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

CONTENTS (विषय सूची) New Introduction by Shri Shyam Manoharji Maharaj in English and Sanskrit ... i-lxxi

1. प्रथमाध्याये प्रथमः पादः अधि. 1 सू. 1 — अधि. 3 सू. 3 ... 1-206
2. प्रथमाध्याये प्रथमः पादः द्वितीयोः भागः अधि. 4 सू. 4 — अधि. 10 सू. 30 ... 207-413
3. प्रथमाध्याये द्वितीयोः पादः अधि. 1 सू. 1 — अधि. 8 सू. 32 ... 415-606
4. प्रथमाध्याये तृतीयः पादः अधि. 1 सू. 1 — अधि. 13 सू. 43 ... 607-828
5. प्रथमाध्याये चतुर्थः पादः Editor's Note वेदान्ताधिकरणमाला-श्री पुरुषोत्तमविरचिता ... 829 - 880 अधि. 1 सू. 1 — अधि. 9 सू. 28 ... 881 - 1042 अधि. — अधिकरण (Section) सू. — सूत्र (Sūtra)

श्रीमद्वल्लभाचार्या कारिका ... 1043 - 1044 अधिकरणानां सूचीपत्रम् ... 1045 - 1046 श्रीमद्वल्लभ भाष्यपाठानुसारतः श्रीमद्बादरायणप्रणीत ब्रह्मसूत्राणां वर्णानुक्रमः ... 1047 - 1054 श्रीमदणुभाष्योद्धतानां प्रमाणवाक्यानां सूचीपत्रम् ... 1055 - 1067 6. द्वितीयाध्याये प्रथमः पादः अधि. 1 सू. 1 – अधि. 12 सू. 37 ... 1069 - 1170 7. द्वितीयाध्याये द्वितीयः पादः अधि. 1 सू. 1 – अधि. 8 सू. 45 ... 1173 - 1291 8. द्वितीयाध्याये तृतीय-चतुर्थः पादोः तृतीयः पादः अधि. 1 सू. 1 – अधि. 16 सू. 53 ... 1297 - 1439 चतुर्थः पादः अधि. 1 सू. 1 – अधि. 10 सू. 22 ... 1447 - 1509 9. तृतीयाध्याये प्रथमः पादः Preface ... 1520 Note ... 1521 Introduction: Sri Vallabhāchārya and his Aṇu Bhāṣya ... 1522- 1536 अधि. 1 सू. 1 – अधि. 8 सू. 27 ... 1537 - 1603 10. तृतीयाध्याये द्वितीयः पादः . अधि. 1 सू. 1 – अधि. 11 सू. 41 ... 1609 - 1728

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