thereis a distinction, forsoulsare limited in power, etc. whilethe latter are not so. Theordinarysouls(Jivas) are merelyreflections of theLord,while the others are manifestationsoftheLord, andas such resembleHim in ahaspects(46-50),Thoughsoulsare reflections of theLord,yet among them-


61/597

Introduction lixselvesthey are different, because of the difference in theiradrstaor the unseen result of their virtuous andsinfulconduct'(51).

Vallabhaalso holds that the soul is eternalandthatbhth,etc. refer to the body and not to the soul (II. in.16-17).Theview that the soul is merely inteUigence and thereforeBrahmanItself, VaUabhatakesas aprima facie view andrefutes it.Accordingto him also, thesoxd is a knower andhas knowledge for its essential attribute. The soul cannotchange its natur

brahmasutrabhasya of ramanuja

Documents