अणुभाष्य (महाप्रभु वल्लभाचार्य - शुद्धाद्वैत वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र महाभाष्य प्रकाश टीका सहित)

11. तृतीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः
    Coloured photograph of
    Srimad Goswami Purushottam Charan
    अधि. 1 सू. 1 – अधि. 25 सू. 66 ... 1729 - 1965
    परिशिष्टम ... 1969 - 1997
    Editor's Note ... 1998 - 2000
12. तृतीयाध्याये चतुर्थः पादः
    Shri Vitthaleshvara and Aṇu Bhāṣya ... 2001 - 2020
    The Late Editor Mr. Mulchandra Tulsidas
    Teliwala ... 2021 - 2032
    अधि. 1 सू. 1 – अधि. 9 सू. 51 ... 2033 - 2113
13. चतुर्थध्याये प्रथम-द्वितीयो पादोः
    प्रथमः पादः
    अधि. 1 सू. 1 – अधि. 7 सू. 19 ... 2119 - 2169
    द्वितीयः पादः
    अधि. 1 सू. 1 – अधि. 7 सू. 21 ... 2173 - 2210
    Editor's Note ... 2212 - 2214
14. चतुर्थध्याये तृतीय-चतुर्थ पादोः
    तृतीयः पादः
    अधि. 1 सू. 1 – अधि. 5 सू. 17 ... 2215 - 2266
    चतुर्थः पादः
    अधि. 1 सू. 1 – अधि. 5 सू. 22 ... 2273 - 2327
    Introduction ... 2346 - 2358
    परिशिष्टम ... 2359 - 2460
    परिशिष्टविषयानुक्रमः ... 2461 - 2462

The provided image is completely blank and does not contain any visible text to transcribe. Please upload a clear image of the page you would like transcribed.

Śrīman Mukundarāyo Jayati
Śrī Gopālalālo Jayati
O Śyāma illumine the heart of mine with thy grace always
INTRODUCTION
The Sixth Pīṭhādhiśwar Goswāmī Śrī Śyāma Manoharjī
Mahārāj (Kāśī), Vārāṇasī
Prākṛtadharmānāśrayamaprākṛta nikhila dharmarūpamiti ।
Nigamapratipādyam yattatcchuddham sākṛtistaumi ॥
(Sarvottamastotre)
In this śloka of Sarvottama-stotra, Śrīmad Viṭṭhalaeśa-
prabhucaraṇa, while hailing the transcendental personality
of Śrīmadāchārya, in the work written by him, Vallabhāṣṭaka,
after establishing the nature of his Āchāryasvarūpa, at the end
– establishing Śrīmad Vallabhāchārya's complete identity with
Puruṣottama, delineates his characteristic in the Saptaśloki. In
this, Śrīmad Prabhucaraṇa, who has occupied the throne of
the undivided empire of Suddhādvaita-brahmavāda-nirguṇa-
puṣṭi-bhakti-mārga, addressing the whole universe, narrates
as:
“kvacid pāṇḍityam cen-na nigamagatih sā'pi yadi
na kriyā sā sā'pi syād-yadi na hari-mārge paricayaḥ ।
yadi syāt so'pi śrī-vrajapatiratir-neti nikhilair-
guṇairanyaḥ ko vā vilasati vinā vallabhavaram ॥”
While describing the characteristics, it is told, above all, by
the word “kvacid” the divine nature, whereby all the other
characteristics depend themselves on this one special nature;
Paṇḍā means knowledge; the possessor of knowledge is Paṇḍita;
the state of being thus is pāṇḍityam; that is, one who is

knowledgeable of all that has happened and all that will
happen. This kind of pāṇḍitya, though perceivable among the
Bauddhas and Naiyāyikas, is devoid of the knowledge of the
Vedas; bacause they do not admit the validity of the Vedas.
Whereas the Naiyāyikas admit the validity of the Vedas, they
lack in the observance of the practices propounded in the
Vedas.
Knowledge and practices as ordained in the Vedas are to be
seen among the followers of Advaita propounded by Śrīmat
Śaṅkarāchārya, which, according to them, are valid only in
the day-to-day mundane activities; they do not get the
exposure to the path of Hari. Because they do not follow the
Bhagavat Śāstra (Pāñcarātra āgama practices). Even though
practised to perfection, if Dharma does not result in generating
pleasure in hearing the descriptions of Viṣvaksena (Lord Viṣṇu),
the efforts are in vain; desire-less action, without offering it to
Achyuta, does not make the knowledge shine. This kind of
knowledge is useless because they are not following the Hari
mārga i.e. bhakti mārga as propounded in the Bhagavat Śāstra.
One may say that there are people following the method of
worship as also practising the rituals ordained in the Vedas,
even there we find that they lack in taking pleasure in vrajapati;
they worship the form of his vibhūti, which is not his original
form but only a reflection of Brahman and thus, they do not
serve the Brahman with Bhakti. In fact, as per the Vedic sentence
– " tadeva Brahma tvam viddhi nedam yadidam upāsate" it is said
that what is being worshipped is not the real Brahman but
only a symbol; therefore, they do not realise that what is being
worshipped is the vibhūti – an emanation – and bhakti shown
there is not the sevā to Vrajapati; the real state of being Brahman
is only in vrajapati. Āchārya has said – "param Brahma tu kṛṣṇo
hi" –it is only KṚṢṆA THAT IS THE ULTIMATE BRAHMAN.
Thus, it is only in Āchārya Vallabha that all the above qualities
are seen and not in any one else.
There are many works of the above said Vallabhācārya;
ii

among them, the most venerable one is only the AṆU BHĀṢYA.
In this Bhāṣya, following the footsteps of Vyāsa, and in
agreement with him, the Āchārya established the
Śuddhādvaita-Brahma-vāda-darśana.
Two systems of Darśana i.e. āstika darśanam and nāstika
darśanam. Āstika darśanam again is mainly divided into six
varieties – Sānkhya, Pātañjala, Pūrva-mīmāmsā, Uttara-mīmāmsā,
Tarka and Nyāya. Here the Sānkhya is as told by Kapila in Śrī
Bhāgavata. Pātañjalam means the Yogaśāstra. Pūrva-mīmāmsā
is as composed by Jaimini; Uttara-mīmāmsā is as composed by
Kṛṣṇa-Dvaipāyana Vyāsa, consisting of four chapters, named
the Jñāna Kāṇḍa; Tarka means that composed by Kaṇāda, is
also called Vaiśeṣika; Nyāya is as composed by Gautama, the
Nyāya Śāstra.
Likewise, the Nāstika Darśana also is of six varieties – the
Cārvāka-Sautrāntika-Vaibhāṣika-Yogācāra-Mādhyamika – Ārhata.
Now we will deal with the topic of Uttara-mīmāmsā, one of those
included in the āstika darśanas. Uttara-mīmāmsā – Vedānta
darśanam. Among the several views on Vedānta, five systems
are predominent; they are – Kevala-advaita; Viśiṣṭādvaita; Dvaita;
Dvaitādvaita; Śuddhādvaita. Among these, the Kevalādvaita
darśana was propounded by Āchārya Śaṅkara, an incarnation
of Śaṅkara. Viśiṣṭādvaita was propounded by Āchārya
Rāmānuja, an incarnation of Śeṣa. Dvaita darśana was
propounded by Āchārya Madhva, an incarnation of Vāyu.
Dvaitādvaita darśana was propounded by Āchārya Nimbārka,
an incarnation of Hamsa. Śuddhādvaita darśana was revealed
by Bhagavān Śrī Vallabhāchārya, the follower of the system
of Vedavyāsa, incarnation of Śrī Bhagavān's visage and the
incarnation of Vaiśvānara.
Now, what is Śuddhādvaita ?
Śuddhādvaita jñeyaḥ samāsaḥ karmadhārayaḥ ।
Advaitam Suddhayoḥ prāhuḥ ṣaṣṭhī-tatpuruṣam budhāḥ ॥
iii

Māyāsambandha-rahitaṁ śuddhamityucyate budhaiḥ ।
Kāryakāraṇarūpaṁ hi śuddham brahma na māyikam ॥
(Su.Ma. śloka 27/28)
Śuddham ca tat advaitaṁ ca – karmadhāraya samāsa. Or,
Śuddhayoḥ advaitaṁ – Ṣaṣṭhi tatpuruṣa samāsa is to be
understood. In this system, the combination of Māyā with
Brahman is done away with; therefore, one should not take it
as Brahman covered with Māyā as the cause of this world; but,
only the pure Brahman as the cause of this world is to be
understood. It is told in the Siddhānta that Māyā also has been
described as a form of Bhagavat Śakti, viz. “mama Māyā
duratyayā” (Gītā 7-14); therefore, the relation of Māyā here is
not like the one in the other Siddhāntas. Here, while discussing
the Kārya-Kāraṇa – effect and cause – the Śānkaras take the
world as false and therefore, ephemeral. In their Siddhānta,
the world is the transformation of Māyā, and they say that its
cause also has to have similar nature, as cause and effect are
of similar nature. By saying that the world is unreal, they
establish that the jīva itself is Brahman; To refute this, Āchārya
has said in his Nibandha – “prapañca is the creation of
Bhagavān”; Prakāśa on this – “this world is not a transformation
of Prakṛti; not also born by the combination of atoms; nor is it
an appearance; neither born due to the unseen power; not a
reality born out of unreal; but it is the creation of Bhagavān.
Created by the efforts of an entity which is the highest one.
Therefore the conclusion is that the pure Brahman alone is the
cause of the world.
“Niṣkalam, niṣkriyam, Śāntam; Niravadyam,
nirañjanam”; “indro māyābhiḥ puru-rūpa īyate”; “vācārambhaṇam
vikāro nāmadheyam; mṛttiketyeva satyam”; “athāta ādeśo neti neti”
– these statements express that Śuddha Brahman is nirviśeṣa;
therefore the pure Brahman cannot be the cause of the world.
Moreover, if pure Brahman is accepted as the cause of the world,
then it becomes saguṇa, i.e. with qualities; in that case, such
Vedic sentences which describe the Brahman as possessing
iv

qualities have to be established as valid as in the system of
vivarta-vāda; because, Vedas are upajīvya, i.e. the Siddhānta
depends on the Vedas and the dependent cannot go against its
own supporter. Thus, there will be no real doership in the
Brahman and the Vedic sentences which attribute
characteristics to Brahman also stand vindicated. Similarly, in
the Upaniṣads, sentences describing Brahman as devoid of
characteristics become upajīvya and those sentences which
qualify Brahman with some attributes become upajīvaka. And
they cannot say something against their own nourishers.
Śruti means sounds and words; Brahman without attributes
cannot be described by such words; there being no trait in
Brahman, it is described in a negative fashion in the Śrutis. First
the Brahman is described with attributes; thereafter, by
sentences like "asthūlam" etc., the śruti denies those attributes;
because, the absence of something can be established only
after establishing what is being denied. In this manner, it is first
established as "dve vāva Brahmaṇo rūpe mūrttam chaivāmūrttam
cha"– Brahman has two forms – one with forms and the other,
without forms; in this manner qualified Brahman was explained,
and after that, it was denied as - "athāta ādeśo neti neti".
Here, the attributes imagined in Brahman by the Śruti were
actually imposed by the avidyā as in the case of silver in the
mother-of-pearl; thus, in this system of Māyāvāda, the sentences
describing Śṛṣṭi become incoherent.
On this objection, the māyāvādī says – "there is cogency and
it is called the adhyāropa-apavāda coherence. The pure Brahman
cannot be grasped; to make one understand that, the creation
of the world etc. are described, and through upāsanā, once the
qualified Brahman is grasped by the Buddhi, according to Śākā-
arundhati nyāya, the false experiences of earlier śruti sentences
get erased due to the nirviśeṣa-śruti-vākyas; after this erasure of
false understanding, the subtle, the most subtle and the fourth
state of caitanya are grasped. Thus the earlier understanding
of transformations of Māyā gets removed, and then the
v

unqualified Brahman is understood – that is the second-less
ātman; being one, bacause of the effect of upādhi, appears as
many; in this manner, Brahman with the qualifying agent
becomes the cause of the world, and none else. Jagat is the
effect of Māyā and it is pure void; the cause also should be of
similar nature; cause and effect are always seen to be of a
similar nature.” To this, it is replied as follows:
Abhedād-anupādhitvāt-jagadapratyayāptitaḥ |
Sarvādhāratvataḥ-tāvat-Śaktitvāt-nāsya bādhanam ||
Abhedād – saviśeṣa-nirviśeṣayoh bhedābhāvāditi; anupādhitvātiti
– there is no upādhi in Brahman; sarvādhāratvataḥ – sarva-
viruddha-dharmāśrayatvātiti; thus, saviśeṣa-nirviśeṣa śruti-vākyas,
being equally śruti, to nullify one set of sentences is not proper;
in that case, Veda becomes invalid. How? In this manner:
Brahman is to be known only through śruti, and not by any
other means of knowledge. Siddhānta accepts the entire śruti
as infallibly valid. Therefore, in which manner Brahman has
been understood from these śruti-vākyas, that has to be taken
as it is; not an iota of it is to be imagined differently, (causing a
defect in exegetical science) as explained by Āchārya. “Yo
anyathā santamātmānam anyathā pratipadyate kim tena na kṛtam
pāpam caureṇa-ātmāpahāriṇa”; “naiṣā tarkeṇa matirāpaneya”;
these Vedic injunctions say so. Therefore, “sa haitāvānāsa”;
“tadātmānam svayamakuruta”; “ātmaivedam sarvam”; “yato vā
imāni bhūtāni jāyante” – these Vedic statements; and,
“janmādyasya yataḥ; śāstra-yonitvāt; tattu samanvayāt” these
sūtras affirm the above principle of exegesis.
“Aham sarvasya jagataḥ prabhava pralayastathā”;
“janmādyasya yatonvayād-itarataḥ” – these smṛti vākyas confirm
that the pure Brahman alone is the creator and enjoyer of
everything; “attā carācara-grahaṇāt” – this doership is inborn
and not ephemeral as in the system of Śankara. “he, being
lonely, did not find happiness; he desired a second” śruti says.
“krīdārtham ātmanaḥ idam trijagat kṛtam te” – this smṛti vākya
vi

also says – Brahman itself, for its enjoyment, expanding itself in
the form of world, plays there; without undergoing any change
in itself, it takes these forms. We may see examples for this kind
of creation without undergoing change – kāmadhenu,
chintāmaṇi, kalpavṛkṣa, etc. “Prakṛtiśca pratijñā dṛṣṭānta-
anuparodhāt” (1-4-23) – this sūtra states that Brahman alone is
the material and efficient causes of this world. “yathā ekena
mṛtpiṇḍena sarvam mṛnmayam vijñātam bhavati” – by this
sentence, refuting the falsity of creation, it further says –
“mṛttiketyeva satyam”. Therefore, prapañca is the creation of
Bhagavān and not created by Māyā. But, in this matter, some
ignorant people, devoid of the knowledge of difference between
saṃsāra and prapañca; identifying saṃsāra and prapañca as one,
say that equally saṃsāra and Jagat-prapañca as the effect of
Māyā and consider them as false; that is not right.
“Prapañco bhagavat-kāryas-tadrūpo māyayā-abhavat ।
Tacchaktyā-avidyayā-tvasya jīva-saṃsāra ucyate ॥”
Here the Prakāśa – “Avidyayeti – avidyāpi tacchaktiḥ; having
been counted as one among the prominent twelve śaktis. “śriya-
puṣṭyā-gireti” vākyāt. Therefore, “sa vai naiva reme; tasmād-ekākī
na ramate; sa dvitīyamaicchat; sa haitāvānāsa” – in this śruti, it is
said that the transformation in the form of the world is for
enjoyment; because this is not possible without some wonderful
power, it is said that by the śakti of Bhagavān called avidyā, jīva
suffers saṃsāra, and it is not born. This is called abhimati. It is
also counted as non-existence. Ajñānam, Bhramaḥ, Asat – these
words are used in the saṃsāra, within the frame-work of Aham
and Mama, and not in prapañca. Because, that is the Brahman
itself. Therefore, in Siddhānta, by the rule of sūtra
“Tadananyatvam Ārambhaṇa-śabdādibhyaḥ” (Br.Su.2-1-14) – the
non-difference of Jagat and Brahman is accepted. Jagat that is of
prapañca is not of Māyā, but it is the nature of Ādhibhautika of
Brahman; the Ādhyātmika nature of Brahman is Akṣara-Brahman;
likewise, the Ādhi-daivika nature is Para-Brahman. In this
vii

manner, the non-difference of Brahman and Jagat is to be
understood; effect is non-different from the cause; it is not false.
Therefore, it is to be accepted that the pure Brahman alone is
the substratum, the cause; and the created beings, the effect.
According to Māyāvādi – Bhagavān Vyāsa has started the
enquiry of unqualified Brahman which is devoid of any quality
and without a form with the first aphorism “Athā’to brahma-
jijñāsā” and the following sūtras “janmādyasya” etc., explain
the Brahman with the quality of creating the world. Thus, after
making a statement of proving a quality-less Brahman, a
Brahman with quality was explained; this amounts to imputing
that Vyāsa has faultered in his statement. And the sūtras also,
(giving up the original position and accepting un-wanted
position) are to be interpreted. Therefore, if the intermediary
agent called avidyā is accepted, both these constructs, i.e.
Brahman and avidyā, being beginningless, the avidyā-covered
Brahman also becomes beginning-less; and that being the doer,
the creation will become eternal and there will be no occasion
for dissolution. Therefore, one would like to ask the Māyāvādi –
if this kind of kārya-kāraṇa with the help of Māyā is accepted as
having been stated in the śrutis and Smṛtis – “asya mahato
bhūtasya niḥśvasitametaddya-ṛgvedo Yajurvedaḥ”, “yo
brahmāṇaṁ vidadhāti pūrvam”; “yo vai vedāṁśca prahiṇoti tasmai”;
“vedo nārāyaṇaḥ sākṣāt svayambhūriti śuśruma”; “vedaiśca
sarvairahameva vedyaḥ” – by these statements, do Vedas intimate
that Brahman is ajñāna-kalpita? i.e. imaginary doer by the effect
of ajñāna?
According to your position, one understands first that the
Vedas are eternally valid; later on, by a correct interpretation of
the same Vedas, one has to understand that the Vedas are
imaginary due to the effect of avidyā; and then one understands
by the teachings of the guru – “na mātā pitā vā na devā na lokā na
Veda; na śāstā na śāstram na śiṣyo na śikṣā” by these un-real
means of knowledge, how the eternally true knowledge of
Brahman results? Knowing this, no one will enter upon the
viii

study of this śāstra. Due to the absence of a follower of the path
elucidated by the Vedas, they become invalid and the system
will die out. Therefore, the entire Vedic lore is to be accepted as
valid. The fact is – Brahman is not to be known by the worldly
means of knowledge; it is beyond our thinking and is endowed
with extra-ordinary powers; is to be known only through the
Vedas; and the statements of the world are not to be mingled
with them; that will be the right method. Thus, it would be
proper to accept that only the pure Brahman alone is the
material and efficient cause of the world.
Siddhānta:
“utpatti-sthiti-nāśānām jagataḥ kartṛ vai bṛhat ।
Vedena bodhitam tad hi nānyathā bhavitum kṣamam ॥”
(A.Bha. Ka. 1/1)
Jagat and samsāra are different in siddhānta: the jagat of
prapañca is different; the thought Aham and Mama belongs to
samsāra; there is a subtle difference here; no āchārya has stated
thus except Śrī Vallabhāchārya, by reconciling the various
statements of śruti, smṛti, sūtra, Bhāgavata etc., by reasonings
acceptable to śāstra – this truth has been elucidated. The
definitions of jagat and samsāra are different; It is told in the
śāstras that, by the desire of Bhagavān, the aspects of cit and
ānanda get covered, and the sad-aṁśa shines forth. And this is
called the Jagat; that which is imagined by the jīva due to avidyā
i.e. the thoughts “aham and mama” – this is samsāra. This avidyā
has five states –
svarūpajñānamekam hi parva dehendriyāsavaḥ ।
Antaḥ karaṇameṣām hi caturdhāndhyās a ucyate ।
Pañca-parva tvavidyeyam yad-baddho yāti samsṛtim ॥
(Śā.Pra.Kā. 36)
As per the words of Āchārya – Svarūpajñānam, dehādhyāsaḥ,
indriyādhyāsaḥ, prāṇādhyāsaḥ and antaḥ-karaṇādhyāsaḥ. Jīva,
bound by this avidyā, gets into samsāra called samṣṛti. Samṣṛti
ix

is the imagined state due to avidyā and is removable by jñāna.
Jagat, being of Brahman, is not destroyable. Avidyā’s
transformations are the multiplicities; being so, if argued that
they are false, the answer is no. Multiplicity is not due to avidyā,
but was created by Brahman’s desire, say the śrutis - “sa ekākī
na ramate; saḥ dvitīyamaicchat”; “tadātmānaṁ svayamakuruta”;
but, the knowledge pertaining to this i.e. dvaita-jñāna - is of
avidyā. By this knowledge of dvaita, only the jīva gets bound
and not the Brahman. Here, the avidyā does not inhere in
Brahman.
First of all, in Māyāvāda, we ask – upādhi and upādheya i.e.
the limiting factor and the limited, i.e. avidyā and Brahman,
both being eternal, what kind of relation between them is
accepted in your siddhānta? If it is saṁyoga etc., they also have
to be all-pervading, and thus eternal, there will be no chance
for mokṣa. Neither is it adhyāsa, there being no such imposition.
Moreover, in pure Brahman, it is impossible to posit a relation
with the upādhi avidyā; in that case, Brahman will become ajña;
therefore, avidyā has to inhere in jīva and not in Brahman.
Ekasyai va mamāṁśasya jīvasyaiva mahāmate |
Bandho’syā, avidyayā, anādir vidyayā ca tathetaraḥ ||
Therefore, in the statement “ajñānena-āvṛtam jñānam tena
muhyanti jantavaḥ” – jīvotpatti is not due to avidyā but, due to
the desire of Bhagavān, for his happiness, the part of ānanda
gets covered and he gets bound by the avidyā. Here too it is
only the desire of Bhagavān. In this state, he is called saṁsārī.
Thus, saṁsāra is of the nature of Aham and Mama, born out of
avidyā and is thus destroyable by jñāna. It is thus: The material
and efficient cause of the world is Brahman; saṁsāra is
imaginary; avidyā is its efficient cause. Saṁsāra is false and it
stands prior to the rise of jñāna. Therefore, it is destroyed in
mukti; but not the prapañca; that being the creation of
Bhagavān.
x

Samsārasya layo muktau na prapañcasya karhicit ।
(Śā.Pra.kā. 28)
Therefore, if samsāra recedes, it is jīvanmukti. In that state,
the imaginary knowledge of entities like the body and the
senses get removed, but not the body and senses, because
they are part of this jagat. The substratum for pleasures and
sufferings is samsāra, and not the world. Here, the example is
jīvanmuktas. This kind of several jīvanmuktas have taken birth
in this land of Bhārata, whose bodies and senses, though real,
do not experience pleasure and pain. Therefore, jagat is real
and samsāra is unreal; this is the difference between jagat and
samsāra as explained by Śrī Vallabhāchārya.
The nature of Jīva according to Siddhānta
“Jīvastvārāgramātro hi gandhavat vyatirekavān”
(Sā.Pra.Kā.57)
“sa īkṣāñ cakre”; “eko'ham bahusyām prajāyeya”: “sa ekākī na
ramate”; “sa dvitīyamaicchat”; “tadātmānam svayamakuruta” –
according to these statements, Brahman, by its own volition,
for its sport, covering its own blissful nature, takes the form of
jīva. In this manner of desiring to become many, from Brahman
– “yathā'gneḥ kṣudrāḥ viṣphuliṅgāḥ vyuccaranti” – subtle, limited
and of the form of knowledge, jīva – parts emanate. This jīva's
size is atomic – “ārāgramātraḥ” – “ārāgramātro hyavaropi dṛṣṭaḥ”
is the śruti. If the jīva is atomic in size, then how he spreads
himself in the entire body; to this question, the answer is –
“gandhavat vyatirekavān” –just like the smell of the flowers goes
beyond the periphery of the flower, likewise, though small in
size like atom, knowledge extends to all parts of the body.
Therefore, “mamaivāṁśo jīvaloke jīvabhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ”; “aṁśo
nānāvyapadesāt” – by these means of knowledge, one is to
understand that jīva is a part of Brahman itself. If jīva is accepted
as part of Brahman, then Brahman becomes composed of parts;
xi

therefore, according to the theory of reflection, the existence
of jīva is to be accepted.
The premise that Jīva is the reflection of Brahman is not at all
rational. If this pratibimbavāda is accepted, Brahman becomes
possessor of perceivable nature; and if jīva is the reflection,
bimba and prati-bimba do not appear at the same place; in that
case, the theory goes against the śruti “samānaṃ vṛkṣam
pariṣasvajāte”- here the existence of jīva and Brahman at one
place is stated. Therefore, jīva is to be accepted as an aṃśa –
part – of Brahman. For this, the validity is śruti itself and not
any other means of knowledge as in the world. Hence, it is said
by Āchārya –
“alaukiko hi vedārtho na yuktyā pratipadyate ।
Tapasā Veda-yuktyā tu prasādāt paramātmanaḥ ॥
(Aṇu.Bha.Ka.1/1)
Knowledge derived from the Vedas is not through sense-
perception; therefore it cannot be grasped by reasonings. Then,
how are we to grasp it? By the reasonings shown in the Veda
itself, as in Ch.Upa. “nyagrodha-phalamāhara” etc. Here the
Āchārya says – “by imagining the meanings of Veda by one's
own intelligence, one cannot discuss or analyse them; in what
manner Brahman has been explained in the Vedānta, has to
be accepted as it is. Changing even an iota of its purport will
incur fallibility.” Therefore, as per the logic of viṣphulinga, the
insentient and the souls come out of Brahman – just like the
sparks from the fire. When the insentient forms emanate, the
knowledge and blissful aspects of Brahman remain covered;
when the souls come out, the blissful nature of Brahman remains
covered.. In this manner, sat – reality; and cit – knowledge
aspects – both are non-different from Brahman and they are
the forms of Brahman. Because of this, the śruti states that by
the knowledge of one, the knowledge of all is derived.
If this explanation is accepted, then the sufferings being
experienced by the individual souls will be of Brahman also.
xii

No; the śruti says – "the other shines forth without enjoying";
"one who is the indweller of all living beings, does not get
affected by the external worldly sufferings"; "not also gets
attached to the results as in the case of water on the lotus leaf."
These śruti and smṛti sentences declare in clear notes that
Brahman is un-affected; as in the case of sun-light, which does
not get affected by the defects in objects like the pot and the
cloth. The defects in the individual souls do not affect the
Brahman. Thus, while discussing the relation between the jīva
and Brahman, it is conclusively proved that the jīva is merely
an aṁśa – part – of Brahman and not different from it. "aṁśo
nānā-vyapadeśāt- " This sūtra also confirms this.
In this matter, in his work Vidvan-maṇḍana, Prabhucaraṇa
commands – "nānā-vyapadeśāt – nānāvidho yo vyapadeśaḥ – as
Brahman at places; as born at other places; as of the nature of
knowledge; as of the form of cid at places; somewhere, as under
the control of Īśwara; as atomic and also as all-pervading;
having been explained in this manner, the one and the same
entity having opposing qualities in itself, can be possible only
in Brahman and nowhere else; hence, the jīva is none other
than a part of the Brahman. Alternatively, "nānā-vyapadeśāt –
having been explained as quite distinct from each other" –
here, the purport is – jīva is the inter-mingled form of Brahman,
and its nature of being part of Brahman is merely an eulogy;
and it is only a reflection and of false nature; so this is not to be
construed, as they are beyond the ken of sense-perception.
Brahman is to be known only through the means of Vedas';
therefore, it is to be accepted as explained therein; śruti says –
"naiṣā tarkeṇa matirāpaneyā" – this knowledge is not to be
obtained through reasonings. Likewise, the smṛti says –
"alaukikāstu ye bhāvāḥ na tāṁsa tarkeṇa yojayet" – what realities
are there, they are not to be subjected to arguments."
Brahman's blissful nature shines in full; whereas it is hidden
in the case of jīva. When the God, by His sympathy and desire,
xiii

uncovers the blissful nature in jīva, then they both become
one; there is no need to apply here the implied meaning called
“jahadajahallakṣaṇā” because, śruti says – “sarve vedā yat padam-
āmananti”; all the Vedas have one purpose i.e. to teach the
unfathomable nature of Brahman. When the jīva’s blissful
nature is covered, then he is devoid of the nature of Brahman;
“adhikaṁ tu bheda nirdeśāt” – it is so said in this sūtra. Here the
Bhāṣya is – “by the word ‘tu’ the position is reverted; if Brahman
is only of that much nature, then this defect arises; but, then,
that is more than jīva and jagat; why? Bheda-nirdeśāt – because
it is explained as distinct from that.” From this it becomes clear
that there is no equal or superior to that. “na tat samaśca
abhyadhikaśca dṛśyate” is the śruti. Thus, the non-differentiation
between Brahman and jīva described in the śrutis is on the basis
of aṁśa-aṁśī status. Whereas the Māyāvādins, depending solely
on the sentence “tat-tvam-asi” assert that jīva himself is Brahman.
In this context, we may quote the verse describing the
different systems of philosophy –
“kecit-tatvamasīti vākya-viṣaye tat-tvam pade lakṣaṇām;
kecid tatra ṅaso lukam vidadhate Bhāṣyam tu kecid jaguḥ ।
kecid cid-viṣayāt-abhedam-apare cchindantyatatvaṁ padam;
siddhānte tu suvarṇavaj-jagadidam brahmaiva jīvastathā ॥”
Meaning of this śloka is: Kecid – Śaṅkarācāryaḥ; the word
‘tat’ denotes sarvajñam Brahma; “tvam” denotes jīva with limited
knowledge; these two cannot be one and the same; therefore,
as in the statement ‘this Devadatta is that same person’ – jahad-
ajahad-lakṣaṇa is accepted.
Kecid – Rāmānuja-Mādhva-Śaivāḥ – ‘tat-sambandhitvamiti
manyamānāḥ – they accept the disappearance of the suffix ‘ṅg’
meaning ‘tasya tvam’ – you are of him – related with it.
Kecid–Nimbārkāḥ accept identity because of the similarity of
jñāna. Apare – Mādhvaikadeśinaḥ – one sect of the Mādhvas –
break the word as ‘atat-tvamasi” meaning ‘you are jīva’ – not
that.
xiv

In siddhānta, as in the case of gold particles being gold itself,
parts of Brahman also are Brahman itself; the sat part of Brahman
is the world; the cit part of Brahman is jīva. In fact, as in the
other sect, 'tat-tvam-asi' is not the only mahā-vākya; the whole
context is to be taken as conveying one meaning. The
interpretation of Vedas is to be done, taking into consideration
the whole context as told in the sūtra "prakaraṇācca"; the
meaning is to be construed as per the purport of the context,
and not by skipping the context, giving the interpretation as
one would like.
This jīva has three stages of being – the pure, the liberated
and the bound. After the jīvas get separated from the Brahman
as sparks from fire, their blissful nature gets obliterated, and
before they get covered by the avidyā, in that state, they are
called the pure jīvas; i.e. the purity here is the absence of
connection with Māyā. The sūtra "Parā-abhidhyānāt-tu-
tirohitam; tato hi asya bandha-viparyayau" (3-2-5) is supporting
this view. Parasya - Of Bhagavān; abhito dhyānam means desire
to enjoy in all manners; thus, the part of ānanda is obliterated;
thus the state of being jīva. Thus, the four qualities – aiśwarya,
vīrya, yaśas, and śrī – having been covered, the binding takes
place; jñāna and vairāgya - knowledge and detachment –
having been obliterated, the opposite nature. In this state, in
the case of some individuals, Bhagavān makes available
divinity, which makes them eligible for mukti; only at this state
they become qualified for mukti. Whereas, the jīva bound by
the five-stage avidyā, attains samsāra. Then he undergoes
experiences of the samsāra; by the grace of Bhagavān and by
the association with pure souls, they get the five-stage vidyā
and attain mukti, of the nature of highest bliss.
"Vairāgyam sānkhya-yogau ca tapo bhaktiśca keśave;
Pañca-parveti vidyeyam yayā vidvān harim viśet ||"
(Sā. Pra.Kā. 48)
By this śloka, it is said that till one does not get vidyā, until
then he is called samsārī. Thereafter he is called mukta. These
xv

muktas also are of two kinds – Jīvanmuktas and Muktas.
Jīvanmuktas – Sanaka and others; muktas – those who have
reached the Akṣara-Brahman. Here also, the jīvas originally are
of two kinds - of godly nature and of un-godly nature. The
godly natured are of two kinds – those who follow the path of
Maryādā, and those who follow the Puṣṭi-mārga. There is
difference in the mukti of these two categories; that will be shown
later.
The system of change without undergoing
transformation:
Śrīmad Āchārya has established mainly the system of
Brahman with name and form as his philosophy. Because, there
is no second entity other than Brahman according to the
prasthāna i.e. the Brahma-sūtra, the Upaniṣads and the Bhagavad-
gītā. The prameya – objects of knowledge; sādhana – means;
phala – the end result; and, according to all śāstras - all go to
prove the Brahman only; this is the siddhānta. This Brahman,
without undergoing changes, like the gold, the clay, the
Kāmadhenu, the Cintāmaṇi, the Kalpa-vṛkṣa – transforms itself
in the form of the world; this is the siddhānta. The gold, even in
its transformations like the bracelet and ear-rings, does not
change but remains as gold; likewise the Brahman also, while
changing into the world, does not undergo any material
change. This is what is called the Avikṛta-pariṇāma-vāda in the
śrutis, smṛtis, sūtras, Śrī Bhāgavata etc. The one cause which
does not undergo transformation becomes the effect in various
forms. Because of this only, it becomes possible to get the
knowledge of everything by the knowledge of one thing. The
statement of Vedānta that the knowledge of one produces the
knowledge of everything, becomes intelligible only then, when
we accept that the pure Brahman alone is the cause of this
world i.e. material and efficient cause. This argument is of the
Vaidika system. Now, we shall show some sentences elucidating
the system of thought of un-changing transformation.
xvi

In the śrutis – “Ekam sat viprā bahudā vadanti;” “Asad vā idam-
agra-āsīt; tato vai sad-ajāyata;”
These two satements speak that the invisible jagat became
visible. “Brahma viśvamidam jagat;” “tameva bhāntamanubhāti
sarvam; tasya bhāsā sarvamidam vibhāti;” “sarvakāmaḥ, sarva-
gandhaḥ, sarva-rasaḥ, sarva-kartā, sarva-bhoktā yaḥ sa sarva-vit;”
“parā-asya śaktir-vividheva śrūyate; svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā
ca;” – by these śrutis the doership of everything is stated as in-
born nature. “aṇoraṇīyān mahato mahīyān” – by this śruti it is
stated that opposing qualities inhere in Brahman.
“ekamevādvitīyaṁ Brahma; eko'ham bahu-syām; prajāyeya; sa
ekākī na ramate; sa dvitīyam aicchat”; “sa haitāvānāsa” – by these
śrutis, the un-changing transformation system of thought is
told.
“Aitadātmyam idam sarvam; tat satyam; sa ātma; tat-tvam-asi”;
“eṣa hyevānandayāti”; “eko devo sarva-bhūteṣu gūḍhaḥ” – by these
śrutis the in-dwelling aspect of Brahman in all things is
described. Likewise, these sentences also – “sarvam khalu idam
Brahma;” “katham asataḥ sat jāyeta;” “tat satyam ityācakṣate”.
In the Smṛtis – “aham sarvasya jagataḥ prabhavaḥ
pralayastathā;” “mama yonir-mahad-Brahma; tasmin garbhaṁ
dadhāmyaham;” “ahaṁ bījapradaḥ-pitā;” “vāsudevaḥ sarvamiti”
these sentences;
And in the sūtras – “Janmādyasya yataḥ; śāstra-yonitvāt; tat-
tu-samanvayāt; ātma-kṛteḥ; pariṇāmāt; yoniśca hi gīyate; tad-
ananyatvam-ārambhaṇa-śabdādibhyaḥ; sarva-dharma-
upapatteśca; prakṛtaitāvatvam hi pratiṣedhati; tato bravīti ca
bhūyaḥ; Prakāśa-āśrayavad-vā tejastvāt” these sūtras;
In Śrī Bhāgavata – “Janmadyasya yato'nvayad itarataḥ;”
“tvayyagra āsīt;” “Krīḍārthamātmanaḥ idam trijagat kṛtam te;”
“viśvasya kartā; bhuvanasya goptā” sentences like these and
others.
This has to be understood here:
xvii

Others - like Āchārya Śaṅkara and others, to establish their
systems of philosophy, took recourse to Prasthānatrayī as the
source of knowledge viz. Upaniṣad, Bhagavad-gītā and the Vyāsa
Sūtras. Whereas, our Āchārya took recourse to four Prasthānas.
They are –
“Vedas; Śrī Krishna's spoken words; and Vyāsa's Sūtras |“
Samādhibhāṣā Vyāsasya pramāṇaṃ tac-catuṣṭayam ||
Uttaraṃ pūrva-sandeha-vārakaṃ parikīrtitam.”
(Sā.Pra.Kā.7/8)
Here, the Prakāsa – “Vedaḥ – all that is contained in the two
Kāṇḍas, including the Arthavāda; the words of Kṛṣṇa are spoken
of separately, though Vedic in nature, because it is classified as
Smṛti; Vyāsa sūtras include the Jaimini sūtras also. All these have
to be taken only in consonance with Vyāsa sūtras;
Vyāsasya Samādhi-bhāṣā – Bhāgavatam. .......experiencing
himself in Samādhi, and explained later. These four sources,
reconciled to prove one school of thought, are the generators
of knowledge.
Śrī Bhāgavata has been taken as one of the Prasthānas by
the Āchārya. Here, the posterior statements are to be taken as
clarificatory statements of the anterior ones. This results in
saying that Śrīmad Bhāgavata is the remover of all doubts.
“Nigama-kalpataroḥ galitaṃ phalam” – Śrī Bhāgavata is the fruit
from the tree that is the Nigama-kalpataruḥ.
Evolution and Involution (Āvirbhāva-Tirobhāva)
Tadetad akṣayam nityam jagan-munivarā-akhilam |
Āvirbhāva-tirobhāva-janma-nāśa-vikalpavat ||
(Vi.Pu.Am.Pra.)
Āvirbhāva and Tirobhāva (Evolution and Involution) are in
fact the two powers (śaktis) of the Brahman – “āvirbhāva-
tirobhāvau śaktirvai muravairiṇaḥ”. These two śaktis are non-
different from Brahman and sub-servient to Brahman. “sarvam
xviii