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

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

khalu idam Brahma" is the śruti which says that everything is the form of Brahman; by its own desire, Brahman attains the form of the world without undergoing any material change; and, again, by its own desire, takes all within itself. This Evolution and Involution only are called the utpatti and vināśa by the world. In reality – "na-asato vidyate bhāvo; na-abhāvo vidyate sataḥ" (Gītā); by this sentence it is said – asataḥ bhāvaḥ nāsti – there is no existence for that which does not exist; that which exists does not cease to exist. In the school of thought which accepts Brahman, it is experienced in everything and hence, there is no question of its absence anywhere. Well, in that case, there should be no experience as a thing of the past and of the future; in that case, all the worldly dealings such as anterior non-existence, posterior non-existence, the absence of one object in the other, and the complete absence of a non- existing thing etc., are being negated; no; in all these cases, the desire of Bhagavān is the ultimate controller. In that case, the statement "at that point of time when it is called dissolution, it is the intention of Bhagavān that there should be no experience of any object" – i.e. under which point of time all objects are experienced, that is called the time of created world; i.e. everywhere, the inimitable desire of Bhagavān is the controller and thus, there is no occasion for any defect in the system. (Vidvan-maṇḍana). Thus it is that the Unqualified, un-changing, eternally powerful Brahman, by its desire, sports in the form of Akṣara, jīva and jagat by this evolution and involution. Therefore, the absenses as anterior etc., are all involuted in this. Everything being of the form of Brahman, there is no absolute absence of anything in siddhānta. "Being so, at this point of time, and at this place, this creation be so" – in this manner the desire takes the form of evolution; likewise, "there be no such thing – desire of this nature is involution." (Vidvan-maṇḍana). That is why it is said – being eligible to be experienced is called evolution; the absence of that is called involution. These two states are defined xix

by the existence of objects; and it is not possible for false appearances to be such limiting factors; because, they are abstract concepts and need a substratum to appear upon (Vidvan-maṇḍana). Therefore, the creation and dissolution of the world are due to this evolution and involution; the word creation means evolution; the word dissolution means involution. “Ātmataḥ āvirbhāva-tirobhāvau” is the Chāndogya śruti; these evolutions and involutions are not to be construed as ephemeral. Brahman the substratum of contradicting features: If it is accepted that Brahman is the substratum of all the attributes, thus acceding that contradictory attributes also do inhere there, one and the same object, at a particular point of time and at a particular point of space, cannot appear as two different objects; therefore, the Brahman has to be accepted as devoid of attributes, names and forms. That it is appearing as possessing qualities and with forms due to the effect of māyā; this is not so. Brahman is known only through the śruti; mere reasoning is not useful in this; and the śruti states – “yato vāco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha” – that Brahman does not possess qualities; again, in that very context, it states – “‘ānandam brahmaṇo vidvān; na bibheti kutahcana” the existence of bliss in Brahman. That is why, in the Vyāsa sūtra – “darśanācca” – it is stated that all the opposite qualities are seen in Brahman; therefore, Brahman is the substratum of all dissimilar qualities is stated in śruti, smṛti and pratyakṣa.. “Prakṛtaitāvatvam hi pratiṣedhati; bravīti ca tato bhūyaḥ” (3/ 2/22) – by this sūtra, in reality and also as per śāstras, the contradiction is removed; and by reasoning also, the contradiction is removed. What is called “that much” in Brahman? It means the qualities born of prakṛti that are denied; thereafter, it talks of the existence of aprākṛta qualities. Thus, contradictory qualities also inhere in Brahman, but they are not of the prakṛti and not of this world. These qualities are of its xx

very nature, and not due to māyā; “ubhaya vyapadeśāt; ahi- kuṇḍalavat” (3/2/27); “prakāśa-āśrayavad vā; tejastvāt” (3/2/ 28) – by these sūtras, it is to be accepted that Brahman is the substratum of opposing qualities. Opposing qualities inhere in Brahman is declared in śruti – “aṇoraṇīyān mahato mahīyān;” “samo nāgena; samo maśakena;” “na tat samaśca; abhyadhikam tu dṛśyate;” by many such śāstra sentences, in Brahman whose nature is inexplicable, all opposing qualities do appear by its very nature. At one and the same time, Brahman can be seen in two different forms. Likewise, Brahman can appear at several places simultaneously; as was seen by Nārada - the sixteen thousand mahiṣīs in the antaḥpura. Therefore, by the validity as experienced by Nārada, Brahman is the substratum of all opposing qualities; it is capable of doing, un-doing and doing variously. Even in this world, we see in one person, the opposing qualities like sympathy in the case of one and the killing instinct in the case of another; this we see at one and the same time in one and the same person; this being so, what to talk of the other-worldly things and happenings. Here Śrī Purusottamacaraṇa: “Therefore, if we analyse on the strength of verbal testimony, then we come to the conclusion that Brahman is the sub- stratum of all the opposing qualities and features. If analysed according to the reasonings shown in the śrutis, then it is devoid of all worldly qualities and is full with all un-worldly qualities etc. If analysed on the strength of the meanings, it is the conglomerate of all opposing qualities. To teach this, it was analysed in these three methods.” Therefore, if Brahman is the abode of opposing qualities, it is not a blemish but adds to its merit. In this same manner, the qualities of being partial between individuals and not showing pity in the case of suffering people etc., are not to be construed as defects in Brahman because they are created by Brahman itself. Hence, says the Āchārya – “ātma-sṛṣṭeḥ na vaiṣamyam nairghṛṇyam cāpi vidyate.” xxi

Bhagaval-līlā: In the discussion, “Is the Bhagaval-līlā the product of māyā or not”, this being only in Bhagavān, being based in Brahman which is of the nature of Sat-cit-ānanda, and being not different from its nature, it is not the effect of māyā. This Bhagaval-līlā does not proceed with a view to achieving any specific purpose; “na prayojanavatvāt” – this sūtra illustrates this. But, it is like the sporting activities of the world; see sūtra “lokavat-tu-līlā kaivalyam”; it is merely a sport; self-experience is mokṣa. It is told in the Bhāṣya that its (līlā’s) mere mention will give mokṣa. Līlā is in the nature of Brahman itself, has been produced by Bhagavān and it is un-worldly; therefore, it cannot be contended, that it is not the product of māyā. The answer to this objection is: “The definition of this sport in Subodhinī – “instigated by happiness, being performed without tiring efforts, the act is called sport”; alternatively, without tiresomeness, and with pleasure, the act performed is līlā.” Now, another objection: This līlā is seen here in this world’s mountains and forests, and being in the midst of prapañca, it is fleeting or ephemeral; no; prapañca itself is the creation of Bhagavān as told by Āchārya; līlā being part of this prapañca which is the creation of Bhagavān – “jayati jananivāso devakī janmavādo yaduvarapariṣat-svair-dorbhirasyan-adharmam | sthira-cara-vṛjinaghnaḥ susmita-śrīmukhena vrajapura-vanitānām vardhayan kāmadevam ||” (Bhāgavata 10/10/48) As per this statement of Śrī Bhāgavata the fourth prasthāna; In this śloka, the present tense used in the word “jayati” denotes the līlās performed in Vraja in the past, and the ‘śatṛ’ suffix in the word “vardhayan” denotes that at that time of the story and at that instant, there existed all the unseen sports. Therefore, as can be seen in the context of naming the child, Garga’s statement in the Bhāgavata – “bhagaval-līlānām xxii

trikālātītatvam, nitya-vartamānatvam-pravartamānatvañca jñāpyate” i.e. the sports of Bhagavān are beyond the three tenses, past, present and future – it is ever in the present – and will also be in future – is denoted. “bahūni santi nāmāni rūpāṇi ca sutasya te | guṇa-karmānurūpāṇi tānyaham Veda no janāḥ ||” (Bhāga. 10/8/15) Here, the word “santi” is used; it is evident from this that the līlā is eternally present. No; we see in the world that a cook or a teacher is so called even when he is not engaged in that specific act; here too, it is to be so interpreted and not otherwise. The answer is – “not so”. The un-worldly sport is beyond this world’s ken of knowledge, and even though the līlā spoken of here is connected with this world, it should not be established by the example of this world. In this world, even a timid person is praised as a lion among men; whereas the above statement is not so. Here, according to the statement of Garga, as the name denotes, the qualities are to be construed; as per the acts, the form is to be seen; i.e. one who rears the cows is cow-herd; one who gives mukti is Mukunda; etc. No; at the time of naming the child, the sports were yet to take place; then, how was it possible to name the child according to the non-existing sports? This doubt does not arise; because the sports of Bhagavān are eternal and they are going on eternally. In this manner, sports like Pūtanā-śakaṭa- bhañjana-Kāliya-damana etc. were already known, but were not performed at that instant by the desire of Bhagavān. Therefore, the sports of Bhagavān are eternal and are not limited by time and space; they are there at all places, at one place, in all forms and in various forms by the mere desire of Bhagavān and therefore, they are not the product of māyā at any time. Let the un-worldly sports of Bhagavān be not the product of māyā; but, as in the world, on the question “are the sports the products of māyā or not”, the answer is an emphatic ‘no’. As xxiii

shown in the sūtra “Tat-tvabhāve sandhyavad-upapatteḥ” (Br.Su.4/4/13), to delude the non-divine people, Bhagavān shows Himself as ordinary human beings, but in truth, He is not so. For those whose thoughts are clouded and are non- divine, as described in the Bhagavadgītā (16/18-20) – “mama- ātma-para-deheṣu pradviṣanto-abhyasūyakāḥ”... “tato yānti- adhamāṁ gatim” – these people are of non-divine nature and are not fit for emancipation. In this manner, showing the reasons for finding fault in the sports of Bhagavān, in the following sūtra the reasons are shown for seeing the praise-worthiness of the sports of Bhagavān – “bhāve jāgradvat” (Br.Su.4/4/14). As per this sūtra, the meaning of the word “līlā” and in the act of līlā itself, which appear as of this world, what the devotees see is non-worldly; as in the case of a person who gets rid of his clouded vision, and gets the correct vision. In this manner, Bhagavān, by his own desire, removes the effect of māyā from the minds of his devotees, and to make them enjoy the different experiences of his different sports, enacts them as such. In certain cases, He performs false sports also as in the battle of Saubha. Therefore, to delude the un-godly people, He performs sports as in the world. Here the Bhāṣya – “ata eva līlāyaḥ anekarūpatvāt, brahmaṇaśca śrutau Saindhava dṛṣṭānte, naikarasatva-nirūpaṇāt, suddha-brahma-dharmatvaṁ na sambhavatīti śaṅkā-nirāsāya kaivalyam ityuktam” (“lokavat-tu- līlā-kaivalyam”). “sākṣī cetā kevalo nirguṇaśca” in these śrutis, the pure state, devoid of any other attribute, that is stated is also of the nature of sports. The pure param-brahman is of sportive nature only, and not, at any time, devoid of it is intended here. From this it can be concluded that the sports are in the nature of Brahman, and thus, they are eternal. (Br.Su.4/4/14 Bhāṣya). The attribute of smell occurs in earth only and not in water i.e. its appearance at one place and non-appearance at another xxiv

place. Likewise, the experience of Bhagaval-līlā is seen in the devotees and not in the haters of God. Even now, similar experience of Bhagaval-līlā of those times by the devotees are being heard, by the desire and condescendence of God. Thus, Bhagavān is always combined with his sports at all times and all places. The Lord Govardhanadhara for protecting his devotees, just to fulfil the desires of His devotees, by this desire and sympathy, appears and disappears. Therefore, this is the conclusion in the system that Bhagavān's sports are not product of māyā at any time. “prabhoreva phalatvaṁ nirdoṣatvañ-ca varṇyate । līlā-nityavataḥ pūrṇa-guṇatvam ca tato-akhilam ॥” (Āchārya kārikā) Bhakti Nirūpaṇam Definition of Bhakti has been given by Āchāryacaraṇa in his Nibandha as – “Māhātmya-jñānapūrvastu sudṛḍhaḥ sarvato-adhikaḥ । Sneho bhaktiriti proktaḥ tayā muktir nacānyathā ॥” (Śā.pra.kā.45) Bhakti-svarūpa has been explained by Āchārya by this kārikā. Sneho bhaktiḥ. When one understands that Bhagavān is the soul, sneha – affection – takes place. “Gauṇascenna ātmaśabdāt (Br.Su.1/1/5) – as per this sūtra the word ‘gauṇa’ should not be interpreted as attached with guṇa, ātma-śabdāt – Here the Bhāṣya says – ātma śabdaḥ punaḥ sarveṣu vedānteṣu nirguṇa- parabrahma-vācakatvenaiva siddhaḥ. Tasyaiva Jagat-kartṛtvam śrutirāha.” This sentence means, nirguṇa-sākāra-parabrahman only is the Creator of this world; He only is the indwelling soul; He only is Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa. “Kṛṣiḥ means ‘Bhū’; ‘ṇaḥ’ means riddance. The identity of these two denotes param-Brahma Kṛṣṇaḥ”; this is how the Gopālatāpaniyopaniṣad describes. Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the one brought up in the laps of Yaśodā, is Param- Brahma – this is made clear in all the śruti, smṛti śāstras; therefore, xxv

the word 'bhakti' means sneha in Śrī Kṛṣṇa; this is the primary meaning; its use in other places is redundant. Sat-cit-ānandam Brahma sports in the world in three ways; here, the jagat is 'ādhibhautikam'; Akṣara-Brahman is ādhyātmikam; Ādhi-daivikam param Brahma, "puruṣaśca-adhi- daivatam" smṛti says. Likewise, there are three ways for the sports of Bhagavān – ādhi-bhautika mārga, i.e. karma; ādhyātmika mārga, i.e. jñānam; ādhi-daiviko mārgaḥ, i.e. bhaktiḥ. Here, the first one, ādhi-bhautikaḥ – the karma mārga is restricted to world; the second, jñāna mārga ends in Akṣara; third, the bhakti mārga ends in Puruṣottama para-Brahman. The jñānis think that the ultimate end is Akṣara Brahman; but, bhaktas consider this Akṣara Brahman as the dhāma – residence – of Para-Brahma, Pūrṇa Puruṣottama. The evidence for this is – “avyakto'Akṣara ityuktaḥ tamāhuḥ paramāṁ gatim | yaṁ prāpya na nivartante tad-dhāma paramam mama || (Gītā 8/21) Likewise – “yasmāt kṣaram-atīto'ham akṣarādapi cottamaḥ | ato'smi loke vede ca prathitaḥ puruṣottamaḥ ||” (Gītā 15/18) by these testimonies, the meaning of the Vedas and the śāstras is known as bhakti. Well, how do you come to the conclusion that the meaning of the Vedas and other śāstras is bhakti? The answer is - “yatra nānyat paśyati; nānyat śruṇoti; nānyat vijānāti; sa bhūmā; sa vā eṣa evam paśyan evam manvānaḥ evam vijānan, ātma-ratiḥ; ātma-krīḍaḥ; ātma-mithunaḥ; ātmānandaḥ; sa svarāḍ bhavati;” “parambrahmaitad yo dhyāyati, rasati, bhajati, so amṛto bhavati;” “nāham vedair, na tapasā, na dānena, na cejyayā śakya evam vidho draṣṭum dṛṣṭavānasi māṁ yathā;” “bhaktyā tvananyayā śakyaḥ;” “aham bhakta-parādhīnaḥ;” “bhaktyā tutoṣa Bhagavān gajayūthapāya” – by these śruti, smṛti testimonials, only bhakti has been elucidated. By these the sarvātma-bhāva nature of bhakti only is conveyed. xxvi

In Chāndogya, the Sanatkumāra-Nārada dialogue of Bhūmavidyā, by the words "yatra nānyat paśyati" etc. talks of the absence of any other element; this very vidyā again talks of that state of separation from Bhagavān wherein, by the ultimate longing, forgetting the prapañca, at all places, only the Bhagavat svarūpa is experienced, by these words – "sa eva adhastāt, sa eva upariṣṭād, sa paścāt" etc. 'Thereafter, the experiences in the state of separation from Bhagavān are described as not the necessary concomitants, and to remind this, the "ahaṅkāra ādeśa" – "ahameva adhastāt, ahameva upariṣṭād" etc. are given; then comes the ātmādeśa – "ātmaiva adhastāt, ātmopariṣṭād" etc. Likewise, still further, by the words "ātma-ratiḥ; ātma-krīḍaḥ; ātma- mithunaḥ" etc. it extols the Bhagavān as of the nature of "rasa". Here, the word "ātma" is taken to mean "pūrṇa puruṣottama" in the siddhānta and not the Akṣara or jīva. This is evident from the sūtra "gauṇaścen-na-ātmaśabdāt"; by this sūtra, that thing which is the ultimate existence, is what is told mainly in all the Vedānta. By this, the sarvātma-bhāva nature of bhakti only is conveyed and this is the main purport. This bhakti is achieved only through the grace of God; it is so told in the śruti – "na-ayam ātmā pravacanena labhyaḥ; na medhayā; na bahunā śrutena; yamevaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ; tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanūm svām" (Kaṭho. 1/2/23). Here, the word ātma means Puruṣottama; "pravacanena means 'sasvara vedādhyayanena'. By this it is clear that the 'puṣṭi-bhakti' can be attained only by the desire of Bhagavān. The word "sva" means self, and when desired as one's own self, He gives the 'puṣṭi- bhakti' of the nature of 'sarvātma-bhāva'. Here the Bhāṣya – "for all individual souls, Bhagavān, naturally is the master; but, then, whom He desires as His own, him He protects even as a husband would his wife; bhakta also protects Him due to the affection generated by the varaṇa; He, like the Bhakta, protects him in Himself. (Aṇu Bhāṣya 4/4/15). This statement of the Bhāṣya indicates that 'sneha' affection xxvii